HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000/03/15 - Agenda Packet CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MEETINGS
1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m.
March 15, 2000
Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
City Councilmembers
William J. Alexander, Mayor
Diane Williams, Mayor Pro Tent
Paul Blanc, Councilmember
James V. Curatalo, Councilmember
Bob Dutton, Councilmember
Jack Lam, City Manager
James L. Markman, City Attorney
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
City Office: 477-2700
City Council Agenda
March 15, 2000
All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing.
The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, one
week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such
items.
A. CALL TO ORDER
Roll Call: Alexander Biane
t
Curatalo Dutto~ , and
t
Williams
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of a Proclamation to DARE Officers for appreciation.
2. Presentation of Certificate of Achievement to Jerry La Pointe of Jerry La
Pointe Video Productions. His original production "Our Favorite Place,"
describing the services and opportunities for youngsters visiting the
Rancho Cucamonga Public Library, received the Platinum "Best of
Show" Award in the 1999 Aurora Awards Film and Video competition.
3. Presentation of a Proclamation recognizing Les Richter of the California
Speedway for his Regional Contributions and Involvement.
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.
D. CONSENTCALENDAR
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.
1. Approval of Minutes:
February 2, 2000
February 7, 2000 (Adjourned Meeting)
February 23, 2000 (Special Meeting)
2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 2/23/00 and 3/1/00 and Payroll
ending 2/17/00 for the total amount of $2,520,563.05.
3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of February
29, 2000.
4. Approval of a Resolution establishing findings and determinations
regarding an appeal filed by George Georgiou.
1
10
16
City Council Agenda
March 15, 2000
2
RESOLUTION NO. 00-038
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING ITS FINDINGS
AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING 6549
EGGLESTONE PLACE, RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
17
Approval of a Resolution authorizing the destruction of City Records
pursuant to California Government Code Section 34090, the City's
Records Retention Schedule, and other applicable legal citations.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-039
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS WHICH
ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS SET FORTH
IN CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 34090 AND OTHER APPLICABLE
LEGAL REFERENCES
Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and
Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and
Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for DR 98-12, located
at the nodhwest terminus of Bell Court, west of Red Oak Street,
submitted by Charles Unsworth.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-040
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITIES FOR DR 98-12
RESOLUTION NO. 00-041
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION
OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 98-12
19
20
26
28
29
City Council Agenda
March 15, 2000
Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, and Improvement Security
for interior streets and storm drains (2nd phase, Victoria Park Lane to
Highland Avenue), and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape
Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District
Nos. 1 and 3 for Tract Map No. 15875, located on the northeast corner
of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard, submitted by Kaufman
and Broad of Southern California, Inc., a California Corporation.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-042
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP
NUMBER 15875 AND IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITY
RESOLUTION NO. 00-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALKIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2
AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT MAP
NUMBER 15875
8. Approval to award and authorize the execution of the Contract (CO 00-
012) in the amount of $32,450.00 ($29,500.00 plus 10% contingency)
for the Modification of Traffic Signals and Intersection Lighting at
Carnelian Street and 19th Street (SR 30), to the apparent low bidder,
New West Signals, to be funded from Transportation Fund Account No.
22-4637-9811.
9. Approval to accept Irrevocable Authority to Pay #LG200012A reducing
the Faithful Performance Bond for Tract 13812, located on the south
side of Summit Avenue, west of Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by Wealth
V, LLC and release Irrevocable Authority to Pay #SB995038.
10. Approval to accept the Haven Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project,
Contract No. 99-089, as complete, release the bonds, and authorize the
City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final
contract amount of $250,594.07.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-044
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE HAVEN
AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
PROJECT AS COMPLETE, RELEASE THE
BONDS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY
ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION
33
36
37
41
43
45
47
City Council Agenda
March 15, 2000
11. Approval of the Resolutions approving and confirming the Engineer's
Reports and Setting of Public Hearing for May 3, 2000, to Levy the
Annual Assessments for Fiscal Year 2000/2001 for Landscape
Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. No increase
of assessment rate is proposed.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-045
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY
ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTICT NO. 1,
2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8. NO INCREASE OF
ASSESSMENT RATE PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 00-046
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 2000/2001 PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972;
AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR
HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO
12. Approval of the Resolutions approving and confirming the Engineer's
Reports and Setting of Public Hearing for May 3, 2000, to Levy the
Annual Assessments for Fiscal Year 2000/2001 for Street Lighting
Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. No increase of
assessment rate is proposed.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-047
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY
ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8. NO INCRASE OF
ASSESSMENT RATE PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 00-048
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
DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 PURSUANT TO
48
51
84
56
City Council Agenda
March 15, 2000
THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF
1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE
FOR HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO
13. Approval of the Resolution approving and confirming the Engineer's
Reports and Setting of Public Hearing for May 3, 2000, to Levy the
Annual Assessments for Fiscal Year 2000/2001 for the Park and
Recreation Improvement District (PD-85). No increase of assessment
rate is proposed.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-049
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, FOR APPROVAL OF THE CITY
ENG9NEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR PARK
AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
(PD-85). NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT
RATE PROPOSED
RESOLUTION NO. 00-050
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
2000/2001 PURSUANT TO THE
LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972;
AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE FOR
HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO
59
61
62
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first
reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non-
controversial. The Council will act them upon at one time without
discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be
removed for discussion.
NoltemsSubmi~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.
No Items Submitted.
City Council Agenda
March 15, 2000
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following
requirements.
testimony.
items have no legal publication or posting
The Chair will open the meeting to receive public
No Items Submitted.
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
The following items do not legally require any public testimony,
although the Chair may open the meeting for public input.
APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF LICENSE AND COVENANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
AND GENERAL DYNAMICS PROPERTIES, INC., (CO 00-013) FOR
CITY'S TEMPORARY USE OF GENERAL DYNAMICS PROPERTIES,
INC. PROPERTY FOR A TEMPORARY PARKING LOT DURING
CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE II, PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT THE
CITY'S METROLINK STATION, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE AND THE AT&SF.
APPROVAL TO AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE
CONTRACT (CQ00-014) IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,740,172.28
($7,036,520.25 PLUS 10%) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD MEDIANS PHASE II FROM 600 FEET WEST
OF HERMOSA AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE, DEER CREEK
CHANNEL BRIDGE WIDENING, FOOTHILL/HERMOSA STORM
DRAIN AND HERMOSA AVENUE STREET WIDENING PROJECT TO
THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, KEC ENGINEERING, TO BE
FUNDED FROM ACCOUNT NOS. 32-4637-9824, 22-4637-8833, 22-
4637-9920, 12-4637-9610 AND 74-4225-7044 (RE: ALSO FUNDED
BY RDA ACCOUNT NO. 15-51000 AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESERVES).
65
68
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
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. PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
UPDATE
2. UPDATE OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR NEW LOS OSOS HIGH
SCHOOL (Oral Presentation)
71
City Council Agenda
March 15, 2000
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 items 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 Council may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting.
Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual.
Lo ADJOURNMENT
MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS
LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6
TO GIVE GEORGE RIVERA, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES MANAGER,
PAMELA EASTER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, AND LARRY TEMPLE,
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS
TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS.
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my
designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda
was posted on March 9, 2000, seventy two (72) hours prior to the meeting
per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
February 2, 2000
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINTUES
Regular Meeting
A. CALLTO ORDER
A regular meeting of the City Council was held on Wednesday, February 2, 2000, 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 William J. Alexander.
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Williams, and
Mayor William J. Alexander.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; James Markman,
City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Agency Director; Larry Temple, Administrative
Services Director; Sid Siphomsay, Information Systems Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community
Development Director; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bill
Makshanoff, Building Official; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director;-Paula Pachon,
Management Analyst II; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Captain Rodney Hoops, Police Department; Diane O'Neal,
Assistant to the City Manager; Jenny Haruyama, Management Analyst I; and Debra J. Adams, City
Clerk.
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
B1. Presentation of a Proclamation to Joan Kruse, Purchasing Manager, congratulating her on her
retirement.
Mayor Alexander presented the Proclamation to Joan Kruse, Purchasing Manager.
Joan Kruse thanked the Council for the support they have given to the City staff and for the opportunity
she had been given.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
C1. John Lyons, Etiwanda, thanked the Council for working with SOC (Save Our Children). He
talked about the Route 30 Freeway auxiliary lane that would make it easier for the high school kids to
travel the freeway to get to school. He stated he felt this was government at its best. He also
thanked the City staff for their hard work to accomplish this.
C2. Brett Lance, 11969 Lone Peak Drive, addressed the Council about the construction for the
Rochester overpass. He stated he thought the overpass was to be completed by February 1 and
now wanted to know when it will be completed. He brought up that he and some of his neighbors had
met with staff about the construction of a culdesac on his street. He stated staff told him it is very
costly. He also mentioned that cars are racing through his street.
City Council Minu~s
February 2,2000
Page 2
C3. Millie Morris, 5109 Lipizzan, stated she was present to deliver a letter to the Mayor and Lauren
Development. She stated some of the residents from the Lauren Development had got together to
talk about the tension throughout the Haven View community. She stated she has a right to have a
neighborhood meeting and did not like people coming to the meeting only to try to break it up.
C4. Steve Camron, Fieldstone Development, stated he is not involved with the Haven project, but
has developed near Highland and Rochester. He commended the staff work for the work they did to
help him, and appreciated the assistance he received even though the City does demand a lot from
a developer.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
D1. Approval of Minutes:
December15,1999
January 5,2000
D2. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Local Street Pavement
Rehabilitation - Slurry Seal of various streets, to be funded from Account No. 32-4637-9113.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION - SLURRY SEAL OF VARIOUS STREETS IN SAID
CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS
D3. Approval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the Local Street Pavement
Rehabilitation - Overlay of various streets, to be funded from Account No. 32-4637-9113.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-013
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE LOCAL STREET PAVEMENT
REHABILITATION - OVERLAY OF VARIOUS STREETS IN SAID CITY
AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO
ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS
D4. Approval of Local Law Enfomement Block Grant for the Year 2000.
D5. Approval of Amendment #1 to Amended and Restated Lease Agreement (CO92-064) between
the City of Rancho Cucamonga and Valley Baseball Club, Inc., regarding security.
D6. Approval of a Request to Summarily Vacate Excess Street Right-of-Way at the southwest corner
of Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue, 5-166 -APN: 209-041-52.
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2000
Page 3
RESOLUTION NO. 00-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE
VACATION OF EXCESS RIGHT-OF-WAY AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF HERMOSA AVENUE AND ARROW ROUTE
D7. Approval and Execution of Program Supplement Agreement No. 002-M to administer Agency-
State Agreement for Federal-Aid Projects No. 08-5420 (CO 00-001), between the City of Rancho
Cucamonga and the State of California for funding for the preliminary engineering to expand parking
and loading platform at the City's Metrolink Station located at the southwest corner of Milliken Avenue
and the AT&SF.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND
SIGNING OF PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT NO. 002-M TO
ADMINISTER AGENCY-STATE AGREEMENT FOR FEDERAL-AID
PROJECTS NO. 08-5420, BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR FUNDING FOR
THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING TO EXPAND PARKING AND
LOADING PLATFORM AT THE CITY'S METROLINK STATION
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE
AND THE AT&SF.
D8. Approval to release the Faithful Performance Bond for improvements for Tract 13303-1, submitted
by Lewis Development Company, located on the southwest corner of Mountain View Drive and Tetra
Vista Parkway.
Release: Faithful Performance Bond #145051S $32,700.00
D9. Approval to release the Faithful Performance Bonds for improvements for Tract 13304, submitted
by Lewis Development Company, located on the northeast corner of Mountain View Drive and Terra
Vista Parkway.
Release: Faithful Performance Bond #223992S $55,795.00
Faithful Performance Bond #223993S 42, 130.00
Faithful Performance Bond #223991S 32,600.00
D10. Release of Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 441394 in the amount of $17,985.00 and
Maintenance Guarantee Bond No. 441396 in the amount of $23,427.75 for Tract 13565, located on
the northeast corner of San Sevaine and Wardman Bullock.
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve the staff recommendations in the staff
reports listed within the Consent Calendar. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
No items submitted.
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2000
Page 4
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
F1. CONSIDERATION OF FORMATION OF CITYVVIDE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT FOR
THE FINANCING OF A PORTION QF CENTRAL PARK (Continued from September '1, 1999)
Staff report presented by Rick Gomez, Community Development Director. He brought to the Council's
attention that Resolution Nos. 00-016 and 00-017 had been modified which had been distributed to the
Council and the changes were identified in bold.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were:
Douglas Pure commented on a statement made by Mayor Alexander that it would increase
property values.
Mayor Alexander commented that this was his opinion.
Mr. Pure stated he wants the City to be ~scally prudent. He stated he hardly ever sees a
policeman around his street any more. He commented he is concerned about the financing and
funding of this project. He inquired about the $129 per parcel that would be added to everyone's
tax bill if this is approved.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, pointed out if there are three units on one parcel the
cost would be $129 for that property owner.
Mr. Pure commented he felt the fees should be charged proportionately. He stated he has a
problem paying for a park that he doesn't feel he will get any benefit from. He asked how the tax
would be set.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated it is done through a Mello Roos.
Mr. Pure added that he and some of his neighbors do not like the idea of a Mello Roos or an
association fee. He felt low cost maintenance for plants would help to save money. He
continued to inquire what would happen with the property if this is not appreved by the voters.
Councilmember Williams stated the property will remain as is and that it is designated to be a park to
possibly be built some time in the future a small portion at a time.
Mr. Pure questioned the dog park and the liability this would put on the City.
Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated they have studied this and found no examples from other cities
where this was a problem.
Councilmember Williams told him to visit the Claremont Park because he would be surprised that there
are no problems,
Nancy Brinkley asked if there was any wild life creatures that would get hurt because of the park
land being developed.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated there is a finding there might be a species on
the site.
Ms. Brinkley stated she does not feel there are many people aware of Central Park and that their
taxes will go up if it is approved. She felt more awareness needed to be made to the people
about the park. She stated Councilmember Curatalo had made a comment "there will be a
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2000
Page 5
Central Park." She felt this was a done deal. She felt the City needed to concentrate on sidewalk
repairs.
Councilmember Williams stated the Task Force has designated this to be a park, but that this may not
be in our lifetime.
Coumcilmember Biane inquired about the cost of the park.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated for what they are proposing to build the cost is
$24.3 million.
Gary Kendrick stated he opposes another bond to build a park. He did not feel there should be
another tax to the people.
Mayor Alexander asked him if he supported other bond measures.
Gary Kendrick stated yes and that they were for the children, but that he does not support this
one and will not vote for it. He stated he would form a committee to oppose the bond.
Susan Bowerly stated she would like to know about the Central Park Task Force as far as when
they meet, etc.
Staff and the Council gave her the information she needed about the meetings so that she could attend
in the future.
Ms. Bowerly stated she would like a park but not the kind that is being proposed.
Councilmember Willlares stated there has been a need identified for the aquatics center which would
help pay for the park, and added that other than that it is to be a passive park.
John Lyons stated he supports Central Park and would encourage everyone to support it.
Mary Ganeen stated she has lived in the City for 29 years. She stated she is not opposed to the
park, but felt the City should build the park a little bit at a time and start simple and work its way
up.
Mayor Alexander stated this first started out with an $800 assessment and now it is down to $129.
Ms. Ganeen felt there should be more facilities for the kids to do sports. She was concerned for
senior citizens on a fixed income. She stated she has not received a survey about this and did not
know of anyone who had.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated it was a telephone survey.
Councilmember Willlares stated there was a casual survey done through the Grapevine also.
Mayor Alexander stated it is the residents that will have a vote on this, that the City Council cannot
campaign for it.
Ms, Ganeen felt $129 was a lot of money. She felt it should be voted on at the general municipal
election as opposed to a special election because more people would come out to vote for it.
Melissa McKeith, 4993 Ginger Court, asked what would happen if the bond issue fails.
Mayor Alexander stated the property would remain designated as park land.
Cjty Council Minutes
Februan/2,2000
Page 6
Ms. McKeith asked if the property would have to go back to the people who sold it to the City
should the park not be built by a certain timeframe.
James Markman, City Attorney, stated he felt there was no time period to get the park built by, and
consequently would not have to go back to the original sellers of the land.
Ms. McKeith asked if the City would come back to the people with some other suggestion should
the bond issue fail at $129.
Mayor Alexander reported the Task Force has already tapered the amount down to $129.
Ms. McKeith stated she supported the park measure. She asked if she is a part of other park
assessment districts, i.e., Red Hill and Heritage Parks.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated he did not think she is in PD-85.
Ms. McKeith stated she supports the measure and asked the Council to scare down the
assessment amount if the measure fails and to try this approach. She stated she hears people
say they want a park, just not such an expensive park.
Eric Vale, 7551 Rhode Island Court, stated he supports Mr. Kendrick's comments indicating he
does not like to pay taxes either. He stated he got involved with the Task Force because the cost
of the assessment was a concern to him and other members of the Task Force. He stated he
and the Task Force wanted to see how the park could be paid for. He stated after researching
this, the Task Force decided to go along with a Community Facilities District to pay for the park.
He continued to talk about the histon/of the work of the Task Force and how they came up with
their decision and recommendation that is before the Council tonight. He felt it was a wholesome,
family value for $129 per year. He felt this was the best alternative for the City.
Donna Abraham quoted the number of parcels to be charged the $129 per year assessment and
how much money this would bring in to maintain the park. She stated she was not asked what
she wanted to be included in the park. She pointed out she has kids in sports and that this does
not accommodate that. She stated she would be paying more money to use the other aspects of
the park. She did not agree with this. She stated it is too much money to assess even/one.
Mayor Alexander suggested she attend the Task Force meetings to hear more details about the park
plan.
Ms. Abraham stated she would go to the meetings. She also inquired about the utility tax.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated it is charged to pay for police and fire services because of money that
was taken away from the City.
Ms. Abraham stated she did not vote for the establishment of the utility tax.
Jerry Guarracino, 6081 Hellman, stated he is on the Task Force and that this public hearing is to
get everyone's questions answered. He felt if people would go to the Task Force meetings they
would get their answers. He stated even though there are those stay-at-home parents that say
this will be expensive to pay for, they will get to enjoy its benefits. He felt the City should continue
to invest in those residents and their children.
Primo Morales, 8210 M alvern. stated he is a member of the Task Force and the Sports Advisory
Committee. He stated he previously always asked where are the sports fields. He stated he is in
favor of this passive park and feels it is something different. He stated he did not agree with Mr.
Kendrick that this was not for the kids because he feels it is.
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2000
Page ?
Patricia Carlson of Rancho Cucamonga for 13 years, stated her kids are in favor of this. She
stated people she talks to are in favor of the park. She wondered if people do not vote for this to
happen, when will be a good time for it. She felt everyone needs would be met at the park. She
felt Central Park would attract more business to come to the City. She felt everyone should be
mature and realize that things do not stay the same and that this is progress for the City.
Esther Jimenez Alexander stated she has gone to many parks throughout the Country even
though she does not live in a particular City where the park is located. She felt many visitors
would also come to Central Park from outside the City. She felt people would get a lot of use
from the park and stated she looks forward to going to Central Park.
There being no further response, the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Biane inquired about the payment structure for PD-85 which was explained to him by
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director.
Councilmember Curatalo stated he does not want to see a string of apartments on that property and will
do whatever he can to get the park built.
Councilmember Dutton stated in the Midwest there is a lot of open space and a park called Pioneer Park
for the community. He felt the park property should be reserved and used as park property. He felt
there were a lot of people who want to see something done on this property now. He stated he would
like to see a pay-as-you-go plan and to build something affordable. He indicated he would fight to keep
this property as park property. He thanked the Task Fome for their work on this project. He apologized
to those people that did not know about the Task Fome meetings. He felt the City should go forward
with this.
Councilmember Willlares stated she has been for this project since 1980 and that this is a passion of
hers. She stated it is preserved to be a park no matter what happens with the approval of this measure.
She stated she agreed with Councilmember Curatalo that somehow this will be a park some day. She
felt the citizens have the right to vote for this and have a say in what happens. She felt they should
move forward and put this on the ballot.
Mayor Alexander stated if this goes forward later rather than now, it will cost more. He hoped this goes
forward now. He commented on the cost and did not think it was that much compared to what you pay
for other types of entertainment. He felt it was cheap entertainment.
Councilmember Biane stated he supports the park and the Task Force's recommendation. 'He felt the
bond measure would give the people the chance if they want to pay for this through voting for the
assessment. He commented on the opportunities that would be available at the park and stated it can
provide for the family. He felt this park is something different. He felt now is the time for Central Park.
MOTION: Moved by Willjams, seconded by Curatalo to approve the Central Park Project Initial Study,
California Gnatchatcher Survey and the Presence/Absence Trapping Study for San Bernardino
Kangaroo Rat. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
James Markman, City Attorney, stated if there was a 50% protest present tonight, they would have to
stop this process, but since there isn't, the Council could move forward.
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2000
Page 8
RESOLUTION NO. 00-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 99-1
(CENTRAL PARK), ESTABLISHING AN APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT,
AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN SUCH
DISTRICT, AND CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION
MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve Resolution No. 00-016 as amended.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING NECESSITY TO INCUR A
BONDED INDEBTEDNESS, ORDERING SUBMITTED TO 'THE
QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 99-1 (CENTRAL PARK) A
PROPOSITION RELATING TO THE DISTRICT, GIVING NOTICE OF A
SPECIAL ELECTION AND ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR
CONDUCTING THE ELECTION
MOTION: Moved by Dutton, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 00-017 as amended.
Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
RESOLUTION NO. 00-018
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS REQUIRED BY
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION,
ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, AND
ORDERING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY
FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 99-1 (CENTRAL PARK), OTHER
RELATED ACTIONS AND THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION
OF CENTRAL PARK
MOTION: moved by Biane, seconded by Curatalo to approve Resolution No. 00-018. Motion carried
unanimously 5-0.
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
No items submitted.
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
No items submitted.
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2000
Page 9
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
No items submitted.
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
No items were identified for the next meeting.
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
K1. George Georgiou, asked if his appeal filed on April 19, 1999 would be heard or not. He stated
he had received a letter from the City Clerk stating his appeal would be held, but without identifying
which appeal.
Mayor Alexander advised him his appeal would be heard and that Mr. Georgiou had been notified of
the date and time of the hearing. He stated it would be heard under the guidelines adopted by the
City.
Mr. Georgiou asked which appeal.
Mayor Alexander asked Mr. Markman which appeal is Mr. Georgiou talking about.
James Markman, City Attorney, stated he understands that Mr. Georgiou has issue as to whether his
block wall was built correctly or not and if the Building Official made a correct decision if it was built in
accordance with the then applicable Paw. He advised Mr. Georgiou that the City was going to give
him what he requested. He stated he did not care what date, what letter Mr. Georgiou was referring
to, the Council would hear his appeal.
Mr. Georgiou stated he hoped the Council would take corrective action because he felt they violated
the Ralph M. Brown Act in setting his matter to be heard before the Council.
Mayor Alexander stated his appeal would be heard.
James Markman, City Attorney, stated the Brown Act was not violated at the last meeting and that
this meeting will be noticed per the law.
K2. Jedd Keck, 5657 Sapphire, stated there is one stretch of Sapphire that goes without a stop sign.
He asked if a bike and walking route could go along this section.
Mayor Alexander stated this can come back at the next meting after a report is written addressing his
concerns.
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2000
Page ]0
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTIN: Moved by Williams, seconded to Biane to adjourn to executive session to discuss
pending litigation regarding the City of Rancho Cucamonga versus County of San Bernardino,
et al (University Project), per Government Code Section 54956.9. Executive Session will be
adjourning to Monday, February 7, 2000, at 8:00 a.m. for a team building exercise follow-up
meeting to be held in the Training Conference Room of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic
Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Motion carried unanimously 5-0. The meeting
adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved: *
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
February 7, 2000
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
A. CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Monday, February 7, 2000, in
the Training Conference Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 9:10 a.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Williams, and Mayor
William J. Alexander.
Also present were: Jack Lain, City Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; Duane Baker,
Assistant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Assistant to the City Manager; Jenny Haruyama,
Management Analyst I; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director; Rick Gomez, Community
Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner, Bill Makshanoff, Building official; Joe O'Neil, City
Engineer; Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director; Larry Temple, Administrative Services Director;
Tamara Layne, Finance Officer; Deborah Clark, Library Director; Dennis Michael, Fire Chief; Rodney
Hoops, Police Chief; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk.
B. ITEM OF BUSINESS
B1. TEAM BUILDING FOLLOW-UP EXERICSE
The exercise began with involvement between the City Council and City Manager. At approximately
10:35 a.m., Department Heads and the City Manager's staff joined the group to complete the team
building exercise. (Mayor Alexander left the meeting at 11:30 a.m.)
C, COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communication was made from the public.
D. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 12:10 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Approved: *
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
February 23, 2000
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Special Meeting
A. CALL TO ORDER
A special meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, February 23, 2000,
in the Tri Communities Room of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Bob Dutton, Diane Williams, and Mayor
William J. Alexander.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Bill Curley, Deputy City Attorney; Rick Gomez, Community
Development Director; Bill Makshanoff, Building official; John Thomas, Plan Check Manager/Fire; Allen
Brock, Plan Check Manager/Building; Carlos Silva, Sr. Building Inspector; and Debra J. Adams, City
Clerk.
B. ITEM OF BUSINESS
B1. HEARING QF BUILDING AND SAFETY OFFICIAL'S DECISION REGARDING SLUMP STONE
WALL LOCATED AT 6549 EGGLESTON PLACE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA
(Please refer to the transcript of proceedings for this matter which is attached.)
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communication was made from the public,
D. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 6:33 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Approved: *
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
1 (Pages 1 to 4)
BUILDI/qG APPEALS HEARING )
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL )
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA )
)
February 23, 2000 )
)
TRANSCRIFF OF PROCEEDINGS
Rancho Cucamonga, California
Wednesday, February 23, 2000
Reported by:
JENNIFER D. BARKER
CSR No. 12168
JOB No. 561006
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
For the City of Rancho Cucamonga:
WILLIAM ALEXANDER, Mayor
DIANE WILLIAMS, Mayor Pro-Teal
JACK LAM, City Manager
WILLIAM P. CURLEy III, City Attorney
DEBBIE ADAMS, City Clerk
PAUL BIANE, Councilmember
JAMES V. CURATALO, Councilmember
BOB DUTrON, Councilmember
GEORGE M. GEORG1OU
RICK COMEZ
AL ISOLDA
BILL MAKSHANOFF
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BUILDING APPEALS HEARING )
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL )
OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA )
)
February 23, 2000 )
)
Transcript of Proceeding,
taken at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga, California,
beE~nning at 5:01 p.m. and ending at
6:35 p.m. on Wednesday, February 23,
2000, before JENNtPER D. BARKER,
Certified Shorthand Reporter No.
12168.
Page 2
Rancho Cucamonga, California,
Wednesday, February 23, 2000
5:01 p.m. - 6:35 p.m.
1
2
3
4
5 MR. AI .EXANDER: Okay. We~l call a special
6 meeting for the city council of Rancho Cueamonga to
7 order. Iwouldaskthatyouallpleasestandandjoin
8 us in the pledge of allegiance.
9 (Roll call of Councilmembers.)
10 MR.. ALEXANDER: Item B, item of business, is
11 one hearing of building and safety official's decision
12 regarding slump stone wall located at 6549 Egghston
13 Place.
14 MR. LAM: Mr. Mayor, members of the council,
15 Mr. Makshanoff will give that report. You might note
16 that the meeting is not only recorded but we also have a
17 court reporter also reporting the proceedings, so if we
18 could speak clearly and not too quickly, well get
19 through this. Mr. Makshanoff.
20 MR. MAKSHANOFF: As I stanc my report Allen
21 Brock is going to be putting up some overheads on the
22 wall.
23 Mr. Mayor, memben of the city council, this
24 hearing tonight is to hear an appeal by Mr. Georgiou
25 regarding my decision on a masonry wall constructed at
Page 4
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
2 (Pages 5 to 8)
1 his property located at 6549 Eggleston place in Rancho
2 Cucamonga.
3 MR. ALEXANDER: Pardon me one second. Since we
4 are recording, are those numerically identified on the
5 back of the pictures so that we can reference in regard
6 to the recording and the pictures?
7 MR. MAKSHANOFF: In the staff report there,
8 thin is Exhibit 1 or Exhibit A. Fm sorry.
9 MR. ALEXANDER: Oh, all tight.
10 MR. MAKSHANOFF: It's my recommendation that
11 the city council deny the appeal and uphold the decision
12 of the building and safety official that the subject
13 wall meets the reqinrements of the Unfform Building
14 Code.
15 We started this back in November of 1997.
16 ML Georgiou filed a complaint with the buildbig and
17 safety division and the complaint stated that in his
18 opinion he didn't think the wall which was constnlcted
19 by Citation Homes was constructed properly. In response
20 to his complaint, the fn'st inspection took place on
21 November 6th of 1997, and in that report there were two
22 inspectors out there that day, Mr. Jim Schroeder and
23 Mx. Jerry Pips. In that report, the fn~t comment
24 is that the wall appeared to meet the minimum
25 requirements of the city standards, and it goes on to
1 of his investigation was to observe the exposed
2 vertical and horizontal steel, the gwuting of the cells
3 containing the steel, and the stability of the wall. He
4 stated that the general appearance of the wall was good
5 and there was no apparent leaning, cracking or other
6 visible signs of distress. Mr. Stamp~ scanned the wall
7 with a metal detector to locate the remaining vertical
8 steel. He also drilled two haft-inch-diameter holes in
9 the bottom course of blocks in two locations containing
10 the vertical steel to determine if the cells were fully
11 grouted. In his report, he states that Inll grout
12 penetration wos present hi both locations. He then
13 uncovered the foundation in three hicatioas to determine
14 ifthefoundationwasofadequatesinetosupportthe
Page 7
1 suggest that a concrete block pilaster might stop the
2 movement if built at an expansion joint inside the
3 property.
4 On December 15th of 1997, a second hispecrion
5 was held at the site with Mr. Georgiou, a representative
6 from Citation Homes, along with lVh'. Schrocder from
7 building and safety present at the meeting. At that
8 meeting, it was decided to remove a portion of the wall
9 hi order to expose horizontal reinforcement steel and to
10 determine whether or not the cells containing the steel
11 was properly reinforced.
12 A building permit was to be obtained for this
13 work after Mr. Georgiou provided writton authorization
14 for the work to be done. ML Georginu provided that
15 authorization letter dated December 17th and a permit
16 was obtained by Citation Homes on December lSth.
17 Subasquen~y, the building and safety division
18 received a report from Citation Homes dated January
19 17th, 1998, written by Mr. William Stampfl, a State of
20 California-licensed civil engineer. The subject of his
21 report was ritied "Results of Structural Investigarion
22 of Existing Block Fence at North Side of Rear Yard of
23 Residence at 6549 Eggleston Place, Rancho Cucamonga,
24 California."
25 In summary, Mr. Stampfl stated that the purpose
Page 6
1 Building Code requirements were met, no corrective
2 action were required.
3 I reviewed and approved that report on February
4 18th, 1998. I subsequemly had the report reviewed by
5 ESGIL Corporation. ESGIL is an independent engineering
6 firm that provides stractural plan-checking services to
7 the city on a contractual basis. They responded to me
8 in a memorandum dated March 3 Ist, which is attached to
9 this report, and in their opinion, "The engineer
10 adequately addressed the structural cencems with
ll respecttothedesignofthewallandasstatodbythe
12 engineer, and that the wall complies with the minimum
13 provisions of the Uniform Building Code. "They went on
14 to state that the quality of construction was beyond
15 their scope of review and that was because ESGIL was not
16 asked to inspect the wall but only to respond to the
17 engineering conclusions reached in Mr. Stampfi's report.
18 In a letter to Citation Homes dated June llth,
19 1998, 1 confirmed my approval of the wall, and 1
20 responded to Citation because they took out the permit
21 to remove the blocks that are shown in these pictures
22 and to do the structural analysis of the wall.
23 ML Georgiou was provided with a copy of that
24 letter and, in addition, I reaffirmed my approval to
25 Mr. Georginu in a letter dated November 101h, 1998. In
P~e8
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
3 (Pages 9 to 12)
1 numerous letters from Mr. Georgiou he has made
2 statements regarding the structural integrity of the
3 wail and, in particular, the validity of the engineering
4 report. However, to date, Mr. Georgiou has yet to
5 produce any documentation from a state-licensed civil or
6 structural engineer to support his assertion.
7 As the building official from the city, my
8 authority is strictly ministerial, meaning I really
9 don ~ have the abffity to question the design of any
structure unless the design does not meet minimum code
11 requirements and that's the only thing that I can
12 respond to. So in my review and approval of the wall,
13 il's based strictly on the structural engineering, my
14 own observationofthe wall, andthe conchision that the
15 wall meets the minimum Uniform Building Code standards,
16 which is what we are trying to obtain.
17 So, again, I'd go on to recommend that the city
18 council deny the appeal and uphold my decision that the
19 minimum code requirements have been met, and that
20 concludes my report, and I'd be happy to answer any
21 questions.
22 MR. ALEXANDER: Any questions for
23 Mr. Makshanoff?
24 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Not at this time.
25 MR. MAKSHANOFF: ML Georgiou is present and
P~e9
1 packet of an unknown number of pages, but it's tilled
2 "Appeal to a Decision of the Building Official, George
3 M. Georgiou, Ph.D. February 23rd, 2000." Is this what
4 you're referring m when your talking about exhibits?
5 MR. GEORGIOU: Oh, yes. There is an index to
6 the attachments. Right before the attachments there's
7 an index. There are 17 of them, and what I refer to is
8 number 1 which shows a picture of the wall, part of
9 which we see right now on the screen; but furthermore,
10 there is this small portion of the wail which later on
11 we see that it was found defective and it was never
12 challenged, okay, in the letter in which it was found
13 defective, and the exact wording appears as attachment
14 number 2 by Mr. Makshanoff. On November 6, 1997 two
15 building inspectors for the City of Rancho Cucamonga
16 suggested hi writing that if a support block pilaster
17 was built it might stop movement, and that can be found
18 as Attachment 3. There was an identical recommendation
19 that was given for our neighbor's wall at 6550 Eggleston
20 Place, which was also built by Citation Homes at the
21 samelime. Our neighbor went shead and starting
22 building p~astem, after'obtaining relevant permiB
23 from the city, with the purpose to secure the wall.
24 During the building process, code violations
25 were uncovered in the presence of city building
Page 11
1 there 's also a representative from Citation Homes here.
2 I think all would like to make some comments.
3 Mr. Georgiou is fight there.
4 MR. ALEXANDER: We made a place for him to be
5 right up here.
6 MR. GEORGIOU: Oh, okay. Thank you.
7 MR. ALEXANDER: For the record, if you could
8 just give your name.
9 MR. GEORGIOU: Yes, my name is George M.
10 Georgiou, and I reside at 6549 Egglestone Place, Rancho
11 Cucamonga, and the pot'pose of our appeal is to nullify
12 the decision of the building official to accept a report
13 by Citation, and we would provide the reasons why that
14 should be done.
15 First of all, we should start with a
16 definition. Whenwe say awall, the wall in question is
17 not only the part that was shown on the transparencies
18 on the projector there, but also includes a sinailet
19 portion which you would find as attachment number 1
20 which is labeled a small portion. Now, that smMl
21 portion, as we see in the narrative, was inspected by
22 Mr. Makshanoff personally and he found it to be
23 defective, and Citation Homes never challenged that.
24 MR. CURLEY: Sir, just for the record, say,
25 your reference to an attachment, you're referring to a
Page 10
1 inspectors. For example, paper was found in the place
2 of grout and at this hme, with your permission,
3 Mr. Mayor, can I display an item as evidence?
4 MR. ALEXANDER: Yeah, I don~ see any problem
5 with thaL What are you going to display?
6 MR. GEORGIOU: Well, I don~ want to scratch
7 the--
8 MR. ALEXANDER: Can you put it here so we can
9 see it in front
10 MR. GEORGIOU: Yes.
ll MR. ALEXANDER: That's fine.
12 MR. GEORGIOU: That block is the block through
13 which the vertical -- the horizontal bar goes through,
14 it's on the top row of the wall. This came from our
15 neighbor's wall and where you see paper it's supposed to
16 be grout, otherwise, paper touching on steel is not
17 going to be a very good support, and its required by
18 COde that it is grout, but it's not grout, it's paper.
19 MR. CURATALO: lt's what.9
20 MR. GEORGIOU: lt's paper. Inside there,
21 instead of having grout, it's paper. I mean, you can
22 observe it.
23 MR. CURATALO: I'm sony to question you, but
24 I'm not that familiar with COnstruction terms.
25 MR. ALEXANDER: The only thing they found,
Page 12
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
4 (Pages
1 Mr. Georgiou, was paper up there.
2 MR. GEORGIOU: That's paper, sir.
3 MR. ALEXANDER: I understand. That~ all they
4 found up there.
5 MR. GEORGIOU: Well, they found paper and very
6 unusual movement, and in some places there was nothing
7 to -- there was nothing, 1 mean, empty space.
8 MR. ALEXANDER: This was not on your wall?
9 MR. GEORGIOH: No, it was on our neighbor's
10 wall.
11 MR. ALEXANDER: Ms. Maninez's wall?
12 MR. GEORGIOU: That is correct. And
13 Mr. Martinez is present here.
14 MR. CURATALO: Is there anything like that on
15 the wall that is in question now.
16 MR. GEORGIOU: Weil, we don~ know because the
17 correction of this --
18 MR. CURATALO: l~just asking ffyou know now.
19 MR. GEORGIOU: No, and during the narrative
20 youal see why we don~ know.
21 Now, this is important, you may see from our
22 neighbor's -- however, a correction notice was issued
23 withbothofoureddressesonitandyoucanseethatas
24 attachment -- let me give you the exact Attachment --
25 attachment number 5 ff you see there the correction
Page 13
13 to 16)
1 number 8. Okay. That correction notice was calling for
2 removal of blocks so that the whole two vertical bars
3 are exposed.
4 MR. ALEXANDER: Could somebody, for the record,
5 read that number? I cannot read every word. Can you
6 read that, Mr. Makshanoff?
7 MR. MAKSHANOFF: Correction 1 says, "Rack the
8 wallbackatleast5feettoexpeseamlnimumoftwo
9 vertical grout cells and the footing. After this has
10 been done call for an inspection. If you have any
11 questions, please contact the Building Official or
12 Catlos Silva." And it was signed the Paul Taylor.
13 MR. ALEXANDER: Okay.
14 MR. BIANE: I just also want to know, that was
15 for address 65497
16 MR. GEORG1OU: Yes, this was only for our
17 address.
18 Okay. For our wall, Citation ~- at that
19 petht, Citation Homes provided a report to the building
20 official. From His office accepted it and caused all
21 inspections and enforcement of coffeedon notices
22 cease. He informed us of his intentions to accept the
23 report via telephone, to which we immediately objected.
24 Wemadeourobjectioashialettertohim;andthatcan
25 be found as Attachment 9, dated February 17di, and we
Page 15
1 notice was issued for both our wall, 6549 plus 6500 -
2 sorry, 6550, and this correction was caring for
3 removing the bond boom at both address so that an
4 inspection can be made for the vertical cells. Okay.
5 Well, that was partially obeyed by Citation. They
6 removed only a few blocks but they never removed the
7 whole vertical -- sorry -- horizontal beam. It was
8 never done.
9 Now, at this point our neighbor went ahead to
10 do the pilaster and we found all these thing. At that
11 point, Citation Hom~ agreed to pay the expenses to the
12 amountof$1,350andalsotheycompletedconstructionof
13 this supporting pilasters, and you can see the check for
14 the amount of of $1,350 as Attachment 6, and basically,
15 the matter was closed with our neighbor after the
16 expenses were paid and they agreed to complete
17 conshmction.
18 Now, when some blocks were rremoved, the
19 inspector, and that was on December 22nd, 1997,
20 approximately a week after that he issued another
21 correction notice because he saw, on that part that it
22 was removed, that no pea g~avel was present in the
23 grout, that is, he determined according to his opinion
24 that the gxout was substandard, and he issued yet
25 another correction notice and that is in attachment
Page 14
1 simply objected to his intention to accept the report,
2 and we argued that the burden is on Citation to prove
3 that the wall wasn~ built to Rancho Cucamonga building
4 standards nor to the bu~ding code standards. The
5 report docsn~ prove this but that's another story.
6 The guidelines and the orders at the lime,
7 prth~arlly to homeowners and small conlrdctors, required
8 pea gravel in the grout, a requirement beyond UBC. So
9 ff some small contractor or homeowner came to see the
10 wall and said, "I want to build a b|ock wall," they are
] 1 handed out these directions here, and in the second page
12 on the bottom left where it says "grout" -- the second
13 page, bottom left, the third item of note, "gxout" -- it
14 is the definition of grout: One part cement, three
15 parts sand, two pars pea gravel. Pea gravel was not
16 present and that was the cause of the issuance of the
17 second correction notice, and to this day we don~t know
18 why the city would have stringent standards, because
]9 puling pea gravel in the grout makes it stronger. For
20 regnlar people and for coq~orations, they merely can use
21 the sand gravel.
22 In the same letter on February 17th, 1998, we
23 also asked the question, "If we provided a report from a
24 licensed engineer certifying the instability of the
25 wall, will you reissue the correction notices, and in
Page 16
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
5 (['ages 17 to 20)
i general make sure that the wall is built to standards?"
2 Neither the building official nor anybody else from the
3 city would gave us an answer. Yet now, two years later,
4 apparently forgeRing that, the building official, in '
5 the staff report, states, "However, to date Ivh'. Georgiou
6 has yet to produce any documentation from a
7 state-licensed civil or structural engineer.
8 Furthermore, he does not provide the rationale or legal
9 basis that we should have provided him any documentation
10 after he made the decision to accept the rapoff from
11 Citation." h was at this point --
12 MR. ~,I I~KANDER: Pardon me, is this a report
13 from Citation or from an engineering fhnn?
14 MR. GEORGIOU: It was a report paid for by
15 Citation.
16 MR. ,~l FKANDER: But we need to make it clear.
17 ls it a report from Citatinn, Mr. Makshanoff.
18 MR. MAKSHANOFF: lt's a report that was done by
19 an engineer for Citation Homes.
20 MR. ALEXANDER: Right. But did he sign it as a
21 registered engineer?
22 MR. MAKSHANOFF: He signed it, stamped it, and
23 put his state stamp on it as a state-licensed civil
24 engineer.
25 MR. AI I~Y, ANDER: Ail fight.
P~el7
1 As a result of this a meeting was held with
2 Mr. Gomez, Mr. Malcshanoff, and myseff in attendance on
3 April 2nd, 1998. At that meeting we requested the
4 decision to accept the report from Citation Homes in
5 writing, but we were unsuccessful
6 Still believing that no final decision was
7 made, we followed up that meeting with a letter to
8 Mr. Gomez April 14, 1998, Attachment 13, repeating our
9 concerns about city standards versus UBC and the
10 particular g~out question. Had we been provided the
11 decision in writing our questions would be different.
12 We would be asking for an appeal. Instead, we were led
13 into a wild goose chase, sent them by both
14 Mr. Makshanoff and Mr. Gomez.
15 In response, Mr. Gomez sent us a letter April
16 30th, 1998, which is Attachment 14, including some
17 documents we requested. He made it clear that the
18 documents were pwvided for information only, and as he
19 stated, they were not intended to represent how the wall
20 was built. Having no final answer from Mr. Malcshanoff
21 or Mr. Gomez, we wrote a letlet to you July 20th, 1998,
22 Artachment lS, nsking him questions conceming the
23 standards of the wall, including whether the correction
24 notices have been rescinded.
25 We foilowed up that letter with other letters
Page 19
1 MR. GEORGIOU: It was at this point in the
2 chronology of evenls, February 18, 1998, that the
3 building official already accepted the Citation but did
4 not inform us in v.~iting as Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
5 Code Section 15.08.020 requires, and Attachment 11 shows
6 the letter the building official sent to Citation Homes.
7 In the staff report he says that it was provided to us.
8 He neglects to mention that it was not provided to us by
9 him or any of the agents of the city. Falsely believing
10 that no decision was made and having not received
11 answers from the building official, we wrote to his
12 supervisor, Mr. Rick Gomez, director of community
13 developoment, asking similar questions. Attachment
14 number 11, that was our letter to lvfr. Gomez.
15 MR. ,~,I ~XANDER: Attachment 117
16 MR. GEORGIOU: Yes.
17 MR. ALEXANDER: 11 is a letter from Bill
18 Makshanoff. It may be 12.
19 MR. CURATALO: It's 12, I believe. Why don't
20 you check it.
21 MR. GEORGIOU: Oh, yes, il's number 12. Just a
22 second. 11 isthe letter informing -- okay, and --
23 okay. lt's attachment number 12, and please, if you
24 make that correction, that is Mr. Gomez's letter asking
25 similar questions, is Attachment 12. Sony about that.
Page 18
1 in August and September addressed to the city coucil.
2 However, we never received answers to those questions.
3 We requested an inspection of the smaller part of the
4 wall the section adjacent to the garage, July 20th,
5 1998, since it was too unstable. Instead of performing
6 the inspection right away, as we believed it to be a
7 hazard, the building official performed the inspection
8 only after repeated lettern from us. He finally
9 performed the inspection two months later, on September
10 21st, 1998 in the presence of represetatives from
11 Citation Homes.
12 He concluded that the required grout was not
13 present. So when he inspected that part of the wall
14 himserf, after ha accepted the report from Citation
15 without our knowledge, he found the small part
16 defective. Using as proof the letter that the building
17 official has made the decision to accept the report
18 formally on February 18, 1998 without informing us as
19 the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code required, on April
20 19, 1999 we ~ed for the present appeal to that
21 decision. The purpose for that appeal is to nullify his
22 decision.
23 The law, Rancho Cucaraonga Municipal Code
24 Section 15.08.020, explicitly specifies that decisions
25 of the building official have to be served upon the
Page 2O
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings
6 (Pages 21 to 24)
02/23/2000
1 permitee.
2 MR. ALEXANDER: Can we have the number again,
3 please.
4 MR. GEORGIOU: 15.08.020. "Permitee," that
5 would mean us.
6 MR. ALEXANDER: Is that an attachment? Okay.
7 Pm sorry. l found it.
8 MR. GEORGIOU: Anachment 17, yes. Okay.
9 Attachment 17, we include the actual section which was
10 in effect at the time. It states that "decisions of the
11 building official have to be served on the permitee,"
12 that is us, "and shatl meet either personal dellvery,"
13 I'm reading from the code now, "or placed in in the
14 United States mail postage prepaid," and from that time
15 that we are served with that decision, we have 10 days,
16 according to the code, to file for an appeal.
17 Now, we didn't know that he accepted the
18 decision; therefore, he didn't give us the chance to
19 appeal within those ten days.
20 MR. ALEXANDER: 1 have to ask a question. I'm
21 sorry to interupt.
22 But the definition ofpermitee, Mr. Makshanoff,
23 who is the permitee?
24 MR. MAKSHANOFF: The permilee of record -- in
25 terms of who built the wall to begin with, the permitee
1 that section of the code, which includes proper
2 notification. We base our appeal largely on this
3 provision, and let me read the first sentence where it
4 says on the top saclion, 204 A, "appeals," "A decision
5 of the building official regarding interpretation or
6 implementation of any provision of fins Title, the
7 Uniform Adminislxatlve Code, 1991 Edition, or the
8 technical codes referenced therein shall be final and
9 shall become effective forthwith upon service of the
10 decision of the building offficial." Okay. This is the
11 place where the decision of the building official's
12 interpretation is final.
13 MR. ALEXANDER: In writing to the permitce.
14 MR. GEORGIOU: "In writing upon the permitee."
15 "Other persons affected by the decision
16 hereafter called the permitee. So Mr. Makshanoff is
17 wrong. The definillon he gave for the permitee, we
18 discovered it here. Thank you very much.
19 Okay. And alan note, again, the first section
20 herewhereitsays,"orimplementationofanyprovision
21 of this Title," and then it goes on to enumerate the
22 technical stuff, and one of the provisions of this litle
23 is to serve us in writing because we are affected, and
24 as affected, we are permitees.
25 Conclusion: We request that the building
Page 23
1 of record was the subcontractor for Citation of homes.
2 MR. ALEXANDER: They were required to t~eive
3 this information.
4 MR. MAKSHANOFF: And the penniree who took out
5 the permit to do the removal of the block to do the
6 investigation wE also Citation Homes.
7 MR. ALEXANDER: Is that the reason that the --
8 MR. MAKSHANOFF: And I responded to Citation
9 Homes because they were the permilee.
10 MR. ALEXANDER: All right.
11 MR. GEORGIOU: Okay. This is news to us.
12 Thank you very muck for clarifying titis:
13 Okay. This was never done for ns, that is to
14 be given the decision in writing even though we ask for
15 it, and on the other hand, he did inform Citation Homes
]6 in writing. Also in the above section, it is specified
17 that the decisions of the building official are final.
18 Oaly the board ofappeaiscan n~verse it. Hence, his
19 belatediy Eking for a report from us is groundless, and
20 it is somewhere there that these decisions are final,
21 but -- and only the board of appeals can reverse them.
22 I can give the reference later on if you want me to.
23 The same section exphciity allows appeals not
24 only on the basis on technical engineering grounds, bm
also on the basis of any provision in the title, that is
P~e22
1 official's decision of February 18, 1998, to accept the
2 repoa by Citation Homes, and hence freezing the
3 correction notices, is nullified since it was done in
4 direct violation of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
5 Section 15.08.020.
6 The correction nofces should be reinstated in
7 order to ascei~ain the structural stability and safety.
8 The city building inspectors who issued them were the
9 only independent ones to actually physically inspect the
10 wall, not merely do that visually. By "independent" we
11 mean not paid by Citation Homes, and if I may, a couple
12 ofthmgshere.
13 Why has the building official shifted the
14 burden on us to prove anything else when there is
15 evidence the same correction notice went to two people,
16 and for the same problem at the same time, that they
17 were built at the same time by the same builder, and
18 evidence is found such as paper -- tins is obviously a
19 code violation, and I 'm pretty sure that there is no
20 recordofitinthere--thisisjustaconjectureonmy
21 part -- and why shouldn't the building official simply
22 order Citation Homes to obey the correction notices
23 instead of accepting a report without informing us and
24 for us to have to write all these letters and, on top of
25 that, to have the building official complaining why we
Page 24
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
7 (Pages 25 to 28)
1 wrote too many letters. If we had to write to him five
2 letters to respond to a hazard report, for him to
3 respond, who is fight here? Us, who insisted for the
4 inspection to be done, or him, that he dragged his feet?
5 Mayor, this concludes my presentation and I would be
6 glad to answer any questions.
7 MR. ALEXANDER: Thank you. Anybody have any
8 questions?
9 MR. DUTYON: Just a couple. Did you have
10 anybody, a structural engineer, come out and take a look
11 at the wail yourself or --
12 MR. GEORGIOU: We believe that is irrelevant
13 for the purpose of this appeal, and I'd rather not
14 answer the question.
15 MR. DLriTON: Well, I was just -- you were
16 making reference to the code section here, and it
17 actually -- when you indicated that you're putting
18 yourself into the situation as -- the same definition as
19 the permitee, that's what you indicated?
20 MR. GEORGIOU: Yes.
21 MR. DUTTON: 'Cause it says, back here, that
22 the board may continue the appeal, and so forth, and
23 from time to time, and that's us, obviously, and that we
24 may -- that the permitee appealing the decision to the
25 boardofbuildingofficial*s"shallcauseaihisown
Page25
1 Mr. Georgiou gave permission to Citation Homes to do
2 that work.
3 It was whatever work was necessary so that an
4 investigation could be made, and that's what Citation
5 did. They removed some block and they retained the
6 services of a civil engineer, a state-licensed civil
7 engineer, to make a structural investigation of the
8 wall, and in addition to the removal of the block~ he
9 also used a metal detector to determine the location of
10 the vertical steel, and he went thxough, I think; quite
11 an extensive study out there to determine how the wall
12 was built. So [ would say that both the correction --
13 this correction dated 12-15 and the subsequent one
14 dared-- Ithink it was12-22, have been met. The
15 intent of those corrections have been met by what was
16 shown on the overheads and by the engineering report.
17 MR. DUFf ON: And one other question. Pm not
18 an expert in this area by any stretch of the
19 imagination. What is the difference between grout and
20 mortar and why do you use one varsus the other with
21 regards to a block wail?
22 MR. MAKSHANOFF: Well, first of all, as
23 Mr. Georgiou referred to, the plan that we handed out at
24 the counter, let me fixst state that when we talk about
25 minlm~tm code, we have actually exceeded minimum code
Page27
1 expense any research requited by the board." So ff we
2 requited you to go out and get an independent structural
3 engineer's report, ave you willing to do that?
4 MR. GEORGIOU: Well, first, Mr. Durton, as we
5 state --
6 MR. DUTYON: Well, Pm just asking you a ftmple
7 question. Would you be willing to do that to resolve
8 this?
9 MR. GEORGIOU: It's not my rasponsib'dity to do
10 that, si~. We base our appeal largely on this
11 provision; that is the provision that we have the right
12 based on the code to appeal on nontechnical grounds, and
13 this appeal here is a nontechnical ground.
14 MR. DUTTON: I undemtand thaL On the
15 attachment number 5 here -- maybe you can tell me -- it
16 says, "We requited them to remove the bond beum? Do
17 you know how much was actually exposed to determine ff
18 there was a problem?
19 MR. MAKSHANOFF: Typically, when we leave
20 coffeelions like this, in any situation, it's to remove
21 a repetitive sample, whatever it takes, so that we can
22 visually see what the conditions are, and the meeting
23 that took place on December -- I think it was December
24 15th, with Mr. Geurgiou and Citation Homes and Jim
25 Sch~ceder, was to discuss that, and at that time
Page 26
1 because the Uniform Building Code, to begin with, does
2 not even requite a permit for walls 6 feet in heighth or
3 less. The city has amended our local code here to
4 requite that.
5 We have a standard plan. It's been revised
6 over the yeats s'mce incorporation; I~e revised the
7 plan since I~'e been here. But we hand out a standard
8 plan that exceeds the mlnlmlml standards of the Uniform
9 Building Code, because il's our plan that we are handing
10 out, whether il's to homeownem or to contractors to
11 use. ln this case, the permit was issued on aplan
12 submitted by Citation Homes and approved by the building
13 department, and I have copies of that permit that was
14 issued to Citation back in 1994, and thai wall was
15 inspected.
16 The difference between grout and mortar --
17 there 's a definition in the code and that was one of the
18 things that Stamp~ addressed in his report. The
19 difference between mortar and grout, as to whether or
20 not the mixture was used, met, again, the definition in
21 the code, and it did, and that was the other purpose for
22 having ESGIL review it.
23 I wanted to have an independent review to make
24 sure that those minimum requirements, with respect to
25 grout and mortar, also met the minimum requirements of
Page 28
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
8 (Pages 29 to
I the code, and this mix did meet that. I would say, for 1
2 the record, that pea gravel does make a stronger grout, 2
3 but when you go to a fine grout, you generally use more 3
4 cement to make the same kind of strength. 4
5 MR. ALEXANDER: Diane? 5
6 MS. WILLIAMS: No questions. 6
7 MR. BIANE: This question is for you, Bill. 7
8 The UBC code versus the follow-up to Bob's question, I 8
9 guess, have we ever issued corrective notices to say a 9
lO private homeowner that wants to come in and buitd a 10
11 wall, that they didn~ use the fight mix of concrete, or 11
12 to pea gravel to sand, I mean, is it -- 12
13 MR. MAKSHANOFF: You know, I couldn~ honestly 13
14 answer that because I haven~ been in the field to make 14
15 the inspections myself, but ff they use our standard 15
16 plan, then they have to follow the requirments of the 16
17 standard plan for the construction of the wall. 17
18 With respect to this sample down here, that 18
19 paper is in the wrong locafion. They put a grout stop 19
20 and that paper was intended to be a grout stop. These 20
21 walls are not designed to be solld-grouted, so when you 21
22 start putting grout in the cells that contain steel, 22
23 whether it~ the vertical steel or the horizontal steel, 23
24 you don~ want to fig up ail the ceLis in the block 24
25 wall because the foundation is not designed to hold that 25
32)
report ~'om Mr. Stamp~ is that the minimum code
requirements were met, and Mr. Stamp~, who was a
registered civil engineer, stated that although
additional vertical steel would make the wall stiffer,
in his opinion it wasn~ required because the code
requirements were met, and my position is that what we
are trying to do here in the city is attain minimum code
provisions.
I think if I told you that I was going out as a
building official and requiting people to exceed the
code I'd probably be talking to you all the time because
I don't think that's what we are supposed to be doing.
I think minimum code provisions is what we should be
trying to work towards and not what we think would be a
better idea because we would like to see more done out
there.
So Mr. Georgiou has always had the
opportunity -- you know, he makes note in his one letter
here, his one attachment, if he were to provide
information -- he always had the opportunity to provide
any structural report fxom an engineer to substantiate
his position. It would have been reviewed the same way.
I think since l%'e been here, people know that if
something is not done correctly, whether it's by the
developer or the homeowner or whomever, it's going to be
Page 31
1 kind of weighL
2 That paper is, you know -- at least based on
3 the photos that bit. Georgiou has presented in his report
4 and by that block, if, in fact, the horizontal steel,
5 and I have to believe it is in Mxs. Martinez's waft ff
6 the steel was on top of that paper, than it was built
7 incorrectly and that wall was corrected. I think what's
8 important to note here is that that condition was not
9 seen on bit. Gcorgiou's wall, and you know, l~n not
10 debating whether Mrs. Malinez's wall was built
11 correctly. I thlnk it was built incorrectiy and there
12 were corrective measures taken on that wall.
13 I think when you read the full correction
14 notice of the inspectors who were out there on November
15 6th, the first statement in theis report was that it
16 appeared to meet minimum city standards, and then they
17 go on to sey that if you put pilasters in it will
18 stiffen thewall. Ifyouread bit. Stempfl's reporthe
19 also states ff there was more vertical steel hi the wall
20 the vertical steel is what slftfens the wall. So you
21 could put more steel hi there, and you could put more
22 grout in there, and you also could build a bigger
23 foundation because you~e adding more weight, and you'll
24 get a wall that has less flexibility.
25 My point in this process and in review of the
Page 30
1 n:done, and all the available information I have shows
2 that his wall meets minimum budding code standards.
3 MR. ALEXANDER: Even though the argument may be
4 about the permittee or not, was he notified in writing
5 of the --
6 MR. MAKSHANOFF: He was notified in writing in
7 a letter that I sent to him in this attachment to my
8 repefi on November 10~h of 1998 thai I had accepted that
9 report and concluded that his wall met minimum building
11 MR. GEORGIOU: May I say something?
Page32
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
9 (Pages 33 to 36)
I know that, and we'll prove we don't know that.
2 Continuing, "You will recall that in the letter from
3 Mr. Gomez, Dixector of Community Development, dated
4 April 30th, 1998, it also conti'med that the wall in
5 question met the applicable standards at the llme of
6 constnmtion." We want to dispute the statement. This
7 is not correct. The statement that the letter by
8 Mr. Gomez --
9 MR. ALEXANDER: Why is it not correct?
10 MR. GEORGIOU: Because I can quote from it that
11 he disclaims any -- in his letter -- in this letter of
12 Mr. Gomez, Attachment 14 in our report, the second
13 paragraph, last sentence. In that correspondence
14 Mr. Gomez provided simply some documents and this is a
15 key comment.
16 "These sheets are being provided for
17 information only as they are not intended to represent
18 how your wall was built."
19 When we ask for an inspection, we would li~e to
20 know whether the wall would fall. We asked whether the
21 wall was correctly built, "built," this is the key word,
22 but ff you ask Mr. Makshanoff what he meant by that, he
23 may tell you H meant design." Perhaps, this is again a
24 conjecture on my part, but you may ask him toe.
25 MR. MAKSHANOFF: I thinlt we probably ought to
1 MR. CURLEY: Absolutely, Mayor. The other
2 walls are not an issue. There's not evidence before you
3 except anecdotal evidence. So stay on target and go
4 back to your basic Brown Act. The matter before you is
5 identified on the agenda and stay within those
6 parameters.
7 1,Vhile I'm speaking, I want to make sure that
8 the council recollects - I was told by City Attorney
9 Markman that he has advised you that Section 15.08,020,
10 that has been rescinded and superseded when you adopted
11 the latest uniform codes probably, I don't know, six
12 months ago. I just want the council to keep at the
13 forefront this standard is no longer hi place in the
14 city.
15 MR. BIANE: I think, to follow up on that,
16 since 1 think Pve suggested that we have this hearing
17 to accommodate Mr. Georgiou, it was my hopes that we, as
18 tins board, would give him the opportunity to be heard
19 in front of us and make --
20 And what concerns me is that there's this
21 reference of when you were noticed and whether there was
22 a mistake made there or not. Myseff, I~n here to afford
23 you every opportunity to be heard, and we w[fl stick to
24 the evidence, whether the wail is built correctly or not
25 as presented, but I think going into how you were
Page35
1 mad the first paragraph. It slates "that a copy of the
2 building permit for the wall was included, and the
3 permit indicates that final inspection was made on
4 Decamber 14th, 1994. The permit also states under
5 special conditions that the wall was constructed based
6 on the approved plans for Tract 13945 and not per the
7 standard plan used typically by homeowners and masonry
8 contractore for garden walls not exceeding 6 feet in
9 height."
10 The point being, theydidn'tbuilditperoar
11 standard plan. They built it per their standard plan,
12 which we approved.
13 MR. GEORGIOU: Again, that paragraph is simply
14 about permits and design. It does not address the
15 actual construction of the wall. It does not address
16 the fact that that wail could contain paper, just as the
17 wail of Ms. Martinez.
18 MR. ALEXANDER: In many ways Mr. Maninez's
19 wall or Mrs. Martinez's wall, well, it's both, their
20 wall, was rapaired. They're not making the complaint
21 right now. fftheywereheremakingacomplaint,that
22 would be different, but as of this point, so far, no
23 complaint has been received.
24 Mr. CurIcy, is it better to stick to the wall
25 that's in question here?
P~e34
noticed and the c~onolgy of how these notices and
2 letters went back and forth, really isn't important, in
3 my opinion. It's whether the wall was bu~t correctly
4 to code or not, and we should stick to those items.
5 MR. CURATALO: Let me add, this exhibit here
6 and anything related to it would be irrelevant to this
7 hearing.
8 MR. CURLEY: As test[fled, too, it is a piece
9 of a wall from another property, and I guess Ill leave
10 it at that. Whatever suggestions of similar
11 circumstanc~ you glean from it is pure speculation, and
12 it really isnh~ pan of the hearing of the wall for
13 whatever the proper address is.
14 MR. ALEXANDER: All right. Okay.
15 MR. GEORGIOU: The chronology is very important
16 to us, and furthermore, the law makes it a point that we
17 should be informed in writing and in a specific way. If
18 the council doesn't want to place any weight with the
19 law or ordinance than that's your fight; however,
20 chxonology is very important to us and it was important
21 enough for those who drafted the law and those who
22 ordered for the law.
23 MR. ALEXANDER: Thank you, Mr. Georgiou. Is
24 anybody going to be heard on this particular matter?
25 MR. MAKSHANOFF: Citation Homes is.
Page 36
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
10 (Pages 37 to 40)
1 MR. GEORGIOU: I would like to thank you for
2 affording me the opportunity to hear my appeal.
3 MR. ALEXANDER: Okay. Thank you. Citation, l
4 guess we're going to need to get you up here by the
5 recorder.
6 MR. ISOLDA: Greetings, Mr. Mayor, and members
7 of the city council, my name is AI Isolda. I~n the
8 Citation Homes vice president of construction. l~,e
9 been involved in this issue from the get-go, if you
10 will. Pm all in favor of isolating the issue towards
11 Mr. Georgiou's wall. However, I'd like to at least make
12 a little reference to the Martinez wall because that's
13 what brought us across the street.
14 To our knowledge there was no evidence of any
15 defect in her wall. She was having some work done by a
16 local mason contractor, noticed movement in the wall,
17 contacted us, we went out, we looked at it. The
18 movement did not excite us at all. When we went into an
19 investigation we found the paper, which Mr. Makshanoff
20 has indicated stops the grout from going all the way to
21 the foundation. The paper was installed improperly.
22 That's not uncommon to have paper versus another form of
23 mesh that stops the grout from going in there. It was
24 not installed properly. We corrected that,
25 in that investigation there was some concern
P~g37
I point. These homes - I might not be correct on the
2 close of escrow, but I believe Mr. Georgiou closed his
3 home in 1994 and we are in the year 2000. We haven~
4 seen a problem, don~ know of a problem. The wall
5 doesn~ do anything but sit them. lfthiswaHis
6 going to have some movement, it's not uncommon for a
7 masonry wall to have some movement. That's kind of the
8 basis of the facts.
9 1 think it's also important to understand, very
10 basic, that the horizontal member that was in question,
11 has nothing to do with the stability, of this wall
12 moving back and forth. It's in the vertical steel, and
13 it has been determined that the vertical steel was, in
14 fact, per code at the time for approved plans. That's
15 what was hi there.
16 I told Mr. Makshanoff that we would hire a
17 structural engineer to investigate the wall. I
18 contacted Mr. Stampft. He's done some work for ~ in
19 the past. I asked him if he would be in a position to
20 do this. He said he would. He went out them, and you
21 saw in the mpon all the information that was
22 necessary, and that's the report we submitted.
23 I told the building department that if they
24 found anything in that report, either through the report
25 itseft or analyzing the report, that, again, showed us
Page 39
1 that Mx. Goergiou -- he was them during our presence of
2 examining this wall, thought he might have the same
3 pwblem, so therein lies the permission to go across the
4 street.
5 We exposed 5 feet or so of horizontal pond beam
6 to find out if we had the same condition. It was always
7 our intent that if we had the same condition, we would
8 correa it, period. That was the end of it. We would
9 do that. We exposed the wall and found that the
10 condition was not as Mr. Marlinez's wall was. It was,
11 in fact,okay, as far as we could tell.
12 You understand this wall is approximately 75
13 feet long, 5-foot-6 or so in height, and we exposed 5
14 feel It was what we wem told to do to mpmseat where
15 we stood with this parlicular wall. Based on that
16 pardcular invns~gation, Iinformed Mr. Makshanoffand
17 the building inspectors that if them was anything that
18 they found in that wall that needed to be corrected, or
19 if that wati needed to be Wm down and reinstailed,
20 that we would do that, but only if there was a problem.
21 We built that wall with approved plans,
22 appmved specs at the time with the intent of giving
23 them a sound wall. I think it's really important to
24 understand that them was no evidence of any wall
25 failure, period, and I don ~ know that there was at this
P~c38
1 that we had not consh-ucted this wall properly, we would
2 do whatever it took to take collective action, period.
3 We never, never had a problem with that,
4 MR. ALEXANDER: If a registered civil engineer
5 makes a statement and does what you're indicating --
6 using his issued number, falsely indicating the math of
7 a report, what happens to that person?
8 MR. ISOLDA: Pm not quite sure, but I think
9 his license in jeopardy.
10 MR. MAKSHANOFF: 1 receive quarterly reports
11 fi'om the Board of Professional Engineers and Land
12 Surveyors and they take -- depending on the violation,
13 they take action anywhere from suspension to revocation,
14 and I get those repo~s on a quarterly basis.
15 MR. ALEXANDER: Wouldn~ that be very serious,
16 I would think?
17 MR. ISOLDA: Absolutely.
18 MR. MAKSHANOFF: Yes, absolutely.
19 MR. ISOLDA: It was the reason -- and I'm not
20 an expert in this field, l~,e been in consreaction for
21 quite a while -- but it was the reason I asked Mr. Bill
22 Stampfi, "Would you be interested in doing this?"
23 Because there was going to be a lot of questions because
24 we were not going to expose this entire wall. I mean,
25 ifwehaddonethat,wemightaswelljusttearitdown.
Page 40
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
11 (Pages 41 to 44)
MR. MAKSHANOFF: I would not have accepted that
2 report ff he did not have the proper credentials for it.
3 MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Curley, even though he is
4 not the person testifying, may I ask the person
5 appealing this a question? Is that all right to do
6 that?
7 MR. CURLEy: We are in a very informal setting
8 here and as long as you allow the opportunity to --
9 MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Georgiou, may I ask you a
10 question?
11 MR. GEORGIOU: Absolutely.
12 MR. ALEXANDER: Are you indicating that you
13 believe that the registered civil engineer falsely
14 indicated that your wall was built to an appropriate
15 standard?
16 MR. GEORGIOU: Absolutely not. The engineer
17 never said that he was certain there was no violations
lg inthewall. He never said that. He never said that.
19 MR. ALEXANDER: He indicated that, in his
20 opinion, it was built correctly as to the code, the UBC.
21 MR. GEORGIOU: There are other questions as to
22 why it would be a different standard for the city to
23 provide to regular homeowners other standards, but to
24 answer your question, the engineer never stated ha the
25 report that the wall had code violations.
Page 41
1 that was in violation, we would still go om there and
2 take care of whatever we needed to take care of. It has
3 yet to be proven by anybody.
4 We have just completed two additional projects
5 within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We plan to be
6 around in this area forever. We have a reputation to
7 withstand, but no one has ever shown us or proven to us
8 that we have built or constructed anything in violation
9 to the code or approved plans that weren~ binding us to
10 the permit at the time they were issued.
11 MR. ALEXANDER: Okay. Questions? Thank you.
12 MR. MAKSHANOFF: I have a couple comments
13 fltst. In reference to this shon wall that
14 ML Georgiou has referenced and ML Isolda has
15 referenced, when we made that inspection out there, what
16 we did or what I did is l tapped on the wa!l with a
17 hammer to try and determine if there was any hollow
18 sounds. When there should have been steel, it should
19 have been a solid sound. All you could -- the only
20 conclusion you could come to is it appeared that the
21 wall wasn't properly grounded, and I think you read that
22 in my letter that I sent to Mx. Georginu dated September
23 241h in 98, which Mr. Georgiou referenced. I stated in
24 there that it could only be verified by removing a
25 portion of the wall, and at the time Citation did
Page 43
1 MR. ALEXANDER: I see what youYe saying.
2 Thank you.
3 MR. ISOLDA: hi reference to the small wall,
4 short wall that Mr. Georgiou made reference to that
5 might be in violation or not built to code, we did as
6 best of an investigation as we could, with
7 Mr. Makshanoff present, tapping on the wall with a
8 hammer to determine if grout was present or not. That
9 wall has movement to it.
10 At that point in time, whether it was built
11 correc~y or not, we agreed to repair that wall. This
12 wall is less than 10 feet and has a gate attached to it.
13 My recollection is Mr. Georgiou would not let us touch
14 that wall unless we agreed to take action on the long
15 wall, and that stopped any action at all on the short
16 wall.
17 Since that last meeting, and my recollection of
18 the last time we kind of all got together, Mr. Georgiou
19 has opened up a Web page and has shown photographs of
20 not his wall but Mrs. Mardnez's wall and the violation
21 paper, slandering Citation, as far as we are concerned.
22 Whether that took place, we just felt at that point in
23 time we could not comply with any of the conditions that
24 were being requested. I%'e always had an open dialogue
25 with Mr. Makshanoff, that had the city found anything
Page 42
1 indicate that if the wall was not built properly, they
2 wouM have taken ca~ of it.
3 Mr. Goergiou indicated that he did not want any
4 additional work done. So that wall still -- that little
5 short section of wail which is adjacent to his garage is
6 stffi the way today, the way it was back then, two years
7 ago.
8 MS. WII.IJAMS: "The way" meaning it was still
9 exposed.
10 MR. MAKSHANOFF: That wall, there's nothing
11 exposed there. The only way we eould detennlne if it
12 wasn't bulit properly would be to take a couple of
13 counes off and see if the cells were grouted properly.
14 MR. ALEXANDER: And the civil engineer never
15 indicated that that wall section was -
]6 MR. MAKSHANOFF: He was never asked to look at
17 that section of the waiL The other thing l want to
18 make reference to with respect to the engineerIs report,
19 I sent that report to ESGIL to have them take a look at
20 it. The gentleman who responded is not only a hcensed
21 civil engineer, he is a licensed structural engineer and
22 I sent that report to them to have an independent review
23 of the report, again, only to look a~ the engineering,
24 not how it was constructed. That was something that
25 their engineer did. I~'e been out there, Rick's been
Page 44
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
12 (Pages 45 to 48)
1 outthere, a number of us have been out there to look at
2 the wall. The conclusion was that the wall meets
3 B3inimum building code standards.
4 MR. CURATALO: In reference to the short wail,
5 10-foot wall, in view that there is no evidence that
6 that wall was not built properly, you have to assume
7 right now, as it stands, with Mr. Georgiou's failure to
8 give you inspection rights, that it's built correctly?
9 MR. MAKSHANOFF: I guess you'd have to say
10 that, yeah. I mean, my own impression of that wail is
11 that based on what we did that day the sound testing is
12 that it appears as though the minfoming steel, where
13 it should be, is not grouted properly, but you can only
14 verify that by removing some blocks and to do that or to
15 get a metal detector - well, a metal detector would
16 only determine the location. You have to actually
17 expose the wall to see whether it's been grouted
18 properly.
19 MR. CURATALO: So in the absence of further
20 investigation --
21 MR. MAKSHANOFF: I can't go any Innher.
22 MR. CURATALO: You can't go any further. You
23 have to assume it's been built correctly?
24 MR. MAKSHANOFF: Without his permission, 1
25 can't perform the destructive testing.
Page45
1 meets -- the long wall meets minimum Uniform Building
2 Code mquixements. With respect to the short wail,
3 which is something that we locked at in September of
4 1998, almost a year after the original investigation,
5 it's a short wall that's adjacent to Ms garage with a
6 gate attached.
7 It appeased when we made that inspection when I
8 was them that the cells that should have verticai steel
9 in them, based on sound testing, were not grouted. They
10 sounded hollow, but the only way you can verify that
11 would be to remove some of the top course to determine
12 whether or not those cells have been properly grouted.
13 That has never been done.
14 Citstion indicated -- they were present that
15 day -- they indicated a willlnguess to do that and to
16 repair the wall if necessary, but Mr. Georgiou did not
17 give that permission. There was only to do that short
18 wall because the long wall had akeady been addressed in
19 this engineering report.
20 MS. WILLIAMS: And there was no hollow sounds
21 found in the long wall?
22 MR. MAKSHANOFF: According to our inspection
23 and based on the engineering report, that wall is built
24 properly. All the cells that are required to be grouted
25 are grouted.
Page 47
1 MR. GEORGIOU: He has my permission. He has
2 always had it. I invited him to perform the test on the
3 other wall the same day he did the rest there. It is
4 false m say that.
5 MR. ALEXANDER: Did you memorialize that, get
6 something in writing?
7 MR. GEORGIOU: What part of that, sir?
8 MR. ALEXANDER: I understood that was a problem
9 royserf.
10 MR. GEORGIOU: This is totally false.
11 Absolutely false. We invite him any time to come them.
12 We invite him to inspect the other wall.
13 MR. ALEXANDER: What other wall?
14 MR. GEORGIOU: The other part of the wall
15 MR. ALEXANDER: Which other wall? The short
16 wall?
17 MR. GEORGIOU: The short wall.
18 MS. WI~S: The long wall is what we are
19 here for. Ate we here for both walLs? And ifwe am
20 then that's not what we have been seeing.
21 MR. MAKSHANOFF: The long wall ia reference to
22 this report.
23 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay.
24 MR. MAKSHANOFF: And on the basis of this
25 report, I~ stating that it~ my opinion that the wall
Page 46
1 MR. GEORGIOU: I can't believe what I'm
2 hearing. Now l~m hearing false statements and I need to
3 correct them.
4 MR. ALEXANDER: Okay. After we get the
5 gentlemen from Citation, well get to you, okay.
6 MR. ISOLDA: It would be nice to have a diagram
7 showing the relationships of the wails. I'm afraid that
8 that's what's taking place, to be able to identify the
9 location of these walls. It'skindofanissue. I
10 think it's real important to understand that the wail
11 heights am approximately 5-foot, 5-loci-6. The short
12 wall that we are referring to, the movement potion, is
13 approximately 2 feet long with the gate and another
14 sectlonof2feetofwall, and it's i~nportantm kindof
15 understand the relationship of --
16 MS. WILLIAMS: Now, I understand.
17 MR. MAKSHANOFF: The short wail in question is
18 back here.
19 MS. WILLIAMS: Okay. We have a photograph
20 here. So it literally is a short wall, it's not a
21 portion of the wail. It's actoaily an independent wall.
22 MR. ISOLDA: It's an independent wMI in its
23 own location. It's a portion.
24 MS. WILLIAMS: And the other side is how long?
25 MR. ISOLDA: No, it's just a couple of feet.
Page 48
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
13 (Pages 49 to 52)
1 MR. MAKSHANOFF: Let me see if I can see that.
2 At this comer right here, the block wail returns back
3 along paragel to the driveway, and then back in here
4 that's a short wall. There's a gate, and then there's
5 the short wall in question returns back to the garage.
6 MS. WILLIAMS: About, approximately how long is
7 the short wall in question?
8 MR. MAKSHANOFF: Maybe 3 feet.
9 MS. WILLIAMS: So it's a 2-fern wall. There's
10 a gate?
11 MR. MAKSHANOFF: And then there's another
12 3-f~ot masom7 section.
13 MR. ISOLDA: The portion that was in question
14 at the time was that short portion of 3 feet.
15 MS. WILLIAMS: So that's actually three
16 individual walls?
17 MR. ISOLDA: Yes, and to come back f~il circle,
18 it was the long wall that was in question.
19 MS. WILLJAMS: Pm sony to be confused.
20 MR. ALEXANDER: Mr. Georginu, would you like to
21 come back.
22 MR. GEORGIOU: It is false to say that we
23 denied permission to the building official to remove
24 blocks from the smailportionofourwall. Hewas
25 always welcome tu do that. He's walcome to do it now if
Page49
1 Before we close, Mr. Georgiou, do you want to
2 add anything else? That you, in your letter, did not
3 indicate that you were not going along with the access
4 to the -- or that you had okayed access to the short
5 wall, nor do I recall seeing anything in the copious
6 amount of papenvork that you provided that there was,
7 you know, the desire on your part, and your refusal to
8 allow us to go in there.
9 MR. GEORGIOU: This is false, six. This is
10 false.
11 MR. CURLEY: Mr. Mayor, ffl might, the subject
12 matter of the appeal was the report and the decision on
13 the long wall.
14 MR. ALEXANDER: I understand that, but I know
15 where he is coming from. I'djustliketoknowifthere
16 was a refusal or not a refusal.
17 MR. GEORGIOU: Six, catagofically we stated
18 here we never refused any inspection by the building
19 official or any agent of the city. For the long wall,
20 we are begging him to enforce the antreckon.
21 MR. ALEXANDER: I just wanted to ask about the
22 short wall.
23 MR. MAKSHANOFF: With respect to the short
24 wa]]--
25 MR. CURLEY: Were you finished on that?
Page 51
i he wishes to. We wouM like to see if correction
2 notices were made to remove more things, to see what
3 else is going to be exposed. Butwhatwedidn~agree
4 with is Citation rebuilding the small section and
5 ignoring the long wall. This is the only pan we didn't
6 agree to, but we never dediad access tu, for inspection
7 purposes, for out walls.
8 MR. ALEXANDER: Does anybody else want to
9 testify or give any information? The ladies who have
10 come here, would you like to?
11 UNIDENTIIqED SPFd~KER: We have just come here
12 just to observe.
13 MR. ALEXANDER: Just to observe? Is there
14 anything that you can add?
15 UNIDENTIIqED SPEAKER: No, not at this time.
16 MR. ALEXANDER: ls there anyone else that would
17 like to provide any more information? Mx. Curicy, would
18 the information we have, and no one else warning to get
19 up do it now?
20 MR. CURLEy: It would be appropriate, if it's
21 your pleasure, to close the hearing, deliberate as you
22 will, or continue it for your deliberation.
23 MR. ALEXANDER: Okay. No one else wishes to
24 get up at this time? Does anyone want to talk to any of
25 the staffthat'shere? No? Okay. Thank you.
Page 50
1 MR. GEORGIOU: Yes, he is welcome, even now, to
2 come and tear down the small wall to see what's going on
3 inside.
4 MR. ALEXANDER: That's good. That's the answer
5 to my question.
6 MR. MAKSHANOFF: With respect to the short
7 wall, as my letter states and what he was told out in
8 the field that day, it appears as though that short wall
9 was not built correctly. Citation Homes was present and
10 they indicated a willingness, at that point, to
11 reconstruct that short wail. There's no need to do any
12 more destructive removal. They~e willing to -- they~,e
13 already come to the conclusion that there's a problem.
14 They~l redo il. They were not given the pen'nission to
15 redo that short wall. With respect -- and my
16 understanding isbecause Mr. Georgiou did not want to
17 address the short wail. He still was contending that
18 the long wall was not built properly, and it was my
19 decision that il was.
20 MR. ALEXANDER: Okay. I understand that pan
21 of il, and maybe I'm wrong, but if that short wall --
22 and here's the reason I was asking, if the short wall
23 had been changed anymorn it might have even provided a
24 little more degree of stability to the other wall.
25 MR. MAKSHANOFF: No. It's isolated.
Page 52
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
14 (Pages 53 to 56)
1 MR. DUTYON: So my understanding is,
2 Mr. Georgiou, that they%,e already agreed to do the
3 short wall, but you don't want them to do anything with
4 the short wall unless they do the long wall too.
5 MR. GEORGIOU: That's correct, but invited the
6 building official at the time to do the destructive
7 testing on the short wall.
8 MR. DLrrrON: But they%'e already agreed they'd
9 rebuild that.
10 MR. GEORGIOU: Yes.
11 MR. DUTrON: There wasn't any mason to inspect
12 it -- l just want to make sure. The reason you didn't
13 want them to fix the short wall is bexause you wanted
14 them to do everything or nothing.
15 MR. GEORGIOU: Yes, but the building official
] 6 should be curious to see how builders build in the city,
17 and this is a legitimate issue here. There was a
18 problem. He should come out and perform a destructive
19 testto see what's going on. lasked him that day "Why
20 don~ you perform the same test for the long wall?" He
21 thdn~ want to touch iL
22 MR. DUTTON: Well, that's because they%'e
23 already agreed to fix it.
24 MR. GEORGIOU: The longer wall, he didn't want
25 to touch the longer wall.
Page 53
24 inthe city, lthinkyouhadafealingofwhatwasgoing
Page 55
1 MR. AI ,EXANDER: Okay. Thank you. AH righL
2 ff there's nobody else that wishes to testify now then
3 the public meeting is closed. Thank you.
4 (Executive Seasion.)
5 MR. AI.EXANDER: I also be~eve there's probably
6 something wrong with the short section of wall, but that
7 was not what was appealed. You appealed the long
8 section of the wall.
9 Okay. We are going ~ go through this now.
10 The key issue for this, really, to me, is the fact that
11 we have had a registered engineer, civil engineer go out
12 there, and the report, actually, I think; was followed
13 up with the review in some form or fashion by a
14 registered civil and stnactoral engineer, and there
15 seems to be the indication that although the wall may
16 move, that movement does not indicate an improper
17 installation.
18 To me, it is a very serious thing to go out
19 there and then sign off. With a signature, with your
20 registration number, you're putting your life, you know,
21 income on the llne by doing such a thing. So I don't
22 think that a person would want ,D do that. There seems
23 to be coopemtlon on the part of the original developer
24 to assist in providing any additional repairs to the
25 short section that you had there, and you simply wanted
Page 54
1 MR. GEORGIOU: No.
2 MR. ALEXANDER: No? Okay. Then nobody else
3 came up and no people or neighbors wanted -- I ~n
4 assuming here but there~ no either corroboration or
5 enunciation of what you~ saying. So if nobody will
6 come up, you cant get any information from folks who
7 were here, and I kind of wish they would have, but they
8 didn~.
9 I don't particularly think that there is a way
10 ofsustainingyourappealbecauseyousimplyhavenot
11 shown that the wall in question was not built to the
12 minimumstandardsofthebuildingcode.
13 MR. GEORGIOU: We didn~ appeal that.
14 MR. ALEXANDER: I don't know that there is
15 anything else appealable.
16 MR. GEORGIOU: But --
17 MR. CURLEy: Six, the audience part is over.
18 This is for the council. My understanding of the Code
19 is -- again this is through just conference with
20 Mr. Markman. I haven't put this in writing and I
21 certainly want to double-check ix. My understaning is
22 that the appeal process has lapsed and the section
23 reference no longer exists in the code. Perhaps it'
24 physically is there still in some of the older books,
25 butitisoffthebooks, and this was sort of an adhoc
Page 56
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
15 (Pages 57 to 60)
1 opportunity provided to give a forum to the issues, but
2 giventherunningofthetime, ifyouwill, thereisno
3 formal appeal process that I ~m aware of that could be
4 mandatorially --
5 MR. ALEXANDER: I think they granted the
6 appeal, did they not, Jack?
7 MR. LAM: The council said they would hear the
8 case as a courtesy to Mr. Georgiou just to get the
9 issues on the table, and also Mr. Georgiou would also
10 have the opportunity to go to the building appeals board
11 too, and that was something he did not want to do.
12 I believe Mr. Georgiou contended that had the
13 building appeals board been constituted under the old
14 code it would be five members instead of ti~ee members.
15 Curxen~y, it's three members. Mr. Georgiou had the
16 opporttmity for the council to hear the appeal and make
17 ajudgmentonthat.
18 MS. WILLIAMS: I have a question, Mr. CurIcy.
19 What are the options, what can we come to, because if we
20 are not to be acting in judgment of whether or not we
21 agree and uphold the report from the engineer that the
22 wall meets standards, that's not what's being appealed.
23 What me our options for us to grant? Can we grant
24 another letter?
25 MR. CURLEY: Well, probably the best way to
P~e57
1 engineer, although paid for by Citation that did verify
2 that ever3alfing was okay. We also have the building
3 official who then forwarded on to another engineer to
4 validam the tindines of the structttral engineer hired
5 by Citation.
6 l%'e seen nothing to counter that. So frankly,
7 I have to put a lot weight onto the strutaural report
8 and the verification that we do have. Citation is
9 willing to make the repairs for the damage that was done
10 to the wall for the inspections. They're also willing
11 to take caro of the other wall, too, and so frankly, l
12 don~ see any reason why I should overturn or I should
13 vote in favor of overturning Mr. Makshanoffs decision
14 with regards to this issue, and that's where my position
15 is and the reason why.
16 MR. AI.I:.XANDER: Jim?
17 MR. CURATALO: What they presented to me, is
18 that it seems the minimum standards have been
19 maintained, so I have no other way to go but to deny the
20 appeal.
21 MR. BIANE: Well, again, as I stated, I think;
22 before, and I%'e heard here again, is that l~m not a
23 structural engineer and I could only try to base my
24 decision on what I think is fight based on the evidence
25 that I~,e heard.
Page 59
1 characterize where your conclusion would be, would be to
2 call it an advisory opinion. Where there's no protocol
3 there's no code to look at and say for this setting you
4 are doing a particular procedure. You've extended the
5 oppommity to hear the matter and come to some
6 conclusion. If your conclusion, whatever it may be, ff
7 your conclusion is that something else needs to be done
8 and you set it forth in that matter and it is not done,
9 it is not clear that there would be any clear
10 enforcement to this action. Just hypothetically, you
11 say to Citation, "We direct you to do something," and
12 they elect not to, there is nothing our office could
13 tell you that says now you have a binding and
14 enforceablerighttosay,"Undertheforceofourcodes,
15 you must do something, andwe can compel you to do it."
16 So it's a sense that it's probably best
17 categorizcd as an advisory conclusion in light of the
18 issues that you heard.
19 MR, DUTFON: That's -- okay. For the purpose
20 of these comments, I'll pretend that it's April 19th,
21 1999. The way 1 understand this we are looking at
22 making a decision regarding the building official's
23 decision that was made regarding this block wall. So
24 far, the only thing I see that we have, we have a
25 sh'uctural report that was done by an independent
Page 58
1 In relationship to the long wall, the evidence
2 presented by Citation Homes and documentation by the
3 staff report, l%'e not seen anything that would indicate
4 to me that there was any violation of the building code
5 orthatthere'sanunsafeconditionthere. lwouldgo
6 onto say that, again, thls isgoing alitlle offof
7 what 1 think the appeal is about, but I still would feel
8 strongly that ff the offer was made at one point in time
9 forCitationtorepairthesmallpefionofthewall, l
10 would like that included in our decision tonight, and
11 that we recommend that be repalxed still, at this point
12 in time.
13 MS. WILLIAMS: I think that is what I would
14 recommend too, that was the recommendation we include.
15 Whether Mr. Georgiou chooses m except it is up to him,
16 but l would recommend that.
17 MR. CURATALO: Diane, I have a question on
18 that. Would be that included in this appeal?
19 MS. W1LL/AMS: No, not in this appeal, but
20 since all we can do is an advisory anyway, maybe add
21 an addendure somewhere, that I feel that it needs to be
22 memorialized somewhere in writing that Citation has
23 offered to repair the short wall because that has been
24 identified as having been a problem.
25 My question came about more with the walls
Page 60
Esquire Deposition Services ' 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
16 (Pages 61 to 64)
because, by inference, if the short wall is defective
2 and that has been identified, it sort of leads to almost
3 an inference that then, indeed, the long wall must also
4 be defective, but then the engineering report, to me,
5 substantiates the fact that it has not been identified,
6 it is not defective, and I know that is not the appeal,
7 but since that has been used as part of the inference I
8 want to make sure and -- I want to make sure lhat's
9 separated out. My guess would be that Citation would
10 still uphold that offer, but that would be my suggestion
11 is to add it like an addendure but not part of the
12 appeal.
13 MR. ALEXANDER: Okay. One last question to
14 Mr. Curley. On the speci~cwordingofthe appeal, is
15 there anything that you or anything you're aware of that
16 Mr. Markman would say that would not allow us or should
17 cause us to nullify the decision ofMr. Makshanoffin
18 accepting that structural report? Is there anything
19 else? l mean, it seems llke the intent of finding if
20 the wall was safe or not safe that the building official
21 was after, but it also feels -- appears that the actual
22 wording of the appeal is to nullify the decision to
23 accept that report, correct? Correct, yes or no?
24 MR. GEORGIOU: Correct.
25 MR. ALEXANDER: Okay.
Page 61
1 MR. ALEXANDER: That would be good wording.
2 All right. Let's do a motion (Unintelligible.)
3 MR. CURATALO: I move to that effect.
4 MR. ALEXANDER: Motion seconded. Is there any
5 objection?
6 And since we do have people here tonight, item
7 C is the commuincations from the public. This is the
8 time and place for the general public to address the
9 council. State law prohibits the council from
10 addressing any issue not previously included on the
11 agenda. The council may receive testimony and set the
12 mattor for a subsequent meeting. Is there anyone else
13 here tonight that would like to address the Council on
14 any other item?
15 MR. GEORGIOU: Can I address something?
16 MR. ALEXANDER: Certainly.
17 MR. GEORGIOU: Well, you made your decision,
18 whatever it was, but we would like your decision to
19 claxify it was -- whether you are sitting as the board
20 of appeals or as a com'~esy hearing, as the attorney
21 characterized it. We would like some clarification to
22 know what we artended.
23 MR. CURLEY: The resolution will specify your
24 capacity as City Council and not as the appeals board.
25 MR. At-~XANDER: All right. Thank you. All
Page 63
1 MR. CURLEy: Well, it would be all-inclusive 1
2 and since that you support the building official -- 2
3 MR. ALEXANDER: I do. 3
4 MR. CURLEY: And if that is your inclination, 4
5 you could phrase it to support the building official, to 5
6 accept and rely upon the report and further support its 6
7 conclusion that the wall was properly constructed. We 7
8 will craft the right language. The resolution will 8
9 follow, but if youqA give us the gist of your 9
10 findings- 10
11 MR. ALEXANDER: Does that wording - is there 11
12 any objections to the wording? Nowthen, before we add 12
13 it, is it appropriate for the appeals board, I mean, to 13
14 craft in the resolution anything that's not included in 14
15 the complaint? 15
16 MR. CURLEY: Weil, you~e not sitting as the 16
17 appeals board. In our summation your're sitting as the 17
18 Council extending a courtesy hearing given that you can 18
19 respond in a way that you believe reflects the issues 19
20 you~e heard. So if you want to uphold the acceptance 20
21 of the report, uphold the building official's decision, 21
22 and recommend that the parties renew their efforts to 22
23 repair the short wall upon the terms they have 23
24 previously discussed, there's nothing inappropriate to 24
25 that. 25
Page 62
fight. ffthere's no objection to the adjournment we
are adjourned.
///
Page 64
Esquire Deposition Services 714,834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
17(Page 65)
1
2
3
4 l, the undersigned, a Certified Shorthand
5 Reporter of the State of CaLifornia, do hereby certify:
6 That the foregoing proceedings were taken
7 before me at the time and place herein set forth; that a
8 verbatim record of the proceedings was made by me using
9 machine shorlhand which was thereafter transcribed under
10 my direction; further, that the foregoing is an accurate
11 transcription thereof.
12 I further certify that I am neither financially
13 interested in the action nor a relative or employee of
14 any of the parties.
15 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have this date subscribed
16 my name.
17
18 Dated:
19
20
21
IENNIFER D. BARKER
CSR No. 12168
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
A
ability 9:9
able 48:8
about 11:4
18:25 19:9
27:24 32:4
34:14 49:6
51:21 60:7,25
above22:16
absence 45:19
absolutely 35:1
40:17,18
41:11,16
46:11
accept 10:12
15:22 16:1
17:10 19:4
20:17 24:1
61:23 62:6
acceptance
62~20
accepted 15:20
18:3 20:14
21:17 32:8,12
41:1
accepting 24:23
61:18
access 50:6 51:3
51:4
accommodate
35:17
according 14:23
21:16 47:22
accurate 65:10
across 37:13
38:3
Act 35:4
acting 57:20
action 8:2 40:2
40:13 42:14
42:15 58:10
65:13
actual21:9
34:15 61:21
actually 24:9
25:17 26:17
27:25 45:16
48:21 49:15
54:12 55:4,7
od 56:25
ADAMS 3:6
add 36:5 50:14
51:2 60:20
61:11 62:12
addendum
60:21 61:11
adding 30:23
addition 8:24
Page 66
27:8 al 3:11 37:7 48:13 49:11
additional7:22 ALEXANDER 55:11 57:24
31:4 43:4 44:4 3:4 4:5,10 5:3 59:3
54:24 5:9 9:22 10:4 answer 9:20
address 15:15 10:7 12:4,8,11 17:3 19:20
15:17 34:14 12:25 13:3,8 25:6,14 29:14
34:15 36:13 13:11 15:4,13 41:24 52:4
52:17 63:8,13 17:12,16,20 answers 18:11
63:15 17:25 18:15 20:2
addressed 8:10 18:17 21:2,6 anybody 17:2
20:1 28:18 21:20 22:2,7 25:7,10 36:24
47:18 22:10 23:13 43:3 50:8
addresses 13:23 25:7 29:5 32:3 anymore 52:23
14:3 33:9 34:18 anyone 50:16,24
addressing 36:14,23 37:3 63:12
63:10 40:4,15 41:3,9 anything 13:14
adequate 7:14 41:12,19 42:1 24:14 36:6
adequately 8:10 43:11 44:14 38:17 39:5,24
adjacent 20:4 46:5,8,13,15 42:25 43:8
44:5 47:5 48:4 49:20 50:14 51:2,5
adjourned 64:2 50:8,13,16,23 53:3 56:15
adjournment 51:14,21 52:4 60:3 61:15,15
64:1 52:20 54:1,5 61:18 62:14
Administrative 55:10,15 56:2 anyway 60:20
23:7 56:14 57:5 anywhere 40:13
adopted 35:10 59:16 61:13 apparent 7:5
55:4 61:25 62:3,11 apparently 17:4
advised 35:9 63:1,4,16,25 appeal 4:24
advisory 58:2 allegiance 4:8 5:11 9:18
58:17 60:20 Allen 4:20 10:11 11:2
affected 23:15 allow 41:8 51:8 19:12 20:20
23:23,24 61:16 20:21 21:16
afford 35:22 allows 22:23 21:19 23:2
affording37:2 all-inclusive 25:13,22
afraid 48:7 62:1 26:10,12,13
after6:13 11:22 almost47:4 37:2 51:12
14:15,20 15:9 61:2 56:10,13,22
17:10 20:8,14 along 6:6 49:3 57:3,6,16
47:4 48:4 51:3 59:20 60:7,18
61:21 already 18:3 60:19 61:6,12
again 9:17 21:2 47:18 52:13 61:14,22
23:19 28:20 53:2,8,23 appealable
33:23 34:13 although 31:3 56:15
39:25 44:23 54:15 59:1 appealed 54:7,7
56:19 59:21 always 31:17,20 57:22
59:22 60:6 38:6 42:24 appealing 25:24
agenda 35:5 46:2 49:25 41:5
63:11 amended 28:3 appeals 1:12:4
agent51:19 amount7:24 22:18,21,23
agents 18:9 14:12,14 51:6 23:4 57:10,13
ago 35:12 44:7 analysis 7:17 62:13,17
agree 50:3,6 8:22 63:20,24
55:20 57:21 analyzing 39:25 appearance 7:4
agreed 14:11,16 and/or 7:20 APPEARAN...
42:11,14 53:2 anecdotal 35:3 3:1
53:8,23 another 14:20 appeared 5:24
ahead 11:21 14:25 16:5 30:16 43:20
14:9 36:9 37:22 47:7
appears 11:13
45:12 52:8
61:21
applicable
32:22,24 33:5
appropriate
41:14 50:20
62:13
approval 8:19
8:24 9:12
approved 8:3
28:12 34:6,12
38:21,22
39:14 43:9
approximately
14:20 38:12
48:11,13 49:6
April 19:3,8,15
20:19 33:4
58:20
area 27:18 43:6
argued 16:2
argument 32:3
around 43:6
ascertain 24:7
asked 8:16
16:23 33:20
39:19 40:21
44:16 53:19
asking 13:18
18:13,24
19:12,22
22:19 26:6
52:22
assertion 9:6
assist 54:24
assume 45:6,23
assuming 56:4
attached 8:8
42:12 47:6
attachment
10:19,25
11:13,18
13:24,24,25
14:14,25
15:25 18:5,13
18:15,23,25
19:8,16,22
21:6,8,9 26:15
31:19 32:7
33:12
attachments
11:6,6
attain 31:7
attendance 19:2
attended 63:22
attorney 3:5
35:8 63:20
audience 56:17
August 20:1
authority 9:8
authorization
6:13,15
available 32:1
aware 57:3
61:15
away 20:6
B
B4:10
back5:5,15 15:8
25:21 28:14
35:4 36:2
39:12 44:6
48:18 49:2,3,5
49:17,21
bar 12:13
BARKER 1:22
2:15 65:21
bars 15:2
base 23:2 26:10
59:23
based 7:17 9:13
26:12 30:2
34:5 38:15
45:11 47:9,23
59:24
basic 35:4 39:10
basically 14:14
basis 8:7 17:9
22:24,25 39:8
40:14 46:24
beam 14:3,7
26:16 38:5
become 23:9
before I:12:4
2:15 11:6 35:2
35:4 51:1
59:22 62:12
65:7
beggingSl:20
begin 21:25
28:1
beginning 2:13
being33:16
34:10 42:24
57:22
belatedly 22:19
believe 18:19
25:12 30:5
39:2 41:13
48:1 54:5
55:16 57:12
62:19
believed 20:6
believing 18:9
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
19:6
best 42:6 57:25
58:16
better 31:15
32:16 34:24
between 27:19
28:16,19
beyond 8:14
16:8 55:10
BIANE 3:6
15:14 29:7
35:15 59:21
bigger 30:22
bill3:11 18:17
29:7 40:21
binding 43:9
58:13
block6:l,22
11:16 12:12
12:12 16:10
22:5 27:5,8,21
29:24 30:4
49:2 58:23
blocks 7:9 8:21
14:6,18 15:2
45:14 49:24
beard 22:18,21
25:22,25 26:1
35:18 40:11
57:10,13
62:13,17
63:19,24
BOB 3:7
BoWs 29:8
bend 14:3 26:16
38:5
books 56:24,25
both 7:12 13:23
14:1,3 19:13
27:12 34:19
46:19
bottom 7:9
16:12,13
Brock4:21
brought 37:13
Brown 35:4
build 16:10
29:10 30:22
34:10 53:16
builder 24:17
burden 53:16
building 1:12:4
4:11 5:12,13
5:16 6:7,12,17
7:18,19,21 8:1
8:13 9:7,15
10:12 11:2,15
11:22,24,25
15:11,19 16:3
16:4 17:2,4
18:3,6,11 20:7
20:16,25
21:11 22:17
23:5,10,11,25
24:8,13,21,25
25:25 28:1,9
28:12 31:10
32:2,9,20 34:2
38:17 39:23
45:3 47:1
49:23 51:18
53:6,15 55:3
56:12 57:10
57:13 58:22
59:2 60:4
61:20 62:2,5
62:21
built 6:2 11:17
11:20 16:3
17:1 19:20
21:25 24:17
27:12 30:6,10
30:11 33:18
33:21,21
34:11 35:24
36:3 38:21
41:14,20 42:5
42:10 43:8
44:1,12 45:6,8
45:23 47:23
52:9,18 56:11
burden 16:2
24:14
business 4:10
C
C 63:7
California 1:13
2:12 4:16:24
65:5
Callfornin-Re...
6:20
call 4:5,9 15:10
58:2
called 23:16
calling 14:2
15:1
came 12:14 16:9
56:3 60:25
capacity 63:24
care 43:2,2 44:2
59:11
Carlos 15:12
case 28:11 57:8
categorically
51:17
Page 67
categorized
58:17
cause 16:16
25:21,25
61:17
caused 15:20
cease 15:22
cells 6:10 7:2,10
14:4 15:9
29:22,24
44:13 47:8,12
47:24
cement 16:14
29:4
Center 2:11
certain 41:17
certainly 56:21
63:16
Certified 2:16
65:4
certify 65:5,12
certifying 16:24
challenged
10:23 11:12
chance 21:18
changed 52:23
characterize
58:1
characterized
63:21
chase 19:13
32:13
cheek 14:13
18:20
chooses 60:15
chronolgy 36:1
chronolog~ 18:2
36:15,20
ch'cle 49:17
circumstance
36:11
Citation 5:19
6:6,16,18 8:18
8:20 10:1,13
10:23 11:20
14:5,11 15:18
15:19 16:2
17:11,13,15
17:17,19 18:3
18:6 19:4
20:11,14 22:1
22:6,8,15 24:2
24:11,22
26:24 27:1,4
28:12,14
32:12 36:25
37:3,8 42:21
43:25 47:14
48:5 50:4 52:9 60:4
58:11 59:1,5,8 codes 23:8
60:2,9,22 61:9 35:11 58:14
cities 55:12,13 collective 40:2
city 1:12:4 3:3 come 25:10
3:5,5,6 4:6,23 29:10 43:20
5:11,25 8:7 46:11 49:17
9:7,17 11:15 49:21 50:10
11:23,25 50:11 52:2,13
16:18 17:3 53:18 56:6
18:9 19:9 20:1 57:19 58:5
24:8 28:3 coming 51:15
30:16 31:7 comment 5:23
32:21 35:8,14 33:15
37:7 41:22 comments 10:2
42:25 43:5 43:12 58:20
51:19 53:16 communicatio...
55:11,24 63:7
63:24 community
Civic 2:11 18:12 33:3
civil 6:20 9:5 compel 58:15
17:7,23 27:6,6 complaining
31:3 40:4 24:25
41:13 44:14 complaint 5:16
44:21 54:11 5:17,20 34:20
54:14 34:21,23
clarification 62:15
63:21 complete 14:16
clarify 63:19 completed
clarifying 22:12 14:12 43:4
clear 17:16 compllrd 7:20
19:17 58:9,9 complies 8:12
clearly 4:18 comply 42:23
Clerk 3:6 concern 37:25
close 39:2 50:21 concerned
51:1 42:21
closed 14:15 concerning
39:2 54:3 19:22
code 5:14 7:18 concerns 8:10
7:19,21 8:1,13 19:9 35:20
9:10,15,19 concluded 7:18
11:24 12:18 20:12 32:9
16:4 18:5 concludes 9:20
20:19,23 25:5
21:13,16 23:1 conclusion 9:14
23:7 24:4,19 23:25 43:20
25:16 26:12 45:2 52:13
27:25,25 28:1 58:1,6,6,7,17
28:3,9,17,21 62:7
29:1,8 31:1,5 conclusions
31:7,11,13 8:17
32:2,10,15 concrete6:l
36:4 39:14 29:11
41:20,25 42:5 condition 30:8
43:9 45:3 47:2 38:6,7,10 60:5
55:18,19 conditions
56:12,18,23 26:22 34:5
57:14 58:3 42:23
conference
56:19
confirmed 8:19
33:4
confused 49:19
conjecture
24:20 33:24
ronstitutrd
57:13
constrnctrd
4:25 5:18,19
34:5 40:1 43:8
44:24 62:7
construction
8:14 12:24
14:12,17
29:17 32:23
32:25 33:6
34:15 37:8
40:20
contact 15:11
contacted 37:17
39:18
contain 29:22
34:16
contelning 6:10
7:3,9
contended
57:12
contending
52:17
continue 25:22
50:22
Continuing 33:2
contractor 16:9
37:16
contractors
16:7 28:10
34:8
contractual 8:7
conversations
55:23
cooperation
54:23
copies 28:13
eapious51:5
copy 8:23 34:1
corner 49:2
Corporation 8:5
corporations
16:20
correct 13:12
33:7,9 38:8
39:1 48:3 53:5
55:9,12 61:23
61:23,24
corrected 30:7
37:24 38:18
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
correction
13:17,22,25
14:2,21,25
15:1,7,21
16:17,25
18:24 19:23
24:3,6,15,22
27:12,13
30:13 50:1
51:20
corrections
26:20 27:15
corrective 8:1
29:9 30:12
correctly 30:11
31:24 33:21
35:24 36:3
41:20 42:11
45:8,23 52:9
correspondence
33:13
corroboration
56:4
coucil 20:1
council 1:12:4
4:6,14,23 5:11
9:18 35:8,12
36:18 37:7
56:18 57:7,16
62:18 63:9,9
63:11,13,24
Councilmemb...
3:6,7,7
Councilmemb...
4:9
counter 27:24
59:6
couple 24:11
25:9 43:12
44:12 48:25
course 7:9 47:11
courses 44:13
court4:17
courtesy 57:8
62:18 63:20
cracking 7:5
craft 62:8,14
credentials 41:2
CSR 1:23 65:22
cucamonga 1:2
1:13 2:5,12
3:3 4:1,6 5:2
6:23 10:11
11:15 16:3
18:4 20:19,23
24:4 43:5
CURATALO
3:7 12:19,23
13:14,18
18:19 36:5
45:4,19,22
59:17 60:17
63:3
curious 53:16
curIcy 3:5 10:24
34:24 35:1
36:8 41:3,7
50:17,20
51:11,25
56:17 57:18
57:25 61:14
62:1,4,16
63:23
Currently 57:15
D
D 1:22 2:15
65:21
damage 59:9
date 7:16
date 9:4 17:5
65:15
dated 6:15,18
8:8,18,25
15:25 27:13
27:14 32:20
33:3 43:22
65:18
day 5:22 16:17
45:11 46:3
47:15 52:8
53:19
days 21:15,19
Dear32:19
deboting30:10
DEBBIE 3:6
December 6:4
6:15,16 14:19
26:23,23 34:4
decided 6:8
decision 4:11,25
5:11 9:18
10:12 11:2
17:10 18:10
19:4,6,11
20:17,21,22
21:15,18
22:14 23:4,10
23:11,15 24:1
25:24 51:12
52:19 58:22
58:23 59:13
59:24 60:10
61:17,22
62:21 63:17
63:18
Page 68
decisions 20:24 di~ction 65:10 Egglesten 4:12 24:15,18 35:2
21:10 22:17 directions 16:11 5:16:23 11:19 35:3,24 37:14
22:20 directly 7:24 Egglestone 38:24 45:5
defect 37:15 55:21 10:I0 59:24 60:1
defective 10:23 director 18:12 either 21:12 exact 11:13
11:11,13 33:3 39:24 56:4 13:24
20:16 61:1,4,6 disclaims 33:11 elect 58:12 examinin~o 38:2
definition 10:16 discovered employee 65:13 example 12:1
16:14 21:22 23:18 empty 13:7 exceed 31:10
23:17 25:18 discuss 26:25 end 38:8 exceeded 27:25
28:17,20 discussed 62:24 ending 2:13 exceeding 34:8
degree 52:24 display 12:3,5 enforce 51:20 55:8
deliberate 50:21 dispute 33:6 enforceable exceeds 28:8
deliberation distress 7:6 58:14 except 35:3
50:22 division 5:17 enforcement 60:15
delivery 21:12 6:17 15:21 58:10 excite 37:18
denied 49:23 documentetion engineer 6:20 Executive 54:4
50:6 9:5 17:6,9 8:9,12 9:6 exhibit 5:8,8
deny 5:11 9:18 60:2 16:24 17:7,19 32:17 36:5
59:19 documents 17:21,24 exhibits 11:4
department 19:17,18 25:10 27:6,7 Existing 6:22
28:13 39:23 33:14 31:3,21 39:17 exists 56:23
depending doing 31:12 40:4 41:13,16 expansion 6:2
40:12 40:22 54:21 41:24 44:14 expense 26:1
design 8:11 9:9 58:4 44:21,21,25 expenses 14:11
9:1033:23 done6:1410:14 54:11,11,14 14:16
34:14 14:8 15:10 57:21 59:1,3,4 expert 27:18
designed 29:21 17:18 22:13 59:23 40:20
29:25 32:25 24:3 25:4 engineering 8:5 explicitly 20:24
desire 51:7 31:15,24 8:17 9:3,13 22:23
destructive 37:15 39:18 17:13 22:24 expose 6:9 15:8
45:25 52:12 40:25 44:4 27:16 44:23 40:24 45:17
53:6,18 47:13 55:1,17 47:19,23 61:4 exposed 7:1
detector 7:7 58:7,8,25 59:9 Engineers 40:11 15:3 26:17
27:9 45:15,15 double-check engineer's 26:3 38:5,9,13 44:9
determine 6:10 56:21 44:18 44:11 50:3
7:10,13 26:17 down 29:18 enough 36:21 extended 58:4
27:9,11 42:8 38:19 40:25 55:2,23 extending 62:18
43:17 44:11 52:2 entire 40:24 extensive 27:11
45:16 47:11 drafted 36:21 enumerate
determined dragged 25:4 23:21 F
14:23 39:13 drilled 7:8 enunciation fact 30:4 34:16
developement Drive 2:11 56:5 38:11 39:14
18:13 driveway 49:3 escrow 39:2 54:10 61:5
developer31:25 duringll:24 ESGIL8:5,5,15 facts39:8
54:23 13:19 38:1 28:22 44:19 failure 38:25
Development dutton 3:7 25:9 even 22:14 28:2 45:7
33:3 25:15,21 26:4 32:3 41:3 52:1 fail 33:20
diagram 48:6 26:6,14 27:17 52:23 55:10 false 46:4,10,11
dialogue 42:24 53:1,8,11,22 55:18 48:2 49:22
dlane 3:4 29:5 58:19 events 18:2 51:9,10
60:17 ever 29:9 43:7 falsely 18:9 40:6
difference 27:19 ' E every 15:5 41:13
28:16,19 Edition 23:7 35:23 familiar 12:24
differcntlg:ll effect 21:10 everything far34:2238:ll
34:22 41:22 63:3 53:14 55:1 42:21 58:24
direct 24:4 effective 23:9 59:2 fashion 54:13
58:11 efforts 62:22 evidence 12:3 favor 37:10
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
59:13 forever 43:6
February 1:3,14 forgetting 17:4
2:6,14 4:2 8:3 form 37:22
11:3 15:25 54:13
16:22 18:2 formal 57:3
20:18 24:1 formally 20:18
32:13 forth 25:22 36:2
feel 60:7,21 39:12 58:8
feeling 55:24 65:7
feels 61:21 forthwith 23:9
feet 15:8 25:4 forum 57:1
28:2 34:8 38:5 forwarded 59:3
38:13,14 found 10:22
42:12 48:13 11:11,12,17
48:14,25 49:8 12:1,25 13:4,5
49:14 55:6 14:10 15:25
felt 42:22 20:15 21:7
Fence 6:22 24:18 37:19
few 14:6 38:9,18 39:24
field 29:14 42:25 47:21
40:20 52:8 foundation 7:13
file 21:16 7:14 29:25
filed 5:16 20:20 30:23 37:21
fill 29:24 frankly 59:6,11
final 19:6,20 freezing 24:2
22:17,20 23:8 from 6:6,6,18
23:12 34:3 7:16 9:1,5,7
finally 20:8 10:1 11:23
financially 12:14 13:21
65:12 15:20 16:23
find 10:19 38:6 17:2,6,10,13
finding 61:19 17:13,17
findings 59:4 18:11,17 19:4
62:10 19:20 20:8,10
fine 7:21 12:11 20:14 21:13
29:3 21:14 22:19
finished 51:25 25:23 31:1,21
firm 8:6 17:13 33:2,10 36:9
first 5:20,23 36:11 37:9,20
10:15 23:3,19 37:23 40:11
26:4 27:22,24 40:13 48:5
30:15 34:1 49:24 51:15
43:13 56:6 57:21
five25:l 57:14 63:7,9
fix 53:13,23 h'ont 12:9 35:19
flexibility 7:23 ~ 7:11 30:13
30:24 49:17
folks 56:6 fully 7:10
follow 29:16 hither 45:19
35:15 62:9 45:21,22 55:5
followed 19:7 62:6 65:10,12
19:25 54:12 furthermore
follow-up 29:8 11:9 17:8
footing 15:9 32:14 36:16
force 58:14
forefront 35:13
foregoing 65:6 garage 20:4
65:10 44:5 47:5 49:5
P~e69
gueden 34:8 57:2 62:18
gate 42:12 47:6 giving 38:22
48:13 49:4,10 glad 25:6
gave 17:3 23:17 glean 36:11
27:1 go 9:17 26:2
general 7:4 17:1 29:3 30:17
63:8 35:3 38:3 43:1
generally 29:3 45:21,22 51:8
gentleman 54:9,11,18
44:20 55:10 57:10
gentlemen 48:5 59:19 60:5
george3:10 Goergiou38:1
10:9 11:2 44:3
georgiou 3:10 goes 5:25 12:13
4:24 5:16 6:5 23:21 55:5
6:13,14 8:23 going 4:21 12:5
8:25 9:1,4,25 12:17 31:9,25
10:3,6,9,10 35:25 36:24
11:3,5 12:6,10 37:4,20,23
12:12,20 13:1 39:6 40:23,24
13:2,5,9,12,16 50:3 51:3 52:2
13:19 15:16 53:19 54:9
17:5,14 18:1 55:22,24 60:6
18:16,21 21:4 gomez 3:10
21:8 22:11 18:12.14 19:2
23:14 25:12 19:8,14,15,21
25:20 26:4,9 33:3,8,12,14
26:24 27:1,23 Gomez's 18:24
30:3 31:17 good 7:4 12:17
32:11,19 52:4 63:1
33:10 34:13 goose 19:13
35:17 36:15 32:13
36:23 37:1 grant 57:23,23
39:241:9,11 granted57:5
41:16,21 42:4 gravel 14:22
42:13,18 16:8,15,15,19
43:14,22,23 16:21 29:2,12
46:1,7,10,14 Greetings37:6
46:17 47:16 ground 26:13
48:1 49:20,22 grounded 43:21
51:1,9,17 52:1 groundless
52:16 53:2,5 22:19
53:10,15,24 grounds 22:24
56:1,13,16 26:12
57:8,9,12,15 grout 7:11,20
60:15 61:24 7:21 12:2,16
63:15,17 12:18,18,21
Georgiou's 30:9 14:23,24 15:9
37:11 45:7 16:8,12,13,14
get-go 37:9 16:19 19:10
gist 62:9 20:12 27:19
give4:15 10:8 28:16,19,25
13:24 21:18 29:2,3,19,20
22:22 35:18 29:22 30:22
45:8 47:17 37:20,23 42:8
50:9 57:1 62:9 grouted 7:11
given 11:19 44:13 45:13
22:14 52:14 45:17 47:9,12
47:24,25 home 39:3
grouting 7:2 homeowner
guess 29:9 36:9 16:9 29:10
37:4 45:9 61:9 31:25
guidefines 16:6 homeowners
16:7 28:10
H 34:7 41:23
half-inch-dia... homes 5:19 6:6
7:8 6:16,18 8:18
hammer42:8 10:1,23 11:20
43:17 14:11 15:19
hand 22:15 28:7 17:19 18:6
handed 16:11 19:4 20:11
27:23 22:1,6,9,15
handing 28:9 24:2,11,22
happens 40:7 26:24 27:1
happy 9:20 28:12 36:25
having 12:21 37:8 39:1 52:9
18:10 19:20 60:2
28:22 37:15 honestly 29:13
60:24 hopes 35:17
hazaed 20:7 horizonlal 6:9
25:2 7:2 12:13 14:7
hear 4:24 37:2 29:23 30:4
57:7,16 58:5 38:5 39:10
heard 35:18,23 hypothetically
36:24 58:18 58:10
59:22,25
62:20 l
hearing 1:12:4 idea 31:15
4:11,24 35:16 identical 11:18
36:7,12 48:2,2 identified 5:4
50:21 62:18 35:5 60:24
63:20 61:2,5
height 34:9 identif~ 48:8
38:13 ignoring 50:5
heighth 28:2 III 3:5
heights 48:11 imagination
held 6:5 19:1 27:19
hence 22:18 immediately
24:2 15:23
her 37:15 implementation
him 10:4 15:24 23:6,20
17:9 18:9 important 13:21
19:22 25:1,2,4 30:8 36:2,15
32:7 33:24 36:20,20
35:18 39:19 38:23 39:9
46:2,11,12 48:10,14
51:20 53:19 impression
60:15 45:10
hlmself20:14 improper54:16
hire 39:16 improperly
hired 59:4 37:21
hoc 56:25 inappropriate
hold 29:25 62:24
holes 7:8 inclination 62:4
hollow43:17 incinde21:9
47:10,20 60:14
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
included 34:2
60:10,18
62:14 63:10
includes 10:18
23:1
including 19:16
19:23
income 54:21
incorporation
28:6
incorrectly 30:7
30:11
indeed 61:3
independent 8:5
24:9,10 26:2
28:23 44:22
48:21,22
58:25
index 11:5,7
indicate 44:1
51:3 54:16
60:3
indicated 25:17
25:19 37:20
41:14,19 44:3
44:15 47:14
47:15 52:10
55:18
indicates 34:3
55:19
indicating 40:5
40:6 41:12
indication 54:15
individual 49:16
inference 61:1,3
61:7
inform 18:4
22:15
infomal41:7
information
19:18 22:3
31:20 32:1
33:17 39:21
50:9,17,18
56:6
informed 15:22
36:17 38:16
informing 18:22
20:18 24:23
inside 6:2 12:20
52:3
insisted 25:3
inspect 8:16
24:9 46:12
53:11
inspected 10:21
20:13 28:15
inspection 5:20
6:4 14:4 15:10
20:3,6,7,9
25:4 33:19
34:3 43:15
45:8 47:7,22
50:6 51:18
inspections
15:21 29:15
55:7 59:10
inspector 14:19
inspectors 5:22
11:15 12:1
24:8 30:14
38:17
instability 16:24
installation
54:17
installed 37:21
37:24
instead 12:21
19:12 20:5
24:23 57:14
integrity 9:2
intended 19:19
29:20 33:17
intent 27:15
38:7,22 61:19
intention 16:1
intentions 15:22
interested 40:22
65:13
interpretation
23:5,12
inteeapt 21:21
investigate
39:17
investigation
6:21 7:1 22:6
27:4,7 37:19
37:25 38:16
42:6 45:20
47:4
invite 46:11,12
invited 46:2
53:5
involved 37:9
irrelevant 25: 12
36:6
isolated 52:25
isolating 37:10
Isolda 3:11 37:6
37:7 40:8,17
40:19 42:3
43:14 48:6,22
48:25 49:13
49:17
issuance 16:16
issue 35:2 37:9
Page 70
37:10 48:9
53:17 54:10
59:14 63:10
issued 13:22
14:1,20,24
24:8 28:11,14
29:9 40:6
43:10
issues 57:1,9
58:18 62:19
item 4:10,10
12:3 16:13
63:6,14
items 36:4
J
jack3:5 57:6
JAMES 3:7
January 6:18
JENNIFER
1:222:15
65:21
jeopardy 40:9
Jerry 5:23
Jim 5:22 26:24
59:16
JOB 1:24
join 4:7
joint 6:2
judged 55:2
judgment 57:17
57:20
July 19:21 20:4
June 8:18
just 10:8,24
13:18 15:14
18:21 24:20
25:9,15 26:6
34:16 35:12
40:25 42:22
43:4 48:25
50:11,12,13
51:15,21
53:12 56:19
57:8 58:10
K
keep 35:12
key 33:15,21
54:10
kind 29:4 30:1
39:7 42:18
48:9,14 56:7
knew 55:21
know 13:16,18
13:20 15:14
16:17 21:17
26:17 29:13
30:2,9 31:18
31:23 33:1,1
33:20 35:11
· 38:25 39:4
51:7,14,15
54:20 56:14
61:6 63:22
knowledge
20:15 37:14
L
labeled 10:20
lack55:16
ladies 50:9
LAM 3:5 4:14
57:7
Land40:ll
language 62:8
lapsed 56:22
largely 23:2
26:10
last 32:17 33."13
42:17,18
61:13
later 11:10 17:3
20:9 22:22
latest35:ll
law 20:23 36:16
36:19,21,22
63:9
leads 61:2
leaning 7:5
least 15:8 30:2
37:11
leave 26:19 36:9
led 19:12
left 16:12,13
legal 17:8
legitimate 53:17
less 28:3 30:24
42:12
let 13:24 23:3
27:24 36:5
42:13 49:1
letter 6:15 8:18
8:2~,25 11:12
15:24 16:22
18:6,14,17,22
18:24 19:7,15
19:21,25
20:16 31:18
32:7,19 33:2,7
33:11,11
43:22 51:2
52:7 57:24
letters 9:1 19:25
20:8 24:24
25:1,2 36:2
Let's 63:2
license 40:9
licensed 16:24
44:20,21
lies 38:3
life 54:20
light 58:17
like 10:2 13:14
26:20 31:15
33:19 37:1,11
49:20 50:1,10
50:17 51:15
60:10 61:11
61:19 63:13
63:18,21
line 54:21
literally 48:20
little 37:12 44:4
52:24 55:5
60:6
local 28:3 37:16
locate 7:7
located 4:12 5:1
location 27:9
29:19 45:16
48:9,23
locations 7:9,12
7:13
long 38:13 41:8
42:14 46:18
46:21 47:1,18
47:21 48:13
48:24 49:6,18
50:5 51:13,19
52:18 53:4,20
54:7 55:1 60:1
61:3
longer 35:13
53:24,25
56:23
look 25:10
44:16,19,23
45:1 58:3
looked 37:17
47:3
looking 58:21
lot 40:23 59:7
M
M3:10 10:9
11:3
machine 65:9
made 9:1 10:4
14:4 15:24
17:10 18:10
19:7,17 20:17
27:4 32:15
34:3 35:22
42:4 43:15
47:7 50:2
58:23 60:8
63:17 65:8
mail21:14
maintained
59:19
make 7:23 10:2
17:1,16 18:24
27:7 28:23
29:2,4,14 31:4
35:7,19 37:11
44:18 53:12
57:16 59:9
61:8,8
makes 16:19
31:18 36:16
40:5
making 25:16
34:20,21
58:22
makshanoff
3:11 4:I5,19
4:20 5:7,10
9:23,25 10:22
11:14 15:6,7
17:17,18,22
18:18 19:2,14
19:20 21:22
21:24 22:4,8
23:16 26:19
27:22 29:13
32:6 33:22,25
36:25 37:19
38:16 39:16
40:10,18 41:1
42:7,25 43:12
44:10,16 45:9
45:21,24
46:21,24
47:22 48:17
49:1,8,11
51:23 52:6,25
55:9,13 61:17
Makshanofrs
59:13
Manager 3:5
mandatorinlly
57:4
many 25:1
32:14 34:18
March 8:8
Marknlan 35:9
55:19 56:20
61:16
Marfmez 13:13
34:17 37:12
Martinez's
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
13:11 30:5
34:18,19
38:10 42:20
mason 37:16
masonry 4:25
32:21 34:7
39:7 49:12
Matinez's 30:10
matter 14:15
35:4 36:24
51:12 58:5,8
63:12
may 13:21
18:18 24:11
25:22,24 32:3
32:11 33:23
33:2441:4,9
54:15 58:6
63:11
maybe26:15
49:8 52:21
60:20
Mayor 3:4,4
4:14,23 12:3
25:5 35:1 37:6
51:11
mean 12:21
13:7 21:5
24:11 29:12
32:24 40:24
45:10 61:19
62:13
meaning 9:8
44:8
meant 33:22,23
measures 30:12
meet 5:24 9:10
21:1229:1
30:16 55:2
meeting 4:6,16
6:7,8 19:1,3,7
26:22 42:17
54:3 63:12
meets 5:13 9:15
32:2 45:2 47:1
47:1 57:22
member 39:10
members 4:14
4:23 37:6
57:14,14,15
memorandum
8:8
memorialize
46:5
memorialized
60:22
mention 18:8
merely 16:20
24:10
mesh 37:23
met 7:19 8:1
9:19 27:14,15
28:20,25 31:2
31:6 32:9,22
33:5
metal 7:7 27:9
45:15,15
might 4:15 6:1
11:17 38:2
39:1 40:25
42:5 51:11
52:23
minimOrn 5:24
7:19,25 8:12
9:10,15,19
15:8 27:25,25
28:8,24,25
30:16 31:1,7
31:13 32:2,9
45:3 47:1 55:3
56:12 59:18
ministerial 9:8
mistake 35:22
mix29:l,ll
mixture 28:20
months 20:9
32:14 35:12
more 29:3 30:19
30:21,21,23
31:15 50:2,17
52:12,24
60:25
mortar 7:20
27:20 28:16
28:19,25
motion 63:2,4
move 54:16 63:3
movement 6:2
11:17 13:6
37:16,18 39:6
39:7 42:9
48:12 54:16
moving 39:12
much 22:12
23:18 26:17
Municipal 18:4
20:19,23 24:4
must 58:15 61:3
myself 19:2
29:15 35:22
46:9
name 10:8,9
37:7 65:16
narrative 10:21
Page 71
13:19
necessary 27:3
39:22 47:16
need 17:16 37:4
48:2 52:11
needed 38:18,19
43:2
needs 58:7
60:21
neglects 18:8
neighbor 11:21
14:9,15
neighbors 56:3
neighbor's
11:19 12:15
13:9,22
neither 17:2
65:12
never 10:23
11:11 14:6,8
20:2 22:13
40:3,3 41:17
41:18,18,24
44:14,16
47:13 50:6
51:18
news 22:11
nice 48:6
nobody 54:2
56:2,5
nontechnical
26:12,13
North 6:22
note 4:15 16:13
23:19 30:8
31:18
nothing 13:6,7
39:11 44:10
53:14 58:12
59:6 62:24
notice 13:22
14:1,21,25
15:1 16:17
24:15 30:14
noticed 35:21
36:1 37:16
notices 15:21
16:25 19:24
24:3,6,22 29:9
36:1 50:2
notification
23:2
notified 32:4,6
November 5:15
5:21 8:25
11:14 30:14
32:8,12,18,20
nullified 24:3
nullify 10:11
20:21 61:17
61:22
numbor 10:19
11:1,8,14
13:25 15:1,5
18:14,21,23
21:2 26:15
40:6 45:1
54:20
numerically 5:4
numerous 9:1
O
obey 24:22
obeyed 14:5
objected 15:23
16:1
objection 63:5
64:1
objections 15:24
62:12
observation
9:14
observations
7:16
observe 7:1
12:22 50:12
50:13
obtain 9:16
obtained 6:12
6:16
obtaining 11:22
obviously 24:18
25:23
off44:13 54:19
56:25 60:6
offer 60:8 61:10
offered 60:23
office 15:20
58:12
official 5:12 9:7
10:12 11:2
15:11,20 17:2
17:4 18:3,6,11
20:7,17,25
21:11 22:17
23:5,10 24:13
24:21,25
31:10 32:20
49:23 51:19
53:6,15 59:3
61:20 62:2,5
official's 4:11
23:11 24:1
25:25 58:22
62:21
Oh 5:9 10:6
11:5 18:21
okay 4:5 10:6
11:12 14:4
15:1,13,18
18:22,23 21:6
21:8 22:11,13
23:10,19
36:14 37:3
38:11 43:11
46:23 48:4,5
48:19 50:23
50:25 52:20
54:1,9 55:15
56:2 58:19
59:2 61:13,25
okayed 51:4
old 57:13
older 56:24
one 4:11 5:3
16:14 23:22
27:13,17,20
28:17 31:18
31:19 43:7
50:18,23 60:8
61:13
ones 24:9
only 4:16 8:16
9:11 10:17
12:25 14:6
15:16 19:18
20:8 22:18,21
22:24 24:9
33:17 38:20
43:19,24
44:11,20,23
45:13,16
47:10,17 50:5
55:15 58:24
59:23
onto 59:7
open 42:24
opened 42:19
opinion 5:18 8:9
14:23 31:5
36:3 41:20
46:25 58:2
opportunity
31:18,20
35:18,23 37:2
41:8 57:1,10
57:16 58:5
options 57:19
57:23
order 4:7 6:9
24:7,22
ordered 36:22
orders 16:6
ordinance 36:19
ori~nal 47:4
54:23
other 7:5 19:25
22:15 23:15
27:17,20
28:21 35:1
41:21,23
44:17 46:3,12
46:13,14,15
48:24 52:24
59:11,19
63:14
otherwise 12:16
ought 33:25
out 5:22 8:20
16:11 22:4
25:10 26:2
27:11,23 28:7
28:10 30:14
31:9,15 37:17
38:6 39:20
43:1,15 44:25
45:1,1 52:7
53:18 54:11
54:18 55:19
61:9
over 28:6 56:17
overheads 4:21
27:16
overturn 59:12
overturning
59:13
own 9:14 25:25
32:17 45:10
48:23 55:11
P
P3:5
packet 11: 1
page 16:11,13
42:19
pages 11:1
paid 14:16
17:1424:11
59:1
paper 12:1,15
12:16,18,20
12:21 13:1,2,5
24:18 29:19
29:20 30:2,6
34:16 37:19
37:21,22
42:21
paperwork 51:6
paragraph
33:13 34:1,13
paralld 49:3
parameters
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
35:6
Pardon 5:3
17:12
part 10:17 11:8
14:21 16:14
20:3,13,15
24:21 33:24
36:12 46:7,14
50:5 51:7
52:20 54:23
56:17 61:7,11
partially 14:5
particular 9:3
19:10 36:24
38:15,16 58:4
parficula~y
56:9
parties 62:22
65:14
parts 16:15,15
past 39:19
paul 3:6 15:12
pay 14:11
pea 14:22 16:8
16:15,15,19
29:2,12
penetration
7:12
people 16:20
24:15 31:10
31:23 55:23
56:3 63:6
per34:6,10,11
39:14
perform 45:25
46:2 53:18,20
performed 20:7
20:9
performing
20:5
Perhaps 33:23
56:23
period 38:8,25
40:2
permission 12:2
27:1 38:3
45:24 46:1
47:17 49:23
52:14
permit 6:12,15
8:20 22:5 28:2
28:11,13 34:2
34:3,4 43:10
55:6
permitee 21:1,4
21:11,22,23
21:24,25 22:4
22:9 23:13,14
23:16,17
25:19,24
permitees 23:24
permits 11:22
34:14 55:7,12
55:14
permittee 32:4
person 40:7
41:4,4 54:22
personal 21:12
personally
10:22
persons 23:15
Phillips 5:23
photograph
48:19
photographs
42:19
photos 30:3
phrase 62:5
physically 24:9
56:24
Ph.D 11:3
picture 11:8
pictures 5:5,6
8:21
piece 36:8
pilaster 6:1
11:16 14:10
pilasters 11:22
14:13 30:17
place 4:13 5:1
5:20 6:23 10:4
10:10 11:20
12:1 23:11
26:23 35:13
36:18 42:22
48:8 63:8 65:7
piacrd 21:13
places 13:6
plan 27:23 28:5
28:7,8,9,11
29:16,17 34:7
34:11,11 43:5
plans 34:6 38:21
39:14 43:9
pian-checlang
8:6
please4:7 15:11
18:23 21:3
pleasure 50:21
pledge 4:8
plus 14:1
point 14:9,11
15:19 17:11
18:1 30:25
34:10,22
36:16 39:1
Page 72
42:10,22
52:10 60:8,11
potion 60:9
portion 6:8
10:19,20,21
11:10 43:25
48:12,21,23
49:13,14,24
position 31:6,22
39:19 59:14
postage 21:14
prepaid 21:14
presence 11:25
20:10 38:1
present 3:9 6:7
7:12 9:25
13:13 14:22
16:16 20:13
20:20 42:7,8
47:14 52:9
presentation
25:5
presented 30:3
35:25 59:17
60:2
president 37:8
pretend 58:20
pretty 24:19
peevionsly
62:24 63:10
ptimarHy 16:7
private 29:10
probably 31:11
33:25 35:11
54:5 55:17
57:25 58:16
problem 12:4
24:16 26:18
38:3,20 39:4,4
40:3 46:8
52:13 53:18
55:1 60:24
procedure 58:4
proceedings
1:12 2:10 4:17
65:6,8
process 11:24
30:25 56:22
57:3
produce 9:5
17:6
Professional
40:11
prohibits 63:9
projector 10:18
projects 43:4
proof20:16
proper23:l
36:13 41:2
propody 5:19
6:11 37:24
40:1 43:21
44:1,12,13
45:6,13,18
47:12,24
52:18 62:7
property 5:16:3
36:9
protocol 58:2
prove 16:2,5
24:14 33:1
proven 43:3,7
provide 10:13
17:8 31:19,20
41:23 50:17
provided 6:13
6:14 8:23
15:19 16:23
17:9 18:7,8
19:10,18
33:14,16 51:6
52:23 57:1
provides 8:6
32:15
providing 54:24
provision 22:25
23:3,6,20
26:11,11
provisions 8:13
23:22 31:8,13
Pro-Tern 3:4
public 54:3 63:7
63:8
pure 36:11
purpose 6:25
10:11 11:23
20:21 25:13
28:21 58:19
purposes 50:7
put 12:8 17:23
29:19 30:17
30:21,21
56:20 59:7
puling 16:19
putting 4:21
25:17 29:22
54:20
p.m 2:13,14 4:3
4:3
quality 8:14
quarterly 40:10
40:14
question 9:9
10:16 12:23
13:15 16:23
19:10 21:20
25:14 26:7
27:17 29:7,8
32:22 33:5
34:25 39:10
41:5,10,24
48:17 49:5,7
49:13,18 52:5
56:11 57:18
60:17,25
61:13
questions 9:21
9:22 15:11
18:13,25
19:11,22 20:2
25:6,8 29:6
40:23 41:21
43:11
quickly 4:18
quite 27:10 40:8
40:21
quote 33:10
R
Rack 15:7
rancho 1:2,13
2:5,12 3:3 4:1
4:6 5:16:23
10:10 11:15
16:3 18:4
20:19,23 24:4
43:5
rather25:13
rationale 17:8
reached 8:17
read 15:5,5,6
23:3 30:13,18
32:17 34:1
43:21
reading 21:13
reaffirmed 8:24
real 48:10
really 9:8 36:2
36:12 38:23
54:10
Rear 6:22
reason 22:7
40:19,21
52:22 53:11
53:12 59:12
59:15
reasons 10:13
rebuild 53:9
rebuilding 50:4
reraH 33:2 51:5
receive 22:2
40:10 63:11
received 6:18
18:10 20:2
34:23
recoHeetion
42:13,17
recollects 35:8
recommend
9:17 60:11,14
60:16 62:22
recommendaL.
5:10 11:18
60:14
reconstract
52:11
record 10:7,24
15:4 21:24
22:1 24:20
29:2 65:8
recorded 4:16
recorder 37:5
recording 5:4,6
redo 52:14,15
redone 32:1
refer 11:7
reference 5:5
10:25 22:22
25:16 32:16
35:21 37:12
42:3,4 43:13
44:18 45:4
46:21 56:23
referenced 23:8
43:14,15,23
referred 27:23
referring 10:25
11:4 48:12
reflects 62:19
refusal 51:7,16
51:16
refused 51:18
regard 5:5
regarding 4:12
4:25 9:2 23:5
58:22,23
regards 27:21
59:14
registered 17:21
31:3 40:4
41:13 54:11
54:14
registration
54:20
regular 16:20
41:23
reinforced 6:11
reinforcement
6:9
reinforcing
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
reinstailed
38:19
reinstated 24:6
reissue 16:25
related 7:24
36:6
relationship
48:15 60:1
relationships
48:7
relative 65:13
relevant 11:22
rely 62:6
remaining 7:7
removal 15:2
22:5 27:8
52:12
remove 6:8 8:21
26:16,20
47:11 49:23
50:2
removed 14:6,6
14:18,22 27:5
removing 14:3
43:24 45:14
renew 62:22
repair 42:11
47:16 60:9,23
62:23
repaired 34:20
60:11
repairs 54:24
59:9
repeated 20:8
repeating 19:8
repetitive 26:21
report 4:15,20
5:7,21,23 6:18
6:21 7:11,22
8:3,4,9,17 9:4
9:20 10:12
15:19,23 16:1
16:5,23 17:5
17:10,12,14
17:17,18 18:7
19:4 20:14,17
22:19 24:2,23
25:2 26:3
27:16 28:18
30:3,15,18
31:1,21 32:8,9
32:12,18
33:12 39:21
39:22,24,24
39:25 40:7
41:2,25 44:18
44:19,22,23
46:22,25
47:19,23
51:12 54:12
57:21 58:25
59:7 60:3 61:4
61:18,23 62:6
62:21
Reported 1:21
reporter2:16
4:17 65:5
reporting 4:17
reports 40:10
40:14
represent 19:19
33:17 38:14
representative
6:5 10:1
represeta~ves
20:10
reputation 43:6
request 23:25
requested 19:3
19:17 20:3
42:24
require 28:2,4
55:6,12,13
requind 8:2
12:17 16:7
20:12,19 22:2
26:1,2,16 31:5
47:24
requirement
16:8
requirements
5:13,25 7:19
8:19:11,19
28:24,25 31:2
31:6 47:2
requires 18:5
requiring 31:10
55:7
requlrments
29:16
rescinded 19:24
35:10
research 26:1
reside 10:10
Residence 6:23
resolution 62:8
62:14 63:23
resolve 26:7
respect 8:11
28:24 29:18
44:18 47:2
51:23 52:6,15
respond 8:16
9:12 25:2,3
62:19
responded 8:7
Page 73
8:20 22:8
44:20 55:21
responding
55:17
response 5:19
19:15 32:19
responsibility
26:9
result 19:1
Results 6:21
retained 27:5
returns 49:2,5
reverse 22:18
22:21
review 8:15
9:12 28:22,23
· 30:25 44:22
54:13
reviewed 8:3,4
31:22
revised 28:5,6
revocation
40:13
rick3:10 18:12
Rick's 44:25
right 5:9 10:3,5
11:6,9 17:20
17:25 20:6
22:10 25:3
26:11 29:11
34:21 36:14
36:19 41:5
45:7 49:2 54:1
58:14 59:24
62:8 63:2,25
64:1
rights 45:8
Roll 4:9
row 12:14
n~nnine 57:2
S
safe 61:20,20
safety 4:11 5:12
5:17 6:7,17
24:7
same 11:21
16:22 22:23
24:15,16,16
24:17,17
25:18 29:4
31:22 38:2,6,7
46:3 53:20
sample 26:21
29:18
sand 16:15,21
29:12
satisfied 32:21
saw 14:21 39:21
saying 42:1 56:5
says 15:7 16:12
18:7 23:4,20
25:21 26:16
58:13
scanned 7:6
Schroeder5:22
6:6 26:25
scopo8:15
scratch 12:6
screen 11:9
second 5:3 6:4
16:11,12,17
18:22 33:12
seconded 63:4
section 18:5
20:4,24 21:9
22:16,23 23:1
23:4,19 24:5
25:16 35:9
44:5,15,17
48:14 49:12
50:4 54:6,8,25
55:1,18,19
56:22
secure 11:23
see 10:21 11:9
11:11 12:4,9
12:15 13:20
13:21,23,25
14:13 16:9
26:22 31:15
42:1 44:13
45:17 49:1,1
50:1,2 52:2
53:16,19
55:16 58:24
59:12
seeing 46:20
51:5
seems 54:15,22
59:18 61:19
seen 30:9 39:4
59:6 60:3
sense 58:16
sent 18:6 19:13
19:15 32:7
43:22 44:19
44:22
sentence 23:3
33:13
separated 61:9
September 20:1
20:9 43:22
47:3
serious 40:15
54:18
serve 23:23
32:14
served 20:25
21:11,15
service 23:9
services 8:6
27:6
Session 54:4
set58:8 63:11
65:7
setting 41:7
58:3
sheets 33:16
shifted 24:13
short 42:4,15
43:13 44:5
45:4 46:15,17
47:2,5,17
48:11,17,20
49:4,5,7,14
51:4,22,23
52:6,8,11,15
52:17,21,22
53:3,4,7,13
54:6,25 60:23
61:1 62:23
shorthand 2:16
65:4,9
showed 39:25
showing 48:7
shown 8:21
10:17 27:16
42:19 43:7
56:11
shows 11:8 18:5
32:1
side 6:22 48:24
sign 17:20 54:19
signature 54:19
signed 15:12
17:22
si~ons 7:6
Silva 15:12
similar 18:13,25
36:10
simple 26:6
simply 16:1
24:21 32:15
33:14 34:13
54:25 56:10
since 5:3 20:5
24:3 28:6,7
31:23 32:13
35:16 42:17
60:20 61:7
62:2 63:6
sir 10:24 13:2
26:10 46:7
51:9,17 56:17
sit 39:5
site 6:5
sitting 62:16,17
63:19
situation 25:18
26:20
six 35:11
size 7:14
slandering
42:21
slump 4:12
small 10:20,20
11:10 16:7,9
20:15 42:3
49:24 50:4
52:2 60:9
smaller 10:18
20:3
solid 43:19
solid-grouted
29:21
some 4:21 10:2
13:6 14:18
16:9 19:16
27:5 33:14
37:15,25 39:6
39:7,18 45:14
47:11 54:13
55:12,13
56:24 58:5
63:21
somebody 15:4
something
31:2432:11
44:24 46:6
47:3 54:6
57:11 58:7,11
58:15 63:15
somewhere
22:20 60:21
60:22
sorry 5:8 12:23
14:2,7 18:25
21:7,21 49:19
sort 56:25 61:2
sound 38:23
43:19 45:11
47:9 55:2
sounded 47:10
sounds 43:18
47:20
space 13:7
speak4:18
SPEAKER 9:24
50:11,15
speaking 35:7
special 4:5 34:5
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
Page 74
specific 36:17 52:7 subscribed
61:14 state-licensed 65:15
specified 22:16 9:5 17:7,23 subsequent
specifies 20:24 27:6 27:13 63:12
specify 63:23 stating 46:25 subsequen~y
specs 38:22 stay 35:3,5 6:17 8:4
speculation steel 6:9,10 7:2 substandard
36:11 7:3,8,10,22,24 14:24
stability 7:3 12:16 27:10 substantiate
24:7 39:11 29:22,23,23 31:21
52:24 30:4,6,19,20 substantiates
staff5:7 17:5 30:21 31:4 61:5
18:7 32:18 39:12,13 suggest 6:1
50:25 60:3 43:18 45:12 suggested 11:16
stamp 17:23 47:8 35:16
stamped 17:22 stick34:24 suggestion
Stampfi 6:19,25 35:23 36:4 61:10
7:6,18 28:18 sffffen 30:18 suggestions
31:1,2 39:18 stiffens 30:20 36:10
40:22 stiffer 7:23 31:4 summary 6:25
Stampfi's 8:17 still 19:6 43:1 summation
30:18 44:4,6,8 52:17 62:17
stand 4:7 56:24 60:7,11 superseded
standard 28:5,7 61:10 35:10
29:15,17 34:7 stone 4:12 supervisor
34:11,11 stood 38:15 18:12
35:13 41:15 stop 6:1 11:17 support 7:14
41:22 55:3,4,5 29:19,20 9:6 11:16
standards 5:25 stopped 42:15 12:17 62:2,5,6
9:15 16:4,4,18 stops 37:20,23 supporting
17:1 19:9,23 story 16:5 14:13
28:8 30:16 street 37:13 supposed 12:15
32:2,10,22,24 38:4 31:12
32:25,25 33:5 strength 29:4 sure 17:1 24:19
41:23 45:3 stretch 27:18 28:24 35:7
55:11 56:12 strictly 9:8,13 40:8 53:12
57:22 59:18 stringent 16:18 61:8,8
stands 45:7 stronger 16:19 Surveyors 40:12
start 4:20 10:15 29:2 suspension
29:22 strongly 60:8 40:13
staffed 5:15 structural 6:21 snshlining 56:10
starting 11:21 7:17 8:6,10,22
state 6:19 8:14 9:2,6,13 17:7 T
17:23 26:5 24:7 25:10 table 57:9
27:24 63:9 26:2 27:7 take 25:10 40:2
65:5 31:21 39:17 40:12,13
stated 5:17 6:25 44:21 54:14 42:14 43:2,2
7:4,21 8:11 58:25 59:4,7 44:12,19
19:19 31:3 59:23 61:18 59:11
41:24 43:23 structure 9:10 taken 2:11
51:17 59:21 study 27:11 30:12 44:2
statement 30:15 stuff23:22 65:6
33:6,7 40:5 subcontractor takes 26:21
statements 9:2 22:1 taking 48:8
48:2 subjectS:12 talk27:24 50:24
states 7:11 17:5 6:20 51:11 talking 11:4
21:10,14 submitted 28:12 31:11
30:19 34:1,4 39:22 tapped 43:16
tapping 42:7
target 35:3
Taylor 15:12
tear 40:25 52:2
technical 22:24
23:8,22
telephone 15:23
tell 26:15 33:23
38:11 58:13
telling 55:15
ten 21:19
terms 12:24
21:25 62:23
test 46:2,3 53:19
53:20
testified 36:8
testify 50:9 54:2
testifying 41:4
testimony 63:11
testing 45:11,25
47:9 53:7
thank 10:6
22:12 23:18
25:7 36:23
37:1,3 42:2
43:11 50:25
54:1,3 63:25
their 8:9,15
30:15 34:11
34:19 44:25
62:22
thereof65:ll
they'd 53:8
thing 9:11 12:25
44:17 54:18
54:21 58:24
things 14:10
24:12 28:18
32:16 50:2
think5:18 10:2
26:23 27:10
27:14 30:7,11
30:13 31:9,12
31:13,14,23
33:25 35:15
35:16,25
38:23 39:9
40:8,16 43:21
48:10 54:12
54:22 55:20
55:21,22,24
56:9 57:5
59:21,24 60:7
60:13
third 16:13
though 22:14
32:3 41:3
45:12 52:8
55:18
thought 38:2
three 7:13 16:14
49:15 57:14
57:15
through 4:19
12:12,13
27:10 39:24
54:9 56:19
time 9:24 11:21
12:2 16:6
21:10,14
24:16,17
25:23,23
26:25 31:11
32:22 33:5
38:22 39:14
42:10,18,23
43:10,25
46:11 49:14
50:15,24 53:6
57:2 60:8,12
63:8 65:7
title 22:25 23:6
23:21,22
titled 6:21 11:1
today 44:6
together 42:18
told 31:9 35:8
38:14 39:16
39:23 52:7
tonight 4:24
60:10 63:6,13
top 12:14 23:4
24:24 30:6
47:11
torn 38:19
totally 46:10
touch 42:13
53:21,25
touching 12:16
towards 31:14
37:10
Tract 34:6
transcribed
65:9
transcript 1:12
2:10
transcription
65:11
transparencies
10:17
truth 40:6
try 43:17 59:23
trying 9:16 31:7
31:14
two 5:21 7:8,9
11:14 15:2,8
16:15 17:3
20:9 24:15
43:4 44:6
typically 26:19
34:7
U
UBC 16:8 19:9
29:8 41:20
55:5,8,10
uHCommon
37~22 39:6
uncovered 7:13
11:25
under 34:4 55:6
57:13 58:14
65:9
undersigned
65:4
understand
13:3 26:14
38:12,24 39:9
48:10,15,16
51:14 52:20
58:21
understanding
52:16 53:1
56:18
understating
56:21
understood 46:8
9:24 50:11,15
uniform 5:13
7:18,19,25
8:13 9:15 23:7
28:1,8 35:11
47:1
Unintelligible
63:2
United 21:14
unknown 11:1
unless 9:10
42:14 53:4
unsafe 60:5
unstable 20:5
UBSRCCesSfld
19:5
unusual 13:6
uphold 5:11
9:18 57:21
61:10 62:20
62:21
use 16:20 27:20
28:11 29:3,11
29:15
used 7:20 27:9
28:20 34:7
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
Transcript of Proceedings 02/23/2000
Page 75
61:7 57:11 61:8,8 WHEREOF $ 2000 1:3,14 2:6
using 7:16 20:16 62:20 65:15 $1,350 14:12,14 2:15 4:2 11:3
40:6 65:8 wanted 28:23 while 35:7 40:21 39:3
51:21 53:13 whole 14:7 15:2 1 204 23:4
"3r ' 54:25 56:3 wild 19:13 15:8 10:19 11:8 21st 20:10
V3'.;~ " wanting50:18 32:13 15:7 22nd 14:19
vague 32:15 wants 29:10 william 3:4,5 10 21:15 42:12 23 1:3,14 2:6,14
validate 59:4 wasn't 16:3 31:5 6:19 10th 8:25 32:8 4:2
validity 9:3 43:21 44:12 WILLIAMS 3:4 32:18 23ed 11:3
verbatim 65:8 53:11 29:6 44:8 10-foot 45:5 241h 43:23
verification way 31:22 36:17 46:18,23 10500 2:11
59:8 37:20 44:6,6,8 47:20 48:16 11 18:5,14,15,17
verified 43:24 44:11 47:10 48:19,24 49:6 18:22 3 11:18 49:8,14
verif~ 45:14 55:16 56:9 49:9,15,19 lltli 8:18 3rd 32:20
47:10 59:1 57:25 58:21 57:18 60:13 12 18:18,19,21 3-foot 49:12
venus 19:9 59:19 62:19 60:19 18:23,25 30th 19:16 33:4
27:20 29:8 ways 34:18 willing 26:3,7 12-15 27:13 31st 8:8
37:22 Web 42:19 52:12 59:9,10 12-22 27:14
vertical7:2,7,10 Wednesday willingness 12168 1:23 2:17 5
7:22,24 12:13 1:14 2:14 4:2 47:15 52:10 65:22 5 13:25 15:8
14:4,7 15:2,9 week 14:20 wish 56:7 13 19:8 26:15 38:5,13
27:10 29:23 weight 30:1,23 wishes 50:1,23 13945 34:6 5-foot 48:11
30:19,20 31:4 36:18 59:7 54:2 14 19:8,16 33:12 5-foot-6 38:13
39:12,13 47:8 welcome 49:25 withstand 43:7 14th 34:4 48:11
very 12:17 13:5 49:25 52:1 WITNESS 15 19:22 5:01 2:13 4:3
22:12 23:18 well 12:6 13:5 65:15 15th 6:4 26:24 561006 1:24
36:15,20 39:9 13:16 14:5 word 15:5 33:21 15.08.020 18:5
40:15 41:7 25:15 26:4,6 wording 11:13 20:24 21:4 6
54:18 27:22 32:16 61:14,22 24:5 35:9 6 11:14 14:14
via 15:23 34:19 40:25 62:11,12 63:1 17 11:7 21:8,9 28:2 34:8 55:6
vice 37:8 45:15 53:22 words 32:17
171h6:15,19 61h5:21 30:15
view 45:5 55:23 57:25 work6:13,14 15:25 16:22 6:35 2:14 4:3
violation 24:4 59:21 62:1,16 27:2,3 31:14 18 18:2 20:18 6500 14:1
24:19 40:12 63:17 37:15 39:18 24:1 6549 4:12 5:1
42:5,20 43:1,8 went 8:13 11:21 44:4 18th 6:16 8:4 6:23 10:10
60:4 14:9 24:15 Wouldn't 40:15 32:13 14:1 15:15
violations 11:24 27:10 36:2 write 24:24 25:1 19 20:20 6550 11:19 14:2
41:17,25 37:17,18 writing 11:16 19th 58:20
visible 7:6 39:20 18:4 19:5,11 1991 23:7 7
visually 24:10 were 5:21 7:10 22:14,16 1994 28:14 34:4 75 38:12
26:22 8:1,2 11:25 23:13,14,23 39:3
vote 59:13 14:16,18 19:5 32:4,6 36:17 1997 5:15,21 6:4 8
19:12,18,19 46:6 55:22 11:14 14:19 8 15:1
W 22:2,9 24:8,17 56:20 60:22 1998 6:19 8:4,19
walls 28:2 29:21 25:15 30:12 written 6:13,19
8:25 16:22
34:8 35:2 30:14 31:2,6 wrong 23:17 18:2 19:3,8,16 9 15:25
46:19 48:7,9 31:19 32:13 29:19 52:21 19:21 20:5,10 98 43:23
49:16 50:7 34:21 35:21 54:6 20:18 24:1
55:6 60:25 35:25 38:14 wrote 18:11 32:8,20 33:4
want 12:6 15:14 40:24 42:24 19:21 25:1
16:10 22:22 43:10 44:13 47:4
29:24 33:6 47:9,14 50:2 y 1999 20:20
58:21
35:7,12 36:18 51:3,25 52:14 Yard 6:22
44:3,17 50:8 56:7 65:6 yeah 12:4 45:10
50:24 51:1 weren't 43:9 year 39:3 47:4 2 11:14 48:13,14
52:16 53:3,12 we'll 4:5,18 33:1 years 17:3 28:6 2rid 19:3
53:13,21,24 48:5 44:6 2-foot 49:9
54:22 56:21 we're 37:4 your're 62:17 20th 19:21 20:4
Esquire Deposition Services 714.834.1571
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONgA
LIST OF WARRANTS
FOR PERIOD: 03-01-00 (99/00)
=======~==:==== ................ RUN DATE: 03/01/00 PAOE: 1
ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT.
21509 ALABAMA POLICE & FIREFIOMTERS ASSOC
22 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION
21600 CRABTREE, AUDREY
6489
2543
1098
2732
21868
7
6309
21869
21860
21861
6199
21870
5206
6510
6255
21859
21871
4102
21862
21857
4475
33
4323
5119
21864
6067
4441
21865
1247
21858
21867
5119 BENSON, MAURY
4907 CONTRACTORS EQUIPMENT CO
6528 ASCOLTA TRAININg COMPANY
12059 SOFTWARE BDUCTION OF AMERICA~ INC
AES
A-1 EQUIPMENT SALES, INC.
ABC LOCKSMITHS
ABEIS READy MIX & MAINTENANCE
ABLETRON I C S
ADAMSON, RONALD
ADVANCED COPY SERVICES
AICON ENTERPRISES
AIR LIOUIDE AMERICA CORPORATION
ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT
AM PM TOWINg
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION
AON CONSULTINg & INSURANCE SERVICES
ASSI SECURITY
ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS
ATLAS ENQRAVINO
AUDIO-TECH BUSINESS BOOK SUMMARIES
B & K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE
B. C CAFE
BA~4ER TOOL & CUTTER ORINDINO, INC.
BARNES & NOBLE
BASELINE TRUE VALUE HARDWARE
BELLSOUTH WIRELESS DATA L. P.
BENSON, MAURY
BEROEN BRUNSWIO DRUg COMPANy
BERRYMAN & HENIOAR
BEST BUY CO., INC.
BEST VIDEO
BLAKE PAPER CO., INC.
BOURNE ROOFINO/BOURNE SHEET METAL
BRIDgFORD DISTRIBUTINO COMPANY
4369 BRODART BOOKS
5341 BUCKNAM & ASSOCIATES
6539 BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC.
6481 CALCOM
MAINTENANCE
APWA MEMBERSHIP
RECREATION
INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT
EQUIPMENT
RECREATION REFUNDS
TRAININg
RECREATION REFUND
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
INSPECTION SERVICES
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
PROGRESS PAYMENT
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
APWA MEMBERSHIP
NEWSLETTER
RESERVATION REFUND
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
ANNUAL SUBSCRIPTION
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
LIBRARY SUPPLIES
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES
COMMUNICATION CHARGE
INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
RECREATION SUPPLIES
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND
LIBRARY SUPPLIES
CONSULTANT SERVICES
PLANNINg FEE REFUND
RECREATION REFUND
** CHECK# OVERLAP
142295, 5.00-
1439594 20100-
143960 - 144012
144013. 27.00--
144014 - 148339
148340. 385.50-
148341 - 148733
148734. 178.80-
148735 - 149183
149184. 2,095.00
149185* 1,386.00
149186 - 149187
149188 5,512.75
149189 333.12
149190 481.38
~ 149191 40.4I
149192 22.30
# 149194 3~072.00
149195 46.00
149196 207.49
149197 31.00
149199 997
149200 201.00
149201 2,535.00
149202 1,750.00
# 149203 5~688+50
# 149204 859.39
149205 900
149206 149.00
# 149210 171+05
149211 95.10
149214 6.03
# 149218 66.45
149220 36.00
149229 2,500,00
I
1
.3
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONQA
LIST OF WARRANTS
FOR PERIOD: 03-01-00 (99/00)
==:==:=======:==: .................. RUN DATE: 03/01/00 PAGE: 2
ITEM DESCRIPTION WARS NO WARR, ANT.
62 CALIFORNIA JOURNAL
1223 CALSENSE
21872 CAPE-2000 CONFERENCE
21866 CATS USA PEST CONTROL
6520 CDNOW, INC,
5958 CHIVERS AUDIO BOOKS
74 CITY RENTALS
6464 COASTAL 5UILDINQ SERVICES
6531 CODE 3, INC,
4774 COLE. NINA
4301 CDMPUSA, INC,
643 COMPUTERLAND
2258 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DIST.,
21873 CPRS PARK OPERATIONS
21600 CRABTREE, AUDREY
85
21863
6495
284
3698
6302
41187
4205
858
5937
5137
5336
5944
41188
137
4486
6277
32286
5699
4600
6000
32270
158
32276
3633
INC.
CUCAMONOA CO HATER DIST
CUCAMONBA PLUMBING COMPANY
D & J FOOTHILL ELECTRICAL
DAISY WHEEL RIBBON CO~ INC
DEALERS AUTO TRIM
DEAN, INC., STUART
DYNALECTRIC
DYNAMIC GRAPHICS, INC.
ECONOLITE CONTROL PRODUCTS, INC.
EMPIRE FLOOR COVERING
EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE
ENRIOHT PLUMBINO
FAVELA JR., RICHARD
FIBRE CONTAINERS COMPANY
FIRST PLACE TROPHIES
** CHECK# OVERLAP
SUBSCRIPTION 149230 41,16
OFFICE/MAINTENANCE EGUIPMENT # 149231 3,408,71
REGISTRATION 149232 160.00
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 149233 6,26
RECREATION REFUNDS 149234 500.00
LIBRARY SUPPLIES 149235 6707
E8UIPMENT RENTAL/SUPPLIES # 149236 853,84
RECREATION REFUND # 149237 15,047. 50
RECREATION REFUND 149238 55.00
LIBRARY SUPPLIES 149239 15,81
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 149240 24,045.48
COMPUTER MAINTENANCE/SUppLIES # 149241 5,446.76
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 149242 16.70
CONFERENCE REOISTRATION 149243 5500
RECREATION 149244 27.00
<<< 149245 - 149247
MONTHLY HATER BILLINQS # 149248 18,602.32
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 149249 25.00
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 149250 26,676.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES # 149251 360,33
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 149252 170.03
CONTRACT SERVICES # 149253 3,000.00
OVERPAYMENT ON FEES 149254 15,00
OFFICE EQUIPMENT 149255 58.95
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 149256 15.00
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 149257 980. O0
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES # 149258 6~358+50
DEPOSIT REFUND 149259 2,425,00
REIMBURSEMENT 149260 86.00
OFFICE SUPPLIES 149265 9,05
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 149270 468.56
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 149280 1~793.90
4
|
|
|
l
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONOA
LIST OF WARRANTS
FOR PERIOD: 00-01-00 {9e/OO)
RUN DATE: 03/01/00 PAOE: 3
VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AM~.
3634 HOUSE OF RUTH
32277 HSU, M.D.,ANDREW S.
32282 HUFFMAN, ROY 0.
32289 HURST, JOHN
32290 IN-N-OUT BURQER
5682 INLAND INDUSTRIAL MEDICAL QROUP
6429 INLAND UNIFORMS
32285 INTERQRATED DIQITAL TECHNOLOGIES
32278 INTERSTATE BRANDS CORP.
3452 INTRAVAIA ROCK & SAND
179 KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN
549 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT. INC.
6538 MARKERTEK VIDEO SUPPLY
5851 MARKETING SERVICBS INTIL
32279 MASTEC NORTH AMERICAN~ INC+
32287 MCMULLEN, MARIA ELENA
2198 MICHAELS STORES INC. #3019
5852 MIDWEST TAPE
749 MIJAC ALARM COMPANY
1020 MOUNTAIN VIEW GLASS & MIRROR
5755 MOUNTAIN VIEW INLAND POOL
5813 MUNSON, MICHELLE
2248 NAPA AUTO PARTS
744 NATIONAL DEFERRED
593 NATIONAL NOTARY ASSOCIATION
5898 NATIONAL REGISTER PUBLISHINg
32280 NEW ENGLAND NEWSPAPER SUPPLY CO, INC
32284 NQUYEN, KIMIANH
32288 NORRIS, JIM J. & SHERRIE L.
712 NORRIS-REPKE, INC.
4853 OCLC, INC.
5240 ODIN METROLOGY
523 OFFICE DEPOT
3072 ONTARIO AIRPORT MARRIOTT
1224 ORANQE COUNTY STRIPING SERVICE, INC.
REIMBURSEMENT 149286 50.00
CONTRACT SERVICE 149287 300.00
RECREATION REFUND 149310 558.62
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 149317 241.49
BUSINESS LICENSE 14~3~5 12.60
CORE SERVICES CHARQES 149328 115.81
MAINTENANCE 149329 452.73
OFFIC8 SUPPLIES # 149332 8,035.72
STRIPING SERVICES 149334 13,730.98
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONQA
LIST OF WARRANTS
FOR PERIOD: 03-01-00 (99/00>
================ .................. RUN DATE: 03/01/00 PAGE: 4
ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO
====================== .................. WARS. ANT.
1824
6376
4904
1441
32275
757
32281
6205
6206
791
1432
6537
3632
12064
12057
12058
641I
2344
3942
6505
5988
4448
4558
350
ORIENTAL TRADINg
ORYX
OTT, LAURA
PACIFIC SELL
PAPER CREW, THE
PEP SOYS
PEP BOYS~ THE
PETERMAN LUMSER
PLANNINg CENTER, THE
PMI/DELTA CARE
POMONA INL VALLEY CNCL OF CHURCHES
PROTECTION SERVICE INDUSTRIES
PUSLID AGENCY RISK SHARINg AUTH CA.
RC.R. PLUMBINg, INC.
RALPHS gROCERY COMPANy
SANCHO CUCAMONQA COMMUNITY FOUNDATN
RANCHO CUCAMONQA FAMILY YMCA
REINHARDT~ RITA
RESPONSE ENVELOPE
RIgHTWAY
RIVERSIDE SLUEPRINT
ROYAL PIPE & SUPPLY
RUSH~ CHRIS
BY-LEE TRUCK TIRE SERVICE
SAN SERN COUNTY FIRE DEPT.
SANDEFUR, DAVID E
SECC CORP
SECORD & MURATORE
SSALIMAR T0URS & CHARTER
SHARED TECH. FAIRCHILD TELECOM, INC
SIEBE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROLS
SMART & FINAL
SMART DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY
SMIDERLE, RICHARD
SO CALIF OAS COMPANY
SOUTH COAST ENgINEERS&CONSTRUCTORS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
STARLIGHT PRODUCTIONS IND
STEELWORKERS OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION
STRATTON, JACK
STREAMLINE TECHNOLOgy OROUP~ INC
SUNDSERg CONSTRUCTION
SWEET'S CLEAN SWEEP
TARGET
TERNINIX INTERNATIONAL
TOVAR, ANNE MARGARET
TRANSTECH ENOINEERS, INC.
TREADWAY gRAPHICS
U S gUARDS CO., INC.
U S POSTMASTER
CHECK# OVERLAP
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 149335 119.10
RECREATION REFUND # 149336 120.89
INSTRUCTOR SNR. EXERCISE CLASS # 149337 410.50
MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 149338 5419
SUSINESS LICENSE 149339 1055
VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES # 149340 13.74
SUSINESS LICENSE 149341 23.00
EARTHQUAKE PREPAREDNESS KIT # 149342 607.12
SUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 149343 2~711.60
MEDICAL INSURANCE 149344 1~115.85
WEST END HUNGER PROGRAM # 149345 938.25
PROTECTION SERVICES-LIONS CNTR # 149346 93.70
2ND QUARTER PREMIUM DEPOSIT 149347 79,466.50
SUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 149348 80.72
RECREATION SUPPLIES 149349 65.52
RMB MONTE CARLO NIGHT TICKETS 149350 75.00
PROGRAM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM 149351 560.00
RECREATION REFUND 149352 761.60
OFFICE SUPPLIES 149353 1~441.70
VOID CK DATED 8/4/93 149354 2160
PRINTS 149355 13.37
MAINTENANCE REPAIRS 149356 1582
INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 149357 109.75
RECREATION REFUNDS 149358 11500
UNDERGROUND TANKS 149359 221176.75
PERMIT DEPOSIT REFUND 149360 500.00
PERMIT DEPOSIT REFUND 149361 1,OOO. O0
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 149362 43.00
RECREATION TRIP 149363 104.07
TELEPHONE SERVICES 149364 73.71
SERVICE/SUPPLIES ' 149365 14~973.00
DAY CAMP SUPPLIES # 149366 111.29
TRAININg 149367 198.00
EDUCATION REIMSURSEMENT 149368 53.00
MONTHLY gAS SILLS 149369 312.82
SUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 149370 242.68
<<{ 149371 - 149375
MONTHLy ELECTRIC PILLS # 149376 30~837.69
RECREATION REFUND 149377 4,667.84
OLDTIMERS FOUNDATION 149378 70833
PERMIT DEPOSIT REFUND 149379 250.00
SUSINESS LICENSE REFUND ]49380 22.99
SUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 149381 26.44
RECREATION REFUND 149382 0,100.00
YOUTH PROORAM & DAY CAMP SUPPL # 149383 63.69
MONTHLY PEST CONTROL SERVICE 149384 162.00
BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 149385 560.00
PROORESS ESTIMATE #1 149386 9,456.90
POLICE DEPT SUPPLIES 149387 2,307.51
SECURITY ~UARD SERVICE # 149388 3,07506
POSTAGE LANDSCAPE NEWSLETTER 149389 100.00
CITY OF RANCHS CUCAMONQA
LIST OF WARRANTS
FOR PERIODz 03-O1-00 ~99/O0)
RUN DATE: 03/01/00 PAGE; 5
VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR AMT.
~ CHECK~ OVERLAP
4788 UNDERGROUND SVC. ALERT OF SO. CALIF UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT 149390 468.05
3437 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE UNIFORM SERVICES # 149391 ~98.68
12065 VANDERSLUIS, BOB TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 149392 22427
12060 VANGUARD TOOL & MANUFACTURINg CO BUSINESS LICENSE REFUNDS 149393 16.70
5285 VIKINg TIRE VEHICLE SUPPLIES ~ 149394 1,387.09
499 VISION SERVICE PLAN - (CA) MONTHLY VISION SERVICE BILLINg 149395 8,479.62
5870 VLSYSTEMS, INC. COMPUTER HARDWARE # 149396 10~890+00
213 WAXIE, ~LEEN-LINE CORP MAINT SUPPLIES ~ 149397 575.70
120~1 WE8 SERVICE CO, INC ~USINESS LICENSE BEFUND 149398 53.88
4577 WELLS FARGO gUARD SERVICES SECURITY ~UARD SERVICES ~ 149399 2,211.54
5826 WEST gROUP PUBLISHINg # 149400 15948
399 WEST VALLEY VECTOR CONTROL DISTRICT VECTOR CONTROL SERVICES 149401 12,061.43
6535 WINTERMALE SOFTWARE MASTER PLAN STROM DRAIN # 149402 761~25
6283 ZOLEZIO, MIC~EY ROCHESTER/LAR~ DR RIgHT-OF-WAY 149403 294.00
TOTAL 681~764, Q8
I
I
.1
1
I
I
i
I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
LIST OF MARRANTS
FOR PER]D0:02-23-00 C99/00)
RUN DATE: 02123100 PAGE: I
VENDOR NAME ]TEN DESCRIPTION NARR NO WARRo ANT,
((( 14,7A59 - IA8670 )>)
6516 KRUSE, JOAN A. RECREATION REFUNDS 14,66710 1,120.00
581 SAN BERN COUNTY CAL-1D PROGRAM 1A89760 13.00
Sel SAN BERN COUNTY CAL-ZD PROGRAM 1489770 lO,OO
5367 A N OZRECT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I&BOBO 370.64`
I AA EQUIPMENT RENTALS CO.e 1NCo VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/SUPPLIES 148981 19.63
6309 ADAMSONe RONALD INSPECTTON SERVICES B 148983
5509 AIR CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENTS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I 168986 Ie836.57
1826 AIRTOUCH CELLULAR CELLULAR PHONE BILLINGS ! 14'6987 3,307.66
21855 AMERICAN INSTITUTE NATIONAL EXANZNAT[ON FEE 148991 188,00
2693 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES MONTHLY SERVICE 8 14,8992 810.33
6530 ARKOIAN, RAZHIK CONTRACT SERVICE ]4`8993 80.08
26 ASSOCIATED ENGINEERS 'PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 148997 880°00
ZgBZ AUDIO GRAPHICS SYSTEMS OFFICE EQUIPMENT t 14,8998 536.60
6115 AUFBAU CORPORATION PLAN CHECK SERVICES t 14,6999 ]6~,84Zo50
6102 B & K ELECTRIC NHOLESALE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 8 169000 242o19
576 BULLERe BRAD CASH AOVANCE 14,9008 135.00
1061 CHAMPION ANARDS & SPECIALZT]ES ENGRAVED PLAQUE 149013 178,87
21856 CHEVRON PRODUCTS CD~qPANY REFUND APPLICATION FEE 14,9014, ZeS70oOO
6408 COLOR TECH COMMERCIAL PRINTING RECREATION REFUND 149016 2e533o20
Z258 CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DZST.~ ZNCo MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 149011 1e160o48
32263 COPPOS FILRS RECREATION i 14,9018 6164,Ao16
6105 CORDURA, ALDG RECREATION REFUND 149019 22.10
5713 CPRS REGISTRATION 14,9020 4`5°00
5713 CPRS REGISTRATION 149021 60.00
<(< 149022 - 169022 >)>
· ~ CHECKI OVERLAP
85 CUCAMONGA CO HATER DZST NONTHLY WATER BZLLZNGS I 3490Z3 3.836.18
CITY OF RANCHD CUCANONGA
LIST OF MARRANTS
FOR P~R%OO: OZ-Z3-*O0 (99100)
RUN DATE: OZ/Z3100 PAGE: 3
VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION NARR NO WARR, ANTe
O0 CHECKA OVERLAP
6090 KONGe SOPHAK BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 149075 420.00
4982 KORANDA CONSTRUCTION CeCe8.G. i 1A9076 38696o50
6260 KRANER°S MASONRT RECREAT/ON REFUND 149077 3e567o60
6516 KRUSEe JOAN A, RECREATION REFUNDS 1A9078
5545 L S A ASSOCZATESw INCA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I 149079 2,790.76
5411 LAERDAL HEDZCAL CORPORATION RECREATION SUPPLIES I XA~080 '65.73
339 LANe JACK LEAGUE MEETING 169081 75°00
321 LANDSCAPE NEST, XNCo LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE # 149082 1138756o59
3Z267 LANGERe ANZTA RECREATION 149083
849 LANSDN PRODUCTS, INCo MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 8 169084 587°65
6336 LEMANe MARK SUBSCRIPTIONS I 149085 ITScOO
5884 LZLBURN CORPORATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES e 149086 68109800
2048 LITTLE TZKES CONNERCZAL PLAT SYS MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 149087 312.70
5662 LOS ANGELES COCA COLA 8TL. COD RECREATION SUPPLIES I 149088 427o71
32Z68 LDSCALZO, LINDA RECREATION 149089 25.00
32266 MARTIN, SAUL ANGEL RECREATION 149090 200o00
Z50 NARTZNEZ TGMZNG AND AUTOMOTIVE TONING SERVICES 149091
6085 NCAROLEe KEVIN BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 149092 10.00
3148 NCCLINTON TRUCKING CO°wINCe JoC. MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 169093 lfOTDoOO
2198 RICHAELS STORES ZNC. 13019 RECREATION SUPPLIES 149094 239°43
6170 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART 1996 GTE DUES 169095 396°96
32269 MOLANO, ANY RECREATEON I 169096 AOoO0
2361 NEMPORT TRRFFIC STUDIES NAZNTENANCE 169097 795.00
((( 149098 - 149099
5461 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES e 169100 ZmlZ8o60
5461 ORCNARO SUPPLY HARDWARE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 149101 23,29
235 OMEN ELECTRIC MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES i 14910Z 44o17
5343 PACIFIC PLUMOENG SPECIALTIES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 149103 Z07e36
6287 PACIF;CARE OF CALIFORNIA RECREATION REFUND lADlOA 328265e00
1823 PAGENET PAGING SERVICE 149105 4Z1,05
65Z9 PAGOVRTZZSw BASZLE COUNCIL MEETING 149106 3ZeO0
6141 PC NORLD REFUND'CHECK SENT ZN ERROR 169107 19o97
7209 PXNCOTTe JOHN REFUND PERS DEDUCTION 149108 226e27
CITY OF RANCMO CUCANQNGA
LIST OF MARRANTS
FOR PERIOD: 02-23-00 (99100)
6518 RNTTMN ENTERTAINMENT RECREATION REFUNDS 169127 130o00
Z76 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT PRINTS 169130 11.66
3314 ROBZNSDN FERTILIZER LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 149131 199.37
6117 S 8 L O, INCo BUSXNESS LICENSE REFUND i 169133 768°00
5745 SAFELITE GLASS CORP. SERVICE ANO SUPPLIES IA9135 397.52
303 SAN BERN COUNTY ENGINEERING OFFICE SUPPLIES 169136 ZO0.O0
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
February 29, 2000
City of Rancho Cucamcnga
Par Man~et Book % of
investnlents Value Value Value Portfolio
Certificates of Deposit - Bank 5,310,532.20 5,310,53220 5,310,532.20 5,23
Local Agency Investment Funds 14,795,550.83 14,795,550.83 14,795,55083 14.56
Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1.515,000.00 1.49
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 72,000,000.00 69,677,812.50 71,970,468.75 7082
Treasury Securities - Coupon 8,000,000.00 7,933,125.00 7,969,687.50 7.84
Mortgage Backed Securities 60,110.70 61,69472 56,320,18 0.06
Investments 101,681,193.73 99,293,715.25 101,617,559.46 100.00%
Cash
Passbook/Checking 930,607.92 930,607,92 930,607.92
(not included in yield calculations)
Total Cash and investments 102,611,801.65 100,224,323.17 102,548, 167.38
Total Earnings February 29 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year 497,467.94 3,921,487.64
Average Daily Balance 102,987,804.61 101,050,997.28
Effective Rate of Return 6.08% 5.81%
Days to YTM YTM
Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
368 36 5.102 5.173
I 1 5,692 5.771
365 154 5.730 5.810
1,701 1,205 5.742 5.822
726 441 5.688 5.767
7,778 3,157 9.707 9.842
1,291 894 5.699 5.778
I I 1.973 2000
1,291 894 5.699 5.778
I certi~J that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in comformity w th he nvestment policy adopted October 20, 1999. A copy of the investment policy is available in the
Administrative Services Department, The investment Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six months estimated expenditures. The month~nd market values
were obtained from (ID C)-Interactive Data Corporation pricing service.
The attached Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents as of the prior month's end is provided under the City official Investment Policy. The provisions of the individual bond documents
govern the manageme e funds,
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
February 29, 2000
Page 2
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Certificates of Deposit - Bank
6385XIKW9 01040 NATIONSBANK NA 03/11/1999
6385XINC0 01048 NATIONSBANK NA 06/01/1999
6509-28649 #35 01041 SANWA 03/16/1999
SuMotal and Average 5,310,53220
Local Agency Investment Funds
00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND
Subtotal and Average 16,454,171.52
Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank
06050EAR6 01055 NATIONSBANK NA 08/05/1999
Subtotal and Average I,B15,000.00
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
31331RAA3 00988
31331RDXO 00996
31331RMS1 01002
3183IRMA0 01004
31331RUG8 01022
31331R065 01036
31331R2Y0 01042
31331R306 01045
31331R4R3 01046
31331R7E9 01052
3133M2US4 01003
3133M6NE4 01035
3133M75D4 01038
3133M86L3 01043
3133M8B78 01044
3133M94J8 01050
3133M9501 01051
3133M96K3 01053
3133M9CG5 01054
3133MARK7 1059
3134AILB4 06994
3134AIH45 01000
3134A2PN2 01030
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/27/1997
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 67/17/1997
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/07/1998
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/06/1998
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 05/27/1998
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 12/15/1998
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/16/1999
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 04/07/1999
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 04/28/1999
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 06/21/1999
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/06/1998
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/08/1998
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 01/21/1999
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/23/1999
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 04/06/1999
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/17/1999
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/21/1999
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/28/1999
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 07/13/1999
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 02/25/2000
06/25/1997
10/22/1997
08/20/1998
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP.
Average Purchase
Balance Date Par Value
2,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
5,310,532.20
14,795,550.83
1~795,550.83
1,515,000.00
Market Value
2,000,000.00
1,500,000.00
1,810,532,20
5,310,532.20
BOok Value
Stated YTM Daysto Maturity
Rate Moody's 360 Maturity Date
2,000,000.00 5.100 5.100 12 03/13/2000
1,500,000.00 5.350 5.350 96 06/0512000
1,810,532.20 4,900 4.900 14 03/15/2000
5,310,532.20 5,102 36
14,795,550.83 14,795,550.83 5.771 5.692 1
14,795,550.83 14,795,550.83 5.692 I
t,515,000.00
5.730
5.730 154 08/02/2000
5.730 1~4
2,000,000.00 1,988,750,00 2,000,000.00 6.620 6.529 756 03/27/2002
2,000,000,00 1,966,875.00 1,999,375.00 6,240 6.162 868 07/17/2002
1,000,000.00 977,812.50 1,000,000.00 6.330 6.243 1,042 01/07/2003
2,000,000.00 1,955,625.00 2,000,000.00 6.220 6.135 1,041 01/06/2003
2,000,000.00 1,948.750.00 1,999,375.00 6.290 6.211 1,182 05/27/2003
2,000,000.00 1,899,375.00 2,000,000.00 5.660 5.582 1,384 12/15/2003
3,000,000.00 2,864,062.50 3,000,000,00 5.930 5,849 1,476 03/16/2004
2,000,000.00 t,928,125.00 1,997,500.00 5,850 5.805 1,132 04/07/2003
4,000,000,00 3,803,750,00 3,997,500.00 5.850 5.784 1,518 04/27/2004
2,000,000.00 1,970,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.375 6.288 842 06/21/2002
1,000,000.00 978,437.50 1,000,000.00 6.230 6.145 1,041 01/06/2003
2,000,000.00 1,894,375.00 2.000,000.00 5.530 5.454 1,377 12/08/2003
t,000,000.00 944,687.80 1,000,000.00 5.510 5.435 1,421 01/21/2004
3,000,000,00 2,914,687.50 3,000,000,00 5.755 5.676 936 09/23/2002
2,000,000.00 1,895,000.00 2,000,000.00 5.700 5.622 1,497 0410612004
3,000,000.00 2,899,687,50 2,984,531.25 6.230 0.000 1,569 06/17/2004
2,000,000,00 1,965,000.00 1,999,375.00 6.150 6.077 842 06/21/2002
2,000,000.00 1,940,625.00 1,996,875.00 6.480 6.428 1,580 06/28/2004
1,000,000.00 991,250,00 1,000,000.00 6.040 5.957 499 07/13/2001
2,000,000.00 1,991,875.00 1,999,687,50 7.000 6.910 1,091 02/25/2003
3,000,000.00 2,980,312.50 3,000,000.00 6.630 6.537 694 01/24/2002
2,000,000.00 1,965,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.320 6.233 965 10/22/2002
2,000,000.00 1,933,125.00 2,000,000.00 6.050 5.967 1,267 08/20/2003
Portfolio CITY
Run Date: 03/07r2(x~ - 17:12 CP
% PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept V5olf
CUSIP Investment #
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
3134A2XJ2 01033
3134A2N20 01037
3134A3NS1 01047
31364CJ58 00992
31364FC33 01016
31364FG96 01018
31364GBE8 01032
31364GJM2 01034
31364GTJ8 01039
Suetotal and Average
Average
Issuer Balance
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP.
FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
FEr)ERAL NATL MTG ASSN
70,315,554.96
Treasury Secudties - Coupon
9128274M1 01026 TREASURy NOTE
9128275H1 01049 TREASURY NOTE
9128275X6 1058 TREASURY NOTE
Sub~o~tal and A_verage
Mortgage Backed Securities
313401vv~f7
31360BJ21
36215VVX74
36215XZS4
7,969,687.50
00071 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG, CORP.
00203 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN
00002 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN
00069 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN
Subtotal and Average 51,071.21
Total Investments and Average 101,622,017.38
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
February 29, 2000
Purchase
Date Par Value Market Value Book Value
11/2411998 2,000,000.00 1,910,625.00 2,000,000.00
01/14/1999 2,000,000.00 1,928,125.00 2,000,000.00
05104/1999 5,000,000.00 4,764,062+50 5,000,000.00
05/05/1997 2,000,000.00 2,001,875,00 2,000,000+00
05/04/1998 3,000,000,00 2,920,312.50 3,000,00000
0511911998 2,000,000.00 1,943,125.00 2,000,000.00
10/06/1998 2,000,000.00 1,905,625.00 2,000,000.00
12/01/1998 2,000,000,00 1,891,875.00 2,000,00000
02/1111999 4,000,000.00 3,815,000.00 3,996,250.00
72,000,000.00 69,677,812,50 71,970,468.78
08/0311998 2,000,000.00 1,995,000,00 1,996,250.00
06/09/1999 4,000.000.00 3,943,750,00 3,977.50000
01131/2000 2,000,000.00 1,994,375.00 1,995,937+50
8,000,000.00 1,933,125.00 7,969,687.50
02r2311987 5,334.02 5,391,15 5,295,66
09/15/1987 48,396.41 49,830.88 44,706.18
06123/1986 5,615.95 5,696.48 5,538.73
0512311986 764.32 776.21 779.61
60,110.70 61,694.72 56,320.18
101,681,193.73 99,293,715.25 101,617,559.46
Page 3
Stated YTM Days to Maturity
Rate Moody's 360 Matudt,/ Date
5.790 5.711 1,363 11/24/2003
5.600 5,523 1,049 01/14/2003
5.900 5.819 1,525 05/04/2004
7.070 6,973 798 05/0812002
6.280 6,194 1,160 05/05/2003
6.125 6.041 1,174 05/19/2003
5.670 5.592 1,314 10/06/2003
5.520 5444 1,370 12/01/2003
5.860 5.801 1,442 02/11/2004
5.742 1,205
5.375 5.400 152 07/31/2000
5.250 5.478 456 05/31/2001
6.375 6.396 701 01/31/2002
5.688 441
8.000 8,219 671 01/0112002
8,500 10.018 3,836 09/01/2010
8.500 8.778 440 05/15/2001
9.000 8.547 379 03115/2001
9.707 3,157
5.699 894
CUSIP
Cash Accounts
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Cash
February 29, 2000
00180 BANK OF AMERICA
Cash Subtotal and Average Balance 1.368,487.23
Total Cash and Investments 102,987.504.61
MarketValue
Cash Account Total
102,611,801.65
930,607+92
100,224,323.11
Book Value
930,607.92
930,607.92
t02,548,167.38
Rate Moody's 360 Maturity
2.000
Page 4
5.699 894
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
Certificates of Deposit - Bank
Subtotal
Local Agency Investment Funds (Monthly Summary)
00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Portfolio Management
Investment Activity By Type
February 1, 2000 through February 29, 2000
Beginning Stated TransacBon Purchases
Balance Rate Date or Deposits
5,310,532.20
Subtotal 17,095,550.83
Checking/Savings Accounts (Monthly Summary)
00180 BANK OF AMERICA
Subtotal 936,607.92
Certificates of Deposit/Neg. - Bank
5.771
2.000
2,500,000.00
2,500,000.00
Fedeml Agency Issues - Coupon
3133MARK7 1059
Treasury Securities - Coupon
Mortgage Backed Securities
313401VVW7 00071
313608J21 00203
36215VVX74 00002
36215XZS4 00069
4,997,500.00
4,997,500.00
Subtotal 1,515,000.00
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 7.000 02/25/2000 1,999,687.50
Subtotal 69,970,781.25 1,999,687.50
Subtotal 7,969,687.50
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 8,000 02/15/2000 O+00
FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 8.500 02/25/2000 0+00
GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 8.500 02/15/2000 0.00
GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 9.000 02/15/2000 0.00
Subtotal 57,579.83 0.00
Total 102,855,739.53 9,497,t81.50
Sales/Maturities
or Withdrawals
4.800,000.00
4,800,000.00
5,003,500.00
5,003,500.00
0.00
0.00
250.64
414.47
527.88
66.66
1,259.65
9,804,759.65
Page 5
Ending
Balance
5,310,532.20
14,795,550.83
930,607.92
1,515,000.00
71,970,468.75
7,969,687.50
56,320.18
102,548,167.38
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 03t07f2000 - 17:12 PM (PRF_PM3) SymRept V5,01f
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Summary of Cash and Investments with Fiscal Agents
Forthe Month Ended January 31, 2000
Bond Issue
Assessment District No 93-1
Masi Plaza
Trustee and/or
Paying1 Agent
US Bank
Purchase
Account Name Invesbnent Date
imprvmnt Fund First American Treasury Obligation 8/4/97
Imprvmnt Fund Cash N/A
Reserve Fund First American Treasury Obligation 8/4/97
Reserve Fund Cash N/A
Redemp. Fund Cash N/A
PFA RFDG Rev Bonds series
1999 A (Sr) & 1999 B (Subord)
US Bank
Expense Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/99
Cash N/A
Sub Resrv, Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/99
Cash N/A
Sr. Resrv. Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/99
Cash N/A
Redemption Fund First American Treasury Obligation 7/1/99
Cash N/A
TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS WITH FISCAL AGENTS
* Note: These investments are money markets accounts which have no stated maturity date due to their liquidity.
Maturity
Date
N/A*
N/A
N/A*
N/A
N/A
N/A*
N/A
N/A*
N/A
N/A*
N/A
N/A*
N/A
Yield
5.10%
N/A
5.10%
N/A
N/A
Cost
Value
$ 249,494.00
0.21
252,561.00
0.92
0.43
$ 502,056.56
5.10% $ 25,659.29
N/A 0,29
5.10% 592,454.55
N/A 0.55
5.10% 1,112,997.63
N/A 0,63
5.10% 12,756.75
N/A 0.75
$ 1,743,870.44
$ 2,245,927.00
\
~L~ i.'lfinancelCash with Fiscal Agents xls 3/8/00 3:32 PM
R A N C H O
bUILDING AND
C U C A M O N G A
SAFETY
Staff Report
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 15, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Bill Makshanoff, Building and Safety Official
APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING FINDINGS AND
DETERMINATIONS REGARDING AN APPEAL FILED BY GEORGE
GEORGIOU
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached resolution regarding
property located at 6549 Egglestone Place, Rancho Cucamonga.
BACKGROUND:
On February 23, 2000 the City Council held a special meeting to hear an appeal by Mr.
George Georgiou of a Building and Safety Official's decision regarding a masonry wall
located at 6549 Egglestone Place, Rancho Cucamonga. The City Council upheld the
Building and Safety Official's decision. The attached resolution establishes the findings
and determinations in support of the City Council decision regarding Mr. Georgiou's
appeal.
//Zct'fullySub 'tted,
William ~~
Building and Safety Official
WNM:Ic
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. 00-038
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING ITS
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS REGARDING 6549
EGGLESTONE PLACE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
1. The City Council has previously repealed Section 15.08.020 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code. The City Council has subsequently adopted the
1997 Uniform Building Code, as amended ("Code"). The Code establishes an
Appeals Board for hearing matters within the jurisdiction of such body, all as set
forth in the Code. The City Council has provided the public hearing described
hereunder as a coudesy to Mr. George Georgiou in response to his request to
appear before the City Council. The public hearing provided to Mr. Georgiou is
not provided under the authority of the now repealed Section 15.08,020 or the
successor Code and each regulation is inapplicable, for all purposes, to the
proceedings discussed hereunder.
2. The City Council conducted and concluded a public hearing on February 23,
2000 in regards to the decision of City's Building Official in regards to a certain
segment of slumpstone wall ("Wall") located upon the real property addressed
as 6549 Egglestone Place, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The City Council
received oral and written testimony in regards to the subject matter of the
hearing, which testimony is hereby incorporated by reference, and duly
deliberated upon said evidence prior to its adoption and issuance of this
Resolution.
3. The Building Official of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California did properly
investigate, respond to and procesS; the concerns and complaints filed with the
City of Rancho Cucamonga by Mr. Georgiou as regards the Wall. The City
Council specifically finds that the Building Official acted properly, in all respects,
as regards his acceptance of that certain engineering analysis prepared by
Stampfl Engineering and dated January 17, 1998 and his reliance upon the
same in determining that the Wall is and was designed and built in conformance
with the standards specified by the applicable Uniform Building Code, as
amended.
4. The City Council hereby determines that, based upon the evidence presented,
no further investigation, repair or modification of the Wall is required to bring the
Wall into conformance with the minimum standards required by the applicable
Uniform Building Code, as amended and adopted by the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
5. The City Council encourages and recommends that Citation Homes and Mr.
Georgiou reconsider the prior offer of Citation Homes to remove and replace a
certain other segment of block wall. The referenced wall is approximately three
(3) feet in length, and generally located immediately adjacent to the residential
dwelling unit occupied by Mr. Georgiou at 6549 Egglestone Place, Rancho
Cucamonga. The City Council believes that the parties would be mutually
benefited by such cooperative undertaking.
Resolution No. 00-038
Page 2
6. The City Clerk is directed to deliver this Resolution by first class United States
Mail postage prepaid, or by personal delivery to Mr. George Georgiou at 6549
Egglestone Place and to Citation Homes, Attention: Mr. Isolda at TAVA
Development Company, DBA Citation Homes, 19600 Fairchild Road, Suite 270,
Irvine, California 92612.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of March 2000.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN E D:
ATTEST:
William J. Alexander, Mayor
Debra J. Adams, CMC, 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 Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held
on the 15th day of March 2000.
Executed this 16th day of March, 2000, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 15, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council,
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Diane Young, Records Coordinator 5
Destruction of City Records
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing the
destruction of City Records pursuant to California Government Code Section 34090, the
City's Records Retention Schedule, and other applicable legal citations.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
The records in the attached destruction requests have met their required retention as listed
in the City's Records Retention Schedule, and are due for final disposition. The records
have been reviewed and approved for destruction by the Department representatives, the
Department Heads and the City Attorney.
DMY
(Attachments as noted)
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE
DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS WHICH ARE NO
LONGER REQUIRED AS SET FORTH IN CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090 AND OTHER
APPLICABLE LEGAL REFERENCES
WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain City records of the following
Departments and Divisions have been retained in compliance with all applicable Federal,
State and local statutes:
Code Enforcement
Engineering - Admin
; and
WHEREAS, said City records have met their useful life and are no longer
required for public or private purposes:
WHEREAS, destruction of said records is necessary to conserve storage
space, increase staff productivity, and maintain conformance with the City's Records
Management Policy; and
WHEREAS, said records as listed in Exhibit "A" attached hereto have been
approved for destruction by the City Attorney;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
does hereby resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: That approval and authorization is hereby given to destroy
those records described as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and
made a part hereof.
Resolution No. 00-***
Page 2
SECTION 2: That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in
full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 15th day of March, 2000
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAINED:
ATTEST:
William J. Alexander, Mayor
Debra J. Adams, CMC, 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 Cucamonga, California, at a regular
meeting of said City Council held on the 15th day of March, 2000.
Executed this 16th day of March, 2000, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk
2/
EXHIBIT 'A'
Departmental Destruction Authorizations for the following
Departments / Divisions
Code Enforcement
Engineering Administration
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Approval and Authorization
To Destroy Paper Records and/or Documents
Requestor:
I have inspected the following records/documents and recommend/request that they be destroyed.
These records have not been stored in the City's Records Center and are not listed in the City's
Automated Records Management System (ARMS); therefore, destruction is requested outside
the scope of the annual ARMS generated destruction process.
Description of Records / Documents (Include
Record Title Code from Records Retention
Schedule when applicable)
dZO.
Beginning and Ending (Inclusive) Dates of
Records / Documents (Mo/Yr)
Department Approval
City Attorney Approval (if required)
e Date
Council Approval Date (if required)
Destroyed by:
Signature Date
R.M. Revised 11/98
_j
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Approval and Authorization
To Destroy Paper Records and/or Documents
Requestor:
I have inspected the following records/documents and recommend/request that they be destroyed.
These records have not been stored in the City's Records Center and are not listed in the City's
Automated Records Management System (ARMS); therefore, destruction is requested outside
the scope of the annual ARMS generated destruction process.
Description of Records / Documents (Include
Record Title Code from Records Retention
Schedule when applicable)
Beginning and Ending (Inclusive) Dates of
Records / Documents (Mo/Yr)
City Attorney Approval (if required)
e Date
Council Approval Date (if required)
Destroyed by:
Signature Date
R.M. Revised 11/98
J
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Approval and Authorization
To Destroy Paper Records and/or Documents
Department: ENG I NEERI NG
Requestor: LUC I SAUNDERS
I have inspected the following records/documents and recommend/request that they be destroyed.
These records have not been stored in the City's Records Center and are not listed in the City's
Automated Records Management System (ARMS); therefore, destruction is requested outside
the scope of the annual ARMS generated destruction process.
Description of Records / Documents (Include
Record Title Code from Records Retention
Schedule when applicable)
Beginning and Ending (Inclusive) Dates of
Records / Documents (Mo/Yr)
Correspondence Files
1020.1
January, 1995 through
December, 1995
Department Approval
City Attorney Approval (if required)
Signature Date
Council Approval Date (if required)
Destroyed by:
Signature Date
RM. Revised 11/98
RA CHO
C"UCAMONGA
DEPARTMENT
StaffRe rt
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
March 15, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer
APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT
SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 98-12, LOCATED AT
THE NORTHWEST TERMINUS OF BELL COURT, WEST OF RED OAK
STREET, SUBMFFI'ED BY CHARLES UNSWORTH
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving DR
98-12, accepting the subject agreement and securities, ordering the annexation to
Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1
and 6, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
DR 98-12, located at the northwest terminus of Bell Court, west of Red Oak Street, in
the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, was
approved by the Planning Commission on August 31, 1998. This project is for the
construction of a 45,990 square foot industrial building on 2.5 acres of land.
The Developer, Charles Unsworth, is submitting an agreement and securities to
guarantee the construction of the public improvements in the following amounts:
Faithful Performance Bond
$3,800.00
Labor and Material Bond
$1,900.00
Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's Office.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DR 98-12
February 24, 2000
Page 2
A letter of approval has been received from the Cucamonga County Water District. The
Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City
Clerk's office.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:WV:sd
Enclosures
27
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITY FOR DR 98-12
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for
its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on March 15, 2000, by Charles
Unsworth as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real
properly specifically described therein, and generally located at the northwest terminus of
Bell Court, west of Red Oak Street; and
WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement
Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the
development of said real property referred to as DR 98-12; and
WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good
and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is
approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on
behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest
thereto; and
2
That said Improvement Security is accepted as good and
sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof
by the City Attorney.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 98-12
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has
previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms .of the "Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of
the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as
Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance
District"); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance
District; and
WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex
the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
referenced to the Maintenance District; and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed
to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the
proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report".
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property
as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached
hereto to the Maintenance District.
SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the
levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder.
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6
I
(-
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
NORTll
EXHIBIT "B"
WORK PROGRAM
PROJECT: DR 98-12
STREET LIGHTS:
Dist. 5800L
S1 1
S6
NUMBER OF LAMPS
9500L 16,000L 22,000L 27,500L
LANDSCAPING:
Community
Equestrian
Trail Turf Non-Tuff
Dist. D.G.S.F. S.F. S.F.
L3B
Trees
Ea.
6
* Existing items installed with original project.
ASSESSMENT UNITS:
Assessment Units
By District
Parcel Acres S1 S6 L3B
N/A 2.5 5.0 2.5 2.5
Annexation Date: March 15, 2000
Form Date 11/16/94
~CCENTER DR.
ARROW ROUTE
Z
26TH ST.
PULLMAN CT.
EDISON CT.
< SITE
FULTON CT. ~
BELL CT.
JERSEY BLVD.
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGX1V~G DX~ON
Dx~ ,~,~ -/2
N
C H 0
CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DEPARTFIENT
StagRe 14:
DATE: March 15, 2000
TO: Mayor and members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Henry Murakoshi, Associate Engineer
~: APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND
IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR INTERIOR STREETS AND STORM
DRAINS (2ND PHASE, VICTORIA PARK LANE TO HIGHLAND AVENUE),
AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT MAP NO. 15875, LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND DAY CREEK
BOULEVARD, SUBMI'I'I'ED BY KAUFMAN AND BROAD OF
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract Map
Number 15875, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation
to Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos.
1 and 3 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to
cause said map to record.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Tentative Tract Map No. 15875, located at the northeast corner of Base Line Road and
Day Creek Boulevard, was approved by the Planning Commission on October 14, 1998,
for a residential subdivision 158 single family lots on 32.6 acres of land in the Low
Medium Reside.ntial Designation within the Terra Vista Community Plan. Final Map
15875, consisting of 72 single-family lots, is in the 2nd phase.
The Developer, Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc., is submitting an
agreement and security to guarahtee the construction of the off-site improvements in
the following amounts:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
TRACT MAP NUMBER 15875
March 15, 2000
Page 2
Faithful Performance Bond $592,000
Labor and Material Bond: $296,000
Monumentation Bond $ 6,000
Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office.
Letters of approval have been received from the high school and elementary school
districts and Cucamonga County Water District. C.C. & R.'s have also been approved
by the City Attorney. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the
Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:HM:sd
Attachments
~UI~,"0Tr~""~~GHLAND
AVE.
, SILV[RI~ERRT
_._-Ii,
II n
~,11 -~
o -7
I
BASE
I I CHURCH
SUGAR
GUM ST.
LINE ROAD
STREET
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
FOOTHII L
CiTy (Jl,' Ib\NCilU CUCAIVIONGA
COUNTY Oi" ~AN IIEI{NAA{UINiJ
~'i'/Vi'E L)I,' CALII,'LIi{NIA
RESOLUTION NO. ~) 0 "D q;--
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT
MAP NUMBER 15875 AND IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY
WHEREAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 15875, submitted by Kaufman and Broad of Southern
California, Inc., located on the northeast comer of Base Line Road and Day Creek Boulevard, being
a division of 158 single family lots on 32.6 acres offand in the Medium Residential District was
approved by the Planning Commission oft he City of Rancho Cucamonga on October 14, 1998, and
is in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant
to that Act; and
WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 15875 is the final map (2"d phase) of the division of land
approved as shown on said Tentative Tract Map; and
WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map
by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement
guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security by Kaufman and Broad of Southern California, Inc.,
as developer; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement
Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby
authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and
the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication and the final map delineating the same for
said Tract Map No. 15875 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same
to the County Recorder to be filed for record.
RESOLUTION NO. ~ ~ ' ~ q,~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 AND STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 3 FOR TRACT MAP
NUMBER 15875
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofRancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has previously
formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia, said
special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 2, Street
Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and
WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the
property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the
Maintenance District; and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the
Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation
without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report".
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as
shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the
Maintenance District.
SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of
all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder.
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. Z.
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND ,5
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
· STATE OF CALIFORNIA
EXHIBIT "B"
WORK PROGRAM
PROJECT: TRACT 15875 (Interior Streets)
STREET LIGHTS:
Dist. 5800L
S1
S3 23
NUMBER OF LAMPS
9500L 16,000L 22,000L
27,500L
LANDSCAPING:
Community
Equestrian
Trail
Dist. D.G.S.F.
L2
T~f Non-T~f
S.F. S.F.
Trees
Ea.
153
* Existing items installed with original project.
ASSESSMENT UNITS:
Assessment Units
By District
Parcel DU S1 S2 L1
72 72 72
Annexation Date: March 15, 2000
Form Date 11/16/94
CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF
CONSENT AND WAIVER TO ANNEXATION
FOR TRACT 15875
TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2,
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1
AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD[NO
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
WILLIAM J. O'NEIL, the undersigned, hereby certifies as follows:
That I am the duly CITY ENGINEER of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA.
That on the 2na day of February, 2000, I reviewed a Consent and Waiver to Annexation
pertaining to the annexation of certain property to the Maintenance District, a copy of which is on
file iri the Office of the City Clerk.
That I caused said Consent and Waiver to Annexation to be examined and my examination
revealed that said Consent and Waiver to Annexation has been signed by the owners of all of the
property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District.
That said Consent and Waiver to Annexation meets the requirements of Section 22608.1 of
the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
EXECUTED this 2"d day of February, 2000, at Rancho Cucamonga, California.
CITY ENGINEER
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
R A C H O C U C A M O N G A
DATE:
TO:.
FROM:
SUIIJECT:
March 15, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF
$32,450.00, ($29,500 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) FOR THE MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC
SIGNALS AND INTERSECTION LIGHTING AT CARNELIAN STREET AND 19TM STREET
(SR 30), TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER NEW WEST SIGNAL TO BE FUNDED FROM
TRANSPORTATION FUND ACCOUNT 22-4637-981 I.
It is recommended that the City Council award and authorize for execution the contract for the modification of traffic
signals and intersection lighting at Carnelian Street and 19:h Street (SR 30), to the apparent low bidder New West Signal to
be funded from Transportation Fund account 22-4637-9811.
BACKGROUND ANALYSIS:
Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on February 29, 2000, for the subject project. The
Engineer's estimate was $52,000. 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 found all bidders to meet the
requirements of the bid documents.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:JTH:dbm
Attachment
z//
Modification of Traffic Signals
and Safety Lighting at
19th Street and Carnelian Street
City of Rancho N
Cucamonga
S
THE C IT Y OF
J~ANCIIO CUCA~,IONGA
StitffReport
DATE:
March 15, 2000
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Cormell
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer,,~~
SUBJECT: ACCEPT IRREVOCABLE AUTHORITY TO PAY #LG200012A REDUCING THE
FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND FOR TRACT 13812, LOCATED ON SOUTH SIDE
OF SUMMIT AVENUE, WEST OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY WEALTH
V, LLC AND RELEASE IRREVOCABLE AUTHORITY TO PAY #SB995038
RECOMMENDATION:
The required storm drain improvements for Tract 13812, have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it
is recmmnended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Irrevocable Authority to Pay
#SB995038 held as a Faithrid Performance Bond and accept Irrevocable Authority to pay #LG200012A.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
As a condition of approval of completion of Tract 13812, located on the south side of Summit Avenue, west
or Etixvanda Avenue, the applicant was required to complete storm drain and street improvements. The storm
drain improvements bare been completed and it is recommended that City Coancil release the existing
Irrevocable Authority to Pay #SB995038 aad accept the Irrevocable Authority to Pay #LG200012A to
guarantee completion of the remainder of tile improvements..
Developer:
Release:
Accept:
Wealth V, LLC
1028 Westminster Avenue
Alban~bra, CA 91803
IRREVOCABLE AUTHORITY TO PAY #SB995038 $3,718,000.00
IRREVOCABLE AUTHORITY TO PAY #LG200012A $1,780,300.00
Respectfully submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:LRB:Is
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENGINEERING DIVISION
ITEM: Tract 13812
TITLE: Vicinity Map
EXHIBIT: "A"
RAN HO
ENC~NEER|N(,~
CUCAMONGA
DEPARTMENT
March 15, 2000 '
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA HEM D-10 - ACCEPT THE HAVEN AVENUE
PAVEMENT REHABILITAION PROJECT, CONTRACT NO. 99-089, AS
COMPLETE, RELEASE THE BONDS AND AUTHORIZE THE Crl'Y ENGINEER TO
FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLE"HON AND APPROVE THE FINAL CONTRACT
AMOUNT OF $250,594.07
Staff request Consent Calendar Item D-10 "Approval to accept the Haven Avenue
Rehabilitation Project...." Be removed from tonight's agenda due to pavement lifting in
front of Chaffey College. The contractor, All American Asphalt, had agreed to make
repairs, but as of this date they have not. Staff will schedule the item upon completion
of this repair.
WJO:dbm
THE CITY
I~ANCtlO
OF
CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE:
March 15, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
ACCEPT THE HAVEN AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROJECT,
CONTRACT NO. 99-089, AS COMPLETE, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY
ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVE THE FINAL
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $250,594.07
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council accept the Haven Avenue Pavement Rehabilitation Project, Contract
No. 99-089, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the release
of the retention in the amount of $25,059.41,35 days after acceptance. Also, approve the final contract
amount of $250,594.07.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications and to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The final contract amount, based on project documentation, is $250,594.07.
The Engineer's estimate was $465,702.88.
Respectfully submitted,
Will~J.~O,Ne~il~{'~
City Engineer
WJO:LEH/DBM:Is
Attachments
q5
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
/~HILLSIDE RD
WILSDN AVE
BANYAN ST
LEMEN AVENUE
19TH ST :~
~,~ --
z
UPI~ND \ ~
BASE LIN{ RD
FOOTHILL BLV __
Project
Site
VICTO~
Ld
I ~4TH ST
_SUMMI~T
ONTARIO
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HAVEN AVENUE PAVEMENT REHABILITATION
FROM LEMON AVENUE TO WILSON AVENUE
LOCATION MAP
RESOLUTION NO. ~)~ 't} qq
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE HAVEN AVENUE
PAVEMENT RE1 IAB1LITATION PROJECT, AS COMPLETE,
RELEASE THE BONDS AND AUTHORE THE FILING OF A NOTICE
OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for the Haven Avenue
Pavement Rehabilitation Project, Contract No. 99-089, has been completed to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certit~,ing the work
complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
rcsolvcs. that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a
Notice of Completion with the County Recorder ot' San Bernardino.
q7
THE CITY OF
I~ANCHO ClJCAMONGA
StllffReport
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SURJECF:
March 15, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTIONS APPROV1NG AND CONFIRMING
THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS AND SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
MAY 3, 2000, TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000/2001 FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2,
3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS
PROPOSED.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Reports and set the Public
Hearing for May 3, 2000 to levy the annual assessments for Landscape Maintenance District
Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. It is recommended there be no increase in assessment rates in
these districts for Fiscal Year 2000/2001. The Engineer's Reports are on file in the City Clerk's
Office.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
It is recommended that assessment rates not be increased in any of the Landscape Maintenance
Districts for the FY 2000/2001. Cucamonga County Water District is increasing the water
commodity rate $0.03. However, water usage savings due to water conservation efforts that
include a program to continue computerizing the irrigation systems for the entire District's
maintained landscape areas is helping to keep the cost down allowing the assessment rate to be the
same as the rates for FY 1999/2000. In many of the districts, back taxes have been paid with
interest and penalties thereby increasing the revenue in those districts. In some districts, an
increase in the amount of landscaped area to maintain has caused an increase in the amount of
maintenance and operation costs. This cost will be offset by increase in revenue received from
new developments in the district. In past years, any available prior year carry over was used to
keep assessments below the annual assessment revenue requirements. In some districts this is still
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
March 15, 2000
Page 2
true and has allowed _the assessment rate to remain constant. The following, along with reference
to the Engineer's Reports, identifies proposed FY 2000/2001 rates. The Engineer's Reports
identify the required budget for each district and any carryover used to reduce rates.
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. 1 - General City
It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $92.21 for the FY 2000/2001. Prior year
carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years.
Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 -Victoria Planned Community
It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $422.00 for the FY 2000/2001. LMD #2
has the largest landscape area of any district in the City with 127.13 acres, of which 32.37 acres
is parks. Prior year carry over 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 2000/2001.
Landscape Maintenance District No. 3 B -Commercial/Industrial
It is recommended that assessment rate remain at $352.80 per acre for the FY 2000/2001.
Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 - Terra Vista
It is recommended that the single family residential assessment rate remain at $252.50 for the FY
2000/2001. LMD #4 has 36.23 acres of parks. 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 2000/2001.
Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 - Caryn
It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $246.97 for the FY 2000/2001. Prior year
carry over will be applied but may not be available in the future.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
March 15, 2000
Page 3
Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 - North Etiwanda
It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $307.05 for the FY 2000/2001. Etiwanda
Creek Park located on the eastside of East Avenue north of and adjacent to the Summit
Intermediate School was accepted into the district in fiscal year 97/98 for maintenance of 12
acres.
Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 - South Etiwanda
It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $151.45 for the FY 2000/2001.
Respectfully submitted,
City Engineer
WJO:WS:dlw
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FOR APPROVAL
OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR
LANDSCAPE MAiNTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B,
4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE
PROPOSED.
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. I, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer has made an filed with the City Clerk of said City a report
in writing as called for under and pursuant to said Act, which as 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 any 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:
That the Engineer's Estimate of itemized costs and expenses of said work and of the
incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said reports be hereby
approved and confirmed.
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 approved and confirmed.
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 approved and confirmed.
4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Annual Report for the fiscal year
2000/2001 for the subsequent proceedings.
RESOLUTION
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 2000/2001
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 Part'2 of Division, 15 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 levy and collect assessments within Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos.
1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for the fiscal year 2000/2001 for the maintenance and operation of
those parkways, parks and facilities thereon dedicated for common greenbelt 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 particularly
described on maps which are on file in the City Clerk's office, entitled "Assessment Diagrams
Street Lighting Maintenance Districts 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 Maintenance District No. 1 ", "Map
of Landscape Maintenance District No. 2", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 3A",
"Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No.
4", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 5", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
March 15, 2000
Page 2
No. 6", "Map of Landscape Maintenance District No. 7", "Map of Landscape Maintenance
District No. 8", indiciiting 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 govem 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.. approved the
annual 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 title "Annual Engineer'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 scheduled in the
Civic Center Council Chambers, 10500 Civic Center Drive, City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California, 91730.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000 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 carded out or why
assessments should not be levied and collected for fiscal year 2000/2001.
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 Califomia designated as the Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972, being Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of Califomia.
Publication of Resolution of Intention
SECTION 7: Published notice shall be made pursuant to Section 6061 of the
Government Code. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the
same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the
hearing, at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation
published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
TH CITY
I~ANCIIO
OF
CUCAMONGA
SmffRel rt
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECt:
March 15, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTIONS APPROVING AND CONFIRMING
THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS AND SEEING OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
MAY 3, 2000, TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000/2001 FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS
PROPOSED.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Reports and set the Public
Hearing for May 3, 2000 to levy the annual assessments 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 2000/2001. The Engineer's Reports are on file in the City Clerk's
Office.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Below is an itemized analysis on a district by district basis. To summarize, the assessment rates
for all eight Street Lighting Maintenance Districts are not recommended to be increased this
fiscal year. These assessments cover the actual costs of the districts. The Southern Califomia
Edison electric rate is expected to remain stable for the 2000/2001 fiscal year. At present, 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 maintained. However, these will not
effect the assessment rate at this time. Edison charges for traffic signals are also included in the
applicable districts. In addition, Operations and Maintenance charges for traffic signals will also
be bome 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 FY 2000/2001 and will allow the assessment rates to remain stable. The following, in
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
March 15, 2000
Page 2
conjunction with reference to the Engineer's Reports, identifies proposed FY 2000/2001 rates
which are not recommended for an increase from the FY 1999/2000 rates. The Engineer's
Reports identify the required budget for each district and any carryover used to offset
maintenance costs.
The assessment rate for each Street Lighting Maintenance District is as follows:
Street Lighting Maintenance District
Assessment Rate per Assessment Unit
SLMD # 1 - Arterial $17.77
SLMD #2 - Local $39.97
SLMD #3 - Victoria Planned Community $47.15
SLMD #4 - Terra Vista Planned Community $28.96
SLMD #5 - Caryn Planned Community $34.60
SLMD #6 - Commercial/Industrial $51.40
SLMD #7 - North Etiwanda $33.32
SLMD #8 - South Etiwanda $193.75 *
This proposed rate is higher than the average lighting district due to a disproportionate number of
street lights to assessment units.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:WS:dlw
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FOR APPROVAL
OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR STREET
LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
AND 8. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE PROPOSED.
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 an filed with the City Clerk of said City a report
in writing as called for under and pursuant to said Act, which as 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 any 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:
That the Engineer's Estimate of itemized costs and expenses of said ~vork and of the
incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said reports be hereby
approved and confirmed.
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 approved and confirmed.
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 approved and confirmed.
4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Annual Report for the fiscal year
2000/2001 for the subsequent proceedings.
RESOLUTION
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 DISTRICTS
NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR
2000/2001 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 Part'2 of Division 15 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 levy and collect assessments within Street Lighting Maintenance Districts
Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for the fiscal year 2000/2001 for the maintenance and operation of
those street lights, traffic signals and facilities thereon dedicated for common 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 pan 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 particularly
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:
All that certain territory of the City of Rancho Cucamonga included within the exterior
boundary lines shown upon that certain "Map of Street 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 District No. 5", "Map of Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6", "Map of
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS
March 15, 2000
Page 2
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.. approved the
annual report of the City Engineer which report indicates the mount of the proposed
assessments, the district boundaries, assessment zones, and the method of assessment. The
report title "Annual Engineer'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 scheduled in the
Civic Center Council Chambers, 10500 Civic Center Drive, City of Rancho Cucamonga,
Califomia, 91730.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000 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 2000/2001.
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 Part 2 of Division 15 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 6061 of the
Government Code. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the
same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the
heating, at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation
published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
California.
OF
CUCAMONGA
StaffRe rt
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECt:
March 15, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Walt Stickney, Associate Engineer
APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTIONS APPROVING AND CONFIRMING
THE ENGINEER'S REPORTS AND SETTING OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR
MAY 3, 2000, TO LEVY THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000/2001 FOR THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT
DISTRICT (PD-85). NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS
PROPOSED.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Reports and set the Public
Hearing for May 3, 2000 to levy the annual assessments and approve the Annual Engineer's
Reports for the Park and Recreation Improvement District (PD-85). It is recommended there be
no increase in assessment rates in these districts for Fiscal Year 2000/2001. The Engineer's
Reports are on file in the City Clerk's Office.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
This Park and Recreation Improvement District was created to provide funds to finance 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
comer of Hillside Road and Beryl Street. Red Hill Community Park is 42 acres and is located on
the southwest comer 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 Terra Vista Planned Communities.
Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, each year the City Council must adopt
resolutions, giving approval of the Engineer's Report and declaring its intention to levy and
collect assessments for FY 2000/2001. The assessment rate increased from $35.00 to $52.00
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
March 15, 2000
Page 2
during the 1991/92 Fiscal Year, this rate is to remain at $52.00 for the 2000/2001 Fiscal Year.
Assessments for PD-85 will be levied according to the following schedule:
Definition
Assessment per Parcel
Single Family Residemial
Less than 1.50 acres
1.51 acres to 3.50
3.51 acres to 7.00 acres
7.01 acres to 14.00 acres
14.01 acres to 25.00 acres
25.01 acres and Larger
$52.00
$26.00
$78.00
$182.00
$364.00
$728.00
$1,300.00'
Respectfully submit.ted,
City Engineer
WJO:WS:dlw
Attachments
SOLU IONNO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FOR APPROVAL
OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR PARK AND
RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85). NO
INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE PROPOSED.
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 an filed with the City Clerk of said City a report
in writing as called for under and pursuant to said Act, which as 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 any 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:
That the Engineer's Estimate of itemized costs and expenses of said work and of the
incidental expenses in connection therewith, contained in said reports be hereby
approved and contimed.
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 approved and confirmed.
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 approved and contimed.
4. That said report shall stand as the City Engineer's Annual Report for the fiscal year
2000/2001 for the subsequent proceedings.
RESOLUT ONNO.
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 2000/2001
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 Parr2 of Division 15 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 levy and collect assessments within Park and Recreation Improvement
District (PD-85) for the fiscal year 2000/2001 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 illumination of the subject area) in connection with said district.
Location of Work
SECTION 2: The foregoing described work is to be located within the Red Hill
Community Park and Heritage Community Park enumerated in the report of the City Engineer
and described on maps which are on file in the City Clerk's office, entitled "Assessment
Diagrams Park and Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and PD-85."
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 Recreation Improvement District (PD-
85), 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.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
March 15, 2000
Page 2
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. approved the
annual 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 title "Annual Engineer'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 scheduled in the
Civic Center Council Chambers, 10500 Civic Center Drive, City of Rancho Cucamonga,
Califomia, 91730.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 2000 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 2000/2001. 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 Califomia designated as the Landscaping
and Lighting Act of 1972, being Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
March 15, 2000
Page 3
Publication of Resolution of Intention
SECTION 7: Published notice shall be made pursuant to Section 6061 of the
Government Code. The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the
same, and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 10 days before the date set for the
hearing, at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general cimulation
published in the City of Ontario, Califomia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
Califomia.
C H O
CUCAMONGA
ENGXNEERXNG DEPARTMENT
CI
StllffReport
DATE:
TO:
March 15, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
William J. O'Neii, City Engineer
Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF LICENSE AND COVENANT
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND
GENERAL DYNAMICS PROPERTIES, INC. FOR CITY'S TEMPORARY
USE OF GENERAL DYNAMICS PROPERTIES, INC. PROPERTY FOR A
TEMPORARY PARKING LOT DURING CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE II,
PARKING LOT EXPANSION AT THE CITY'S METROLINK STATION,
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MILLIKEN AVENUE
AND THE AT&SF
RECOMMENDATION:
It is hereby recommended that the City Council approve and execute the attached
License and Covenant Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and
General Dynamics Properties, Inc., for the City's temporary use of a portion of General
Dynamics' property as a temporary parking lot during construction of Phase II, parking
lot expansion at the City's Metrolink Station.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
Soon after the first phase of the Metrolink Station was constructed, demand for the
facility increased rapidly. Soon the Phase I parkinglot was completely full with overflow
vehicles utilizing a dirt area set aside for the Phase II parking lot. It is estimated that
approximately 200 vehicles park on this dirt lot daily. In order to provide parking for
these overflow vehicles during construction of Phase II, staff has reached an agreement
with General Dynamics Properties, Inc. to use a portion of their property for temporary
parking. The agreement will be for a limited duration during construction of Phase II
Metrolink expansion, and General Dynamics has waived rental fees for temporary use
of their property.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
METROLINK LICENSE AGREEMENT
March 15, 2000
Page 2
Use of this temporary parking facility will not only provide space for overflow vehicles
from the Phase I parking lot, but also assist the Contractor in construction of the Phase
II lot, since all vehicles would be removed from the Phase II work area. Otherwise, the
new lot would have to be constructed in phases to accommodate the overflow parking.
The temporary lot is proposed to be located just south of the existing improved lot. The
temporary lot area will be cleared, graded to drain, compacted and a gravel-wearing
surface will be placed on existing compacted earth. The lot will be'fenced and lit with
temporary safety "flood type" lighting. When the Phase II parking lot is completed,
temporary fencing, lighting and wearing surface will be removed.
Respectively submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:MO:sd
Attachment
. e
illiHlillllllilllllllllllillllllUItllnllllliL~
\
\ ~{.T.S.
\
NEW pARKING 700 SPACES (APPROX.) &
EXTEND SOUTH LOADING pLATFORM
METROLINK STATION EXPANSION, PHASE II
EXPAND PARKING LOT AND EXTEND SOUTH LOADING PLATFORM
RANClIO
CITY OF
CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
March 15, 2000
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP. City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
AWARD AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT IN
THE AMOUNT OF $7,740,172.28 ($7,036,520.25 PLUS 10%) FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD MEDIANS PHASE II
FROM 600 FEET WEST OF HERMOSA AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE,
DEER CREEK CHANNEL BRIDGE WIDENING, FOOTHILL/HERMOSA
STORM DRAIN AND HERMOSA AVENUE STREET WIDENING PROJECT
TO THE APPARENT LOW BIDDER, KEC ENGINEERING, TO BE FUNDED
FROM ACCOUNT NOS. 32-4637-9824, 22-4637-8833, 22-4637-9920, 12-4637-
9610 and 74-4225-7044 (RE: ALSO FUNDED BY RDA ACCOUNT NOS. 15-
51000, 10-51900 AND APPROPRIATIONS FROM ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT RESERVES).
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council award and authorize for execution the contract
for the construction of the Foothill Boulevard Medians Phase II from 600 feet west of
Hermosa Avenue to Haven Avenue, Deer Creek Channel Bridge widening,
Foothill/Hermosa storm drain and Hermosa Avenue street widening project to the
apparent low bidder, KEC Engineering, to be funded from Account Nos. 32-4637-9824,
22-4637-8833, 22-463~i9920, 12-4637-9610 and 74-4225-7044 (re: also funded by
RDA Account Nos. 1',5-51000 10-51900 and appropriations from Economic
Development Reserves).:
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The Foothill Boulevard Median Improvements Phase II, Deer Creek Channel Bridge
Widening and Storm Drain Project is a joint venture with Caltrans, San Bernardino
CITYCOUNCIL STAFF REPORT
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD MEDIANS PHASE II
March 15,2000
Page 2
County and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The multi-phase project was combined into
a single unit for coordination and cost saving in construction purposes.
As part of this project, an agreement was recently approved with the City
Redevelopment Agency and San Bernardino County Flood Control District for shared
expenses for the storm drain portion.
The construction project will include installing a landscape median island along Foothill
Boulevard, widening the Deer Creek Bridge Structure to the ultimate width on Foothill
Boulevard, installing a Master Plan Drainage System from Deer Creek Channel to the
Church Street Basin, installing a new Traffic Signal at Center Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard and modifying the existing traffic signal at Hermosa Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard to the ultimate location.
Phase I of the Foothill Boulevard Median Landscape is nearing completion and a
smooth transition into Phase II is expected.
When completed, the project will enhance the safety for vehicles traveling along Foothill
Boulevard and eliminate the flooding and property damage along Hermosa Avenue near
Foothill Boulevard, as well as provide beauti~cation with landscape to the medians
along Foothill Boulevard.
Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on January 11,
2000 for the subject project. The Engineer's estimate was $6,800,000.00. Staff has
reviewed all bids receive, d 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 reg,u. irements of the bid documents.
Respectfully submitted, ~
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
Attachment
N.T.S.
~ BASEUNE ROAD
; . ,
~"~ "0""" "~ ~:~'
~ CAN~'WOOD Z ST~ '
~ ~ .. ~AvF_. ~ ~s' , Z
'· I~. . cHuRcH.,.
oo 1..1 BL .·
'FOOTHILL . BLVD..
P%~-E:C'I' ~: ~'~
"~
"' ,
ARROW ROUTE OUTE
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD (SR-66) MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS,
DEER CREEK CHANNEL BRIDGE WIDENING AND
STORM DRAIN PROJECT, PHASE 2
FROM JUST WEST OF HERMOSA AVENUE TO HAVEN AVENUE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
VICINITY MAP
RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
COMMUNITY SERVICES
Staff Report
TO:
FROM:
BY:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director
Karen Mc-Guire Emery, Senior Park Planner
Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II
March 15, 2000
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
BACKGROUND
In accordance with the City Council's request to become more informed of park and recreation
facility issues, programs, projects and events, this report is provided to highlight pertinent
issues, projects and programs occurring in both the Community Services Department and the
Park Design/Development and Maintenance Sections of Engineering.
A. PARKS AND FACILITIES UPDATE
Central Park:
· The Task Force met on February 15th and was provided with an update on the Central
Park project.
West Greenway Park:
· Arbor Day is scheduled for Monday March 13th, at 12:00 p.m. Two classes from Coyote
Canyon School will participate.
Epicenter:
· Coppas Films completed filming at the Epicenter for Major League Baseball promotional
shots.
Golden Oak Park:
· Construction of the park is approximately 90 percent complete. Barring weather delays,
it is estimated that the park will be ready to open to the public in late spring.
7/
CITY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES & COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
MARCH 15, 2000
PAGE 2
Mountain View Park:
· The Park is under construction by Kaufman and Broad. Barring weather delays, the park
should be opened to the public in early summer.
Lions East Community Center:
· Access systems have been tested and are scheduled to come online March 9th .
Lions West Community Center:
· Carpeting for the Filippi Room is scheduled for installation the weekend of March 31st.
· Access systems have been tested and are scheduled to come online March 9t" .
Rancho Cucamonga Family Sports Center:
· New carpet for the Jazzercise room was installed on February 6, 2000.
· Men's restroom tile was installed and the plumber is scheduled to re-install the toilets.
Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center:
· Marshall Plumbing was called out to inspect a leak coming from the dishwasher. The leak
was located and a damaged section of dry wall will be replaced.
Red Hill Park:
· Field staff worked with Target Chemical (pesticide vendor) to reserve a portion of Red Hill
Park for a March "Field Day" to educate others from local municipalities regarding chemical
usage in park settings. A wide variety of Turf weed control products will be discussed along
with visits to plots where tests and controls are displayed. We have had this "Field Day"
hosted by Target twice before.
Demens Trail Connection:
· Engineering staff is preparing the construction plans for the extension of the Demens
Regional Trail around the basin, connecting it with the trail along Amethyst.
Tot Lot Renovation Projects:
· Phase II of the tot lot renovation project has been completed. Tot Lots at West
Greenway, Windrows, Vintage and Church Street Parks are now up and operational.
Some minor punch list items are scheduled for repair on Monday, March 6, 2000. The
remaining items on the punch list will be completed, pending shipment of parts.
B. COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
~niors:
Mardi Gras was celebrated at the Senior Center on March 7t" at 10:00 a.m. You would have
thought that you were in the middle of New Orleans as we celebrated with magic, dancing
and tasty Cajon refreshments. Entertainment featured magicians and belly dancers.
Refreshments and souvenirs were provided.
· St. Patrick's Day Party, Friday, March 17~ at 10:15 a.m. Bring your friends and good cheer
as we gather for some good old Irish fun. Don't forget to wear the color green.
CITY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES & COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
MARCH 15, 2000
PAGE 3
Entertainment will be provided by Joe Mannino, singing old Irish favorites. There will also
be refreshments, games and a lot of fun.
Plans are currently underway for the Senior Center's participation in the 11t" Annual Golden
Follies Talent Showcase, held Saturday, March 26t~ from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. at the Montclair
Community Center. This senior citizen talent show features individuals and groups
representing the cities Chino, Montclair, Ontario, Rancho Cucamonga and Upland
performing song, dance, instrumental and novelty acts. Magicians Art Guild in Cucamonga
(MAGIC) will represent our City at the event. Tickets are now on sale at the Senior Center
for $2.00 each.
The 6t~ Annual Senior Fine Art Show will be held at the Senior Center on Saturday, April 1st
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. This is a non-juried art competition featuring high quality
oil/acrylic, watercolor/pastel, mixed media, sculpture, photography and graphite.
Participation in the show is open to all seniors age 50 and over. The show includes art
works, demonstrations, refreshments and entertainment.
A new 5-week Tole/Decoration Art class began on Monday, March 13th and is offered
weekly from 1:00 - 3:00 p.m. Decorate your home, give a personal gift and just be pleased
as punch, because "you did it!" This is one of many art and cultural classes available to
seniors. Other classes include Ceramics, Oil Painting, Crafty Seniors, Knitting and
Crocheting, Drawing, Calligraphy, Photography, Senior Chorale and an Actor's Workshop.
· The Senior Advisory Committee will hold its next regular meeting on Monday, March 27~h at
9:00 a.m. at the Senior Center.
· The daily lunch program will not be held on March 24th, 27th, & 28th, due to necessary repairs
in the kitchen.
Human SeNices:
A unique Gas Pumpin¢l Pro.Gram to assist seniors 60 and over was introduced by the Senior
Advisory Committee in early February at nine Rancho Cucamonga service stations. The
program is administered through the Senior Center. In the first 3 weeks of the program
nearly one hundred (100) seniors have registered.
Tax Assistance is being offered at the Senior Center on Tuesdays from 9:00 a.m. until 1:00
p.m. through April 11t" . Once again this year trained AARP tax preparers will be available
at the Senior Center to help prepare tax forms. Pre-registration is required at the Senior
Center.
· The Arthritis Foundation is sponsoring an important seven-week free program on
FibromvalGia at the Senior Center. This program will continue through March 21"t .
The Senior Transportation ProGram celebrated its first anniversary in mid-February. The
program continues to grow with an average of one hundred fourteen (114) passenger rides
and fifty-seven (57) seniors weekly through last December. Over one hundred (100+)
CITY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES & COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
MARCH 15, 2000
PAGE 4
seniors have registered for this program. This project has been very efficient and has been
well utilized by the seniors.
Health Screenin.q, Tuesday, March 14, 9:00 a.m. - 12 noon. Nurses from the San
Bernardino County Department of Public Health were at the Senior Center to conduct
monthly health assessments for those senior citizens age 60 and over.
Trips and Tours:
Coronado Island and the Hotel Del Coronado, March 22"d . Enjoy a scenic tdp to San Diego
with crashing surf to one side of the road and hillsides covered with wildflowers on the other.
Once in San Diego lunch will be provided at Bay Beach Caf6. After lunch there will be time
to browse through the multitude of shops on the island before a visit to the world famous
Hotel Del Coronado. (Seats are still available.)
Lancaster PopDv Festival, April 15th. See the hills ablaze in a fiery orange when the
California Poppy Reserve bursts into full bloom. The tour begins with a stop at the popular
Poppy Festival in Lancaster. Enjoy over 200 craft and food vendors, live music and
fascinating displays. The afternoon will be spent at the Poppy fields. (Seats are still
available.)
Getty Center, May 16t" . Visit this world famous museum and gardens, featuring spectacular
architecture and views of the histodc Sepulveda Pass. At the Museum you will see
paintings by many of the most familiar masters such as Rembrandt, Goya, Monet, and
C~zanne, to name a few. A very special day to remember. (Seats are still available.)
Temecula Valley Winery Tour, May 20t" . Imagine rolling hills covered with vineyards and
views that reach to the mountains. The first stop of the trip is at the Mt. Palomar Winery
where you will embark on a guided tour and lunch at Texas Lil's. A stop will be made in Old
Temecula to poke through the antique shops. (Seats are still available.)
Volunteers:
· The table below summarizes departmental usage of volunteers for the month of January
2000.
Administration 5 10 $ 140
Sports 250 944 $13,216
Senior & Human Services 48 139 $ 1,946
Special Events 7 14 $ 196
Youth Programs 38 174 $ 2,436
Total 348 1,281 $17,934
· Staff is currently in the process of preparing for the Citywide Volunteer RecoQnition ProGram
that will take place on April 9t~ at the Doubletree Hotel,
CiTY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES & COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
MARCH 15, 2000
PAGE 5
Teens:
The Teen Center hosted a fabulous Valentines Dance at Lions Center West on February
12t". Over two hundred (200+) teens attended.
The Teen Recreation Activity Club (TRAC) held a very special joint program with the
Seniors for Valentines Day. A special luncheon was prepared and served by the TRAC
members and the teens visited and even danced with the seniors at the senior center.
Grapevine:
The Spring Issue of the Grapevine was distributed to residents at the end of February. The
cover featured the new May event, the Art and Jazz Festival (part of the Festival 2000
Family Entertainment Series at the Epicenter). The feature story highlighted information
about the entire Family Entertainment Series. The summer issue begins production in March
and will be ready to mail to residents in mid-May. The cover will highlight the City's new 4th
of July Fireworks Show.
CPRS Conference:
The California and Pacific Southwest Recreation and Traininq Conference is being held
March 15th - 18t~ in Ontario. Community Services staff, working with the City of Ontario, has
done an outstanding job hosting the conference which will draw 2,000 delegates, over 200
vendors in the exhibit hall and 300 volunteers. This is the first time that the conference will
be held in Ontario.
Youth Sports:
· The Sports Advisorv Committee will meet on April 12 at 7:00 p.m. at the Civic Center. Field
request materials for the Fall/VVinter season 2000/2001 are due at that time.
Youth Track and Field begins the week of March 20th for practices. Practices will take place
at Ruth Musser Middle School. The track meet will take place on April 29, 2000. at Rancho
Cucamonga High School.
Youth Basketball Camp takes place the week of April 10 -14. Boys and girls ages 6-17 may
participate. The camp will take place at the RC Family Sports Center. Two sessions will be
offered: 8 a.m.- 12 p.m. (6-11 year olds) and 1 p.m. - 5 p.m. (12-17 year olds).
· The table below summarizes youth sports activities for the reporting period:
CI1~' COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES & COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
MARCH 15, 2000
PAGE 6
RC Family Sports Center:
· Activities at the Sports Center for the reporting period are summarized in the table below:
Racquetball Leagues 19
3-on-3 Basketball 40
Full Court Basketball 90
Co-ed Volleyball 64
Indoor Volleyball 27
Adult/Male
Adult/Male
Adult/Male
Adult/Male & Female
Youth/Girls
1 single; 1 double league
8 teams
9 teams
8 teams
3 teams
The table below provides drop-in/oPen Play participation at the R.C. Family Sports Center
for the month of February 2000.
Adult Basketball 1,126
Youth Basketball 1,219
Adult Racquetball 634
Youth Racquetball 76
Adult Volleyball 101
Youth Volleyball 115
Adult Sports:
· The table below summarizes adult sports participation during the reporting period.
Softball Leagues 336 Adult/Male &Female 146 teams
Flag Football 176 Adult/Male 22 teams
6-Aside Soccer 280 Adult/Male &Female 28 teams
Full Field Soccer 378 Adult/Male &Female 21 teams
Tennis Leagues 29 Adult/Male &Female 3 leagues
Rancho Cucamonga Performing Arts Academy:
The partnership between the City and Lewis Retail Centers that brought to life the Rancho
Cucamoncla Performinq Arts Academy ended on March 3rd. As a team the City and Lewis
were successful at offering innovative and exciting performing arts programs for Rancho
Cucamonga families and residents of the surrounding region. Nearly one thousand (1,000)
community members participated in over one hundred (100+) classes, workshops,
productions and performances through the Rancho Cucamonga Performing Arts Academy.
CITY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES & COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
MARCH 15, 2000
PAGE 7
The Academy's programs have included a wide range of activities including:
· Encore Entertainment Creative Theatre Workshops
· Vocal Expression and Performance Workshops
· The Actor's Workshop
· Film and Television Workshops
· The Talent Connection Commercial Workshops
· Theatre Production Workshops
· Musical Theatre Workshops
· Tiny Tunes (song and dance for tiny tots) Classes
· Prestigious Players (an actors workshop for seniors age 55+)
· Dance Production and Performance Workshops
Performances at the Academy have included:
· Joey and Maria's Comedy Italian Wedding (a Dillstar Production)
· Shakespeare: As You'd Like Him (an Expression of Youth and Starlight Productions
production)
· Teen Fine Art Show
· A Comedy Night and Taste of the Town
· Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation Mixer and preview performance of
Ebeneezer
· Ebeneezer (a Starlight Productions production)
· American Cowboy and Native Dancer's Show
· King Arthur's Court
· A Comedy Night
· Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation New Orleans Style Monte Carlo Night
In addition to our programs and performances, the partnership also extended to the
production of a Holiday Extravaganza Tree Lighting Ceremony at the Terra Vista Town
Center and a community celebration commemorating the opening of a freeway bridge bring
built as part of the Foothill Freeway expansion project,
The Rancho Cucamonga Performing Arts Academy and the partnership between the City
and Lewis Retail Centers had a profound impact on the residents of Rancho Cucamonga
and the surrounding communities. Not only did the Academy enrich the lives of so many
who participated in its programs but perhaps most importantly the Academy has given hope
that community theatre is alive and well in Rancho Cucamonga.
An award submittal application has been submitted to the League of California Cities for
their Helen Putman Award for Excellence for the public/private partnership of the Rancho
Cucamonga Performing Arts Academy. Staff will keep the Council apprised of the outcome
of our application.
The Performing Arts Academy workshops will be moved to Lions West for the upcoming
spring session, beginning April 3rd through June 7th, 2000. These workshops have been
very successful and very well received by the students and the community. The workshops
that will be offered include the Tiny Tunes (song and dance class) for 31/2 to 4 years of age,
the Talent Connection Commercial Workshop for ages 5 to 13 years of age, Dance
77
CITY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES & COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
MARCH 15, 2000
PAGE 8
Production and Performance Workshop for youngsters ages 6 to 13, and a Vocal
Expression and Performance Workshop for all ages. Each workshop will meet once a week
for a 5-week session,
City-wide Special Events:
The Community Services Department and Northtown Housing Development Corporation will
be hosting the annual Cinco de Mayo Celebration on Saturday, May 6, 2000, at Old Town
Park from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m. The event team is in the process of contracting the
entertainment, food and rides. Because the Cinco de Mayo celebration is more of a
neighborhood event, staff is talking with the Corporation about their assuming more of a
lead role in the production of this event in future years.
The Art and Jazz Fest 2000 (a part of the Family Entertainment Series at the Epicenter) is
scheduled for the second Saturday in May, (May 13t~) the day before Mother~s Day, and
has taken the place of our department's traditional Art in the Park event at Red Hill
Community Park. The Art and Jazz Fest 200 is a free event filled with fine art displays,
handmade crafts and a variety of jazz music. Day long entertainment will include a variety
of local jazz bands including: Etiwanda Junior High School band, Alta Loma High School
Jazz band, Chaffey College Jazz ensemble, The Art of Sax and NUANCE. Youngsters will
be able to enjoy creating their own unique craft under the supervision of City staff at the Kid
Krafts area while their parents browse through the exhibits and vendors. There will be food
vendors selling a variety of food and drinks, Our local Joseph Filippi Winery will provide wine
tasting in the pavilion from 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. Dem Brooklyn Bums and Royal Crown Revue
will present a free evening jazz concert in the stadium starting at 6:00 p.m.
Facilities:
Heritaae Park Equestrian Center - There are two events scheduled to take place during the
reporting period. The RSET Schooling Dressage will utilize the facility on Sunday, March
12t~, 2000,from 8 a.m. to 5 p,m. and the RSET Easter Playday show is scheduled to be held
on Sunday, April 8t", 2000 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
Both Lions East Community Center and the Rancho Cucamoncla Senior Center will have
representatives from the Census Bureau at their facilities daily during the month of March,
Representatives will be on hand to answer questions the public may have concerning the
Census or their Census forms,
Park Reservations:
It's that time of year again. Park reservations are picking up and are keeping staff quite
busy. Residents can reserve parks four months in advance and they are taking advantage
of this benefit. Recently, we have had to refund a few individuals because of the rain. Now
that we charge for the use of the picnic shelters, this is a new issue that staff is addressing.
The park monitors are handling concerns regarding moon bounces in our parks and are
informing the public that bounces are allowed only in the reservable parks (Red Hill
Community Park, Heritage Community Park, Hermosa Park and Coyote Canyon Park).
CITY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES & COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
MARCH 15, 2000
PAGE 9
Other issues that the park monitors have assisted in handling include: alcohol in the park,
leash law violations, graffiti and providing information to skaters at our skate facility about
the importance of wearing safety gear. The public has informed staff that the presence of
the monitors in our parks seven days a week is greatly appreciated
· Park and Recreation Commission:
The following items were discussed/acted upon at the Park and Recreation Commission's
February 17, 2000 meeting:
· Update and establishment of future agenda items for the Senior Advisory Committee.
· Update and establishment of future agenda items for the Sports Advisory Committee.
· Consideration and discussion of the recommendation from the Senior Advisory
Committee on the Senior Center development.
· Discussion regarding policy for installation of scoreboards at City park sports fields.
· Review and discussion on policy to establish proof of residency requirements for classes
and programs.
· Review of events and highlights for the California and Pacific Southwest Park and
Recreation Training Conference - March 15-18, 2000.
· Consideration and discussion regarding waiver of March 16, 2000, Park and Recreation
Commission meeting.
· Review of Fund 20.
· Discussion regarding possible uses of Fund 20 budget for Fiscal Year 2000-2001.
· Discussion regarding acceptable requirements for permitting youth sports at the
Epicenter Stadium and recommendation to City Council for local high schools games to
be held at the Stadium for a one-year trial period.
· Update on Central Park Task Force.
· Update on General Plan Task Force.
· Update on Community Foundation.
· Update on Trails, Sports and Senior Advisory Committees.
· Update on Census 2000 Committee.
Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation:
· The following items are agendized to be discussed at the Rancho Cucamon.cla Community
Foundation's March 14, 2000, meeting:
· Evaluation of New Orleans Style Monte Carlo Night held on February 26, 2000.
· Discussion regarding Founder's Night Gala.
· Discussion regarding formation of Founder's Night Gala Ambassador's group to assist
with the event.
· Consideration of a Foundation work plan.
CITY COUNCIL
PARKS, RECREATION FACILITIES & COMMUNITY SERVICES UPDATE
MARCH 15, 2000
PAGE 10
Rancho Cucamonga Epicenter:
· Staff is talking with 20t~ Centun/Fox regarding a potential filming at the Epicenter for an
evening film shoot some time at the end of March or first of April. The project would be a
film entitled Sherman's March.
· Staff has met with Etiwanda HiGh School and Rancho CucamonGa HiGh School to discuss
plans for their upcoming (June 14t" and June 15t~) graduations at the Epicenter.
· Abundance Living Church in Rancho Cucamonga is interested in doing an Easter Sunrise
Service at the Epicenter on April 23rd.
· The California Association of School Transportation Officials' School Bus Roadeo is
scheduled to take place at the Epicenter Expanded parking lot on March 25t" (move-in date:
March 24t~ ).
· Staff has met with representatives of Lundstrom Ministries. This organization is interested in
holding a four-day celebration at the Epicenter at the end of July.
· Staff will be meeting soon with Hillside Community Church to begin coordination of their 2"d
Annual Soapbox Derby and Mega-Play Day event that is scheduled for May 29~ (move in
date: May 28th) at the Adult Sports Complex. City Council approved a co-sponsorship and
full waiver of fees and charges for this event at their March 1, 2000, meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
R,ck
C ,prnunity Devel ment Director
I:~COMMSERV~Councii&Boards~Ci~yCounciAStaffRepofts~update3. 15.00. doc
Community Services Director