Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/05/04 - Agenda Packet CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. May 4, 1994 Civic Center Council Chn~bers 10S00 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cuc~monga, California 91730 City Councilmembers Dennis L. Stout, Mayor Charles J. Buquet, Mayor Pro Tern WilJjnm J. Alexander, Councilmember Rex Gutierrez, CouncHm~mber Diane WiLlisms, Councilmember Jack Lain, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Cl~rl~ City Office: 989-1851 .~ PAGE I City Council Agenda May 4, 1994 1 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk°s Office receives all such items. 1. Roll Call: Buquet , Adexander ,Stout Williams , and Gutierrez B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATI(;)NS 1. Presentation of Proclamation recognizing the first week of May as 'Blue Ribbon Week.' 2. Presentation of Proclamation declaring the week of May 8-14, 1994 as 'Preservation Week' in Rancho Cucamonga. 3. Presentation of Proclamations to Sal Briguglio, Rancho Cucamonga Rotary Club. the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes. and the California Angels for sponsoring a baseball clinic to subpod' the D.A.R.E. program. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. 1. Presentation to the City Council from the Rancho Cucamonga Histodc Route 66 Visitors Bureau on the occasion of the Eleventh Annual National Toudst Appreciation Day. D. 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. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion.  PAGE I City Council Agenda May 4, 1994 2 1. Approval of Minutes: April6, 1994 2. Approval Of Warrants, Register Nos. 4/13/94 and 4/20/94; and ]. Payroll ending 4/7/94 for the total amount of S 1 J302,952.29. 3. Approval to authorize the advertising of the 'Notice Inviting Bids" 8 for the Bike Pathways and Lockers at various locations, to be funded from Air Quality Improvement Grant Account No. 14-4158- 6028. RESOLUTION NO. 94-[381 10 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE BIKE LOCKERS AT CITY HALL AND THE CITY CORPORATE YARD AND BIKE PATHWAYS LOCATED ON CHURCH STREET AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, FOURTH STREET, ARROW ROUTE, GREENWAY CORRIDOR (TERRA VISTA], ETIWANDA AVENUE IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO ~ RECEIVE BIDS 4. Approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho 14 Cucamonga, California, adopting the Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan as required for expenditures of Measure I Funds. RESOLUTION NO. 94-082 15 A RESOLUTION OF THE CRY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TWENTY-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF MEASURE I FUNDS 5. Approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho 21 Cucamonga approving the submittal of Used Oil Opportunity Grant to the California fntegrated Waste Management Board - The City of Upland in conjunction with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, China, China Hills, and Montclair has prepared an application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for Waste Oil Opportunity Grant Funds. The grant application must be accompanied by a City Council Resolution which authorizes the City of Upland to submit the application to the California Integrated Waste Management Board. ,~ PAGE I City Council Agenda May 4, 1994 3 RESOLUllON NO. 94-083 24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OF UPLAND TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY APPLICATIONS, CONTRACTS AND AGREEMENT FUNDS FROM THE USED OiL RECYCLING FUND UNDER THE USED OIL RECYCLING ENHANCEMENT ACT 6. ApprOval tO seek Requests for Proposal for Professional Services 25 for furnishing video taping and inspection of storm water pipeline to meet the 1990 Federal Regulations establishing the Notional Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), to be funded from General Fund - Account No. 01-4637-6028. 7. Approval to appropriate funds from Fund 12 - Transportation 32 Development Act 0OA) Article 8 in on amount of S326,000.00 and award and authorization for execution of contract (CO 94-025) for the Roncho Cucomongo Metrolink Station, Phase I, located at Milliken Avenue and the Metrolink Railway. to Riverside Construction for the amount of S3,119,728.70 (S2,836.117.00 plus 10% contingency), to be funded f~om Measure I, Account No. 37-4637- 9326, State Rail Bond Act, Account No. 36-4637-9326. and TDA Article 8, Account No. 12-4637-9326. (Item continued from Apffi 20, 1994) 8. Approval to authorize the Mayor to execute the Joint Powers 49 Agreement (CO 94-030) to accept Public Risk Shoring Authority of California as our serf-insured pool and authorize oil the governing documents for participation in the self-insurance programs. RESOLU11ON NO. 94-084 49-:~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CiTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING THE REVISED AND RESTATED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT CREAT1NG THE PUBLIC AGENCY RISK SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA (PARSAC) 9. Approval to award and autho~ation to execute contract (CO 94- 88 []31) for the Landscaping of Rochester Avenue East Side Parkway, from Victoria Park Lane to Highland Avenue, to Kruze and Kruze Construction for the amount of S201,236.32 (S182,942.11 plus 1[]% contingency) to be funded from RDA Account No. 11-510[~] and Fund 10 Account No. 104637-9072. ,~ PAGE City Council Agenda May 4, 1994 4 10. Approval to award and authorization to execute contract (CO 94- 92 032) for Calaveras Avenue Street Improvements, from Chaffee Street Alley to Ninth Street. to J.E.G. Construction, Incorporated. for the amount of S83,294.00 (S75,721.91 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from CDBG Funds Account No. 28-4333-9331. 11. Approval to award and authorization to execute contract (CO 94- 98 033) for Millikan Park, Park Modifications and parking Lot Extension, located at 7699 Millikan Avenue to Eastlana Construction Company for the amount of S169.099.70 (S153,727.00 plus contingency) to be funded from ACCount No. 43-4130-9323. 12. ApprOval Of Preliminary Engineer's Reports and Setting Public 110 Headrig for June 1, 1994 to levy the annual assessments (no increase recommended for Fiscal Year 1994/95) and approve the Engineer's Reports for Street Lighting Maintenance District Has. 1, 2,3,4.5,6,7and8. RESOLUTION NO. 94-085 110-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CFrY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA. OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CIT~ ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINENANCE DISTI"~ICTS NOS. 1,2, 3, 4.5, 6, 7 AND 8 RESOLUTION NO. 94-086 110-3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHT1NG MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2.3, 4.5, 6, 7 AND 8, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO 13. Approval of Preliminary Engineer's Reports and Setting of Public 111 Hearing for June 1, 1994 to levy the annual assessments (no increase recommended for Fiscal Year 1994/95) and approve the Engineer's Reports for Landscape Maintenance Districts NoS. 1,2, 3A. 3B, 4,5,6,7andS. ,~ PAGE City Council Agenda May 4, 1994 5 RESOLUTION NO. 94-087 111 - 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1,2, 3A, 3B. 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 RESOLUllON NO. 94-088 111-4 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1QQ4/Q5 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND UGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEAJ'~ING OBJECTIONS THERETO 14. Approval of Preliminary Engineer's Report and Seffing of the 112 Public Hearing for June 1, 1994 to levy the annual assessments (no increase recommended for Fiscal Year 1994/95) and approve the engineers Report for Park and Recreation Improvement Distdct (PD-85). RESOLUTION NO. 94-089 112-2 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85) RESOLLflION NO. 94-0Q0 112-3 A RESOLUllON OFTHE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85) FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND R_ACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO .~ PAGE City Council Agenda May 4, 1994 6 E. CONSENT ORDINANCE~ The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. No Items SubmH-i'ed. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION UPDATING THE CITy'~ 113 COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDUI F RESOLUllON NO. 94-091 114 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NOS. 93-035, 92-223-1,92-223-B, AND 92- 223-C AND ESTABLISHING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES PP,~)VIDED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT BY MODIFYING CERTAIN FEES ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION 92-223. 2. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S R.ACF - 143 An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northwest comer of 19th and Carnelian Streets - RESOLUTION NO. 94-092 187 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IN REVOKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 78-03 FOI~ THE OPEItATION OF A BAI~ IN CONJUNCTION WITH A ,~ PAGE City Council Agenda May 4, 1994 7 RESTAURANT, SAM'S PLACE. LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-811-,56 THROUGH 60 CONSIDERATION OF ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACF - 143 An appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to revoke on Entertainment Permit for a bar and restaurant in fhe NeighborhOod Commercial District, Iocafed at he northwest corner of lath and Carnelian Streets - ARN: 201-811 -,56 through RESOLUTION NO. 94-093 190 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CAUFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IN REVOKING ENTEI'a'AINMENT PERMIT NO. 91-02 FOR A BAR AND RESTAURANT, SAM'S PLACE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-811-,56 THROUGH 60 G. PUBLIC HEARING~ The following Items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORT,~ The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public Input. No Items Submitted. I City Council Agenda May 4, 1994 8 I. COUNCIL BUSINE~ The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. UPDATE REPORT ON D.A.R.E. PROGRAM IN ELEMENTARy SCHOOl ,':; 193 2. DISCUSSION ON BABE'S CLUB ~ 194 3. DISCUSSION ON WHERE TO CONDUCT ROUTE 30 MEERNGS 200 4. STATUS REPORT ON INTERSECTION OF HIGHLAND AND EAST AVENUES (Oral Repod) J, IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These ilems will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The CIty Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on April 28, 1994, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54953 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. April 6, 1994 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES A. CAIJL TO ORDEI~ A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, April 6, 1994, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:03 p.m. by Mayor Pro Tem Charles J. Buquet II. Present were Councilmembers: William J. Alexander, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tem Charles J. Buquet II, and Mayor Dennis L. Stout (amved 8:53 p.m.). Also present were: Jack Lain, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Manager;, Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Tarry Smith, Park Planning/Development Superintendent; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Director;, Bob Dominguez, Administrative Services Director;, Susan Stark, Finance Officer;, Duane Baker, Assislant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; LL Joe Henry, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Jan SuRon, Deputy City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS BI. Presentation of Proclamation recognizing April 18 - 23, 1994 as National Volunteer Week. Mayor Pro Tem Buquet presented the proclamation to Susan Mickey, the City's Volunteer Coordinator. B2. Presentation of Proclamation recognizing April 11 - 17, 1994 as Architecture Week in Rancho Cucamonga. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet presented the proclamation to Pete Pitassi, AIA. B3. Presentation of a Proclamation to Buster Filpi in celebration of 89 years of life and community service. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet presented the preclamatinn to Buster Filpi. B4. Presentation of a Proclamation recognizing April as Earthquake Preparedness Month. Mayor Pro Tem Buquet read the proclamation recognizing April as Earthquake Preparedness Month. B5. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet presented a proclamation and plaque to Pare Henry in recognition to her years of service to the City on die Parks and Recreation Commission and wished her luck in her new endeavors. City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 2 COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C 1. George Yankovich, Manchester, stated he assisted with Boy Scout Troop 655 at St. Peter & Paul Church, and he was here tonight with three members who were working towards their citizenship in the community badge and felt they should be recognized. He introduced Ryan Lawrence, Dean Yankovinh and Justin Egan to the Council. C2. John LeCompte, Quakes Baseball, wanted to thank City staff who were very cooperative in making improvements to the Epicenter for the upcoming season, and presented a personally inscribed, new style baseball to the Council. p, CONSENT CALENDAR DI. Approvalof Minutes: March2, 1994 March 16, 1994 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 3/9/94, 3/16/94 and 3/23/94 and Payroll ending 3/10/94 for the total amount of $7,569,960.96. D3. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale Beer & Wine Eating Place for Chuck's Diner, Charles Waldou Lane, 8890 8th SireeL D4. Approval to appropriate $163,210.00 from Fund 10 (Proposition 111) "Rochester Avenue/Rancho Cucamonga High School Mitigation Program" to pay consinaction costs pertaining to the Rochester Avenue Landscape Improvements along the east side parkway. D5. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Rochester Avenue-Rancho Cucamonga High School Mitigation Program" for the landscaping of Rochester Avenue east side parkway, from Victoria Park Lane to Highland Avenue, to be funded from RDA Account No. 11-51000 ($60,000.00) and Fund 10 Account No. 10-4637-9319 ($163,000.00). RESOLUTION NO. 94-056 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE "ROCHESTER AVENUE-RANCHO CUCAMONGA HIGH SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM, FOR THE LANDSCAPING OF ROCHESTER AVENUE EAST SIDE PARKWAY, FROM VICTORIA PARK LANE TO HIGHLAND AVENUE" IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS D6. Approval of a Resolution to Modify a Condition of Approval for Tentative Parcel Map 12877 - Golden: A resolution confirming a City Council decision made on March 16, 1994, for an appeal of a Planning Commission decision to deny a modification to a condition of approval to underground the existing overhead utilities beyond the limits of the project site for a subdivision of 3.28 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Very Low Residential District (less than 2 dwelling units per acre), located on the north side of Hillside Road east of Moonstone Avenue - APN 1061-251-24. City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 3 RESOLUTION NO. 94-057 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A REQUEST TO MODIFY A CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 12877, TO UNDERGROUND THE EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILfI'IES ONLY WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THE PROJECT SITE, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF HILLSIDE ROAD, EAST OF MOONSTONE AVENUE WITHIN THE VERY LOW (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN 1061-251-24 D7. Approval of Resolutions authorizing Issuance of Bonds, approving Form of Bond Indenture, Bond Pm'chase Agreement and Preliminary Official Statement and specifying conditions for the prepayment of special taxes for Community Facilities District 88-2. RESOLUTION NO. 94-058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF BONDS, APPROVING FORM OF BOND INDENTURE, BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 88-2 D8. Approval to purchase telephone/voice mail system for City Yard not to exceed $20,000 through transfer from (01-4647-3900) to $01-4647-7044). Dg. Approval to enter into and Execute an Agreement with Charles Bradford Downey for a Construction, Grading, Storm Drain and Street Dedication Easement for the Sports Complex Expanded Parking Lot Project - Staff is asking for approval of this agreement so that the southern half of Rechester Avenue can be widened to its ultimate width, plus add storm drain and bus bay. D10. Approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement (CO 94.021) with Norris-Repke, Incorporated, for the design, specifications and cost estimate for the improvements of Carnelian Street from San Bemardino Road to Base Line Road. The cost of the service is $88,000.00 ($80,000.00 plus 10% contingency) and will be funded from Fund 32 - Measure I, Account No. 32-4637-9314. D 11. Approval to execute an Amended Library Service Enhancement Contract (CO 92-016) with San Bemardino County Library for Fiscal Year 1993/1994 in the amount of $25,000.00 from Account Number 01-4532-6028-4200. D 12. Approval to execute Contract Change Order No. 1 for the Professional Services Agreement with L.D. King, Incorporated, CO 934)60, Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station at Milliken Avenue and the Metrolink Railway, Account Numbers 36-4637-9326 and 37-4637-9326 for $57,577.00 ($28,788.50 from each account). DI3. Approval to execute Contract Change Order No. 1 for the Professional Services Agreement with RJM Design Group, Incorporated, CO 93-061, Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station at Milliken Avenue and the Metrolink Railway, Account Numbers 36-4637-9326 and 37-4637-9326 for $28,473.00 ($14,236.50 from each account). DI4. Approval to execute Contract Change Order No. 1 for the Professional Services Agreement with Williamson & Schmid, CO 94-004, Arrow Route Storm Drain portion of die Milliken Avenue Extension from Arrow Route to Foothill Boulevard Project, Account Number 32-4637-9328 for $2,500.00. City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 4 D15. Approval to file a Notice of Completion and partial release of retention for the Sports Complex Constxuc~on ProjecL RESOLUTION NO. 94-059 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION, RELEASE OF APPLICABLE BONDS AND PARTIAL RELEASE OF RETENTION FOR THE SPORTS COMPLEX CONSTRUCTION PROJECT D16. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 14192-1 Landscape and Storm Drain, located on the east side of Hellman Avenue south of 19th Street. Release Maintenance Guarantee Bond Landscape $ 42,700.00 Storm Drain 6,900.00 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to approve the staff recommendations contained in the staff reports of the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Stout absent). E. CONSENT ORDINANCES No items were submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS FI. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93.02B - MASt PARTNERS - A request to add Recreational Commercial as a land use designation in the General Plan and to amend the land use designation from Industrial Park to Recreational Commercial for 27 acres of land located at the southwest coroer of Fonthill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28. Planning Commission recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related File: Conditional User Permit 91-24. (Continued from March 16, 1994) Staff report presented by Brad Bullet, City Planner. Councilmember Alexander asked ff the initially proposed wording was available. Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated page 49 contained Ihe original wording which included apparel, electronics, fumitere and appliances in the definition for Recreation Commercial. On page 50 was some of the other language that would change the Specific Plan. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet opened the meeting for public heanng. Addressing the City Council were: John Mannedno, 9333 Base Line Rd #110, representing the Masi Parmen and this particular projecL He stated they were seeking this amendment after having numerous discussions with staff, and the original proposal submitted to the Planning Commission was one that was negotiated after a great deal of time. They felt it represented an appropriate compromise in the land use and allow them to proceed forward in an economically feasible manner. He stated the Planning Commission apparenfiy disagreed with some of the proposed usages, but they did not feel it would dewact from the projeeL He stated these changes were needed City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 5 in order to secure funding from the lenders, and continued to present the history of this project and why they felt this area was more commercial than industrial. He spoke about how the Masi's would like to develop an ice skating and roller skating complex on the site, which would be of benefit to the City. He stated they would like to see the Council approve the proposal that was negotiated by staff, and hopefully would be more liberal with the use of the General Commercial land designation, because the commercial designation requested was necessary to obtain the necessary financing to build a quality project. He stated Bill Clair, who prepared a land use study for them, was present, and that both Mr. Masi and Mr. DiFrenza were available ff the Council had any questions. John DiFrenza, 20301 Southwest Birch #101, Santa Aria Heights, felt that all the issues could be resolved and they could construct an ice rink within this property. He stated they would need to work out a shared parking agreement with the City for the property to the south, possibly a reciprocal use agreement during the off-season for each sport. He stated he would be available to answer any questions the Council may have. Jack Masi, owner, stated they started out with an industrial site because of the zoning of the property, but he has been working hard and has invested a lot of money Ixying to develop a better and more appropriate use for this property that would be compatible with the sports stadium direcdy to the south. He reiterated that it would be necessa~ry to have some type of commercial designation in order to secure financing for a quality project. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. Mayor Pro Tom Buquet asked Brad Butler to clarify the request before them tonight. Brad Bullet, City Planner, referred to the exhibit of the site brought by the appellant, and stated that to reach that level of use would need an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit through the Planning Commission. He stated there were two separate issues before the Council tonight, a General Plan Amendment and Land Use, neither which can be conditioned project or site specific. He referred to page 106 in the package which gave the definition of Recreational Commercial as recommended by the Planning Commission, which varied from the original proposal on page 49 in that it would only allow sporting goods and sporting apparel. He stated the applicant desired a General Commercial designation for 35% of the property which is a broader range of usage. He stated the Planning Commission deleted the specific terms electronics, furniture and appliances and only allowed sporting goods and apparel. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet clarified that they were considering resolutions that would change the zoning from Industrial to Recreational Commercial, but it is more restrictive Ihan was originally proposed by staff. John Mannerino concurred that they would have wanted General Commercial for the area bounded by Fouth~l, Rochester and Masi Drive, but would have settled for the negotiated Recreational Commercial as submitted to the Planning Commission. They felt the modifications made by the Planning Commission were too restrictive of a use. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet asked what was the anticipated phasing of the project John DiFrenza stated the working drawings were 90% complete and they were approximately 10 days away from submittal of the drawings. Councilmember Alexander asked ff the Council could take action to designate the property bounded by Foothill, Rochester and Masi Drive as General Commercial. City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 6 James Markman, City Attorney, stated that option was not before the Council. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the staff report for what Councilmember Alexander was suggesting was in the agenda, but it has not been advertised as such and they would have to bring a new resolution back to cover that action. He stated if they went back to the original proposal to the Commission, which the Commission modified, they would just need to bring hack new resolutions. James Markman, City Attorney, stated the original application as presented was in the agenda package but was not recommended by the Planning Commission. He stated the alternative being discussed by Councilmember Alexander would need a different resolution. Brad Bailer, City Planner, concurred, and stated if Council was looking at designating the area in question General Commercial, that is a different action than was presented to the Planning Commission. Councilmember Alexander then asked could the Council take action tonight on the original recommendation made to the Planning Commission and add back the language that was taken ouL James Markman, City Attorney, stated they could do that by modifying Exhibit A as presented on page 106. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated they would need to modify all the resolutions because they were all integrated. Councilmember Alexander stated he would like to see them take action tonight because it has taken so long already and he would not want to drag it out any farther. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated the Council could take action, staff would just need to bring back the appropriate resolutions. Councilmember Alexander stated he would like to go back to the original staff recommendation made to the Planning Commission so they could move the project forward. Councilmember Willjams concurred, and asked for clarification on General Commercial, and were they eliminating other uses, because she felt there were other uses besides those listed in the definition and did not want them to be too restrictive. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the current Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 7, allows retail use subject to conditional use permits, and the applicant is requesting 35% beyond what is already allowed by what they deem commercial. He stated they have in the agenda the resolutions presented to the Planning Commercial which would support what the applicant felt was acceptable. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet asked if staff concurred with the original recommendation made to the Planning Commission. Brad Bdiler, City Planner, stated yes. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he was concerned about the deletions made by the Planning Commission and felt it was very restrictive to the proponent, and be would like to see them have more flexibility so they could build a good projecL Mayor Pro Tern Buquet asked why the Planning Commission took a recommendation that was acceptable to staff and the proponent and modified it City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 7 Brad Baler, City Planner, stated both the applicant and staff agreed they were not trying to create a General Commercial retail center that would have department stores, food and drug stores, general merchandise, etc., and refined the definition to specifically fit the area around the Sports Complex in what they saw as an activity of interest for the sports related commercial. He stated the Planning Commission did not see the need to add more General Commercial Retail in the area, but felt it should be more focused in the type of retail allowed near the sports venue. Jack Lain, City Manager, stated fithe Council wished, they could take a break and modify the existing ordinance and resolutions so that action could be taken tonight. John Mannerino slated he and his client would be willing to go along with that suggestion, and presented information on how the designation of the land use would affect their funding. James Markman, City Attorney, explained the process involved if the Council wanted to change the designation to General Commercial. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet called a recess at 8:07 p.m. The Council reconvened at 8:23 p.m. with all members of Council present (Stout absen0. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet stated staff was working on the wording changes with the applicant. and they would continue this item until all the details had been worked OUL Item F1 was reconvened after the public hearing for Item F2. James Markman, City Attorney, stated a solution has been negotiated in that they would return to the original language that defined Recreational Commercial, and apply those uses to this property, and adjust the Industrial Specific Plan accordingly. James Markman, City Attorney, stated staff recommends the adoption of Resolution No. 94-052, but would delete the language on page 106, and the language for Recreation Commercial on Page 49 would be substituted. RESOLUTION NO. 94-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93- 02B, PART A, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A NEW LAND USE CATEGORY OF "RECREATIONAL COMMERCIAL", AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Williams to adopt Resolution No. 94-052 as modified. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Stout absent). James Markman, City Attorney, stated staff recommends the adoption of Resolution No. 94-053 as presented, with no modifications. City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 8 RESOLUTION NO. 94-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 93- 02B, PART B, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL PARK TO RECREATIONAL COMMERCIAL FOR 27 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 220-011-10, 19, 20, 21, AND 26 THROUGH 28 MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Alexander to adopt Resolution No. 94-053. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Stout absent). CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 94-02 - MASI PARTNERS - A request to modify Subarea 7 to allow limited commercial on 27 acres of land located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, APN: 229-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28; and modify the definition of Automotive Service Courts. Planning Commission recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. See above item for discussion. James Markman, City Attorney, stated staff recommends fast reading of Ordinance No. 521, with a modification to the wording on page 113, the second to the last paragraph, to read as follows: "At the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. adjoining the Rancho Cucamonga Adult Sports Park and Rancho Cucamonga Stadium, uses allowed in the Recreation Commercial General Plan Land Use Category shall be pannitted within the planned 27-acrc mixed use center." Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk, read the title of Ordinanee No. 521. ORDINANCE NO. 521 (fast reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 94-02, AMENDING SUBAREA 7 TO ALLOW LIMITED COMMERCIAL AND TO MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF "AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE COURT", AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Willjams, seconded by Gutierrez, to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 521 as modified for April 20, 1994. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Stout absent). F2. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the Development Code to implement wansportation conwol measure mandated by State and Federal Air Quality Regulations. This action is Categorically Exempt from environmental review per Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines. Staff report presented by Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer. Councilmember Gu~errez asked when this regulation would mice affect statewide. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, stated the timing would vary through the various air basins. City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 9 Councilmember Alexander asked if any analysis had been done on what these changes will cost each city or locality. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, stated there hasn't been a study on these measures, but felt they would have minimal impact. Coancilmemhar Alexander stated he was concerned about the State setting mandates without any funds to back them up, and did not want to see that happen in this instance. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public heating was closed. Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk read the title of Ordinance Nos. 522 and 523. ORDINANCE NO. 522 (f'trst reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 94-01, CHAPTERS 17.08, 17.10 AND 17.12 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING TRIP REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF CONSIDERATION OF INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01 - CITy RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of an Ordinance amending the Industrial Area Specific Plan to implement wansponation control measures mandated by Slam and Federal Air Quality Regulations. This action is Categorically Exempt from environmental review per Section 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines. ORDINANCE NO. 523 (tirst reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 94-01, AMENDING PART III, REGARDING TRIP REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance Nos. 522 and 523 for April 20, 1994. Motion carried unanimously, 4-0-1 (Stout absent). The Council returaed to Item F1 at this time, but the minutes will remain in agenda order. G. PUBLIC HEARING,~ No items were submitted. City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 10 H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS No items were submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I 1. UPDATE ON ROLrFE 30 Staff report presented by Rick Gomez, Community Development Director. Mayor Pro Tern BuquPA presented background information on this project, and stated Rancho Cucamunga has always made allowances for this project in all of their planning documents that incorporated this corridor. He stated both the Sun Bernardino Associated Government (SANBAG) and California Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) categorize Route 30 as a major project, second only u3 Route 71. He stated CALTEANS and the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) have the final authority over the design of the freeway, but since the cities along the corridor are providing matching funds through Measure I allocations, they want to have some say in how it is done, which is why the Route 30 Forum was formed. He went on to explain about the Joint Powers Authority (JPA) which is being formed by the corridor cities. Mayor Stout arrived at 8;53 p.m. Mayor Pro Tera Buquet stauM the Route 30 Forum is addressing the issue of restricting truck traffic on the Route 30 freeway, and even though CALTRANS is not happy about that, the state codes provide that if all the cities along the corridor agree to it, they can have restrictions on the size of vehicles that travel along the freeway. He continued te present information on the planning and construction timeline for the freeway. Councilmember Williams concurred with Mayo~ Pro Tern Buquet's comments. Councilmember Gutierrez stated he supported the idea of resuicting u'ock traffic. He asked if there was a coot study being done on whether the freeway should be above or below grade, because he felt that decision would come down to economics. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet stated there was a study curready being conducted. Councilmember Gutien'ez asked for an explanation on how having more off-ramps would benefit the City. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated if you did not have sufficient ramps to serve the community, it would start having a negative impact on the uaffic circulation for the entire community, and presented information and examples to support this. Councilmember Alexander questioned whether allowing traffic to flow more freely would take away from people using mass wansit options. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet opened the raeeting for public comments. Addressing the Council were: Susan Schmidt, resident along the freeway corridor in Highland Vineyards, stated she was concerned about the freeway currently being designated above grade in their area, and how it would affect the residents with noise and pollution. She wanted the Council to remember it was not just a matter of economics, but it was a matter of people also. City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 11 Priscilla Kenya, Palermo Place, stated she appreciated Councilmember Alexander' s comments and was also concerned that they may be giving the wrong message to the public that mass transit was not that important. She stated she would also be interested in knowing how Assemblymember Brnlte and Senator Ayala stood on this issue. Eric Schlotthauer, Yuba Court, thanked the Counsel for providing information on this topic to the public. He concurred that they needed to have the freeway depressed through the Victoria area. He felt that having more off-ramps would encourage more traffic and crime in the City. Frank Munoz, 6621 Kern Place, was also concerned about the elevated profiles because of possible earthquake damage. He asked ff the Measure I funds would impact whether the freeway would be elevated or not. He also did not want flood control issues to determine whether the freeway would be above or below grade because he felt that could he handled separately. David Schmitz, Messina Court, concurred with the other speakers and was happy with the Council's direction. He felt the plans should he revisited to he sure they meet with current conditions as the City has changed greatly, especially in the eastern portion, in recent years. Jose Cisneros, Alameda Sueet near Highland, asked if the freeway were above grade, what measure would be taken to mitigate the impact on nearby housing. He urged the Council to pursue Ixying to have the eastern portion of freeway depressed. He also did not think that they needed so many off-romps. Wendy Vailcite, 11116 Amarillo, thanked Mayor Stout and Councilmember Alexander for agendizing this item, and thanked Rick Gomez for speaking to A.C.T.I.V.E. on this issue. She stated she was concerned about dumping that was being allowed by CALTRANS along Route 30. There being no further response, the public comments section was closed. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet stated there was a Route 30 workshop tentatively planned for May 10, 1994 in the Victoria area, but the time and location needed to be determined still. He asked that this item come back to the Council in 60 days for an update. I2. UPDATE BY COUNCILMEMBER BUOUET ON SCAG'S REGIONAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ACTION: Item continued to the April 20, 1994 meeting. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J 1. Councilmember Williams asked for an item to come back on the Mobilehome Initiative. Mayor Pro Tern Buquet announced that Councilmember Willlares had been elected by the City Select Committee to serve as a delegate to LAFCO, which was an honor for her and the City. City Council Minutes April 6, 1994 Page 12 K, COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. John Cermack, 12505 Bougainvillea, stated he addressed the Council three months ago about crime in the community, and though he has noticed an increase in police officers in the community, it appeared they were dealing with traffic issues, not crime. He felt there needed to be more police protection in the late evening and early morning hours. He felt there had been an increase in burglaries and auempted burglaries without enough pawol to make up for them. He stated he was dissatisfied with Capt. Zeiner and Councilmember Gutictrez for their lack of reports and response to the community. He represented the east side of his community, and felt it was non-responsive when the newspaper could get information about crime but the residents of the community could not He thanked Capt. Zeiner for allowing several citizens to pa~cipate in a community crime committee. He a,._~ed if he could continue to receive reports about incidents that occurred in his community, which were not given to him on previous dates. Mayor Pro Tem Buquet suggested that Mr. Cermack work with the City Manager's office to clear up any miscommunication that might be occurring between him and the City. MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Alexander to adjoure to Executive Session to discuss labor negotiations as per Government Code Section 5~957.6 in memory of Mr. Ed Hamilton, an 83-year old volunteer for the City who recently passed away. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:19 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jan SuRon Deputy City Clerk ClYY OF RANCH, CUCAHONGA · t CHECKI OVERLAP 12445 N.E.L.A. PROFESSIONAL EXCEL NORMSHOP I 846115 136.00- ((( 64812 - 8548I ))) 495 HYDRO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, ZNC LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES t 6546Z ((( 85483 - 85506 ))) 2246 NAPA AUTO PARTS VEHICLE HAXNTENANCE I 85507 579,67- ((( 65506 - 8556I ))) 2731 UNIGLOBE REGENCY TRAVEL COMDEX flEETING I 85862, ZOGeO0 ((< 85563 - 85564 6165 'ACEVEOO, DANIEL RECREATION REFUNO 85565 46.50 3785 ACTZON ART RECREATION SUPPLIES I 85566 35536.75 3594 ALDUS FULFILLMENT CENTER OFFICE EQUXPNENT 85567 68.76 1133 ALZGNHENT & BRAKE SPECIALISTS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 85566 118.00 264 ALPHA BETA RECREATION SUPPLIES 85569 20.80 1430 AMERICAN BUSINESS FORMS DFFXCE SUPPLIES 85570 ZSTeZ6 492 AHERXCAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION APA NEHBERSHXP DUES 65511 Z56o00 2693 AHTECH RELIABLE ELEVATOR CO. MONTHLY SERVICE 85572 160o00 2616 AUTO PARTS COMPANY, XNC VEHICLE HAINTENANCE SUPPLIES t 65575 715.19 1061 AMAROS BY CHANPXON ENGRAVED PLAQUE 85574 215,50 33 BASELiNE TRUE VALUE HARDMARE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 85575 161.52 1336 BIG A AUTO PARTS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE I 85576 527.71 41 BISHOP CONPANV MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 855?? 168.43 1247 BLAKE PAPER COos XNC. RECREATION SUPPLIES t 85578 257.89 6171 BONAHUE, MATT OR MARK RECREATION REFUND 85579 373 BOOK PUBLISHING COMPANY OFFICE SUPPLIES I 85580 476.38 6166 BURNETT. TANORA RECREATION REFUND 8558I 26,00 6167 BURR, X,D, MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 65582 11.82 54 C P CONSTRUCTION DEPOSIT REFUND 85583 1,000.00 6169 C.R.HoO. REFUND PLAN CHECK FEE 85584 3968 CALIFORNia CHAMBER OF CONfiERCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 85565 177.60 6168 CAPZO CAPXO ~EETXNG 85586 173.00 3305 CARDE PACIFIC CORPORATION MAINTENANCE/VEHICLE SUPPLIES I 85587 25610,88 488 CHEVRON U S As INC GASOLINE CHARGES 65586 55.52 3118 CHXNO HILLS TRANSMISSION VEHICLE NAXNTENANCE 85569 861,00 73 CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO, XNC, VEHICLE NAXNTENANCE/SUPPLIES I 85590 173.86 6170 CITY TRAFFIC ENGINEERS 1996 CTE OURS 85591 iO.00 2470 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 85592 356.63 2692 CONPUSERVE, iNCORPORATED HONTHLV SERVICE 85595 90.81 643 COMPUTERLAND COMPUTER HAINTENANCEISUPPLIES 85594 860.66 ((( 65595 - 85596 ))) 65 CUCAMONGA CO MATER DZST MONTHLY MATER BILLINGS I 85597 31376.66 286 DAISY MMEEL RIBBON CO, INC OFFICE SUPPLIES I 65596 1S9o48 355 DANXEL5 TIRE SERVICE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE t SUPPLIES I 85599 le252.55 60 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALXF DENTAL INSURANCE 85600 ZZsZ05.19 107 DETCD OFFICE SUPPLIES t 85601 91,05 779 E-Z RENTS REC MEATiON RENTAL 85602 104.26 523 EASTMAN. INC OFFICE SUPPLIES t 85603 223°57 2558 EBERHART & STONE. INC. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 85604 392,30 <<( 85605 - 85605 3604 ECOFF, JILL PETTY CASH REZNBURSENENT I 85606 56Io73 686 EDUCALC HAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 85601 61.50 155 FILARSKY & MATT MONTHLY SERVICES 85606 808.54 CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF NARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 04-I5-94 (95/945 RUN DATE: 04115184 PAGE: 2 VENDOR NANE iTEN DESCRIPTION MARR NO MARR, ANTe 00 CNECKI OVERLAP 125 FIRST ANERICAN TITLE INS. CO. PROPERTY PROFILE 65605 25.00 :25 FERST AMERICAN TETLE ENS. CO. PR0PERTY PROFILE 8561Q 25.00 98 FORD PRENTING & NAILING, iNC MAINTENANCE & OPEOATEONS 8S611 655.02 3967 FOURTH STREET ROCK MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES e 65612 501.31 1082 FRANKLIN QUEST CO. OFFICE SUPPLIES 6561] 21o2] 6196 GREG'S ELECTRECAL SUPPLIES, iNC. NAENTENANCE SUPPLIES 6 85614 746.11 137 GTE CALiFORNEA NONTHLY TELEPHONE BiLLiNGS 8 85615 308.68 6038 HARTZDG C CRABILL, iNC. PROFESSIONAL SERVECES 8 85616 Z855 HAVEN WENE ~ LIQUOR CO. SUB-COMMiTTEE MEETINGS e 85617 24.24 12276 HEX DEVELOPMENT CORP. REFUND OF CASH DEPOSIT 85618 hOOO,O0 2255 HDLT'S AUTO ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 85619 80.81 3633 HOMELESS OUTREACH PROMS ~ EOUCATEON MONTHLY SERVICES 85620 560.00 (<< 85621 - 856Z1 ))) 161 HOYT LUMBER COo, S.N. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES t 6562Z 447°94 12477 HULL, SPENCER RECREATION REFUND 85623 46°50 495 HYORO-SCAPE PRODUCTS, ZNC LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 85624 99.33 2392 IeV.N.A.A. YOUTH FLAG FTBALL REGISTRATION 85625 260.00 46 iNDUSTRIAL ASPHALT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 85626 668.42 3736 iNLAND ENPXRE SOCCER REFEREE ASSN, NEN'S SOCCER PROGRAM t 85627 79525.00 1952 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES, LTDo TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 85626 810.00 3895 INLAND LAWNHOWER VEHICLE MAINTENANCE I 85629 1,165.49 907 INLAND MEDIATION OOARO LANDLORD/TENANT DISPUTE I 85630 1,522o59 612 JAESCHKE ENCof CeRo VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 85631 86.05 3795 JENSEN PRECAST CONCRETE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 85632 1,018°00 4190 JONES INOUSTRIAL MAINTENANCE SUPPL/~S I 85633 3,8Z7o22 ' 12679 KEAVANY, LINOA RECREATION REFUND 85634 6.50 4168 KERSHAN CONSTRUCTION CO** ZNC. PROGRESS ESTIMATE I 65635 44,223.66 12681 KiNSTONe DANIEL RECREATION REFUND 85636 Z2.50 1[5 KMART STORES HAZNTENANCE SUPPLIES t 95637 116.56 [218 KNOX MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES t 85636 495,79 1026 KOCH MATERIALS COMPANY HAZNTENANCE SUPPLIES 85639 124°45 12675 LA JOLLA VILLAGE iNN HOTEL RESERVATIONS 85&&O 130e80 869 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 85641 560.89 12680 LIN, HENG SUK RECREATION REFUND 85642 53°55 512 LINVILLE CIVIL ENGINEERS TOPOGRAPHICAL DESIGN SURVEY 6564.3 1,750°00 1655 LONG'S DRUGS. FXLN PROCESSING t 85664 55.90 12476 LOPEZ, DENNIS RECREATION REFUND 8564.5 40,00 ZOO LOS ANGELES TIMES SUBSCRIPTION 85646 .1,153o28 12679 LUKES, JEFF RECREATION REFUND 65667 46.50 600 LYNCH, JANIE RECREATION SUPPLIES e 8564.6 14.84 3987 N.N.A.S.Co C/O GRADUATE CENTER FOR MEMBERSHIP DUES 85649 4O.O0 76 NARKNAN,ARCZYNSKEtHANSUNeC KING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I 85650 I0e578°95 3907 RASTER-SORT, ZNC. PRESORT NAIL SERVICES 85651 IDT.SZ ((< 65652 - 85662 12665 N,B,LoA° PROFESSIONAL EXCEL NORKSHOP I 65663 96.00 <<( 8566& - 85664 2268 NAPA AUTO PARTS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE t 95665 697,95 35A6 NURSERYLAND LANOSCAPE SUPPLIES 65666 4Z,58 309 a C 6 REPROGRAPHICS, iNC NETROLiNK I 85667 217.01 3632 OLOTENERS FOUNDATION OLOTENERS FOUNDATION 65669 669°00 3632 OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 85669 15.00 CITY OF RANCHO MDNGA LIST OF NARd FOR PERIOD: 0 (93/94) RUN DATE: 04113196 PAGE: 3 VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION NARR NO NARRo ART, t$ CNECKA OVERLAP 232 OMNZTRANS BUS PASSES 85670 3953 PACIFIC COAST AiR TOOL MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 85671 2987 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS MONTHLY SERVICE 85672 238,T0 542 PIP PRXNTXNG RECREATION SUPPLIES 8S673 Z66o75 255 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO VEMXCLE MAINTENANCE g SUPPLIES 85674 2681 POSTAGE 87 PHONE POSTAGE METER MONTHLY SERVICES 65675 4eOO0°OO 65 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLXES t 85676 I13o36 3512 Q SAFETY COMPUTER SUPPLIES 85677 69.69 4113 REY-CREST ROOFING t NATERPROOFING REROOFING LIONS PARK CORN CTR eSSTe 5e815°50 176 RIVERSXOE BLUEPRINT PRINTS I 85679 31460.07 1491 SAN BERN CO FLOOD CONTROL OEPT INSPECTION FEE 85680 ielOSoO0 1139 SAN BERN CO LIARART OCTOBER SHREDDING 8568Z 15.40 214 SiN BERN CO SOLID BASTE MGNENT MONTHLY SERVICE 85482 7.25 500 SAN BERNAROZNO COUNTY REIN8 PARKING CITATIONS 85683 617o00 132 SAN DIEGO ROTARY BROOM COw INC MAINT SUPPLIES 85684 15S°61 8537 SANDERSONe KIN RECREATION REFUNDS I 85685 8538 SCHNECKe RUTH RECREATION REFUNDS 85686 3OoOO 4tZ6 SCHNARZE XNDUSTRXESe XNC, VEHICLE SUPPLIES I 8568T 253°63 535 SEMPLEe JUDY INSTRUCTOR PAyRENT 85688 148o00 8539 SHARPt SHELLY RECREATION REFUNDS 85689 33,E0 1317 SMART ~ FINAL DAY CAMP SUPPLIES I 85690 463°33 3946 SHXTH COMPANY MAXNT SUPPLIES · 65696 2,108o25 ((( 85692 - 85698 1432 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON MONTHLY ELECTRIC DILLS I 85699 13,75VoOA 681 SPEEDBAY MUFFLER XNC. VEHICLE MAXNT SUPPLXE$1SERVICE 85700 46.94 1373 STERLING TRUCK EQUXPMENT VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLXES 85701 701°46 8540 SUPERIOR SERVICES BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 85702 ZOoZ5 1919 TOMARK SPORTS INC° MAINTENANCE $UPPLXE$ I 85705 1,229°95 8541 TOTAL EXTERMINATING, INC, BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 85704 111o50 9562 TRX CITY LINEN SUPPLY BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 85705 22°35 693 U.S./BHXTE VAN BATTERY CQ.t INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 85706 167o59 2958 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION UMP SERVICES I 85707 3,506o00 1731 UNIGLOBE REGENCY TRAVEL COHDEX MEETING 93709 4Z4.00 677 UNIVERSITY COPY SYSTEMS SERVICE CONTRACT 85709 225°00 1103 VISTA PAINT MAINT SUPPLIES I 85710 le067,31 85A3 BAL MART VISION CENTER R1922 EUSXNESS LICENSE REFUND 85711 6,18 213 BAXXE, KLEEN-LINE CORP MAXNT SUPPLIES 8571Z 447°35 1941 BEETERN TURF & COMMERCIAL NAXNT SUPPLIES 85713 345 BHITNEY MACHINERY MAXNT SUPPLIES 85114 200,75 8544 BXDHEYERfJRCK R.t INSPECTOR BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 85715 50.65 758 BiTS RECREACTION SUPPLIES I 85716 371 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE RECREATION SUPPLIES 65717 62°28 It TOTAL 176e731o75 CITY OF RANCHD CUCAHONGA RUN DATE: 06/21/96 PAGE: VENOOR NAME [TEN DESCRTPTZON MARR NO NARRo ANTe ,~ CMECKI OVERLAP 103 [ C M A RET[REHENT TRUST-657 DEFERREO CONP 85A335 931.00 ((< 8543A - 85500 ))) 1025 MC HASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 85501e I0211.43- ((( E5502 - 85659 12495 METRO CONNECTIONS GFOA ANNUAL CONFERENCE 85660S ((( 8566[ - 857t? 3632 OLDT[NERS FOUNDATION DLOTIMIRS FOUNDATION 85718e 15.00 2155 GTULEAe VAS[LE CASH ADVANCE 85779~ 100.00 (<( 85720 - 85722 I A E A EQUIPMENT RENTALS COee INCo VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES I 65723 443°06 637Z A6UTUANw HANNAH RECREATION REFUND 65724 39.50 blT3 ACCENT ON BASIC SKILLS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 85725 25.68 2623 ACE PRINTING CO. OFFICE SUPPLIES 85726 619o56 6176 ACTION DOOR CONTROLS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 85727 15.06 6207 ALERT CONMUNICATIONS CO. INSTALLATION/SERVICE I esTze 615.91 [135 ALIGNMENT ~ 8RAKE SPECIALISTS VEHZCLE NAINTENANCE 85729 599°09 Z6A ALPHA 8ETA RECREATION SUPPLIES 85730 lO.7A [430 AMERICAN BUSINESS FORMS OFFICE SUPPLIES 8573I 565.96 3068 AMERICAN CONSTe INSPECTORS ASSOCe ANNUAL DUES 85732 ISOoO0 22 ANERICAN PUBLIC MORKS ASSOCIATION APNA MEMBERSHIP 85733 80e00 2693 ANTECH RELIABLE ELEVATOR CO. NDNTHLY SERVICE 8573A 384.66 310 ARROM TRUCK 800ZES & EQUIP ZNC MAINTENANCE SUPLIES I 85735 E98.0~ 26 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS PRQFESSSONAL SERVICES t 85736 4t330.70 26[6 AUTO PARTS CONPANTe [NC VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 85737 1g0.07 6175 8 6 O SPECIALTIES [NC, BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 85738 ~5.00 33 BASELINE TRUE VALUE HAROMARE MA[NTENRNCE SUPPLIES 85739 1338 BIG A AUTO PARTS VEH[CL~ MaZ;ZTENANCE 85760 36.6~ 2936 BLACKHANK ENGINECAIN6 CONTRACT ;F~VZC~S 85761 10818.80 6116 ~AOLEYe ANGle RECRE&T[ON REFUND 85762 5.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHDNGA L/ST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 04-20-96 (93/96) RUN DATEr 04121196 PAGE: Z VENOOR NAHE ITEM DESCRIPTION NARR NO NARRa ANT. $, CHECKI OVERLAP 355 DANEELS TIRE SERVICE VEHICLE NAINTENANCE L SUPPLIES t 85767 1,170.32 [01 OETCO OFFICE SUPPLIES 85768 0o16 4)0~ OIRECT EOGEe INCa MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT I 85769 246386o09 6&O ORESCO REPRODUCTIONS OFFICE SUPPLIES 65770 218o67 523 EASTMANe [NC OFFICE SUPPLIES I 85711 lelAZ,ZT [23 FEDERAL EXPRESS COOP DELIVERY SERVICE I 85172 SOaOO 114 FENCE CRAFT OF UPLANDe XNCo CONTRACT SERVICES 85173 30o17 40ZA FLEMING CONSTRUCTZONe ReED NEEGHBODRHOOO CENTER INPROVMNT 85776 166609a06 6162 FOURN]ERe AHANDA RECREATION REFUND 85775 22°50 6163 FUENTESf LINOSET RECREATION REFUNO 85176 25°00 3368 GOLDEN BEAR ARBQRISTSe INCa PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I 85777 196283a00 786 GREAT HISTERN SAVINGS OEFERRED CONP 65776 6181 GAECOe OEN[SE RETIREMENT DINNER I 85119 60°00 6184 GqIFFITHe NANCY RECREATION REFUNO 85760 39.50 6[65 GROESS]e NZCOLE RECREATION REFUND 8578[ ZSaO0 137 GTE CALIFORNIA NONTHLT TELEPHONE 6ZLLINGS · 85762 76683a21 6[66 GUT[ERREZe VECTOR RECREATION REFUNO I 85793 225a00 [2491 HAMHEqLe GENEVA RECREATION REFUNO 85764 60°00 4[96 HANSON OFFICE PROOUCTS OFFICE SUPPL[ES I 65785 55°60 IZ&6 HAVEN 6UILOING MATERIALS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 85766 13o96 A6Z HCS-CUTLER STEEL COa EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 85187 356.50 620 HEARO PoHaOae EDNARO [NSTRUCTOR PNT 65168 336°00 12483 HILLS[RE CDMHUNZTT CHURCH OEPOSIT REFUND 65789 ZeOOOoO0 I1466 HO-80 ENGINEERING [NCo BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 85790 66.63 16[ HOYT LUMBER CORe SaMe HAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 9579Z 46°76 12464 HUNTER LANOSCAPE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 6579Z 9.00 695 HTORO-SCAPE PRODUCTSe INC LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES · 85193 25Io05 103 I C N A RET[RENENT TRUST-OST DEFERREO COHP 85796 851a00 46 [NOUSTR[AL ASPHALT NAZNTENANCE SUPPLEES I 85795 1e686.69 [1485 ZNFORHATION AGE 6USZNESS LICENSE REFUNO 9STD& 8°63 165 ZNGRAN PAPER PAPER SUPPLIES 85197 Ie642o97 3685 INLAND LAMNNONER VEHICLE NAINIENANCE I 65798 h018.26 92 INLAND VALLEY DA[LV BULLETIN SUBSCRIPTIONS 85799 26.88 1558 INTERNAT'L RIGHT OF HAY ASSOC, MEMBERSHIP DUES 65800 SOoO0 12468 JABSHEHe TASFZNE RECREATION REFUND 8SOOI 2Z.SO 612 JAESCNAE INCae CaRa VEHICLE MAINTENANCE I 65802 665,06 609 KAN[NEe STEINER E UNGERER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 85603 550.60 169 K[NGe LoO° PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I 85806 286500o02 1A11 KNAPP SHOE COMPANY SAFETY SHOES I 65605 603°66 1216 KNOX MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 85606 141,27 1014 KOCH MATERIALS COMPANY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES t 65607 316.67 68 LA VOZ AOVERTZSING 85608 150.00 321 LANOSCAPE WEST LANDSCAPE NA[NIENANCE I 85609 4212 LENZO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 85810 10,76 [Z691 LINe JOTCE RECREATION REFUND 656[S 22.50 4[76 LONCARe PHIL CoEoRoT. INSTRUCTOR 65812 62.50 [455 LONG'S ORUGS FILM PROCESSING 85813 42810 200 LOS ANGELES TIMES SUBSCRIPTION 85814 31.36 1062 M C [ TELECOMMUNICATZONS TELEPHONE SERVICES I 85815 602°37 3367 NANERA SIGN CONPANYe [NC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 85616 549 MARZPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENToZNC° LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE · 85911 23m329o3Z C[1Y OF R&NCHQ CUCRNDNGA RUN DATE: 06/21/96 PAGE: 3 VENDOR NAME ITEN DESCRIPTION NARR NO NARRo AMTo ,e CHECKI OVERLAP T6 NARKMANeARCZYNSKIfNANSDNtC KING PROFESSIONAL SERVECES I 85818 6,804.00 Z198 RXCHAEL'S CRAFTS RECREATION SUPPLIES 85819 35.T0 12693 MINARO, OENISE RECREATION REFUNO 85820 3°00 12~6T HORGANf MONZQUE RECREATION REFUNO I 85821 60.00 IZ~96 MORRISSETTEe SEAT RECREATION REFUND 85822 26o00 862 MOUNTAIN VIEN SNALL END. REPAIR NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES i 85623 339.30 tZ~90 HUNOZ, JOSHUA RECREATION REFUND 85826 60°00 22~8 NAPR AUTO PARTS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE I 65625 133.66 3669 NAT'L INST GOVERNMENTAL pURCHASING ANNUAL SERVICE CHARGE 65626 lEGBOO 3637 NATIONAL UNIFORN SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICES I 65827 810o09 12682 NEZOIGe DENNIS RIND APN 0201-T71-58 65828 Z06.69 3566 NURSERYLAND LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 85829 12.91 309 0 C B REPROGRAPNICSw INC HETROLINK I 85830 6To90 12689 OHLDRe ANT RECREATION REFUNO 85851 2809 ON-SITE NICROFILNING SERVICE 6UZLDING OIVISZON RECOROS 65832 292°33 1826 ORIENTAL TRADING NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 85833 630°55 563 OSTEROAUER CONPRESSOR SERVICE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 65836 128.26 65&T PACIFIC TRI VIEN CORP. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 85935 153.00 8566 PASHATERSe JRIME RECREATION REFUNDS 88836 687 PATTON SALES CORP. HAINTENANCE SUPPLIES BS85T 96°13 8569 PERKZNSe JENNIFER RECREATION REFUNDS 85838 5°00 8550 PERRY 6 SUNS, T. EUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 85839 11o50 9565 PFS (A OIYISION OF PEPSI COtINCo) BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 65660 59.60 1079 PHOTO HOUSE OF CALIFORNIA PHOTO SUPPLIES 85641 i. Z6 255 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO VEHICLE MAINTENANCE ~ SUPPLIES 65862 653.37 8566 PPG INDUSTRIES INCo BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 88663 55°90 8551 PROGRESSIVE FASTENING SVSTENSe INCo BUSINE$S LICENSE REFUNDS 65666 273°56 8191 PRUDENTIAL CALIF. REALTY9 THE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 85865 150o00 65 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 65666 162oT1 6552 R ~ 8 TELEPHONE pRENIRE SERVICEeINC BUSINESS L[CENSE REFUNDS 88867 1038 R J R DESIGN GROUP, INCo PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 858A6 I~ZO0.O0 226 RANCHD CUCA REDEVELOPRENT AGENCY REINOURSE GRANT FUNDS 68965 156o16 2696 RANCHD GRANDE KINAMES RENDERSHIP ODES BSESO 85°00 5225 REANO. OANE ~ JENN[FER RECREATION REFUNDS I 65851 9553 REAZA. MARINA RECREATION REFUNDS 65852 9556 RgGOL[ FIRE EQUIPMENT CDe BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 68653 16.50 276 RIVERSIOE BLUEPRINT PRINTS I 85856 1w702°33 3688 RUESCH, DOUGLAS AOJ COUNCIL CHAMBERS CAMERA I 65855 305oT6 9555 ROJOw GENEVIEVE RECREATION REFUNDS 85656 4.OO 6556 ROHEROe JILLZAN RECREATION REFUNDS 65857 ZSoO0 8613 SABICERt DAVID CLASS REFUNOS 85858 ZZoGO 8616 SA6ICER. NARLA RECREATION REFUNDS 85859 ZZ°GO 8557 SACRAMENTO CITT COLLEGE PURL SAF CT CHINE PREVENTION SEMINAR R58&O 236o00 261 SAN BERN CO PRINTING & NAIL SVC PRINTING A MAIL SERVICES 85861 61°52 581 SAN BERNAROINO COUNTY CAL-ID PROGRAM 85862 9°00 8558 SCMMEIGERT. NELESSA RECREATION REFUNDS 85863 AO.OO 8559 SECREASEI NRLINKA RECREATION REFUNDS 8586~ 25°00 6100 SEVERSON PRODUCTS COMPANY NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 85865 211°25 3276 SINCLAIR PAINT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES J 85866 116o6T 692 SIR SPEEDY FAXES 85867 TZoT5 (<< 85866 - 85868 C[TT OF RANCHO CUCANONGA LIST OF MARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 06-Z0-94 (93/945 RUN DATE: 06/21/96 PAGE: 6 VENDOR HARE [TEN UESCRIPTION NARR NO HARR. ANT, ee CHECK; OVERLAP JlT SO CALIF EOISON CO. MONTHLY ELECTRIC BILLINGS I 65869 13.938.27 3t9 SO CALIF GAS CO. NONTHLT GAS BILLS i 85670 310.68 905 SOIL C PLANT LADORATORYt INC. SOIL TESTING SERVICES I 8561I 260.00 1632 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON NONTNLY ELECTRIC 6ILLS I 65612 I53o96 397 SOUTHERN DATA STSTEHS MONTHLY COMPUTER CONTRACT 656~3 575,00 150 SPECIALTY TYPEHRITER SERVICE TYPENRXTER SERVICE 85816 109o20 ZOIO STARLITF SAFETY SUPPLY INC. NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 8 85615 566.93 3059 STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK I 65876 192o00 636 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS MAINT SUPPLIES 8 65877 696.39 8560 TILLMANe HANDY RECREATION REFUNDS 65878 5°00 8561 TOLAN, KELCIE RECREATION REFUNDS 85819 5.00 ~562 TREE OF LIFE MEST BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNOS 85880 9°00 IZ26 UNITEO PARCEL SERVICE UPS SERVICE 85881 500°00 6326 UPLAND JANZTOeIAL SUPPLY CD.tINC, BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNO 85882 36°00 C(( 85863 - 65863 ))) 661 VISA VISA MONTHLY 8[LLINGS R 65886 ~78 H;RREN ~ CD, e CARL LIABILITY CLAINS 85885 60°60 6002 NASTE NANAGENENT INDUSTRIES HASTE NANAGENENT 65886 56.60 8563 N;TTERS CONSULTINGe DAN BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 65681 IO°OO 213 HAXIEe KLEIN-LINE CORP MAXNT SUPPLIES 8 85888 639,81 19&l ~ESTERN TURF g CONNERCIAL NAINT SUPPLIES 8 85889 i28,06 758 NETS RECREACTIQN SUPPL]ES 8 85890 106.16 509 XEROX CORPORATION COPY NACNINE SUPPLIES/SERVICE g 65891 5,563°56 6566 ZELLERBACN/DIV F HEAD CORP. BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 85892 56.00 $~ TOTAL 3691753.39 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Will iam J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE THE ADVERTISING OF THE "NOTICE INVITING BIDS" FOR THE BIKE PATHWAYS AND LOCKERS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS, TO BE FUNDED FROM AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT, ACCOUNT NO. 14-4158-6028 RECOI![NDATION: It is recommended that City Council approve plans and specifications for the Bike Lockers at City Hall and the City Corporate Yard and Bike Pathways 1 ocated on Church Street and Tetra Vista Parkway, Fourth Street, Arrow Route, Greenway Corridor (Tetra Vista) and Etiwanda Avenue and approve the attached resolution authorizing the City D erk to advertise the "Notice Inviting Bids". BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This project consists of the placement of bike lockers at City Hall, the City Corporate Yard and Bike Pathways along Church Street and Tetra Vista Parkway, Fourth Street, Arrow R~ute, Greenway Corridor (Terra Vista) and along Etiwanda Avenue. The subject project plans and specifications have been completed by staff and approved by the City Engineer. The Enqinee~'s estimate for construction is $57,561.90. Legal advertising is schedu1 ed for May 10 and May 17, 1994, with the bid opening at 2:00 PM on Tuesday, May 24, 1994. City Engineer WJO:LB:sd Attachment BIKE PATHWAYS AND LOCKERS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS INDEX LOCKERS BIKE LANE/ROUTE 1. CMC CENTER 4. ARROW ROUTE 2. CITY YARD BIKE LANE BIKE ROUTE 5.FOURTH ST 3. CHURCH ST & TEEEA VISTA PARKWAY BIKE PATH 6. GREENWAY CORRIDOR (TEERA VISTA) 7. ETIWANDA r' J'[. RANCHO CU~AMONGA / UPLAND~ FONTANA . ....... SITE IO FRWY ONTARIO· NTS '~ VICINITY MAP 9 RESOLUT,ON NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CI'Pf COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE BIKE LOCKERS AT CITY HALL AND THE CITY CORPORATE YARD AND BIKE PATHWAYS LOCATED ON CHURCH STREET AND TERRA VISTA PAI~WAY, FOURTH STREET, ARRO~ ROUTE, GREEI~AY CORRIDOR (TERRA VISTA), ETIWANDA AVENUE IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLER~ TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to construct certain improvements in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented by the City of Rancho Cucamonga be an~ are hereby approved as the plans and specifications for the "Bike Lockers at City Hall and the City Corporate Yard and Bike Pathways located on Church Street and Tetra Vista Parkway, Fourth Street, Arrow Route, Greenway Corridor (Terra Vista), and Etiwanda Avenue". BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City D erk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposal s for doing the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the said City of Rancho Cucamonga will receive at the Office of the City D erk in the offices of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on or before the hour o~ 2:00 PM on Tuesday, May 24, 199a, sealed bids or proposals for the "Bike Lockers at City Hall and the City Corporate Yard and Bike Pathways located on Church Street and Tetra Vista Parkway, Fourth Street, Arrow Route, Greenw~y Corridor (Tetra Vista), and Etiwanda Avenue" in said City. Bids will be publicly opened and read in the office of the City Clerk, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, marked, "Bid for Construction of Bike Lockers at City Hall and the City Corporate Yard and Bike Pathways located on Church Street and Tetra Vista Parkway, Fourth Street, Arrow Route, Greenway Corridor (Terra Vista), and Etiwanda Avenue." PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Co~e, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not 1 ess than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not 1 ess than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and are available to any inte-ested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. Pursuant to provisions of Labor Code Section 1775, the Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under the attached contract, by him or by any subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.6, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest the site of the public works project and which administers the apprenticeship program in that trade for a certificate of approval. The certificate will also fix the ratio of apprentices to journeymen that will be used in the performance of the contract. The ratio of apprentices to journeymen in such cases shall not be less than one to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior to the request of certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is replacing at 1 east 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributions to funds established for the administration of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticabl e trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the public works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices. 11 Information tel ative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules, and other requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial relations, ex-officio the Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the city of Rancho Cucamonga, twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by him or any subcontractor under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which said laborer, workman, or mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of said Labor Code. Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreement filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 17773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal, cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10% of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder will enter into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, and in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, c~shier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. If the City of Rancho Cucamonga awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Rancho Cucamonga for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Contractor shall possess any and all contractors licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; including but not limited to a Class "A" License (General EngineeHng Contractor) or Class "LICENSE" in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et. seq.) and rules and regulation adopted pursuant thereto. The Contractor, pursuant to the "California Business and Professions Code", Section 7028.15, shall indicate his or her State License Number on the bid, together with the expiration date, and be signed by the Contractor declaring, under penalty of perjury, that the information being provided is true and correct. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on file in the Office of the City C1 erk at IOBO0 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Copies of the plans and specifications, available at the office of the City Engineer, will be furnished upon application to the City of Rancho Cucamonga and payment of $35.00 (THIRTY FIVE), said $35.00 (THIRTY FIVE) is nonrefundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mail ed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional nonreimbursabl e payment of $15.00 (FIFTEEN DnLLARS) to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In accordance with the requirements of Section 9-3.2 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withhel d (performance retention). The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. By order of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Dated this 4th day of May 1994. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the .Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, this 4th day of May 1994. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk ADVERTISE ON: May 10 and May 17, 1994 13 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May '4, 1994 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY Mike Olivier, Sr Civil Engineer SUBjECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TWENTY-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN AS REQUIRED FOR EXPENDITURES OF MEASURE I FUNDS REC(M4ENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt a resolution approving the prepared Local Measure "I" Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan as requested by SanBAG to provide a public record of the intended use of Local Measure "I" Funds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Measure "I", the county-wide transportation sales tax program, requires that each local jurisdiction receiving program revenues annually adopt a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and a 20-Year Transportation Plan which outlines the specific projects upon which those funds shall be expended. Staff has prepared the attached Five-Year Capital Improvement plan schedule to be adopted by City Council and kept on file with the San Bernardino Associated Governments for informational purposes. The Five-Year list has been overprogrammed to allow for spillage and to insure that the adopted plan contains ample projects for Measure "I" expenditures. If changes are necessary (additions or deletions), the plan may be altered at each annual adoption or intermittently with City Council approval. SANBAG has advised us the 20-Year Transportation Plan for Local Measure "I" Funds can be a list of projects for 20-Year period or-narrative policy statement estimating the types of projects Local Measure "I" Funds are to be used for, and the percentage of funds allocated for each type of project. Since it is very difficult to list actual projects 20-Years in advance, staff recommends Council approve the policy statement. City Engineer WO:alr 14 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND TWENTY-YEAR TRANSPORTATION PLAN FOR THE EXPEDITURE OF MEASURE "I" FUNDS WHEREAS, San Bernardino County voters approved passage of measure "I" in NoveniDer 1989, authorizing San Bernardino Associated Governments, acting as the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority, to impose a one- half of one percent retail transactions and use tax applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Bernardino; and, WHEREAS, revenue from the tax can only be used for transportation improvement and traffic management programs authorized in the Expenditure Plan set forth in Ordinance No. 89-1 of Authority; and, WHEREAS, Expenditure Plans of the Ordinance requires each local jurisdiction receiving revenue from the tax to expend those funds pursuant to a Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Plans. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, State of California, hereby adopts the Measure "I" Five-Year Capital Improvement Program and Twenty-Year Transportation Plan, a copy of which is attached to this resolution. 15 ~; VENR LHP[/AL [NPROUENENT PROGRAM LUCRL HEHSIJRE STREET NAME LIMITS ACridITY FY 94-95 FY ~5-96 4/H ST, FROM WEST CITY LIMITS P~EMEH[ REII~. ~3~5,000 ro HRUEN F~rH ST. CLEgELANO ro NILLZI:EH STREET M[DENXXG AND 50 REHABILITATION I 5 YEAR CAPITAL IMPROUEHEflT PROGRAfl - LOCAL flEASURE % Page 4 20 YEAR LOCAL MEASURE I TRANSPORTATION PLAN Measure n I City's General Plan Circulation Element as a base.,~ I~ins anticipated that the funds will be allocated in the following net: TYPE 0~ IMPROVEMENT PERCENT Maintenance, Rehabilitation 30 and Repair of Existing Roadways Traffic Signal Improvements 10 Street widening 20 Intersection Improvements 10 Railroad Crossing Improvements 10 Slurry and Chip seal of Existing Streets (See City's General Plan Circulation Element) Page 5 [--~. .,_._~ , ' CIRCULATION PLAN ~ ' ' ' ~ COLLECTOR .......... .'t I I I' sEco. DARY '[' I I ' MAJO. A.TE.,AL ............. % , , ! MAJOR DIVIDED ARTERIAL .......... \ ........ ." i · Ex~ST~.G ~NTERCHANGE · ' / 0 PROPOSED INTERCHANGE \ .... ~' L. ® FREEWAY INTERCHANGE [ INTERSECTION FOR k ......... ~ .....' POSSIBLE WIDENING -- SPECIAL BOULEVARD ...... ",if,, ' "', ~ SPECIAL DESIGN r illill SPECIAL IMPACT STUDY ZON[ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 1.2s CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Date: May 4, 1994 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager From: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Subject: OPPORTUNITY GRANT USED OIL RECYCLING RECOMMENDATION Attached is a copy of a Resolution authorizing the City of Upland on behaff of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to prepare, submit and administer a Used Oil Opportunity Grant. BACKGROUND The purpose of the Used Oil Opportunity Grant is to provide used oil collection and/or to enhance existing used oil programs. The Opportunity Grant is competitive with a maximum of $500,000 possible with no matching funds required. The Grant is awarded on a points basis, with points given for; ability to complete, cost effectiveness, clarity of proposal, establishing new centers, innovative approach, and joint or cooperative application with other agencies. The program we are proposing will be specific to this region and will address the need for more used oil recycle facilities, and outreach programs for the community and high schools within Rancho Cucamonga. As part of the community outreach program the Cities of Upland, Ontario, Chino, Montelair, and Rancho Cucamonga are jointly proposing to develop and build a mobile learning center. The center consists of an 8' x 20' enclosed acoustic mobile stage, which will have information related to where oil goes after you drop it off at the recycle center or Household Hazardous Waste Center. The group has been in contact with the City of Long Beach, who has a much larger unit, to develop the trailer. This center will be shared by all contributing Cities. An additional aspect of this Grant is to be a waste oil grant video that will have specifics to each of the agencies. This Grant will also further the efforts of current programs and address the requirements of Waste Management and Storm Water programs. The Grant application is being submitted by the City of Upland in conjunction with the west end cities of Upland, Chino, Montelair, Ontario and Rancho Cucamonga. The City of Upland will coordinate and administer the Grant and each city has submitted fund requirements for such items as staff time, educational material, and quantity of waste oil containers. The total Grant request is $131,500. A letter of intent signed by the City Engineer was sent with the submittal to meet the April 14, 1994 submittal date. An approved Resolution must be submitted by May 27, 1994. City Engineer Attachment ANCHO CUCA ,'iONC-A April 13,1994 Kevin Northcraft, City Manager City of Upland P.O. Box 460 Upland, CA 91785 Subject: Used Oil Opportunity Grant, Joint Venture Dear Mr. Noahcraft The City of Rancho Cucamonga is in support of pursuing the Used Oil Opportunity Grant sponsored by the California Integrated Waste Management Board, as a joint venture with the cities of Chino, Chino Hills, Montclair, Rancho Cucamonga, and Upland, with the understanding that Upland will be the lead agency. In an effort to expand on educating the public on the importance of proper disposal of used oil and the impact which improper disposal has on the environment, we place great importance on taking this opportunity to work together and pursue this Used Oil Opportunity Grant. A Resolution authorizing the City of Upland to act on the behalf of Rancho Cucamonga will be taken to the City Council for approval on May 4. 1994. A copy of this resolution will be forwarded to CIWMB after approval. Sincerely, Community Development Department Engineering Division Wi liam J.'-O" ei N 1 City Engineer cc: Bob Zetterberg, Integrated Waste Coordinator Diane O'Neal. Management Analyst II Mayor Dennis L. Stout ~ Councilmember William J. Alexander Mayor Pro-Tern Charles J. Buquet II Councilmember Diane Wiltiams Jack karn, AICP. City Manager ~ Councilmember Rex Gutierfez Reso,ution RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE USED OIL RECYCLING FUND UNDER THE USED OIL RECYCLING ENHANCEMENT ACT Whereas, the people of the State of California have enacted the California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act that provides funds to cities and counties for establishing and maintaining local used oil collection programs that encourage recycling or appropriate disposal of used oil; and Whereas, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (Board) has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the state, setting up necessary procedures governing application by cities and counties under the program; and Whereas, said procedures established by the California Integrated Waste Management Board require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of application before submission of said application to the state; and Whereas, the applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California for the development of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE 1T RESOLVED that the City Cg~I~il of Rancho Cucamon~a authorizes the submittal of an application for the California Integrated Waste Management Board for a Local Government Used Oil Recycling Opportunity Grant. The City Manager of the City of Unland is hereby authorized and empowered to execute in the name of the City of Rancho Cucarnonga all necessary applications, contracts, agreements, amendments hereto for the purpose of securing grant funds and to implement and carry out the purposes specified in the grant application. The foregoing resolution was passed the City of Rancho Cucamonga this day of · 19 , Effective ,19 , ATItiST: Signed: Date: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA nEroaT. Date: May 4, 1994 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager From: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Subject: APPROVAL TO SEEK PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL' SERVICES FOR VIDEO TAPING AND INSPECTION OF STORM DRAINS IN ACCORDANCE WITH FEDERAL NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM(NPDES) REGULATIONS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended the City Council approve the request to seek a professional services agreement for video taping and inspection of the City's storm drain pipelines in accordance with the Federal NPDES mandates. BACKGROUND As part of the City's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit, a reconnaissance and surveillance program must be developed to detect illegal\illicit discharges and connections to the City's storm drain system. This program is to effectively eliminate all identified illegal discharges and illicit connections by October I, 1995 as required by NPDES Permit Number 8000200. Failure to comply could result in fines up to $25,000 per day until compliance is met. Since incorporation a very small percentage of the of the City's storm drain pipelines have been inspected or videotaped. Public Works Maintenance's current program provides cleaning and inspection of the City's catch basins on a yearly basis. This does not provide pipeline inspection for the over 80 miles of storm drain pipefines in the City. ANALYSIS For Fiscal Year 1993/94 $70,000.00 was budgeted to meet permit requirements and a portion was designated for sample monitoring as part of the Best Management Practices in accordance with the Federal mandates. Staff has begun the development of a discharge monitoring program. To begin implementation of the mandates, the City will need to inspect and video tape the pipelines and verify any illicitXillegai connections. In this time of limited funds, the cost of purchasing a storm drain video system and staffing a ReconnaissanceiSurveillance program is cost prohibitive. Also, due to the time constraints to comply with Federal regulations staff recommends contracting the video inspection of the City's 80 miles of pipelines. Staff estimates the cost of video taping to be $.45 per linear foot to completely video tape and inspect the entire 80 miles of existing pipelines will be approximately $200.000.00. The inspection of the pipelines will be phased in over the next two years to meet the October I. 1995 dead line. City Engineer WJ0:BZ:bz RANCHO CUCAMONGA NPDES PROGRAM:PHASE I STORM DRAIN RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The City of Rancho Cucamonga is accepting proposals for the furnishing of professional services to meet the 1990 Federal regulations establishing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES), for municipal storm water discharges. I. pROJECT DESCRIPTION The scope of this work includes the video taping, by means of a color closed circuit television camera, mounted on a City approved transporter, of all storm drains pipelines, 36" in diameter and larger, as identified by plans provided by City staff, recording all connections, and providing the City with a written report of the findings. Use of skids or sleds will not be acceptable. However, physical walking of large drains may be allowed with City approval. The purpose of this work is to inventory the City's storm drain system, identify connections, record lateral locations, identify potential and/or existing pipe problems, and identify suspected illegal discharges. The City has approximately 80 miles of storm drains which will be video taped. Therefore, the City is soliciting quotes for services within the scope of its budget. All proposals shall be based on a cost per lineal foot of video taping including all associated costs. The minimum insurance coverage and endorsement requirements are stated in the appendix. The above-mentioned work shall be completed within working days form - the date of Notice To Proceed. Receipt of the City's Purchase Order shall be the Contractor's Notice To Proceed. II. SCOPE OF CONSULTANT SERVICES A. The Contractor shall video tape and provide a written report of all inspected storm drains. Contractor's proposed report format shall be approve by the City prior to commencement of work. B. The Contractor shall use equipment specifically designed and constructed for storm drain inspection and televising. The camera must have its own light source of suitable output intensity to provide a clear picture of the entire periphery of pipe ranging in size from 36" to 120" and RCB larger than 3" in height. The Camera, television monitor, transporter shall be capable of producing a picture quality which is adequate for the purpose of the inspection as stated herein. The adequacy of the proposed equipment and picture shall be demonstrated to the City, if so requested, prior to start of work. Cost of such demonstration, if, required, shall be borne by the proposing Contractor. C. A footage counter accurate to within two (2) feet _+ in 1000 feet shall be used to indicate on the monitor and video tape distance traveled. Also displayed on monitor shall be date of inspection and a continuous forward and reverse readout of camera distance from the access hole of reference. D. Video tapes shah be new, color, high quality on VHS format. E. All tapes shall become the Property of the City. F. The television inspection, monitoring and recording shall be performed by technicians with proven experience records and the Contractor shall, if requested, furnish qualification details for each technician. G. The Contractor shall calibrate his measuring device with a known distance (i.e., access hole to access hole or some other known distance). H. The camera shall be moved through the storm drain in an upstream direction, unless otherwise approved or directed by the City. The maximum rate of travel shall be as follows: ~ MAXIMUM FEET PER MINUTE 36" 48" 30 49" 60" 45 61" up (including RCB) 60 I. During inspection, the monitoring technician shall, in addition to his/her audio and videotape record of conditions, report in writing the location of all: manholes, junction and transition structures, laterals (noting if lateral is shown on the plans), all indicated leaks, infiltration, unusual debris (cam, tires, etc.), ex~ltration, swales, cracks, deflected joints, collapsed sections, deposits and other conditions or data pertinent to the physical condition of the storm drain. Conditions and defects shall be located by footage counter and video clock reference. J. The Contractor shall submit video tapes and written reports summarizing all defects and conditions specified above. The tapes and reports shah be submitted on the Monday of each week for the week completed the previous week. K. All videotapes shall be labeled (on the cassette and also on the cassette storage canon) with the following information: 1. Tape Number, 2. Date of Inspection, 3. Name of Contractor, 4. Pipe Size and Material, 5. Number and Street or Intersection Location of Upstream Access Manhole, 6. Number and Street or Intersection Location of Downstream Access Manhole, and 7. Name of Storm Drain Facility. L. Written reports shall contain all of the following: 1. Date and Time of Inspection, 2. Name of Contractor, 3. Names of Operating Technician/Inspector 4. Pipe Size, Material and Length, 5. Number and Street or Intersection Location of Upstream Access Manhole, 6. Number and Street or Intersection Location of Downstream Access Manhole, 7. Direction of Inspection and Videotaping Tape Number, 8. Observations, Comments, Recommendations and Laterals Not Shown on Plans (undocumented) Referenced to Footage Counter and Video Clock Number, 9. The Condition of All Connections (documented and Undocumented) a. Is it Flushed or Protruding? b. Was Mortar Used? c. Is rebar Showing? 10. Name of Storm Drain Facility, 11. Corresponding Tape Number. M. Whenever defects, laterals or appurtenances are encountered at any point within the inspected storm drain, the Contractor shall stop the camera and rotate or tilt the camera lens (360 degrees maximum) to ensure adequate video coverage. N. The camera shall be stopped and/or backed up to view and analyze conditions that appear unusual or uncommon to a storm drain in good condition. There shall be no loss of video quality at any time. O. As video is being produced, the technician shall provide and record an audio narration of the inspection (on the video tape), to include identification of the storm drain location, identification of starting and terminating access manholes, inspection direction, and complete descriptions of the line condition as they are encountered. The audio portion of the videotape shall be free from electrical interference and background noise. Audio dubbing after the inspection will not be permitted. P. If the camera cannot pass the entire storm drain reach form its starting direction, due to blockage, the reach shall be inspected as far as possible from both directions. The inspection reports for the reach shall include an identification of the location of the blockage. The Contractor shall notify the City staff immediately of any such obstruction so that it may be verified and/or repaired. The Contractor shall coordinate and cooperate 3 with City forces when clearing blockages or making repairs becomes necessary. Q. Videotapes showing debris on the lens, condensation, poor or out of focus images, poor audio, or otherwise poor image quality shall be cause for rejection and will necessitate re-televising at the Contractor's expense. The City reserves the right to reject any videotapes which in its sole judgment is not of acceptable quality. R. Traffic control shall be the responsibility of the Contractor and shall conform to the latest edition of the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH). Contractor shall obtain a traffic control permit. Contact Mr. Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer, at (909) 989-1862 extension 2324. Ill. CONTENTS OF PROPOSAL It is desired that the following be submitted with your proposal: A. A list of recent work of similar type that your company has completed, at least three in the past two years. B. Your proposed schedule indicating days and hours of work and agreement to submit a revised schedule, prior to making any changes. C. A brief description of your procedure to complete the work, containing any suggestions you might have to expedite the work or special concerns that the City should be made aware of. D. List all television equipment to be used in the inspection and video recording including quantity, item description, manufacture, and model number. IV. SAFETY A. The Contractor, and all personnel under his/her responsibility, shall at all times follow the applicable safety codes and regulations of the State Of California, City of Rancho Cucamonga, OSHA, and other applicable authorities. The Contractor shall provide an affidavit stating that he understands and will comply fully with this provision. B. No personnel shall enter a manhole or drain without proper safety equipment and supervision. C. No cable, lighthead, transporter or camera shall be used within a manhole or drain which carries a short circuit voltage potential exceeding 50 volts AC or 100 volts DC. 4 V. OTHER REOUIREMENTS A. The Contractor shall provide the City with a video player and monitor capable of viewing and editing the video tapes submitted. The monitor shall have the following minimum features: a. Be a combination monitor and video recorder b. Have a color 19" diagonal picture tube c. The recorder shall be front loading, VHS format, 8 hour video cassette recorder, d. Be new with manufactures' warranties in effect, supplied with a bill of sale and becomes the property of the City. B. The Contractor shall be responsible for any fees, permits or other requirements of the City's, the County of San Bernardino or the State of California for performing this work in the fight-of-way. C. The Contractor shall submit invoices, for work completed, on a monthly bases. D. The Contractor shall provide a representative who will be responsible for the work in progress and be available during working hours for contact by City staff or to attend periodic meetings. Names and Telephone numbers shall be submitted prior to the start of any work. E. Allow City's representatives access to materials and equipment while work is in progress. F. Review, change and retape any storm drain requested. VI. RIGHT TO REJECT AI~]L PROPOSALS The City of Rancho Cucamonga reserves the fight to reject any or all proposals submitted, and no representation is made hereby that any Notice To Proceed issued pursuant to this request for proposal, or otherwise. All costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal, in the submission of additional information and/or in any other aspect of a proposal prior to issuance of a purchase order will be borne by respondent. All proposals submitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga in response to this Request For Proposal shall become the property of the City. Should your firm be interested in submitting a proposal for this work, the proposal must be received before 6:00p.m. on . Should you require any additional information, please call Dave Blevins or Gary Varney at (909) 989-2813 or Bob Zetterberg (909) 989-1862 ext.2320. William J. O'Neil City Engineer CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: 4, lgg4STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Will jam J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY Linda R. Beak, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FROM FUND 12 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT (TDA) ARTICLE 8 IN AN AMOUNT OF $326,000 AND AN AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION, PHASE I, LOCATED AT NILLIKEN AVENUE AND THE METROLINK RAILWAY, TO RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT OF $3,119,728.70 ($2,836,117.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY), TO BE FUNDED FROM MEASURE I, ACCOUNT NO. 37-4637-9326, STATE RAIL BOND ACT, ACCOUNT NO. 36-4637-9326, AND TDA ARTICLE 8, ACCOUNT NO. 12-4637-9326 RECOI~AEliDATION It is recon~nended that the City Council appropriate $326,000 from Fund 12- TDA Article 8 and accept all bids as submitted and award and authorize for execution, the contract for the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station, Phase I Improvement Project to the lowest responsive bidder, Riverside Construction for the amount of $3,119,728.70 and authorize the Administrative Services Director to expend $3,119,728.70 ($2,836,117.00 pl us 10% contingency), to be funded from Measure I, Account No. 37-4637-9326, State Rail Bond Act, Account No. 36-4637-9326, and TDA Arttcle 8, Account No. 12-4637-9326. BACkGROUND/ANALYSIS Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on April 12, 1994, for the subject project. Riverside Construction is the apparent lowest responsive bidder, with a bid amount of $2,836,117.00 (see attached bid summary}. The Engineer's estimate was $3,000,000.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. Respectfully~ William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:dlw Attachments RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE I MILLIKEN AVENUE AND THE METROLINK RAILWAY FOOTHILL BLVD. (ROUTE 66} m,m ARROW ROUTE S,C.R.R,A. · 'r ~ 0 6th STREET "' NTS LOCATION MAP RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE I SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS PAGE la Engineer's Estimate: $3,035,171.00 DATE: April 12, 1994 Engioeer's Estimate Riverside Const. Co. Martin J. Jaska, Inc. Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Original Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Authorized Prices Bid Prices Bid 1. Clearing and Grabbing i L.S $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $4,282.50 $4,282.50 2. Remove A.C. Pavement 27,161 SF $0.60 $16,296.60 $0.20 $5,432.20 $0.46 $12,445.71 3. Remove P.C.C.C. & G. 463 LF $2.00 $926.00 $3.00 $1,389.00 $7.91 $3,662.2 I 4. Remove P.C.C. Curb 178 LF $2.50 $445.00 $1.00 $178.00 $6.55 $1,165.19 5. Remove P.C.C.D.A. 850 SF $1.00 $850.00 $0.75 $637.50 $1.64 $1,391.03 6. Remove P.C.C,. Sidewalk !,885 SF $1.00 $1,885.00 $0.50 $942.50 ' $1.09 $2,056.54 7. Unclassified Excavation 21,000 CY $2.00 $42,000.00 $1.00 $21,000.00 $3.27 $68,733.00 8. Remove Existing Fence 100 LF $3.00 $300.00 $5.00 $500.00 $3.27 $327.30 9. Remove Exist. Landscape & Irr. I LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $2,727.50 $2,727.50 10. Relocate/Provide/Plant Trees 12 EA $150.00 $1,800.00 $250.00 $3,000.00 $545.50 $6,546.00 11. Crushed Aggr. or Slag Base 2,410 CY $28.00 $67,480.00 $26.00 $62,660.00 $16.09 $38,782.32 12. Sand 105 CY $30.00 $3,150.00 $10.00 $1,050.00 $17.09 $1,794.66 13. A.C. Pavement 4,100 TON $26.00 $106,600.00 $25.00 $102,500.00 $23.96 $98,229.28 14. Adj WV Box & Covet to Glade 2 EA $100.00 $200.00 $100.00 $200.00 $87.28 $174.56 15. Asphalt Seal Coat 110,000 SF $0.05 $5,500.00 $0.30 $33,000.00 $0.07 $7,200.60 16. Adj. Water Meter to Grade I EA $500.00 $500.00 $100.00 $100.00 $327.30 $327.30 17. Adj. Fire Dee. Ch. Vat. to Grade I EA $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $654.60 $654.60 18. Adj. 2" R.P. Bkflow Dev. to Gr. I EA $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $327.30 $327.30 19. Relocate Post Indicator Valve I EA $500.00 $500.00 $550.00 $550.00 $872.80 $872.80 21. PCC W/6' 8 gauge wire Mesh 17,820 SF $5.00 $89,100.00 $5.00 $89,100.00 $5.18 $92,347.70 22. Adj. Sewer Cleanout to Grade I EA $100.00 $100.00 $500.00 $500.00 $218.20 $218.20 23. Catch Basin No. w=7' I EA $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $3,163.90 $3,163.90 24. Catch Basin No. w=14' 4 EA $4,000.00 $16,000.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $3,982.15 $15,928.60 25. Catch Basin No. w=21' I EA $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $100.00 $100.00 $0.00 26. PCC Collar 2 EA $400.00 $800.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $327.30 $654.60 27. PCC Retaining Walls 195 LF $30.00 $5,850.00 $35.00 $6,825.00 $49.10 $9,573.53 28. Manhole No. I 2 EA $3,500.00 $7,000.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $2,727.50 $5,455.00 29. Manhole No. 4 I EA $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,972.98 $2,972.98 30. Sewer Manhole, CBMWD 2 EA $5,000.00 $10,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,773.13 $9,546.25 31. Sewer Manhole. CCWD 4 EA $2,500.00 $10,000.00 $2,250.00 $9,000.00 $1,636.50 $6,546.00 32. ConcPAe Structures, Platform 690 CY $400.00 $276,000.00 $550.00 $379,500.00 $436.40 $301,116.00 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE 1 Page lb Engineer's Estimate Riverside Const. Co. Marlin J. Jaska, Inc. Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Original Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Authorized Prices Bid Prices Bid 33. Junction Stn~cture No. 4 I EA $1,500.00 $1.500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $654.60 $654.60 34. Track Protection Wall 271 LF $40.00 $10.840.00 $20.00 $5,420.00 $65.46 $17,739.66 35. Masonaty Block Wall 400 SF $60.00 $24,000.00 $25.00 $10,000.00 $15.27 $6,109.60 36. Curb Outlets I EA $500.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,727.50 $2,727.50 37. Rolled Curb 10 LF $12.00 $120.00 $10.00 $100.00 $6.55 $65.46 38. 8" PCC Curb & 24" Guiles 4,540 LF $10.00 $45,400.00 $6.00 $27,240.00 $8.18 $37,148.55 39. 6" PCC Dr. Approach 696 SF $4.00 $2,784.00 $2.00 $1,392.00 $2.45 $1,708.51 40. 8" PCC Dr. Approach 296 SF $5.00 $1,480.00 $2.50 $740.00 $2.73 $807.34 41. 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk 7.200 SF $1.75 $12,600.00 $1.50 $10,800.00 $2.13 $15,317.64 42. PCC Wheelchair Ramp ! ,250 SF $2.00 $2,500.00 $2.00 $2,500.00 $2.45 $3,068.44 43. P.C.C. Cross Gutter & Spandrel 245 SF $4.00 $980.00 $2.50 $612.50 $3.27 $801.89 44. 2" PCC Curb only 195 LF $7.00 $1,365.00 $5.50 $1,072.50 $6.55 $1,276.47 45. 6" PCC Crab & 24" Gutter 679 LF $10.00 $6,790.00 $6.50 $4,413.50 $7.91 $5,370.72 46. 6" PCC Curb 3,346 LF $8.00 $26,768.00 $5.50 $18,403.00 $6.55 $21,902.92 47. PCC Hardscape 35,955 SF $7.00 $251,685.00 $4.75 $170,786.25 $4.36 $156,907.62 48. Colored Conc SIruc Platform 6" 15,415 SF $6.00 $92,490.00 $6.20 $95,573.00 $6.76 $104,270.14 49. Colored Cone SItuc Platform 12" 1,020 SF $8.00 $8,160.00 $8.00 $8,160.00 $10.58 $10,794.35 50. 6" PCC Header 692 LF $7.00 $4,844.00 $5.50 $3,806.00 $6.00 $4,152.35 51. PCC Stairs 574 SF $12.00 $6,888.00 $50.00 $28,700.00 $13.09 $7,514.81 52. Eleclric Service Pad 21 SF $4.00 $84.00 $5.00 $105,00 $5.46 $114.56 53. 4" Curb Only !.!65 LF $7.00 $8,155.00 $5.50 $6,407.50 $6.55 $7,626.09 54. 5' x 20' Chain Link Gate Gat~ 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 $654.60 $1.309.20 55. 5' Chain Link Fence 40 LF $15.00 $600.00 $20.00 $800.00 $10.64 $425.49 56. 6' x 16' Chain Link Gate 2 EA $500.00 $1,000.00 $850.00 $1,700.00 $654.63 $1,309.26 57. 6' Chain Link Fence 1.981 LF $13.00 $25,753.00 $10.00 $19,810.00 $8.56 $16,965.98 58. Metal Handrail 516 LF $150.00 $77'400.00 $48.00 $24,768.00 $36.52 $18,843.75 59. Guardrail 400 LF $40.00 $16,000.00 $85.00 $34,000.00 $93.23 $37,290.38 60. Track Separation Fence 393 LF $20.00 $7,860.00 $40.00 $15320.00 $55.38 $21,764.14 6L 18'" Dla. RCP 293 LF $56.00 $16,408.00 $30.00 $8,790.00 $31.64 $9,270.23 62. Rectangular PCC Channel 80 LF $20.00 $1,600.00 $20.00 $1,600.00 $196.38 $15,710A0 63. 24" Dia. RCP 345 LF $60.00 $20,700.00 $25.00 $8,625.00 $36.00 $12,421.04 64. 30" DiameterRCP 340 LF $80.00 $27,200.00 $35.00 $11,900.00 $44.73 $15,208.54 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE l PAGE lc ' Engineer's Estimate Riverside Const. Co. Martin J. Jaska, Inc. Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Original Unit Tntal Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Authorized Prices Bid Prices Bid 65. 48" DiameterCMP 48 LF $110.00 $5,280.00 $45.00 $2,160.00 $69.82 $3,351.55 66. PVC Water Piping 972 LF $10.00 $9,720.00 $13.00 $12,636.00 $10.91 $10,604.52 67. 3/4", 1" & I I/2" SL Water Pipe 765 LF $12.00 $9,180.00 $15.00 $11,475.00 $13.09 $10,015.38 68. 8" CML & W Waterline 480 LF $25.00 $12,000.00 $30.00 $14,400.00 $24.00 $11,520.96 69. 10" CML & W Waterline 1,484 LF $32.00 $47,488.00 $32.00 $47,488.00 $26.73 $39,666.58 70. 16" CML & W Waterline 304 LF $42.00 $12,768.00 $50.00 $15,200.00 $39.28 $11,939.90 71. Fire Hydrant Assembly w/GV 10 EA $2,500.00 $25,000.00 $2,250.00 $22,500.00 $2,509.30 $25,093.00 72. 8' Gate Valve 2 EA $625.00 $1,250.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 $763.70 $1,527A0 73. 10' Gate Valve 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,418.30 $2,836.60 74. 16" Gate Valve 2 EA $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $5,200.00 $10,400.00 $2,618.40 $5,236.80 75. Quick Coupling Valve 9 EA $500.00 $4,500.00 $100.00 $900.00 $109.10 $981.90 76. 2" Blow Off Assembly 2 EA $1,750.00 $3,500.00 $650.00 $1,300.00 $272.75 $545.50 77. ! I/2" Backflow Preventer 2 EA $2,000.00 $4,000.00 $875.00 $1,750.00 $763.70 $1,527A0 78. Fire Detector Check Valve I EA $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,100.00 $8,100.00 $3,682.13 $3,682.13 79. Remove 4" Blow-Off Assembly I EA $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $218.20 $218.20 80. Jack &Bore 8" Casing 209 LF $40.00 $8,360.00 $150.00 $31,350.00 $76.15 $15,916.33 81. 8" VCP Sewer 868 LF $34.00 $29,512.00 $30.00 $26,040.00 $19.66 $17,065.42 82. 6" VCP Sewer 84 LF $40.00 $3,360.00 $22.00 $1,848.00 $17.73 $1,489.22 83. Drinking Fountain Drain 2 EA $200.00 $400.00 $250.00 $500.00 $1,636.50 $3,273.00 84. TemperatyCMPBasin I EA $1,000.00 $1.000.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,581.95 $1,581.95 85. 2" Cometotal Meter Service 2 EA $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $654.60 $1,309.20 86. 4' Blow Off I EA $2,500.00 $2,500.130 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 87. Rectangular Drain Line 126 LF $10.00 $1,260.00 $40.00 $5,040.00 $19.64 $2,474.39 88. Encase Sewer Lateral 70 LF $30.00 $2,100.00 $18.00 $1,260.00 $16+37 $1,145.55 89. T.S. & S.L. @ Milliken & 61h I LS $200,000.00 $200,000.00 $105,000.00 $105,000.00 $123,108.44 $123,108.44 90. T.S. & S.L. @ Milliken & 7th I LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $95,000.00 $95,000.00 $106,094.30 $106,094.30 91. T.S.&S.L.@Milliken&Jetsey I LS $150,000.00 $150,000.00 $105,000.00 $105,000.00 $120,899.17 $120,899.17 92. Irrigation I LS $31,000.00 $31,000.00 $85,000.00 $85,000.00 $63,976.29 $63,976.29 93. Phoenix Canariensis 20" Br. Trunl 8 EA $2,000.00 $16,000.00 $3,500.00 $28,000.00 $3,000.37 $24,002.94 94. Groundcover 1 Gal Container 3,496 EA $4.50 $15,732.00 $4.50 $15,732.00 $4.36 $15,256.54 95. Groundcover from fiats 7,062 SF $0.30 $2,118.60 $0.35 $2,471.70 $0.27 $1,926.16 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE 1 PAGE Id Engineer's Estimate Riverside Const. Co. Martin J. Jaska, Inc. Item !tern Estimated Unit of Unit Original Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices~ Authorized Prices Bid Prices Bid 96. Mulch 27,038 SF $0.10 $2,703.80 $0.50 $13,519.00 $0.22 $5,899.69 97. 5 Gallon Trees 63 EA $25.00 $1,575.00 $30.00 $1,890.00 $27.28 $1,718.33 98. 15 Gallon Trees 50 EA $65.00 $3,250.00 $115.00 $5,750.00 $70.92 $3,545.75 99. 24" Box Trees 77 EA $225.00 $17,325.00 $225.00 $17,325.00 $120.01 $9,240.77 100. 5 Gallon Shrubs 1,192 EA $13.50 $16,092.00 $15.00 $17,880.00 $10.91 $13,004.72 101. 60-Day Maintenance Period I LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,309.20 $1,309.20 102. Soil Prep/Fine Grading 35.538 SF $0.30 $10,661.40 $0.35 $12,438.30 $0.20 $6,978.95 103. Traffic Striping Public Sta~t I LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $5,569.56 $5,569.56 104. Traffic Signs, Public Street ! LS $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $2,516.29 $2,516.29 105. Traffic Striping Pa/king Lot I L$ $3,750.00 $3,750.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $4,445.83 $4,445.83 106. Traffic Signs, Public Sireel I LS $1,000.00 $1,000.00 51,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,727.50 $2,727.50 107. Platform Surface Striping & Mark 1,050 LF $4.00 $4,200.00 $2.00 $2,100.00 $0.31 $321.85 108. Pedestrian Grade Crossing 2 EA $2,400.00 $4,800.00 $4,500.00 $9,000.00 $5,236.36 $10,472.71 109. Tacttic Warning Tile 2130 SF $20.00 $42,600.00 $15.00 $31,950.00 $18.59 $39,602.21 110. Platform Conduit &Wiring Sys. LS $217,300.00 $217,300.00 $85,000.00 $85,000.00 $65,460.00 $65,460.00 111. Parking Lot Lighting System L$ $36,100.00 $36,100.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $159,286.10 $159,286.10 112. Electrical Service L$ $15,700.00 $15,700.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $16365.00 $16,365.00 113. Platform & Plaza Lighting LS $58,200.00 $58,200.00 $215,000.00 $215,000.00 $163,650.00 $163,650.00 114. Canopy Wiring LS $22,700.00 $22,700.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $5,455.00 $5,455.00 115. Connection to Commun. Bldg. L$ $14,350.00 $14,350.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $3,818.50 $3,818.50 116. 6' Atrium Grates 5 EA $300.00 $1,500.00 $50.00 $250.00 $163.65 $818.25 117. Drinking Fountain 2 EA $1,600.00 $3,200.00 $1,750.00 $3,500.00 $2,727.50 $5,455.00 118. Acration well 40 EA $200.00 $8,000.00 $100.00 $4,000.00 $2,727.50 $109,100.00 119. Provide & Install Benches 18 EA $1,100.00 $19,800.00 $1,250.00 $22,500.00 $1,963.83 $35,348.90 120. Provide & Install Trash Re, c,~pt. 12 EA $675.00 $8,100.00 $500.00 $6,000.00 $946.24 $11,354.83 121. Conslruct Main Shgller I LS $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $87,595.30 $87,595.30 122. Construct Small Shelter 4 EA $27.500.00 $110,000.00 $20,000.00 $80,000.00 $24,441.40 $97,765.60 123. Conslruct Bus Shelter I EA $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $5,804.12 $5,804.12 124. Superclcloops I EA $1,300.00 $1,300.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,091.00 $1,091.00 125. Stone Bollard 12 EA $450.00 $5,400.00 $650.00 $7,800.00 $2,182.00 $26,184.00 126. Whoel Stop 246 EA $27.00 $6,642.00 $20.00 $4,920.00 $18.94 $4,659.66 127. Storm Water Pollution Protection I LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $5,455.00 $5,455.00 128. Additional Liability and 2 Flagme~ I LS $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $10,910.00 $10,910.00 129. Storm Drain Energy Dispatcher I LS $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $100.00 $100.00 $10,910.00 $10,910.00 130. Communication Bldg. PCC Pad I LS $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,455.00 $5,455.00 131. Redwood Header 28 LF $2.00 $56.00 $5.00 $140.00 $4.36 $122.19 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE I PAGE ie Engineer's Estimate Riverside Const. Co. Martin J. Jaska, Inc. Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Original Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Authorized Prices Bid Prices Bid 132. Adjust GTE Manhole I EA $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.130 $1,091.00 $1,091.00 133. Headwall Wing Type I EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,500.00 $4,500.00 $2,727.50 $2.727.50 134. Headwall Trash Rack I EA $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,727.50 $2,727.50 135. i/4 Ton Rip Rap 169 SF $29.59 $5,000.00 $5.00 $845.00 $10.91 $1,843.79 136. Field Office I LS $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $1,091.00 $1,091.00 137. I I/2~ SCE $L Light Conduit 3030 LF $0.00 $5.00 $15,150.00 $9.82 $29,751.57 138. SCE 8L Light Pullbox 12 EA $0.00 $150.00 $1,800.00 $103.65 $1,243.74 139. 2--2' GTE Conduit 500 LF $0.00 $6.00 $3,0130.00 $10.91 $5.455.00 140. GTEPullbox 2 EA $0.00 $650.00 $1,300.00 $1.091.00 $2,182.00 141. 4N PVC Sffucture Drain Line 400 LF $0.00 $25.00 $10,000.00 $27.28 $10,910.00 142. Install Aptenia 12' O.C./Milliken I LS $0.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,727.50 $2,727.50 143. Mod. Irrigation on Milliken I LS $0.00 $2.500.00 $2,500.00 $8.728.00 $8,728.00 BID TOTAL $3,041,870.40 $2,834,816.45 $2,895,182.92 BID SUBMH'I'tD $2,836,117.00 $2,934,764.29 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE I PAGE 2a Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. Kruze & Kruze Construction Vance Corporation Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Bid Prices Bid Prices Bid I. Clearing and Grubbing I L.S $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $51,620.75 $51,620.75 $138,287.00 $138,287.00 2. Remove A.C. Pavement 27,161 SF $0.16 $4,345.76 $0.35 $9,506.35 $0.15 $4,074.15 3. Remove P.C.C.C. & O. 463 LF $3.95 $1,828.85 $2.92 $1,351.96 $6.35 $2,940.05 4. Remove P.C.C. Curb 178 LF $3.77 $671.06 $2.92 $519.76 $2.80 $498.40 5. Remove P.C.C.D.A. 850 SF $1.83 $1,555.50 $1.75 $1,487.50 $1.85 $1,572.50 6. Remove P.C.C,. Sidewalk 1,885 SF $0.65 $1,225.25 $1.17 $2,205.45 $1.55 $2,921.75 7. Unclassified Excavation 21,000 CY $4.60 $96,600.00 $2.39 $50,190.00 $3.40 $71,400.00 8. Remove Existing Fence 100 LF $3.93 $393.00 $1.17 $117.00 $5.20 $520.00 9. Remove ExisL Landscape & In'. I LS $1,590.00 $1,590.00 $2,915.60 $2,915.60 $1,415.00 $1,415.00 10. Relocate Exiting Trees 12 EA $270.00 $3,240.00 $233.25 $2,799.00 $260.00 $3,120.00 11. Crashed Aggr. or Slag Base 2,410 CY $30.80 $74,228.00 $22.39 $53,959.90 $25.15 $60,611.50 12. Sand 105 CY $101.00 $10,605.00 $62.20 $6,531.00 $113.00 $11,865.00 13. A.C. Pavement 4.100 TON $23.20 $95,120.00 $31.36 $128,576.00 $26.45 $108,445.00 14. Adj WV Box & Cove~ to Grade 2 EA $183.00 $366.00 $122.11 $244.22 $270.00 $540.00 15. Asphalt Seal Coat 110,000 SF $0.05 $5,940.00 $0.03 $3,300.00 $0.07 $7,700.00 16. Adj. Wal~r Meter to Grade I EA $80.97 $80.97 $348.89 $348.89 $70.00 $70.00 17. Adj. Fire Dot. Ch. Vat. to Grade I EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 $1,453.69 $1,453.69 $1,560.00 $1,560.00 18. Adj. 2" R.P. Blfflow Dev. to Gr. I EA $405.00 $405.00 $436.11 $436.11 $180.00 $180.00 19. Relocate Post lndicator Valve I EA $945.00 $945.00 $1,017.58 $1,017.58 $415.00 $415.00 ~. . . ' -1- E-A $0:00- ®~ ~, ®,, c,n 21. PCC Pavement W/wire Mesh 17,820 SF $6.37 $113,513.40 $4.71 $83,932.20 $6.00 $106,920.00 22. Adj. Sewer Cleanout to Grade I EA $54.00 $54.00 $122. I 1 $122.11 $270.00 $270.00 /3. Catch Basin No. w=7' I EA $2,969.00 $2,969.00 $2,558.50 $2,558.50 $2,875.00 $2,875.00 2,4. Catch Basin No. w=14' 4 EA $4,275.00 $17,100.00 $3,256.27 $13,025.08 $5,910.00 $23,640.00 25. Catch Basin No. w=-21' I EA $5,700.00 $5,700.00 $5,233.29 $5,233.29 $1.00 $1.00 26. PCC Collar 2 EA $390.00 $780.00 $348.89 $697.78 $356.00 $712.00 27. PCC Relalning Walls 195 LF $32.30 $6,298.50 $36.05 $7,029.75 $43.40 $8,463.00 28. Manhole No. 1 2 EA $2,600.00 $5,200.00 $2,558.50 $5, I ! 7.00 $1,870.00 $3,740.00 29. Manhole No. 4 I EA $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $2,907.38 $2,907.38 $4,065.00 $4,065.00 30. Sewer Manhole, CBMWD 2 EA $6,900.00 $13,800.00 $5,233.29 $10,466.58 $4,835.00 $9,670.00 31. Sewer Manhole, CCWD 4 EA $1,700.00 $6,800.00 $1,744.43 $6,977.72 $1,460.00 $5,840.00 32. Concrete Slructares, Platform 690 CY $421.00 $290,490.00 $435.29 $300,350.10 $370.00 $255,300.00 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE 1 PAGE 2b Hillcrest Contracting, Inc. Kruze & Kruze Construction Vance Corporation Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Bid Prices Bid Prices Bid 33. Junction Structure No. 4 I EA $945.00 $945.00 $552.40 $552.40 $800.00 $800.00 34. Track Protection Wall 271 LF $21.30 $5,772.30 $17.44 $4,726.24 $31.00 $8,401.00 35. Masonaty Block Wall 400 SF $17.00 $6,800.00 $18.43 $7,372.00 $21.50 $8,600.00 36. Curb Ou~eB I EA $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $2,325.91 $2,325.91 $1,125.00 $1,125.00 37. Rolled Curb 10 LF $19.00 $190.00 $15.12 $151.20 $10.40 $104.00 ;}8. 8" PCC Curb & 2,4' Gutte~ 4,540 LF $6.70 $30,418.00 $11.89 $53,980.60 $6.85 $31,099.00 39. 6" PCC Dr. Approach 696 SF $2.00 $1,392.00 $3.11 $2,164.56 $2.90 $2,018.40 40. 8' PCC Dr. Approach 296 SF $3.95 $1,169.20 $3.45 $1,021.20 $3.60 $1,065.60 41. 4' P.C.C. Sidewalk 7,200 SF $1.71 $12,312.00 ' $1.87 $13,464.00 $1.95 $14,040.00 42. PCC Wheelchair Ramp 1,250 SF $2.04 $2,550.00 $2.72 $3,400.00 $1.80 $2,250.00 43. P.C.C. CrossGutter&Spandtel 245 SF $4.10 $1,004.50 $4.55 $1,114.75 $4.15 $1,016.75 44. 2" PCC Curb only 195 LF $8.60 $1,677.00 $9.24 $1,801.80 $22.20 $4,329.00 45. 6" PCC Curb & 24' Gutter 679 LF $7.70 $5,228.30 $11.12 $7,550.48 $6.75 $4,583.25 ,16. 6' PCC Curb 3,346 LF $8.30 $27,771.80 $9.24 $30,917.O4 $9.15 $30,615.90 47. PCC Hardscape 35,955 SF $4.49 $161,437.95 $4.19 $150,651.45 $4.75 $170,786.25 48. Colored Conc Siruc Platform 6' 15,415 SF $5.17 $79,695.55 $4.26 $65,667.90 $6.40 $98,656.00 49. Colored Cone Struc Platform 12" 1,020 8F $7.50 $7,650.00 $6.15 $6,273.00 $7.70 $7,854.00 50. 6" PCC Header 692 LF $4.40 $3,044.80 $8.49 $5,875.08 $4.70 $3,252.40 51. PCC Stairs 574 8F $12.80 $7,347.20 $66.34 $38,079.16 $10.25 $5,883.50 52. Electric Service Pad 21 SF $9.10 $191.10 $16.18 $339.78 $26.00 $546.00 53. 4" Curb Only 1,165 LF $11.80 $13,747.00 $9.24 $10,764.60 $13.85 $16,135.25 54. 5' x .20' Chain Link Gate Gate 2 EA $431.00 $862.00 $697.77 $1,395.54 $4 15.00 $830.00 55. 5' Chaln Link Fence 40 LF $8.10 $324.00 $11.34 $453.60 $7.80 $312.00 56. 6' x 16' Chain Link Gate 2 EA $431.00 $862.00 $697.77 $1,395.54 $415.00 $830.00 57. 6' Chain Link Fence 1,981 LF $9.60 $19,017.60 $9.13 $18,086.53 $9.25 $18,324.25 58. Metal Handrail 516 LF $33.50 $17,286.00 $41.08 $21,197.28 $30.70 $15,841.20 59. Guardrail 400 LF $72.00 $28,800.00 $81.77 $32,708.00 $159.00 $63,600.00 60. Track Separation Fence 393 LF $37.50 $14,737.50 $56.11 $22,051.23 $50.00 $19,650.00 61. 18'" Dia. RCP 293 LF $29.00 $8,497.00 $31.51 $9,232.43 $37.75 $11,060.75 62. Rectangular PCC Channel 80 LF $14.70 $ I, ! 76.00 $34.89 $2,791.20 $32.65 $2,612.00 63. 24" Dia. RCP 345 LF $34.00 $11,730.00 $33.92 $11,702.40 $42.40 $14,628.00 64. 30" Diameter RCP 340 LF $34.55 $11,747.00 $37.21 $12,651.40 $47.75 $16,235.00 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE 1 PAGE 2c Hillcrest Contracting, inc. Kruze & Kruze Construction Vance Corporation Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Bid Prices Bid Prices Bid 65. 48" Diameter CMP 48 LF $52.90 $2,539.20 $56.98 $2,735.04 $79.00 $3,792.00 6~. PVC Water Piping 972 LF $6.48 $6,298.56 $8.32 $8,087.04 $6.25 $6,075.00 67. 314", I" & I l,r2* SL Water Pipe 765 LF $7.56 $5,783.40 $12.61 $9,646.65 $7.55 $5,775,75 68. 8" CML & W Waterline 480 LF $22.68 $10,886.40 $48.84 $23,443.20 $26.50 $12,720.00 69. 10" CML & W Waistline 1,484 LF $24.55 $36,432.20 $46.52 $69,035.68 $23.75 $35,245.00 70. 16" CML & W Waterline 304 LF $38.85 $11,810.40 $47.52 $14,446.08 $37.25 $11,324.00 71. Fire Hydrant Assembly w/GV 10 EA $1,800.00 $18,000.00 $2,907.38 $29,073.80 $1,795.00 $17,950.00 72. 8' ~ Valve 2 EA $700.00 $1,400.00 $872.21 $1,744A2 $442.00 $884.00 73. 10' Gate Valve 2 EA $1,620.00 $3,240.00 $2,093.32 $4,186.64 $930,00 $1,860.00 74. 16' GaP' Valve 2 EA $3,350.00 $6,700.00 $5,000.72 $10,001.44 $3,485.00 $6,970.00 75. Quick Coupling Valve 9 EA $215.00 $1,935.00 $174.44 $1,569.96 $198.00 $1,782.00 76. 2" Blow Off Assembly 2 EA $540.00 $1,080.00 $581.48 $1,162.96 $350.00 $700.00 77. I 1/2' Backglow Prevemer 2 EA $540.00 $1.080.00 $872.21 $1,744.42 $650.130 $1,300.00 78. Fire Detector Check Valve I EA $5,398.00 $5,398.00 $9,303.62 $9,303.62 $11,900.00 $11,900.00 79. Remove 4" Blow-Off Assembly I EA $431.00 $43 i .00 $436. I ! $436.11 $225.00 $225.00 80. Jack &Bore 8' Casing 209 LF $80.00 $16,720.00 $15.24 $3,185.16 $41.00 $8,569.00 81. 8' VCP Sewer 868 LF $21.00 $18,228.00 $26.75 $23,219.00 $21.00 $18,228.00 82. 6" VCP Sewer 84 LF $20.50 $1,722.00 $27.91 $2,344.44 $31.00 $2,604.00 83. Drinking Fountain Drain 2 EA $570.00 $1,140.00 $1,889.80 $3,779.60 $365.00 $730.00 84. Temporary CMP Basin I EA $1,620.00 $1,620.00 $1,744.43 $1,744.43 $3,425.00 $3,425.00 85. 2' Comen:ial Mete~ Service 2 EA $755.00 $1,510.00 $697.77 $1,395.54 $390.00 $780.00 86. 4" Blow Off I EA $917.00 $917.00 $1,744.43 $1,744.43 $858.00 $858.00 87. Rectangular Drain Line 126 LF $20.60 $2,595.60 $30.35 $3,824.10 $17.75 $2,236.50 88. Encase Sewet Lateral 70 LF $11.00 $770.00 $23.03 $1,612.10 $16.90 $1,183.00 89. T.S.&S.L.@Milliken&61h I LS $116,424.00 $116,424.00 $142,011.67 $142,011.67 $145,600.00 $145,600.00 90. T.S.&S.L.@Milliken&71h I LS $99,590.00 $99,590.00 $114,603.19 $114,603.19 $112,320.00 $112,320.00 91. T.S. & S.L. @ Milliken & Jersey I LS $114,240.00 $114,240.00 $122,326.36 $122,326.36 $128,440.00 $128,440.00 92. ln-igatiou I LS $83,450.00 $83,450.00 $68,195.56 $68,195.56 $89,815.00 $89,815.00 93. Phoenix Canmiens'is 20" Br. Trunl 8 EA $3,475.00 $27,800.00 $4,186.63 $33,493.04 $3,744.00 $29,952.00 94. Groundcover I Gal Container 3,496 EA $4.69 $16,396.24 $3.49 $12,201.04 $4.70 $16,431.20 95. Groundcover from flats 7,062 SF $0.37 $2,612.94 $0.23 $1,624.26 $0.35 $2,471.70 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE 1 PAGE 2d I!illcrest Contracting, Inc. Kruze & Kruze Const. Vance Corpnration Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Bid Prices Bid Prices Bid 96. Mulch 27,038 SF $0.42 $11,355.96 $0.29 $7,841.02 $0.45 $12,167.10 97. 5GallonTrees 63 EA $31.00 $1,953.00 $29.07 $1,831.41 $37.45 $2,359.35 98. 15GallonTrees 50 EA $115.00 $5,750.00 $75.59 $3,779.50 $115.00 $5350.00 99. 24" Box Trees 77 EA $230.00 $17,710.00 $151.18 $11,640.86 $229.00 $17,633.00 100. 5 Gallon Shrubs 1,192 EA $15.00 $17,880.00 $11.63 $13,862.96 $15.00 $17,880.00 101. 60-Day Maintenance Period I LS $1,670.00 $1,670.00 $5,814.76 $5,814.76 $1,665.00 $1,665.00 102. Soil Prep/Fine Grading 35.538 SF $0.32 $11,372.16 $0.23 $8,173.74 $0.31 $11,016.78 103. Traffic Striping Public Street I LS $3,170.00 $3,170.00 $5,300.74 $5,300.74 $8,165.00 $8,165.00 104. Traffic Signs, Public Slreet I LS $750.00 $750.00 $3,345.82 $3,345.82 $3,830.00 $3,830.00 105. Traffic Striping Parking Lot I LS $4,900.00 $4,900.00 $3,420.24 $3,420.24 $2,665.00 $2,665.00 106. Traffic Signs, Public Street I LS $3,100.00 $3,100.00 $810.58 $810.58 $3,510.00 $3,510.00 107. Platform Surface Striping & Matit 1,050 LF $0.27 $283.50 $0.29 $304.50 $1.85 $1,942.50 108. Pedestrian Grade Crossing 2 EA $4,650.00 $9,300.00 $4,515.75 $9,031.50 $4,324.00 $8,648.00 109. Tactile Warning Tile 2130 SF $15.60 $33,228.00 $18.61 $39,639.30 $22.10 $47,073.00 110. Platform Lighting System LS $94,465.00 $94,465.00 $52,332.88 $52,332.88 $87,500.00 $87,500.00 Ill. Parking Lot Lighting System LS $56,430.00 $56,430.00 $90,710.33 $90,710.33 $55,000.00 $55,000.00 112. Eleclricai Service LS $17,538.00 $17,538.00 $54,658.79 $54,658.79 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 !13. Platform & pla~,a Lighting LS $245,000.00 $245,000.00 $246,546.01 $246,546.01 $150,000.00 $150,000.00 114. Canopy Wiring LS $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $13,955A3 $13,955.43 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 115. Connection toCommun. Bldg. LS $1,750.00 $1,750.00 $3,256.27 $3,256.27 $1,620.00 $1,620.00 116. 6" Atrium Grates 5 EA $1 !.00 $55.00 $250.03 $1,250.15 $23.65 $118.25 117. Drinking Fountain 2 EA $1,619.40 $3,238.80 $2,762.01 $5,524.02 $624.00 $1,248.00 !18. Aeralionwell 40 EA $100.00 $4,000.00 $116.30 $4,652.00 $104.00 $4,160.00 119. Provide &Install Benches 18 EA $1,250.00 $22,500.00 $1,453.69 $26,166A2 $1,318.00 $23,724.00 120. Provide &Install Trash Rcccpt. 12 EA $690.00 $8,280.00 $863.30 $10,359.60 $892.00 $10,704.00 121. Conslruct Main Shelter I LS $153,000.00 $153,000.00 $132,026.55 $132,026.55 $120,000.00 $120,000.00 122. Cons~uct Small Shelter 4 EA $53,400.00 $213,600.00 $25,828.02 $103,312.08 $44,120.00 $176,480.00 123. Construct Bus Shelter I EA $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $19,667.86 $19,667.86 $17,000.00 $17,000.00 124. Supcrclclonps I EA $930.00 $930.00 $1,297.25 $1,297.25 $1,835.00 $1,835.00 125. Stone Bollard 12 EA $530.00 $6,360.00 $482.44 $5,789.28 $645.00 $7,740.00 126. Wheel Stop 246 EA $16.70 $4,108.20 $18.03 $4,435.38 $16.00 $3,936.00 127. Storm Water Pollution Protection ! LS $22,400.00 $22,400.00 $2,907.38 $2,907.38 $9,815.00 $9,815.00 128. Additional Liability and 2 Ragmel I LS $27,500.00 $27,500.00 $58,729.12 $58,729.12 $79,275.00 $79,275.00 129. Storm Drain Energy Dispatcher I LS $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $3,256.27 $3,256.27 $1.00 $1.00 130. Communication Bldg. PCC Pad I LS $1,090.00 $1,090.00 $3,256.27 $3,256.27 $3,120.00 $3,120.00 131. Redwood Header 28 LF $5.40 $151.20 $11.63 $325.64 $5.40 $151.20 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE I PAGE 2e Hillcrest Contracting, inc. Kruze & Kruze Construction Vance Corporation Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Bid Prices Bid Prices Bid 132. Adjust GTE Manhole I EA $1,080.00 $1,080.00 $581.48 $581.48 $1.00 $1.00 133. Headwall Wing Type I EA $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $2,907.38 $2,907.38 $4,055.00 $4,055.00 134. HeadwallTrashRack I EA $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $3,198.12 $3,198.12 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 135. I/4 Ton Rip Rap 169 SF $4.30 $726.70 $8.14 $1,375.66 $5.55 $937.95 136. Field Office I LS $7,700.00 $7,700.00 $24,999.13 $24,999.13 $10,940.00 $10,940.00 137. ! 1/2" SCE SL Light Conduit 3030 LF $4.85 $14,695.50 $5.81 $17,604.30 $4.50 $13,635.00 138. SCE St. Light Pullbox 12 EA $142.00 $1,704.00 $116.30 $1,395.60 $132.00 $1,584.00 139. 2--2" GTE Conduit 500 LF $6.30 $3,150.00 $6.98 $3,490.00 $5.85 $2,925.00 140. GTE Pullbox 2 EA $630.00 $1,260.00 $1,395.54 $2,791.08 $585.00 $1,170.00 141. 4" PVC Structure Drain Line 400 LF $4.80 $1,920.00 $19.70 $7,880.00 $10.00 $4,000.00 142. Install Aptenia 12" O.C./MiHiken I LS $1,050.00 $1,050.00 $1,744.43 $1,744A3 $1,040.00 $1,040.00 143. Mod. Irrigation on Milliken I LS $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $2,325.91 $2,325.91 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 BID TOTAL $3,053A02.05 $3.052,282.53 $3,073,282.13 BID SUBM!'I'I'ED $3,052,683.95 $3,065,513.29 RANCHO CUCAMONGA ]TATION PHASE 1 PAGE 3a Silvia Construction, Inc. FFR International, Inc. Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Tolal Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Bid Prices Bid 1. Clearing and Grubbing I L.S $63,000.00 $63,000.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 2. Remove A.C. Pavement 27,161 SF $0.11 $2,960.55 $0.25 $6,790.25 3. Remove P.C.C.C. & G. 463 LF $6.20 $2,870.60 $2.00 $926.00 4. Remove P.C.C. Curb 178 LF $6.97 $1,240.66 $2.00 $356.00 5. Remove P.C.C.D.A. 850 SF $1.73 $1,470.50 $2.00 $1,700.00 6. Remove P.C.C,. Sidewalk !,885 SF $0.92 $1,734.20 $2.00 $3,770.00 7. Unclassi~ed Excavation 21,000 CY $2.60 $54,600.00 $3.00 $63,000.00 8. Remove Existing Fence 100 LF $10.60 $1,060.00 $5.00 $500.00 9. Remove Exist. Landscape & !rr. I LS $3,080.00 $3,080.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 10. Relocate Exiting Trees 12 EA $223.00 $2,676.00 $2,000.00 $24,000.00 II. Crashed Aggr. or Slag Base 2,410 CY $16.70 $40,247.00 $15.00 $36,150.00 12. Sand 105 CY $103.00 $10,815.00 $25.00 $2,625.00 13. A.C. Pavement 4,100 TON $23.40 $95,940.00 $25.00 $102,500.00 14. Adj WV Box & Covet to Grade 2 EA $85.00 $170.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 15. Asphalt Seal Coat 110,000 SF $0.07 $7,590.00 $0.10 $11,000.00 16. Adj. Water Meter to Grade I EA $320.00 $320.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 17. Adj. Fire Dee. Ch. Vat. to Grade I EA $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 18. Adj. 2" R.P. Bkfiow Dev. to Gr. I EA $690.00 $690.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 19. Relocate Post Indicator Valve ! EA $850.00 $850.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 21. PCC Pavement W/wire Mesh 17,820 SF $5.40 $96,228.00 $5.00 $89,100.00 22. Adj. Sewer Cleanout to Grade I EA $425.00 $425.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 23. Catch Basin No. w=-7' I EA $2,970.00 $2,970.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 2.4. Catch Basin No. w=-14' 4 EA $3,500.00 $14,000.00 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 25. Catch Basin No. w=21' I EA $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 26. PCC Collar 2 EA $320.00 $640.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 27. PCC Retaining Walls 195 LF $79.50 $15,502.50 $100.00 $19,500.00 ?.8. Manhole No. I 2 EA $69.00 $138.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 29. Manhole No. 4 I EA $2,340.00 $2,340.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 30. Sewer Manhole, CBMNVD 2 EA $1,910.00 $3,820.00 $6,000.00 $12,000.00 31. Sewer Manhole, CCWD 4 EA $2,120.00 $8,480.00 $2,000.00 $8,000.00 32. Concrete Structures, Platform 690 CY $400.00 $276,000.00 $400.00 $276,000.00 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE I PAGE 3b Silvia Construction, Inc. FFR lnternatinnal, Inc. Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Bid Prices Bid 33. Junction Structure No. 4 I EA $540.00 $540.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 34. Track Protection Wall 271 LF $55.50 $15,040.50 $50.00 $13,550.00 35. Masonaty Block Wall 400 SF $16.80 $6,720.00 $16.00 $6,400.00 36. Curb Outlets I EA $3,080.00 $3,080.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 37. Rolled Curb 10 LF 41.00 $410.00 $30.00 $300.00 38. 8" PCC Curb & 24" Gutter 4,540 LF ;7.05 $32,007.00 $13.00 $59,020.00 39. 6" PCC Dr. Approach 696 SF g2.82 $1,962.72 $5.00 $3,480.00 40. 8" PCC l)t. Approach 296 SF ;3.30 $976.80 $5.00 $1,480.00 41. 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk 7,200 SF ;!.84 $13,248.00 $2.50 $18,000.00 42. PCC Wheelchair Ramp 1,250 SF ;4.30 $5,375.00 $4.00 $5,000.00 43. P.C.C. Cross Gutter & Spandrel 245 SF ;7.00 $1,715.00 $5.00 $1,225.00 44. 2" PCC Curb only 195 LF 19.70 $3,841.50 $10.00 $1,950.00 45. 6" PCC Curb & 24" Gutter 679 LF 10.70 $7,265.30 $15.00 $10,185.00 46. 6" PCC Curb 3,346 LF ;6.40 $21,414.40 $10.00 $33,460.00 47. · PCC Hatdscape 35,955 SF ;4.70 $168,988.50 $6.00 $215,730.00 48. Colored Cone Struc Platform 6" 15,415 SF ;7.05 $108,675.75 $6.80 $104,822.00 49. Colored Cone Sttuc Platform 12" 1,020 SF I 1.00 $11,220.00 $10.00 $10,200.00 S0. 6" PCC Header 692 LF ;9.70 $6,712.40 $10.00 $6,920.00 51. PCC Stairs 574 SF 31.30 $17,966.20 $10.00 $5,740.00 52. Electric Service Pad 21 SF 53.00 $1,113.00 $10.00 $210.00 53. 4" Curb Only 1,165 LF 13.40 $15,61 !.00 $10.00 $1 !,650.00 54. 5' x 20' Chain Link Gate Gate 2 EA $1,040.00 $2,080.00 $500.00 $ ! ,000.00 55. 5' Chain Link Fence 40 LF $19.10 $764.00 $10.00 $400.00 56. 6' x 16' Chain Link Gale 2 EA $1,040.00 $2,080.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $'7. 6' Chain Link Fence 1,981 LF $8.50 $16,838.50 $10.00 $19,810.00 58. Metal Handrail 516 LF $34.00 $17,544.00 $40.00 $20,640.00 59. Guardrail 400 LF $99.00 $39,600.00 $90.00 $36,000.00 60. Track Sel~ration Fence 393 LF $39.30 $15,444.90 $50.00 $19,650.00 61. 18'" Din. RCP 293 LF $36.00 $10,548.00 $37.00 $10,841.00 62. Rectangular PCC Channel 80 LF $25.20 $2,016.00 $60.00 $4,800.00 63. 24" Dia. RCP 345 LF $45.30 $15,628.50 $40.00 $13,800.00 64. 30" Diameler RCP 340 LF $54.00 $18,360.00 $45.00 $15,300.00 RANCHO CUCAMONGA STATION PHASE I PAGE 3c Silvia Construction, Inc. FTR International, Inc. Item !lem Estimated Unit of Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Pcices Bid Prices Bid 65. 48" DiameterCMP 48 LF $102.00 $4,896.00 $62.00 $2,976.00 66. PVC Water Piping 972 LF $11.70 $11,372.40 $11.00 $10,692.00 67. 3/4", !' & ! I/2' SL Water PiFe 765 LF $13.80 $10,557.00 $15.00 $11,475.00 61 8" CML & W Waterline 480 LF $23.40 $11,232.00 $50.00 $24,000.00 69. 10" CML & W Waterline 1,484 LF $26.00 $38,584.00 $45.00 $66,780.00 70. 16" CML & W Wate~ine 304 LF $38.20 $11,612.80 $40.00 $12,160.00 71. File Hydnmt Assembly w/GV 10 EA $2,440.00 $24,400.00 $3,000.00 $30,000.00 72. 8" Gate Valve 2 EA $740.00 $1,480.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 73. 10" Gate Valve 2 EA $1,380.00 $2,760.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00 74. 16" Gate Valve 2 EA $2,550.00 $5,100.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 75. Quick Coupling Valve 9 EA $127.00 $1,143.00 $200.00 $1,800.00 76. 2' Blow Off Assembly 2 EA $425.00 $850.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 77. I I/2" Backflow Preventer 2 EA $740.00 $1,480.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 78. Fire Detector Check Valve I EA $6,900.00 $6,900.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 79. Remove 4' Blow-Off Assembly I EA $212.00 $212.00 $600.00 $600.00 80. Jack &Bore 8" Casing 209 LF $74.00 $15,466.00 $80.00 $16,720.00 81. 8' VCP Sewer 868 LF $27.60 $23,956.80 $30.00 $26,040.00 82. 6' VCP Sewer 84 LF $25.50 $2,142.00 $30.00 $2,520.00 8,3. Drinking Fountain Drain 2 EA $320.00 $640.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 84. Temlxxary CMP Basin I EA $1,660.00 $1,660.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 85. 2" Cometcial Mete~ Service 2 EA $640.00 $1,280.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 86. 4" Blow Off I EA $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 87. Rectangular Drain Line 126 LF $50.00 $6,300.00 $20.00 $2,520.00 88. En(x~ Sewn' Lateral 70 LF $24.40 $1308.00 $25.00 $1,750.00 89. T.S.&S.L.@Milliken&6th I LS $114,000.00 $114.000.00 $130,000.00 $130,000.00 9~. T.S. & S.L. @ Milliken & 7th I LS $98,000.00 $98,000.00 $105,000.00 $105,000.00 91. T.S. & S.L. @ Milliken & Jersey I LS $112,000.00 $112,000.00 $120,000.00 $120,000.00 92. Inigadon ! LS $75,000.00 $75,000.00 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 93. Phoenix Cana~easis 20" Br. Trunl 8 EA $4,900.00 $39,200.00 $5,000.00 $40,000.00 94. Cd'oundcovn. I Gal Container 3,496 EA $5.00 $17,480.00 $4.00 $13,984.00 95. Groundcovet from fiats 7,062 SF $0.32 $2,259.84 $1.00 $7,062.00 RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION PHASE I PAGE 3d Silvia Construction, Inc. FTR International, Inc. Item !tern Estimated Unit of Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Bid Prices Bid 96. Mulch 27,038 SF $0.30 $8,057.32 $0.10 $2,703.80 97. 5 Gallon Trees 63 EA $29.70 $1.871.10 $20.00 $1,260.00 98. 15 Gallon Trees 50 EA $98.00 $4,900.00 $50.00 $2,500.00 99. 24" Box Trees 77 EA $223.00 $17,171.00 $100.00 $7,700.00 100. 5 C_mllon Shrubs 1,192 EA $15.10 $17,999.20 $10.00 $11,920.00 101. 60-Day Maintenance Period ! LS $1,600.00 $1,6130.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 102. Soil Prep/Fine Grading 35,538 SF $0.22 $7,924.97 $0.20 $7,107.60 103. Traffic Striping Public Street I LS $5,300.00 $5,300.130 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 104. Tmllic Signs, Public Street I LS $3,200.00 $3,2130.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 105. Traffic Suiping Parking Lot I LS $2,120.00 $2,120.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 106. Traffic Signs, Public Street I LS $ 1,270.00 $1,270.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 107, Platform Surface Striping & Mark 1,050 LF $0.53 $556.50 $1,000.00 $1,050,000.00 108. Pedestrian Grade Crossing 2 EA $6,000.00 $12,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 109. Tactile Warning Tile 2130 $F $19.50 $41,535.00 $25.00 $53,250.00 110. Platform Lighting System LS $93,000.00 $93,000.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 111. Parking Lot Lighting System LS $58,600.00 $58,600.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 112. Elccltical Service LS $17,200.00 $17,200.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 113. Platform &PLaza Lighting L$ $241,000.00 $241,000.00 $225,000.00 $225,000.00 114. Canopy Wiring LS $16,700.00 $16,700.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 115. Connection to Common. Bldg. LS $1,720.00 $1,720.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 ! 16. 6" Attire Grates 5 EA $530.00 $2,650.00 $200.00 $ 1,000.00 !17. Drinking Fountain 2 EA $1,920.00 $3,840.00 $3,000.00 $0,000.00 118. Aemtion well 40 EA $90.00 $3,600.00 $200.00 $8,000.00 119. Provide &Install Benches 18 EA $1,600.00 $28,800.00 $1,000.00 $18,000.00 120. Provide &Install Trash Recept. 12 EA $810.00 $9,720.00 $800.130 $9,600.00 121. Construct Main Shelter I LS $195,000.00 $195,000.00 $85,000.00 $85,000.00 122. Construct Small Shelter 4 EA $73,400.130 $293,600.00 $25,000.00 $100,000.00 123. Construct Bus Shelter I EA $21,200.00 $21,200.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 124. Supemlcloops I EA $2,750.00 $2,750.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 125. Stone Bollard 12 EA $706.00 $8,472.00 $500.00 $6,000.00 126. Wheel Stop 246 EA $10.60 $2,607.60 $25.00 $6,150.00 127, Storm Walcr Pollution Protection I LS $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 128. Additional Liability and 2 Flagmel I LS $59,000.00 $59,000.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00 129. Storm Drain Energy Dispatcher I LS $3,640.00 $3,640.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 130, Communication Bldg. PCC Pad I LS $3,180.00 $3,180.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 131. Redwood Header 28 LF $22.50 '$630.00 $10.00 $280.00 RANCHO CUCAMONGA~[]I}TROL1NK STATION PHASE I PAGE 3e Silvia Construction, Inc. FTR International, inc. Item Item Estimated Unit of Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Quantity Measure Prices Bid Prices Bid 132. Adjust GTE Manhole I EA $644.00 $644.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 133. Headwall Wing Type ! EA $2,970.00 $2,970.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 134. HeadwitH Trash Rack I EA $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 135. I/4 Ton Rip Rap 169 SF $21.20 $3,582.80 $20.00 $3,380.00 136. Field Office I LS $51,300.00 $51,300.00 $200,000.00 $200,000.00 137. I I/2" SCE St Light Conduit 3030 LF $4.80 $14,544.00 $5.00 $15,150.00 138. SCE St. Light Pullbox 12 EA $140.00 $1,680.00 $200.00 $2,400.00 139. 2--2" GTE Conduit 500 LF $6.20 $3,100.00 $10.00 $5,000.00 140. GTE Pullbox 2 EA $620.00 $ i ,240.00 $700.00 $ 1,400.00 141. 4" PVC S~'ucture Drain Line 400 LF $19.60 $7,840.00 $10.00 $4,000.00 142. Install Aptenia 12" O.C./Milliken I LS $800.00 $800.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 143. Mnd. Irrigation on Milliken I LS $2,820.00 $2,820.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 BID TOTAL $0.00 $3,244,752.32 $4,537,460.65 BID SUBMITTED $3,243,792.32 $3,768~580.00 CITY OFRANCHOCUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Robert C. Dominguez Administrative Services Director BY: Brigit K. Tate~ Risk Management Analyst SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION FROM COUNCIL ALLOW MAYOR TO ADOPT AND SIGN THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO ACCEPT PUBLIC RISK SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA AS OUR SELF INSURED POOL AND AUTHORIZE ALL THE GOVERNING DOCUMENTS FOR PARTICIPATION IN THE SELF INSURANCE PROGRAMS. RECOMMENDATION Adopt and authorize Mayor to sign a resolution approving CitV's joint power agreement creating Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC) formerly California Municipal Insurance Authoritv (CMIA) and sign all the governing documents for the participation in the self insurance programs. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Board of Directors from the self insured pool adopted a name change from California Municipal Insurance Authority (CMIA) to Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California (FARSAC). There are no other changes in the conduct, types of coverage, amounts of coverage or premium fees due from the City. The resolution and governing documents recommended for authorization are required to reflect a name change only. The City has been a member of the JPA since July 1, 1986, and has found the organization responsive and committed to protecting the City's interest. Staff would recommend concurrence in the name change.. Respectfully submitted, RCD/BKT Attachments A RESOLUTION OF THE ~l'l'f CCK/4CIL OF THE ul'l~ OF RAN(~O ~, CALIFORNIA, APE THE REVISED AND ~'~u JOINT POWERS ~k~q~T ¢~3~TING THE PUBLIC AGenCY RISK SHAR~G AUTHORn~ OF CA~FOm~A (PARSAC) WHerEAS, the City of Rancho Olcamonga is a Member Entity of the California Municipal Insurance Authority ("(MIA"), a joint powers agcnc~ providing risk management services, claims pcolir~ and joint insurance purchase benefits to its member entities; and M{~REAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga apFroved the Revised and Resta~ Joint Powers Ac3reement Creating tb~ California Municipal Insurance Authcarity, dated July 1, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Executive C~uL, jttee and Board of Directors of (MIA have elec~ to change the name of the entity to the Public k3ency Risk S~aring Authority of California (PARSAC) and such name change makes it necessary to correct the present Joint Powers Ac3reement to incorporate this change of name; W~I~EAS, upon rec~u,endation of its Executive C~uL~ttee, the Board of Directors of ¢MIA on November 19, 1993 approved the Revised and Restat~ Joint Powers Agreement and recc~uLended to all Member Entities that they approve it as well; and WHEREAS, Article XXIX of the Joint Powers Agreement provides that the Agreement may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the Board; and WHEREAS, notice of the proposed amentnent was mailed to all Member Entities on October 15, 1993 providing at least thirty (30) days notice of the proposed amerdment; and WHerEAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonta has reviewed the materials provided by PARSAC on the Revised and Restate_ Joint Powers A~reement and the s~ary of changes thereto; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga that the Revised and Resta~ Joint Powers Agreement Creating the Public Agency R~ ~k Sharing Authority of California (PARSAC) dated November 19, 1993 be and is hereby approved and adopted. 49-/ REVISED AND RESTATED JOINT POWERS AGRF, EMENT CREATING PARSAC Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California November 19, 1993 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS ............................................................2 ARTICLE I~ PARTIES TO AGREEMENT ........................................... 4 ARTICLE III PURPOSES ................................................................5 ARTICLE IV CREATION OF THE PUBLIC AGENCY RISK SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA ...................................... 5 ARTICLE V TERM OF AGREEMENT ............................................... 6 ARTICLE VI POWERS OF PARSAC .................................................. 6 ARTICLE VII RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBER ENTITIES ..................... 7 ARTICLE VIII BOARD OF DIRECTORS ............................................... 8 ARTICLE IX OFFICERS ................. : ...............................................11 ARTICLE X EXECUTIVE COMMH-r~zE ............................................ 11 ARTICLE XI ADMINISTRATION ..................................................... 12 ARTICLE XII BUDGET ..................................... ...............................12 ARTICLE XIII ANNUAL AUDITS AND REVIEWS ................................. 12 ARTICLE XIV ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDS ..... 13 ARTICLE XV SUPPORT OF PARSAC'S GENERAL EXPENSES ................ 15 ARTICLE XVI DEPOSIT PRE1V~IrMS .................................................. 15 ARTICLE XVII LIABILITY PROGRAM ................................................. 15 ARTICLE XVIII MEMORANDUM OF COVERAGE FOR THE LIABILITY PROGRAM ................................... 16 ARTICLE XIX S.I.R. MANDATORY RESERVE ..................................... 16 ARTICLE XX RETROSPECTIVE PREMIUM ADJUSTMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS ............................. 16 ARTICLE XXI PROGRAMS ...............................................................16 ARTICLE XXII NEW MEMBERS ......................................................... 17 ARTICLE XXIII WITHDRAWAL .......................................................... 17 ARTICLE XXIV EXPULSION ..............................................................18 ARTICLE XXV EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OR EXPULSION ON MEMBER ENTITY 'S RF. SPONSIBILITIES .................... 20 ARTICLE XXVI TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS ................................... 21 ARTICLE ~XVII NOTICES ..................................................................22 ARTICLE XXVIII PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENT .......................... 22 ARTICLE XXIX AMENDMENTS .......................................................... 22 ARTICLE XXX SEVERABILITY ..........................................................23 ARTICLE XXXI AGREEMENT COMPLETE ............................................ 23 ARTICLE XXX'II FILING WITH SECRETARY OF STATE ........................... 24 APPENDIX "Au LIST OF MEMBER ENTITIES ........................................ 25 -ii- 52 PUBLIC AGENCY RISK SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA [PARSAC] JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made in the State of California by and among those municipalities organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as "Member Eatity[ies]," which are parties signatory to this Agreement. All such Member Entitles are listed in Appendix "A," which is attached hereto and made a part hereof. RECITALS A. California Government Code Section 6500 and following permits two or more public agencies by agreement to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties. B. California Government Code Section 900.4 permits a local public entity to self- insure, purchase insurance through an authorized carrier, or purchase insurance through a surplus line broker, or any combination of these; and C. California Government Code Section 990.6 provides that the cost of insurance provided by a local public entity is a proper charge against that local public entity. D. California Government Code Section 990.8 permits two or more local entities to, by a joint powers agreement, provide insurance for any purpose by any one or more of the methods specified in Government Code Section 990.4 and provides that such pooling of self- insured claims or losses does not constitute the business of insurance under the California Insurance Code. E. Labor Code Section 3700[c] permits all political subdivisions of this State, including each member of a pooling arrangement under a joint exercise of powers agreement, to request a certificate of consent from the Division of Industrial Welfare to self-insure against worker compensation claims. F. Each of the Member Entities which is a party to this Agreement desires to join with the other Member Entities to fund programs of insurance for workers' compensation, liability, property and other coverages to be determined and for other purposes set forth in Article III of this Agreement. G. The governing body of each Member Entity has determined that it is in its own best interest and in the public interest that this Agreement be executed and that it participate as a member of the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California [PARSAC] created by this Agreemint. H. As of the effective date of this Agreement, this Agreement shall replace and supersede the Joint Powers Agreement Creating the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California, dated May 21, 1986, as amended on November 20, 1987, July 1, 1989, and November 19, 1993. Now, therefore, in consideration of the above facts and the mutual benefits, promises and agreements set forth below, the Member Entities hereby agree as follows: AGREEMENT ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS The following terms shall have the following definitions: A. "A~,reement" shall mean this Revised and Restated Joint Powers Agreement Creating the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California [PARSAC]. B. "Board" or 'iBoard of Directors" shall mean the governing body of PARSAC. C. "Bylaws" shall mean the Bylaws of PARSAC, revised as of November 19, 1993, and as they may be further amended or revised. D. "Claims" shall mean any demand[s] made against a Member Entity to recover for monetary damages within, or alleged to be within, the scope of coverage provided by any of PARSAC's Memorandums of Coverage [or any commercial insurance policy related to a PARSAC Program]. E. "PARSAC" shall mean the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California created by this Agreement. F. "Covered Layer" shall mean a Program's layer[s] of coverage in exchange for which a Member Entity pays a Deposit Premium. G. "Covered Loss" shall mean any loss resulting from a claim or claims against a Member Enti'ty which is in excess of its Self-Insured Retention and which is covered by any of PARSACs Memorandums of Coverage [or insurance policy related to a PARSAC Program]. H. "Deposit Premium" shall mean the estimated amount determined for each Member Entity necessary to fund each layer of coverage for each Policy Year of each Program of PARSAC; I. "Executive Commlttee" shall mean that committee of the Board, constituted and exercising the authority set forth in this Agreement and in the Bylaws. J. "Fiscal Year" shall'mean the period of time ending on June 30 of each year during which PARSAC is in existence. K. "Incurred Loss" shall mean the amount of monies paid and reserved by PARSAC to investigate, defend and satisfy a demand or demands made against a Member Entity. L. "Insurance" shall mean commercial insurance policies which PARSAC may purchase for its Member Entities, from time to time, in order to effect a transfer of risk. The term "Insurance" shall not mean any self-insurance, risk-sharing or pooling of losses or risks. M. "Member Entity" shall mean any California municipality which is a party signatory to this Agreement, including any other agency for which the City Council sits as the Governing board. N. "Memorandum of Coverage" shall mean the document or documents issued by PARSAC specifying the type and amount of coverages provided under any Program to the Member Entities by PARSAC. O. "Municioalitv" shall mean an incorporated General Law City, defined by California Government Code Section 34102, or a Charter City, defined by California Government Code Section 34101. P. "Particination Agreement" shall mean a written agreement between PARSAC and the Member Entities which participate in one of PARSAC's Programs, which Participation Agreement shall incorporate this agreement by reference. Q. "Policy Year" shall mean a period of time, usually 12 months, for which each Program is to determine Deposit Premiums, Retrospective Premiums, and Retrospective Premium Adjustments. R. "Program" shall mean arrangements to cover specific types of claims which may include, but not be limited to, property, workers' compensation, and comprehensive liability claims. S. "Retrosnective Premium" shall mean, the amount determined retrospectively as each Member Entity's share of losses, reserves, expenses and interest income as may be determined periodically for any Program. T. "Retrosoeetive Premium Adjustment" shall mean the amount necessary to periodically adjust the Deposit Premium, or prior Retrospective Premiums if any, to the newly calculated Retrospective Premium amount. U. "Self-Insured RetentiOn" or "SIR" shall mean the amount of loss from each occurrence Which the Member Entity shall retain and pay directly and which shall not be shared by the Member Entities of PARSAC. ARTICLE II PARTIES TO AGREEMENT Each Member Entity is a party to this Agreement and agrees that it intends to, and does contract with, all other parties who are signatories of this Agreement and with such other parties as may later be added as parties to this Agreement pursuant to Article XXiI. Each Member Entity also agrees that the expulsion or withdrawal of any Member Entity from this Agreement, pursuant to Article XXIV or XXIII, shall not affect this Agreement nor the remaining parries as to the other Member Entities then remaining. ARTICLE III PURPOSES This Agreement is entered into by the Member Entities in order to: A. Create the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California to carry out the purposes listed below and to exercise the powers contained in this Agreement; B. Develop effective risk management programs to reduce the amount and frequency of their losses; C. Share some portion, or all, of the cost of their losses; D. Jointly purchase commercial insurance, associate with other insurance pools, or self-insure against risks; E. Jointly purchase administrative and other services including but not limited to underwriting, risk management, loss prevention, claims adjusting, data processing, brokerage, accounting and legal services when related to any of the other purposes; F. Provide other joint powers insurance authorities with risk management and related services; and G. Do all things necessary to carry out the foregoing purposes, as well as all things necessary to implement the terms of this Agreement as permitted by law. ARTICLE IV CREATION OF THE PUBLIC AGENCY RISK SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA Pursuant to Article 1 [commencing with Section 6500] of Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title I of the California Government Code, the Member Entities hereby create a public entity, separate and apart from the parties to this Agreement, to be know as the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California ["PARSAC"]. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6508.1, the debts, liabilities or obligations of PARSAC shall not constitute debts, liabilities or obligations of any party to this Agreement. However, a Member Entity may separately contract for or assume responsibility for, specific debts, liabilities or obligations of PARSAC. 57 -5- ARTICLE V TERM OF AGREEMENT This Agreement shall become effective as of the date hereof and shall continue in full force and effect until terminated in accordance with Article XXVI. ARTICLE VI POWERS OF PARSAC PARSAC shall have the powers common to its Member Entities in California and all additional powers permitted to a joint powers authority by California law, and the parties hereby authorize PARSAC to do all acts necessary to exercise such powers to fulfill the purposes of this Agreement referred to in Article III, including, but not limited to, the following: A. Make and enter into contracts; B. Incur debts, liabilities and obligations; C. Acquire, hold, lease or dispose of real and personal property, contributions and donations of property, funds, services and other forms of assistance; D. Sue and be sued in its own name and settle any claim against it; E. Employ agents and employees; F. Acquire, construct, manage, maintain or operate buildings, works or improvements; G. Receive, collect, and disburse monies; and invest its money not required for its immediate necessities, in compliance with Government Code Section 53601; and H. Exercise all powers necessary and proper to carry out the terms and provisions of this Agreement. These powers shall be exercised in the manner provided by applicable law and as set forth in this Agreement. ARTICLE VH RESPONSIBILITIES OF MEMBER ENTITIES Each Member Entity shall comply with the following responsibilities: A. "To sign this Agreement and participate in PARSAC's Liability Program; B. To sign a Membership Resolution and Participation Agreement for each Program; C. To pay Deposit Premiums, Retrospective Premium Adjustments, and any Special Assessments to PARSAC on or before the due date; D. To appoint, elect or remove representatives to serve as director and alternate on the Board as set forth in Article VIII and the Bylaws, which representatives shall act on behalf of the Member Entity on all matters coming before the Board; E. To assure that its representative director or alternate attends at least the annual meeting of the Board; F. To assure that its representative director and alternate keep informed about PARSAC's activities and to assist them in doing so; G. To approve amendments to this Agreement as set forth in Article XXIX; H. To file, in a prompt and timely manner, all statewide, county, and locally- mandated reports and filings, including but not limited to the Fair Political Practices Commission's Statement of Economic Disclosure and the Secretary of State's Public Agency Roster Statement of Facts; I. To undertake an annual risk management audit of its facilities and activities, conducted by a person and/or fn'm approved by PARSACs Executive Committee, and, based upon such audit report, to evidence correction, elimination and/or clarification of all noted deficiencies or audit recommended corrections to the satisfaction of PARSAC's Executive Committee. Risk management audits may be required by the Executive Committee more frequently than annually. Risk management audits may be paid by PARSAC and charged back to Member Entities as pan of the Retrospective Premium Adjustment; J. To provide PARSAC with a copy of its most recent audited annual financial statements prepared by a Certified Public Accountant; or, if not available, provide PARSAC with the most recent set of monthly financial statements [which have not been audited]; and provide any o~her financial material as may be requested by PARSAC from time to time; K. To cooperate with, communicate and assist, in a timely manner, PARSAC and any insurer, claims adjuster, legal counsel or other service-provider engaged or retained by PARSAC in all matters relating to this Agreement; L. To promptly cooperate with PARSAC to determine and/or clarify any incidents which might become losses, the cause of any and all actual losses, and methods to bring about settlement of claims; and M. To comply with its obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement, the Bylaws, the Memorandum of Coverage, the Risk Management Standards, PARSACs policies and procedures, and any other contract or requirement [as any of the foregoing may be created or amended] necessary to implement this Agreement or any Program in which the Member Entity participates. ARTICLE VHI BOARD OF DIRECTORS Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement or in the Bylaws, the powers of PARSAC shall be exercised, its property shall be controlled, and its affairs shall be conducted by its Board of Directors, whose meetings, functions and activities shall be governed by the Bylaws. The Board shah be composed of one director who represents and acts on behalf of each respective Member Entity which participates in PARSACs Liability Program. The number of persons on the Board shah be equal to the number of Member Entities which participate in the Liability Program. In addition, each Member Entity shah appoint a second individual, as alternate director, who shall have the authority to attend, participate in, and vote at any meeting of the Board when the respective director is absent. Each director and alternate director shall be an elected official or employee of the respective Member Entity, shall be appointed by the respective Member Entity's governing body, and shall serve at its pleasure. If a director ~r alternate ceases to be an employee or elected official of a Member Entity for any reason, his or her position on the Board and any of its committees shall immediately terminate. The Board of Directors shall have the following powers and functions: A. The Board shall exercise all powers and conduct all business of PARSAC, either directly or by delegation of authority to other bodies or persons pursuant to this Agreement and applicable law. B. The Board shall form an Executive Committee from its membership. In the Bylaws the Board shall delegate to that Committee such powers as it sees fit. C. The Board may form such other committees as it deems appropriate in conducting PARSAC's business. D. The Board shall elect PARSAC's officers. E. The Board shall cause to be prepared and adopt PARSAC's annual operating budget. F. The Board shall develop, or cause to be developed, and shall review, modify as necessary, and adopt each of PARSAC's Programs, including all provisions for reinsurance and administrative services necessary to carry out such Program. G. The Board shall contract or otherwise provide for necessary services to PARSAC and to Member Entities. These necessary services may include, but shall not be limited to, risk management consulting, loss prevention and control, centralized loss reporting, aetuarial consulting, claims adjusting, and legal defense services. H. The Board, either directly or through the Executive Committee, shall provide general supervision and policy direction to PARSAC's General Manager. -9- 61 I. The Board shall receive and act upon reports of its committees and the General Manager, either directly or through the Executive Committee. J. The Board shall establish monetary limits upon any delegation of the claims payment and Settlement authority, beyond which a proposed settlement must be referred to the Board for approval. K. The Board may require that PARSAC review, audit, report upon, and make recommendations with regard to the safety or claims administration functions of any Member Entity insofar as those functions are affecting PARSAC's liability or potential liability. The Board may forward any or all such recommendations to the Member Entity with a request for compliance and a statement of potential consequences for noncompliance. L. The Board shall receive, review and act upon periodic reports and audits of PARSAC's funds. M. The Board shall appoint the General Manager as Secretary of PARSAC, to serve at the Board's pleasure. N. The Board may amend, repeal or adopt new Bylaws, this Agreement or other key documents. O. The Board may increase, decrease, or otherwise amend the coverages, limits and other terms of any Memorandum of Coverage. P. The Board shall approve any proposal by the Executive Committee for Special Assessments from the Member Entities before such Special Assessments are billed. Q. The Board may expel a Member Entity from any Program or from membership in PARSAC pursuant to Article XXIV of this Agreement. R. The Board may ratify actions of the Executive Committee, where such ratification is required before the action becomes final. S. The Board may enter into a joint venture or contractual arrangement with any similar entity and may also enter into a merger or acquisition agreement with a similar entity, provided that if PARSAC is not the surviving entity in any such merger or acquisition, such action shall require approval by the vote of three-fourths of the Member Entities. T. The Board shall have such other powers and functions as are provided for in this Agreement, the Bylaws, and applicable law. ARTICLE IX OFFICERS The officers of PARSAC shall be the President, Vice President, General Manager/Secretary, Treasurer, and Auditor/Controller, and their qualifications and duties shall be those set forth in the Bylaws. ARTICLE X EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE The Board shall create an Executive Committee, all of whose members shall be directors. The Executive Committee shall be composed of nine [9] members, including the elected officers of PARSAC [the President, Vice President, Treasurer, and Auditor/Controller], who shall serve ex-of~cio. and five [5] other individuals, who shall be elected by a majority vote of the Board for two-year terms at its annual meeting. The General Manager of PARSAC shall attend meetings of the Executive Committee and shall serve as its Secretary but shall have no vote. The authority of the Executive Committee and provisions for its meetings shall be as stated in the Bylaws. ARTICLE XI ADMINISTRATION PARSAC shall have a General Manager, who may be appointed or terminated by the Executive Committee, and who shall serve as the Secretary of PARSAC. The General Manager shall attend meetings of the Board, the Executive Committee and other committees of the Board but shall have no vote and shall be responsible for the preparation and maintenance of all minutes of meetings of the Board and its Committees, notices of meetings, and records of PARSAC. The General Manager shall also administer and supervise PARSAC's business and activities, subject to the direction and supervision by the Board and the Executive Committee, and shall be responsible for carrying out the duties set forth in the Bylaws. ARTICLE XII BUDGET The Board shall adopt an annual budget as recommended by the Executive Committee prior to the beginning of each Fiscal Year. ARTICLE XIH ANNUAL AUDITS AND REVIEWS A. Financial Audit. The Auditor/Controller shall cause an annual financial audit of the accounts and records to be prepared by a Certified Public Accountant in compliance with California Government Code Sections 6505 and 6505.5 or 6505.6 with respect to all receipts, disbursements, other transactions and entries into the books of PARSAC. The minimum requirements of the audit shall be those prescribed by the State Controller for special districts under Government Code Section 26909 and shall conform to generally accepted accounting standards. A report of each such audit shall be filed as a public record with the Board, each of the Member Entities, and each county auditor of the county in which each of the Member Entities is located. The report shall be filed within twelve [12] months of the end of the fiscal year under examination. PARSAC shall pay all costs for such financial audits. -12- B. Actuarial Review. The Board shall cause an annual actuarial review to be prepared for each of the Programs of PARSAC and a report of such actuarial review shall be made available for inspection by the Board and the Member Entities. PARSAC shall pay all costs for sucll actuariai reviews. C. Clairns Review. The Board shall cause an annual claims review to be prepared of the administration of the claims for each of the Programs of PARSAC. A report of such claims review shall be made available for inspection by the Board and the Member Entities. PARSAC shall pay all costs of such claims reviews. ARTICLE XIV ESTABLISHMENT AND ADMINISTRATION OF FUNDS PARSAC shall be responsible for the strict accountability of all funds and the reporting of all receipts and disbursements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. It will comply with all provisions of law relating to this subject, including California Government Code Sections 6505, 6505.1, 6505.5, or 6505.6. The Treasurer of PARSAC shall establish and maintain such funds and accounts as may be required by good accounting practices and by the Board. Separate accounts shall be established and maintained for each Program Year of each Program of PARSAC. Books and records of PARSAC in the hands of the Treasurer or other designated person shall be open to inspection at all reasonable times by members of the Board or authorized representatives of the Member Entities. The Treasurer shall have the custody of and disburse PARSAC's funds. He or she may delegate disbursing authority to such persons as may be authorized by the Board to perform that function; provided that, pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.5, the Treasurer shall: A. Receive and acknowledge receipt of all funds of PARSAC and place them in the treasury to the credit of PARSAC; B. Be responsible upon his or her official bond for the safekeeping and disbursement of PARSAC's funds so held by him or her; C. Pay any sums due from PARSAC as approved for payment by the Board or by any body or person to whom the Board has delegated approval authority, making such payments from PARSAC's funds upon warrants drawn by the Auditor; D. Verify and report in writing to PARSAC and to Member Entities, as of the first day of each quarter of the fiscal year, the amount of money then held for PARSAC, the amount of receipts since the last report, and the amount paid out since the last report; E. Prepare a complete written report of all financial activities within one hundred and twenty [120] days after the close of each fiscal year for such fiscal year to the Board and to each Member Entity; and F. Receive, invest, and disburse funds in accordance with the procedures established by the Board or the Bylaws and in conformity with applicable law. Pursuant to Government Code Section 6505.1, the General Manager, the Treasurer, and such other persons as the Board may designate shall have charge of, handle, and have access to PARSAC's property. PARSAC shall secure and pay for a fidelity bond or bonds, in an amount or amounts and in form specified by the Board covering all officers and employees of PARSAC who are authorized to hold or disburse PARSAC's funds, and all officers and employees who are authorized to have charge of, handle, and have access to PARSAC's property. The Auditor/Controller shall draw warrants to pay demands against PARSAC when the demands have been approved by both the President and the General Manager. ARTICLE XV SLIPPORT OF PARSAC'S GENERAL EXPENSES Costs of staffing and supporting PARSAC [hereinafter called PARSAC's general expenses] shill be equitably allocated among the various Programs by the Board, and shall be funded by the Member Entities which participate in such Programs [and ex-Member Entities] in accordance with such allocations. ARTICLE XVI DEPOSIT PREMIUMS The Deposit Premiums for each Member Entity shall be set by PARSAC using various rating and underwriting criteria, such as: [1] The Member Entity's payroll; [2] The Member Entity's exposure base; [3] The results of an on-site underwriting inspection; [4] The Member Entity's prior claims history; [5] Total insurable values; and/or [6] Employee classification ratings. Deposit Premiums shall be billed to the Member Entities at least thirty [30] days prior to the inception of coverage or a new Policy Year. All Deposit Premiums shall be due and payable before the inception of coverage or on or before the first day of a new Policy Year. ARTICLE XVII LIABILITY PROGRAM Member Entities shall participate in PARSAC's Liability Program as a condition of membership in PARSAC. The first Policy Year shall end on June 30, 1987. Subsequent Policy Years shall begin on July 1 of each succeeding year and shall continue through the following June. Retroactive coverage may be provided as approved by the Board and documented on the Declaration Page of the respective Memorandum of Coverage. 67 ARTICLE XVIII MEMORANDUMS OF COVERAGE The types and amounts of coverage for each Program provided to Member Entities shall be spe,~ified in a Memorandum of Coverage which shall be issued by PARSAC to each Member Entity for each Program Year in which the Member Entity has coverage. The Board shall have the power and authority to decrease, increase, or amend the coverage provided by a Memorandum of Coverage. If any such amendment is approved by the Board during a Policy Year, no Member Entity participating in that Policy Year shall be entitled to withdraw by reason of any said amendment prior to the termination of that Policy Year. ARTICLE XIX SIR MANDATORY RESERVES The Board may determine and require that Member Entities establish and maintain mandatory loss reserves for claims which are less than Member Entities' self-insured retention [SIR] or deductible. ARTICLE XX RETROSPECTIVE PREMIUM ADJUSTMENTS AND ASSESSMENTS Retrospective Premium Adjustments for each Program shall be calculated periodically, as determined by the Board and specified in the respective Participation Agreement. The Board may determine and levy special assessments on Member Entities by majority vote. ARTICLE XXI PROGRAMS The coverage for each Policy year of each Program shall be as specified in the respective Participation Agreement and Memorandum of Coverage. All Member Entities shall participate in the Liability Program, and subject to approval by the Board, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, each Member Entity may determine in which other Programs it will participate. ARTICLE XXII NEW MEMBERS Any California municipality may apply for membership in PARSAC and participation in any of P~RSAC's Programs at any time. Municipalities must participate in at least the Liability Program. PARSAC shall review all requests for membership and shall determine which applicants shall be accepted for membership, in which Programs they may paxticipate, and when such participation shall begin. Municipalities shall become new Member Entities as of the effective date of coverage under the Liability Program. Municipalities which are in the process of incorporation shall be covered only as of the effective date of incorporation. Deposit Premiums for coverage which begins during a Policy Year may be prorated for the remainder of the Policy Year, in accordance with the provisions of the respective Participation Agreement. ARTICLE XXIII WITHDRAWAL Member Entities shall be obligated to participate in the Liability Program for rolling three-year periods [the current Policy Year plus the two next consecutive Policy Years]. Participation in other Programs shall be specified in the respective Participation Agreement. In order to withdraw from participation from the Liability Program, a Member Entity shall give PARSAC written notice of its intent to withdraw at any time during a Policy Year, which withdrawal shall be effective on the expiration of the two-year period which begins with the first day of the next Policy Year. Withdrawal from the Liability Program shall terminate coverage under it and shall constitute withdrawal from this Agreement and from membership in PARSAC, subject to the ex-Member Entity's continuing obligations under Article XXV, below. Any notice of intent to withdraw may be rescinded in writing with Executive Committee consent at any time earlier than ninety days before the expiration of the withdrawal period. [Memt~er Entities' participation in other Programs shall be specified in the respective Participation Agreements.] Any Member Entity which withdraws as a participant in any Program may renew participation in that Program by complying with all Program rules and regulations. ARTICLE XXIV EXPUI~ION Regardless of its three-year'commitment under the Liability Program, a Member Entity may be expelled from PARSAC or a Program either with or without cause. The General Manager shall review any lack of satisfactory performance or other problem with the Member Entity and shall attempt to resolve the matter. If the General Manager determines that the Member Entity is unwilling or unable to correct the problem, the General Manager shall present the matter to the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee may recommend to the Board that the Member Entity be expelled, either for cause or without cause. Action by the Board shall require the vote of a majority of the total number of directors. A. Exnulsion Without Cause. The Executive Committee may decide to recommend that a Member Entity be expelled without cause [for no stated cause]. Written _ notice of the Executive Committee'$ recommendation for expulsion shall be delivered to the Member Entity by certified mall at least fourteen [14] days before the Board meeting at which the matter will be discussed. B. Expulsion for Cause. If the Executive Committee's recommendation is to expel a Member Entity for cause, the Board shall appoint a hearing officer to conduct a hearing on the matter, and the hearing officer shall be responsible for all notices, procedures and reports ih connection with the heating. Written notice of the date, time and place of the hearing, along with a summary of the reasons supporting the expulsion for cause shall be delivered to the Member Entity at least fourteen [14] days before the hearing, by certified mail. The notice shall also include any guidelines concerning the procedures to be followed at the hearing. The hearing officer shall preside at the hearing and shall be responsible for the conduct of the hearing and all rulings on procedure, evidence and law during the hearing. Both the Member Entity and PARSAC shall be represented by legal counsel at the hearing. Both parties may present written and oral evidence. A transcript of the proceedings shall be kept, either by a court reporter or by a good quality tape recorder, a written transcription of which may be prepared at the requesting party's expense. Within thirty [30] days after the hearing is declared closed by the hearing officer, he or she shall prepare written rulings of fact and law, with a recommendation for further action by the Board, and shall deliver the decision to the Member Entity and PARSAC. Within thirty [30] days after receipt of the hearing officer's decision, the Board shall consider and act on the hearing officer's recommendation. The Board shall permit the Member Entity to present a written response to the hearing officer's recommendations. The Board's decision shall be final, and if it decides to expel the Member Entity, it shall also state the effective date on which coverage terminates. C. Oonortunity to Remedy. In considering the expulsion of a Member Entity, the Executive Committee shall allow the affected Member Entity a reasonable opportunity to address and remedy the reasons, if any, for the proposed expulsion. The period of time so allowed shall be within the sole discretion of the Executive Committee. If such a reasonable opportunity is allowed, PARSAC may require quarterly audits to monitor the affected Member Entity's remedial actions or any other conditions to its continued participation in PARSAC or its Programs. 71 D. Alternative Coverage. A Member Entity which is the subject of a proposed expulsion shall be responsible for investigating the availability of alternate coverage. On the request of the Member Entity, the Board may permit the Member Entity a reasonable time to make arrangements for alternative coverage, but such period of time shall be at the Board's sole discretion. ARTICLE XXV EFFECT OF WITHDRAWAL OR EXPULSION ON MEMBER ENTITY'S RESPONSIBILITIES The withdrawal or expulsion of any Member Entity [the ex-Member Entity] after its participation in any Program shall not terminate its responsibility with respect to the following: A. Provide PARSAC with such statistical and loss experience data and other information as may be necessary for PARSAC to carry out the purposes of this Agreement; B. Pay to PARSAC when due any Deposit Premiums or Retrospective Premium Adjustments for each Policy Year of each Program in which it participated; C. Cooperate fully with PARSAC in determining the cause of losses in the settlement of claims; D. Cooperate with and assist PARSAC and any insurer, claims adjuster, legal counsel or other service provider engaged or retained by PARSAC in all matters relating to this Agreement or a Participation Agreement; and E. Comply with the Bylaws, Participation Agreements, and all policies and procedures of PARSAC not inconsistent with the provisions of this Agreement and not inconsistent with its withdrawal from PARSAC. In addition, PARSAC may retain all Deposit Premiums, assessments, property or other charges paid or transferred to PARSAC, and the ex-Member Entity is obligated to pay any future assessments made with respect to the Policy Years of any Program in which it participated, imtil all claims relating to such Policy Year[s] and Program[s] are settled, paid or resolved, at which time PARSAC shall refund to the ex-Member Entity any premiums, deposits, or property which it has retained and which were not expended in settling, paying or otherwise resolving claims against the ex-Member Entity. ARTICLE XXVI TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until terminated. Termination of this Agreement shall also constitute the termination of all Participation Agreements and all Programs. This Agreement may be terminated at any time by the vote of three-fourths of the Member Entities; provided, however, that this Agreement and PARSAC shall continue to exist for the purpose of disposing of all claims, the distribution of assets, and any other functions necessary to wind up the affairs of PARSAC. Upon termination of this Agreement, all assets of each Program of PARSAC shall be distributed among the Member Entities [and ex-Member Entities which previously withdrew or were expelled] which participated in such Programs, in accordance with and proportionate to their net premium payments made during the term of this Agreement. Such distributions shall be determined within six [6] months after the disposal of the last pending claim or other liability covered by each Program. Following the termination of this Agreement, any Member Entity which was a participant in any Program of PARSAC shall pay any additional amount of premium, determined by the Board or its designee in accordance with a retrospective premium adjustment, which may be necessary to enable final disposition of all claims arising from losses under that Program during the Member Entity' s period of participation. The Board is vested with all powers of PARSAC for the purpose of concluding and dissolving the business affairs of PARSAC. The Board may designate legal counsel and any committee or person to carry out a plan of dissolution adopted by the Board. ARTICLE XXVII NOTICES Notices to Member Entities under this Agreement, a Participation Agreement, or the Bylaws shall be sufficient if mailed to their respective addresses on file with PARSAC. Notices to PARSAC shall be sufficient if mailed to the address of the principal executive office of PARSAC, addressed to the General Manager. ARTICLE XXVIII PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENT No Member Entity may assign any right, claim, or interest it may have under this Agreement, and no creditor, assignee or third party beneficiary of any Member Entity shall have any right, claim or title to any part, share, interest, fund, premium or asset of PARSAC. ARTICLE XXIX AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amendted by a two-thirds vote of the Board at any duly convened regular or special meeting; provided that, any such amendment has been submitted to the directors and the Member Entities at least thirty [30] days in advance of such meeting. Any such amendment shall become effective immediately, unless otherwise stated therein. ARTICLE XXX SEVERABILITY Should any portion, term, condition or provision of this Agreement be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or be otherwise rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portions, terms, conditions and provisions shall not be affected thereby. ARTICLE XXXI AGREEMENT COMPLETE The foregoing constitutes the full and complete agreement of the parties. There are no oral understandings or agreements not set forth in writing herein, except as noted with respect to the Bylaws, Participation Agreements, and Memorandums of Coverage. If any provision of this Agreement conflicts with a provision of the Bylaws, a Participation Agreement, a Memorandum of Coverage or other document, such conflicting provisions shall be interpreted to avoid any such conflict, but this Agreement shall govern. ARTICLE XXXII FILING WITH SECRETARY OF STATE A notice of this Agreement' and any amendments thereto shall be prepared and filed with the California Secretary of State within thirty [30] days of the effective date of this Agreement or any amendment. The notice shall contain the name of each public agency which is a party to the Agreement, the date upon which the Agreement became effective, a statement of purpose of the Agreement or the power to be exercised, and a description of the amendment or amendments made to the Agreement, if any. In wimess whereof, the authorized officials of the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated below. Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California ["PARSAC"] DATE: ~ BY: General Manager A 11 .-ST: Secretary, PARSAC \ .Q Member Entity cx~ oF ~cno c~c~os~ DATE: BY: Signature/Title At lizST: City/Town Clerk 76 APPENDIX "A" LIST OF MEMBER ENTITIES City of Alturas City of Avalon City of Blue Lake City of Calistoga City of Canyon Lake City of Carlshad City of Clearlake City of Coalinga City of Ferndale City of Grass Valley City of Highland City of Nevada City City of Pacific Grove Cit of Placentia City of Placerville City of Plymouth City of Point Arena City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Rialto City of Ridgecrest City of South Lake Tahoe City of Tehama City of Trinidad City of Twentynine Palms City of Wheafland Town of Yountville City of Yucaipa Town of Yucca Valley m PUBLIC AGENCY RISK SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA [PARSAC] PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT FOR THE LIABILITY PROGRAM Adopted by the PARSAC Board of Directors, November 19, 1993 PUBLIC AGENCY RISK SHARING AUTHORITY OF CALIFORNIA LIABILITY PROGRAM Participation Agreement THIS PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California [PARSAC], a joint powers authority duly organized under the laws of the State of California, and the City/Town of , which is duly incorporated or chartered under the laws of the State of California and which is, or becomes concurrently with the date of this Agreement, a signatory to the Revised and Restated Joint Powers Agreement creating the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California, dated. November 19, 1993, as it may be amended (the 'Joint Powers Agreement'), and a member of PARSAC (the 'Member Entity '). RECITALS A. PARSAC has been established under the Joint Powers Agreement and pursuant to California Government Code Section 6500 et seq., which permits two or more public agencies by agreement to jointly exercise any power common to the contracting parties. B. California Government Code Section 990.4 permits a local public entity to self-insure, purchas~ insunme~ through an authorized carrier, or purchase insursnee through a surplus lines broker, or any combination of these. C. California Government Code Section 990.6 provides that the cost of insurance provided by a local public entity is a proper charge agningt that local public entity. D. California Government Code Section 990.8 permits two or more local entities to enter into a joint powers agreement to provide insurance for any purpose by any one or more of the methods specified in Government Code Section 990.4 and also provides that such pooling of self-insured claims or losses does not constitut,~ the business of insurance under the California Insurance Code. 79 E. The Member Entity, which is a party to the Joint Powers Agreement, desires to join with PARSAC's other Member Entities to fund a program for general liability coverage. F. . The governing body of the Member Entity has determined that it is in its own best roterests and in the public interest that the Joint Powers Agreement and this Participation Agreement be executed and that it participate as a member of PARSAC. G, This Agreement hereby incorporates by reference the Joint Powers Agreement and makes it a part hereof, and as of the effective date of this Agreement, this Agreement shall replac~ and supersede any conflicting provisions with respect to PARSAC's Liability Program contained in the Joint Powers Agreement Creating the California Municipal Insurance Authority, dated May 21, 1986, as amended on November 20, 1987, July 1, 1989, and November 19, 1993, as well as those contained in PARSAC's Bylaws prior to the amendment and restatemnnt of the Bylaws adopted on November 19, 1993. H. This Agreement governs only the terms and conditions of the Member Entity's participation in PARSAC's Liability Program. AGREEMENT 1. Definitions. Capitalized terms used in this Agreement without definition shall have the meanings assign~d~ to them in the Joint Powers Agreement. 2. Covenee. The Member Entity shall pay PARSAC the annual Deposit Premium (the initial one of which is stated on Appendix *A* hereof) which is calculated by PARSAC pursuant to Paragraph 8 hereof for coverage of the Covered Losses stated in the Memorandum of Liability Coverage for the Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of C, alifomia ('Memorandum of Coverage*), which is attached hereto end is incorporated into this Agreoment. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement is three years. Coverage under this Agreement shall commence on its effective date, but only if the Deposit Premium has been paid, end shall renew for a subsequent tln'ee-year period at the commencement of each Policy Year unless withdrawal occurs. 4, Initial Covenee. Coverage of a new Member Entity by PARSAC's Liability Program, or of en existing Member Entity which wishes to chenge its SIR or other terms of the Memorandum of Coverage, shall begin on the date indicated on Appendix "A' hereof, provided that all of the following have been satisfactorily completed or submitted to PARSAC: a. Information requested by PARSAC, including but not limited to: Liability Exposure Questionnaire, questiounairm from the excess liability carrier or the reinsurer, end copies of the three prior years' audited annual fireracial statements. b. An underwriting inspection and satisfactory conclusions or recommendations by a safety and loss control engineer designated by PARSAC end, if applicable, satisfactory corrections or explanations regarding eny deficiencies revealed by such inspection. c. Timely submission of loss data for the five most recent years in a form which PARSAC can use to calculate the initial Deposit Premium. d, Evaluation by PARSAC of all information submitted by the Member Entity and a recommendation from PARSAC's General Manager to the Executive Comrruttee concerning the Member Entity's participation in PARSAC's Liability Program, including a proposed initial Deposit Preminm. ' e. If requested by PARSAC, a meeting with the Member Entity's governing board with PARSAC's General Manager or designee, to discuss PARSAC's Liability Program and membership in PARSAC. f. Approval of the Member Entity's participation in PARSAC's Liability Program by PARSAC's Underwriting Committee or Executive Committee (which approval shall be ratified by PARSAC's Board of Directors, but such ratification shall not be a condition precedent to the Member Entity's coverage). g. Execution by duly authorized representatives of PARSAC and the Member Entity of: (i) New Member Resolution (in a form to be supplied by PARSAC); (ii) The Joint Powers Agreement; and (iii) This Agreement and any addenda or supporting documents. h. Delivery to PARSAC of the Member Entity's check issued to PARSAC in the amount of the DepOsit Prnmlum, including the Member Entity's contribution to PARSAC's Catastrophic Loss Fund. 5. Obli ati n to Partici ate. The Member Entity agrees that participation in PARSAC's Liability Program is a condition precedent to membership in PARSAC, and that withdrawal or expulsion from the Liability Program constitutes withdrawal or expulsion from PARSAC as provident for in the Joint Powers Agreement. 6. Member Entitv's Responsibilities. In addition to the foregoing and the duties contained in the JoInt Powers Agreement and the Memorandum of Coverage, the Member Entity shall comply with the following: a. Pay all Deposit Pretmums, Retrospective Premium Adjustments, and any Special Assessments to PARSAC on or before the due date; b. Underlake an annual risk management audit of its facilities and activities, conducted by a person and/or firm approved by PARSAC's Executive Committee, and based upon, such audit report, to evidence correction, elimination and/or clarification of all noted deficiencies or recommended corrections to the satisfaction of~ARSAC's Executive Committee. Risk management audits may be required by the Executive Commit~ more frequently than annually. Risk Management audits may be paid by PARSAC and charged hack to Member Entities as part of the Retrospective Premium Adjustment; e. Provide PARSAC with a copy of its three most recent years' audited annual financial statements prepared by a Certified Public Accountant; or, if not available, provide PARSAC with the most _v~_-_~_t set of monthly flnnncial statements (which have not been audited); and provide any other financial material as may be requested by PARSAC from time to time; d. Cooperate with, communicate with and assist, in a timely nuumer, PARSAC and any insurer, claim adjuster, legal counsel or other service previder engaged or retained by PARSAC in all matters relating to the Liability Program and this Agreement; e. Promptly cooperate with PARSAC to determine and/or clarify any incidents which might become losses, the cause of any and all actual losses, and mathods to bring about settlement of claims; and f. Comply with its obligations and responsibilities under this Agreement, the Joint Powers Agreement, the Bylaws, the Memorandum of Coverage, PARSAC's policies and procedural, and any other contract or requirement (as any of the foregoing may be created or amended) necessary to implement this Agn:ement or the Liability Program. 7. $elf-lnSpr~ Retention (S.I.R.) Reserved Fund Balance. The Member Entity must establish, by resolution, a 'Fund Balance Reserve" ('Reserve') equal to three times (3) the designated S.LR. or for any underlying insurance deductible chosen, and approved for the Member Entity by PARSAC. The Reserve will be recorded and maintained in the appwp~ate Member Entity Fund in accordance with Generally Acceptable Accounting Principles. -5- PARSAC will be notified of any proposed adjustment to the Reserve prior to the Member Entity's adoption of such a resolution. PARSAC may request certification, by the Member Entity, of the balance in the Reserve account at any time. Applicants establishing coverage with PARSAC after July 1, 1989 shall be required to submit the 'Fund Balance Reserve Resolution" prior to coverage inception. Member Entities participating in the PARSAC Liability Program prior to July 1, 1989 shall establish the correct Reserve within three (3) yeats from the effective date of this Agreement. Any Member Entity which does not desire to establish a local Fund Balance Reserve at the required throe-times its S.I.R. or underlying insurance deductible amount, may contract for an actuarial study of its losses and reserves by a Fellow of the Casualty Actuary Society (FCAS), to ascertain and represent to the PARSAC adequate below S.I.R. Reserves. Such below S.|.R. amount shall be established as the correct Reserve for that Member Entity. 8. Deooslt Premiums. The Deposit Premiums for the Liability Program shall be set at a level estimated to be sufficient to cover PARSAC's budget for each Policy Year of the Liability Program. The Deposit Premiums for the Member Entity shall be established for each Policy Year and shall be based on: (a) the Member Entity's prior claims history; (b) the Member Entity's total payroll; (c) the Member Entity's exposure base; and (d) the results of an on-site underwriting inspection. Deposit premiums for the Liability Program shall be billed by PARSAC to the Member Entity at least thirty (30) days prior to the inception of coverage or of a new Policy Year. 9. Retrosoective Premium Adjustments and Assessments. A financial reconciliation or audit of each Policy ~ear will be made by PARSAC to determine whether the Deposit Premium collected for that Policy Year was sufficient to cover the costs, expenses and coverage. Retrospective Premium Adjustments for the Liability Program shall be calculated eighteen months after the conclusion of each Policy Year and annually thereafter until all applicable claims am finalized. In addition, the Board may have special Retrospective Premium Adjustments calculated at any time if, in its opinion, it becomes advisel~le. The results of the Retrospective Premium Adjustments shall be communicated to the Member Entities within one month following each calculation. Any Retrospective Premium Adjustments indicating additional premiums due from any Member Entity shall be billed to that Member Entity at least one month in advance of when they shall be due and payable. The Adjustmasts resulting from the regularly scheduled calculations shall be due and payable in conjunction with the next r,~ of Deposit Premiums billed. The Adjustments resulting from special calculations authorized by the Board shah be due as specified by the Board. Likewise, any Retrospective Premium Adjustments conducted which indicate an excess of Deposit Premiums collected, resulting in a credit to the Member Entity, shall be conveyed in writing to the Member Entity at the same time the other Retrospective Premium Adjustments are conveyed to Member Entities (one month in advance of when the Deposit Premiums and Retrospective Premium Adjustments, where applicable, are due and payable). However, if a Member Entity has withdrawn fTom the Liability Program and PARSAC, or was expelled from the Liability Program and PARSAC, any Retrospective Premium Adjustment credit shall remain with PARSAC until all claims have been settled for the particular Policy Year(s) being reconciled. The Retrospective Premium Adjustment for each Policy Year of the Liability Program shall be calculated for each Member Entity by adding the sums of "A" and 'B " below, less premiums on hand: A. An amount equal to the individual Member Entity's Incurred Losses and share of expenses and interest income for such layer; provided, however, that such amount shall not be greater than 150 % of the Deposit Premium for that layer, nor less than 75 % of the Deposit Premium for that layer. B. Each Member Entity's proportionate share (based upon the amounts determined pursuant to above) of the difference between the sum of the individual amounts calculated pursuant to above, and the total of all Incurred Losses, reserves, expenses and interest income for such layer. 10. Withdrawal. The period of commitment by a Member Entity to participation in the Liability Program is three years; that is, the current Policy Year plus the next two consecutive Policy Years. Notice of intent to withdraw from the Liability Program may be tendered in writing by a Member Entity at any time. Such notice will become effective and withdrawal will occur after the last day of coverage of the next two consecutive full Policy Years. Such notice can be rescinded with Executive Committea consent at any time at least ninety (90) days before the and of the last Policy Year. A Member Entity can suek reinstatement at any time after withdrawal. 11. Notices. Notices to the Member Entity under this Agreement shall be sufficient if mailed to its respective address on file with PARSAC. Notices to PARSAC shall be sufficient if mailed to the address of the principal executive office of PARSAC, addressed to the General Manager. 12. Assil~nment. The Member Entity shall not assign any right, claim, or interest it may have under this Agreement, and no creditor, assignee or third party beneficiary of the Member Entity shall have any right, claim or title to any part, share, interest, fund, premium or asset of PARSAC. 13. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended only by an agreement in writing between PARSAC end the Member Entity. Any such amendment shall become effective immediately, unless otherwise stated therein. 14. Severability. Should any portion, term, condition or provision of this Agreement be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or be otherwise rendered unenforeeable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining portions, terms, conditions and provisions shall not be affected there, by. 15. Comlolete A~reenxent. The foregoing constitutes the full and complete agreement of the parties. There are no oral traderstandings or agreements not set forth in writing herein, except with respect to PARSAC's Bylaws and the Joint Powers Agreement. If any provision of this Agreement conflicts with a provision of the Joint Powers A~reement, such conflicting provisions shall be interpreted to avoid any such conflict, but the Joint Powers Agreement shall govern. In wimess and recognition of the above, the authorized officials of the parties herera have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated below: Public Agency Risk Sharing Authority of California ["PARSAC"] DATE: NOV. 19t 1993 BY: ~~~'j~ General Manager " A'I'I'ir_,ST: Secreta~7, PARSAC Member Entity crrx oF u, scno ~C~ONC~ DATE: BY: Signature/Title Aq_'I'I:ST: City/Town Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994 _ TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR THE LANDSCAPING OF ROCHESTER AVENUE EAST SIDE PARKWAY, FROM VICTORIA PAR~ LANE TO HIGHLAND AVENUE, TO KRUZE AND KRUZE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT OF $201,236.32 ($182,942.11 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY), TO BE FUNDED FROM RDA ACCOUNT NO. 11-51000 AND FUND 10 ACCOUNT NO. 10-4637-9072 RECO~ENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept all bids as submitted and award and authorize execution of contract for the Landscaping of Rochester Avenue east side parkway to the lowest responsive bidder, Kruze and Kruze Construction for the amount of $182,942.11 and authorize the Administrative Services Director to expend $201,236.32 ($182,942.11 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from RDA Account No. 11-51000 and Fund 10 Account No. 10-4637-9072. BACICGROUMD/ANAI,YSIS This project consists of landscaping and irrigation of the parkway along the east side of Rochester Avenue between Victoria Park Lane and Highland Avenue opposite Rancho Cucamonga High School. Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on April 26, 1994, for the subject project. Kruze and Kruze Construction is the apparent lowest responsive bidder with a bid amount of $182,942.11 (see attached bid summary). The Engineer's estimate was $233,000.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. Respectfully submitted, Wil~ Jam J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:dlw Attachment ROCHESTER AVENUE RANCHO CUCAMONGA HIGH SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM FOR THE LANDSCAPING OF ROCHESTER AVENUE EASTSIDE PARKWAY R~,NCHO CUCAMONGA PROJECT LOCATION,,"' ; , :1 il -. ~ =:~ ~ .... "oothitl a, lva, i ' ' - ~ ~ '., LOCATION MAP CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS LANDSCAPING OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, EAST SIDE PARKWAY FROM VICTORIA PARK LANE TO HIGHLAND DATE: APRIL 26, 1994 $181,820.24 Kruze & Kruze Construction John C. Ettlin Item !tern Unit of Estimated Unit Original Quantity Amount Quantity Amount No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Authorized 1. Clearing and Grubbing L.S I $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $10,200.00 $10,200.00 $9,077.00' $9,077.00 2. 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF 12,887 $1.60 $20,619.20 $2.05 $26,418.35 $1.75 $22,552.25 3. Cobblestone Hardscape SF 2,432 $5.25 $12,768.00 $3.75 $9,120.00 $5.50 $13,376.00 4. Inst. Conduit, Pull Rope/Boxes LF 2,730 $6.00 $16,380.00 $4.00 $10,920.00 $5.10 $13,923.00 5. Irrigation System & Water Meter LS I $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $86,000.00 $86,000.00 $85,279.00 $85,279.00 6. 60-day Maintenance Period LS I $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,150.00 $2,150.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 7. I Ga] Shrub EA 1,410 $6.00 $8,460.00 $5.30 $7,473.00 $5.00 $7,050.00 8. 5 Gal Shrub EA 364 $16.00 $5,824.00 $13.00 $4,732.00 $13.00 $4,732.00 9. 15 Gal Tree' EA 127 $95.00 $12,065.00 $59.00 $7,493.00 $70.00 $8,890.00 10. PCC Mow Curb LF 200 $7.40 $1,480.00 $12.00 $2,400.00 $6.00 $1,200.00 11. 4" Shredded Chipper Mulch SF 61,676 $0.79 $48,724.04 $0.26 $16,035.76 $0.25 $15,419.00 Total Bid $181,820.24 $182,942.11 $184,498.25 Total of Bid Submitted Laird Construction Alpha Omega Builders Sonora Pipeline, Inc. Item Item Unit of Estimated Quantity Amount Quantity Amount Quantity Amount No. Description Measure Quantity 1. Clearing and Grubbing L.S I $33,350.00 $33,350.00 $7,679.20 $7,679.20 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 2. 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF 12,887 $1.60 $20,619.20 $3.00 $38,661.00 $1.60 $20,619.20 3. Cobblestone Ha~cdscape SF 2,432 $5.50 $13,376.00 $6.00 $14,592.00 $10.00 $24,320.00 4. Inst. Conduit, Pull Rope/Boxes LF 2,730 $4.70 $12,831.00 $7.00 $19,110.00 $10.83 $29,565.90 5. Irrigation System & Water Meter LS I $77,550.00 $77,550.00 $88,347.00 $88,347.00 $80,135.00 $80,135.00 6. 60-day Maintenance Period LS I $5,775.00 $5,775.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.130 $3,000.00 7. I Gal Shrub EA 1,410 $5.75 $8,107.50 $6.00 $8,460.00 $4.50 $6,345.00 8. 5 Gal Shrub EA 364 $16.80 $6,115.20 $27.00 $9,828.00 $14.50 $5,278.00 9. 15 Gai Tree' EA 127 $100.00 $12,700.00 $60.00 $7,620.00 $70.00 $8,890.00 10. PCC Mow Curb LF 200 $5.75 $1,150.00 $6.00 $1,200.00 $5.25 $1,050.00 11. 4" Shredded Chipper Mulch SF 61,676 $0.36 $22,203.36 $0.30 $18,502.80 $0.38 $23,436.88 Total Bid $213,777.26 $215,000.00 $217,639.98 Total of Bid Submitted $213,000.20 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS LANDSCAPING OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, EAST SIDE PARKWAY FROM VICTORIA PARK LANE TO HIGHLAND Page 2 Bopark Enterprises, Inc. West Coast Construction Wyatt Construction Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Original Quantity Amount Quantity Amount No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Authorized 1. CleuringandGrubbing L.S I $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $27,232A7 $27,232.47 2. 4" P.C.C. Sidewalk SF 12,887 $3.30 $42,527.10 $2.00 $25,774.00 $2.49 $32,088.63 3. Cobblestone Hardscape SF 2,432 $7.00 $17,024.00 $5.00 $12,160.00 $4.15 $10,092.80 4. last. Conduit, Pull Rope/Boxes LF 2,730 $4.89 $13,349.70 $6.00 $16,380.00 $5.68 $15,506A0 5. Irrigation System & Water Meter LS I $85,000.00 $85,000.00 $85,500.00 $85,500.00 $96,788.03 $96,788.03 6. 60-day Maintenance Period LS I $5,000.00 $5,000.00 '$2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,552.25 $2,552.25 7. 1 Gal Shrub EA 1,410 $7.00 $9,870.00 $5.00 $7,050.00 $6.38 $8,995.80 8. 5 Gal Shrub EA 364 $14.00 $5,096.00 $15.00 $5,460.00 $19.14 $6,966.96 9. 15 Gal Tree' EA 127 $95.00 $12,065.00 $200.00 $25,400.00 $165.90 $21,069.30 10. PCC Mow Curb LF 200 $5.00 $1,000.00 $6.00 $1,200.00 $7.03 $1,406.00 11. 4" Shredded Chipper Mulch SF 61,676 $0.30 $18,502.80 $0.50 $30,838.00 $0.43 $26,520.68 Total Bid $224,434.60 $231,762.00 $249,219.32 Total of Bid Submitted $226,194.40 $249,401.05 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: May 4, gg4STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Will Jam J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTP~ACT FOR CALAVEP. AS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM CHAFFEE STREET ALLEY TO NINTH STREET, TO J.E.G CONSTRUCTION, INCORPOPJkTED, FOR THE ANOUNT OF $83,294.00 ($75,721.91 PLUS 101~ CONTINGENCY), TO BE FUNDED FROM CDBG Funds, ACCOUNT NO. 28-4333-9331 (F.Y. g4) RECOIIENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept all bids as submitted for the Cal averas Avenue Street Improvements, from Chaffee Street Alley to and that the City Council award and authorize for execution the contract for Calaveras Avenue Street Improvements, from Chaffee Street Alley to Ninth Street, to the lowest responsive bidder, J.E.G. Construction, Incorporated, for the amount of $75,721.91 and authorize the Administrative Services Director to expend $83,294.00 ($75.721.91 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from CDBG FUNDS, Account No. 28-4333-9331 BACKGROUND/AJIALYSIS The improvements consist of removal and reconstruction of A.C. pavement, and construction of sidewalk, curb and gutter and street Tights. Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on April 5, 1994, for the subject project. J.E.G. Construction, Incorporated, is the apparent lowest responsive bidder with a bid amount of $75,721.91 (see attached bid summary). The Engineer's estimate was $80,127.15. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. City Engineer WJO:LRB:sd Attachment CALAVERAS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS FROM CHAFFEE STREET ALLEY TO NINTH STREET ~ancho ~ ucamon~a CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS CALAVERAS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM CHAFFEE STREET ALLEY TO NINTH STREET DATE: APRIL 5, 1994 ENGINEERStS ESTIMATE: $80,127.15 J.E.G. Construction E.G.N. Construction Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Original Unit Tolal Unit Total No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Authorized Prices Prices 1. Clearing and Grubbing L.S I $6,500.00 $6,500.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 2. Remove A.C. Pavement SF 23,731 $0.25 $5,932.75 $0.21 $4,983.51 $0.20 $4,746.20 3. Misc. P.C.C. Removal SF i,028 $2.50 $2,570.00 $1.15 $1,182.20 $2.00 $2,056.00 4. Unclassi~ed Excavation & Fill CY 494 $7.00 $3,458.00 $8.00 $3,952.00 $17.60 $8,694A0 5. Relocate Mall Box EA 7 $100.00 $700.00 $125.00 $875.00 $75.00 $525.00 6. Install New Mall Box EA 3 $125.00 $375.00 $150.00 $450.00 $150.00 $450.00 7. Adj Vat Can & Cover to Grade EA ! $95.00 $95.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 $50.00 8. Crushed Aggregate Base TON 541 $15.00 $8,115.00 $17.50 $9,467.50 $14.33 $7,752.53 9. A.C. Pavement TON 413 $30.00 $12,390.00 $29.00 $11,977.00 $32.72 $13,513.36 I0. 8" P.C.C. Curb LF 21 $9.00 $189.00 $10.00 $210.00 $8.00 $168.00 !1. 8" PCC Curb & 24" Gutter LS 897 $11.10 $9,956.70 $10.00 $8,970.00 $10.50 $9,418.50 12. 6" PCC Dr. Approach SF 3,026 $3.00 $9,078.00 $2.30 $6,959.80 $1.90 $5,749.40 13. 4" PCC SW, DW & Walkway SF 5,472 $1.60 $8,755.20 $1.70 $9,302.40 $1.49 $8,153.28 14. 4" PC Wheelchair Ramp EA 2 $381.25 $762.50 $250.00 $500.00 $250.00 $500.00 15. 3' Chain Link Fence LF 77 $8.00 $616.00 $11.00 $847.00 $14.39 $1,108.03 16. 4' Chain Link Fence LF 96 $9.00 $864.00 $12.00 $1,152.00 $14.95 $1,435.20 17. 5' Chain Link Fence LF 90 $10.00 $900.00 $13.00 $1,170.00 $15.49 $1,394.10 18. Tr, Conduit Backfill & Pallboxes LF 750 $6.00 $4,500.00 $7.50 $5,625.00 $8.05 $6,037.50 19. lnst. Sod, Soil Prep/Fine Grading SF 925 $1.60 $1,480.00 $2.50 $2,312.50 $1.95 $1,803.75 20. 5 Gal Shrub (Texas Privet) EA 58 $5.00 $290.00 $17.00 $986.00 $23.00 $1,334.00 21. Restore Irrigation System LS i $800.00 $800.00 $250.00 $250.00 $920.00 $920.00 22. Traffic Control LS I $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $600.00 $600.00 $500.00 $500.00 23. Traff Striping/Signing/Blue Don LS I $800.00 $800.00 $900.00 $900.00 $675.00 $675.00 $80,127.15 $75,721.91 $77,984.25 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS CALAVERAS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM CHAFFEE STREET ALLEY TO NINTH STREET DATE: APRIL 5, 1994 ENGINEERS'S ESTIMATE: $80,127.15 Edmondson Construction Eastland Construction Sully-Miller Contracting Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Prices Prices 1. Clearing and Grubbing L.S I $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 2. Remove A.C. Pavement SF 23,731 $0.25 $5,932.75 $0.25 $5,932.75 $0.18 $4,271.58 3. Misc. P.C.C. Removal SF 1,028 $1.00 $1,028.00 $0.50 $514.00 $0.95 $976.60 4. Unclassified Excavation & Fill CY 494 $4.00 $1,976.00 $10.00 $4,940.00 $15.00 $7,410.00 5. Relocate Mail Box EA 7 $100.00 $700.00 $75.00 $525.00 $180.00 $1,260.00 6. Install New Mall Box EA 3 $100.00 $300.00 $150.00 $450.00 $140.00 $420.00 7. Adj Val Can & Cover to Grade EA I $50.00 $50.00 $120.00 $120.00 $200.00 $200.00 8. Cnashed Aggregate Base TON 541 $16.83 $9,105.03 $15.00 $8,115.00 $8.00 $4,328.00 9. A.C. Pavement TON 413 $32.17 $13,286.21 $30.00 $12,390.00 $31.20 $12,885.60 10. 8" P.C.C. Curb LF 21 $8.00 $168.00 $9.00 $189.00 $10.70 $224.70 !l. 8" PCC Curb & 24" Gutter LS 897 $8.00 $7,176.00 $9.00 $8,073.00 $12.45 $11,167.65 12. 6" PCC Dr. Approach 8F 3,026 $2.25 $6,808.50 $2.20 $6,657.20 $2.70 $8,170.20 13. 4" PCC SW. DW & Walkway SF 5,472 $1.75 $9,576.00 $1.60 $8,755.20 $2.00 $10,944.00 14. 4" PC Wheelchair Ramp EA 2 $125.00 $250.00 $300.00 $600.00 $470.00 $940.00 15. 3' Chain Link Fence LF 77 $27.80 $2,140.60 $13.00 $1,001.00 $27.30 $2,102.10 16. 4' Chain Link Fence LF 96 $16.75 $1,608.00 $14.00 $1,344.00 $16.40 $1,574.40 17. 5' Chain Link Fence LF 90 $20.00 $1,800.00 $15.00 $1,350.00 $19.70 $1,773.00 18. Tr, Conduit Backfdl & Pullboxes LF 750 $7.30 $5,475.00 $7.00 $5,250.00 $7.10 $5,325.00 19. Inst. Sod, Soil Prep/Fine Grading SF 925 $3.00 $2,775.00 $1.00 $925.00 $0.75 $693.75 20. 5 Gal Shrub (Texas PriveO EA 58 $15.00 $870.00 $20.00 $1,160.00 $15.50 $899.00 21. Restore Irrigation System LS I $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,030.00 $1,030.00 22. Traffic Control LS I $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $500.00 $500.00 1.3. Traff Striping/Signing/Blue Dots LS I $550.00 $550.00 $525.00 $525.00 $850.00 $850.00 $78,075.09 $79,816. 15 $80,745.58 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS CALAVERAS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM CHAFFEE STREET ALLEY TO NINTi! STREET DATE: APRIL 5, 1994 ENGINEERS'S ESTIMATE: $80,127.15 Kruger McGrew Construction Laird Construction Co. K Engineer. Constructors Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Prices Prices !. Clearing and Grubbing L.S I $3,800.00 $3,800.00 $8,300.00 $8,300.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 2. RemoveA.C. Pavement 8F 23,731 $0.21 $4,983.51 $0.23 $5,458.13 $0.50 $11,865.50 :}. Misc. P.C.C. Removal SF 1,028 $2.25 $2,313.00 $1.95 $2,004.60 $3.00 $3,084.00 4. Unclassified Excavation & Fill CY 494 $29.10 $14,375.40 $11.75 $5,804.50 $10.00 $4,940.00 5. Relocate Mail Box EA 7 $80.00 $560.00 $60.00 $420.00 $50,130 $350.00 6. Install New Mail Box EA 3 $80.00 $240.00 $100.00 $300.00 $100.00 $300.00 7. Adj Vat Can & Cover to Grade EA I $55.00 $55.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 8. Crushed Aggregate Base TON 541 $12.130 $6,492.00 $16.90 $9,142.90 $11.00 $5,951.00 9. A.C. Pavement TON 413 $30.00 $12,390.00 $29.55 $12,204.15 $38.00 $15,694.00 10. 8" P.C.C. Curb LF 21 $6.75 $141.75 $10.80 $226.80 $10.00 $210.00 11. 8" PCC Curb & 24" Gutter LS 897 $7.00 $6,279.00 $10.00 $8,970.00 $15.00 $13,455.00 12. 6" PCC Dr. Approach SF 3,026 $3.30 $9,985.80 $1.85 $5,598.10 $3.00 $9,078.00 13. 4" PCC SW, DW & Walkway 8F 5,472 $1.55 $8,481.60 $1.60 $8,755.20 $2.10 $11,491.20 14. 4" PC Wheelchair Ramp EA 2 $290.00 $580.00 $200.00 $400.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 15. 3' Chain Link Fence LF 77 $28.00 $2,156.00 $16.20 $1,247.40 $5.00 $385.00 16. 4' Chain Link Fence LF 96 $17.00 $1,632.00 $25.20 $2,419.20 $5.00 $480.00 17. 5' Chain Link Fence LF 90 $20.00 $1,800.00 $17.20 $1,548.00 $8.00 $720.00 18. Tr, Conduit Backfill & Pullboxes LF 750 $7.30 $5,475.00 $7.20 $5,400.00 $9.00 $6,750.00 19. lnst. Sod, Soil Prep/Fine Grading SF 925 $1.30 $1,202.50 $2.05 $1,896.25 $2.00 $1,850.00 20. 5 Gal Shrub (Texas Privet) EA 58 $16.00 $928.00 $22.00 $1,276.00 $10.00 $580.00 21. Restore Ixvigation System LS I $100.00 $100.00 $865.00 $865.00 $750.00 $750.00 22. Traffic Control LS i $300.00 $300.00 $2,420.00 $2,420.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 23. Traff Slriping/Signing/Blue Dots LS ! $550.00 $550.00 $475.00 $475.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $84,820.56 $85,231.23 $93,333.70 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS CALAVERAS AVENUE STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM CHAFFEE STREET ALLEY TO NINTII STREET DATE: APRIL 5, 1994 ENGINEERS'S ESTIMATE: $80,127.15 Vance Corporation Wyatt Constructors Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Total Unit Total No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Prices 1. Clearing and Grabbing L.S 1 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $9,749.00 $9,749.00 2. Remove A.C. Pavement SF 23,731 $0.25 $5,932.75 $0.39 $9,255.09 3. Misc. P.C.C. Removal SF 1,028 $1.50 $1,542.00 $1.18 $1,213.04 4. Unclassi~ed Excavation & Fill CY 494 $14.00 $6,916.00 $30.49 $15,062.06 5. Relocate Mail Box EA 7 $115.00 $805.00 $98.98 $692.86 6. Inshill New Mail Box EA 3 $285.00 $855.00 $186.30 $558.90 7. Adj Vai Can & Cover to Grade EA I $105.00 $105.00 $133.58 $133.58 8. Crushed Aggregate Base TON 541 $20.00 $10,820.00 $17.52 $9,478.32 9. A.C. Pavement TON 413 $44.00 $18,172.00 $42.74 $17,651.62 10. 8" P.C.C. Curb LF 21 $10.00 $210.00 $15.46 $324.66 !1. 8" PCC Curb & 24" Gutter LS 897 $10.00 $8,970.00 $12.48 $11,194.56 12. 6" PCC Dr. Approach SF 3,026 $2.50 $7,565.00 $3.26 $9,864.76 13. 4" PCC SW, DW & Walkway SF 5,472 $2.50 $13,680.00 $2.09 $11,436.48 14. 4" PC Wheelchair Ramp EA 2 $313.00 $626.00 $288.09 $576.18 15. 3' Chain Link Fence LF 77 $23.00 $ 1,771.00 $8.93 $687.61 16. 4' Chain Link Fence LF 96 $18.00 $1,728.00 $7.16 $687.36 17. 5' Chain Link Fence LF 90 $18.00 $1,620.00 $7.64 $687.60 18. Tr, Conduit Backfdl & Pullboxes LF 750 $4.50 $3,375.00 $14.25 $10,687.50 19. !nst. Sod. Soil Prep/Fine Grading SF 925 $2.00 $1,850.00 $2.27 $2,099.75 20. 5 Gai Shrub (Texas Prive0 EA 58 $21.00 $1,218.00 $26.71 $1,549.18 21. Restore Irrigation System LS I $850.00 $850.00 $1,068.58 $1,068.58 22. Traffic Control . LS I $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $4,007.21 $4,007.21 2,3. Traff Slriping/SigningJBlue Dots LS I $550.00 $550.00 $701.26 $701.26 $99,260.75 $119,367.16 $119,428.64 I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994_ TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager ~ FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer SUBJECT: AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTP~ACT FOR MILLIKEN PARK, PARK MODIFICATIONS AND PARKING LOT EXTENSION, LOCATED AT 76gg MILLIKEN AVENUE, TO EASTLAND CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, FOR THE AMOUNT OF $16g,Ogq.70 ($153,727.00 PLUS lot CONTINGENCY), TO BE FUNDED WITH FUNDS ACCOUNT NO. 43-4130-9323 ECOIIENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept all bids as submitted and award and authorize execution of contract for Milliken Park, Park Modifications and Parking Lot Extension Improvement Project to the lowest responsive bidder, Eas~ and Construction Company for the amount of $153,727.00 and authorize the Administrative Services Director to expend $169,099.70 ($153,727.00 pl us 10% contingency) to be funded from Account No. 43-4130-9323. BAD(GROUND/ANALYSIS The project consists of parking lot expansion, lighting and minor landscaping. Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on April 26, 1994, for the subject project. Eastl and Construction Company is the apparent lowest responsive bidder with a bid amount of $153,727.00 (see attached bid summary). The Engineer's estimate was $238,000.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. Respectful.ly ~itte~/~. William J. 0'~ City Engineer WJO:LRB:dlw Attachment MILLIKEN PARK PARK MODIFICATIONS AND PARKING LOT EXTENSION 7699 MILLIKEN AVENUE > /. LOCATION MAP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS MILLIKEN PARK, PARK MODIFICATIONS AND PARKING LOT EXTENSION Englneer's Estimate: $238,005.00 Page I Eastland Construction, Inc. Laird Construction Company Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Engineer's Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Estimate Prices Amount Prices Amount !. Clearing and Grubbing LS I $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $7,875.00 $7,875.00 2. Remove AC Pavement SF 360 $1.00 $360.00 $0.50 $180.00 $1.00 $360.00 3. Remove 12" PCC Curb LF 260 $4.00 $1,040.00 $6.00 $1,560.00 $3.00 $780.00 4. Remove PCC Sidewalk SF 126 $2.00 $252.00 $1.00 $126.00 $2.00 $252.00 5. Unclassirted Excavation & RII LS I $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $7,040.00 $7,040.00 6. Remove & Salvage Fence LF 269 $5.00 $1,345.00 $2.00 $538.00 $3.00 $807.00 7. R & R Exist Chain Link Fence LF 197 $15.00 $2,955.00 $6.00 $1,182.00 $4.85 $955.45 8. R & R Exist Sand LS I $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,420.00 $1,420.00 9. Ajd MH Flame & cover to Grade EA I $500.00 $500.00 $350.00 $350.00 $500.00 $500.00 10. Crushed Aggregat~ or Slag Base TON 1,030 $18.00 $18,540.00 $10.00 $10,300.00 $10.15 $10,454.50 11. A C Pavement TON 775 $28.00 $21,700.00 $25.00 $19,375.00 $28.15 $21,816.25 12. A C Berm LF 161 $8.00 $1,288.00 $5.00 $805.00 $10.00 $1,610.00 13. Catch Basin Brooks Box No 1818 EA I $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $500.00 $500.00 $750.00 $750.00 14. Slump Stone Wall LF 380 $25.00 $9,500.00 $30.00 $11,400.00 $33.00 $12,540.00 15. Install PCC Wheel Stops EA 66 $25.00 $1,650.00 $20.00 $1,320.00 $20.00 $1 ,~320.00 16. 6" PCC Curb LF 945 $9.00 $8,505.00 $6.50 $6,142.50 $9.00 $8,505.00 17. 4" PCC Sidewalk SF 553 $4.00 $2,212.00 $1.50 $829.50 $2.30 $1,271.90 18. 6" Wide 4" Thick PCC Step-out LF 416 $3.00 $1,248.00 $1.00 $416.00 $2.30 $956.80 19. Curvilinear Sidewalk SF 1,040 $5.00 $5,200.00 $1.50 $1,560.00 $2.30 $2,392.00 20. 4" Thick PCC Slab SF 2,312 $5.00 $11,560.00 $1.50 $3,468.00 $1.45 $3,352.40 21. 6' Chain Link Fence LF 286 $25.00 $7,150.00 $8.00 $2,288.00 $11.25 $3,217.50 22. Insudi 3 1]2" D X 30 VB Posts EA 2 $100.00 $200.00 $150.00 $300.00 $100.00 $200.00 23. 8" Dla PVC Pipe LF 146 $25.00 $3,650.00 $12.00 $1,752.00 $16.00 $2,336.00 :24. Install H-2Co) Handicap Signs EA I $200.00 $200.00 $100.00 $100.00 $175.00 $175.00 .15. Inssail Lawn Sod SF 6,450 $1.00 $6,450.00 $1.00 $6,450.00 $0.58 $3,741.00 26. Auto Irrigation System LS 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $19,500.00 $19,500.00 $24,500.00 $24,500.00 27. 2" Dia Irrigation Water Service EA I $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 2,8. ! 112" Dia hrigationBacldlow EA I $750.00 $750.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $945.00 $945.00 29. Modify Irr. System at VB Court LS I $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $945.00 $945.00 ;39. Parking Lot Striping LS I $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $700.00 $700.00 $450.00 $450.00 31. Handicap S~all Signage & Mark EA 2 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $100.00 $200.00 $225.00 $450.00 32. paxking Lot LighUng LS I $55,000.00 $55,000.00 $29,385.00 $29,385.00 $32,100.00 $32,100.00 Tolal Bid $238,005.00 $153.727.00 $156,017.80 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS MILLIKEN PARK, PARK MODIFICATIONS AND PARKING LOT EXTENSION Page 2 Kruger McGrew Construction Riverside Construction Co. E.G.N. Construction, Inc. Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Bid Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Amount Prices Amount Prices Amount 1. Clearing and Grabbing L$ I $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,950.00 $8,950.00 2. Remove AC Pavement SF 360 $1.00 $360.00 $1.00 $360.00 $1.50 $540.00 3. Remove 12" PCC Curb LP 260 $6.00 $1,560.00 $2.00 $520.00 $4.50 $1,170.00 4. Remove PCC Sidewalk SF 126 $1.00 $126.00 $1.00 $126.00 $1.25 $157.50 5. Unclassified Excavation & Pill LS I $7,200.00 $7,200.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $17,835.00 $17,835.00 6. Remove & Salvage Fence LP 269 $3.00 $807.00 $3.00 $807.00 $2.50 $672.50 7. R & R Exist Chain Link Fence LP 197 $6.15 $1,211.55 $8.00 $1,576.00 $11.50 $2,265.50 8. R & R Exist Sand LS I $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,760.00 $1,760.00 9. Aid MH Frame & cover to Grade EA I $450.00 $450.00 $150.00 $150.00 $500.00 $500.00 10. Crashed Aggregate or Slag Base TON 1,030 $10.50 $10,815.00 $10.00 $10,300.00 $11.60 $11,948.00 !1. A C Pavement TON 775 $27.30 $21,157.50 $26.00 $20,150.00 $27.00 $20,925.00 12. A C Benn LF 161 $4.90 $788.90 $3.00 $483.00 $10.00 $1,610.00 13. Catch Basin Brooks Box No 1818 EA I $3.60 $3.60 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 14. Slump Stone Wall LF 380 $27.60 $10,488.00 $35.00 $13,300.00 $40.21 $15,279.80 15. lnsta!lPCC Wheel Stops EA 66 $20.50 $1,353.00 $25.00 $1,650.00 $22.00 $1,452.00 16. 6" PCC Curb LF 945 $8.50 $8,032.50 $8.00 $7,560.00 $7.99 $7,550.55 17. 4" PCC Sidewalk SF 553 $1.75 $967.75 $2.00 $1,106.00 $2.38 $1,316.14 18. 6" Wide4" Thick PCC Step-out LF 416 $3.15 $1,310.40 $1.00 $416.00 $2.38 $990.08 19. Curvilineat Sidewalk SF 1,040 $1.75 $1,820.00 $2.00 $2,080.00 $2.38 $2,475.20 20. 4" Thick PCC Slab SF 2,312 $1.75 $4,046.00 $2.00 $4,624.00 $2.38 $5,502.56 21. 6' Chain Link Fence LF 286 $12.00 $3,432.00 $12.00 $3,432.00 $11.50 $3,289.00 22. instsll 3 I/2" D X 30 VB Posts EA 2 $75.00 $150.00 $100.00 $200.00 $50.00 $100.00 23. 8" Dia PVC Pipe LF 146 $16.00 $2,336.00 $12.00 $1,752.00 $18.90 $2,759.40 2,4. Instsll H-2(b) Handicap Signs EA I $160.00 $160.00 $200.00 $200.00 $150.00 $150.00 25. Install Lawn Sod SF 6,450 $0.60 $3,870.00 $1.00 $6,450.00 $1.65 $10,642.50 26. Auto Irrigation System LS I $26,500.00 $26,500.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 27. 2" Dia Irrigation Water Service EA I $3,200.00 $3,200.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $2,645.00 $2,645.00 28. I 1/2" DialnigationBackflow EA I $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 29. Modify h'r. System at VB Coral LS I $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 30. Parking Lot Siftping LS I $1,100.00 $1.I00.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 31. Handicap Stall Signage & Mark EA 2 $200.00 $400.00 $200.00 $400.00 $225.00 $450.00 32. Patting Lot Lighting LS I $35,400.00 $35,400.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 Total Bid $156,945.20 $174,892.00 $177,335.73 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS MILLIKEN PARK, PARK MODIFICATIONS AND PARKING LOT EXTENSION Page 3 Boral Resources, Inc. Bopark Enterprises, Inc. Inland Asphalt &Coatings Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Bid Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Amount Prices Amount Prices Amount 1. Clearing and Gmbbing LS I $4,730.00 $4,730.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,725.00 $1,725.00 2. Remove AC Pavement SF 360 $0.85 $306.00 $1.00 $360.00 $0.75 $270.00 3. Remove 12" PCC Curb LF 260 $9.40 $2,~/..00 $5.00 $1,300.00 $4.130 $1,040.00 4. Remove PCC Sidewalk SF 126 $2.40 $302.40 $1.00 $126.00 $1.50 $189.00 5. Unclassified Excavation & Fill LS I $9,700.00 $9,700.1:10 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $14,592.00 $14,592.110 6. Remove & Salvage Fence LF 269 $3.00 $807.00 $3.26 $876.94 $3.31 $890.39 7. R & R Exist Chain Link Fenc~ LF 197 $6.00 $1,182.00 $6.05 $1,191.85 $6.86 $1,351.42 8. R & R Exist Sand LS I $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,182.00 $4,182.00 9. Ajd MH Frame & cover to Grade EA I $800.00 $800.00 $500.00 $500.00 $3.50 $3.50 10. Crushed Aggregate or Slag Base TON 1,030 $8.70 $8,961.00 $9.13 $9,403.90 $17.50 $18,025.00 11. A C Pavement TON 775 $26.60 $20,615.00 $28.38 $21,994.50 $24.80 $19,220.00 12. A C Berm LF 161 $7.00 $1,127.00 $9.95 $1,601.95 $7.50 $1,207.50 13. Catch Basin Brooks Box No 1818 EA I $.90.00 $540.00 $400.00 $400.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 14. Slump Stone Wall LF 380 $45.00 $17,100.00 $45.00 $17,100.00 $44.00 $16,720.00 15. Install PCC Wheel Stops EA 66 $20.50 $1,353.00 $21.00 $1,386.00 $22.00 $1,452.00 16. 6" PCC Curb LF 945 $10.70 $10, I 11.50 $8.00 $7,560.00 $8.00 $7,560.00 17. 4" PCC Sidewalk $F 553 $3.15 $1,741.95 $2.00 $1,106.00 $1.97 $1,089.41 18. 6" Wide 4" Thick PCC Step-out LF 416 $3.15 $1,310.40 $2.00 $832.00 $4.01 $1,668.16 19. Curvifinca~Sidewalk SF 1,040 $3.15 $3,276.00 $2.00 $2,080.00 $2.65 $2,756.00 20. 4" Thick PCC Slab SF 2,312 $2.25 $5,202.00 $2.00 $4,624.00 $2.65 $6,126.80 21. 6' Chain Link Fence LF 286 $11.85 $3,389.10 $11.00 $3,146.00 $13.25 $3,789.50 22. Install 3 1/2" D X 30 VB Posts EA 2 $74.50 $149.00 $236.50 $473.00 $100.00 $200.00 23. 8" Dla PVC Pipe LF 146 $17.130 $2,482+00 $22.50 $3,285.00 $12.00 $1,752.00 24. Install H-2Co) Handicap Signs EA I $150.00 $150.00 $204.00 $204.00 $115.130 $115.00 25. Inslall Lawn Sod SF 6,450 $1.10 $7,095.00 $0.60 $3,870.00 $1.15 $7,417.50 2,6. Auto Irrigation System LS I $21,650.00 $21,650.00 $18,000.00 $18,000,130 $23,083.00 $23,083.00 27. 2" Dla Irrigation Water Service EA 1 $7,200.00 $7,200.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $7,659.00 $7,659.00 28. I If2" Din Irrigation Backflow EA I $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,990.00 $2,990.00 29. Modify Irr. Sysle,,n at VB Court LS I $2,2130.00 $2,200.00 $600.00 $6130.00 $2,392.00 $2,392.00 :30. parking Lot Striping LS I $1,095.00 $1,095.00 $1,117.00 $1,117.00 $495.00 $495.00 31. Handicap Stall Signage & Mark EA 2 $200.00 $400.00 $204.00 $408.00 $115.00 $230.00 32. parking Lot Lighting LS ! $35,1300.00 $35,000.00 $31,774.00 $31,774.00 $34,175.00 $34,175.00 Tolal Bid $177,719.35 $185,520.14 $185,712.68 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS MILLIKEN PARK, PARK MODIFICATIONS AND PARKING LOT EXTENSION Page 4 Kruze & Kruze Const., Inc. Sonoma Pipeline, Inc. Sunrise Landscape Co. Inc. Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Bid Unit Bid Unit Bid No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Amount Prices Amount Prices Amount 1. Clearing and Grabbing LS I $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $18,540.00 $18,540.00 $3,601.62 $3,601.62 2. Remove AC Pavement SF 360 $1.40 $504.00 $6.50 $180.00 $1.82 $655.20 3. Remove 12" PCC Curb LF 260 $8.00 $2,080.00 $2.00 $520.00 $3.36 $873.60 4. Remove PCC Sidewalk SF 126 $6.00 $756.00 $1.50 $189.00 $6.93 $873.18 5. Unclassi~ed Excavation & F'~l LS I $9,840.00 $9,840.00 $21,052.00 $21,052.00 $38,635.56 $38,635.56 6. Remove & Salvage Fence LF 269 $3.60 $968.40 $2.00 $538.00 $6.09 $1.638.21 7. R & R Exist Chain Link Fence LF 197 $12.00 $2,364.00 $9.00 $1,773.00 $8.73 $1,719.81 8. R & R Exist Sand LS I $940.00 $940.00 $1.400.00 $1,400.00 $9,785A9 $9,785.49 9. Ajd MH Frame & cover to Grade EA I $630.00 $630.00 $350.00 $350.00 $1,091.40 $1,091.40 10. Crushed Aggregate or Slag Base TON 1,030 $15.00 $15,450.00 $9.70 $9,991.00 $9.06 $9,331.80 11. ACPavement TON 775 $41.00 $31,775.00 $33.00 $25,575.00 $28.16 $21,824.00 12. A C Benn LF 161 $14.70 $2,366.70 $6.00 $966.00 $9.88 $1,590.68 13. Caleb Basin Brooks Box No 1818 EA I $940.00 $940.00 $400.00 $400.00 $545.70 $545.70 14. Slump Stone Wall LF 380 $42.00 $15,960.00 $30.00 $11,400.00 $32.14 $12,213.20 15. Install PCC Wheel Stops EA 66 $20.00 $1,320.00 $22.00 $1,452.00 $20.74 $1,368.84 16. 6" PCC Curb LF 945 $7.00 $6,615.00 $6.00 $5,670.00 $8,73 $8,249.85 17. 4" PCC Sidewalk SF 553 $3.00 $1,659.00 $2.00 $1,106.00 $1.68 $929.04 18. 6" Wide 4" Thick PCC Step-out LF 416 $6.00 $2.496.00 $3.00 $1,248.00 $1.68 $698.88 19. CurvilinesxSidewalk SF 1,040 $3.00 $3,120.00 $2.00 $2,080.00 $1.68 $1,747.20 20. 4" Thick PCC Slab SF 2,312 $2.75 $6,358.00 $2.00 $4,624.00 $1.68 $3,884.16 21. 6' Chain Link Fence LF 286 $14.00 $4,004.00 $11.00 $3,146.00 $12.59 $3,600.74 22. Install 3 1/2" D X 30 VB Posts EA 2 $100.00 $200.00 $100.00 $200.00 $600.27 $1,200.54 .2,3. 8" Din PVC Pipe LF 146 $15.00 $2,190.00 $13.00 $1,898.00 $15.25 $2,226.50 24. Install H-2Co) Handicap Signs EA I $360.00 $360.00 $100.00 $100.00 $109.14 $109.14 25. Install Lawn Sod SF 6,450 $1.75 $11,287.50 $6.90 $5,805.00 $6.50 $3,225.00 26. Auto Irrigation System LS I $35,000.00 $35,000.00 $23,000.00 $23,000.00 $28,011.40 $28,011.40 27. 2" Dia Irrigation Water Service EA I $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $4,447.46 $4,447.46 28. I 1/2" Dia Irrigation Backflow EA I $1,100,00 $1,100.00 $2.400.00 $2,400.00 $1,328.78 $1,328.78 29. Modify lrr. System at VB Court LS I $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $1,856.09 $1,856.09 30. Parking Lot Sffiping LS I $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,150.00 $2,150.00 $1,107.77 $1,107.77 31. Handicap Stall Signage & Mark EA 2 $300.00 $600.00 $75.00 $150.00 $201.91 $403.82 32. Parking Lot Lighting LS ! $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $43,000.00 $43,000.00 $33,615.12 $33,615.12 Total Bid $196,883.60 $197,003.00 $202,389.78 Tolal of Bid Submitted $195,000.00 $202,827.12 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS MILLIKEN PARK, PARK MODIFICATIONS AND PARKING LOT EXTENSION Page 5 Marina Contractors, Inc. CGO Construct. Co., Inc. West Coast Construction Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Bid Unit Bid Unit Original No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Amount Prices Amount Prices Authorized 1. Clearing and Grubbing LS ! $22,000.00 $22,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 2. Remove AC Pavement SF 360 $2.00 $720.00 $3.00 $1,080.00 $1.25 $450.00 3. Remove 12" PCC Curb LF 2(30 $3.50 $910.00 $4.00 $1,040.00 $1.25 $325.00 4. Remove PCC Sidewalk SF 126 $3.50 $441.00 $4.00 $504.00 $1.25 $157.50 5. Unclassified Excavation & Fill LS I $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $17,800.00 $17,800.00 $20,900.00 $20,900.00 6. Remove & Salvage Fence LF 269 $2.50 $672.50 $3.00 $807.00 $3.50 $941.50 7. R & R Exist Chain Link Fence LF 197 $6.30 $1,241.10 $6.00 $1,182.00 $6.00 $1,182.00 & R & R Exist Sand LS I $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $3,5130.00 $3,500.00 9. Ajd MH Frame & cover to Grade EA I $700.00 $700.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 10. Ctushed Aggregate or Slag Base TON 1,030 $11.25 $11,587.50 $17.00 $17,510.00 $12.00 $12,360.00 11. A C Pavement TON 775 $33.00 $25,575.00 $33.00 $25,575.00 $33.00 $25,575.00 12. A C Berm LF 161 $12.00 $1,932.00 $10.00 $1,610.00 $8.00 $1,288.00 13. Catch Basin Brooks Box No 1818 EA I $250.00 S250.00 $700.00 $700.00 $350.00 $350.00 14. Slump Stone Wall LF 380 $52.50 $19,950.00 $41.00 $15,580.00 $32.00 $12,160.00 15. Install PCC Wheel Stops EA 66 $35.00 $2,310.00 $10.00 $660.00 $22.00 $1,452.00 16. 6" PCC Crab LF 945 $8.00 $7,560.00 $8.00 $7,560.00 $11.00 $10,395.00 17. 4" PCC Sidewalk SF 553 $1.90 $1,050.70 $2.50 $1,382.50 $2.00 $1,106.00 l& 6" Wide 4" Thick PCC Step-out LF 416 $2.80 $1,164.80 $2.00 $832.00 $5.00 $2,080.00 19. Curvilinear Sidewalk SF 1,040 $2.00 $2,080.00 $2.20 $2,288.00 $2.25 $2,340.00 20. 4" 'l'nick PCC Slab SF 2,312 $1.90 $4,392.80 $2.00 $4,624.00 $2.25 $5,202.00 21. 6' Chain Link Fence LF 286 $11.50 $3,289.00 $10.00 $2,860.00 $11.00 $3,146.00 22. Install 3 I/2" D X 30 VB Posts EA 2 $250.00 $500.00 $250.00 $500.00 $250.00 $500.00 23. 8" Din PVC Pipe LF 146 $10.00 $1,460.00 $42.00 $6,132.00 $10.00 $1,460.00 24. Install H-2Co) Handicap Signs EA I $350.00 $350.00 $195.00 $195.00 $200.00 $200.00 :?5. Install Lawn Sod SF 6,450 $1.00 $6A50.00 $1.50 $9,675.00 $1.00 $6,450.00 26. Auto Irrigation System LS I $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $26,000.00 $26,000.00 27. 2" Din In'iga~on Water SeP/ice EA I $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 2& I I/2" Dia IrrigationBacldlow EA I $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,700.00 $2,700.00 29. Modify lit. System at VB Court LS ! $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 ;30. Parking Lot Striping LS I $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 31. Handicap Stall Signage & Mark EA 2 $250.00 $500.130 $120.00 $240.00 $250.00 $500.00 32. Parking Lot Lighting LS I $36,000.00 $36,000.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 Total Bid $205,586.40 $208,036.50 $208,920.00 Total of Bid Submitted $200,253.60 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS MILLIKEN PARK, PARK MODIFICATIONS AND PARKING LOT EXTENSION Page 2 Wyatt Construction Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Bid No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Amount 1. Clearing and Grabbing L5 1 $ I 1,260.62 $11,260.62 2. Remove AC Pavement SF 360 $1.31 $471.60 3. Remove 12" PCC Curb LF 260 $1.46 $379.60 4. Remove PCC Sidewalk SF 126 $1.94 $244.44 5. Unclnssifw. d Excavation & Fill L$ I $13,478.06 $13,478.06 6. Remove & Salvage Fence LF 269 $4.06 $1,092.14 7. R&RExistChainLinkFensc LF 197 $6.61 $1,302.17 8. R & R Exist Sand LS I $480.79 $480.79 9, Ajd MH Frame & cover to Grade EA I $256.37 $256.37 10. Crushed Aggregate or Slag Base TON 1,030 $18.71 $19,271.30 11. A C Pavement TON 775 $32.22 $24,970.50 12. A C Benn LF 161 $4.83 $777.63 13. Catch Basin Brooks Box No 1818 EA ! $662.79 ,$662.79 14. Slump Slone Wall LF 380 $24.68 $9,378.40 15. Install PCC Wheel Stops EA 66 $24.74 $1,632.84 16. 6" PCC Curb LF 945 $5.97 $5,641.65 17. 4" PC'C Sidewalk SF 553 $2.07 $1,144.71 18. 6" Wide 4" Thick PCC Step-out LF 416 $3.28 $1,364.48 19. Curvilinear Sidewalk SF 1,040 $1.97 $2,048.80 20. 4" Thick PCC Slab SF 2,312 $1.90 $4,392.80 21. 6' Chain Link Fence LF 286 $13.02 $3,723.72 22. Install 3 1/2" D X 30 VB Posts EA 2 $189.30 $378.60 23. 8' Dia PVC Pipe LF 146 $7.92 $1,156.32 24. Install H-2Co) Handicap Signs EA I $99.60 $99.60 25. Install Lawn Sod SF 6,450 $1.30 $8,385.00 26. Auto Irrigation System LS I $26,140.82 $26,140.82 27, 2" Dia Irrigation Water Service EA I $9,337.59 $9,337.59 28. I I/2" Dia h, tigation Backflow EA I $3,385.94 $3,385.94 29. Modify lrr. System at VB Court LS I $2,628.01 $2,628.01 30. Parking Lot Sniping LS I $1,321.84 $1,321.84 31. Handicap Stall Signage & Mark EA 2 $25,837.00 $51,674.00 32. Parking Lot Lighting LS I $37,616.53 $37,616.53 Tolal Bid $246,099.66 $194,986.03 PAGES 106 THROUGH 109 ARE BLANK CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DATE: May 4, 1994STAFF REPORT TO: Mayor, Members of the City, Council and City Manager FROM: William ]. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Ludnda E. HackeR, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORTS AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR JUNE 1, 1994, TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, AND 8 It is recommended that City council approve the preliminary Engineer's Reports and set Public Hearings for June 1, 1994, to levy the annual assessments and approve the Engineer's Reports for Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8. It is recommended there be no increase in assessment rates in these districts for Fiscal Year 1994/95. BACKGROUND / AN ALYSIS Below is an itemized analysis on a district by district basis. To summarize, the assessment rates in all eight of the Street Light Maintenance Districts are not recommended to be increased this fiscal year. These assessments cover the actual costs of the districts. Southern California Edison has advised the City that they do not intend to raise electrical rates for FY 94/95. Therefore electrical charges are expected to remain stable .and the current assessment rate will cover the actual costs of the districts. In prior years State Gas Tax Funds were used to subsidize the districts. At the present time, each district is able to stand on its own without additional funding from other sources. In some districts there is an increase in the number of street lights being maintained however these will not affects the assessment rate at this time. Edison charges for traffic signals are also included in the applicable districts. I.n addition, Operations and Maintenance charges for traffic sigmais, will also be borne by the applicable districts. In past years any available prior year carryover was used to keep assessments below the annual assessment revenue requirements. This policy continues for the F'Y 94/95 and will allow the assessment rates to remain stable. The following, in conjunction with reference to the Preliminary Engineer's Reports, identifies proposed FY 94/95 rates which are not recommended for an increase from the FY 93/94 rates. The Preliminary Engineer's Reports identifies the required budget for each district and any carryover used to offset maintenance costs Street ~ Maintenance District NO. 1 z Arl;erial The assessment rate is recommended to remain at $17.77 for Fiscal Year 1994/95. Prior year carryover funds will still be used to keep the rate from increasing. However, these carryover funds will not be available in future years. 110 Str~t~ Maintenance District N0.2: Local The assessment rate is recommended to remain at $39.97 for Fiscal Year 1994/95. Electricity costs increased only $4,360 over the FY 93/94 because of new area being accepted into the district. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district. However, these carryover funds may not be available in future years. Street Lighting Maintenance District Nc~ ~.: Victoria Planned Community The assessment rate will remain at $45.15 for Fiscal Year 1994/95. The electric utilities cost increased by $23,050 over the prior year. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Street ~ Maintenance District No. 4: Terra Vista Planned Communi~ The assessment rate will remain it $28.96 for Fiscal Year 1994/95. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district. However, these carryover funds may not be available in future years. Str~t~~ District N0.5:Caryn PlanneCt Community The assessment rate will remain at $34.60 for Fiscal Year 1994/95. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Street ~ Maintenance District N0. ~__' Commercial/Industrial The assessment rate will remain at $51.40 for Fiscal Year 1994/95. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. Street 'h. LLg.b_tLO~ Maintenance District N0. Z: North An assessment increase is not recommended in this district, the rate will remain at $33.32 for Fiscal Year 1994/95. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. Street ~ Maintenance District N0. ~.: South Etiwanda An assessment increase is not recommended in this district, but remain at $193.75 for Fiscal Year 1994/95 This proposed rate is higher than the average lighting district due to a disproportionate number of street tights to assessment units. As more assessment units are annexed to the district it is expected that the street light-to-assessment unit will be reduced thereby reducing the assessment rate. Respectfully submitte William. J'~Neil ' City Engineer WJO:ws Attachments: Resolution Engineer's Reports 1104 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA , CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4,5,6, TAND8. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve that: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Engineer is required to make and file with the City Clerk of the City an annual report in writing for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the maintenance and/or improvement of said Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for under and pursuant to said Act, which has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said Council as duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient and that said report, nor ay part thereof, requires or should be modified in any respect. NOW THEREFORE, the CiLy Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby order as follows: 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of itemized costs and expenses of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 2. Thai the diagrams showing the Assessment District referred to and described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment Districts are hereby preliminari[y approved and confirmed. 3. That the proposed assessments upon the subdivisions of land in said Assessment Districts in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Annual Report for the fiscal year 1994/95 for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE OISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8, FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, does resolve as follows: Description of Work: SECTION 1: That the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this City Council to 1 evy and collect assessments within Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for the fiscal year 1994/95 for the maintenance and operation of those street lights, traffic signals and facilities thereon dedicated for con~non purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the boundaries of said Districts. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and supervision of street lighting maintenance (including repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement providing for illumination of the subject area) in connection with said districts. Location of Work: SECTION 2: The foregoing described work is to be 1 ocated within the roadway rights-of-way and easements enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particulaMy described on maps which are on file in the City Clerk's Office, entitled "Assessment Diagrams Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Description of Assessment Districts: SECTION 3: That the contemplated work, in the opinion of said City Council, is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the work chargeable upon the districts, which said districts, are assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which districts are described as follows: ~ 1 that certain territory of the City of Rancho .Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon that certain "Map of Street RESOLUTION NO. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS May 4, 1~94 Page 2 Lighting Maintenance District No. 1", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3, "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 4", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance 9ist~ict No. 5", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance ~istrict No. 6", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 7", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 8", indicating by said boundary lines the extent of the territory included within each assessment district and which maps are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference is hereby made to said maps for further, full and more particular description of said assessment districts, and the said maps so on file shall govern for all details as to the extent of said assessment districts. Report of Engineer: SECTION 4: The City Council of said City by Resolution No. has approved the a~ report of the City Engineer which report indicates the amount of the proposed assessments, the district boundaries, assessment zones, and the methodof assessment. The report title "Annual Engtneer's Report" is on file in the Office of the City C1 erk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work. TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: SECTION 5: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING IS HEREBY SCHEDIIL'ED"llFI'RE CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS,.10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, CITY OF P~ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, 91730. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, lg94, AT 7:00 P.M. ANY AND ALL PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY SAID MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FOR THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE DONE OR CARRIED OUT OR WHY ASSESSMENTS SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 PROTESTS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST CONTAIN A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IN WHICH EACH SIGNER THEREOF IS INTERESTED, SUFFICIENT TO IDENTI~Y THE SAME, AND MUST BE DELIVERED TO THE CITY CLERK OF SAID CITY PRIOR TO THE TIME SET FOR THE HEARING, AND NO OTHER PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED. IF THE SIGNER OF ANY PROTEST IS NOT SHOWN UPON THE LAST EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT ROLL SUCH PROTEST MUST CONTAIN OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY WRITTEN EVIDENCE THAT SUCH SIGNER IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERI~ SO DESCRIBED. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972: SECTION 6: ~l the work herein proposed shall be done and carried through in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the State of California no4 RESOLUTION NO. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS May 4, 1994 Page 3 designated as the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways code of the State of California. Publication of Resolution of Intention: SECTION 7 Published notice shall be made pursuant to Section 6961 of the Government Code. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City ~ erk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in the ~an2 ~.l~ .ail~ ,ulletin. anewsp~per of genera" circ.lation ,u~l ished in i Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 110-~ Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Street Light District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) Fiscal Year 1994/95 ' ~¢Villiam J. O'N~/CTty Engineer ll0-c~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial street throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to this City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Pro!ected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #1 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 94/95 based upon actual tax receipts. The proiected costs to operate and maintain SLD #1 are as follows: 110-I Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994/95 Total Personnel 50.00 Maintenance and Operations $17,200.0(3 Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment $1,000.00 General Liability $ 4,120.00 Electric Utilities $269.780.00 Operations Subtotal: $292,100.0(] Assessment Administration and General Overhead $123,790.00 Tax Delinquency $56.870.00 Subtotal: $180,660.00 Total Revenue Required: $472,760.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$41,080.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $431 I680.00 Analysis: Assessment Rates for FY 94/95 have not been increased. 22.37 new assessment units have been annexed into the district. FY 94/95 Assessment l~i~; For FY 94/95 the rate per assessment unit is $17.77. That is the same rate as FY 93/94. The following itemizes the assessment rate for iche district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use T.? Units Rate Faclnr A.U. Revenue Commercial Acre 3769.26 $17.77 2 $35.54 $133,960.00 Single Family Parcel 16,754 $17.77 1 $17.77 ~ Total $431,680.00 110-a STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - . SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ~_, STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #1 ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 FEBRUARY 17, 1993 PM 14318 3.47 AC - 6.94AU MARCH 17, 1993 PM 11738 3 DU - 3AU MARCH 17, 1993 CUP 92-19 10.37 AC - 20.74AU MARCH 17, 1993 DR 92-07 1.5 AC - 3.0AU APRIL 7, 1993 PM 13800 2 DUo 2AU NOVEMBER 17, 1993 PM 13075 2 DU - 2AU ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 B ' STREET LIGHTING' MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 ( (lla/,,f.) t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ' 110-,t EXHIBIT 'A- ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 LEGS. NO --o.,--- ~ DENOTES EQUESTRIAN TRAIL DENOTES STREET LIGHT' SCALE .;..- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA  COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO EXHIBIT 'A' ~ ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 19 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 a..,, JERSey |0807 · ~~~~~,,~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA' COUNTy OF SAN BERN~kRDINO ,_,. .. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 110 EXHIBIT 'A' ~ :. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0.3 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO S. '1 AND 6 © ® CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERN~RDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA .~:A~::c. or i110-4 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0.1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONQA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 110 Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Street Light District No. 2 (Local Streets) Fiscal Year 1994/95 APProved~/~Cdf--~Z4 ,~Z-d~ William J.dD'f~eil, City Engineer 110-~7 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (SLD #2) is used t,o fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue. It has been determined that the facilihes in this district benefit this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs nf energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Pro!ected Costs: The majority of the budgeted operating costs for SLD #2 is for electric utility charges for the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 94/95 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #2 are as follows: llO-/ - Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994195 Total Personnel 0 Maintenance and Operations 0 Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment 0 Genera[ Liability $2,570.00 Electric Utilities $206.030.00 Operations and Capital Subtotal: $208,600.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $50,670.00 Tax Delinquency $19.1(R).00 Subtotal: $69,770.00 Total Revenue Required: $278,370.00 Less: FY 93/94 District Carryover <$18,500.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $259t860.00 ,4. nalysis: Assessment Rates for FY 94/95 are not recommended to be increased. district. F'Y 94/95 Assessment Rate: For FY 94/95 the rate per assessment unit is $39.97. This is the same rate as FY 93/94. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Us~ T..v~ Units Rat~ Faclnr A.U. Revenue Commercial Acre 249.65 $39.97 2 $79.94 $19,960.00 Single Family Parcel 6002.00 $39.97 1 $39.97 $239.900.00 Total $259,860.00 110-/ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT2 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CAI.IFORNIA STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #2 ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 MARCH 17, 1993 PM 11738 3 DU - 3AU APRIL 7, 1993 PM 13800 2 DU - ZAU NOVEMBER 17, 1993 PM 13075 2 DU - ZAU llO af EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 LEGEND ~ DENOTES EQUESTRIAN TRAIL DENOTES STREET LIGHT ' $CAL[ I'a 80' ...: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ;~ M ~ 7 ~ es ~ ..... STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~XHIB~T "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, I STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. t AND 2 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA 110 I~OKI|ON BEING Y~CATE-D Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cuc. amonga Street Light District No. 3 (Victoria Planned Community) Fiscal Year 1994/95 William J. O'Ix~,"City Engineer 110-~; City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (Victoria Planned Community) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (Victoria Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (SLD #3) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Victoria Planned Community. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Deer Creek Channel, south of Highland Avenue, north of Base Line Road, and west of Etiwanda Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals on local streets within the Victoria Planned Community. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinar~ and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operabon of the lighting system. The costs wi[[ be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 94/95 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #3 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994195 Total Personnel $0.00 Maintenance and Operations $0.00 Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment $0.00 General Liability $1,810.00 Electric Utilities $146.660.00 Operations and Capital Subtotal: $148,470.00 Assessment Administration and Genera[ Overhead $34,560.00 Tax Delinquency $8,480.00 Subtotal: $43,040.00 Total Revenue Required: $191,510.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$4.630.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $186t880.00 Analysis: Assessment Rates for FY 94/95 have not been increased. FY 94/95 Assessment Rate: For FY 94/95 the rate per assessment unit is $47.15 This is the same rate as FY 93/94. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Tv~e Units Rat~ Facu3r A.U. Revenue Commercial Acre 35.29 $47.15 2 $94.30 $3,328.00 Single Family Parcel 3893.00 $47.15 1 $47.15 ¢,183.550.00 Total $186,880.00 STRI~ET LIGHTING MAINTENANC~ DISTRICT 3 Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Street Light District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community) Fiscal Year 1994/95 Approved.'/f/~.~d~,~ C~z'j/dd~ William J. O'l~,~ity Engineer 110-Z7 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (Tetra Vista Planned Community) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (SLD #4) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Tetra Vista Planned Community. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Haven Avenue, south of Base Line Road, north of Foothill Boulevard, and west of Rochester Avenue. [t has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Tetra Vista Planned Community. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Pro!ected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #4 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals in the amount of nearly $50,000. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 94/95 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD ~1 are as follows: 110-. o Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994J95 Total Personnel $19,140.00 Maintenance and Operations $10,000.00 · Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment $5,000.00 General Liability $840.00 Electric Utilities $49.890.00 Operations and Capital Subtotal: $ 84,870.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $19,010.00 Tax Delinquency $3,260.00 Subtotal: $22,270.00 Total Revenue Required: $~07,140.0) Less: FY 93/94 Carryover <513.510.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $93,630.00 Analysis: Assessment Rates for FY 94/95 will remain at $28.96 per year. FY 94/95 Assessment Rate: For FY 94/95 the recommended rate per assessment unit is $28.96. This is the same as the rate for FY 93/94. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use T,,vpe Units Rate FactDr A.U. Revenue Commercial Acre 785.58 $28.96 2 $57.92 $45,500.00 Single Family Parcel 1,662.00 $28.96 1 $28.96 548.130.00 Total $93,630.00 II0 ! STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT SAN BE~A~O~NN~ACOUNTY Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Street Light District No. 5 (Caryn Planned Community) Fiscal Year 1994/95 William J. O'l~il, City Engineer City of Ranch0 Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 5 (Caryn Planned Community) Fiscal Year 94]9~ The FY 94/95 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 5 (Caryn Planned Comn~unity) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Street Light Maintenance District No. 5 (SLD #5) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Caryn Planned Community. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Milliken Avenue, south of Banyan Street, north of Highland Avenue, and west of Rochester Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Caryn Planned Community. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, howover, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these r/ew areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #5 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals in the amount of over $27,000. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 94/95 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #5 are as follows: ll0d proposed Maintenance Bud_eet for 1994/95 Regular Payroll $4,080.00 Fringe Benefits $1,510.00 Maintenance and Operations $12,780.00 Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment $0.00 General Liability $490.00 Electric Utilities $27.330.00 Operations and Capital Subtotal: $46,190.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $9,170.00 Delinquency Contingency $26.280.00 Subtotal: $35,450.00 Total Revenue Required: $81,640.00 Less: FY93/94 District Carryover <$41.120.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $40~520.00 Analysis: There are no substantial increases in the district's budget and no new assessment units have been annexed into the district. It is recommended the assessment rates for FY 94/95 not be increased. FY 94/95Assessment Rate: For F'Y 94/95 the rate per assessment unit is $34.60. This is the same as the rate for FY 93/94. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use T..vpe Units lbte Factnr A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 1,171.00 $34.60 1 $34.60 S40.520.00 Total 1,171.00 $40,520.00 110- STREET LIGHTING 'IM~ENANCE DISTRICT 5 ~s ~auaY ,,a .: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA~~'[[ i- saw ~a~ SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ' ' .,'.o cuc,l~, CALIFORNIA Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Street Light District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial) Fiscal Year 1994/95 Willdim J. O'~JL'~L City Engineer 110-~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Mainlenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial) Fiscal Year 9ad95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (SLD #6) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally this area encompasses the industrial of the City south of Foothill Boulevard. It has been determined that the facilities within this district benefit this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #6 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals in the amount of over $33,000. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 94/95 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #6 are as follows: llO-j3 Proposed Maintenance Budl~et for 1994195 Total Personnel $8,380.00 Maintenance and Operations $2,500.00 Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment 56,580.00 General Liability 5490.00 Electric Utilities $33.980.53 Maintenance & Operations Subtotal: $51,930.0) Assessment Administration and General Overhead $5,860.00 Tax Delinquency $7,410.00 Subtotal: $13,270.00 Total Revenue Required: $65,200.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <510.460.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $54,740.tX) Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 94/95 are not recommenced to increase. 15.34 new assessment units have been annexed into the district. FY 94/95 Assessment Rate: For FY 94/95 the recommended rate per assessment unit is $51.40. This is the same as the rate of FY 93/94. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ ~ Use T..v.v.v.v~ Units R~te Faclnr A,U, Revenue lpdstrial/Cc~mm. Acre 1064.91 $51.40 1 $51.40 ~54,740.00 Total $54,740.00 110- STREET LIGHTING ~INTENANCE DISTRICT 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAi/ONGA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY '. ' CALIFORNIA STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #6 ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 FEBRUARY 17, 1993 PM 14318 3.47 AC - 3.47AU MARCH 17, 1993 CUP 92-19 10.37 AC - 10.37AU MARCH 17, 1993 DR 92-07 1.5 AC - 1.5AU 110-t ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ~ LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 R ' STREET LIGHTING' MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6' /'\ .. , . CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDiNO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ,~,~--~ 1104~ EXHI81T 'A* ' '- ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 E~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NC)S. 1 AND 6 10807 JERSEY BI,VD. -. -. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA'  COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO C~,. .;.STATE OF CALIFORNIA cu~ ,z-,~ : llO-'/j r~~~ E~H|B|T *A~ ~ :. ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM ST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO 3 REET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO~. 1 AND 6 .~_,,~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERN~kRDINO (~ .,~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~:~ or :]-]-0-~ Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Street Light District No. 7 (North Etiwanda) Fiscal Year 1994/95 William J. O'I'~lTCity' Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (North Etiwanda) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (North Etiwanda) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (SLD #7) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets in what is termed the North Etiwanda area of the City. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Day Creek Channel and north of Highland Avenue within the incorporated area of the City. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the North Etiwanda area. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Proiected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #7 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals in the amount of over $11,000. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during F'Y 94/95 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #7 are as follows: proposed Maintenance Budl~et for 1994]95 Total Personnel 55,590.00 Maintenance and Operations $200.00 Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment $1,370.00 Genera[ Liability $180.00 Electric Utilities 511.770.00 Operations and Capital Subtotal: $19,110.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $4,810.00 Tax Delinquency 59.670.00 Subtotal: $14,480.00 Total Revenue Required: $33,590.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$13.000.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $20,590.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 94/95 are not recommended to increase. No new assessment units have been annexed into the district this year. FY 9ad95 Assessment Rate: For FY 94/95 the recommended rate per assessment unit is $33.32. There is no increase in this assessment rate over the FY 93/94 rate The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Lind Use Type Units P~te Fadnr A.U, Rovehue Single Family Parcel 618.00 $33.32 I $33.32 520.590.00 Total 618.00 $20,590.00 llO-q STREET LIGHTING h'~NTENANCE DISTRICT 7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAt{ONGA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CALIFORNIA Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Street Light District No. 8 (South Etiwanda) Fiscal Year 1994/95 William J. (D~il, City Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 8 (South Etiwanda) Fiscal Year 94/95 The F'Y 94/95 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 8 (South Etiwanda) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Back~ounl~; Street Light Maintenance District No. 8 (SLD #8) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets in what is termed the South Etiwanda area of the City. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Foothill Boulevard, and south of Highland Avenue within the incorporated area of the City. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion theeeof) on local streets within the South Etiwanda area. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based On Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #8 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals in the amount of nearly $4,000. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 94/95 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #8 are as follows: 110- Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994J95 Total Personnel $0.00 Maintenance and Operations $130.00 Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment $0.00 General Liability $50.00 Electric Utilities $3.860.00 Operations and Capital Subtotal: $4,040.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $710.00 Tax Delinquency $6.390.00 Subtotal: $7,100.00 Total Revenue Required: $11,140.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$4.160.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $6t980.00 Analysis: It is recommended the assessment rates for FY 94/95 not be increased. No new units have been annexed into the district this year. FY 94/95 Assessment Rate: For FY 94/95 the rate per assessment unit is $193.75. There is no increase in this assessment rate over the FY 93/94 rate. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ brtl Us~ T..vpe Unils Rate Facet A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 36.00 $193.75 1 $193.75 56.980.00 Total 36.00 $6,980.00 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 8 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAJJONGA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY C a I I~DMI A CITY OF'RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor, Members of the City Council and City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORTS AND SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 1, 1994, TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8. R MM NDATI N: It is recommended that City Council approve the Preliminary Engineer's Reports and set the Public Hearings for June 1, 1994, to levy the annual assessments and approve the Engineer's Reports for Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. BACKGROUND /ANAL, Y~;I~: Below is an itemized analysis on a district by district basis. To summarize, it is recommended that assessment rates not be increased in any of the Landscape Maintenance Districts for the FY 1994/95. Reasons for this recommendation include water costs savings due to a combination of water conservation efforts, last year's wet winter and mild summer. Water conservation efforts include a program to computerize the irrigation systems for all of the District's maintained landscape areas. So far, all of the district's parks and approximately 25% of the landscape areas within the districts are on the system. In many of the districts the tax delinquency rate has decreased thereby increasing the revenue in those districts. In some districts an increase in the amount of landscape area to maintain has caused an increase in the amount of maintenance and operation costs. These costs will be offset by increases in revenue. In past years any available prior year carryover was used to keep assessments below the annual assessments revenue requirements. In some districts this is still true and has allowed the assessment rate to remain constant. The following, along with reference to the Preliminary Engineer's Reports, identifies proposed FY 94/95 rates. The Preliminary Engineer's Reports identifies the required budget for each district and any carryover used to reduce rates. Cucamonga County Waster District (CCWD) will be increasing its water rates by approximately 5 1/2 % this fiscal year. This is due to the fact that Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is increasing their rates to CCWD. This 5 1/2 % rate increase is being applied to all users in the City including the landscape maintenance districts and will directly affect the operating expenses of these districts. There is sufficient capital within the districts operating budgets this year to absorb the rate increase from CCWD without raising the assessment rates. This is because of water conservation efforts by the City such as Calsense, moisture sensors and Xeriscape landscaping techniques, last year's wet winter and mild summer, lower tax delinquency rates and district carryovers. While this positive financial situation is occurring this fiscal year it may not and probably will not occur next fiscal year. A tax delinquency amount is added to each district's budget to cover anticipated delinquencies in tax payments. If the delinquencies are less than expected, funds within the district can be added to the .districts fund balance. Landscape Maintenance District No- I - General City It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $92.21 for the FY 94/95. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the districL however they may not be available in future years. L{~ndscape Maintenance District No. 2 -Victoria Planned Community It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $422.00 for the FY 94/95. LMD #2 has the largest landscape area of any district in the City with 118.62 acres, of which 27.50 acres is parks. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a - Hyssop It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $413.74 for the FY 94/95. Landscape Maintenance District No3b -Commercial/Industrial It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $352.80 per acre for the FY 94/95. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. 22.87 acres of the Adult Sports Complex will be accepted into the district for maintenance this fiscal year. Landscape Maintenance District No.4 - Tetra Vista It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $252.50 for the FY 94/95. Approximately 1.25 acres of parking lot for Mil[iken Park will be accepted into this district for maintenance. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Landscape Maintenance District No. 5- Tot Lot It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $113.29 for the FY 94/95. Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 - Caryn It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at 5246.97 for the Iv,' 94/95. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. [~andscape Maintenance District No. 7 - North Etiwanda It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $307.05 for the FY 94/95. A refunding contingency in an amount of $200,000 will refund those property owners who are current on their property taxes. Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 - South Etiwanda It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $151.45 for the FY 94/95. 111-/ Respectfully Submitted, Attachments: Resolutions Engineer's Reports 111-~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA , CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4,5,6,7ANDS. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve that: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Engineer is required to make and file with the City Clerk of the City an annual report in writing for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the maintenance and/or improvement of said Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for under and pursuant to said Act, which has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said Council as duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient and that said report, nor ay part thereof, requires or should be modified in any respect. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby order as follows: 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of itemized costs and expenses of said work · and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 2. That the diagrams showing the Assessment District referred to and described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment Districts are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 3. That the proposed assessments upon the subdivisions of land in said Assessment Districts in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respectively, from said work and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Annual Report for the fiscal year 1994/95for the purposes of all subsequent proceedings lll-s A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8, FOR THE fISCAL YEAR 1994/9: PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, does resolve as follows: ~escription of Work: SECTION I: That the public interest and convenience require and it is the intention of this City Council to levy and collect assessments within Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for the fiscal year 1994/95 for the maintenance and operation of those parkways, parks and facilities thereon dedicated for common greenbel t purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the boundaries of said Districts. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and supervision of landscape maintenance (including repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement providing for illumination of the subject area) in connection with said districts. Location of Work: SECTION 2: The foregoing described work is to be located within the roadway rights-of-way and easements enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particulaMy described on maps which are on file in the City Clerk's Office, enti~ ed "Assessment Diagrams Landscape Maintenance Oist~icts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Description of Assessment Districts: SECTION 3: That the contemplated work, in the opinion of said City Council, is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the work chargeable upon the districts, which said districts, are assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which districts are described as follows: All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon that certain "Map of Landscape RESOLUTION NO. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS May 4, 1994 Page 2 Maintenance District No. 1", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 2", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 3A, "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 38,. "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 4", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 5", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 6", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 7", "Map of Landscape Maintenance ~ist~ict No. 8", indicating by said boundary lines the extent nf the territory included within each assessment district and which maps are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City. Approximately 22.87 acres of the Adult Sports Complex will be accepted into Landscape Maintenance District 38 this ~iscal year. Reference is hereby made to said maps for further, full and more particular description of said assessment districts, and the said maps so on file shall govern ~or all details as to the extent of said assessment districts. Report of Engineer: SECTION 4: The City Council of said City by Resolution No. has approved the annu'~'~l report of the City Engineer'which report indicates the amount of the proposed assessments, the district boundaries, assessment zones, and the method of assessment. The report ti ~ e "Annual Engineer's Report" is on file in the Office of the City D erk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work. TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: SECTION 5: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING IS HEREBY SCHED~ CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, 91730. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1994, AT 7:00 P.M. ANY AND ALL PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY SAID MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FOR THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE DONE OR CARRIED OUT OR WHY ASSESSMENTS SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 PROTESTS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST CONTAIN A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IN WHICH EACH SIGNER THEREOF IS INTERESTEn, SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY THE SAME, AND MUST BE DELIVERED TO THE CITY CLEI~K OF SAID CITY PRIOR TO THE TIME SET FOR THE HEARING, AND NO OTHER PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED. IF THE SIGNER OF ANY PROTEST IS NOT SHOWN UPON THE LAST EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT ROLL SUCH PROTEST MUST CONTAIN OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY WRITTEN EVIDENCE THAT SUCH SIGNER IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SO DESCRIBED. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1977: SECTION 6: All the work herein proposed shall be done and carried through in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the State of California RESOLUTION NO. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS May 4, 1994 Page 3 designated as the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways code of the State of California. Publication of Resolution of Intention: SECTION 7 Published notice shall be made pursuant to Section 6961 of the Governmen"~'t"t'~'~e. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City C1 erk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in the an .l Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in i Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 111- Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City) Fiscal Year 1994/95 William J.dD'Neil, City Engineer 111o7 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City Parkways, Medians, Parks and Community Trails) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General CiW Parkways, Medians, Parks and Community Trails) is prepared in compliance with the req6irements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD #1) represents 29.94 acres of landscape area and 38.25 acres of parks which are located at various sites throughout the City. These sites are not considered to be associated with any one particular area within the City, but rather benefit the entire City on a broader scale. As such, the parcels within this district do not represent a distinct district area as do the City's remaining LMD's. Typically parcels within this district have been annexed upon development. The various sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, enUy monuments, Community Trails and parks. The 38.25 acres of parks consist of Bear Gulch Park which is 5 acres, 20 acres of East and West Beryl Park, 5 acres of Old Town Park. 6.5 acres of Church Street Park and the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center which consists of 1.75 acres. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 9~/94 94/9~ Ground Cover and Shrubs 21.47 21.47 Turf 1.47 1.47 Parks 28.25 38.25 Community Tr~jl~ 7.00 7.00 Total Area in LMD #1 68.19Acres 68.19 Acres The ground cover, shrubs and turf areas of the various landscape areas and the parks are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company while the equestrian trails are maintained by the City's Trails and Application Crew. Pro!ected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #1 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs and the maintenance of the parks. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Aglreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The City's Trails and Application Crew maintains the equestrian trails within the district. The proiected costs to operate and maintain LMD #1 are as follows: 111- Proposed MaLntenance Budget for 1994/95 Regular Payroll $49,510.00 Fringe Benefits $18,320.00 Maintenance and Operations $39,740.00 Vehicle Maintenance and Operations $16,310.00 Emergency & Routine Vehicle Equipment Rental $1,000.00 Contract Services Parkway & Median Landscape Maintenance $285,000.00 Park Landscape Maintenance $145,600.00 Tree Maintenance $12,000.00 Athletic Light Maintenance 513,000.00 Tree Inventory Field Data Collection $7,550.00 Capital Expenditures A.D.A. Tot Lot Retrofit - Bear Gulch Park $30,000.00 Capital Project Outlay $147,9~.00 Capital Equipment Outlay 51,550.00 Capital Vehicles Outlay $8,650.00 General Liability $8,260.00 Water Utilities $145,000.00 Electric Utilities 542.000.00 Subtotal: $971,390.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $119,220.00 Tax Delinquency 5145.410.00 Subtotal: $264,630.00 Total Revenue Required: $1,236,020.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$294,000.00> Assessment Revenue Required $942,020.00 For 94/95 the Capital Project Outlay budgeted for the district is as follows; $13,000 for a Controller Cabinet Safety Upgrades, $600 for Irrigation Controller Improvements, $5,0t~,) for Tot Lot deck replacement at East Beryl Park, $3,000 for tot lot deck replacement at Church Street Park, $8,000 roof repair at Bear Gulch and Chuch Street Parks, $8,000 for parkway street tree repalcement throughout the district,S12,000 for landscape maintenance material replacement, $1,430 for Haven Avenue Median moisture sensors, $16,250 for irrigation improvements to control parks, $1,200 for MWD lease for East and West Beryl Parks and $79,420 for irrigation improvements to contol parkways. Capital Equipment Outlay of $1,550 is for 27% of the purchase price of two shared personnel computers for the Landscape Maintenance Supervisors. Capital Vehicle Outlay of $3,850 is for 12% of a 1/2 ton flat bed truck for the Tree Maintenance Crew and $4,800 for 34% of a 4WD utility vehicle for the Trails Crew. There is also $30,000 under Capital Improvement Projects for Phase I of ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) Retrofit to Bear Gulch Park. lllq Analysis: Overall budgeted maintenance costs for LMD #1 decreased from $946,710 in 93/94 to $942,040 in 94/95. Proposed water usage costs have decreased $37,000 for the upcoming year, this is due to a combination of water conservation efforts, last year's wet winter and mild summer. These factors along with a 93/94 carryover has allowed the recommended assessment rate to remain constant. FY 94/95 Assessment Rate: The FY 94/95 assessment rate is $92.21, this is no increase over FY 93/94 rate. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Assess. Unit Rate/ L-~nd Us~ Ty!~ LJnits Ra~ Factor A.U. RevenUe Single Family Parcel 7,833 $92.21 1.0 $92.21 $722,270 Multi-Family Parcel 4,766 $92.21 0.5 $46.11 $219.7650 Totals $942t020 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS1 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #1 ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 MARCH 17, 1993 PM 11738 3 DU - 3AU APRIL 7, 1993 PM 13800 2 DU - 2AU NOVEMBER 17, 1993 PM 13075 2 DU - 2AU EXHIBIT 'A* ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 LEGEND ~ DENOTES EQUESTRIAN TRAIL '-,r DENOTES STREET LIGHT ' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO P r~ ~17 ~ 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ExH~s~'r "A" :, ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 CITY OF RANGHO CUOAMONQA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO · STATE OF CALIFORNIA 111-/~/ Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (Victoria Planned Community) Fiscal Year 1994/95 v ~rilliam J. O'~,City Eng~eer lll-t~. City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (Victoria Planned Community) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (Victoria Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (LMD #2) represents landscape sites throughout the Victoria Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within Victoria and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that community. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that planned community. The sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, paseos, Community Trails and parks. The 27.5 acres of parks in Victoria consist of Kenvon Park, Victoria Groves Park, Vintage Park and Windrows Park. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 93/94 94/95 Ground Cover and Shrubs 47.99 47.99 Turf 40.13 40.13 Parks 27.50 27.50 Community Trails 3.00 3.00 Total Area in LMD #2 118.62 Acres 118.62 Acres The ground cover, shrubs and turf areas are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company while the Community Trails are maintained by the CiW's Trails and Application Crew and the parks are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance ~rews. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #2 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The City's Trails and Application Crew maintains the equestrian trails and the City's Park Maintenance Crews maintain the parks within the district. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #2 are as follows: 111-27 Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994/95 Regular Payroll $355,830.00 Overtime Salaries $5,000.00 Part Time Salaries $4,650.00 Fringe Benefits $131,660.00 Maintenance and Operations $65,720.00 Vehicle Maintenance and Operations $10,000.00 Mileage $0.00 Emergency & Routine Vehicle & Equipment Rental 51,000.00 Contract Services Landscape Maintenance 5539,200.00 Tree Maintenance $10,O00,00 Capital Expenditures ADA Retrofit to Windrows,Kenyon, Groves & Vintage Parks $140,000.00 Capital Improvement Projects $336,900.00 Capital Vehicle Outlay $26,700.00 Capital Equipment Outlay $3,850.00 General Liability $11,390.00 Water Utilities $350,000.00 Electric Utilities $20,000.00 Subtotal: $2,011,900.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $143,41t).tK) Tax Delinquency $107,380.00 $250,790.00 Total Revenue Required: $2,262,690.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$551.190.00> Assessment Revenue Requi red $1,711 r500.00 For FY 94/95, the district budgeted $140,000 for a A.D.A (American's with Disabilities Act) retrofit to Windrows, Kenyon, Groves and Vintage Parks. This retrofit will update the play equipment and surfacing in the tot lots of those parks for A.D.A compliance. Also Budgeted is $8,000 to replace the tot lot bridge at Kenyon Park and $5,000 to replace the exercise station. $320,400 for various renovations and improvements to the parkway and parks irrigation systems. $20,000 for landscape plant material replacement. Capital Equipment Outlay of $3,850 is to purchase equipment for the Park Maintenance Crew, the Tree Maintenance Crew and the Trails and Application Crew. Capital Vehicle Outlay of $26,70I to purchase 17% of a 1.5 ton flat bed truck w/dump, 50% tof a utility truck and 27% Of a 4WD utility vehilce for trails. Analysis: In FY 93/94, the Assessment rate for LMD #2 was $422.0). It is recommended this rate not increase for the FY 94/95. Part of the reason that the rate did not increase is due to the fact 111-/$ that water usage is down partly because of the implementation of the Calsense Moisture Control irrigation system and partly because of the increased rainfall last season. Also, there is a fairly large FY 93/94 carryover that helps offset the overall costs. There were no new assessments units added to the district this year. FY 94/95 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type tdni~ Ra~e FaCtor A.td. Rev~?nul, Single Family Parcel 3,763.00 $422.00 1.0 $422.00 $1,587,990 Multi-Family Parcel 124.00 $422.00 1.0 $422.00 $52,330 Commercial Acre 32.02 5422.00 2.0 5844.00 $27,020 Vacant Acre 418.6~3 $422.00 0.25 $105.50 $44360 TOTALS 4,400.74 $1,711,500 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a (Hyssop) Fiscal Year 1994/95 ~' ' ~Y~am J. O'NeilC~'it~z En~'~ee~ lllw City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a (Hyssop Maintenance District) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a (Hyssop Maintenance District) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a (LMD #3a) represents a landscape parkway on Hyssop Drive south of Sixth Street. The site is associated with an area within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: c2.3 / 9't 94 / 95 Ground Cover and Shrubs 0.14 0.14 Turf 0.00 0,00 Total Area in LMD #3a 0.14 Acres 0.14 Acres The ground cover and shrubs areas are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company. Proje~ed Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #3a are for direct maintenance of ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #3a are as follows: 111- Proposed Maintenance Bud.eet for 1994/95 Regular Payroll $0.00 Fringe Benefits $0.00 Maintenance and Operations $200.00 Vehicle Maintenance and Operations $0.00 Contract Services Landscape and Tree Maintenance $l,530.00 Capital Expenditures Landscape Plant Material Renovations 51,400.00 Controller Cabinet Safety Improvement $200.00 General Liability $30.00 Water Utilities $600.00 Electric Utilities $120.00 Subtotal: $4,080.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $270.00 Tax Delinquency $220.00 $490.00 Gross Revenue Required: $4,570.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$1.260.00> Total Revenue Required: $3~310.00 For 94/95 the distric~ budgeted $1,400.00 landscape plant material renovation. No vehicle or equipment purchases are budgeted for in 94/95. Analysis: It is recommended the assessment rate for LMD #3a will remain at $413.74 for the FY 94/95 to cover the current maintenance costs of the district. The tax delinquency represents the estimated amount of unpaid taxes within the district. No new assessments were annexed into the district this year. FY 9ad95Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit Rate/. Land Us~ T..vpe Units R/tte Factor A,U. Revenue Industrial Parcel 8 $413.74 1.0 $413.74 $3,310.00 III- LANDSCAPE MAIN~NANCE DISTRICT 3A c.. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA~ ]"l ] SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY ' . ................. CALIFORNIA Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (Commercial / Industrial) Fiscal Year 1994/95 ' lfVilliam J. O'Ne~ty Ehgin~dr 111-~-~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (Commercial/lndusu'ial Maintenance District) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Back~-rouncl; Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (LMD #3b) represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. This fiscal year approximately 22.87 acres of the Adult Sports Complex (this does not include the Stadium and its parking lots and maintenance building) will be accepted into this district for maintainance. The Adult Sports Complex with its three softball fields, two soccer fields and 90 foot combination field all with sports field lighting and bleacher seating was desibmed to cater to the adult sports leagues. For this reason the Complex was located in the commercial and industrial of the City to benefit the adult work force within the area. Detailed maintenance activities for the Complex to be maintained by the district include but are not limited to the following: The repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of the landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilization or treating for disease or injury: the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste, the maintenance , repair and replacement as necessary of all irrigation systems, the removal of graffitti from walls immediately adjacent to the cultivated areas, the maintenance, repair and replacement as necessary of the parking lot surfacing and striping, parking lot sweeping, the maintenance and repair of all lighting facilities and the maintenance and repair for restroom facilities. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 93/94 94/95 Ground Cover and Shrubs 6.74 6.74 Turf 3.29 3.29 Parks 0.00 22.87 Total Area in LMD #3b 10.03 Acres 32.90Acres The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company. 1119 Pro!ected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #3b are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #3b are as follows: proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994/95 Regular Payroll $65,360.00 Fringe Benefits $24,180.00 ' Maintenance and Operations $28,060.00 Vehicle Maintenance and Operations $1,030.00 Emergency & Reg. Vehicle & Equipment Rental $1,000.00 Contract S~rvices Landscape Maintenance -Parkways & Medians $162,780.00 Tree Maintenance $30,000.00 Landscape Maintenance - Sports Complex $92,040.00 Complex Drainage $15,000.00 Capital Expenditures Controller Cabinet Safety Improvements $3,200.00 Landscape Plant Material Renovations $10,000.00 Haven Median Irrigation Improvements $7,950.00 Calsense Connections to Central $10,000.00 Capital Equipment Outlay / Equipment $6,450.00 General Liability $5,860.00 Water Utilities $136,000.00 Electric Utilities $81.200.00 Subtotal: $680,110.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $39,150.00 Tax Delinquency $25.640.00 Subtotal: $64,790.00 Gross Revenue Required: $744,9tX).00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$230.290.00> Total Revenue Required: $514,610.00 Analysis: It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $352.80. for the fiscal year 1994/95. The tax delinquency represents the amount of unpaid taxes within the district. FY 94~95 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: lllQ7 Unit No. of Assess. Unit Rate/ Lar~Use Ty!~ Ldnils Rate Factor Aid. Revenl., Industrial/Comm. Acre 1341.02 $352.80 1.0 $352.80 $473,110 Other Revenue: User fees from Sports Field Lighting $41.500 TOTAL $514,610 111- LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 3B CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BE~RDINO COUNTY FORNIA Legal Descriptions Parcel "B" Being portions of Lot Nos. 20, 21, 22; and portions of the westerly 1/2 and the westerly 300 feet of the easterly 1/2 of Lots 23 and 24 according to the Map of Rochester as per plat recorded in Book 9, Page 20 of Maps, in the Office of the Recorder of the County of San Bernardino, State of California, more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at the northeast corner of the southerly 50.00 feet of the westerly 300 feet of the easterly 1/2 of said Lot 24 according to said Map of Rochester; THMNCM N 00 degrees 09 minutes 28 seconds R along the easterly line of the westerly 1/2 of the easterly 1/2 of said Lots 24 and 23 a distance of 617.60 feet; ~RE~NCE N 89 degrees 34 minutes 46 seconds R a distance of 276.30; TRRNCB N 00 dec/tees 25 minutes 14 W seconds a distance of 43.00 feet; T!]MNCE S 89 degrees 34 minutes 46 seconds W a distance of 133.93 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave southerly, having a radius of 78.00 feet, a radial through said point bears N 13 degrees 25 minutes 24 seconds W; ~ westerly along said curve through a central angle of 09 de~rees 37 minutes 01 seconds an arc length of 13.09 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave northerly having a radius of 78.00 feet; TeSMCSwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 22 deftfees 37 minutes 12 seconds an arc length of 30.79 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave northerly having a radius of 78.00 feet; TH~CE westerly along said curve through a central angle of 22 degrees 37 minutes 12 seconds an arc length of 30.79 feet t o point on a tangent curve concave northerly having a radius of 310.00 feet; TIIBNCE westerly along said curve through a central angle of 15 degrees 30 minutes 43 seconds an arc length of 83.93 feet to a point on a non-tangent line, a radial line to said curve; Tnx~CB M 15 degrees 05 minutes 29 seconds E along said line a distance of 10.00 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave northeasterly having a radius of 300.00 feet, a radial through said point bears S 15 degrees 05 minutes 29 seconds W; '11iasl~ZB northwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 25 degrees 05 minutes 21 seconds an arc length of 131.37 feet to a point on a tangent line; T~EMCE M 49 degrees 49 minutes 10 seconds W along said line a distance of 33.50 feet to a point on anon-tangent curve concave northwesterly having a radius of 368.50 feet a radial through said point bears S 49 degrees 49 minutes 10 seconds E; TBB~CE northeasterly along said curve through a central angle of 20 degrees 32 minutes 20 seconds an arc length of 132.10 feet to a point on a tangent line; THENCE along said line M 19 degrees 38 minutes 30 seconds E a distance of 131.18 feet; THENCE M 71 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds a distance of 46.22 feet; T~EMCE M 70 degrees 21 minutes 30 seconds W a distance of 46.22 feet; THEliCE N 19 degrees 38 minutes 30 seconds E a distance of 8.32 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 12.00 feet; TBMMCE northeasterly northerly and northwesterly along said cur~e through a Legal Oescriptions (continued) central angle of 103 degrees 02 minutes 30 seconds an arc length of 21.58 feet to a point on a tangent line; ~4RMCE N 83 degrees 24 minutes 00 seconds W along said line a distance of 2.35 feet; THK~ S 89 degrees 28 minutes 30 seconds W a distance of 201.56 feet; TN~MCE J 85 degrees 05 minutes 12 seconds W a distance of 65.03 feet; TifBNCB west a distance of 89.63 feet; THENCE S 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds W a distance of 35.62 feet; T~MCB south a distance of 58.38 feet; ~rRMCE west a distance of 36.00 feet; ~]JI~CE north a distance of 116.54 feet; ~4RMCE N 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds W a distance of 35.62 feet; THENCE west a distance of 116.54 feet; T~MCE north a distance of 36.00 feet; ~rRMCB east a distance of 58.38 feet; ~ne4C'~ N 45 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds E a distance of 35.62 feet; TliJMCB north a distance of 89.63 feet; THJNCJ N 04 degrees 54 minutes 48 seconds W a distance of 65.03 feet; T~MCB N 00 degrees 31 minutes 30 seconds E a distance of 189.49 feet to a point on a non-tangent cur~e concave northerly having a radius of 52.50 feet; T~JNC~ westerly along said curve through a central angle of 07 degrees 06 minutes 43 seconds an arc length of 6.52 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 35.50 feet; JCJ westerly along said cul~re through a central angle of 26 degrees 26 minutes 17 seconds an arc length of 16.38 feet to a point an a curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 2.50 feet; T~I~iCB westerly, southwesterly and southerly along said curve through a central angle of 96 degrees 23 minutes 14 seconds an arc length of 4.21 feet to a point on a tangent line; TIIEBCE S 00 degrees 15 minutes 23 seconds E along said line a distance of 16.35 feet; ~ S 89 degrees 44 minutes 37 seconds W a distance of 15.53 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave southeasterly having a radius of 310.50; T!iJJCJwesterly and southwesterly along said curve through a central angle of 62 degrees 10 minutes 21 seconds an arc length of 336.93 feet to a point on a non-tangent line; ~CE N 62 degrees 20 minutes 12 seconds W along said line a distance of 83.03 feet to the westerly line of said Lots 20, 21, 22, 23 and 24; SCE S 00 degrees 09 minutes 59 seconds W along said line a distance of 1367.79 feet to the northwest comer of the southerly 50.00 feet of said Lot 24; T~x~SCE N 89 degrees 28 minutes 07 seconds S along the southerly line of said Lot 24 a distance of 41.19 feet~ t~lENCE N 44 degrees, 28 minutes, 07 seconds E a distance of 33.94 feet; TNxMCE N 89 degrees, 28 minutes, 07 seconds E a distance of 52.50 feet; T!~B~CE N 45 degrees 31 minutes 53 seconds W a distance of 33.94 feet; SCE N O0 degrees 31 minutes 53 seconds W a distance of 14.00 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave westerly having a radius of 320.50; THENCE northerly along said curve through a central angle of 22 degrees 26 minutes 59 seconds an arc length of 125.58 feet to a tangent line; E N 22 degrees 58 minutes 52 seconds W along said line a distance of 61.96 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave southerly having a radius of 62.47 feet; THENCE easterly along said curve through a central angle 35 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds an arc length of 39.11 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave northwesterly having a radius of 2.50 Legal Descriptions (continued) feet; ~d'RNCM easterly, northeasterly 'and northerly along said curve through a central angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds an arc length of 3.93 feet to a point on atangent line; TIIgNCM N 00 degrees 31 minutes 53 seconds W along said inea distance of 16.50 feet; THENCE N 89 degrees 28 minutes 07 seconds E a distance of 420.35 feet to a point on a tangent curve concave southwesterly having a radius of 20.00 feet; THENCE easterly, southeasterly and southerly along said curve through a central angle of 90 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds an arc length of 31.42 feet to a point on a tangent line; IqIMNCE S 00 degrees 31 minutes 53 seconds E along said line a distance of 228.50 feet to a point on the southerly line of said Lot 24; 'fluslICE N 89 degrees 28 minutes 07 seconds g along said line a distance of 384.02 feet to the ~RtPg POINT OF BMGINNING. AREA PARCEL aBa = 996,430.01 Square Feet or 22.87 Acres NORTHWEST CORNER ( PARCEL 'C' P.O.I]. WESTERn. LINE LOTS 20 THRU 24 -r, Cl..-O X -r Ix) ~ EASTERLY .INE OF WESTLY ~ ~ 300' OF E,~ ~'4e r- m 0 LOTS 23 i, 24 *B' P,O,8, t2 ~, tTHEAST CORNER F ~ z SOUTHERLY 50.OO' 0 m 3} c THE WESTE?LY..MP/Q THE -I - m -4 EASTERLY ~/t OF LO 4 3> : DETAIL "o r'- ~ ~1 T_ ~ CHt~:ZST]~]I~ (ISTING STREE , NUE >--, gO EAsE.E.' :~ =^c'rcm v I ~N; I nTS 20 THRU 24 FOR STREET, HIGHWAY, _AND RELATED pURPOSES tlllllllllllllllllllllllll|tl ~lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/ LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #3B ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 FEBRUARY 17, 1993 PM 14318 3.47 AC - 3.47 AU MARCH 17, 1993 CUP 92-19 10.37 AC - 10.37 AU MARCH 17, 1993 DR 92-07 1.5 AC - 1.5 AU ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 R STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 ' _. _ .. ~ 4"~Z I,V~' ,/~,~ ,,, D ., ( /~\ ~ ~ ~ ,. ~ / ...,.. ~ .. /I I I~ o' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA .~,~ EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 7'- ~; '-7-' V/C/M/7')' H4P - ,JER$il' 8LVO. _.~'~ ,~,. · |0807 JERSEY 8LV~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA' COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~u~ ~z-,~ r ~ EXHIBIT 'A' q ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 Terra Vista Planned Community) Fiscal Year 1994/95 City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community) Fiscal Year 9t/9~ The FY 94/95 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community ) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (LMD #4) represents landscape sites throughout the Terra Vista Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites in Terra Vista that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, paseos and parks. Tl~ere is approximateIt 1.25 acres of parking lot for Milliken Park added to the district this year for maintenance. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 99 / 94 94 / c2~ Ground Cover and Shrubs 8.35 8,35 Turf 6.58 6.58 Parks 27.00 28.25 Total Area in LMD #4 41.89 Acres 43.14Acres The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, the parks are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crews. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #4 are for direct maintenance of ~rf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #4 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994 /9~ Regular Payroll $168,980.00 Part Time Salaries $4,650.00 Fringe Benefits $62,520.00 Maintenance and Operations $42,600.00 Mileage $0.00 Vehicle Maintenance and Operations $30,000.00 Emergency & Routine Vehicle & Equipment Rental $1,000.00 Contract Services Landscape Maintenance $211,990.00 Tree Maintenance $7,000.00 Capital Expenditures Capital Outlay / Projects $126,930.00 Tetra Vista / Base Line Median Renovation $413,780.00 ADA Retrofit: Mi[liken & Coyote Canyon Parks $90,000.00 Capital Outlay / Equipment $2,3{30.00 Capital Outlay / Vehicles $41,040.00 General Liability $5,180.00 Water Utilities $120,000.00 Electric Utilities $23.150.00 Subtotal: $1,351,120.00 Assessment Administration and , General Overhead $82,660.00 Tax Delinquency $106.440.00 Subtotal $189,100.00 Gross Revenue Required: $1,540,220.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <5494.670.00> Total Revenue Required: $1,045f550.00 For FY 94/95, the district budgeted $90,000 for a A.D.A (American's with Disabilities Act) retrofit to Mi[[iken and Coyote Canyon Parks. This retrofit will update the play equipment and surfacing in the tot lots of those parks for A.D.A Compliance. Also Budgeted is $5,(RX) for exercise station replacement, $7400 for controller cabinet retrofits to meet new code requirements, $3,730 for Haven Avenue Median irrigation upgrades and $5,i~X~ for drainage correction to West Greenway, $95,800 for various renovations and improvements m the parkway and parks irrigation systems and $10,000 for landscape plant materiM replacement. Cap!tal Equipment Outlay of $2,300 is to purchase equipment for the Park Maintenance Crew, the Tree Maintenance Crew and the Trails and Application Crew. Capita[ Vehicle Outlay of 541,040 to purchase 65% of a 1.5 ton flat bed truck w/dump, 50% of a utility truck and 19% of a 4WD utility vehilce for trails. Analysis: Overall budgeted maintenance costs for LMD #4 increased from $1,033,740 in FY 93/94 to $1,045,550 in FY 94/95. Proposed water usage costs have decreased $10,930 for the upcoming year, this is due to a combination of water conservation efforts, last year's wet winter and mild summer. These factors along with a 93/94 carryover has allowed the recommended assessment rate to remain constant. In FY 93/94 the assessment rate for LMD #4 was 252.50/A.U. It is recommended not to increase for the FY 94/95. Attached is the Assessment Rate Computation Chart. F'Y 94/95Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use T..vpe Units A. ld. RevenUe Single Family Parcel 1659.00 5252.50 $418,900 Multi Parcel 2610.00 $222.00 $579,420 Commercial Acre 122.20 5382.99 $46,800 Vacant Acre 11.44 $37.12 $430 TOTAL $110451550 llld LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 4 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA5i"J SAN BER" DINO COUNTY " Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 (Tot Lot) Fiscal Year 1994/95 ' 'William J. O~k~ii, City Engineer lll-Y~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 (Tot Lot Maintenance District) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 (Tot Lot Maintenance District) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 (LMD #5) represents a landscaped Tot Lot, located on the southwest corner of Andover Place and Bedford Drive. This site is associated with a group of 44 single family parcels which all have a common usage of the Tot Lot such that any benefit derived from the landscaping can be directly attributed to those particular parcels. Because of this, assessments required for this district ar~ charged to those specific parcels. There is only one site maintained by the district. It consists of a Tot Lot and a small amount of shrubs beds and ground cover. The quantities of maintained areas consist of: 92/93 93/94 Ground Cover and Shrubs 0.33 0.33 Total Area in LMD #5 0.33 Acres 0.33 Acres The ground cover and shrubs areas are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #5 are for direct maintenance of ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #5 are as follows: 111- Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994/95 Regular Payroll $0 Fringe Benefits $0 Maintenance and Operations $490.00 Vehicle Maintenance and Operations $70.00 Contract Services Landscape Maintenance $1,060.00 Capital Expenditures Mandatory A.D.A Survey for Tot Lot $0 Irrigation Upgrades to Replace P, jsers w/Pop Ups $0 Landscape Material Renovation $0 Irrigation Upgrades to Central Control $0 Controller Cabinet Safety Upgrade $200.00 General Liability $30.00 Water Utilities $280.00 Electric Utilities $130.00 Subtotal: $2,260.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $610.00 Tax Delinquency $90.00 $700.00 Gross Revenue Required: $2960.00 Add: 93/94 District Deficit $2020.00 Total Revenue Required: $4t980-00 For 94/95 the district budgeted $2~).00 for a controller cabinet safety upgrade. Analysis: The FY 94/95 rate of assessment is $113.29. It is recommended that there be no increase from FY 93/94. No new assessment units have been annexed in the district. FY 94/95 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use T,.v.v.v.v.v.v.v.v.vpeUnitsRatp Factor A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 44 $113.29 1.0 $113.29 .$4,980.00 111--/~ Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (Caryn Planned Community) Fiscal Year 1994/95 Approved: ~ ~/~Zkd7 William J. C)4xleil, City Engineer 111¥~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (Caryn Planned Community) Fiscal Year 94/9,~ The FY 94/95 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (Caryn Planned Community ) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (LMD #6) represents landscape sites throughout the Caryn Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to t~ose parcels within that district. The various landscape sites in Caryn that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees and paseos. 8.39 acres of maintained landscape area will be accepted into the district this fiscal year, these areas include portions of Mil[iken Ave parkway and median, Banyan Street parkway and various landscape areas for Tracts Nos. 13748, 13857 and 13758. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 93 / 94 94 / 95 Ground Cover and Shrubs 12.09 19.34 Turf 2.89 3.94 Community Trails ~.00 ~.(KI Total Area in LMD #6 17.89 Acres 26.28Acres The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, while the Community Trails are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crew. Pmiected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #6 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #6 are as follows: 111- Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994/95 Regular Payroll $35,930,00 Fringe Benefits $13,290.00 Maintenance and Operations $4,540.00 Vehicle Maintenance and Operations 51,910.00 Emergency & Reg. Vehicle Rental $500.00 Contract Services Landscape Maintenance $160,130.00 Tree Maintenance $10,500.00 Capital Expenditures Landscape Plant Material Renovation $15,000.00 Capital Outlay/Equipment $1,080.00 Controller Cabinet Safety Upgrades $3,000.00 Tree Replanting 51,500.00 General Liability $2,670.00 Water Utilities $60,000.00 Electric Utilities $2.550.00 Subtotal: $312,600.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $27,000.00 Tax Delinquency $13.410.00 Subtotal: $40,410:00 Gross Revenue Required: $353,010.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover < $64.050.(R)> Total Revenue Required: $288,960.00 Analysis: The FY 94/95 rate of assessment is $246.97. It is recommended there be no increase from FY 93/94. No new assessment units were annexed in the district. The tax delinquency represents the projected amount of unpaid taxes within the district. FY 94/95 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Lind Us~ T..vpo Units Rate Factor A.U. F~evenue Single Family Parcel 1,170.00 $246.97 1.0 $246.97 5288,960.00 LANDSCAPE MAI'I~ENANCE DISTRICT 6 CITY OF RANCHO ~UCAMONGA~_-~-- SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CALIFORNIA '-' Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (North Etiwanda) Fiscal Year 1994/95 Approved: .,,~./'/,/Jf~'rlxA ~/]Z~ "~'lliam I. O'I~, City Engineer 111~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (Etiwanda North) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No.7 (Etiwanda North) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (LMD #7) represents landscape sites throughout the Etiwanda North area. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites in the Etiwanda North area that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, Community Trails and paseos. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 93/94 94/95 Ground Cover and Shrubs 7.54 7.54 Turf 4.02 4.02 Community Trails 2.00 ~ Total Area in LMD #7 13.56Acres 13.56 Acres The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, while the Community Trails are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crew. Pro!ected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #7 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #7 are as follows: 111- Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994/95 Regular Payroll $2,300.00 Fringe Benefits $850.00 Maintenance and Operations $3,980.00 Vehicle Maintenance and Operations $1,330.00 Emergency & Routine Vehicle & Equipment Rental $500.00 Contract Services Landscape Maintenance $83,500.00 Tree Maintenance $18,500.00 Capital Expenditures Landscape Plant Material Renovations $10,000.00 Weed Abatement for N.E. Community Park Site $6,000.00 Capital Outlay / Equipment $1,500.00 Controller Cabinet Safety Retrofit $1,400.00 Tree Replantings $5,500.00 Calsense Connections to Central $25,000.00 General Liability $1,510.00 Water Utilities $16,000.00 Electric Utilities 5740.00 Subtotal: $178,610.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $26,740.00 Tax Delinquency $204,070.00 Refunding Contingency $200.tltXL00 Subtotal: 5430,810.00 Gross Revenue Required: $609,420.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$306.050.00> Total Revenue Required: $303t370.00 For 94/95 the district budgeted $10,000 for landscape plant material renovation and $6,000 for weed abatement at the Northeast Community Park site. There is $1,500 for equipment purchases, $1,400 for controller cabinet safety retrofit, $5,500 for tree replantings and $25,000 for calsense connections to central control budgeted for in 94/95. The tax delinquency represents the projected amount of unpaid taxes within the district. The refunding contingency in an amount of $200,000 will refund those property owners who are current on their property taxes a surplus of funds within the district. ,4. nalysis: The FY 94/95 rate of assessment is $307.05 per unit. It is recommended there be no increase from FY 93/94. There has been only one assessemnt unit annexed to the district. Each single family property owner will receive a refund of approximately $20(] during the F'Y 94/95. The reason for this refund is a surplus of funds due to the fact that properties have been annexed into the district but all of the landscape improvements for those areas have not been completed and as of yet have not been accepted into the district for maintenance. In future years landscape areas within the annexed tracts will come on line and add to the overall maintenance costs of the distrist. FY 94]95 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use T~,~e Units Rate FaCtOr A.LJ. Single Family Parcel 988.00 $307.05 1.0 $307.05 $303,370.00 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 7 . ~"°"1 ' ' ' ~" , ::: ::: :::':.: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BER .DINO COUNTY Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 (South Etiwanda) Fiscal Year 1994/95 Approved~/C~'~y William J. C~ei], City Engineer 111-,~ City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 (South Etiwanda Area) Fiscal Year 94/95 The FY 94/95 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No.8 (South Etiwanda Area) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 (LMD #8) represents landscape sites throughout the South Etiwanda area. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites in the South Etiwanda area that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, Community Trails and paseos. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 93/94 94/9~ Ground Cover and Shrubs 0.23 0.23 Turf 0.06 0.14 Community Trails Total Area in LMD #8 0.29 Acres 0.37 Acres The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, while the Community Trails are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crew. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #8 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #8 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1994/95 Regular Payroll $0 Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations $600.ti0 Vehicle Maintenance and Operations $370.00 Contingency Tree Replacement $0.00 Contract Service: Landscape Maintenance $4,000.00 Tree Maintenance 56,500.00 Capital Expenditures Plant Material Renovation $0.00 Irrigation Upgrades to Central Control $0.00 Capital Outlay / Equipment $0.00 Landscape Plant Material Replacement 52,000.00 Controller Cabinet Safety Upgrade $200.00 General Liability 5t50.00 Water Utilities $1,360.00 Electric Utilities $80.00 Subtotal: $15,260.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $1,780.00 Tax Delinquency 54.150.00 Subtotal: $5,930.00 Gross Revenue Required: $21,190.00 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$4.840.00> Total Revenue Required: $16,350.00 For 94/95 the district budgeted $2,000 for landscape plant material replacement and $200 for controller cabinet safety upgrade as capital improvement proiects. The tax delinquency represents the projected amount of unpaid taxes within the district. Analysis: The FY 94/95 rate of assessment is $151.45. [t is recommended there be no increase from FY 93/94. No new assessment units have been annexed in the district. FY 94/95 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use T..vpe Units Ral~ Factor A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 108.00 $151.45 1.0 $151.45 $16,350.00 LANDSCAPE MAI~ENANCE DISTRICT 8 "' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA[~~f~_ '~ SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY._~ CAI.IFORNIA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor, Members of City Council & City Manager FROM William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PRELIMINARY ENGINEER'S REPORT AND SETTING OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR JUNE 1, 1994 TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS AND APPROVE THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT D[STRICT (PD-85). RE__~NDATION: Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached resolutions setting the public hearing for June 1, 1994 and giving preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report, declaring its intention to levy and collect assessments within Park and Recreation Improvement District (PD-85). The recommendation is for no increase to the assessment rate for this District. BACKGROUND / ANALYSI$: Park and Recreation Improvement District (PD-85) was created to provide funds to finrice the cost of construction, maintenance, operation and debt payment of Heritage Community Park and Red Hill Community Park. Heritage Community Park is a 40 acre facility located on the southwest corner of Hillside Road and Beryl Street. Red Hill Community Park is 42 acres and is located on the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Vineyard Avenue. The District boundary includes all of the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the general exception of land east of the Deer Creek Channel and the Victoria and Tetra Vista Planned Communities. Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD) will be increasing their water rates by approximately 5 1/2% this fiscal year. This is due to the fact that Metropolitan Water District (MWD) is increasing their rates to CCWD. This 5 1/2% rate increase is being applied to all users in the City including PD-85 and will directly affect the operating expenses of this district. There is sufficient capital within the district's operating budget this year to absorb the rate increase from CCWD without increaseing the assessment rate. This is because of water conservation efforts by the City such as calsense, moisture sensors, last year's wet winter and mild summer, lower tax delinquency rates and district carryovers. While this positive financial situation is occurring this fiscal year it may not and probably will not occur next fiscal year. Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, each year the City Council must adopt resolutions, giving preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report and declaring its intention to levy and collect assessments for 1994/95 Fiscal Year. The assessment rate increased from 535.00 to $52.00 during the 1991/92 Fiscal Year, this rate is recommended to remain at $52.00 for the 1994/95 Fiscal Year. Assessments for PD-85 will be levied according to the following schedule: -- j Definition Assessment per Parcel Single Family Residential $52.00 Less than 1.50 acres $26.00 3.5l acres to 7.00 acres $182.00 7.01 acres to 14.00 acres $364.00 14.01 acres to 25.00 acres $728.00 25.01 acres and Larger $1,300.00 Respectfully ' William. Jo~ City Engineer Attachments: Resolutions Preliminary Engineer's Report 112,-I A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA , CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD - 85). WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve that: WHEREAS, pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, the City Engineer is required to make and file with the City Clerk of the City an annual report in writing for which assessments are to be levied and collected to pay the costs of the maintenance and/or improvement of said Park and Recreation Improvement District (PD - 85); and WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made and filed with the City Clerk of said City a report in writing as called for under and pursuant to said Act, which has been presented to this Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, said Council as duly considered said report and each and every part thereof and finds that each and every part of said report is sufficient and that said report, nor ay part thereof, requires or should be modified in any respect. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby order as follows: 1. That the Engineer's Estimate of itemized costs and expenses of said work and of the incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said report be, and each of them are hereby preliminarily approved and confirmed. 2. That the diagrams showing the Assessment District referred to and described in said report, the boundaries of the subdivisions of land within said Assessment District are hereby pretiminarily approved and confirmed. 3. That the proposed assessments upon the subdivisions of [and in said Assessment District in proportion to the estimated benefit to be received by said subdivision, respective]y, from said work and of the incidental expenses thereof, as contained in said report is hereby preliminari]y approved and confirmed. 4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Annual Report for the fiscal year 1994/95 for the purposes of all subsequent prtKeedings RESOLUTION NO.0 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85), FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho 'Cucamonga, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, does resolve as follows: Description of Work: SECTION 1: That the public interest and convenience require and it is the i~f this City Council to levy and collect assessments within Park and Recreation District (PD-85) for the fiscal year 1994/95 for the maintenance and operation and debt service payment of Red Hill Community Park and Heritage Community Park thereon dedicated for common park purposes by deed or recorded subdivision tract map within the boundaries of said Districts. Said maintenance and operation includes the cost and supervision of landscape maintenance (Including repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any improvement providing for ill umtnation of the subject area) in connection with said districts. Location of Work: SECTION 2: The foregoing described work is to be located within the roadway rlghts-of-w~y and easements enumerated in the report of the City Engineer and more particularly described on maps which are on file in the City Clerk's Office, enti~ ed "Assessment Diagrams Park and Districts Nos. 1, ?, 3A, 38, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. Description of Assessment districts: SECTION 3: That the contemplated work, in the opinion of said City Council, is of more than local or ordinary public benefit, and the said City Council hereby makes the expense of the work chargeable upon the districts, which said districts, are assessed to pay the costs and expenses thereof, and which districts are described as follows: All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior boundary lines shown upon that certain "Map of Park and Improvement District No. (PD-85), indicating by said boundary lines the extent RESOLUTION NO. PD 85 May 4, 1994 Page 2 of the territory included within each assessment district and Which maps are on ~ile in the Office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference is hereby made to said maps for further, full and more particular description of said assessment districts, and the said maps so on file shall govern for all details as to the extent of said assessment distHcts. Report of Engineer: SECTION 4: The City Council of said City by Resolution No. has approved the ann"6'~l report of the City Engineer which report indicates the amount of the proposed assessments, the district boundaries, assessment zones, and the method of assessment. The report ti~ e "Annual Engtneer's Report" is on file in the Office of the City Clerk of said City. Reference to said report is hereby made for all particulars for the amount and extent of the assessments and for the extent of the work. TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING: SECTION 5: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A PUBLIC HEARING IS HEREBY SCHEDDL'LrD"ll~'ll]E CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, CITY OF P~ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, 91730. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 1994, AT 7:00 P.M. ANY AND ALL PERSONS MAY APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY SAID MAINTENANCE AND SERVICE FOR THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS AND THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD NOT BE DONE OR CARRIED OUT OR WHY ASSESSMENTS SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED AND COLLECTED FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95 PROTESTS MUST BE IN WRITING AND MUST CONTAIN A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IN WHICH EACH SIGNER THEREOF IS INTERESTED, SUFFICIENT TO IDENTIFY THE SAME, AND MUST BE DELIVERED TO THE CITY CLERK OF SAID CITY PRIOR TO THE TIME SET FOR THE HEARING, AND NO OTHER PROTESTS OR OBJECTIONS WILL BE CONSIDERED. IF THE SIGNER OF ANY PROTEST IS NOT SHOWN UPON THE LAST EQUALIZED ASSESSMENT ROLL SUCH PROTEST MUST CONTAIN OR BE ACCOMPANIED BY WRITTEN EVIDENCE THAT SUCH SIGNER IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SO DESCRIBED. Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972: SECTION 6: All the work herein proposed shall be done and carried through in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the State of California designated as the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 5 of the Streets and Highways code of the State of California. Publication of Resolution of Intention: SECTION 7 Published notice shall be made pursuant to Section 6961 of the Gover~e. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City O erk RESOLUTION NO. PD 85 May 4, 1994 Page 3 shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in the Inland ~ll Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the Ci ~ Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Annual Engineers Report City of Rancho Cucamonga PD-85 Fiscal Year 1994/95 William J. o~rL"city Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Report PD-85 Fiscal Year 1994/95 AUTHORITY FOR REPORT This report for the 94/95 fiscal year is prepared pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter' 1, Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15, Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways code. Provisions for this annual assessment are included in Chapter 3 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. The purpose of this report is to set forth findings and the assessment analysis for the annual levy of assessments for the Parks and Recreation Improvement District No. PD-85, thereafter referred to as "the District". This District, using direct benefit assessments, has been created to provide funds to finance the cost of construction, maintenance, operation and debt payment of Heritage Community Park and Red Hill Community Park in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. FINDINGS Section 22573, Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." The means of determining whether or not a parcel will benefit from the improvements is contained in the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7, commencing with Section 5000 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California). The 1972 Act also provides for the classification of various areas within an assessment district into benefit areas where, by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive differing degrees of all territory receiving substantially the same degree of benefit from the improvements and may consist of contiguous or noncontiguous areas. As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee, not a tax; and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA. Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, county, state, or the federal government, are not assessable without the approval of the particular agency and, normally, are not assessed. Certain other parcels used for railroad mainline right-of-way, public utility U'ansmission fight-of-way, and common areas are also exempt from assessment. The assessment for mobile home parks will be based upon underlying lot acreage. DISTRICT ANALYSIS A. Improvement District Boundary The improvement district includes all of the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the general exception of land east of Deer Creek Channel and the Victoria &Terra Vista Planned Communities. 112-7 All parcels of real property affected are more particularly described in maps prepared in accordance with Section 327 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, which are on file in the office of the San Bernardino County Assessor in the Hall of Records, 172 West Third Street, San Bemardino, California and which are hereby made a part hereof by reference. B. District Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Improvement District No. PD - 85. C. Facilities The existing works of improvement are generally described as follows: 1.The construction of Heritage Community Park including, but not limited to, grading, planting, irrigation, onsite roads, sidewalks, parking lots, lighting, restrooms, equestrian facilities, playground equipment, picnic facilities, athletic facilities, and walking, jogging and equestrian trails. 2.The construction of Red Hill Community Park including, but not limited to, grading, planting, irrigation, onsite roads, sidewalks, parking lots, lighting, waterscape, restrooms, senior citizen facilities, playground equipment, picnic facilities, major lighted athletic facilities, jogging trail, underground storm drain system, and adiacent public street improvements. D. The assessment rate for the 93/94 FY is $52.00, this rate will not increase for the 94/95 FY. It is estimated that this assessment rate will cover the districts maintenance and operation expenses for the 94/95 FY. ESTIMATE OF WORK The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 permits carrying forward surpluses or recovering deficits in subsequent fiscal years. Costs for the district will be reviewed annually. Any surplus credited against assessment or any deficits shah be included in the assessment for the following fiscal year. 112-8 Proposed Maintenance Budget: 94/9~ Regular Payroll $243,360 Fringe Benefits $90,040 Vehicle Maint../Operations $24,000 Maintenance &Operations $62,040 Equipment Maintenance $6,000 Emergency &Routine Vehicle & Equip.Rental $1,000 General Liability $12,420 Contract Services $17,000 Water Utilities $96,650 Electric Utilities $95,950 Subtotal: $648,460 Assessment Administration and General Overhead $259,230 Tax Delinquency $92,760 Debt Service $680.180 Subtotal: $1,032,170 Gross Revenue Required: $1,680,630 Less: 93/94 District Carryover <$510> Assessment Revenue Required: $1,680,120 METHOD OF SPREAD The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 indicates that assessments may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes costs among all lots or parcels with the District in proportion to the estimated benefits received. A. Definitions The District is divided into three categories for the purpose of determining the assessments as follows: CATEGORY A - includes parcels based on the number of existing residential units within certain ranges of parcel size. CATEGORY B - includes all parcels not defined in Category A or Category C. CATEGORY C - includes exempt parcels. Exempt parcels were discovered by searching the County Assessor's computer tapes for those parcels that are listed as exempt by the Assessor or which have an assessed value of less than $500. In conducting the search, several parcels were included as exempt that show parcel sizes in excess of 1.5 acres and type codes of, for example, residential or agriculture. These parcels were added back into the rolls and assessed. B. Formula The assessment formula is based on actual [and use information contained in the current San gernardino Assessor's computer files and Assessor's parcel maps. Category A: All parcels containing existing residential dwelling units and meeting the following conditions. Number of Existing Res. Parcel Size Range Dwelling Units/Parcel Less than 1.5 acres and 1 or more dwelling units 1.51 to 3.5 acres and 2 or more dwelling units 3.51 to 7.0 acres and 4 Or more dwelling units 7.01 to 14.0 acres and 8 or more dwelling units 14.01 to 25.0 acres and 15 or more dwelling units 25.01 acres &larger and 26 or more dwelling units Category A is based on the number of existing residential units. The actual assessment for Bond Debt Service per existing residential dwelling unit may decrease each year as more residential units are built within the improvement district. Maintenance costs, howeyet, are expected to increase annually and will somewhat offset the anticipated decrease in assessments due to new development. Category B: All parcel not defined in Category A or Category C. Category C: All exempt parcels as defined below: 1. All properties currently tax exempt; 2. All public ownerships; 3. Railroad mainline rights-of-way; 4. Major utility transmission rights-of-way; 5. Mineral rights; 6. Parcels so small they currently cannot be built upon; 7. All normally assessable parcels within an assessed valuation of less than $500 and 1.5 acres or less; and C. Summary of Preliminary Assessment Amounts Category A: The preliminary estimated assessment rate which will be levied during fiscal year 1994/95 is $52.00 per dwelling unit for those parcels in Category A. Category A parcels containing more than one residential dwelling unit will be assessed for an amount equal to $52.00 times the number of dwelling units. Category B: The assessment which may be levied for parcels within Category B during fiscal year 1994/95 shall be according to the following schedule: Definition Assessment Per Parcel less than 1.50 acres $ 26.00 1.51 acres to 3.50 acres $ 78.00 3.51 acres to 7.0acres $ 182.00 7.01 acres to 14.0 acres $ 364.00 14.01 acres to 25.0 acres $ 728.CK) 25.01 acres & larger $1,300.00 Category C: The assessment shall be SO.iX] for Category C parcels. PROJECTED 1994/95 ASSESSMENTS 23,139 Single Family Parcels 23,139 units at $52.00 = $l,203,228 244 Multi*Family Parcels 5,245 units at $52.00 = $272,740 Less than 1.50 Acres (1171 Parcels ) 1171 units at $ 26.00 = $30,446 1.5 Acres to 3.50 Acres (421) Parcels) 421 units at $ 78.00 = $ 32,838 3.51 Acres to 7.0 Acres (204) Parcels) 204 units at $182.00 = $ 37,128 7.01 Acres to 14.0 Acres (126 Parcels) 126 units at $364.00 = $ 45,864 14.01 Acres to 25.0 Acres (42 Parcels) 42units at $728.00 = $30,576 25.01 Acres or larger (21 Parcels) 21 units at $1,300.00 = $ 27,~00 30,369 units $1,680,120 l12V/ PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 85- PD sin · Ju.~ ~.2 .T:CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA'~, 'f" n~soL,~ s~ D~,A~ SAN BERNARD1NO COUNTY -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: ~hy 4, 1994 T0: ~hyor and Hembet of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City ~anager FROH: Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director BY: Joan Kruse, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION UPDATING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution implementing the City's Comprehensive Fee Schedule. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS On an annual basis the City's Comprehensive Fee Schedule is reviewed and amended where necessary, to include any modifications that have occurred over the past year. These modifications are: Fire District Plan Check and Inspection from a flat rate to provide a more accurate accounting for tenant improvements Addition to the Planning Section to include permitting for filming, recycling facilities and large family day care centers Incorporation of Community Services Department fees relating to electrical usage and site rentals Also included is an update of actual administrative staff, supervisor and recreation leader costs for Community Services and certain personnel costs within the Police Department. Attached for your approval is a Resolution which incorporates. current fee categories. With the exception of the above, no other changes have been made. A~inistrati~ervices Director RCD:jak:J Attach. 113 RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~3~/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING RESOLUTION NOS. 93-035, 92-223-A, 92-223-B, AND 92-223-C, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY ALL CITY DEPART- MENTS, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT, BY MOD- IFYING CERTAIN FEES ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION 92-223 A. Recitals. (i) Section 54992 of the Government Code requires that prior to levying a new fee or increasing an existing fee or service charge, local agencies shall hold a public meeting at which oral or written presentations may be made; and (iY) Notice of the~time and place of the meeting is to be called fourteen days prior to the meeting to interested parties having previously filed a written request for such notice; and (iii) Ten days prior to the meeting, data indicating the amount of cost or estimated cost required to provide service for which the fee cr service charge is to be levied, shall be made available to the public, and (iv) No valid request for mailed notice is on file with the City, and (v) Copies of the required data were made available in the City Clerk's office to the public on April 15, 1994; and (vi) All legal prerequisites to adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, .THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve that the following fees are established: ~ection 1.0 Buildir~ and Safety Fees: 1.0 A fee for each building permit or service shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: Total Valuation of Work Fees $ 1.00 to $1,000.00 $25.00 1,001.00 to $2,000.00 $25.00 for the first $1,000.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00. 114 -2~ $ 2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $45.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $7.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00. $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $217.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $5-50 for each additional $1,000.00 of fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00. $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $355.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00. $100,000.00 and over $555.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof. 1.1Plan Review Fees: (a) When the valuation of proposed construction exceeds one thousand dollars, and a plan is required to be submitted, a plan review fee shall be paid to the Building Official at the time of submittal of plans. (b) Plan review fees for buildings and structures shall be equal to seventy-five percent (75%) of the building permit fees set forth in Section 1.0 herein. (c) Plan review fees for electrical, mechanical and plumbing work shall be equal to 25% of the total permit fee as set forth under the pertinent Section 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 herein. (d) Plan review fees for grading shall be as set forth in the following schedule: Quantity of Cut and Fill Fee 50 - 100 yards $ 50.06 101 - 500 yards 100.00 501 - 1,000 yards 200.00 1,001 - 2,000 yards 250.00 2,001 - 3,000 yards 300.00 3,001 - 4,000 yards 350.00 4,001 - 5,000 yards 400.00 5,001 10,000 yards 500.00 10,001 50,000 yards 600.00 50,001 - 100,000 yards 700.00 100,001 - And up 900.00 115 -3- The sum of cut and fill yardages shall be used in computing grading permit and plan checking fees. (e) Additional Plan Checking made necessary due to changes in plans or incomplete plan submission, $55.00 per hour for the estimated time of checking revisions. 1.2 Compliance Inspections/Reinspections Inspections to determine compliance of existing construction with applicable codes when not included in an active, valid building permit or inspections made necessary due to work not being ready at time specified, or work not corrected after prior written correction notice ................................. $30.00 1.3 Change of Occupancy: Change of Occupancy Inspection ............................ $50.00 1.4 Relocated Buildings: Fees for inspection of a structure to be relocated into or within the City, shall be $100.00 when located within 25 miles of City offices, plus $2.00 per mile, round trip, when located more than 25 miles from City offices. 1.5 Appeal of Abatement Notice: An appeal of a notice to abate a substandard or dangsrous building ................................................ $100.00 1.6 Inspection for Temporary Utility Connection or Temporary Occupancy: Inspection ............................................... $ 30.00 1.7 Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge four hours) ...................................... $50.00 per hour 1.8 Inspections for which no permit fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge one-half hour) ................... $50.00 per hour 1.9 Electrical Permit Fees: (a) Permit Issuance: For issuing each permit .............................. $15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit ................. $ 4.50 116 -4- (b) System Fee Schedule: (NOTE: The following are in addition to permit-issuing fee.) New Residential Buildings: The following fees shall include all wiring and electrical equipment in or on each building, or other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time. For new residential buildings not including the area of garages, carports and other noncommercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same time, per square foot ................................................. $ -035 For new garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed in conjunction with a new residential building per square foot ............................. $ .02 For other types of residential oocupancies and alterations, additions and modifications to existing residential buildings, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Private Swimming Pools, Spas: For new private residential, permanently installed spas, hot tubs or swimming pools for single-family and multi- family occupancies including a complete system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, undsrwater lighting, water pumping and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool, each .......................................... $ 30.00 For other types of swimming pools, spas and alterations to existing swimming pools, use ths UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Carnivals and Circuses: Carnivals, circuses, or other traveling shows or exhibitions utilizing transportable-type rides, booths, displays and attractions. For electric generators and electrically driven rides, each ................................................ $ 15.00 For mechanically driven rides and ~alk-through attractions or displays having electric lighting, each .......... $ 4.50 For a system of area and booth lighting, each ....... $ 4.50 For permanently installed rides, booths, displays and attractions, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. 117 -5- Services: For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating, each .................................... $ 18.50 For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes in rating, each ....................... $ 37.50 For services over 800 volts or over 1000 in rating, each ............................................... $ 75.00 Temporary Power Service: For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all pole or pedestal-mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances, each ................................ $ I5.00 For a temporary distribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands, etc., each, .............................................. $ 7.50 (c) Unit Fee Schedule: NOTE: The following are in addition to permit issuing fee. Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets: For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders and meters. First 20, each ............................ $ .75 Additional outlets, each ........................... $ .45 NOTE: For multi-outlet assemblies, each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be considered as one outlet. Lighting Fixtures: For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp-holding devices. First 20, each ........................... $ .75 Additional fixtures, each .......................... $ .45 For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures, each $ .75 For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies, each ................................................. $ .75 Residential Appliances: For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall-mounted electric ovens; counter- mounted cooking tops; electric ranges, self contained room, console, or through-wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water 118 -6- heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor-operated appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt-ampere (KVA), in rating, each ............. $ 3.00 NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor- driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. Non-residential Appliances: For residential appliances and self-contained factory- wired, non-residential appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt-ampere (KVA), in rating including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases, drinking fountains, vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment, each ............. $ 3.00 NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor- driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. Power Apparatus: For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment and other apparatus, as follows: Rating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (KW), kilovolt-amperes (KVA), or kilovolt-amperes-reactive (KVAR): Up to and including 1, each ......................... $ 3.00 Over 1 and not over 10, each ........................ $ ?.50 Over 10 and not over 50, each ....................... $ 15.00 Over 50 and not over 100, each ...................... $ 30.00 Over 100, each ...................................... $ 45.00 NOTE: 1. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. 2. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly-related control equipment. 119 -7- For trolley and plug-in-type busways, each 100 feet or fraction thereof ................................... $ 4.50 NOTE: An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in-type busways. No fee is required for portable tools. Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees: For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one branch circuit, each ...................... $ 15.00 For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting system or marquee, each ........... $ 3.00 Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors: For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is herein set forth .............................................. $ 11.00 NOTE: This fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more service~, outlets, fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, signs or other equipment. 1.10 Plumbing Permits: (a) Permit Issuance: For the issuance of each permit .................... $ 15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit ............... $ 4.50 (b) Unit Fee Schedule (in addition to issuance fee above): For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping, and backflow protection therefor) .......................... ~ .... $ 6.00 For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $ 15.00 Rainwater systems --per drain (inside building) $ 6.00 For each cesspool (where permitted) ................. $ 22.50 For each private sewage disposal system ............. $ 45.00 For each water heater and/or vent ................... $ 7.50 -8- For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps ........... $ 12.00 For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping and/or water-treating equipment, each ............... $ 3.00 For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture ............................................. $ 3.00 For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow protection devices therefor ................ $ 9.00 For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in lawn sprinkler system: 1 to 5 .............................................. $ 7.50 over 5, each ........................................ $ 1.50 For each backflow protective deviee other than atmospheric- type vacuum breakers: 2 inches and smaller ................................ $ 7.50 over 2 inches ....................................... $ 15.00 For each gas piping system of one to four outlets...$ 3.00 Swimming pool or spa piping including water heater (not including gas piping) ............................... $ 10.00 1.11 Mechanical Permits: A fee for each mechanical permit shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: (a) Permit Issuance: For the issuance of each permit ..................... $ 15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit ............... $ 4.50 (b) Unit Fee Schedule (In addition to issuance fees above): For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 Btu/h ....................................... $ 9.00 121 -9- For the installation or relocation or each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/h ...... $ 11.00 For the installation or reloeation of each floor furnace, including vent ..................................... $ 9.00 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor-mounted unit heater For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit .............................................. $ 4.50 For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by this code ..................... $ 9.00 For the installation or reloeation of each boiler or compressor to and including three horsepower, or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h .... $ 9.00 For the installation or reloeation of each boiler or compressor over three horsepower to and including 15 horsepower, or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu/h and including 500,000 Btu/h ......................... $ 76.50 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower to and including 30 horsepower, or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h to and including 1,O00,000 Btu/h .................... $ 22.50 For installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower to and including 50 horsepower, or for each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h ........................... $ 33.50 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or refrigeration compressor over 50 horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h .............. $ 56.00 For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute, including ducts attached thereto...$ 6.50 Note: This fee shall not apply to an air-handling unit which is an integral portion of a factory assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elesewhere in this code. For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm .......... $ 11.00 For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $ 6.50 For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct..$ 4.50 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any · heating or air-conditioning system authorized by a permit ..................................................... $ 6.50 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood $6.50 For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type incinerator ......................................... $ 11.00 For the installation or reloeation of each commercial industrial-type incinerator ......................... $ 45.00 For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not elassed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code ........... $ 6.50 1.12 Gradinn Permit Fees: A fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: Quantity of Cut and Fill Fee 50 cubic yards or less $15.00 51 to 100 cubic yards $22.50 101 to 1,000 cubic yards -- $22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards -- $117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $9.00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards -- $198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $40.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards or more -- $562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1.13 Application for Plan Duplication Application for duplication processing .............. $ 30.00 -11- Section 2.0 Business License Fees Fees for business licenses are found within Title 5 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations and contained in Chapters 5.04, 5.08, 5.12 and 5.16, thereof. Scotion 3.0 City Clerk Fees Municipal Code $150.00 Supplements to the municipal code will vary in cost and will be billed Variable accordingly. Section ~.O Copyin~ Rates, Media and Subscription Fees: Fee Activity Fee Photocopies $ .25/page* Microfilming $ .25/page* $1.00/plan page Audio Tape $10.O0/tape Computer Diskettes $ 5.00 diskette Subscriptions: Council Agenda $118.00/yr. Minutes $145 00/yr. Planning Commission Agenda $ 43.50/yr. Minutes $160.00/yr. Historic Preservation Comm. Agenda $ 9.00/yr. Engineering Plans and Specifications per set cost $Variable Mailing Costs (Overnight) for above $15.00 Research Requests - All Departments First 1/2 Hour No Charge Time spent beyond 1/2 hour will be billed in increments of 1/4 hr. at: $ 25.00/Hr. *There will be a minimum charge of $1.00 for 1-3 pages -12- FAX Requests - All Departments No Charge A maximum of 6 pages may be requested. If mater~al requested is more than 6 pages, material will be mailed and billed at rate established by this Resolution. Section 5.0 Engineerin8 Fees 5.1 Applications Fee Tentative Parcel Map $2,514.00 Initial Study $ 225.00 Tentative Parcel Map Appeal $ 251.00 Time Extension - Tentative Parcel Map $ 549.00 Certificate of Compliance $1,190.00 Lot Line Adjustment $1,190.00 Amending Parcel Map $1,190.00 Street Vacation $I,~56.00 Subordination Agreement $ 298.00 Release of Lien Agreement $ 298.00 Certificate of Correction $ 256.00 Flood Hazard Letter $ 314.00 Bond Substitution $ 420.00 Private Street Designation $ 495.00 Reimbursement Agreement Storm Drain $2,227.00 Street and Utilities $2,827.00 Traffic Study Review (Dev. Proj.) $ 751.00 5.2 Map and Plan Checkin~ Fees Property Legal Description $ 584.00 Map Checking Residential Parcel Maps $1,370 + $180 per Parcel -13- Tract Maps and Non-Residential Parcel Maps of 10 lots or less $2,070.00 Tract Maps and Non-Residential Parcel Maps over 10 lots $1,720 + $35 per parcel or lot 5.3 Improvement Plans Widening of existing streets $1-35 per LF + sheet charge for interior streets Interior Streets 1-2 sheets: $1,370 per sheet 3-5 sheets: $2,740 + $1,200 per sheet over 2 sheets 6-10 sheets: $6,340 + $1,095 per sheet over 5 sheets 11 or more: $11,815 + $1,025 per sheet over 10 sheets Storm Drain Plans - Same as for interior streets Hydrology Study: Drainage areas up to 150 acres $1,370.00 Drainage areas over 150 acres $2,740.00 Landscape and irrigation plans for City-maintained areas $ 400.00 per sheet For maps and plans checking, the fees for rush checking, when approved by the City Engineer, will be 50% greater than those listed above. The fees for checking the revisions to approved plans will be on the basis of actual costs at hourly rates as determined by the City Engineer with a minimum fee of $100.00. 5.4 Public Works Construction Permit Fee: 5% of Improvement Cost to $25,000; Min. $50 4.5% of Improvement Cost next $75,000 4% of Improvement Cost over $100,000 The improvement cost of a project shall be based on the Engineer's Cost Estimate as shown on Surety Bond and as approved by the City Engineer. NOTE: Development Impact Fees may also apply and are addressed under separate resolutions. 126 -14- 5.5 Overside Loads *Single Permit $t5.00 *Repetitive Permit $70 initial fee + $15 per month renewal fee to a maximum of 6 months *Annual Permit $70 per year *These fees are based on the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Section 35795 and Caltrans Fee Schedule. Section 6.0 Fire Protection District Fees (These fees have been adoptedby the Fire Beard) 8.1 Plans Checking and Inspections 6.1.~ Start-up fee for commercial, industrial or multi- family dwelling units (paid prior to TRC) ......... $ 75.00 6.1.2 Plan review: building and/or system(s) inspection A. Single family residential ..................... $ ]20.00 B. Non-Residential development and multi-family Residential dwelling .......................... $ 620.00 C]. Tenant improvements per suite or floor ........ $ 80.00 C2. Plan review/inspections of plans not otherwise identified, e.g., aisle, access, hose racks, seating, etc.(One hour minimum) Per hour cost $ 60.00 C3. Minor plan reviews not requiring a District inspection (e.g., parking lot sales, demising walls, and other activities where fire regula- tions do not apply - . ........................ No Charge D. New Sprinkler Systems or over 10 heads ........ $ 150.00 Ten heads or less (alteration only) ....... ~...$ 85.00 E. Fixed fire-extinguishing systems (i.e. carbon dioxide, potassium bicarbonate, halon, etc.)..$ ]35.00 F. Fire Alarm Systems .................. ~ ......... $ ]40.00 G. The charge for any revision of a previously approved plan or a change request (form FSD-2) for any of the above, shall be $85.00 per hour for the estimated time spent in review but not less than 25% of the original fee. 127 -15- H. Failure to keep consultation or field inspection appointment without notification (one hour minimum) I. Division consultation fees not otherwise stated (except phone consultations) (one hour minimum) ........... $ 125.00 J. Fire flow test (one hour) ..................... $ 40.00 K. Consultant plan check fee shall be paid by the developer/contractor or owner, and shall be paid prior to plan approval ..................................... $ 40.00 L. Field inspection requiring more than the initial inspection, plus one follow-up .................... $ 100.00 M. Field inspection of self-inspection occupancies who have refused to conduct their own inspection ...... $ 54.00 N. Underground Tanks 1. Original application/plan cheek/tank inspection ........................................... $ 135.00 2. Tank removal ............................... $ 115.00 3. Inspection(s) resulting from leaks of unauthorized discharge .................................. $ 60.00 O. Hazardous chemicals: application/plan check/inspection (storage, handling or use as a solid, liquid or gas, other than underground tanks) 1. 55 gallons corrosive liquid ................ $ 80.00 2. 500 pounds oxidizing material .............. $ 80.00 3- 10 pounds organic or inorganic peroxides...$ 90.00 4. 500 pounds nitromethane .................... $ 90.00 5. 1,000 pounds ammonia nitrate or fertilizer mixture (any amount of highly toxic material, pyrophoric, hypergolic, cryogenic material, poisonous gas or radioactive material) ...................... $ 90.00 6. Any reactire, unstable or other hazardous material not herein classified (extent or hazard and allowable amount to be stored to be determined by the Fire Marshal) ............ $ 125.00 P. Explosives and blasting agents: Application/plan check/inspection 1. Manufacture, possess, store or sell ........ $ 95.00 2. To use explosives or blasting agents ....... $ 140.00 -16- Q. Fumigation and thermal insecticidal fogging when toxic flammable fumigant is used: application/plan check/ inspection ........................................ $ 110.00 Section 6.2 Permit Fees I. Permits (initial/single issuance or as otherwise noted) A. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to produce conditions hazardous to life or property. (UFC 4.101) ............................................... $ 75.00 B. Storage of readily combustile material (UFC 11.203) ............................................... $ 105.00 C. Places of Assembly (except churches and schools) (UFC 25.101) 1. A-3, 50-299 without stage .................. $ 85.00 2. A-2.1,300 or more without stage ........... $ 135.00 3- A-2, 999 or less with stage ................ $ 155.00 4. A-l, 1000 or more with stage ............... $ 205.00 D. Bowling alley and pin refinishing (UFC 26.102).$ 75.00 E. Cellulose nitrate plastic (Pyroxylin) (UFC 27.102) ............................................... $ 75.00 F. Combustible fibers storage and handling exceeding 100 cubic feet (UFC 28.102) ........................ $ 75.00 G. Garages Motor vehicle repair (H-4) (UFC 29.102) ........ $ 75.00 H. Lumber yards (over 100,000 board feet) (UFC 30.101) ............................................... $ 75.00 I. Tire rebuilding plants (UFC 31.102 ............. $ 120.00 J. Auto wrecking yards ............................ $ 75.00 Junk or waste material handling plants (UFC. 34.102) K. Flammable finishes ............................. $ 75.00 Spraying or dipping operations, spray booths, dip tanks, electrostatic apparatus, automobile undercoating, powder coating and organic peroxides and dual component coatings (UFC 45.102) (per spray booth) L. Magnesium (more than 10 pounds per day) (UFC 48.102) ............................................... $ 115.00 M. Oil burning equipment operations (UFC 61.102)..$ 75.00 N. Ovens (industrial baking and drying) (UFC 62.102) ............................................... $ 75.00 O. Mechanical refrigeration (over 20 pounds of refrigerant) (UFC 63.101) ................................... $ 105.00 P. Compressed gases (store, handle or us exceeding 100 cubic feet) (UFC 74.103) 1. non flsmm~ble over 100 cubic feet and up to 5,999 cubic feet ................................. $ 110.00 2. non flsmm~ble 6,000 to 12,000 cubic feet...$ 130.00 3- non-flammable over 12,000 cubic feet ....... $ 195.00 4. flammable over 100 cubic feet and up to 1,999 cubic feet ........................... $ 75.00 5. flamm~ble 2,000 to 6,000 cubic feet ........ $ 125.00 6. flammable over 6,000 cubic feet ............ $ 125.00 Q. Cryogenic fluids (storage, handling or use) (UFC 75.103) ................................... $ 75.00 R. Dust-producing processes and equipment (UFC 75.103) ............................................... $ 80.00 S. Flamm~ble and combustible liquids (storage or handling or use) (UPC 79.103) 1. auto fueling station (B-l) ................. $ 90.00 2. inside storage, less than 60 gallons ....... $ 80.00 3. inside storage, more than 60 gallons ....... $ 115.00 4. outside storage, more than 5000 gallons (UFC.79.402) ............................... $ 115.00 T. High piled combustible stock (UFC 81-103) ...... $ 90.00 U. Liquified petroleum gas (store, handle, transport or use more than 120 gallons) (UFC 82.102) .... $ 75.00 V. Matches (more than 60 Matchman's gross) (UFC 83.101) ............................................... $ 75.00 W. Welding and cutting operations to conduct welding and/or cutting operations in any occupancy (UFC 49.101) ............................................... $ 75.00 X. Alarm company permits (to install units within Fire District) annual permit ........................ $ 95.00 II. Special Services 130 -18- A. Board of appeals fee (to file an appeal and requiring a special meeting) ............................... $ 225.00 B. Excessive or malicious false alarm causing response of fire apparatus 1. Code 3 response due to "failure to notify" fire department when working on or testing sprinkler or fire alarm system $140.00 per houP per piece emePgeney appaPatus responding 1/2 hour minimum 2. Trouble alarm Code 2 response due to failure to notify fire department when working on or testing system $70.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding 1/2 hour minjlL~ 3. Malicious false alarms $140.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding with 1/2 hour minimum 4. Alarm system malfunction resulting in Emergency Code 3 response $140.00 per hour per piece of pm~rgency apparatus respondin~ to all false alarms flux excess of 2 false alarms flux 30 days with 1/2 hour m~njs,m 5. Alarm systems realfunction resulting in a trouble alarm Code 2 response $70.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus respond~-~ff to all trouble alarms flux excess of 2 in 30 days with 1/2 hour mtn{w.,m 6. Code 3 response to false alarms due to negligence, tampering with system construction or modification of building $140.00 per hour per piece of e~ergency apparatus responding with 1/2 hour minimum C. Response to mitigate extended hazardous chemical and material incidents beyond normal service request (this includes response to railroad properties, freeways, and aircraft crashes) 1. Hazardous incident, per hour $235 per hour per piece of apparatus 131 -19- 2. Company Response $95.00 per hour per piece of equipment 3.Squad Response $75.00 per hour 4.Company with Battalion Chief $140.00 per hour 5- Hazardous materials or major transportation ineident response due to negligence $150.00 per hour per piece of equipment 6. Response to mitigate major transportation incidents (may include but not be limited to jetliner crash, railroad derailment or collision, or major freeway collision with extraordinary circumstances) $150.00 per hour per piece of apparatus D. Special Activities -- One time events (combination of plan check, fire permit, field inspection. These events may need the services, at permittees expense, of one or more standby firemen). 1. Fireworks--public display (UFC Article 78) $75.00 plus $140.00 per hour per piece of apparatus 2. Specialty public displays and/or sales (i.e. Christmas tree lots, pumpkin sale lots) .... $ 45.00 3- Conducting any blasting operation (for each four hour period or fraction thereof) $100 plus $140.00 per hour per piece of apparatus 4. Special events (public assembly, stage productions, exhibits, previewing stands, grandstands and bleachers, trade shows, concerts, banquets, etc., other than tents and air supported structures) a. Less than 30,000 square feet at an occupant load of 2,000, whichever is more restrictive ....................................... $ 125.00 b. 3,000 square feet or more, but less than 60,000 square feet or an occupant load of more than 2,000 but less than 4,000, whichever is more restrictive .......... $ 165.00 132 -20- c. 60,000 square feet or more, but less than 90,000 square feet or an occupant load of more than 4,000 but less than 6,000 whichever is more restrictive .......... $ 200.00 d. 90,000 square feet or more with an occupant load of 6,000 or more, whichever is more restrictive ............................ $ 235.00 5- Tents and air-supported structures (UFC Article 32) a. Less than 400 square feet .................. $ 75.00 b. 401 to 1500 sq. ft ......................... $ 100.00 c. 1501 to 15,000 sq. ft ...................... $ 130.00 d. 15,001 to 30,000 sq. ft .................... $ 160.00 e. over 30,000 sq. ft ......................... $ 190.00 ~ectiou 7-0 PIRnnfn__~Fees 7.1 Applications Those charged as a base fee, plus a per unit or per acre amount, with a maximum set at 3X base fee. Application Base Fee Per Unit Fee Maximum Fee Tentative Tract Map $2,987 $60.00 per d/u $8,961.00 Conditional Use Permit $2,921 $292.00 per acre $8,763.00 Dev/Des Review Res $2,851 $57.00 per d/u $8,553.00 (5 Or more) Dev/Des Review - Comm/ Industrial $2,851 $285.00 per acre $8,553.00 Initial Study $225 $22.00 per acre $ 675.00 General Plan Amendment $2,866 $287.00 per acre $8,598.00 Spec/Comm Plan Amend.* $2,866 $287.00 per acre $8,598.00 Dev Distr Amendment* $2,866 $287.00 per acre $8,598.00 *Should be charged at half rate if filed in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment. 188 -21- 7.2 Applications Those charged on a time-and-materials basis with a deposit taken up front. Application Deposit Amount EIR Review - Sensitive $2,000.00 Development Agreement Review $2,000.00 Mitigation Plan - Complex $2,000.00 Annexation $2,000.00 Development Agreement $2,000.00 New Specific/Community Plan $5,000.00 EIR Preparation $5,000.00 7-3 Other Application Fees Application Non-Construction CUP $ 435.00 Uniform Sign Program $ 580.00 Minor Exception $ 170.00 Dev/Dcsign Review: 4 du's or less $1,027.00 Variance $ 871.00 Variance: 4 du's or less $ 291.00 Use Determination $ 315.00 Preliminary Review $ 325.00 Minor Development Review $ 296.00 Time Extension ~ 549.00 Minor Time Extension $ 136.00 Sign Permit $ 51.00 Hillside Development Review 5 or more du's $1,462.00 Hillside Development Review 4 or less du's $ 244.00 -22 - Temporary Use Permit $ 68.00 Temporary Use Model Home $ 219.00 EIR Review Only $2,370.00 Landmark Application $ 728.00 Residential and Small Business No Charge Landmark Alteration $ 835.00 Residential and Small Business No Charge Mills Act Application $ 724.00 Residential and Small Business No Charge Mitigation Plan (Simple) $ 719.00 Mitigation Plan (Complex) See 5.2 7-5 - Appeal Fees Appeal of a City Planner Decision $ 62.00 Appeal of a Commission Decision $ 126.00 in Connection with an Application Appeal of a Tract Map $ 251.00 7.6 - Other Fees Entertainment Permit $ 571.00 Film Permit $ 99.50 Home Occupation Permit $ 53.00 Large Family Day Care Permit $ 170.00 Recycling Facilities Permit $ 296.00 Status Map Application $ 15.00 Tree Removal/New Development ~ 432.00 Tree Removal/Existing Development $ 72.00 NOTE: Planning Division fees for documents, which are individually priced, are contained in the Document Price List Section 8.0 - Recreation Fees Following are current fees for recreation activities and rentals. All consumable costs are to be recovered. 135 Definition of classes of fees by groups. Group 1: City of Rancho Cucamonga sponsored and co-sponsored events; other governmental agencies serving Rancho Cucamonga residents. Group 2: City resident not-for-profit, civic, athletic, social organizations whose management is not paid and organizations sponsoring a public forum or candidate's night. Group 3: City resident not-for-profit, civic, athletic, social organizations which has paid management. Group 4: City resident private party activity, City resident employee organizations, City resident political candidate use for fund raisers; City resident college organizations and committees; work parties and social events. Group 5: City resident commercial, business, profit-making and religious organizations, non-resident not-for-profit, civic and social organizations, non-resident colleges, their organizations and committees, non-resident private party activity, non- resident employee associations. Group 6: Non-resident commercial, business, profit-making and religious organizations. Neighborhood and Com.~,nity Park Li~htod Sports Venue Fees Commencing September 1, 1993, each user group shall be charged fees equal to seventy-five percent (75%) of the costs of electricity used to provide light to that user group based on the most recent rates published by Southern California Edison (SCE). Commencing September 1, 1994, fees will be charged at one hundred percent (100%). Upon acceptance by the City of new parks in Rancho Cucamonga, a use fee of 100% of the full light costs shall be implemented. This fee shall include electrical usage and demand charges as outlined by Southern California Edison (SCE) rate policies. This use fee will be updated annually or as rate policies by SCE are amended. Classes/14orkshops Classes and workshops shall be structured on a cost-covering basis, and fees shall be set based upon the market rate of similar programs provided in the cities of Chino, Fontana, Ontario and Upland. 136 -24- Facility Rentals: Hourly fees for week day and Saturday use as follows: (Sunday and holiday use will be charged the 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. rate.) Buildinn Rentals Hourly Fee GROUP ROOM TIME 1 2 3 4 5 6 SIZE Small 8am-Spm None $ 3.75 $ 7-50 $15.00 $15.00 $30.00 Small 5pm-8am None $ 7.50 $12.00 $25.00 $25.00 $50.00 Large 8am-Spm None $ 5.00 $10.00 $29.00 $25.00 $50.00 Large 5pm-8am None $10.00 $15.00 $35.00 $35.00 $70.00 Kitchen (Flat Rate) Small None $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 Large None $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 $40.00 Other Fees The facilities rental fee shall be charged for fund raisers, plus ten percent (10%) Of the gross and, if additional City staff is required, $7.50 per hour for the staff time. When a damage deposit is required, the charge is $200.00. Per Day Charges Coffee Pot (small) $ 2.00 Coffee Pot (large) $ 5.00 Small Stage $10.00 Large Stage $50.00 T.V. W/video player $20.00 Microphone $ 5.00 Small PA system $40.00 Slide Projector $10.00 Professional Style Lights $ 3.00/light Piano at RCNC $25.00 (The piano is tuned by the City twice a year. If the piano does not meet the standards of the user, the City will arrange for tuning at the user's sole expense. Tuning fees will be added to rental cost.) CoMmunity Amphitheater: The following are re~tal fees for amphitheaters. The first hour of monitoring is included in the stage rental for Groups 2 and 3- GROUP USAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Stage-flat fee None $25.00 $40.00 $72.00 $80.00 $95.00 Sound Monitor/hrly None $10.00 $10.00 $26.75 $26.75 $35.00 137 -25- Equestrian Center Fees and Charges will be as follows: USE GROUP 1 2 3 4 5 6 *Hourly Room Rental **Daily Snack Bar/ N/C $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 Kitchen ***Lights 75% ACTUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION (1993-94) Annual Shared N/C $75.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A Storage Fee *Includes use of P.A. System. **A deposit may be required for this use. (See Equestrian Usage Policies.) ***The small arena will have a coin metered box for electrical cost recovery. The large arena will recover electrical cost via direct billing for actual use. Sports Complex Tournament Fees Rental Fees Per Field Group I & II Group III thru VI Field Rental *$50.00 *$230.00 Deposit 20.00 75.00 Infield Lining 8.00 8.00 Light Fee Actual Cost Actual Cost *Includes initial field dragging and watering. The deposit will be applied to the total rental fee. When additional City staffing is required for tournaments and/or special event programs scheduled at the Adult Sports fields, the following facility use fees shall be charged. Custodian $21.00/hour Park Maintenance Worker $23.00/hour Community Service Supervision $29.00/hour Community Service Administration $49.00/hour Facility/Park Supervision $33.00/hour Recreation Leader $11.00/hour Light Fees Actual Cost 188 -26- Park Tournaments: A $50.00 non-refundable deposit is required to reserve fields. Said deposit shall apply to final field rental totals. Should there be a need for City staff to oversee and coordinate activities, the fee is $11.00 per hour. The requestor shall meet all liability insurance requirements for usage of facilities and provide additional equipment needed to hold the tournament at their own cost. GROUP USAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 Per Day None $20.00 $30.00 $70.00 $70.00 $125.00 Snack Bar: Fcr City-owned snack bars located in City Parks. GROUP(S) USAGE 1 2 3.- 6 Seasonal None $450.00 N/A Other non-profit groups bringing in snack bars (i.e. trailers) will be charged a flat $300.00 seasonal permit fee, unless group is participating in a City sponsored event. Storage: For City-owned storage located in City parks USAGE 1 2 3 - 6 SEASONAL None $ 75.00 N/A Non-Resident 61~a~ge: A $5.00 fee shall be paid by each non-resident, each class, each team, each season to participate in City- sponsored classes. Said fee is payable at the time of registration. Does not include one day activities or any trips sponsored by the City. Section 9.0 - Rancho Cucamon~a~heriffDepartment Fe~-q Description Fee Fingerprinting $ 10.00 Criminal Reports $ 20~00 Traffic Accident Reports $ 20.00 Traffic Accident Reports - Mail $ 20.00 Criminal History Letters $ 10.00 Bicycle License $ 3-00 *Special Event Jobs No Charge 139 -27- Public Information Clerk - Hourly $ 14.00 Station Clerk - Hourly $ 16.00 Station Clerk Supervisor - Hourly $ 18.00 Secretary - Hourly $ 17.00 Secretary II - Hourly $ 19.00 Forensic Specialist II - Hourly $ 35.00 Community Services Officer - Hourly $ 20.00 Deputy Reserve- Hourly $ 31.00 Deputy II - Hourly $ 57.00 Deputy III- Hourly $ 58.00 Sergeant - Hourly $ 64.00 Lieutenant - Hourly $ 74.00 Captain - Hourly $ 82.00 Vehicle Cost - Hourly $ 85.00 *There is no fee for special events. However, if security services are required for the event such as regular or reserve officers, or private security, these fees are separate. Section lO.O - Miscellaneous Fees Amendment to tax statements for prepaid assessments Bingo License $ 50.00 Calculation for 1915 Bond Act Assessment Districts ............................................ $ 7,50 Dog Licensing See Resolution 81-79 Filming Permits Business License Tax $ 20.00 Application Fee (Planning Fees) $ 129.00 Basic Fee for each day of filming $ 132.50 Investigation Fee $ 110.00 per filming day Fire Department $ 100.00 per Hr.* *per hour for each 3-man piece of equipment -28- Police Department** (See Sheriff Fees) **Number and type of personnel is determined by the station commander after reviewing plans for the event. Home Park Rent Mediation - Filing Fee $ 15.00 Home Park Rent Mediation - Appeal Fee $ 300.00 Industrial Bond Development Bond Application A fee of 1/4 of 1% of the established maximum amount of the proposed bond application and not less than $1,250.00 Massage Establishment Application $ 225.00 Massage Technician Application $ 178.00 Massage Outcall Service $ 90.00 Renewal Massage Establishment Appl. $ Renewal Massage Teeh. Application $ 90.00 Renewal Massage Outcall Service $ 45.00 School Fees - Please refer to Ordinance Nos. 69-C and 74 regarding these fees. Solicitor (Non-profit) identification badge $ 5.00 each Taxicab Service Application $ 95.00 Taxicab Driver's Permit Application $ 120.00 Taxicab Service Application Renewal $ 45.00 Taxicab Driver's Permit Appl. Renewal $ 60.00 141 -29- c. Effective Date: This Resolution shall become effective with its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August 1992. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Dennis L. Stout, Mayor ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cueamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of August 1992. Executed this 5th day of August 1992 at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE pERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - Consideration of an appeal of the planning Co~ission's decision to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. ENTERTAINMENT pERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S pLACE - Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Co~m~ission's decision to revoke an Entertainment permit for a bar and restaurant in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. ~ECO~BMDATION Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision in revoking Conditional Use permit 78-03 and Entertainment Permit 91-02. Two separate Resolutions of Denial are attached for the Council's action- BACKgrOUND On March 23, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted a revocation hearing on the two permits- At that meeting, the applicant requested a continuance because of his pending criminal case. At the advice of the City Attorney, the Commission proceeded with the hearing, whereby the applicant chose not to participate in the revocation hearing. After taking in public input, the Commission determined that the business is not operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval or the permitted activity and revoked both permits by unanimous vote. The applicant made a timely appeal of the Commiss ion ' s decision. }a~LYSIS In considering the revocation of the two permits, the Commission found that the applicant has the responsibility to abide by the terms of Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and Entertainment Permit 91-02. The Co~nission felt that the City has gone to its limits to cooperate with the applicant and to mitigate 143 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 78-03 & EP 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE May 4, 1994 Page 2 the public nuisance problems. The Co~unission found that there is sufficient evidence in the report to indicate that the applicant failed to comply with several conditions of approval. Specifically, he failed to install permanent no parking signs and physical barriers at the northwest parking area to prohibit patrons from parking in the area closest to the adjacent residences. He also continued to conduct entertainment outside the approved list of permitted entertainment uses, such as having a disc jockey. The Commission also reviewed two written responses (Exhibit "D") from adjacent residences who had objected to the public nuisance created by Sam's Place and stated they were in favor of revoking the two permits. Two residents spoke at the meeting and stated they were in favor of revoking the two permits because of the incompatibility of the bar and entertainment uses with the adjacent residences. Based on public input and the evidence presented in the staff report, the Co~nission revoked the permits and set a ten-day period for Sam's Place to cease having entertainment and serving alcohol. To date, the applicant has not complied with the above-mentioned conditions of approval nor ceased having entertainment or serving alcohol. Copies of the March 23, 1994, Planning Commission Minutes and Staff Report are attached for Council's review. Also outlined in Exhibit "F" is a detailed history and chronology of the Conditional Use Permit. FACTS ~3R F~DINGS A. Conditional Use Permit 78-03. In reviewing this appeal, the Council, after investigating the evidence and upon conclusion of the hearing, must decide on one of the following options: 1. Find that the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary; or 2. Find that the CUP in not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications to the conditions are necessary; or 3. Find that the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and, therefore, revoke the permit. Staff recommends that the Council find the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to revoke the permit. If the Council concurs, and following the final action, staff will inform Alcohol Beverage Control of the revoked permit for the bar. Sam's Place could continue to operate as a restaurant with the incidental serving of beer and wine which is permitted by right. B. Entertainment Permit 91-02. In reviewing the appeal, the Council must determine if the applicant: 144 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 78-03 & EP 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE May 4, 1994 page 3 1. Made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statements in their application; or 2. Violated any provision of Entertainment Ordinance No. 290 or any other regulation or condition relating to the permitted activity; or 3- Is convicted of a felony or any crime involving moral turpitude; or 4- Violated any regulations or conditions adopted by the Planning Co~nission or City Council relating to the permittee's business or permit; or 5. Conducted business in a manner contrary to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the public; or 6. Demonstrated that he is unfit to be trusted with the privileges of such permit. Staff recommends that the Council find the applicant to be in violation of the Entertainment Ordinance by offering entertainment beyond what is specifically permitted and the conditions of approval adopted by City Council Resolution Nos. 94-004 and 91-381, and Planning Co~m%ission Resolution No. 82-98, and uphold the Planning Commission's decision to revoke the permit. The result of this action would be that the applicant could continue to operate the restaurant with the incidental serving of beer and wine, but without the entertainment. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB:NF/jfS Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Appeal Letter Exhibit "B" - March 23, 1994, planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes Exhibit "C" - planning Co~m~ission Resolutions No. 94-21 and 94-22 Exhibit "D" - Letters From Adjacent Residents Exhibit "E" - History and Chronology Of CUP .78-03 Resolution Denying the Appeal of CUP 78-03's Revocation Resolution Denying the Appeal of EP 91-02's Revocation MANNERINO March 30, 1994 City of Rancho Cucamonga Attn: Clerk 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Sam's Place/Revocation of ConditiOnal Use Permits No. 78-03 and 9!-0~ Dear Clerk: We hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Commission dated March 23, 1994, revoking Conditional Use Permit No. 78-03 for the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant, Sam's Place, located at the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Streets in the neighborhood commercial district; and revoking Entertainment Permit No. 91-02 for a bar and restaurant, Sam's Place, located at the northwest corner of Carnelian and 19th Streets in neighborhood commercial district, and request that the matter be set on the agenda at the City Council hearing on the first available date· Enclosed herewith please find a check in the amount of ~ to cover the filing fee. Ve ruly yours, NO~ BRIGp,~GLI~ · ~ RINO Enclosure/Check 9333 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE 110 / RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 / TEL (909)980-1100 / FAX {909)941-8610 1'43 PUBLIC HEARINGS B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A consideration to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northwest corner Of 19th and Carnelian streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. C. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 SRM'S PLACE - A consideration to revoke an Entertainment Permit for a bar and restaurant in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through Chairman Barker read a letter from the applican~'s attorney requesting tha~ the items be tabled until resolution of a pending criminal case. Me opened the public hearing for comments from the applicant'e attorney. John Mannerino, Mannerino & Briguglio, 9333 Base Line Road, Suite 110, Rancho Cucamonga, stated there is currently a pending court case related to misdemeanor charges for an action in relation to incidents which occurred against Richard Alcorn, the City's Code Enforcement Supervisor. Me said Clyde Boyd, the District Attorney handling the case, had also indicated that other charges had been or may be filed regarding misdemeanor and/or infraction violations alleged various violations of sign and parking ordinances and resolutions of the Planning Commission and City Council. Mr. Mannerino etated they did not have a copy of those charges and therefore, they could not participate in defense of the establishment. Me thought it would be a violation of due process for the City to move forward with the hearing. Me said a decision to go forward this evening would be appealed to the City Council and ultimately it would be reviewed by the Superior Court. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, commented that the allegations involving Mr. Alcorn are not issues the Planning Commission would be reviewing. Me said the matter before the Planning Commission has to do with compliance with conditions of specific permits. He stated that representatives of the City had spoken with Mr. Boyd and explained the matters before the Planning commission and Mr. 8oyd felt the hearing would neither help nor hinder the District Attorney's case with the matters that had been or could be filed. Mr. Hanson commented the Planning Commission has no authority to make anyone testify. He said if the Commission determined there were no violations of the permits, it may favorably impact Mr. Pellegrino's defense in the criminal courts. He said the matter had also been reviewed by City Attorney James Markman and they found no legal impediment to proceeding but it was the discretion of the Commission to honor or not honor the applicant's request. Commissioner McNiel commented that Mr. Mannerino had raised the issue of due process and he felt the process had been ongoing for a lengthy period of time with no evidence of any solution or cooperation. He felt the Commission should proceed with hearing the matter and that would be due process. Chairman Barker stated the commission would go ahead with the hearing. Planning Commission Minutes -12- March 47 Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and reported that staff had received two letters frcm adjacent residents Ln favor of revoking the permits. Commissioner Tolstoy questioned if there had been trees and a barrier in the parking lot when the business was operated by a previous owner. Ms. Fcng responded that trees, a sign, and a barrier had been there but had been removed by a previous owner who closed at 11:00 p.m. and did not have entertainment. Chairman Barker remarked that the issues before the Commission had to do with compliance with city Council and Planning Commission resolutions regarding the conditional use permit and the entertainment permit. He stated that any testimony should be only with regard to those issues. commissioner Eumpp asked if the Owner of the center had been notified and if the owner appeared to feel any responsibility. Ms. Fong replied that a letter had been sen= to the property owner but they had not responded. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the Fire Department was in concurrence with limiting the access to the rear parking area. MS. Fong replied affirmatively and noted that it had been a 1982 condition of approval and, in fact, was in place for a period Of time. Commissioner Lumpp questioned what additional sound attenuation measures were required in 1983. Ms. Fong replied they were for interior noise so it would not filter out. Commissioner McNiel recalled that it called for some baffling on the inside of the building as well as for the maintenance and closure of a back door. Chairman Barker stated that the wall had been placed on the west side of the property as an attenuation device in the past. Me stated the public hearing was open and he requested that any speakers limit discussion to the specific topic of the compliance with City council and Planning Commission resolutions and the proposed revocation of the permits. Douglas Gorgan, P. O. Box 552, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is one of the owners of the shopping center. He said that conditions were added to require trees and a chain to restrict entry into the back parking area when the property was being operated by a previous tenant. Me noted there was subsequently a fire and the premises were closed for a year. Me said that when they reopened, they agreed to close at 11:00 p.m. and to drop entertainment. He observed that at the time Mr. Pellegrino took over the premises, it was being operated as a restaurant and bar with no entertainment and it was closing at 11:00 p.m. He commented that about that time, the Fire Department requested some upgrades including some signs, marking the fire Planning Commission Minutes -13- March 23, 1994 lanes with red curbs, and removal of the trees because they impeded possible access to portions of the shopping center. He said he called the Planning Department and asked if the trees and barriers could be removed since there was no longer any entertainment and ~he business was closing at 11:00 p.m. He said he had received approval and the two potted trees were removed. He did not recall that the chain had ever been used. He thought that after several years of operation, Mr. pellegrino had petitioned to increase his hours of operation and apply for an entertainment permit. He said the management company neither supported nor opposed the application. He recalled that the Planning Commission had turned down the application but the City council had granted an appeal and reversed the Commission's decision. He said the site was inspected while the trees and chain were missing and the city had only requested that the back area be posted to restrict parking in the back corner. Me acknowledged that Mr. Pellegrino had never put up any signs and said he had contacted Mr. Mannerino in an attempt to get the signs put up. He said the management company has been aware there were some problems, but they were limited in what they can do until the City determines the premises are being operated in an inappropriate manner. He said the City had contacted their management company about two weeks ago regarding the trees and the chain. Me stated that the lease on the premises expires in the beginning of September and the applicant did not have an ability to extend the lease. Commissioner McNiel remarked there would be an ability to create a new lease. Mr. Gorgan said the management company did not favor creating a new lease. Commissioner McNiel said that was no guarantee to the city. ' Mr. Gorgan concurred there was no guarantee. He said they are aware of the problems with the neighbors and they do not want irritation of the neighbors or other center tenants. Me said Mr. Mannerino had also indicated that Mr. Pellegrino intends to move. Commissioner Lumpp thanked Mr. Gorgan for providing information. Mr. Gorgan said they are not insensitive to the problems but they also have legal responsibilities to their tenants under the leases. He said if the City requires the replacement of the two potted trees in the drive aisle, they would be willing to do so if the Fire Department approves. Me said the back driveway area could also be chained off, but he noted that people do not expect to find a chain in the area. Jim Frost, 12996 Victoria, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the shopping center and the residential area to the west were some of the last projects approved by the County prior to city incorporation. He felt that the residential area is incompatible with the adjacent center. He thought that the center and previous tenants had done a great deal to try to alleviate the problems. He suggested that the Commission approve the resolutions. Joe Fable, 6611 Topaz, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his home borders the northwest corner of the shopping center. He said that when the matter was before the City Council, Mr. Mannerino had commented that this is a wrong business activity in a wrong location. He felt something needs to be done. He Planning Commission Minutes -14- March 23, 1994 commented that the Commission had jus~ spen~ several hours trying to ensure that a new area will fit the City image. He said ~hat he had supported the liquor license for Sam's Place in order to give them an opportunity to show i~ could work. He felt that a few ~rees and a chain link fence to reduce the traffic to the back corner may cut down part of the noise but he thought there was nothing that could be done to manage the noise coming from the parking lot, including squealing tires, racing engines, blaring radios, shouting, arguing, fighting; etc. He commented the noise is continuous because people are coming and going from 9:00 p.m. and they hang around after the bar closes. He felt there is no way the doors will be kept closed on warm summer evenings when the business gets crowded. He noted that people cannot play tennis in the parks after 10:00 p.m. because the lights have to be shut off then to avoid disturbing residents. Me felt there is inconsistency in areas because if playing tennis is too noisy for a residential area then certainly the activities from a business such as a bar should be considered too noisy. He said that the largest investment of his life was made in his home and the value of his home is depreciated because of neighborhood activities. He observed that he had heard that the business would be moving every time there is an appeal. He supported adoption of the resolution to revoke the permits. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher felt the City had gone to the limit to try to solve the problems. He made a motion to adopt the resolutions revoking both permits. Chairman Barker thought that many people have tried to make something work that does not work. He said he had always felt the business is not appropriate at that location. commissioner Eumpp understood the City Attorney had said the Commission would not be in violation of due process by acting upon the revocation. Me felt the applicant had not demonstrated that he can operate the business in a manner which is not detrimental to the neighborhood or the public safety and welfare Of the neighborhood. Me seconded the motion. Commissioner McNiel stated the city had been dealing with this use at that location for a long time. Me did not feel the city had ever gone so far in an effort to try to mitigate a use and to cooperate with an owner to make a facility work as the Owner wished it to work. He thought the efforts had been without cooperation from the applicant and the effort had been unsuccessful. Commissioner Tolstoy felt the City had bent over backwards to try everything possible to make the project work. Me thanked Mr. Fabis for speaking and thought he had pointed Out the sentiments Of the neighborhood. Chairman Barker noted that it had been moved by Melcher and seconded by Lumpp to adopt the resolution revoking Conditional Use Permit 78-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCMER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried Planning Commission Minutes -15- March 23, 1994 Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seccnded by xcNiei, to adept the resolutlcn revoking Entertainment Permit 91-O2. Mo~on carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE -carried PUBLIC COMMENTS / / There were no additional public comments. / COMMISSION BUSINESS Commissioner Lumpp stated he had received a letter from/he Alta Loma Riding Club asking if he would like to participate at a bene on April 24, 1994. He asked if any of the other Commissioners had rece' an invitation. Chairman Barker said the Riding Club collects handicapped riders and it is an excellent program. He said he would be Commissioner Melcher commented that the had reviewed the master project schedule for the 1994 Housing Update at a previous meeting. He thought the Commission had requested reports at the times indicated for Principal Planner review. He ob that the schedule indicates the first Principal Planner review is at the end of March. He requested that the Commission be given an Chairman Barker noted that the raffic lights in the community are a concern to some people. He said had ridden around for over an hour with the Mayor and some Engineering to see where they could drive without having to constantly stop for signals. He said he would keep the Commissioners informed as velopments occur. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by seconded by McNiel, to adjourn. 9:59 p.m. - The P Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes -16- March 23, 1994 151 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: March 23, 1994 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE - A consideration to revoke the Conditional Use Permit for the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant in the Neighborhood Co~m~ercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A consideration to revoke an Entertainment Permit for a ba~ and restaurant in the Neighborhood Commercial District, located at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-56 through 60. BACKGROUND: This revocation hearing is the result of the applicant's failure to comply with the conditions of approval for the above-described permits. Specifically, he failed to post the required permanent no parking signs as well as install physical barriers at the northwest parking area closest to the residences to prohibit his patrons from parking in this area. He also continued to display illegal signs and conduct entertainment outside the approved list of permitted entertainment uses. The Development Code (Section 17.04) and Entertainment Ordinance No. 290 allows the Planning Commission to revoke the Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit if the permits are found to be conducted and operated in a manner not consistent with the conditions of approval or the permitted activity. ANALYSIS: This section of the report will examine the evidence to determine whether the applicant is operating his business in a manner consistent with the permitted activity and the conditions of approval and whether there is sufficient evidence to revoke the two permits. Section A will address the Conditional Use Permit while Section B will address the Entertainment Permit. A. Conditional Use Permit 78-03: Code Compliance Issues: AS early as June of 1993, the applicant illegally expanded the entertainment use to include live bands and disc jockeys with karaoke, added an arcade, and displayed illegal signs. Despite repeated contacts, the violations continued. In response to the City's citation process, the applicant submitted an application to modify the Entertainment Permit for legalizing the added entertainment and a new Conditional Use Permit application for adding the arcade with six amusement devices. At the hearings, the Co~aission received written and oral testimony from adjacent 152 pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 78-03 & EP 91-02 - SAM'S pLACE March 23, ~994 Page 2 residents who objected to the public nuisance such as loud music from Sam' s Place and loud noise from the loitering activities in the parking area. The Con=nission determined that expanding the entertainment use would worsen the public nuisance problem and subsequently denied the modification to the Entertainment Permit, but approved the Conditional Use Permit for the arcade. At the appeal hearing of January 5, 1994, the City Council upheld the Commission's decision to deny the added entertainment uses with the exception of karaoke. Upon City Council action, staff gave notice to the applicant, his attorney, and the legal property owner, that it is the applicant's responsibility to comply with all the conditions of approval in City Council Resolutions No. 94-004 and 91-381 (Exhibits "F" and "G") and Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 (EXhibit "I"). Compliance inspections were conducted on January 24 and February 14, 1994. To date, the applicant has failed to comply with the following conditions of approval: installing permanent no parking signs and the placement of physical barriers at the northwest parking area to prohibit Sam's Place patrons from parking in this area. Outlined in Exhibit "B" is a detailed history and chronology of the Conditional Use Permit. 2 · Planning Co~nission Cons ideration: According to the Development Code, after investigating the evidence and upon conclusion of the hearing, the Commission must decide on one of the following options: a. Find that the Conditional Use Permit is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to modify or revoke is necessary; or b. Find that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications to conditions are necessary; or c. Find that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and therefore revoke the permit. Based upon the above analysis, staff concluded that the business is not being operated in a manner consistent with the conditions of approval and these conditions are necessary mitigations to prevent any detrimental impact to the residential area · Therefore, staff recommends that the Co=~nission find that the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and revoke the permit. If the Conditional Use Permit is revoked, staff will inform the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the revoked permit for the bar. Sam's Place could continue to operate as a restaurant with the incidental serving of beer and wine which is permitted by right. pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 78-03 & EP 91-02 - S~'S PLACE March 23, 1994 Page 3 B. Entertainment Permit No. 91-02: 1. Violations of the Entertainment Permit: At the appeal hearing of January 5, 1994, the City Council upheld the Planning Comm~ission's decision in denying the modification to the Entertainment Permit for adding live bands and disc jockeys. As shown in the January 12, 1994, letter (Exhibit "C"), the applicant was notified that the approved entertainment is that of a duet and karaoke was added but without the use of disc jockeys. Staff has determined, through site inspections and illegal signs retrieved by Code Enforcement staff, that the applicant is in violation of his permit, in that he continues to have disc jockeys for entertainment. 2. Planning Commission Consideration: According to Entertainment Ordinance No. 290, the Commission may revoke an Entertainment Permit if it is determined that the applicant: a. Made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statements in their application; or b. Violated any provision of Entertainment Ordinance No. 209 or any other regulation or condition relating to his permitted activity; or c. Is convicted of a felony, or any crime involving moral turpitude; or d. Violated any regulations or conditions adopted by the Planning Commission or City Council relating to the permittee's business or permit; or e. Conducted business in a manner contrary to the peace, health, safety, and general welfare of the public; or f. Demonstrated that he is unfit to be trusted with the privileges of such permit. Based upon the fact that staff has observed the use of disc jockeys and has retrieved illegal signs advertising the use of disc jockeys, staff finds that there is sufficient evidence to indicate the applicant is in violation of the Entertainment Ordinance by offering entertainment beyond what is specifically permitted. In addition, the applicant has violated the Sign Ordinance by displaying illegal signs. Violation of the conditions of approval adopted by Planning Co~ission Resolution No. 82-98 and City Council Resolutions No. 94-004 and 91-381 is grounds for revocation based on the findings noted above. Therefore, staff recommends that the Entertainment Permit be revoked. 154 pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 78-03 & EP 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE March 23, 1994 Page 4 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct the public hearing and revoke Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and Entertainment Permit 91-02 through the adoption of the attached Resolutions. City Planner BB:NF/jfS Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map Exhibit "B" - History and Chronology of CUP 78-03 Exhibit "C" - Letter to Applicant dated January 12, 1994 Exhibit "D" - Compliance Inspection Record Exhibit "E" - Letters to Applicant & Property Owner dated March 4 & 8, 1994 Exhibit "F" - City Council Resolution No. 94-004 Exhibit "G" - City Council Resolution No. 91-381 Exhibit "H" - City Council Resolution No. 91-382 Exhibit "I" - Planning Comission Resolution No. 82-98 Resolution of Revocation for CUP 78-03 Resolution of Revocation for EP 91-02 {+_ : EXISTING BUiLDiNG ..... ~. _~ .01 !,~,,,% r~ ffl..-I-I - NC HO C UC A PIO NO A January 12, 1994 Mr. Sam pellegrino 6620 Carnelian Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S pLACE Dear Mr. Pellegrino: At the January 5, 1994 meeting, the City Council denied your appeal and upheld the Planning Commission's decision in denying your request to expand the entertainment with the exception of karaoke. The approval of karaoke does not include the use of a disc jockey Or competition among your patrons. A copy of the Resolution 94-004 is attached.' The conditions of approval contained in City Council Resolution No. 91-382 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 are still in effect and must be fully complied with. Copies of these two Resolutions are also attached. Please note the several conditions of approval that require your immediate attention in order to bring your business into full compliance with all conditions of approval. 1. Your patrons shall not park at the northwest parking area as marked on the attached site plan. Permanent signs shall be posted immediately. Staff will conduct a compliance inspection within 10 calendar days from the date of this letter- 2. A minimum of two security guards shall be on the premises from 6 p.m. until two hours after the cessation of entertainment and the serving of alcohol. One of the security guards shall remain' on duty outside the facility in the parking lot and shall conduct periodic monitoring of the parking lot as well as the adjacent areas to assist in averting nuisances and disturbances from the patrons. Compliance shall begin imediately. 3. The front and beck doors of the business shall remain closed during evenin~ hours beginning at 6 p.m. except in the event of an emergency. Compliance shall begin i~nediately. 4. The northwest parking area as marked on the attached site plan shall be blocked off by placing large trees in containers along the edge of the drive aisle. Also, a chain or breakaway barrier shall be installed to block the access from the rear/service driveway into this northwest parking area during the evening hours beginning at 6 p-m. Staff will conduct a compliance inspection 30 days from the date of this letter. Mayor Dennis t. Stout , CouncilmemOef William J. Alexarc.-' Mayor Pro-fern Charles J. Buauet ii ~ CouncilmemDef Oiane Williams Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager CouncilmemOef Rex Gufierrez ~ I It H'TbzT IC500 Ciwc Center Dr,re P O Box 807 ~ancno Cucamonaa. CA 91729 (909~ 0~¢ '851 .... 157 Mr. Sam PeL!egrin EP 91-02 January 12, 1993 Page 2 In addition to the above, there are several outstanding code enforcement issues that need to be corrected. The barrel of cooking grease stored outside your back exit door, the flyers or other advertising materials posted on util'ity poles, and the excess window neon signs must be removed i~nediately. Your voluntary compliance with the above requirements and within the time period specified will be appreciated. Should you fail to do so, the City has no alternative but to proceed with the citation process inunediately. If you have any questions regarding the conditions of approval, or need further clarification on complying with them, please do not hesitate to call me or Nancy Fong at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, CO~4UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BB:NF:mlg Attachments: City Council Resolution No. 94-004 City Council Resolution No. 91-382 Planning Commission Resolution No- 82-98 Site Plan cc: John Mannerino, Attorney Doug Gorgen, Property Owner Joe Febis, Resident Luella ~ims, Resident Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor Nancy Fong, Senior Planner CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CORRECTION CORRECTION NOTICE NOTICE PLANNING DIVISION ' PLANNING DIVISION Loc, ation:~ '~ 1~ l ~Trt~ ', /~'4 -. R A N C H 0 C U C A ,~I 0 ,X G ,\ March 8, 1994 Mr. Sam Pelleqrino Sam's Place 6620 Carnelian Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 SUBJECT: ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 Dear Mr. Pellegrino: On March 3, 1994, a letter was sent to you regarding your Conditional Use Permit and that an advertised revocation hearing has been set for March 23, 1994. The purpose of this letter is to notify you that we have also advertised a revocation hearing on your Entertainment Permit for March 23, 1994. Inspections conducted by our Code Enforcement staff have found that you have used a disc jockey in your entertainment venus since the City Council action on January 4, 1994. Use of a disc jockey was strictly prohibited. All entertainment shall be consistent with the approval granted by Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 and City Council Resolution Nos. 91-382 and 94-004. If you have any questions please contact me or Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLA DI y Planner BB:NF:Sp cc: John Mannerino, Attorney Richard Alcorn t, Nancy Fong DANC[-[O March 4, 1994 Mr. Sam Pellegrino Sam's Place 6620 Carnelian Street Rancho Cucamcnga, CA 91701 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 Dear Mr. Pellegrino: On January 12, 1994, the City sent you a notice requiring your immediate action for full compliance with the Conditions of Approval as contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 and City Council Resolution No. 91-382. Copies of the letter and the two resolutions are attached for your reference. Staff conducted compliance inspections On January 24, and February 14, 1994, and to date, you have not complied with the list of conditions as outlined in the January 12, 1994 letter. Therefore staff has scheduled an advertised revocation hearing for the Conditional Use Permit at the March 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. I urge you to take immediate action to comply with the Conditions of Approval prior to the ~evocation hearing. If you have any questions about the Conditions of Approval, Or if you need further clarification on complying with them, please contact me or Nancy Fang, Senior Planner, at (909) 989-1861. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANN~VISIO BB:NF:sp Attachmentsz January 12, 1994 letter Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 City Council Resolution NO. 91-382 cc: John Mannerino, Attorney Doug Hone and Doug Gorgen, Rancho Plaza Joe Fabis, resident Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor Nancy Fo~g~ Senior Planner Mayor Oemn~ t. Stout ~ CouncilmemOs' William J. Alexonce, MaVor Pro-Tern Charles J. 8uauef II ' Counc~lmernOer Diane Willjams Jack Lain. AICP. C~ Manager CounolmemDer Rex Gulierrez 10500 C~v,c Center Onve P O Box ~7 ~ancho Cucamo~oa CA 917~ (qOD) q89-1851 :: . H© C UC A ~arch 4, 1994 Mr. Doug Hone and Mr. Doug Gorgen Rancho Plaza 6634 Carnelian Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 SUBJECT: SAM'S PLACE LOCATED AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 Dear .Mr. Hone and Mr. Gorgon: On January 12, 1994, I sent you a copy of the letter that gave notice to Mr. Sam Pellegrino requesting his immediate action to comply with the Conditions of Approval listed in Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 and City Council Resolution No. 91-382. Copies of the January 12, 1994 letter and the two resolutions are attached for your reference. Because Sam's Place has not complied with the Conditions of Approval to date, staff has scheduled a revocation hearing for the Conditional Use Permit at the March 23, 1994 Planning Commission meeting. As you are aware, two of the Conditions of Approval require the posting. of permanent signs prohibiting the patrons of Sam's Place from parking at the northwest parking area and the blocking of access into this parking area with landscaping and a chain or breakaway barrier. These signs, chain barrier, and large trees were removed when Stratton's, the previous business, occupied the space · I am requesting your cooperation to work with Mr. Pellegrino in installing the permanent signs and placing the chain and landscape barriers, to comply with the Conditions of Approval, prior to the revocation hearing. If you have any questions about the Conditions of Approval or if you need further clarification on complying with them, please contact me or Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, at any time at (909) 989-7861. I thank you in advance for your assistance. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PL~~SION Brad Bullet ~~ Attachments: January 12, 1994 letter to Sam Pellegrino Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 City Council Resolution No. 92-382 co: John Mannerino, Attorney Richard Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor Nancy Fong, Senior Planner Mayor Denn~ L Stout CouncllmemOer William J Alexonaer MayOr PrO-Tern Charles J 8ucluet II _ , -: - Jack Larn. A~CP. C.tV Manager ~] CouncfimemDet ~ex Gutierrez c.v,c Centel Dr,re P O 8o~ 807 r~ancno Cuccrnonaa CA 91729 (gO9) 989-1851 : .L , . . 162 R~I/J'fION NO. 94-004 A RESOI/3TION OF IME ~II~ CC~ OF THE ~l'l~ OF RAN~ CII~ISSION'S DECISION IN PART IN DBITfING A MDOIFICATION TO ~lvl'~Fa~ P~1~4IT NO. 91-02, ~D EXPA~ ~ BNI'~Fdina2a~]4T TO ALLOW A L/VE BAND AND DISC JOCKEY, AND C~IqJI~C'EION Wi'iH A RE~ AND BAR L~ A~ 6620 CAR~.TAN ST~i' IN THE N~iIGt~ C~ DIsII~/CT, AND MA~ [~INGS IN SUPP~ %~F - APN: 201-811-56 q1~ 60. (i) h~nne Pellegrino has filed an ap~licatic~ for the ~nce of ~ Permit No. 91-02, as a~ibed in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject B~rtain~nt Permit reque~-t is referred to as "the applicatic~'." (ii) Ca1 No~ 10, 1993, the Plannin~ C~ic~ of the City of Rancho ~-~morr3a conduc~ a duly noti~a ~ublic N~"ir~ Oa~ the a~licaticn and ~a~],~a said b~in~ on that date. ~he C~icn ado~ a Resolutic~l of Denial at the meeting ~n Nov~ 23, 1993. (iii) ~he decisicel re13reser~a by said Planni~ C~,.~issic~ resolution was timely a[13ealed to this Council. (iv) ~ Jar, m~y 5, 1994, the City Council of the City of Rarr~o O~-~m~x~cja c~a a duly noti~a public hearir~ c~ the at~licaticel and ccelcluded said hearing c~1 that date. (v) All lecJal ~,!~it~ pricr to the ado~tic~ of this Resolutic~ B. Resol~i~. NOW, ~, the City Council of the City of Ran~ O~-~..-=~3~ does hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows: 1. ~ Council hereby s~ecifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the ~ecita]~, Par~ A, of this Resolution1 are true and ~.t. minu~ of the Plannir~ O~i~ m~-tir~, and the ~a,tents of Plan~ Cc~im Resolutic~ No. 93-101, this Cc~z~cil her~ s~ecifically finds as follM: a. ~ applicaticel a~lies to property located at 6620 Carnelian Street ar~ is presently i~wed with a sh,~ir~ cer~; and ,, Resolution No. 94-004 Page2 b. Ihe property to the north is v~cant and planned for a future free~ay, the p~_rty to the south is a sh~p~ing center, the pruperty to the east is a shc~Fing center; and the properties to the west are single family residences; and c. ~he original Entertainment P~mit w~s grant~ for a duet ard allowed endinTent on Monday through Saturday, between 8 p.m. to 2 a.m.; d. The applicant exparded the types of entertainment to include live bands, d~-~c jockey with karaoke, and line/erie s~cws and the days for entel-~a~ to include Sunday, in violation of Ordirence No. 290 ard City Council Resolution No. 91-382; and e. After re~eat~ contacts with City staff regarding the violations, the applicant continued the violations, whic~ ultimately lad to the issuanoe of the City's Notice of Violation. Upon r~eiving the Notice of Violation, the applicant. submitted an application requesting m~dificetion to the ~certainment Permit to allcw entertainment on Sunday and to add live f. ~le City received ~rfcs f~ adjacent resideIts objectir~ to the loud ~usic fr~ the entertainment in the bar and loud noise f~.=.. the loiterin~ activities in the parking lot in the late evening and ~ly g. Ihe pl~.<~ed erfcerta~ with the ~tion of ~araoke will continue the lar~ use ~liot previously described with the westerly residential neighborhood h~use of the adverse impact of ~exc~ive noise crying f~ Sam's Place in the late ev~ and early ,Lu~dJlg h<~rs; and h. ~ applicarfc ha~ not dem~mstrated that he c~n be a good nei~ nor CC~Dly with the City's ~ ar~ conditions of ~val because the City has ~ict~ly r~r~iv~d ~laints fr~ resideIts of the same westerly neighborhood c~jectin~ to the loud ~tsic, noise, and loiterir~ activities o~ f~.-- Sam's Place and because the a~licant .-=~nued to violate the City's ct~iirmr~es ant1 ~litic~s of a~i~'u~al utter the permit ~ite ~I~T=~ nctice~ ~ the City to cease the violatic$1s ~ to during the atx~e-refere~-~ public hearing ard ~ the s~ecific fir~ of facts set fu~th in 1~ 1 ar~ 2 abo~e, this Council hereby finds an~ cc$1c1,~ as follows: a. ~hat the conduct of the establishment and the ~rantin~ of the a[~licatic~l ~:ulcl be .~=,t~xy to the public health, safer, moz-als, or Pasc!u~ci~ NO. 94-SC4 b. I~at the establLehment is likely to be operetta in an ille~, {.~-..~u~_~, cur dj~erly manner. c. ~hat tha~: gr3ntin~ of the ap~licatic~ would create a public d. Ihat the ncrm~l operation of the prmm,~ would interfere with the normal peace and quiet of any su~uundir~ residential neiq~_h~o/. 4. Based ~ the fira{.~ and cuelclusicre set fcrth in par~ 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the a~plication in part subject to the follc~ri[N ~Liticre: a. All o~-~itic~ls of a~4~u~/as ~amta/red in City Council ~eeolutcn No. 91-382 and Plann/r~ C~mmissim ~eeolutic~ No. 82- 98, a ~ of which has ~een attac~ed hereto, shall ap~ly. b.. Karaoke withuut ~isc Jockey is allowed. 5. ~ Council hereby provia~ notice to J~hn Mannerino that the time within whim judicial review of the deciaic~l r~ented by this Resolutic~ ~ be sought is governed by the ~ku~isicre of Calif~xda Code of Civil ) SecticMl 1094.6. 6. The City Clrek of the City of Rarrho n~r~a is here~ direc~a to: (a) certify to the ~'I. tic~ of this Resolutim, an~ (b) fu~!~hwith tl~t a certified co~ of this Resolution1, by cex~:ified ma~l, r=turn- r~ce~ipt re~, to J~hn Mannerino at the ~ identified in City records. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the _~4~.ic~ of this ~esolutic~. PAS~, APF-~, axx~ ADO~A'~ this 5th day of JaF. m~y, 1994 AYES: Alexander, Buquet, Stout, Will{M Resoldion No. 94-004 Fage4 D~!,~= J. A~ams, City Clerk I, D~]~a~A J. ABAMS, ~I'iY CT~PRK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the for~oing Resolution was duly F~, ap~rc~ed, and adup~ed by the City C~uncil of the City of Rancho Cucam~-~, California, at a re~llar meetirlg of said City Cou]lcil held on the 5th day of January, 1994 Executed this 6th day of Jar. ~y, 1994 at Rancho Cucamonga, Calif~.Ha. RE~OLLrfION NO. 91-381 A RESOLUIICN OF THE ~l'lY ODUNCIL OF ~ ~£'lY OF RAN(~O CUCAMDNGA, ~, ~ ~SI~'S D~SI~ ~l'l'l~ USE P~ 78-03 ~R DI~ ~ 6620 ~.T~ ~'1', ~ ~M OF ~ EF - ~: 201-811-56 ~ 60 A. Recitals. (i) John Mannerino, on behalf of Sam Pellegrino, has filed a petition to ~dify the Conditions of Approval for ConditioPal Use Permit 78-03 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit is referred to as the "application. ', (ii) On July 10, 1991, and c~ltinued to J~ly 24, August 14, and Se~ 11, 1991, the Plann/r~ C~.-~ssio~ of the City of Rancho Cucammlg~ conduCr~ a duly notir~a~ public hearing on the application a~d at the conclusio~ of said public b~rir~, ado~t~ Resolution1 No. 91-131, thereby denyir~ said application. (iii) Ihe decision represeD~ by said Plannir~ Oremission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. (iv) On October 16 and contir~ to Nov-m~ 20, 1991, the City Council of the city of Ranmho ~m~m~3~ oo~duc~a a duly noti~a~ public hearing on the application and concl~ said b~ring on that date.. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the ~-~pCion of this Resolution B. Resolution. NOW, TH~EMDRE, the City Council of the City of Rancho (~ does hereby find, determine, and re~olve as follows: 1. ~ Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Fart "A, " of this Resolution are true and correct. the above-refererfea~_ public hearin~ incl,~ writte~ staff re~orts, the minutes of the ~hmve-referenced Plann/r~ c~ ..... ~ion ~meet~ir~, and the celtents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-131, th/s C~cil hereby specifically finds a~ follows: (a) The application applies to pr~_rty locat~ at the north- west corner of 19th mid Carnelian Streets with a street frontage of 1,037 feet and lot depth of 240 feet and is presently improved with a shopping center.-.. . " Resolution No. 91-381 Page 2 (b) The property to the mDrth of the subject site is a future freeway; the property to the south of that site is an existing shopping center; the prope~ to the east is an existing shopping center; and the proper%~ to the west is ~ing single family reside. ~c) The proposed amendment cont~l~lat~s extending the hours of operation to coincide with those established by the applicant's alcoholic beverage oontrol license; that is, frc~ the current clos/ng hours of 11:00 o'clock P.M. to a new closing hour of 2:00 o'clock A.M., Monday through Saturday; and eliminatir~ the conditions of approval prohibiting live entertainment. (d) The applicant filed the same application to extend the hours of qoeration on May 22, 1990, and the application w~s denied on appeal by City C~uncil on January 2, 1991, by adoption of their Resolution No. 91-007. (e) The Develc~,ent Cc~_e, Section 17.04.030H, states that followir~ the denial or revocation of a Conditional Use Permit apD lication, no application for a Conditional Use Permit for the same or substantially the same use of the same or ~h~tantially the same site shall be filed with/n one year frcm the date of denial or revocation. (f) The applicant ha~ been oper~tir~ the busLnes~ beyond the 11:00 o'clc~k P.M. limitation ar~ offering live enterta~t in violation of the conditions of approval and in violation of Ordinance No. 290 pertaining to (g) The current limitation on hours of operation to 11:00 o'clcr_k P.M. was established as a direct result of a history of public safety and public nILisance problesrs ~_~c~iated with this location. (h) The City has not received evidence that the former proble~m have occurred since the c~ner's original request in May of 1990. (i) %~ere are mitigation n~m~res aveilable to prevent any problems that may be created by the extension1 of hours of c~eration and providing live enterta]Jm~nt. 3. Based ~ the ~,h~tantial evidence pre~er~ to this Council during the ~ve-referenced public hearings, includir~ written and oral staff reports, this Cot~lcil hereby finds and c~nclucles as follows: (a) %11at the ~ use, t_~e~ with the conditions i~ as miticlation m~ures, is in at-_-_.~d with the Gerel-al Plan, the o~ectivse of the Devel~ent Cc~_e, ar~ the pJrpeses of the d~trict in whic~ the site is Raseluzion Nc. 91-321 Page 3 (b) Ihat the proposed use~ together with the corrlitions impused as mitigation m~lres, will not he detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improverents in the vicinity. 4. ~he City Council of the City of Rancho Cucaraonga hereby ~ the application with the following conditions: 1) All pertinent conditions of a~l as contained in Planning Ccmmission Resolution No. 82-98, a c~oy of which has been attached hereto, shall ap~ly. 2) %~his approval is granted for a restaurant with incidental servir~ of alcoholic beverages. A lunc~ and dinner menu 3) The hours of c~eration shall ~e ~etween 11:00 o'clock A.M. until 2:00 o'clock A.M., Monday thr~ Saturday. 4) The front door of the busir~ shall re~ain closed durir~ evening hours (6:00 o'clcck P.M.), except in the event of 5) The northwest park/rig are shall not be used by patrons frce Sam's Place and shall be appropriately posted. 6) A minimum of two rec3ularly employed security guards shall be required to ke on the prenises f~ 6 o'clock P.M. until two (2) hears after the n~tic~l of the servir~ of alcohol and any live entertairmmnt. At least ore of the shall ~ein on duty in the parkiax/ lot and outside adjacent areas of the facility. 7) Appro~B1 of this req.~-t shall not wai~ ~m~uliance with all sections of the Devel~u~t Code ar~ all other applicable City Ordinances. 8) If the operation of the facility causes adverse effects tenants, incl,~{~g but not limited to, noise, loitering, or a~urbances, the Conditicrel Use Permit shall ke brought before the Planning C~.~issioa for the cc~lsideratic~l and possible termination of use. 5. T~{~ Council hereby provides notice to Jc~n Mannerino that the time within whic~ judicial review of the a~ision re~ by this Resolution must ~e sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 169 Resolution .No. 91-381 Page 4 6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby direc~et to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified cc~y of this Resolution, by certified mail, return- receipt request~i, to John Mannerino at the ar~ress identified in City records. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the aduption of this Resolution. PA~SED, AFFe, and ADOFi'~3 this 4th day of December, 1991. AYES: Alexander, Buquet, William~ NOES: Stout, Wright ABS~qT: None Dennis L. St~n:, Mayor D~; ,~ ~ J. ~F~M~/City Clerk I, D~A J. ADAMS, ~l'lY ~*~K of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do h~ ~i~ ~t ~ fo~ ~l~i~ ~ ~y ~, a~ro~, ~ ~ ~ ~ Ci~ ~il of ~ Ci~ of ~ ~, ~lifo~a, at a r~ ~ of ~id Ci~ ~il ~ld ~ ~ 4~ ~y of ~, 1991. ~ ~ 5~ ~y of ~, 1991 at ~ ~, ~lifo~a. 170 RESOLUTION NO. 91-382 A RESOLUTION OF THE ~llY CDUNCIL OF THE Cl'lY OF RAN(iMO CUCAMDNGA, CAL/FORNIA, SUETA/NING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING CID~MISSION'S DECISION TO D~NY PERMIT 91-02 FOR THE R~ TO CIDNIX3CT LIVE ~ ]2N CC~LTL~CI'iON WI'IH A RESTAURANT AND BAR I.C:C3~'hl) IN Tale NEIGHBORHOOD C2~MERCIAL DI~iR/CT AT 6620 CARNET,TAN STRL~i', NOFdMWEST CORNER OF lgI~ AND CARN~.rAN STR~EiS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPi~RT THERMDF - AR4: 201-811-56 THR~/~H 60 A. Recitals. (i) John Mannerino, on kehalf of Sam Pellegrino, has filed an application for Entertairmmnt Permit 91-02 as described in the title Of this Re~olution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject ~tertair~ent Permit is referred to as the "application." (ii) On July 10, 1991, and continued to July 24, August 14, and September 11, 1991, the Pla~Lir~ C~m~assion of the City of RarKzho ~nga conduc~a a duly noticed public h~rlng on the application and following the conclusion of said public b~rin~s, ad~uted Resolution No. 91-132, thereby denying said application. (iii) The decision represen~a_ by said Planning C~,~,~ssion Resolution w-as timely appealed to this .Cauncil. (iv) On Octok~r 16, and continued to November 20, 1991, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly n~ti~ea~ public hearing on the application ar~ cc~lcluded said b~in~ on that date. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adu~ion of this Resolution B. Resolution. NOW, TH~a~IDRE, the City Council of the City of ]~lnc~o Oacamonga does hereby find, detezlnine, an~ resolve as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based u~on ~,~--~antial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearings including written staff reports, the minutes of the abz~B-referenced Planning C~,.,,~saic~ meeting, and the content~ of Plannir~ C~dssion Resolution No. 91-132, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) Ihe ap~licatio~ applies to pr~ located at the north- west corner of 19th and Carnelian Streste with a street frontage of 1,037 feet and lot de~th of 240 feet and is presently improved with a sho~ir~ center. r..._ .: Resolution No. 91-382 Page 2 (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a future freeway; the property to the south of that site is an existing sho[!Ding center; the property to the east is an existing shqlDing center; and the property to the west is existing single family residences. (c) The applicant has keen operating the business ~eyond the 11:00 o'clcck P.M. limitation and offering live entertainment in violation of the conditions of approval as contained in Resolution Nos. 83-117 and 91-007 for Conditional Use Permit No. 78-03 and Ord/nance No. 290 pertaining to Entertainment Permits. (d) The City has received three written oa,~lainte objecting to the lateness of the hours of operation and the live entertainment. (e) Ihe current limitation on hours of o~ration to 11:00 o'clock P.M. and the elimination of live entertainment were established as a direct result of a h/story of public safety and public m~i~nce proble~ associa~ with this location. (f) ~ne City has not r_~ceived evidence that the former problems have occurred since the owners original request in May of 1990. (g) Ihe applicant has subtitled a petition of approximately 1,600 signatures in support of exter~ing the hours of c~.ration and providing live entertainment for Sam's Place. 3. Based upon the ~,h~ntial evidence presen~H to this Council durin~ the above-referenced public hearing, includin~ written and oral staff r~, this Ommcil hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) Ihe conduct of the establishment or the ~=~ntin~ of the application would not be con~.ry to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare; and {b) ) premises or es~hlishllmnt is not likely to be opera~H (c) That ~rantin~ the application, together with the ~iti~ of approval, w~uld not create a public m,~nce; and (d) ~at the n~rmal c~_ration of the premises w~uld not inter- fete with the tMece and quiet of the surrounding r~idential seighkx~im~d. ~. ~ne City C~un~il of the City of Rancho CUcamon~ hereb~ approves the application with the foll~in~ conditions: 1) All pertinent cor~Litions of approval as contained in Plannir~ C~.ission Resolutiorl No. 82-98, a copy of which ha~ been attaohed hereto, shall apply. 2) ~ne I)~certainment Permit is ~nt_~ for a duet only, consistin~ of an acoustical gui~ri~c and a si~/er. ~Dage ~ 3) Any live entertainment shall he provided between 8:00 o'clock P.M. and 2:00 o'ctock A.M. Monday through Saturday. 4) ~he front and back doors of the ~usiness shall remain closed during evenir~ hours (after 6:00 o'clock P.M.) except in the event of an e~ency. 5) The northwest parking area shall not he used by patrons frc~n Sam's Place and shall he a~ropriately posted. 6) A minimum of Two regularly ~l~l~yed security guards shall he req. mi~ed to he on the premises frc~ 6:00 o'clock P.M. until two hours after the n~tion of the serving of alcohol and any live entertair~ent. At least one of the q~rds shall re~ain on duty in the parking lot and c~"cside adjacent areas of the facility. 7) A~prcval of this request shall net w~ive compliance with all sections of the Develo~t Coa_e and all other applicable City Ordinances. 8) If the operation of the facility causee adverse effects upon the surrcura~ng residents, adjacent busir~es and tenants, including but not limi~a to, noise, loitering, or disturkklnces, the ConditioPal Use Permit shall be k~ught before the Planning C~a,.~dssion for the oonsideration and possible te~tion of use. 5. I~Lis Council hereby provides notice to Jchn Mannerino that the time within which judicial review of the decision represen~a by this Resolution ~ust he s~t is governed by the provisions of California Cede of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 6. l~ne City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cuca~ is hereby direc~a to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified cc~ of this Resolution, by certified mail, return- receipt reques~a, to Jc~ul Mannerino at the addr~ identified in City r~cords. 7. Ihe City Clerk shall celwcify to the ad~ion of this Resolution. PAS~/), A~e, and ADOFitJO this 4th day of December, 1991. AYES: A/exander, Buquet, Williams '2 27" ~3ennis L. Stout, Mayor 173 P~solution No. 91-382 Page 4 Deb~ J. Adan~, City Clark I, DEBRA J. AIRMS, ~iiY cr.m~K of the City of Rancho Cucamor~, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, ~u~ed, and ad~F~ kyy the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 4th day of Decer~k~/, 1991. Executed this 5th day of December, 1991 at Rancho Oucamonc/a, California. D~_~ra J. ~, City Clark 174 L RESOLUTION 82-98 A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 78-03 FOR BAR AND ENTERTAINMENT FACILITIES WITHIN THE.BOAR'S HEAD ESTABLISHMENT LOCATED IN THE RANCHO PLAZA IN THE C-1 ZONE WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of September, 1982, the Planning Conmnission determined the need to suspend Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and to conduct a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, on the 27th day of October, 1982, the Planning Con~nission held a public hearing to consider the above item. NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission resolves as follows: SECTION 1: Additional conditions and changes are found to be needed for Conditional Use Permit 78-03 in order to mitigate the past disturbances and bring the use in accord with the intent and purpose of the neighborhood shopping district. Therefore, the following conditions are added to those already in effect per Resolution 78-40: 2. Periodic policing of the parking lot by the management of the business should be done on a nightly basis to assist in averting disturbances from patrons. 3. Block access to the northwest parking area from the main parking area by placing large trees and planters in the driveway. Additionally, a chain or breakaway barrier shall be used to block access to this area from the rear driveway during evening hours. 4. A sound attenuation wall shall be built. on the three properties adjacent to the northwest parking area of the center. The precise height, location and construction materials shall be determind through the development of a precise development plan, which shall be prepared by the shopping center owner and reviewed and approved by the City Planner. Such improvements shall consider the use of sound attenuation material as well as some additional landscaping between the new wall and the existing wall. The plans should be prepared as soon as possible and installatiion, with the cooperation of all property owners and before the January 26, 1982 meeting scheduled by the Conmnission. 5. Speed bumps shall be placed throughout the center. xtnazT Resolution No. 82-98 Page 2 6. An analysis of the building shall be conducted to determine the needs for sound insulation. Appropriate insulation shall be installed, if needed. 7. The rear door of the business shall remain closed during evening hours, except in the event of an emergency. 8. The northwest parking area shall not be used by Boar's Head patrons or employees and shall be appropriately posted. 9. This Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Con~nission on January 26, 1983, for a report on the performance of the establishment. 10. The business shall alter its operation to include restaurant usage and food service during the evening hours. This is required to meet the intent of the original approval and shall be accomplished within sixty (60) days of this action. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982. "-.~ef~ 9 ' t ' ATT~ ~/ of the Planni~-C=emmH~sion I, JACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho CUcamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of October, 1982, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McNiel, King, Rempel NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Barker, Stout ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 176 RESOLUTION NO. 94-2L A PaSOLUTION OP THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANOHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVOKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 78-03 FOR THE OPERATION OF A BAR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, SAM'S PLACE, LOCATED AT THE NORTh'WEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STHEETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAXING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-811-56 THROUGH 60. A. Recitals. 1. On 0ecember 27, 1978, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution NO. 78-40 conditionally approving a restaurant with a bar and entertainment at 6620 Carnelian Street, formerly known as the Boar's Head and presently Sam's Place. 2. On October 27, 1982, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 82-98 modifying the permit by adding conditions of approval to alleviate public nuisance problems as a result of consistent complaints from ed3acent residents. Two conditions of approval required the applicant to install no parking signs at the northwest parking area to prohibit employees and patrons from parking in that area and to place large trees and chain barriers across the drive aisles to block access into this parking area. The applicant failed to comply with these two conditions. 3. On September 28, 1983, the Planning Coea~iesion adopted Resolution No. 83-117 modifying the permit to require the implementation of a dinner menu, additional noise attenuation measures, and the hours of operation to close at 11 p.m. 4. On July 10, 1985, the Planning Co~mission adopted Resolution No. 83-117A modifying the permit by prohibiting entertainment uses. The conditions of approval in Planning Coe~ission Resolution No. 8a-98, as referenced in SIc=ion a.2, were tO r'--in in effect. 5. On Jenual7 2, 1991, the Council adopted Resolution No. 91-007 denying the applicant'a request to extend the hours of operation. The conditions of approval In Planning Camlesion Resolutions No. 78-40, 82-98, and 83-117&, as referenced In Sections A.I through A.4, were to remain in effect. 6. Oa December 4, 1991, the Council adop~ed Resolution No. 91-381 to modify the permit by approving the extension of the hours of operation from 11 p.m. to 2 e.m., Monday through Saturday and eliminating the condition of approval prohibiting enter~ainmen= uses. The City Council also adopted Resolution No. 91-382 to approve the associated Xnter~ainment Permit 91-02 to allow entertainment uses consisting of s duet. The conditions of approval in Planning Coe~lssion Resolution No. 82-98, as referenced in Section A.2, were to remain In effeo~. 7. on Januax7 12, 1994, the City of Rancho Cucamonga gave notice to Sam'e Place for immediate compliance with the conditions of approval as referenced above and attached hereto. PLANNING COMMISSION ' ~OLUTiON NO. CUP 78-03 - SAM'S PL March 23, 1994 Page 2 8. On January 24, and February 14, 1994, site inspections were conducted and the site was found to be in non-compliance with the conditions of approval. 9. OhMarch 23, 1994, the Planning Co~niseion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing for the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for non-compliance of conditions of approval, and concluded said hearing on that date. 10. AI~ legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. S. Resolution. NOW, THER~FORX, it is hereby found, determined, end resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonge as follow·: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Baled upon substantial evidence presented to this Coe~lselon during the above-referenced public hearing on March 23, 1994, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as followl~ e. This permit applies to property located ·t 6620 Carnelian Street and is presently improved with · shopping center; and b. The proper~y to the north i· vacant and planned for a future freeway, the proper=lee to the south and east are existing shopping centers, and the proper~y to the west is single family residences; and c. AS a result of receiving complaint·, · letter dated May 7, 1992, was sent to the applicant reminding him to c~ply with, and adhere all the conditions of approval as contained in City Council Re·olutions No. 91-381 and 91-382 and Planning Co~milelon Resolution NO. 82-98. Conditions of approval include posting permanent no parking signs at the northwest parking area, installing physicel barriers with landscaping and chains to block access into the northwest parking are· closest to the adjacent residence·, keeping the front and back do~r closed during business hour· escept for emergencies, providing security personnel outside ~o monitor the parking area and to assist in averting public nuisance problems, etc.; and d. 8need on the sl~e inspection on JanuniT G, 19~, city s~aff observed that ~he conditions of approval as referenced in Section A.2, had not been complied with; and e. Site inspections on January 23, and February 14, 1994, indicated non-compliance with the conditions referenced in Section A. 2. Notices of non-compliance were given to the applicant on these two inspection date·; and 178 CUP 78-03 - SAM'S March 23, 1994 Page 3 f. A notice regarding the violations of the permit and a notice of the scheduling of the March 23, 1994, revocation hearing were sent to the applicant on March 4, 1994; and g. To date, the applicant has not installed the permanent no parking signs at the northwest parking area nor placed landscaping (trees) and a chain harrier across the drive aisle to block access into the parking area. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the a]~ove-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings Of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the conditional use Permit is not being conduoted in an appropriate manner and that.modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts. Therefore, the permit should be revoked which requires the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Commission. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby revokes Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and the use shalZ cease and desist within 10 calendar days fran the date of the adoption of this Resolution. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVZD AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 1994. PLA/4NING CO SSION O I Y OF RAMCHO COCAMONG& BY: MG CO DavSSiONa~k~ Day an !, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Ccemission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning C~muission held on the 23rd day of March 1994, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES~ COMMISSIONERSz BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCMER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ,! 179 ~ESOLUTION NO. ~4-22 A R~SOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCMO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVOKING ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 91-02 FOR A BAR AND RESTAURANT, SAM'S PLACE, LOCATED A THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CARNELIAN AND 19TM STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORMOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-811-56 THROUGH 60. A. Recitals. 1. On December 4, 1991, Uhe City Council adopted Resolution No. 91-382 approving En=er=airunenu Permit 91-02, to allow entertainment uses consisting of a duet. 2. On March 8, 1994, the City of Rancho Cuoamonga gave notice to the applicant than he violated the Entertainment Permit with the use of a disc jockey. 3. On March 23, 1994, the Planning Coem~lsaion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing for the revocation of the Entertainment Permit, and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Coe~nission of the City of Rancho Cucamonge as follows: 1. This C~ission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Coa~lssion during the above-referenced public hearing on March 23, 1994, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby spe~lfically finds as follows= a. The applioation applies to property Located at 6620 Carnelian Street and is.presently improved with a shopping center; and b.. The property to the north of the subJeot site is vacant and planned for a future freeway, the properties to the south and east are existing shopping centers, and the property to the west is single family · residences; and c. AS a result of reDslying c,--p~aints, a letter dated May 7, 1992, was sent to the applicant reminding him to compiy with, and adhere all the conditions of approval as contains4 in City Council Resolution No. 91-382; and 180 PLA/~NING COMMISSION ~OLUTION NO. ~-__ MP 91-02 - $AM'S PLA., March 23, 1994 Page 2 d. Newspaper advertisements in the Inland valley Daily Bulletin indicated that entertaimmen= such as live bands, disc jockeys with karaoke, and lingerie shows were offered at Sam's Place. On June 22, 1993, the applicant was notified to cease all illegal entertainment except for the approved duet. Despite repeated contacts, =he violations continued as evidenced by =he newspaper advertisement for entertainment such as live bands and disc jockeys dated August 25, 1993, and verified by site inspections on September 19 and 21, 1993; and e. In response to the Clty's citation process, the applicant submitted an application to modify the permit to legalize the added enter~ainment on September 23, 1993; and f. On January 5, 1994, the city council adopted Resolution No. 94-004 denying the applicant's request, except for karaoke. The approvsd entertainment consists of a duet and karaoke; and g. Site inspections on January 24, and 26, 1994, and illegal signs retrieved in the city on March 10, 1994, indicated that the applicant continued to violate this permit with the use of disc jockeys/and h. A notice regarding the violations of the permit and a notice of the scheduled revocation hearing for March 23, 1994, were sent to the applicant on March 8, 1994; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Camelslion hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the applicant violated provisions of the Chapter 5.12 RCMC and the permitted activity under Enter~ainment Permit 91-02/and b. That the applicant violated the Develoixnent Coda by displaying illegal signsJ and o. That the applicant violated the conditions of approval adopted by Ceuncil Resolutions No. 91-382 end 94-004. 4. Based upon the findings end conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 Illeve, this C~!mlleion hereby revokes Entertainment Permit 91-04 and the enter~einment shell cease and desist within 10 calendar days from the date of the adeption of this Resolution. 5. The secretat-/to this C~e~lssion shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APP!IOVID AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF MARCH 1994. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THI CITY OF RANCMO CUCAMONGA 181 pLANNING COM341SSiON ~CLUTiCN NG. :_-__ EP 91-02 - SAM'S PLA~_ March 23, 1994 Page 3 BY: _ _ ~- . B. Dater, C_~ ATT~ I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Coem~ission of the City of Rancho Cuca~nonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning C~mniseion held on the 23rd day of March 1994, by the followingvote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCKER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE A~SENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE 182 -- RECEIVED -- CITY M~ch 18, 1994 PlaninS ~sion 10S~ Cite Center ~ve E O. ~x ~7 ~cho Cu~n~ Ca 91729 Attention Brad Buller, City Planner The purpose of this letter is to confirm our support for the proposed action to revoke the conditional use permits, 78-03 - Sam's Pla~e and 91-O2 - Sam's Place. The Planning Commission is to be commended for taking this totter to its rational conclusion. The operation of this type of business adjacent to a residential area just doesn't match what the city says that it would like Rancho Cucamonga to be as a community. Over the years the uncontrolled noise and disturbance~ caused by the Intron activity a~3ciated with thi.~ busineu ~ ~ vel-y annoytni. Thos~ of I1~ that have to get .up early in the morning to start our commute to work evel'y would like to be able to get a good nighUs sleep. T!~ means starting early and being able to sleep through the nigh without the disturbinces that are constantly going on in the parking lot. As home owners we would like to be able to enjoy the privacy and quiet that one ordinarily ~s to have when they buy a home. Most ev~lngs this not lr~nsible because of the activitte~ gonlng on in the inrking lot during the hours of opendon of Sam's Place. Rancho Cucamon~a is advertl~KI as a "family values" type city ~ it 18 a good plate to rive. Although several idea~ haven put fourth to mange the noise, and commotion in the parldng lot, none have been implemented for any length of time. Mo~t have not been implemented at all An a!~nrent, if not obvious defiance of the titles attempts to integrate this business into the netghhoP~ood. We have made significant Investmenu In our homes and we would like to be able to enjoy ~ full benifit~ of those Investmenu. Al~o, we do n~ wish to suffer a 1o~ of resale valu~ betatree of the afllvtties of thll bu~ine~. Lets' kee~ mldential ~ residential, and keep trusthess areas for businesses. Thank you once a~aln for dealing with this re!3, sensitive matter. Sincerely Joe' & June Fabla 6611 To!~z Alta knm. Ca 91701 'I rt '~x~61T Pz CUP 78-03 AND EP 91-02 I-HSTORY AND CHRONOLOGY AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET 1978 On December 27, 1978, the Planning Commission conditionally approved Conditional Use Permit 78-03 for a restaurant with bar and entertainment at 6620 Carnelian Street named Boar's Head. (Resolution No. 78-40) 1982 Due to consistent complaints of loud music and noise, fights and loitering activities, the Commission on October 27, 1982, modified the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) by adding mitigations to alleviate these problems. Some of the mitigations added were limiting the hours of operation to 2 a.m., requiring structural changes to attenuate noise, installing speed bumps in the parking area, blocking access to the northwest parking area, etc. (Resolution No. 82-98) 1983 On September 28, 1983, the Commission reviewed the CUP again due to complaints and modified the permit by requiring the implementation of a dinner menu, additional noise attenuation measures, and restricting the hours of operation to 11 p.m. for closing. (Resolution No. 83-117) 1985 At an annual review of the CUP on July 10, 1985, the Commission further modified the permit by eliminating enterlainment use (Resolution No. 83-117A). At the September 6, 1985, appeal hearing, the City Council upheld the Commission's decision to keep the operating hours of 11 p.m. and prohibiting entertainment use by minute action. 1988-1990 In April of 1988, Boar's Head closed due to fire damage. The business was re-opened as Strattons under different ownership. No complaints were received during the period that Sirslions was opened. 1990 In March of 1990, the applicant, Sam and Luanne Pellegrino, took over the business of Strattons and renamed it Sam's Place. Subsequently, on May 23, 1990, the applicant requested to extend the hours of operation from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. At the August 22 and continued to September 12, 1990, hearings, the Commission approved the extension of hours from 11 p.m. to 12 midnight for Sunday through Thursday and from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m. for Friday and Saturday, after long deliberations on the issue of compatibility of use. The approval was for a test period of six months subject to their review for extension. The decision of the Commission was timely appealed by two members of the City Council. At the November 7, 1990, hearing, the Council deliberated on the same compatibility issue and continued the hearing to the December 5 meeting due to a deadlocked 2 to 2 tie vote. At the December 5 and continued to December 19, 1990, hearings (at the request of the applicant), the Council concluded the hearing and determined that the extension of hours of operation would not provide compatibility to the adjacent residents. The Council upheld the appeal, and adopted Resolution No. 91-007 denying the applicant's request to extend the hours of operation on January 2, 1991. 1991 Based on May 8, 1991, site inspection. it was determined that the applicant had illegally extended the hours of operation to 1 or 2 a.m. on a regular basis and provided live entertainment from 9 p.m. to 1 a.m. without the proper permit. In response to City's notices of violations, the applicant submitted applications to modify the CUP for extending the hours of operation, eliminating the condition of approval prohibiting entertainment and an Entertainment Permit (EP 91-02) for providing entertainment use. At the July 24, August 14, and continued to September 11, 1991, hearings, the Commission, after long deliberations on the compatibility of use issue, denied the modification to the CUP and the associated EP, and revoked the CUP for the bar. At the November 20, and continued to December ~., 1991, appeal hearings, the Council upheld the appeal, adopted Resolution No. 91-381 approving the extension of hours of operation from I1 p.m. to 2 a.m. from Monday through Saturday and eliminating the condition of approval prohibiting entertainment. and adopted Resolution No. 91-382 approving Entertainment Permit 91-02 to allow entertainment use consisting of a duet. 1992 Between January and April of 1992, a total of 4 complaints from the adjacent residents and one complaint from a business owner in the City were received. The complaints were that of loud music from Sam's Place and loud noise from the loitering activities in the parking area. On May 7, 1992, a letter was sent to the applicant reminding him of complying with and adhering to all the conditions of approval as contained in City Council Resolution Nos. 91-381 and 91-382 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98. There was no follow up action from staff when complaints subsided. 1993 In June of 1993, newspaper advertisement in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin indicated that entertainment such as live bands, disc jockeys with karaoke. and lingerie shows were offered at Sam's Place. On June 22. 1993, a letter was sent to the applicant notifying him to cease all illegal entertainment except for the approved duet. Despite repeated contacts, the violations continued as evidenced I~y the newspaper advetlisement for live bands and disc jockeys at Sam's Place dated August 25, 1993, and verified by inspections on September 19 and 21, 1993. In. response to 'the City's citation process, the applicant submitted an application to modify the Entertainment Permit (EP 91-02) for legalizing the added entertainment uses and a new Conditional Use Permit (CUP 93-47) application for the added arcade. At the November 10, and continued to November 23, 1993, hearings, the Commission received written and oral testimony from adjacent residents who objected to the public nuisance such as loud music from Sam*s Place and loud noise from the loitering activities in the parking area. The Commission determined that the expansion of entertainment use would worsen the public nuisance problems. The Commission denied the modification to the Entertainment Permit but approved the Conditional Use Permit (CUP 93-47) for the arcade. At the January 5, 1994, appeal beating, the Council upheld the Commission*s decision and adopted Resolution No. 94-004 to deny the request with the exception of karaoke. 1994 On January 12, 1994, City staff gave notice to the applicant, his attorney, and the legal property owner, that all conditions of approval in City Council Resolution Nos. 94-004 and 91-381, and Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98 must be complied with. Inspections conducted on January 24, and February 14, 1994, indicated that the conditions of approval requiring permanent no parking signs and physical barriers had not been installed to prevent Sam's Place patrons from parking in the northwest parking area. On March 4 and 8, 1994, City staff gave notice to the applicant that his Conditional Use Permit and the Entertainment Permit were scheduled for the March 23, 1994, hearing. 186 ,SOLUTION A ~80LUTION OF T~E CITY COU~CTL OF T["~ CITY OF P~NC~O CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE AppEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION ' S DECISION IN REVOKING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 78-03 FOR THE OPERATION OF A BAR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT, SAM'S PLACE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STREETS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTR~CT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-811-56 THROUGH 60- A. Recitals. 1. On December 27, 1978, the Planning Con~nission adopted Resolution No. 78-40 conditionally approving a restaurant with a bar and entertainanent at 6620 Carnelian Street, formerly known as the Boar's Head and presently Sam's Place. 2. On October 27, 1982, the Planning Conunission adopted Resolution No. 82-98 modifying the permit by adding conditions of approval to alleviate public nuisance problems as a result of consistent complaints from adjacent residents. Two conditions of approval required the applicant to install no parking signs at the northwest parking area to prohibit employees and patrons from parking in that area and to place large trees and chain barriers across the drive aisles to block access into this parking area. The applicant failed to comply with these two conditions. 3. On September 28, 1983, the Planning Conmlission adopted Resolution No. 83-117 modifying the permit to require the implementation of a dinner menu, additional noise attenuation measures, and the hours of operation to close at 11 p.m. 4. On July 10, 1985, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 83-117A modifying the permit by prohibiting entertainment uses. The conditions of approval in Planning Commission Resolution No. 82-98, as referenced in Section A.2, were to remain in effect. 5. On January 2, 1991, the Council adopted Resolution No- 91-007 denying the applicant's request to extend the hours of operation. The conditions Of approval in Planning Commission Resolutions No. 78-40, 82-98, and 83-117A, as referenced in Sections A.1 throug~ A.4, were to remain in effect. 6. On December 4, 1991, the Council adopted Resolution No. 91-381 to modify the permit by approving the extension of the hours of operation from 11 p.m. to 2 a.m., Monday through Saturday and eliminating the condition of approval prohibiting entertainment uses- The City Council also adopted Resolution NO. 91-382 to approve the associated Entertainment Permit 91-02 to allow entertainment uses consisting of a duet. The conditions of approval in Planning Comission Resolution No. 82-98, as referenced in section A.2, were to remain in effect. 187 CITY COUNCIL ~ESOLUTION NO. CUP 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE May 4, 1994 Page 2 7. On January 12, 1994, the City of Rancho Cucamonga gave notice to Sam's Place for immediate compliance with the conditions of approval as referenced above and attached hereto. 8. On January 24, and February 14, 1994, site inspections were conducted and the site was found to be in non-compliance with the conditions of approval. 9. On March 23, 1994, the Planning Comission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing for the revocation of the Conditional Use Permit for non-compliance of conditions of approval, and following the conclusion of said hearing, adopted Resolution No. 94-21, thereby revoking said permit. 10. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. ~l. On May 4, 1994, the City Council for the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the permit and concluded said hearing on that date. 12. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A{ of this Resolution are true and correct. 2- Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on May 4, 1994, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 94-21, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. This permit applies to property located at 6620 Carnelian Street and is presently improved with a shopping center; and b. The property to the north is vacant and planned for a future freeway, the properties to the south and east are existing shopping centers, and the property to the west is single family residences; and c. AS a result of receiving complaints, a letter dated May 7, 1992, was sent to the applicant reminding him to comply with, and adhere to, all the conditions of approval as contained in City Council Resolutions No. 91-381 and 91-382 and Planning Commission Resolution NO. 82-98. Conditions of approval include posting permanent no parking signs at the northwest parking area, installing physical barriers with landscaping and chains to block access CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CUP 78-03 - SAM'S PLACE May 4, 1994 Page 3 into the northwest parking area closest to the adjacent residences, keeping the front and back door closed during business hours except for emergencies, providing security personnel outside to monitor the parking area and to assist in averting public nuisance problems, etc.; and d. Based on the site inspection on January 6, 1994, City staff observed that the conditions Of approval as referenced in Section A.2, had not been complied with; and e. Site inspections on January 23, and February 14, 1994, indicated non-compliance with the conditions referenced in Section A.2. Notices of non-compliance were given to the applicant on these two inspection dates; and f. A notice regarding the violations of the permit and a notice of the scheduling of the March 23, 1994, revocation hearing were sent to the applicant on March 4, 1994; and g. To date, the applicant has not installed the permanent no parking signs at the northwest parking area nor placed landscaping (trees) and a chain barrier across the drive aisle to block access into the parking area. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the Conditional Use Permit is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and that modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts. Therefore, the permit should be revoked which requires the operation to cease and desist in the time allotted by the Council. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Commlission's decision in revoking Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and the use shall cease and desist within 10 calendar days from the date of the adoption of this Resolution. 5. This Council hereby provides notice to John Mannerino, attorney representing the applicant, that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 6. The City Clerk of the City of ~ancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to John Mannerino at the address identified in City records. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. 189 A R~SOLUTIO~ O~ T~ CIT~ CO~CZ~ O~ ~ CI~ O~ CUC~ONGA, CALIFO~IA, D~YING THE APP~L ~D ~HOLDING PLA~ING CO~ISSION'$ D~ISI~ IN ~VOKING ~TERTAIN~T PETIT NO- 91-02 FOR A BAR ~D ~STAU~T, S~'S PLACE, LOCATED AT THE NOR~WEST CO~ER OF CA~I~ AND 19TH ST~ETS IN THE NEIGHBORH~D CO~RCI~ DISTRICT, A~ ~KING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THE~OF - APN: 201-811-56 THROUGH 60. A. Recitals. 1. On December 4, 1991, the City Council adopted Resolution No. · 91-382 approving Entertainment Permit 91-02, to allow entertainment uses consisting of a duet. 2. On March 8, 1994, the City of P~ancho Cucamonga gave notice to the applicant that he violated the Entertainment Permit with the use of a disc jockey. 3. On March 23, 1994, the Planning Co~unission of the City of Mancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing for the revocation of the Entertainment Permit, and following the conclusion of said hearing, adopted Resolution No. 94-22 thereby revoking said permit. 4. The decision represented by said Planning Comission Resolution was timely appealed to this Council. 5. On May 4, 1994, the City Council Of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the permit and concluded said hearing on that date. 6. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have Occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on May 4, 1994, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning Co~nission meetings, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 94-22, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. ~le application applies to property located at 6620 Carnelian Street and is presently improved with a shopping center; and 190 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. EP 91-02 - S~M'S PLACE May 4, 1994 Page 2 b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant and planned for a future freeway, the properties to the south and east are existing shopping centers, and the property to the west is single family residences; and c. As a result of receiving complaints, a letter dated May 7, 1992, was sent to the applicant reminding him to comply with, and adhere to, all the conditions of approval as contained in City Council Resolution NO. 91-382; and d. Newspaper advertisements in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin indicated that entertainment such as live bands, disc jockeys with karaoke, and lingerie shows were offered at $am's Place. On June 22, ~993, the applicant was notified to cease all illegal entertainment except for the approved duet. Despite repeated contacts, the violations continued as evidenced by the newspaper advertisement for entertainment such as live bands and disc jockeys dated August 25, 1993, and verified by site inspections on September 19 and 21, 1993; and e. In response to the City's citation process, the applicant submitted an application to modify the permit to legalize the added entertainment on September 23, 1993; and f. On January 5, 1994, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 94-004 denying the applicant's request, except for karaoke. The approved entertainment consists of a duet and karaoke; and g. Site inspections on January 24, and 26, 1994, and illegal signs retrieved in the City on March 10, 1994, indicated that the applicant continued to violate this permit with the use of disc jockeys; and h. A notice regarding the violations of the permit and a notice of the scheduled revocation hearing for March 23, 1994, were sent to the applicant on March 8, 1994; and 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing and including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. That the applicant violated provisions of the Chapter 5.12 RCMC and the permitted activity under Entertainment Permit 91-02; and b. That the applicant violated the Development Code by displaying illegal signs; and c. That the applicant violated the conditions of approval adopted by Council Resolutions NO. 91-382 and 94-004. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. EP 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE May 4, 1994 Page 3 4- Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the appeal and upholds the Planning Co~=nission's decision in revoking Entertainment Permit 91-04 and the entertainment shall cease and desist within 10 calendar days from the date of the adoption of this Resolution. 5. This Council hereby provides notice to John Mannerino, attorney representing the applicant, that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return- receipt requested, to John Mannerino at the address identified in City records. 7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor, and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager ? SUB JEff: BACKGROUND ON DARE PROGRAM BACKGROUND In 1989, the City approached the Elementary School Districts to determine interest in a jointly funded DARE program. The Alta Loma, Central, and Etiwanda Districts responded with a funding source from the State Office of Criminal Justice Planning (OCUP), under the Comprehensive Alcohol and Drug Education Program (CADPE). These funds in combination with those available from City's General Fund at the time, enabled the hiring of one DARE officer to begin a DARE program. The Cucamonga District, at the time, decided not to join the DARE program since it wished to support the CHOICES gang prevention program instead. The DARE program, thus was divided among the remaining elementary districts in direct proportion to their funding contribution with the decision of where the DARE classes are conducted each year made by each participating school district. This originally funded program was memorialized in an MOU between the City and the Alta Loma, Central and Etiwanda Districts in 1990. The DARE program budget included one DARE officer at a cost of $104,670 per year. Several facts and issues are present with respect to the current DARE program: ® City and School District Funding for the program has remained fairly constant · Budgetary constraints of the City and School Districts remain apparent · The Cucamonga School District now wishes to join in the program , The other school districts wish to expand the program to include all 5th grades · City and School Districts are desirous of expanding the program with joint funding Given the number of 5th grade classes in the City, regardless of district, two DARE officers would be needed to cover all classes. This total cost would be approximately $201,720 with an initial investment of another $26,540 for vehicle and start up costs. To expand the program would require the hiring of one additional full officer. Given the concern for needed law enforcement in the City, utilizing existing officers and taking them away from regular patrols would not be advisable. Furthermore, DARE America will not allow non- sworn or reserve officers to conduct its classes, so as a result, more costly sworn officers are required if DARE is to be taught. Nevertheless, the City has made a request for a waiver of requirements but it is not hopeful that there will be any waivers. 193 CITY COUNCIL MEETING BACKGROUND ON DARE PROGRAM May 4, 1994 Page 2 The DARE program, as originally conceived, and originally agreed to was a jointly funded program between City and School Districts with the agencies knowing that all 5th grade classes would not be served during a school year. Each agency has had severe financial constraints placed upon it. The City, for instance has had property tax taken away by the State and re-assigned to schools through the educational augmentation fund. To date, the City has lost $4.8 million to the Educational Augmentation fund and faces another $1.1 million loss next fiscal year. Currently, the City's General Fund Budget is less than that of the Alta Loma School District, only one of four elementary school districts in the city. Furthermore, the City's Redevelopment Agency provides the school districts with Redevelopment funding. Any expansion of the DARE program should remain a jointly funded program as a partnership between the City and Schools. Any full expansion of the DARE program would have to redistribute the financial obligations to include the Cucamonga School District, which has indicated it would be willing to pay its share. ANALYSIS The following projected Preliminary budget is being provided only as an estimate of the projected cost to implement a DARE program that would include all 5th grade classes within all four Elementary School Districts within the City. PROJECTED PRELIMINARY BUDGET FOR TWO DARE OFFICER PROGRAM 2 DARE Officers Travel &Meetings $ 6,400 Maintenance & Operations 34,300 Vehicle Maintenance 5,980 Contract Services (Officers) 148,300 Cost not including Capital $194,980 CAPITAL 33,280 TOTAL $228,260 193- CITY COUNCIL MEETING BACKGROUND ON DARE PROGRAM May 4, 1994 Page 3 The incremental funds required for the DARE program to expand the program to all 5th grade classes within the City is $115,610. The Schools and City's share would be $57,805 each. This amount will change as in any budget to reflect any DARE operational increases. The City believes the DARE program is an excellent program. The City has no current fund for expansion of any General Fund program. However, with the joint financing efforts of the Elementary School Districts, the City would be able to explore a number of alternatives for additional City contributions as follows: 1. Utility user's fee revenue. City portions would come from the utility users fee revenues to match School District contributions on a formula basis. City Council must give direction for staff to net City contribution from the proposed FY 1994/95 budget. 2. California Education Code Section 45452 which came into affect in 1993, was pan of the State relief package offsetting the state shift of City funds to schools eliminated City's responsibilities for paying for crossing guards. Crossing guard costs currently borne by the City's General Fund could be shifted to pay the entire cost for the new DARE officer and each School District would then in turn have full self-determination for its crossing-guards. Should Council wish to consider expansion of the DARE program as an expanded joint program, Council should provide financial direction as to funding sources for the .expansion. So that the preceeding FY 1994-95 budget can include the proposal. ~WOO~~ Deputy City Manager JBF:dk Attachment 193- EXHIBIT "A" SCHOOL DISTRICT PROPORTIONATE CONTRIBUTION TO EXISTING 1993-94 DARE PROGRAM School District Contribution % of DARE Number of Number of 5th Number of 5th Number of 5th Officer's Schools Grade Classes Grade Classes Grade Classes Time Receiving DARE Not Receiving DARE Alta Loma School District $29,498 56% 7 29 17 12 Central School District 16,908 32% 6 18 11 7 Etiwanda School District 6,425 12% 3 11 8 3 Cucamonga School District 2 6 0 6 Total School Districts Portion $52,831 100% 18 6"~ ~ 2"~ EXHIBIT "B" Other revenue funds that the Redevelopment Agency distributes to the Elementary School District for FY 1993/94 Central .............. 162,542 Cucamonga ........... 262,863 Etiwanda ............. 150,760 NOTE: Alta Loma School District chose to receive its funding on a one time basis. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner SUBJECT: BABE'S CLUB 66 At the last City Council meeting, questions were raised regarding the activity and/or pending applications for 10134 Foothill Boulevard. Under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, bars and nightclubs with entertainment are conditionally permitted in the Specialty Co~nercial, Con~nunity Con~nercial, Regional Related Commercial, and Office designations. A public hearing must be conducted by the Planning Commission prior to a decision on an application. The City has received an application to open "Babe's Club 66" at 10134 Foothill Boulevard, site of the old "Peppermint Elephant." The applicant is requesting approval to establish a 21-year and over sports bar and nightclub with entertainment. The entertainment proposed consists of live bands, a disc jockey, comedy shows, karaoke, pool tournaments, dart tournaments, dancing, Keno machines, and amusement devises (pinball, electronic darts, etc.) Staff has reviewed the application and determined that it is incomplete. Staff has requested that a security and lighting plan be submitted. The applicant has met with Police Department and Planning Division staff to discuss the security plan elements. The security plan was submitted on April 26, 1994, and is being reviewed by staff. In addition to the Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit applications, staff is following up on two other issues relative to Babe's Club 66. First, the future tenant sign and the real estate signs are allowed under the Sign Ordinance; however they must be located 10 feet behind the property line (currently 2 feet behind the property line). Staff has notified the applicant and the "opening soon" sign has been removed, but as of this report, the real estate sign has not been removed or relocated. Second, the Building & Safety Division responded to a field observation of work being conducted on the premises and found that work was being conducted without permits. A "stop work" notice was immediately placed on the job. Building & Safety and Code Enforcement personnel monitored the site over the weekend and found no activity following the posting. Respectfully submitted, BB:SM:Sp Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Entertainment Permit Application 194 ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION Applicants for entertainment permits shall complete the following questionaire: PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE A. The name and permanent address of applicant: .... ZT~L~ _ ~ ~_ .................................. Name ..... /z CA_ __'_'ZoLa c~ _ ~-~ _ _ ~, ~_ ~ _C_~_ ~_, '_~ ~_~ _ _ _~ ,_ ,_ _~ ~_~___ Permanent Address B. The name, proposed and current, if any, and business address of the applicant: , ,~ . Name (Current and Proposed) C. A detailed description of the proposed entertainment, including type of and ~e ad~ion fe~, ff a~y, to 1~ cha~ed: __~_~_/_2___G'Zq~_'_~,,~ ................................. 195 E. The nar e(s) of the person(s) responsible for the management or supervision applica.nt's business and of any entertainment: ---Z-~_~ccc~_z: ...... ----~:~-u~_,_L~-~_T___c~_~_'_~C_~_~ ............................. _ _ ....................................... F. A statement of the nature a~d character of applicaat's business, if any, to be carried on in conjunction with such entertainment, including whether or not alcohol will be served as part of such business: superv~szon of applicant's business have been, within the previous ten years, convicted of a crime, the nature of such offense, and the sentence received thezefor incluciing conditions of parole or probation, Lf any: H. Whether or not applicant" has ever had any permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or provision of entertammant revoked, including the date thereof and name of the revoking agency: - - _ czb__ -~:~_~w ~_~%~_-L--~-~ _ -~,-~r_ _~ee..D,. ..... -_%u--~:e~x_c_kz~cj__cr___~u:~:J~_; ........................ Any false, misleading or fTaudulent statement of material fact in the required application shall be grounds for denial of the application for an entertainment permit. VICINITY MAP CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Public Works Subcommittee Charles J. Buquet II, Mayor Pro Tem Diane Will jams, Councilmember BY: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer SUBJECT: UPDATE ON ROUTE 30 CORRIDOR MEETINGS At the City Council's last meeting of April 20, 1994, Council suggested there be discussion at the May 4 meeting on the Route 30 Corridor. As Council is aware, several meetings have already been held in the City, most recently at Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center and at Charley College. We will continue to have meetings to keep our residents informed. The next Route 30 Corridor meeting will be at Rancho Cucamonga High School on May 10, 1994, secheduled in the school's gymnasium from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. In addition, meetings are scheduled for Alta Loma High School on June 8, 1994, from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. and a meeting is also scheduled in the Rancho Cuamonga Council Chambers on July 25, 1994 from 7:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Additional meetings will be scheduled as necessary after the July 25 meeting. Also please be aware the next scheduled meeting of the Route 30 Forum is Tuesday, June 14, at 10:00 a.m. in the Tri-Communities Room at City Hal 1. As always, questions can be directed to either member of the Public Works Subcommittee. Respectfully submitted, Charles J. Buquet II ~f~ Diane Will iams Mayor Pro Tem Council member CJB:DW:WJO:dlw 2OO You have visited 'the historic town of Rancho Cucamonga, the site where CalifDrnia's most famous roads and trails converge: * The Mohave Trail, a commercial route established by flourishing tribes of Mohave indians linking the Colorado River to the Pacific Ocean, and over which the first European and American settlers passed; * ~he Old Spanish Trail, over which the first Gabriellino and Serrano indians, the original inhabitants of Los Angeles passed, followed by American and Spanish explorers like Kit Carson and De Anza, who called the route from Sonora, Mexico, through Cucamonga to Monterey, California, "the Land Bridge;" * The "El Camino Real," The King's Highway, built by the Spanish priests and Gabriellino indians to link the chain of California missions, which were constructed one day's travel on horseback apart; * The Santa Fe Trail, which became the site of cattle drives and later the Atcheson, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Route; * The Butterfield Stagecoach Route, which later became the Southern Pacific Railroad Route; and * Route 66, first designated as a United States route in 1926. This famous national highway crosses eight states and has became a cultural icon of the Twentieth Century automobile age immortalized in television, film, music and prose. Route 66 linked the industrial East, through Chicago and St. Louis, to the largely undeveloped West. Route 66 provided a vehicle for the greatest mass migration in United States history, which was sparked by the Depression, the Dust Bowl, World War II, postwar industrial expansion, and tourism for the new leisure class of mobile Americans. Heal Our LaH4~ HEAL OUR LA O no,.o, wed ~ ~. S~'F~ ~ NA~ONAL DAY OF P~R ~ o~ ~=o~ ~tor ~ ~!et~ ~ L~ In ~ ~ ~'s Ch~ CONCEE~ OF PE~E "Heal ~ Land" P~eIpa~ Ch~hes M~ of M~c ~. Ro~rt L. V~n P~ ~s Author L k ~ B~e FeR~ip Corerate PraFr R ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, Jo ~k n~ ~, ~ ~d ~es C~ ~ ~ ~a~ ~1 of~den ~ ~ of ~e ~d~a~ Cbm~ ~ ~ d P,.~ F~on F~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ E~ --Rob ~t~ J~ H~ F~ M~ ~ Aftev~ow CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .,;:,~.~, ~'.. MEMORANDUM -,: DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: ~:i-:,- . ~ Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: WH] iam O. O'Ne~], C~ty Eng~ne~ SUBJECT: COnSEnT CALENDA~ ITEM D-7 COUNCIL ~GE~Dh ~y 4, 1994 Item D-7 Award of contract for the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station Request this item be postpone for two weeks to finalize the property acquisition with the property owner General Dynamics. WJO:dlw CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ....... MEMORANDUM DATE: May 3, l~g4 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager r~ i~":'~ FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Enginee BY: Monte Prescher, Public Works Engineer SUBJECT: STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FOR COUNCIL ITEM D-9 - AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTPJ~CT FOR THE LANDSCAPING OF ROCHESTER AVENUE EAST SIDE PARKWAY, FROM VICTORIA PARK LANE TO HIGHLAND AVENUE, TO KRUZE AND KRUZE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT OF $201,236.32 ($182,942.11 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY), TO BE FUNDED FROM RDA ACCOUNT NO. 11-51000 AND FUND 10 ACCOUNT NO. 10-4637- 9072 DATED MAY 4, 1994 Staff request and recommends that the subject Staff Report and Recommendation be amended as follows and that City Council award and authorize the subject project as amended. SUBJECT: AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR THE LANDSCAPING OF ROCHESTER AVENUE EAST SIDE PARKWAY, FROM VICTORIA PARK LANE TO HIGHLAND AVENUE, TO KRUZE AND KRUZE CONSTRUCTION FOR THE AMOUNT OF $201,236.32 ($182,942.11 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY), TO BE FUNDED FROM RDA ACCOUNT NO. 11-51000 AND FUND PROP. 111 ACCOUNT NO. 10-4637-9315 PJ~COI~qENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council accept all bids as submitted and award and authorize execution of contract for the Landscaping of Rochester Avenue east side parkway to the 1 owest responsive bidder, Kruze and Kruze Construction for the amount of $182,942.11 and authorize the Administrative Services Director to expend $201,236.32 ($182,942.11 plus 10% contingency) to be funded as follows: $94,000.00 from RDA Account No. 11-51000 and $107,236.32 Fund Prop. 111 Account No. 10-4637-9315. WjO:MP:dlw CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . .~:~./ MEMORANDUM DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager ,~ FROM: Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk' SUBJECT: ITEM F1 Due to revisions in State law with regards to advertising for this item, staff recommends that the item be continued to June 15 in order to comply with all legal advertising requirements. /dja CREDITS P~ al fun~ng w~ pm~d~ by the Certified ~1 G~m~t P~ of ~e Na~o~ H ~ ~ i The sj~s called out on this mop h~ been selecled f~ their mchiteclural and historic significance le{ative to the develogment of life, commerce, and touIism along old Roule 66. Theil inclusion hele does not in any way constitute endorsement nor recommendation fol busionsses OI other engties occu~ing tl~ existing buildings. HOW TO USE THIS HAP This map has been designed to help you understand old Route 66 - through Albuquerque as it developed from the 1930s through the 1960s. Highlighted am many of the busine~es that grew up to serve tourists and commercial travelers passing through Albuquerque. The buildings that housed those businesses exhibit the distinctive architecture of ~f~'<" '! that era. -...~ These and other historic buildings of particular interest have been indicated by a dot or symbol and a label. Symbots without labels are used to call attention to additional elements along the strip that you will want to notice. There are many more interesting buildings and elements than could be included on the map; see how many you can find. Labels include four pieces of information. The first number ~,~ is the street address on Central Avenue (Old s,s Route 66). The name in capital letters is the THE VILLA aPantments colTent name of the business or properly. ~,~. co,,,, Next is the first date the building was recorded in the Albuquerque City Direc- tories. and finally, the odginal name of the building, if different from the current name. SYMBOLS 4.-. The following six different s3anbols are used to mark siSnifi cant elements of interest along the strip. _rr'_l-r' Neon SiSnaSe ~' Drive-ins, Cares Commercial .1~ Motels ,-~e'~ Shopping Strips. i Service Stations ~ Theaters SCALE WESTERN VIEW DINE~ & STEAK / / GERALD'S OLD TOWN SCHOOL SANTA FIE · ,~o,,~,,~ A~UQU~QUE ~o..~,o~,~ N~RT 939 ON THE ROAD ON 66! r many of us, Route 66/s nostalgia -- memories of FZa first trip west, of crossing the Great Plains, passing over the Continental Divide, or gazing for the first time upon the Pacific Ocean at Santa Monic, a Piec Route 66 -- America's most famous highway -- carried people and energy that shaped the American ,southwest; and it holds today rich treasures and traces of those earlier eras. Whether you come to recapture magic from the past or to have your own "first time" adventure, this guide offers history, facts, folklore, local color, and clues to help you make the most of it! ,so. buckle your seat belts. check the p~trol, adjust the On the other side of the river, there was no road up onto sun visor. and let,'s 8o for a Me! the West Mesa. The escarpment. with its sandy arroyos, and the steep eroding banks of the Rio Puerco beyond had stopped most wagon traffic in the 1800s. as well as the Before Route 66 railroad. and would stop auto traffic until the 1930s. Route 66 in Albuquerque began as a dirt road connecting The Long Detour the old Spanish villa o[ Albuquerque founded in 1706 with the new town created by the railroad in 1880. Of course, In 1926, when the federai highway numbering system it wasn't called Route 66 then. Fi~ it was Railroad Avenue, went into effect, the route from Chicago to Los Angeles was then. as the city grew, Central Avenue. designated as Route 66. At first it wasn't on Central Avenue The old and new towm grew separately, connected by at all. Instead, it made an enormous "S7 running north from Central Avenue. Old Town remained a village of adobe Santa Rosa to near Las Vegas. There it joined the Camsno homes and a few stores grouped around the town square Real, following it through Santa Fe. down the hairpin turns or plaza. New Town became the commercial center, with of La Bajada Hill to Albuquerque. and then south through its business district, hotels, and residences located in close the city to Los Lonas before heading west to L~gana Pueblo proximity to its steel lifeline. along the railroad right.3f-way. The Limits of Early East-West Travel Until the late 1920s, Central Avenue's roach remained modest. As it climbed east out of the valley toward the University of New Mexico. it passed several TB sanitoria. The sun and dry climate led to the rise of a large health followed. Boosters touted Albuquerque as "the heart of the As a result, until the late 1930s, most of the campgrounds, well count:' but in the same breath called East Central tourist cabins and cares were located along Fourth Street. 'TB Row:' East of Yale Boulevard, Central Avenue was a ,sO were garages and automobile dealerships. A side trip ~ road. k:eal people drove on it for an outing to the rnoun- along Fourth Street, across the Barelas Bridge and on down rains; mountain people hauled wagonloads of pinon Isleta Boulevard will reveal remnants of early tourist facilities firewood down to the city. dating to the 1920s. L. The Great R~alignment City beosteB began pushing for a straightened Route 66 by the late 1920s. In 1931, federal money was designated to straighten the road. but the onset of the Depre~ion slowed the efforL When the city's former mayor, Clyde Tingley, became ~avemor in 1934, he used his friendship with Presi- dent Roosevelt to secure many New Deal projects. As in other states, highway building received a priority because it was a way to put people back to work. In November 1937, the straightened east-west road was completed. Route 66. now along Central Avenue, became New Mexicds filst completely oil-surfaced road and short~ east*west mute. Emergence of the Commercial Strip Albuquerque's growing tourist industry lost little time in responding to the route change. Tourist services mushroomed along Central Avenue, In 1935, there were 16 tourist camps on Fourth Street and three on Central. By 194L them were 28 on Fourth and 37 on Central. Clusters of tourist ser- vices appeared on the west side near Old Town (which re- mained a separate community until 1949) and way out on the East Mesa near the new State Fair grounds. By the f940s. Central Avenue had begun to assume the form that millions of travelers would come to know. At its center was a downtown ottering all the conveniences of a medium-sized city, With storefront signs rich in neon, it glowed in a rainbow of colors by night. On either side of down town, a long commercial strip emerged. The roadside be- came a mixture of tourist ser- vices and shopping centers, such as Nob Hill (1947) and Hiland (19sl). se,,i,g the idents of rants intersper-~l, Central Avenue became the heart of the city's automobile life. The Ever-Changing Highway The 1950s marked both the heyday of Route 66 and the beginning of its demise. Route 66 was widened on both the east and west sides of the city. A second span was added across the Rio Grande in 1951. Even as plans were being made to raplace Route 66 and other old highways with a new inteBtate highway system, Central Avenue continued to tlourish. Roadside develop- ment continued, pushing the commercial strip all the way to the mouth of Tijeras Canyon and up Nine Mile Hill The strip matured and chan~ed. As property values ruse along inner portions of the strip, some service stations, motels, and cares were demolished or substantially altered to accommodate new businesses serving nearby neighbor- hoods. fn the rnid-fi~ins, Old Town began its shift from a neighborhood center to a tourist attraction. Older motels were replaced with new, larger, two-story ones. The number of tourist courts alor~g Route 66 reached a high of 98 in }.955 and then began to decline with the anticipated freeways and the realignments they would bring. Today, An Enduring Road about 40 motels dating to before 1955 remain. By the ea~y 1960s, many small motel owners were notic- But Route 66 refuses to disappear. John Steinbeck's The tng a decline in business. Their limited operations could Grapes of Wrath, "Get Your Kicks on Route 667 and Buzz not compete against the new franchises. As one owner and Tod, with their CoB,'ette. have frozen the highway in relates, "Who wanted a black and white TV in his room America's collective memory. A shelf-full of books and when color was available?" A decade later, much of Cen- articles, and the 66 logo on T-shirts, hats, and coffee mugs, tral Avenue, like Route 66, seemed doomed to oblivion. pass the memory on to ne~v generations of travelers, Shopping malls and chain franchises near interstate exits You'll find Route 66 on a nighttime cpaise up Nine Miie sapped the old highway of its vitality well before its de- Hill to gaze upon the city's lights, You'll find it during a slow walk through the small shops, galleries, and antique certification in 1985. stores scattered from Old Town to the Hiiand district. You'll find it in the neon signs of many remaining cares, gas stations, motels, and curio shops along Central Avenue, America's most famous highway awaits rediscovery in Albuquerque. Clues and Cues for Touring Route 66 The buildings and landroarks you will ~ as you tour Route 66 can be' 'read" I~:e a 3-D history~ of the old routo's growth and I~"~ .~ f" decline. The reformation and clues here, and the correspond ing symbols on the map, will help you see more of what is there and know more about what you see. I~dde R~whml S~.~st Wrnne.~lar .~aowlinad ARCIfiTECTUHAL STYLB (lggS- ploseot) (1920-1%0) The buildings that oppesred olesg Route 66~obo ol stucco (mode te look liko mad) Stucco wolls~ fio~ loots, o~en with irI~uIor(1930- ]950) duling i~s h~l ~re lepms~totive of the ~olls riot Ioo god iesoded propots, vigos paffipets; slighl Spesish or Ceiifomio ~is-~nded com~s and ~ndows; horimoml ~tl ~opolorhui~diogs~oftho~oiothoso~- esdcoooles, flomodpmtoklesodedweod siesd~cmati~4emesBsechestiledes~/ moldogsondfioting:cami~e~redownings wesL I~re ole serno duev te he~p you ides-columns topped ~ colbols. ~olch ol ~iedo~ hoods, grouped ~iode~s, and fio-liko piers; and ioesded ~1 the moro common sh'los-Tho dotes gi~ ~×ornpl~s: B Yodo ~tel (2500 W. Ces- lesndod doors, and wrought iro. rollfogs. liko towels Iising flora got on ides of the approximate time o COnStTUC-,ral), Enchanted Muse indian Arts (9608 Examples: Seno Village Apartments Examples: jones Motor Company (3226 lion. Symbols on the mop mink significant E. Central), Monte ~sto File Station (SgO0 W. Centrol). Zig Lodge (4611 E. E. Central), C. & }~ Automotive (7918 E. examples, hut watch fm others. (3201 E. Cestlal). Central). Central). NEON SERVICE STATIONS THEATERS COMMERCIAL STRIP DRIVE-INS, CAFES MOTItS Neon signage, with its Aulo sewice stations in As Cootrol Avenue, Route The precmser of tudny's Drive-ins were usually Noorly half of the toolist vibrooce and vomatilih/, vowing sh/Jes hood Route 66 was AJbuquerque's shopping maim was the small one-stoW buildings coons built among Route was used all along the 66. Some used the "Great White Way." Sosoral storefront row - a Mine of ieatuling overhanging 66 in Albuquerque during route flora the 1930s iouedod corners and · theaters incJod ng the smaJi shops built directly canopies sheltering the the 1930s and '4Os s~jl through the 'SOs, when cubist towers of the RiMe, Sunshine, Sondig, at the sidowoJk and welk*up windows (no in- stand. They ore single backlit p~estic signage streamlined madame. and [~ Roy, were the heart accessible flora culbside side seating) and, of story, with L, U, or doubie-I began to take oval. A few Others were simple boxes of downtown nigh~ife, parking, some with diog- course, lots of parking coofigurutions. Early of the old noon signs with small offices and o~fing movies and live eaul cornm enilies. Later ground the building. motels feetoted pueblo remain, and in recent one- or two-car boys, performances. Latin, the strips were set buck from Some cares wele oddly revival, South~st Vema- years now ones have disfinguishod by mna- I'liJand god Lobo theaters the street to pmmit off- shaped or featured color, and stToomline~ appooled. On the map meatat teatales such as maTked the d~"s oostwald shoot proking. Examples aMention-gTabhing signs. modelne sb/Je orchitec- you will find examples of coated tlioogujar canopies growth. Take time to of both remaio. in the Most ore gone, replaced ture. '50s and '60s particular interest morkod m canopies with parallel marvel at the rich Pueblo popular Nob Hill moo, in the f960s by the fran- models ale Jargull usually by the neon symbol fins. Many surviving Dooo facade of the KiMe, storefloats lieu entire chise fast food chains. A two stories, with colonial Watch for those and stations have been or bettin, take in u conceit, blocks. Earlher east and few remain near downtown; ol ultru-modeln c4emoots. othels. See if you con telladoplod to diffevoot uses. play, or film to experience olse west of the river, ~ see if you can spot these I~istodcalh/significant which are old ond whkh See how many yea can the luxu~ of these esdiel to find isolated stme~ont and othels which am examples ore marked on now. doted among the strip. entertainment palaces. rows of Jv~ or more shops. empW or house now uses. the mop; watch for others. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 4, 1994 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CO-SPONSORING HIGH SCHOOL ALL STAR GAME WITH QUAKES & DAILY BULLETIN TO BENEFIT "SEND AN UNDERPRIVILEGED KID TO CAMP" PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council consider Quakes and Daily Bulletin to co-sponsor the High School All Star Game on June 6, 1994 at the Adult Sports Complex Stadium. As a City co-sponsored benefit event, the rental fee would not be assessed and the City would provide maintenance staff and facility support for the event as is normally provided on Quakes baseball game nights. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The City has received a request from the Quakes and Daily Bulletin to co-sponsor the High School All Star Game on June 6, 1994. This would be a fundraising benefit for the Daily Bulletin's "Send an Underprivileged Kid to Camp" Program. Staff recommends the approval of this request based upon the ,benefits to underprivileged youth in the Inland Empire. This event would also provide promotional opportunities to encourage Inland Empire residents to enjoy events conducted at the Adult Sport Complex and Stadium. FISCAL IMPACT City expenses for the benefit event would be off set by ticket and concession revenues received from the event. Respectfully submitted ~Manage~~r Rancha Cucamonga ~ ~ Professional Baseball Club (909) 948-16 8 One Page FAX to I,inda Daniels 4 April 28, 1994 Linda Daniels City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Kancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 'Dear Linda: I apologise for the delay responding to your letter of April 25tb regarding the High School All-Star Game (and practic~ date). We would like the City to waive the rent~ fees and expenses for the event in exchange tbr the use of the stadium ~n exclmnge t~r sponsorship along with the Quakes and the B~letin. The City will receive their entertainmen~ t~ on ticket sales and the conce~slons percentage. The Bulletin is putting up the front money needed for the event, $3000+ and handing the publicity. Th~ beneficiary oFprofits will be their 'send an underpfivilged k~d to camp' program. We visualize this as a popular annual event t~r the community(ies) and the participants. We would like an answer ASAP because the logo design is in progress and the publicity for the event will be sta~ing almost hnmediatley. .. Sin~eFe ~ John eCompta '. ident 8408 Roch,:ster Avenue * p.C). Box 3538 · blar~citt, Cucamonga, Gidif<n nla 91729 telephone 909 481 5000 · Fax 909 481 5005 May 1, 1994 To: Honorable Mayor Stout, Rancho Cucamonga City Council Members From: Sam Pellegrino, owner Sam's Place As a resident and business owner of Rancho Cucamonga, I can recognize the importance placed upon you, the City Council of Rancho Cucamonga, in regulating city matters. The councils role in the operation of city functions is essential in maintaining the high moral standards which continues to bring new residents to our community. Over the past several years, my continued efforts to build a successful establishment in Rancho Cucamonga, have been in conflict with the codes and provisions set forth by the city. My denial of complying with certain conditions placed upon my establishment of Sam's Place, by city officials, has been an enormous mistake on my part. Let me indicate that my indifferences with the city are the result of my apparent position of being singled out for my wrongdoings. Consequently, I have allowed my personal feelings to enter into my business affairs, making the duties of Mr. Alcorn more difficult than need be. I understand that Mr. Alcorn has a large responsibility to the overall co~unity of Rancho Cucamonga and should not have been put in a position to take such extreme measures. For these actions, I would like to extend my humblest apology to each of you, and to Mr. Alcorn, for the rebellious behavior on my part, and those of my current staff. Knowing that I am truly sorry for exercising behavior which is unfavorable to current community standards, I remain optimistic about the future of Sam's Place in Rancho Cucamonga. I believe that by working together, a decision can be rendered, allowing for Sam's Place to remain in operation until September,.with compliance to the measures currently in conflict. Should the present location of Sam's Place be ruled out then, I would suggest that a comparable solution be reached to keep the current 20 employees employed and contributions to non profit organizations continued. Once again, I do apologize for my actions and look forward to a prosperous future in Rancho Cucamonga. Very truly ours, S -- RG(:,I~IVE,t) -- CITY O~ ~ANCHO CUCAMONGA ~,A~ZH:NG DtVISIOH April 27, 1994 02 1994 Planning Division i Vi 10500 Civic Center Drive ~~'~ P. O. ~x 807 ~cho Cuc~ong~ Ca 91729 ~ Attention Brad Buller, City Planner The purpose of this letter is to confirm our support for the action that revoked the conditional use permits, 78-03 - Sam's Place and 91-02 - Sam's Place. The Planning Commission is to be commended for making the decision to revoke the conditional use permits listed above. The operation of this type of business adjacent to a residential area just doesn't match what the city says that it would like Rancho Cucamonga to be as a community. We sincerely hope that the City council will support the Planning Commission in the consistent enforcement of the cities zoning codes. Over the years the continual uncontrolled noise and disturbances caused by the patron activity associated with this btainess has been very annoying. to us properly owners that live adjacent to this business center. Those of us that have to get up early in the morning to start our commute to work every day would like to be able to get a good night's sleep. This means going to bed early and being able to sleep through the night without the disturbances that are constantly going on in the parking lot. As home owners we would like to be able to enjoy the privacy and quiet that one ordinarily expects to have when they buy a home. Most evenings this not possible because of the activities going on in the parking lot during the hours of operation of Sam's Place. Rancho Cucamonga is advertised as a "family values" type dty and R is a good place to live. Enforcing the requirements of the zoning in this neighborhood is an important part of maintaining this positive environment. Although several ideas have been put fourth by the dty to mange the noise, and commotion in the parking lot, none have been implemented for any length of time. Most have not been implemented at all. This is an apparent, if not obvious defiance by Sam's Place of the cities attempts to integrate this business into the neighborhood. As home owners we have made significant investments in our homes and we would like to be able to enjoy the full benefits of those investments. Also, we do not wish to suffer a loss of resale value because of the activities of this ...... Z~bZ:"'Z!:EZ:::Z::: ........................ ...... ,:::,:7'7";-:f-/,_' ....................... ZZZZZZ ZZZ:/Z~ZZZ:::Z~:'~ZZ_ ZZ.ZbZ~ZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZ -~ "' /: - , '-2-. '::.' ........................................ r___~,__~-~,· ____:__~ ...... ...... ::,T'-7:"'::7 ...............' ........................ IJ_4: 'L, __Z j Z "-4_:'~ &:__~ L__~L ,l::',T!=:,,.;i/v',,'::(_ -1:' 2'.':/,: ,:,:/~ "~ --:,,' .'~ ..... :ZZZ: ~L_.:-t_Z__~',:z:_ .............. :_ _,_ .................... , ', ......', _:ZJ& /_,L L_2____~_:22_?__E_Z,,F_2b_L'_3Z_L~.dJL: ~_~' I I ...... I ................. ~ ................... ~ ................... I I I ...... I ......................................................... I ...... I .......................................................... I 10330-164 8/89 HIGHLAND AND EAST AVE. SIGNAL PETITION This petition is for a traffic signal at the corner of East Avenue and Highland Avenue (HWY 30) in the Etiwanda area of Rancho Cucamonga , California We feel this is a very dangerous intersection due to the continual serious traffic accidents. This intersection is used daily by elementary and high school buses as a route to and from school. For these reasons we feel that a trafflc signal has been long over due at this dangerous and proven deadly intersection. NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE - , , ~/' ,, 5'>~>~ / ~ ~ ~ >-~ :: t , PO.~ ~& ~5~' 337- NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE ~~~- ~b W~;A-~H ~+ A:+~ Lomb' 04 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE d/ NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 7 >> s'SSs" i z Bo f~ ,~;:r NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE ~s~ k Cso OZ~ ~T Apt 4 NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE ' NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE C.~i~. Verxo~ /~s ~ ~/~ ~-M// NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE 2~,,~, ~Z,,~-~ /3~o~ ~;~/~-4~ ~z~ ~'~-~/4- / . NAME AOORESS TELEPHONE \ ,,,:, d. tJ,,x/c-4'~, ~~ ~~ ~ u ' ' ' ' ~ y~ - ... ~ ~ - ,- NAME ADDRESS TELEPHONE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEMORANDUM ' DA : Ap l 28, 1994CONFIDENTIAL TO: Chaiux~an and Members of the R development Agency FROM: Jack Lam AICP City M~ SUBjECT: STATUS OF REPORT pREPARED BY HARRISON PRICE CO. DEALING WITH FEASIBILITY OF FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION IN EXPANSION OF STADIUM PROPOSED BY VALLEY BASEBALL CLUB, INC Info~uxation was provided at the last Agency meeting dealing with the status of the report prepared by Harrison Price Co. At that meeting Agency Counsel advised the Board that a draft of the study had been submitted. A review of the draft identified areas which require more work in order to complete the scope of services which were contracted for with the company. A meeting has been held with Harrison Price Co. at which time it was indicated the report can be completed by Wednesday, May 11, 1994. The report will be submitted to Agency Counsel, Jim Markman, so the confidential material provided by the Quakes will remain outside of the public records act. An executive session will be scheduled for the May 18, 1994 Agency meeting to discuss the conclusions and information in the report. Mr. Markman will present an executive summary/conclusion to the Board at that time. Ms. Jill Bensley, representing the Harrison Price Co. will also be in attendance. Please note that no data modification or conclusion modification is involved in the completion of the work. The tenant has been informed and understands the report will be discussed at the May 18, 1994 executive session..As the Agency is aware, a letter has been written by Mr. Henry Stickney expressing objection in not being part of the review process of the draft study. I responded to Mr. Stickney explaining why a draft document has not been provided to his organization. A copy of my response letter has been given to you previously. Additionally, Mr. Markman has discussed the objection raised by Mr. Stickney and has also infou~xed him that this was a study commissioned by the Agency. As a courtesy, a copy of the final report will be provided to the Quakes. Mr. Markman also explained the confidential information provided by the tenant will not become a part of the public record because it will be delivered to his office. Mr. Stickney acknowledged the fact that he would receive a copy of the final report after it is completed. cc: Jim Markman Linda Daniels