Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2018-05-16 - Agenda Packet
AGENDAS FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT BOARD-HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY - SUCCESSOR AGENCY - PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY - CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, May 16, 2018 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801 REGULAR MEETINGS: 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 P.M. ORDER OF BUSINESS: CLOSED SESSION TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM 5:00 P.M. REGULAR MEETINGS COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS: MAYOR L. Dennis Michael CITY MANAGER John R. Gillison MAYOR PRO TEM Lynne B. Kennedy CITY ATTORNEY James L. Markman COUNCIL MEMBERS William Alexander Sam Spagnolo Diane Williams CITY CLERK CITY TREASURER Janice C. Reynolds James C. Frost Rancho Cucamonga City Council Mission Statement Make decisions, and be perceived as making decisions, for the general welfare of the community. Always work to improve existing services and develop policies to meet the expected as well as anticipated needs of the community. Work together cooperatively to respect all persons and their ideas in order to develop and maintain the trust of the community. Reflect the community's desires and priorities by assuring that decisions accurately reflect the community's interests by fairly translating public feedback into public policy. Enhance the quality of life of all Rancho Cucamonga residents through the continued pursuit of excellence and commitment to the City's core values and goals. Set the vision for the community for the future. Have a professional, objective and respectful relationship with each other in order to more effectively address the challenges of the future. Page 1 TO AD D R E S S T H E FIR E BOAR D, H OU S IN G S U C C E S S OR AGE N C Y, S UC C E S SOR AGEN C Y, P U B L IC F INAN C ING AU TH OR IT Y AN D CITY C OUN C IL The F ire B oard, Housing S uccessor A gency, S uccessor A gency, P ublic F inancing A uthority and C i ty C ouncil encourage free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length of the A genda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply indicate that you agree wi th a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clappi ng, booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. The publi c may address the F ire B oard, Housing S uccessor A gency, S uccessor A gency, P ublic F inancing A uthority and C ity C ouncil by filling out a speaker card and submitting it to the C ity C lerk. The speaker cards are located on the wall at the back of the C hambers, at the front desk behind the staff table and at the C ity C lerk's desk. A ny handouts for the F ire B oard, S uccessor A gency, P ublic F inancing A uthority or C ity C ouncil should be given to the C ity C lerk for distribution. D uring "P ublic C ommunications," your name will be called to speak on any item listed or not listed on the agenda in the order in which it was received. The "P ublic C ommunications" period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. D uring this one hour peri od, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business i tems (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. A ny other "P ublic C ommunications" which have not concluded during this one-hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. C omments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the C hair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. If you are present to speak on an "A dvertised P ublic Hearing" or on an "A dministrati ve Hearing" Item(s), your name will be alled when that item is being discussed, in the order i n which it was received. C omments are to be limi ted to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the C hair, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. AGE N D A B AC K-U P MATE R IALS S taff reports and back-up materials for agenda items are available for review at the C ity C lerk's counter, the C ity's P ublic Libraries and on the C ity's website. A complete copy of the agenda is also available at the desk located behind the staff table during the C ouncil meeting. L IV E B R OAD C AST F ire B oard, Housing S uccessor A gency, S uccessor A gency, P ublic F inancing A uthority and C ity C ouncil meetings are broadcast live on C hannel 3 for those with cable television access. Meetings are rebroadcast on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m. S treaming Video on D emand is available on the C ity's website at www.cityofrc.us/cityhall/council/videos.asp. The Fire Board, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council meet regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 10500 Civic C enter Drive. Members of the City Council also sit as the Fire Board, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, and P ublic Financing Authority. C opies of the agendas and minutes can be found @ www.cityofrc.us I f you need spec ial assistance or accommodations to partic ipate in this meeting, please contact the C ity Clerk's offic e at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the C ity to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility. Listening devic es are available for the hearing impaired. Please silence all cell phones and devices while the meeting is in session. Page 2 MAY 16, 2018 FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Closed Session Call t o O r der 5:00 P.M. - Closed Session Call to Order - Tapia Conference Room A . ANNO UNCEM ENT O F CLO SED SESSI O N I TEM ( S) A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B . PUBLI C CO M M UNI CATI O NS O N CLO SED SESSI O N I TEM ( S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C . CI TY M ANAG ER ANNO UNCEM ENTS C. CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS (NO DISCUSSION OR ACTION WILL OCCUR) D . CO NDUCT O F CLO SED SESSI O N D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION - TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM D1.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9591 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND MARTIN ZVIRBULIS, GENERAL MANAGER/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. – CITY D2.CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA) AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. – CITY D3.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND ROCHESTER AVENUE AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0229-012-08-0000 AND 0229-012-10-0000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND DAN DE LA PAZ, REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. – CITY D4.CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(A) – SOUTHWEST VOTERS REGISTRATION EDUCATION PROJECT AND LOUISA OLLAGUE V. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA; CASE NO. CIVRS 1603632. – CITY Page 3 D5.CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND RANCHO STREET AS PARCEL NUMBERS 1061- 621-30-000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES CITY MANAGER JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND JENNIFER GOODELL, REAL PROPERTY AGENT SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. – CITY E . RECESS E. RECESS CLOSED SESSION TO RECESS TO THE REGULAR FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT CITY HALL, LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER - 7:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBERS THE REGULAR MEETINGS OF THE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY, AND CITY COUNCIL WILL BE CALLED TO ORDER. IT IS THE INTENT TO CONCLUDE THE MEETINGS BY 10:00 P.M., UNLESS EXTENDED BY CONCURRENCE OF THE FIRE BOARD, AGENCIES, AUTHORITY BOARD AND COUNCIL. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call:Mayor Michael Mayor Pro Tem Kennedy Council Members Alexander, Spagnolo and Williams A . ANNO UNCEM ENT / PRESENTATI O NS A. ANNOUNCEMENT / PRESENTATIONS A1.Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring the Month of May 2018 as "Mental Health Month". A2.Presentation of a Proclamation to the Cucamonga Valley Water District, Declaring the Month of May 2018 as “Save Our Water Month”. A3.Presentation of a Proclamation to the YMCA, Declaring the Month of May as "Water Safety Month" along with a Water Safety/ Drowning Prevention Presentation by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire District. B . PUBLI C CO M M UNI CATI O NS B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS This is the time and place for the general public to address the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council on any item listed or not listed on the agenda. State law prohibits the Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority Board, and City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual or less, as deemed necessary by the Page 4 --- --- --- Mayor, depending upon the number of individuals desiring to speak. All communications are to be addressed directly to the Fire Board, Agencies, Successor Agency, Authority Board, or City Council not to the members of the audience. This is a professional business meeting and courtesy and decorum are expected. Please refrain from any debate between audience and speaker, making loud noises, or engaging in any activity which might be disruptive to the decorum of the meeting. The public communications period will not exceed one hour prior to the commencement of the business portion of the agenda. During this one hour period, all those who wish to speak on a topic contained in the business portion of the agenda will be given priority, and no further speaker cards for these business items (with the exception of public hearing items) will be accepted once the business portion of the agenda commences. Any other public communications which have not concluded during this one hour period may resume after the regular business portion of the agenda has been completed. CONSENT CALENDARS: The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Fire Board/Housing Successor Agency/Successor Agency/Authority Board/Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Fire Board/Housing Successor Agency/Successor Agency/Authority Board/Council Member for discussion. C . CO NSENT CALENDAR – FI RE PRO TECTI O N DI STRI CT C. CONSENT CALENDAR - FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT C1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 4, 2018. C2. Consideration to Approve Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Amount of $597,229.20 and Weekly Check Registers in the Amount of $1,005,357.83 Dated April 24, 2018 Through May 7, 2018. C3. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedule As of April 30, 2018. C4. Consideration for Approval to Utilize The National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) Valuepoint Cooperative Agreement for Computer Related Procurements. D . CO NSENT CALENDAR – HO USI NG SUCCESSO R AG ENCY D. CONSENT CALENDAR - HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY D1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 4, 2018. E . CO NSENT CALENDAR – SUCCESSO R AG ENCY E. CONSENT CALENDAR - SUCCESSOR AGENCY E1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 4, 2018. F . CO NSENT CALENDAR – PUBLI C FI NANCI NG AUTHO RI TY F. CONSENT CALENDAR - PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY F1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 4, 2018. G . CO NSENT CALENDAR – CI TY CO UNCI L G. CONSENT CALENDAR - CITY COUNCIL G1. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: Regular Meeting of April 4, 2018. G2. Consideration to Approve Bi-Weekly Payroll in the Amount of $1,169,674.93 and Weekly Check Registers in the Amount of $6,061,659.47 Dated April 24, 2018 Through May 7, 2018. G3. Consideration to Receive and File Current Investment Schedule As of April 30, 2018. G4. Consideration to Approve the Purchase of One (1) Traffic Sign Truck in the Amount of $165,975. Page 5 8 15 27 34 --- --- --- --- 36 48 60 G5. Consideration to Award a Contract to Mariposa Landscapes for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance of LMDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, Paseos, and Medians. G6. Consideration to Reject Bids for the “FY 17/18 Parks Painting Project” as Non-Responsive to the Needs of the City. G7. Consideration of a Contract with Vido Samarzich, Inc., in an Amount of $968,678, plus a 10% Contingency for the Fiscal Year 2017/18 ADA Access Ramp Improvements at Various Locations Project. G8. Consideration of a Small Cell License Agreement with Mobilitie, LLC for the Placement of Small Cell Infrastructure on City-Owned Poles. G9. Consideration for Approval to Utilize the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO) Valuepoint Cooperative Agreement for Computer Related Procurements. G10. Consideration of an Appropriation of Funds in the A mount of $3,000 from the CA Recycling/Litter Grant (Fund 225) for Costs Associated with Increasing Beverage Container Opportunities. H CO NSENT O RDI NANCES H. CONSENT ORDINANCES H1. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 928 Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax Commencing in Fiscal Year 2018/19 and Each Ensuing Fiscal Year Solely Within and Relating to North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ORDINANCE NO. 928 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF NORTH ETIWANDA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT H2. Second Reading and Adoption of Ordinance No. 929, Amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code to Enact Requirements and Standards for the Development of Wireless Communication Facilities Within the Public Right of Way. ORDINANCE NO. 929 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENACT REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF I . ADM I NI STRATI VE HEARI NG I TEM I. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM J . ADVERTI SED PUBLI C HEARI NG S – CI TY CO UNCI L J. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS - CITY COUNCIL J1. Consideration of a Resolution for Placement of Special Assessments and Liens for Delinquent Solid Waste Accounts. RESOLUTION NO. 18-031 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES FROM BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, WHICH SHALL CONSTITUTE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LIENS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AND SHALL BE COLLECTED FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS ORDINARY COUNTY AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES Page 6 61 264 267 273 300 302 303 305 311 312 322 324 J2.Consideration of a Resolution for the Placement of Special Assessments and Liens for Costs of Nuisance Abatement on Private Property. RESOLUTION NO. 18-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF UNPAID NUISANCE ABATEMENTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH SHALL CONSTITUTE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LIENS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AND SHALL BE COLLECTED FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS ORDINARY COUNTY AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES J3.First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance No. 930, Amending Title 17 of the Municipal Code to Revise Sign Regulations for Public Property. (Item Will Be Continued To June 6, 2018 City Council Meeting) K . CI TY M ANAG ER’S STAFF REPO RTS K. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS CITY COUNCIL K1.Update on the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal (NESAP). L . CO UNCI L BUSI NESS L. COUNCIL BUSINESS M . I DENTI FI CATI O N O F I TEM S FO R NEXT M EETI NG M. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING N . ADJO URNM ENT N. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATION I, Linda A. Troyan, MMC, City Clerk Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on at least Seventy-Two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California and on the City's website. Page 7 345 348 350 351 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:L inda A. Troyan, C ity C lerk Services D irector S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N O F M E E T I NG M I NUT E S : RE G UL AR M E E T ING O F AP RI L 4, 2018. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends approval of the A pril 4, 2018 Meeting Minutes f or the F ire P rotection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public F inancing Authority and City Council. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALY S IS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: N/A COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: N/A AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n A ttachment 1 - M inutes Page 8 April 4, 2018| Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 1 of 6 April 4, 2018 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CLOSED SESSION, FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT, HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY, SUCCESSOR AGENCY, PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETINGS MINUTES The City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, April 4, 2018 in the Tapia Conference Room at the Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Present were Council Members: Bill Alexander, Diane Williams, Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; James L. Markman, City Attorney; Elisa Cox, Deputy City Manager/Cultural & Civic Services and Matt Burris, Deputy City Manager/Economic and Community Developm ent. No public communications were made. No discussion or actions were taken. D1. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 9591 SAN BERNARDINO ROAD; NEGOTIATING PARTIES JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND MARTIN ZVIRBULIS, GENERAL MANAGER/CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. – CITY D2. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND DAY CREEK BOULEVARD AS PARCEL NUMBERS 1089-031-360000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES CITY MANAGER JOHN GILLISON, CITY MANAGER, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND STEVE PONTELL REPRESENTING DAY CREEK SENIOR HOUSING PARTNERS, LP; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. – CITY D3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR ROBERT NEIUBER, HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54954.2 REGARDING LABOR NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION (RCCEA) AND TEAMSTERS LOCAL 1932. – CITY 5:00 P.M. – CLOSED SESSION C ALL TO ORDER – TAPIA CONFERENCE ROOM A. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S) C. CITY M ANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION – T APIA CONFERENCE ROOM Page 9 April 4, 2018| Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 2 of 6 D4. CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8 FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTH WEST CORNER OF ARROW ROUTE AND ROCHESTER AVENUE AS PARCEL NUMBERS 0229- 012-08-0000 AND 0229-012-10-0000; NEGOTIATING PARTIES MATT BURRIS, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER/ECONOMIC & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, REPRESENTING THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND DAN DE LA PAZ, REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER; REGARDING PRICE AND TERMS. – CITY D5. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – ANTICIPATED LITIGATION INITIATION OF LITIGATION PURSUANT TO PARAGRAPH (4) OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF SECTION 54956.9: (ONE CASE) The closed session recessed at 6:45 p.m. The regular meetings of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Council were held on April 4, 2018 in the Council Chambers at City Hall, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Mayor Michael called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Present were Council Members: Bill Alexander, Diane Williams, Sam Spagnolo, Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy and Mayor L. Dennis Michael. Also present were: John Gillison, City Manager; James L. Markman, City Attorney; and Patricia Bravo-Valdez, Assistant City Clerk. Council Member Spagnolo led the Pledge of Allegiance. A1. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring the Month of April as “Donate Life Month”. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council presented a proclamation to Ina Brown, Living Donor and Donate Life Ambassador from Donate for Life California declaring the Month of April as “Donate Life Month”. A2. Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring the Month of April as “Child Abuse Month”. Mayor Michael and Members of the City Council presented a proclamation to Janki Patel, Community and Events Coordinator, San Bernardino County, Human Services Children’s Network, declaring the Month of April as “Child Abuse Prevention Month”. B1. Shane Gray offered a prayer. B2. Andrew Cadogan offered a prayer. B3. Ryan Hutchison announced and invited the public to attend the 13th Annual Rancho Cucamonga Challenge presented by the Friends of the Pacific Electric Trail on May 19th, 2018 at Central Park in the City of Rancho Cucamonga to promote family, fun and fitness. E. RECESS REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. C ALL TO ORDER – COUNCIL CHAMBERS A. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS Page 10 April 4, 2018| Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 3 of 6 B4. Janet Walton offered a prayer and spoke on “National Day of Prayer”. B5. Kimberly Zuniga, Field Representative for Assembly Member Marc Steinorth’s Office, introduced herself to the community as a new representative for Assembly Member Steinorth’s Office. C1. Consideration to approve Check Register dated March 14, 2018 through March 27, 2018 for the total of $393,985.21. C2. Consideration to approve Amendment No. 02 to HMC Architects Contract No. FD 17-003 in the Amount of $20,000 for Additional Architectural Design Services for the Conceptual Plans for the Redesign of the Sheriff Substation at Victoria Gardens. MOTION: Moved by Board Member Williams, seconded by Vice-President Kennedy, to approve Consent Calendar Items C1. through C2. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. No items. No items. No items. G. CONSENT CALENDAR – CITY COUNCIL G.1. Consideration to approve Check Register dated March 14, 2018 through March 27, 2018 for the total of $5,221,945.27. G.2. Consideration to approve an appropriation of funds in the amount of $6,000 from the CA Recycling/Litter Reduction Grant (Fund 225) Fund for costs associated with increasing beverage container recycling opportunities. G.3. Consideration of an Agreement between the City and WLPX Day Creek, LLC for Maintenance of the Traffic Signal located at Base Line Road, west of Day Creek Boulevard. G.4. Consideration to schedule a Public Hearing for May 16, 2018 for placement of Liens for Delinquent Solid Waste Accounts. G.5. Consideration to Award a Contract to Torga Electrical for the "Victoria Windrows 2A & 2B Greenbelt Lighting Project". G6. Consideration of Amendment No. 002 Authorizing an Increase to the Professional Services Agreement with Kindred Corporation in the Amount of $96,160. G7. Consideration of a Loan Agreement, Promissory Note, Request for Notice, and Affirm the Purchase and Sale Agreement of the Neighborhood Stabilization Program Property Located at 6948 Spinel Avenue. CONSENT C ALENDARS C. CONSENT CALENDAR – FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT D. CONSENT C ALENDAR – HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY E. CONSENT C ALENDAR – SUCCESSOR AGENCY F. CONSENT CALENDAR – PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY Page 11 **DRAFT** April 4, 2018| Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 4 of 6 G8. Consideration to approve Amendment No. 02 to HMC Architects Contract No. FD 17-003 in the Amount of $20,000 for Additional Architectural Design Services for the Conceptual Plans for the Redesign of the Sheriff Substation at Victoria Gardens. G9. Consideration to Adopt a Resolution Allocating the Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Funds for Fiscal Year 2018/19. RESOLUTION NO. 18-018 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE PROJECTS FOR THE ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 FOR THE EXPENDITURE OF ROAD MAINTENANCE AND REHABILITATION ACCOUNT (RMRA) FUNDS MOTION: Moved by Council Member Spagnolo, seconded by Council Member Williams, to approve Consent Calendar Items G1 through G9. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. No Items. I.1. Summary of Review of Results of Annual Independent Audit Concerning FY 2016/17 Expenditures in LMDs 2 (Victoria), 4 (Terra Vista), 6 (Caryn), and 7 (North Etiwanda). City Manager Gillison introduced Jaime Garcia, Planned Communities Citizen’s Oversight Committee Chair, who presented a report on the results of the Annual Independent Audit. Mayor Michael opened the Administrative Hearing for Item I1. Pete Peterson and Ruth McMillan, Planned Communities Citizen’s Oversight Committee Members introduced themselves to the community. Mayor Michael closed the Administrative Hearing for Item I1. City Council thanked the Committee Members for their efforts. City Council received and filed report. I.2. Summary of Review of Results of Annual Independent Audit Concerning FY 2016/17 Expenditures in Landscape Maintenance District #1, Street Lighting District #2, and Park and Recreation Improvement District #85. City Manager Gillison introduced Theresa Marji, West-Side Districts Citizen’s Oversight Committee, who presented a report on the results of the Annual Independent Audit. Ms. Marji went over meetings that have been held and efforts in solving budgetary issues. Mayor Michael opened the Administrative Hearing for Item I2. Ryan Hutchison spoke on the importance of being involved and having priorities for the future. H. CONSENT ORDINANCES I. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ITEM Page 12 **DRAFT** April 4, 2018| Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 5 of 6 Mayor Michael closed the Administrative Hearing for Item I2. Mayor Michael thanked City Staff for their work on the reports. City Council received and filed report. No Items. K. CITY MANAGER’S STAFF REPORTS CITY COUNCIL K.1. Update on Citywide Traffic Enforcement Operations, the City’s Tow Franchise Program, and Parking Restrictions Adjacent to the North Etiwanda Preserve (Verbal Report). City Manager Gillison introduced Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer and Donny Mahoney, Chief of Police, who gave the staff report and presented a PowerPoint Presentation. Discussion ensued on the possibility of phasing out police motorcycles due to operational costs and safety reasons. Chief of Police Mahoney indicated that he will look into the item and report back to the City Council. Discussion ensued on franchise fees in agreements with Tow Companies; and ability to rotate Tow Companies. Mayor Michael thanked staff for their report. City Manager Gillison clarified that K-Rails were installed and no parking is allowed adjacent to the North Etiwanda Preserve and that the City will continue to monitor the parking situation and work closely with the developers on fencing the property. He also went over the area owned by the County and parking restrictions. L1. INTER-AGENCY UPDATES (Update by the City Council to the community on the meetings that were attended.) Mayor Michael reported that at the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority meeting that morning the State of California State Commission allocated grants funds to San Bernardino County to reduce the fares of Metrolink trains for a period of time. L2. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Council Member.) None. None. J. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS CITY COUNCIL L. COUNCIL BUSINESS M. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Page 13 **DRAFT** April 4, 2018| Fire Protection District, Housing Successor Agency, Successor Agency, Public Financing Authority and City Council Regular Meetings Minutes City of Rancho Cucamonga | Page 6 of 6 Mayor Michael adjourned the meeting at 8:11 p.m. and announced that at the March 7, 2018 Regular City Council Meeting the City Council took action to Cancel the Regular Meeting of April 18, 2018 and Scheduled a Special Meeting on Tuesday, April 17, 2018. Respectfully submitted, __________________________________ Patricia Bravo-Valdez Assistant City Clerk Approved: ********** N. ADJOURNMENT Page 14 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:P resident and Members of the B oard of D irectors F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:Tamara L ayne, F inance D irector S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AP P RO V E B I-WE E K LY PAY RO L L I N T HE AM O UNT O F $597,229.20 AND WE E K LY C HE C K RE G IS T E RS I N T HE AM O UNT O F $1,005,357.83 D AT E D AP RI L 24, 2018 T HRO UG H M AY 7, 2018. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends F ire Board approve payment of demands as presented. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALY S IS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: N/A AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n A ttachment 1 Check R egister Page 15 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 631.60631.600.00AHUMADA, ALEXANDER R04/24/201800007892AP 631.60631.600.00ALMAND, LLOYD04/24/201800007893AP 499.68499.680.00BANTAU, VICTORIA04/24/201800007894AP 585.98585.980.00BAZAL, SUSAN04/24/201800007895AP 1,214.461,214.460.00BELL, MICHAEL L.04/24/201800007896AP 1,152.401,152.400.00BERRY, DAVID04/24/201800007897AP 923.03923.030.00BROCK, ROBIN04/24/201800007898AP 826.04826.040.00CAMPBELL, GERALD04/24/201800007899AP 1,327.271,327.270.00CAMPBELL, STEVEN04/24/201800007900AP 499.68499.680.00CARNES, KENNETH04/24/201800007901AP 1,152.401,152.400.00CLABBY, RICHARD04/24/201800007902AP 1,618.701,618.700.00CLOUGHESY, DONALD R04/24/201800007903AP 540.73540.730.00CORCORAN, ROBERT04/24/201800007904AP 1,618.701,618.700.00COSTELLO, DENNIS M04/24/201800007905AP 631.60631.600.00COX, KARL04/24/201800007906AP 968.28968.280.00CRANE, RALPH04/24/201800007907AP 499.68499.680.00CROSSLAND, WILBUR04/24/201800007908AP 1,214.461,214.460.00DAGUE, JAMES04/24/201800007909AP 540.73540.730.00DE ANTONIO, SUSAN04/24/201800007910AP 585.98585.980.00DEANS, JACKIE04/24/201800007911AP 923.03923.030.00DOMINICK, SAMUEL A.04/24/201800007912AP 1,214.461,214.460.00EAGLESON, MICHAEL04/24/201800007913AP 1,618.701,618.700.00EGGERS, BOB04/24/201800007914AP 499.68499.680.00FRITCHEY, JOHN D.04/24/201800007915AP 631.60631.600.00HEYDE, DONALD04/24/201800007916AP 249.30249.300.00INTERLICCHIA, ROSALYN04/24/201800007917AP 1,538.021,538.020.00KILMER, STEPHEN04/24/201800007918AP 1,214.461,214.460.00LANE, WILLIAM04/24/201800007919AP 1,538.021,538.020.00LARKIN, DAVID W04/24/201800007920AP 1,264.921,264.920.00LEE, ALLAN J.04/24/201800007921AP 1,093.581,093.580.00LENZE, PAUL E04/24/201800007922AP 183.34183.340.00LONGO, JOE04/24/201800007923AP 499.68499.680.00LUTTRULL, DARRELL04/24/201800007924AP 509.70509.700.00MACKALL, BEVERLY04/24/201800007925AP 1,304.961,304.960.00MAYFIELD, RON04/24/201800007926AP 631.60631.600.00MCKEE, JOHN04/24/201800007927AP 631.60631.600.00MCNEIL, KENNETH04/24/201800007928AP 923.03923.030.00MICHAEL, L. DENNIS04/24/201800007929AP 1,714.621,714.620.00MORGAN, BYRON04/24/201800007930AP 1,152.401,152.400.00MYSKOW, DENNIS04/24/201800007931AP 499.68499.680.00NAUMAN, MICHAEL04/24/201800007932AP 585.98585.980.00NEE, RON04/24/201800007933AP 183.34183.340.00NELSON, MARY JANE04/24/201800007934AP 1,618.701,618.700.00O'BRIEN, TOM04/24/201800007935AP 558.94558.940.00PLOUNG, MICHAEL J04/24/201800007936AP 1,586.771,586.770.00POST, MICHAEL R04/24/201800007937AP 1,618.701,618.700.00PROULX, PATRICK04/24/201800007938AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:1 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 16 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 1,214.461,214.460.00REDMOND, MIKE04/24/201800007939AP 1,214.461,214.460.00ROEDER, JEFF04/24/201800007940AP 631.60631.600.00SALISBURY, THOMAS04/24/201800007941AP 499.68499.680.00SMITH, RONALD04/24/201800007942AP 1,736.351,736.350.00SORENSEN, SCOTT D04/24/201800007943AP 499.68499.680.00SPAGNOLO, SAM04/24/201800007944AP 826.04826.040.00SPAIN, WILLIAM04/24/201800007945AP 499.68499.680.00SULLIVAN, JAMES04/24/201800007946AP 1,461.551,461.550.00TAYLOR, STEVE04/24/201800007947AP 1,214.461,214.460.00TULEY, TERRY04/24/201800007948AP 982.80982.800.00VANDERKALLEN, FRANCIS04/24/201800007949AP 923.03923.030.00VARNEY, ANTHONY04/24/201800007950AP 1,538.021,538.020.00WALTON, KEVIN04/24/201800007951AP 1,304.961,304.960.00YOWELL, TIMOTHY A04/24/201800007952AP 9,916.710.009,916.71ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.04/25/201800007953AP 13,390.000.0013,390.00CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMONGA04/25/201800007954AP 3,287.280.003,287.28CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HS DISTRICT04/25/201800007955AP 1,908.000.001,908.00RCCEA04/25/201800007956AP 11,509.110.0011,509.11RCPFA04/25/201800007957AP 2,927,876.000.002,927,876.00SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT04/25/201800007958AP 96.000.0096.00MICHAEL, L. DENNIS05/02/201800007959AP 20.000.0020.00SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY05/02/201800007960AP 188,542.600.00188,542.60SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT05/02/201800007961AP 1,618.701,618.700.00CURATALO, JAMES04/24/201800389866AP 1,461.551,461.550.00KIRKPATRICK, WILLIAM04/24/201800389867AP 1,152.401,152.400.00LONCAR, PHILIP04/24/201800389868AP 1,618.701,618.700.00TOWNSEND, JAMES04/24/201800389869AP 249.30249.300.00WALKER, KENNETH04/24/201800389870AP 355.47355.470.0049ER COMMUNICATIONS04/25/201800389871AP 750.720.00750.72A AND R TIRE SERVICE04/25/201800389872AP 688.800.00688.80A'JONTUE, ROSE ANN04/25/201800389873AP 1,819.000.001,819.00ACEY DECY EQUIPMENT INC.04/25/201800389874AP 40.970.0040.97AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE04/25/201800389875AP 15.560.0015.56AGE-FREE, SERENA04/25/201800389876AP 123.240.00123.24ALBA, CANDACE04/25/201800389877AP 180.540.00180.54ARGUIJO, VASHTI04/25/201800389878AP 1,331.690.001,331.69AROCHO, ALMA04/25/201800389879AP 166.100.00166.10ARS AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL04/25/201800389880AP 834.000.00834.00BARRETO, RAQUEL M.04/25/201800389881AP 148.200.00148.20BAST, KAROLYN04/25/201800389882AP 5,734.910.005,734.91BEST BEST AND KRIEGER04/25/201800389883AP 1,137.500.001,137.50BOOKE, CHRISTOPHER04/25/201800389884AP 750.000.00750.00BRIGHT BOX ENTERPRISES04/25/201800389885AP 16,172.170.0016,172.17BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC.04/25/201800389886AP 37,876.910.0037,876.91BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA INC04/25/201800389888AP ***41,975.81382.3841,593.43C V W D04/25/201800389891AP 1,750.000.001,750.00CALIFORNIA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION04/25/201800389892AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:2 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 17 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 25.000.0025.00CALIFORNIA SCIENCE CENTER04/25/201800389893AP 100.000.00100.00CALIFORNIA, STATE OF04/25/201800389894AP 8.440.008.44CALIFORNIA, STATE OF04/25/201800389895AP 4,200.000.004,200.00CASTRO, ROBERT04/25/201800389896AP 51,664.200.0051,664.20CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC.04/25/201800389897AP 249.000.00249.00CENTENO, JASON04/25/201800389898AP 170.62170.620.00CINTAS CORPORATION #15004/25/201800389899AP 720.000.00720.00CLARK, KAREN04/25/201800389900AP 1,137.500.001,137.50CORMIER, JAMES04/25/201800389901AP 129.290.00129.29CUEVAS, AYLA04/25/201800389902AP 858.140.00858.14DAKTRONICS INC04/25/201800389903AP 7,361.380.007,361.38DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION04/25/201800389904AP 32.250.0032.25DEPENDABLE COMPANY INC.04/25/201800389905AP 305.990.00305.99DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES04/25/201800389906AP 160.000.00160.00DOLLARHIDE, GINGER04/25/201800389907AP 540.000.00540.00DUNN, ANN MARIE04/25/201800389908AP 52.320.0052.32DURKEL, CAROL04/25/201800389909AP 14,618.780.0014,618.78DYNALECTRIC04/25/201800389910AP 288.000.00288.00EASTERLING, RAY04/25/201800389911AP 60.000.0060.00EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT.04/25/201800389912AP 100.000.00100.00EVERO, MARY04/25/201800389913AP 440.000.00440.00EXECUTIVE AUTO DETAIL04/25/201800389914AP 52.000.0052.00EXPERIAN04/25/201800389915AP 75.460.0075.46FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP04/25/201800389916AP 500.000.00500.00FLORES, PETE04/25/201800389917AP 834.000.00834.00GALE, BRIAN04/25/201800389918AP 2,042.330.002,042.33GEOGRAPHICS04/25/201800389919AP 105.600.00105.60GIORDANO, MARIANNA04/25/201800389920AP 4,053.140.004,053.14GISELLE CHOW CONSULTING04/25/201800389921AP 3,000.000.003,000.00GONSALVES AND SON,JOE A04/25/201800389922AP 733.000.00733.00GOODMAN, ALINA04/25/201800389923AP 1,482.020.001,482.02GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO.04/25/201800389924AP 419.210.00419.21GRAINGER04/25/201800389925AP 59.800.0059.80GRAPHICS FACTORY INC.04/25/201800389926AP 4,190.000.004,190.00GUPTA PERMOLD CORPORATION04/25/201800389927AP 960.000.00960.00HAMILTON, MONIQUE04/25/201800389928AP 1,163.310.001,163.31HAMPTON YOGA04/25/201800389929AP 1,244.750.001,244.75HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 64504/25/201800389930AP 200.85200.850.00HOYT LUMBER CO., SM04/25/201800389931AP 1,210.000.001,210.00INLAND EMPIRE STAGES LTD04/25/201800389932AP 2,460.000.002,460.00INNERLINE ENGINEERING INC04/25/201800389933AP 475.000.00475.00INTERNATIONAL FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATION04/25/201800389934AP 1,204.480.001,204.48INTERNATIONAL LINE BUILDERS INC04/25/201800389935AP 500.000.00500.00JOHNSON, BARBARA04/25/201800389936AP 2,045.830.002,045.83KINDRED CORPORATION04/25/201800389937AP 34.880.0034.88KNIGHT, AMANDA04/25/201800389938AP 1,642.350.001,642.35KVAC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC04/25/201800389939AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:3 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 18 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 9,635.960.009,635.96LANDCARE USA LLC04/25/201800389940AP 452.000.00452.00LATREACE, RAINEY04/25/201800389941AP 3,466.470.003,466.47LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.04/25/201800389942AP 9,773.290.009,773.29LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC04/25/201800389943AP 35.000.0035.00LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE04/25/201800389944AP 21,477.270.0021,477.27MAGELLAN ADVISORS LLC04/25/201800389945AP 49,575.000.0049,575.00MAGELLAN ADVISORS LLC04/25/201800389946AP 12,159.690.0012,159.69MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC04/25/201800389947AP 12,956.940.0012,956.94MC AVOY & MARKHAM04/25/201800389948AP 945.750.00945.75MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY04/25/201800389949AP 9,580.000.009,580.00MICROSOFT CORPORATION-MICROSOFT IGNITE 201804/25/201800389950AP 233.900.00233.90MIDWEST TAPE04/25/201800389951AP 380.000.00380.00MIJAC ALARM COMPANY04/25/201800389952AP 200.000.00200.00MILES, CHARLIE04/25/201800389953AP 180.000.00180.00MORRIS, RICHARD04/25/201800389954AP 63.260.0063.26MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR04/25/201800389955AP 525.000.00525.00MUSLIM ANTI-RACISM COLLABORATIVE04/25/201800389956AP 15,440.000.0015,440.00NBS04/25/201800389957AP 501.950.00501.95NEIUBER, ROBERT04/25/201800389958AP 466.830.00466.83OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA04/25/201800389959AP 333.000.00333.00ONTARIO WINNELSON CO04/25/201800389960AP 24,555.000.0024,555.00ONWARD ENGINEERING04/25/201800389961AP 19,410.000.0019,410.00ONWARD ENGINEERING04/25/201800389962AP 1,015.000.001,015.00ORONA, PATRICIA04/25/201800389963AP 750.000.00750.00OTT, LAURA04/25/201800389964AP 648.000.00648.00OTT, SHARON04/25/201800389965AP 1,137.500.001,137.50PACHECO, ART04/25/201800389966AP 36,266.8436,266.840.00PACIFIC PREMIER BANK04/25/201800389967AP 58.980.0058.98PACIFIC TRUCK EQUIPMENT04/25/201800389968AP 13,200.000.0013,200.00PACIFIC UTILITY INSTALLATION INC04/25/201800389969AP 3,500.000.003,500.00PARS04/25/201800389970AP 834.000.00834.00PETROVICH, VICTORIA04/25/201800389971AP 78.380.0078.38PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC04/25/201800389972AP 7.430.007.43PRENTICE, IRENE04/25/201800389973AP 4,828.960.004,828.96PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE04/25/201800389974AP 2,196.000.002,196.00PROPET DISTRIBUTORS INC04/25/201800389975AP 155.160.00155.16PSA PRINT GROUP04/25/201800389976AP 323.570.00323.57PSA PRINT GROUP04/25/201800389977AP 3,166.000.003,166.00RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE04/25/201800389978AP 689,070.05689,070.050.00RC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC04/25/201800389979AP 68.650.0068.65RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY04/25/201800389980AP 580.000.00580.00REYNOLDS BUICK04/25/201800389981AP 160.000.00160.00RIGLEMAN, ENCARNACION ONTIVEROS04/25/201800389982AP 256.230.00256.23RODAS' AUTO REPAIR04/25/201800389983AP 950.000.00950.00SAFETY CENTER INC04/25/201800389984AP 389.060.00389.06SAMS CLUB/SYNCHRONY BANK04/25/201800389985AP 3,981.000.003,981.00SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT04/25/201800389986AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:4 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 19 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 11,818.8611,818.860.00SAN BERNARDINO CTY04/25/201800389987AP 497.000.00497.00SAN BERNARDINO CTY DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH04/25/201800389988AP 2,640.000.002,640.00SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF04/25/201800389989AP 1,583.000.001,583.00SBPEA04/25/201800389990AP 24,548.660.0024,548.66SC FUELS04/25/201800389991AP 1,291.161,291.160.00SC FUELS04/25/201800389992AP 620.400.00620.40SENECHAL, CALVIN04/25/201800389993AP 15,000.000.0015,000.00SHAWMUT WOODWORKING & SUPPLY INC04/25/201800389994AP 69.570.0069.57SHIPMAN, LONNIE04/25/201800389995AP 2,976.250.002,976.25SIEMENS INDUSTRY INC04/25/201800389996AP 81.500.0081.50SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC04/25/201800389997AP ***6,750.62814.735,935.89SO CALIF GAS COMPANY04/25/201800389998AP ***20,766.712,510.3918,256.32SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON04/25/201800390006AP 975.50975.500.00SPECTRUM GAS PRODUCTS04/25/201800390007AP 445.000.00445.00SPINITAR04/25/201800390008AP 7,500.000.007,500.00STANLEY R HOFFMAN ASSOCIATES INC04/25/201800390009AP 305.600.00305.60STORAGE CONTAINER.COM04/25/201800390010AP 431.740.00431.74SUITE 106 CUPCAKERY LLC04/25/201800390011AP 466.250.00466.25SUNSATION LUGGAGE04/25/201800390012AP 2,336.000.002,336.00SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC04/25/201800390013AP 225.000.00225.00SWEET DOUGH CAFE04/25/201800390014AP 14,978.450.0014,978.45SYSTEMS SOURCE INC04/25/201800390015AP 445.000.00445.00TEXAS MEDICAL SCREENING LLC04/25/201800390016AP 13,216.960.0013,216.96TOMCO LLC04/25/201800390017AP 100.000.00100.00TORO TOWING04/25/201800390018AP 668.000.00668.00TSAI, THOMAS04/25/201800390019AP 324.000.00324.00TYUS, IDA04/25/201800390020AP 589.710.00589.71ULINE04/25/201800390021AP 58,190.000.0058,190.00UNITED PACIFIC SERVICES INC04/25/201800390022AP 116.000.00116.00UNITED WAY04/25/201800390023AP 22.600.0022.60UPS04/25/201800390024AP 1,046.090.001,046.09UTILIQUEST04/25/201800390025AP 8,000.000.008,000.00VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES INC04/25/201800390026AP 21,000.000.0021,000.00VANDERHAWK CONSULTING LLC04/25/201800390027AP 385.840.00385.84VERIZON WIRELESS - LA04/25/201800390028AP 2,855.800.002,855.80WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO04/25/201800390029AP 8,029.120.008,029.12WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY04/25/201800390030AP 95.000.0095.00WEISSMANN, JOANNA04/25/201800390031AP 1,129.770.001,129.77WEST COAST SAND AND GRAVEL INC04/25/201800390032AP 1,400.000.001,400.00WHITE HOUSE PHOTO INC04/25/201800390033AP 80.490.0080.49WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY04/25/201800390034AP 233.06233.060.00WINZER CORPORATION04/25/201800390035AP 140.350.00140.35WT.COX INFORMATION SERVICES04/25/201800390036AP ***10,134.11437.079,697.04XEROX CORPORATION04/25/201800390039AP ***34,599.5020,808.0013,791.50YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP INC04/25/201800390040AP 834.000.00834.00ZALEWSKI, JOHN04/25/201800390041AP 59.260.0059.26ABC LOCKSMITHS04/26/201800390042AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:5 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 20 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 137.110.00137.11AIRGAS USA LLC04/26/201800390043AP 8,833.050.008,833.05BRODART BOOKS04/26/201800390047AP 790.220.00790.22CALSENSE04/26/201800390048AP 424.15424.150.00CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC04/26/201800390049AP 579.210.00579.21DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION04/26/201800390050AP 17,727.900.0017,727.90EMCOR SERVICE04/26/201800390051AP 121.880.00121.88EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS04/26/201800390052AP 3,300.270.003,300.27HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC04/26/201800390053AP 1,420.000.001,420.00INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN04/26/201800390054AP 189.75189.750.00INTERSTATE BATTERIES04/26/201800390055AP 118.08118.080.00LN CURTIS AND SONS04/26/201800390056AP ***445.6691.33354.33OFFICE DEPOT04/26/201800390057AP 1,710.120.001,710.12ORKIN PEST CONTROL04/26/201800390058AP 31.420.0031.42SUNRISE FORD04/26/201800390059AP ***2,420.221,114.711,305.51CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, STATE OF04/30/201800390063AP 590.440.00590.44A AND R TIRE SERVICE05/02/201800390064AP 1,059.180.001,059.18A.Y. NURSERY INC.05/02/201800390065AP 4,563.850.004,563.85ABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE05/02/201800390066AP 150.000.00150.00ADOBE ANIMAL HOSPITAL05/02/201800390067AP 175.260.00175.26AGUILAR, ARIANA05/02/201800390068AP 25.000.0025.00AGUILERA, ISAIAH05/02/201800390069AP 465.00465.000.00ALL CITIES TOOLS05/02/201800390070AP 1,032.870.001,032.87ALL WELDING05/02/201800390071AP 3,128.560.003,128.56ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES05/02/201800390072AP 500.000.00500.00ALTA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK05/02/201800390073AP 150.000.00150.00AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES05/02/201800390074AP 3,951.380.003,951.38APPLE INC.05/02/201800390075AP 500.000.00500.00APPLEBEES NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL AND BAR05/02/201800390076AP 25.000.0025.00ARCHIBALD PET HOSPITAL05/02/201800390077AP 85.0085.000.00AT&T MOBILITY05/02/201800390078AP 11,264.000.0011,264.00AUFBAU CORPORATION05/02/201800390079AP 1,034.000.001,034.00AUNTIE M CREATIVE CONSULTANTS INC.05/02/201800390080AP 330.540.00330.54AUTO AND RV SPECIALISTS INC.05/02/201800390081AP 430.000.00430.00BABCOCK LABORATORIES INC05/02/201800390082AP 301.69301.690.00BAILEY, JACOB05/02/201800390083AP 100.000.00100.00BASELINE ANIMAL HOSPITAL05/02/201800390084AP 270.00270.000.00BASTIAN, DAVID05/02/201800390085AP 54.460.0054.46BOLTON, HEATHER05/02/201800390086AP 20.460.0020.46BROWN, JAMIE05/02/201800390087AP 832.27832.270.00C V W D05/02/201800390088AP ***32,116.94829.6531,287.29C V W D05/02/201800390090AP 600.000.00600.00CA LLC - DBA ALTA LAGUNA MHP05/02/201800390091AP 922.000.00922.00CABLE INC.05/02/201800390092AP 254.140.00254.14CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE05/02/201800390093AP 56,344.430.0056,344.43CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST05/02/201800390094AP 200.000.00200.00CALIFORNIA PRESENTERS05/02/201800390095AP 500.000.00500.00CALIFORNIA UTILITIES EMERGENCY ASSOC.05/02/201800390096AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:6 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 21 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 21.500.0021.50CANSINO, NAELA05/02/201800390097AP 373.410.00373.41CARQUEST AUTO PARTS05/02/201800390098AP 900.000.00900.00CASA VOLANTE MOBILE HOME PARK05/02/201800390099AP 700.000.00700.00CHAPARRAL HEIGHTS MOBILE HOME PARK05/02/201800390100AP 1,100.000.001,100.00CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES INC.05/02/201800390101AP ***15,192.694,370.1210,822.57CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS05/02/201800390102AP ***2,470.03298.982,171.05CINTAS CORPORATION #15005/02/201800390103AP 200.000.00200.00CLEAN OUT SOURCE05/02/201800390104AP 5,474.760.005,474.76CLIMATEC LLC05/02/201800390105AP 1,777.380.001,777.38CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTR INC05/02/201800390106AP 4,400.004,400.000.00CONVERSE CONSULTANTS05/02/201800390107AP 540.000.00540.00CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN LLC05/02/201800390108AP 860.000.00860.00D & D SERVICES INC.05/02/201800390109AP 4,845.320.004,845.32D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY05/02/201800390110AP 2,845.782,845.780.00DANIELS TIRE SERVICE05/02/201800390111AP 264.500.00264.50DANIELS, NOAH05/02/201800390112AP 10,574.790.0010,574.79DATA TICKET INC05/02/201800390113AP 162.000.00162.00DELANO, LAURA05/02/201800390114AP 93.710.0093.71DEMCO INC05/02/201800390115AP 148.00148.000.00DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION05/02/201800390116AP 28.000.0028.00DEPENDABLE COMPANY INC.05/02/201800390117AP 5,020.420.005,020.42DLIMAGING05/02/201800390118AP 564.550.00564.55DOG WASTE DEPOT05/02/201800390119AP 525.000.00525.00DREAM SHAPERS05/02/201800390120AP 11,195.000.0011,195.00ECONO FENCE COMPANY05/02/201800390121AP 75.0075.000.00EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY05/02/201800390122AP 1,454.630.001,454.63ENNIS PAINT INC.05/02/201800390123AP 32,225.790.0032,225.79EVOLUTION FRESH INC.05/02/201800390124AP 1,185.000.001,185.00EXECUTIVE AUTO DETAIL05/02/201800390125AP 663.220.00663.22EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY05/02/201800390126AP 21.980.0021.98FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP05/02/201800390127AP 597.11597.110.00FEDERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION05/02/201800390128AP 2,248.862,248.860.00FIRE ETC.05/02/201800390129AP 1,025.141,025.140.00FLEET SERVICES INC.05/02/201800390130AP 300.000.00300.00FOOTHILL MOBILE MANOR05/02/201800390131AP 135.48135.480.00FRANKLIN TRUCK PARTS05/02/201800390132AP ***6,182.08561.815,620.27FRONTIER COMM05/02/201800390134AP 1,412.190.001,412.19FRONTIER COMM05/02/201800390135AP 1,546.930.001,546.93G AND M BUSINESS INTERIORS05/02/201800390136AP 10.000.0010.00GARNICA, JAMI05/02/201800390137AP 540.000.00540.00GATEWAY PET CEMETERY AND CREMATORY05/02/201800390138AP 5,222.870.005,222.87GEOGRAPHICS05/02/201800390139AP 971.100.00971.10GEORGE HILLS COMPANY05/02/201800390140AP 97.520.0097.52GEORGI, MAX05/02/201800390141AP 96.000.0096.00GILLISON, JOHN05/02/201800390142AP 3,800.000.003,800.00GLICKMAN, LAUREN05/02/201800390143AP 793.390.00793.39GLICKMAN, LAUREN05/02/201800390144AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:7 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 22 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 117.480.00117.48GLOBALSTAR USA05/02/201800390145AP 300.000.00300.00GOLDEN OAKS VET HOSPITAL05/02/201800390146AP 2,281.112,281.110.00GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO.05/02/201800390147AP 2,796.100.002,796.10GRAINGER05/02/201800390148AP 1,236.440.001,236.44GRAPHICS FACTORY INC.05/02/201800390149AP 1,019.550.001,019.55GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT05/02/201800390150AP 31,248.000.0031,248.00GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INC05/02/201800390151AP 156.000.00156.00GUERRERO, ALFONSO05/02/201800390152AP 223.950.00223.95HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO05/02/201800390153AP 489.750.00489.75HENRY SCHEIN ANIMAL HEALTH SUPPLY05/02/201800390154AP 573.000.00573.00HERITAGE EDUCATION GROUP05/02/201800390155AP 653.310.00653.31HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC05/02/201800390156AP 121,893.85121,893.850.00HMC ARCHITECTS05/02/201800390157AP 171.000.00171.00HOFELD, ELIZABETH SUZANNE05/02/201800390158AP 800.000.00800.00HOMETOWN AMERICA RAMONA VILLA05/02/201800390159AP 120.210.00120.21HOSE MAN INC05/02/201800390160AP 79.000.0079.00HSVMA05/02/201800390161AP 100.000.00100.00HUMANE SOCIETY OF SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY INC.05/02/201800390162AP 133.850.00133.85ICE DATA PRICING AND REFERENCE DATA LLC05/02/201800390163AP 3,645.960.003,645.96IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC05/02/201800390164AP 4,550.000.004,550.00INDEPENDENT ROOFING CONSULTANTS05/02/201800390165AP 530.880.00530.88INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN05/02/201800390166AP 883.750.00883.75INLAND VALLEY EMERGENCY PET CLINIC05/02/201800390167AP 4,840.960.004,840.96INTERVET INC05/02/201800390168AP 286.510.00286.51JCL TRAFFIC SERVICES05/02/201800390169AP 33,900.000.0033,900.00JERICHO SYSTEMS INC05/02/201800390170AP 299.270.00299.27K-K WOODWORKING05/02/201800390171AP 243,577.800.00243,577.80KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC05/02/201800390172AP 101,070.780.00101,070.78LANDCARE USA LLC05/02/201800390173AP 5.040.005.04LANDSCAPE FORMS INC05/02/201800390174AP 201.440.00201.44LAWSON PRODUCTS INC05/02/201800390175AP 45.000.0045.00LEAL, RUTH05/02/201800390176AP 395.000.00395.00LEARNING RESOURCES NETWORK INC05/02/201800390177AP 9,081.020.009,081.02LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC05/02/201800390178AP 15,691.000.0015,691.00LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE05/02/201800390179AP 35.7635.760.00LIGHTHOUSE, THE05/02/201800390180AP 965.000.00965.00LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS05/02/201800390181AP 334.730.00334.73LOS ANGELES FREIGHTLINER05/02/201800390182AP 375.000.00375.00MADD SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA05/02/201800390183AP 2,034.700.002,034.70MAIN STREET SIGNS05/02/201800390184AP 188.360.00188.36MARCO EQUIPMENT CO05/02/201800390185AP 80,341.030.0080,341.03MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC05/02/201800390186AP 849.210.00849.21MARTINEZ, NATALIE05/02/201800390187AP 50.000.0050.00MARY S ROBERTS SPAY/NEUTER CLINIC05/02/201800390188AP 224.950.00224.95MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY05/02/201800390189AP 80.000.0080.00MEDIWASTE DISPOSAL05/02/201800390190AP 1,175.200.001,175.20MEDLEY FIRE PROTECTION INC05/02/201800390191AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:8 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 23 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 403.870.00403.87MIDWEST TAPE05/02/201800390192AP 481.460.00481.46MIRION TECHNOLOGIES GDS INC05/02/201800390193AP 1,132.861,132.860.00NAPA AUTO PARTS05/02/201800390194AP 4,999.990.004,999.99NEARMAP US INC05/02/201800390195AP 452.690.00452.69NEOPOST USA INC05/02/201800390196AP 241.360.00241.36NEWCO DISTRIBUTORS INC05/02/201800390197AP 602.720.00602.72ONTRAC05/02/201800390198AP 33,107.000.0033,107.00ONWARD ENGINEERING05/02/201800390199AP 396.000.00396.00OPARC05/02/201800390200AP 500.000.00500.00ORTEGA, YADIRA05/02/201800390201AP 6.110.006.11PEP BOYS05/02/201800390202AP 97.520.0097.52PEREZ, CARLEEN05/02/201800390203AP 2,146.450.002,146.45PERSONAL STRENGTHS PUBLISHING INC05/02/201800390204AP 47.660.0047.66PETERSEN DEAN INC05/02/201800390205AP 1,807.490.001,807.49PETES ROAD SERVICE INC05/02/201800390206AP 2,180.002,180.000.00PH&S PRODUCTS LLC05/02/201800390207AP 400.000.00400.00PINES MOBILE HOME PARK, THE05/02/201800390208AP 62.4762.470.00PRISTINE UNIFORMS LLC05/02/201800390209AP 424.570.00424.57PRO SPRAY INC05/02/201800390210AP 988.550.00988.55PRO-LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS INC05/02/201800390211AP 4,893.540.004,893.54PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE05/02/201800390212AP 1,834.760.001,834.76PSA PRINT GROUP05/02/201800390213AP 300.000.00300.00RANCHO REGIONAL VETERINARY HOSPITAL INC05/02/201800390214AP 566.600.00566.60RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE05/02/201800390215AP 246.000.00246.00RC PHOTO CLUB INC05/02/201800390216AP 678.810.00678.81RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY05/02/201800390217AP 722.410.00722.41RED WING SHOE STORE05/02/201800390218AP 396.180.00396.18REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTOR05/02/201800390219AP 1,295.000.001,295.00RICHARD WIGHTMAN CONSTRUCTION INC05/02/201800390220AP 3,500.000.003,500.00RICHARD WIGHTMAN CONSTRUCTION INC05/02/201800390221AP 1,900.000.001,900.00RICHARD WIGHTMAN CONSTRUCTION INC05/02/201800390222AP 3,100.000.003,100.00RICHARD WIGHTMAN CONSTRUCTION INC05/02/201800390223AP ***41,376.663,409.6237,967.04RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON05/02/201800390224AP 15,268.560.0015,268.56RJM DESIGN GROUP INC05/02/201800390225AP 822.240.00822.24ROADRUNNER PHARMACY05/02/201800390226AP 72.000.0072.00ROSADO, CHRISTINE05/02/201800390227AP 8,850.000.008,850.00SAFE SOFTWARE INC05/02/201800390228AP 31,322.500.0031,322.50SAITECH INC05/02/201800390229AP 16,275.370.0016,275.37SAN BERNARDINO CO AUDITOR CONT05/02/201800390230AP 3,362.440.003,362.44SAN BERNARDINO CTY AUDITOR CONTROLLER05/02/201800390231AP 840.000.00840.00SAN BERNARDINO CTY OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR05/02/201800390232AP 50.0050.000.00SBCTOA05/02/201800390233AP 8,249.198,249.190.00SC FUELS05/02/201800390234AP 2,597.132,597.130.00SCL05/02/201800390235AP 450.000.00450.00SCOTT, APRIL05/02/201800390236AP 388.200.00388.20SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION05/02/201800390237AP 175.65175.650.00SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION05/02/201800390238AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:9 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 24 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 100.000.00100.00SIBERT, BRIAN05/02/201800390239AP ***17,156.85331.5016,825.35SILVER & WRIGHT LLP05/02/201800390240AP 4,000.000.004,000.00SIR GEORGE05/02/201800390241AP 995.790.00995.79SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC05/02/201800390242AP 79.200.0079.20SMITH, MICHAEL05/02/201800390243AP ***2,469.42137.022,332.40SO CALIF GAS COMPANY05/02/201800390244AP 3,734.000.003,734.00SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES05/02/201800390245AP ***14,223.82491.9413,731.88SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON05/02/201800390247AP 79.750.0079.75SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON05/02/201800390248AP 744.500.00744.50SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON05/02/201800390249AP 2,025.690.002,025.69SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON05/02/201800390250AP 86.160.0086.16SPAGNOLO, SAM05/02/201800390251AP 4,495.710.004,495.71STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY05/02/201800390252AP 13,525.280.0013,525.28STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY05/02/201800390253AP 500.000.00500.00STATEWIDE TOWING & RECOVERY05/02/201800390254AP 400.000.00400.00STORAGE CONTAINER.COM05/02/201800390255AP 157.040.00157.04STOTZ EQUIPMENT05/02/201800390256AP 56.160.0056.16SUPARMAN, EDDIE05/02/201800390257AP 3,058.000.003,058.00SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC05/02/201800390258AP 300.000.00300.00SYCAMORE VILLA MOBILE HOME PARK05/02/201800390259AP 1,099.250.001,099.25SYSCO LOS ANGELES INC05/02/201800390260AP 3,760.003,760.000.00TARGETSOLUTIONS05/02/201800390261AP 470.590.00470.59THOMPSON PLUMBING SUPPLY INC05/02/201800390262AP 187.500.00187.50THOMSON REUTERS WEST PUBLISHING CORP05/02/201800390263AP 1,070,544.180.001,070,544.18TOVEY/SHULTZ CONSTRUCTION INC05/02/201800390264AP 5,348.370.005,348.37U S LEGAL SUPPORT INC05/02/201800390265AP 24,870.830.0024,870.83U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #674602250005/02/201800390266AP 1,378.690.001,378.69U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #674602250005/02/201800390267AP 614.000.00614.00UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL05/02/201800390268AP 185.10185.100.00URIBE, JONATHAN05/02/201800390269AP 8.300.008.30VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES05/02/201800390270AP 3,397.803,397.800.00VERIZON WIRELESS - LA05/02/201800390271AP 2,693.180.002,693.18VICTOR MEDICAL COMPANY05/02/201800390272AP 500.000.00500.00VIRTUAL PROJECT MANAGER INC05/02/201800390273AP 119.120.00119.12VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER LLC05/02/201800390274AP 100.000.00100.00WAFER, LEON05/02/201800390275AP 5,701.160.005,701.16WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO05/02/201800390276AP 750.240.00750.24WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY05/02/201800390277AP 450.000.00450.00WESTERN ARTS ALLIANCE05/02/201800390278AP 2,900.000.002,900.00WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE05/02/201800390279AP 1,835.000.001,835.00WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE05/02/201800390280AP 33.000.0033.00WHITWORTH, JANE05/02/201800390281AP 847.560.00847.56WONG, TINA05/02/201800390282AP 1,849.480.001,849.48ZOETIS US LLC05/02/201800390283AP ***1,560.23643.16917.07AIRGAS USA LLC05/03/201800390284AP 14,298.190.0014,298.19BRODART BOOKS05/03/201800390289AP 126.82126.820.00CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC05/03/201800390290AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:10 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 25 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 81.020.0081.02EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS05/03/201800390291AP 605.900.00605.90FORD OF UPLAND INC05/03/201800390292AP 1,863.601,863.600.00KME FIRE APPARATUS05/03/201800390293AP 415.89415.890.00LN CURTIS AND SONS05/03/201800390294AP ***6,490.84875.245,615.60OFFICE DEPOT05/03/201800390296AP $7,067,017.30 $1,005,357.83 Note: Grand Total: Total Fire: $6,061,659.47Total City: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:11 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 26 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:P resident and Members of the B oard of D irectors F RO M :L ori E . S assoon, Treasurer INIT IAT E D B Y:Tamara L . L ayne, F inance D irector S andra G. Ramirez, Management Analyst I I I S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O RE C E IV E AND F IL E C URRE NT I NV E S T M E NT S C HE D UL E AS O F AP RIL 30, 2018. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends that the President and Members of the Board of D irectors receive and file the attached current investment schedule f or the R ancho Cucamonga F ire Protection D istrict as of April 30, 2018. BACKGROUND: T he attached investment schedule as of April 30, 2018 reflects cash and investments managed by the F inance/Treasury Management Division and is in conf ormity with the requirements of California Government C ode S ection 53601 and the Rancho Cucamonga F ire P rotection District’s adopted I nvestment P olicy as approved by the P resident and Members of the B oard of D irectors on April 17, 2017. ANALY S IS: T he D istrict’s Treasurer is required to submit a quarterly investment report to the P resident and Members of the B oard of Directors in accordance with C alif ornia Government Code S ection 53646. T he quarterly investment report is required to be submitted within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. However, the D istrict Treasurer has elected to provide this report on a monthly basis. FISCAL IMPACT: None COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: N/A AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n A ttachment 1 - P o rtf olio M anagement - P ortf o lio S ummary A pril 30, 2018 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn Gillison, City Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:Ruth C ain, P rocurement Manager Darryl Polk, D irector of I nnovation & Technology S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N F O R AP P RO VAL T O UT IL I ZE T HE NAT IO NAL AS S O C IAT IO N O F S TAT E P RO C URE M E NT O F F IC I AL S (NAS P O) VAL UE P O INT C O O P E RAT IV E AG RE E M E NT F O R C O M P UT E R RE L AT E D P RO C URE M E NT S. RE COMMENDAT ION: I t is recommended that the City C ouncil authorize staff to utilize the Minnesota W S C A -NA S P O Value P oint Master Agreement #MNW NC-117 ("Master Agreement"), on file with the C ity C lerk's Office, for the procurement of computer equipment, including desktop, laptop, workstation and server class devices, not to exceed $750,000 in total value through the expiration of the agreement in J uly 2020. BACKGROUND: T he Department of I nnovation and Technology (DoI T ) routinely procures personal computer (P C ) equipment to replace damaged or outdated inventory or to add devices for expanded operations. As part of the F Y 2018/19 budget, DoI T will begin a project to replace all outdated W indows 7 P Cs with W indows 10 capable machines. T his is to ensure operational continuity and security in response to Microsoft’s announced end-of-support f or the W indows 7 operating system by 2020. T he C ity currently has an estimated 700 P C s in service, supporting nearly 700 f ull time and part time employees. Staf f has developed a multi-year phased approach to replace outdated machines, allowing us to evaluate the needs of each Department and ensure that appropriate equipment is deployed to meet current and future operational needs while meeting the 2020 deadline to phase out W indows 7. P rocuring equipment in direct coordination with the manufacturer, using a cooperative agreement, helps ensure f ulf ilment accuracy while maintaining cost efficiency. ANALY S IS: T he NA S P O ValuePoint Master Agreement for computer equipment was awarded in A pril 2015 to a list of qualif ied vendors supplying computers and related peripherals. T he agreement is overseen by the State of Minnesota and was awarded based on a competitive bid process requesting each participating vendor to provide pre-defined discounts based on equipment categories or discounted fixed-costs f or specif ic devices. T his cooperative agreement expires in March 2020 under its current terms and conditions. T he D epartment of I nnovation and Technology reviewed the Master Agreement with the C ity’s Procurement Division and has determined that the terms and process of the contract meet the C ity’s Page 34 procurement standards. Utilizing the agreement f or the procurement of P Cs and peripheral devices will allow f or more direct interaction with the supplier, reducing the probability of errors due to vendor substitution or interpretation of desired specif ications. FISCAL IMPACT: I nitial f unding f or the P C replacement project was submitted as part of the annual budget process for the 2018/19 Fiscal Year. T he procurement and deployment of replacement P C s for the Fire D istrict is expected to take place in the 2019/20 Fiscal Year, with a funding request to be submitted as part of that year's budget adoption process. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: T his project indirectly supports Council’s goals for mid and long-term planning by f acilitating the timely, accurate and cost-effective procurement of computer devices. Page 35 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:Tamara L ayne, F inance D irector S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AP P RO V E B I-WE E K LY PAY RO L L I N T HE AM O UNT O F $1,169,674.93 AND WE E K LY C HE C K RE G IS T E RS IN T HE AM O UNT O F $6,061,659.47 D AT E D AP RI L 24, 2018 T HRO UG H M AY 7, 2018. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends City Council approve payment of demands as presented. BACKGROUND: N/A ANALY S IS: N/A FISCAL IMPACT: Adequate budgeted funds are available for the payment of demands per the attached listing. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: N/A AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n A ttached 1 C heck Register Page 36 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 631.60631.600.00AHUMADA, ALEXANDER R04/24/201800007892AP 631.60631.600.00ALMAND, LLOYD04/24/201800007893AP 499.68499.680.00BANTAU, VICTORIA04/24/201800007894AP 585.98585.980.00BAZAL, SUSAN04/24/201800007895AP 1,214.461,214.460.00BELL, MICHAEL L.04/24/201800007896AP 1,152.401,152.400.00BERRY, DAVID04/24/201800007897AP 923.03923.030.00BROCK, ROBIN04/24/201800007898AP 826.04826.040.00CAMPBELL, GERALD04/24/201800007899AP 1,327.271,327.270.00CAMPBELL, STEVEN04/24/201800007900AP 499.68499.680.00CARNES, KENNETH04/24/201800007901AP 1,152.401,152.400.00CLABBY, RICHARD04/24/201800007902AP 1,618.701,618.700.00CLOUGHESY, DONALD R04/24/201800007903AP 540.73540.730.00CORCORAN, ROBERT04/24/201800007904AP 1,618.701,618.700.00COSTELLO, DENNIS M04/24/201800007905AP 631.60631.600.00COX, KARL04/24/201800007906AP 968.28968.280.00CRANE, RALPH04/24/201800007907AP 499.68499.680.00CROSSLAND, WILBUR04/24/201800007908AP 1,214.461,214.460.00DAGUE, JAMES04/24/201800007909AP 540.73540.730.00DE ANTONIO, SUSAN04/24/201800007910AP 585.98585.980.00DEANS, JACKIE04/24/201800007911AP 923.03923.030.00DOMINICK, SAMUEL A.04/24/201800007912AP 1,214.461,214.460.00EAGLESON, MICHAEL04/24/201800007913AP 1,618.701,618.700.00EGGERS, BOB04/24/201800007914AP 499.68499.680.00FRITCHEY, JOHN D.04/24/201800007915AP 631.60631.600.00HEYDE, DONALD04/24/201800007916AP 249.30249.300.00INTERLICCHIA, ROSALYN04/24/201800007917AP 1,538.021,538.020.00KILMER, STEPHEN04/24/201800007918AP 1,214.461,214.460.00LANE, WILLIAM04/24/201800007919AP 1,538.021,538.020.00LARKIN, DAVID W04/24/201800007920AP 1,264.921,264.920.00LEE, ALLAN J.04/24/201800007921AP 1,093.581,093.580.00LENZE, PAUL E04/24/201800007922AP 183.34183.340.00LONGO, JOE04/24/201800007923AP 499.68499.680.00LUTTRULL, DARRELL04/24/201800007924AP 509.70509.700.00MACKALL, BEVERLY04/24/201800007925AP 1,304.961,304.960.00MAYFIELD, RON04/24/201800007926AP 631.60631.600.00MCKEE, JOHN04/24/201800007927AP 631.60631.600.00MCNEIL, KENNETH04/24/201800007928AP 923.03923.030.00MICHAEL, L. DENNIS04/24/201800007929AP 1,714.621,714.620.00MORGAN, BYRON04/24/201800007930AP 1,152.401,152.400.00MYSKOW, DENNIS04/24/201800007931AP 499.68499.680.00NAUMAN, MICHAEL04/24/201800007932AP 585.98585.980.00NEE, RON04/24/201800007933AP 183.34183.340.00NELSON, MARY JANE04/24/201800007934AP 1,618.701,618.700.00O'BRIEN, TOM04/24/201800007935AP 558.94558.940.00PLOUNG, MICHAEL J04/24/201800007936AP 1,586.771,586.770.00POST, MICHAEL R04/24/201800007937AP 1,618.701,618.700.00PROULX, PATRICK04/24/201800007938AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:1 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 37 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 1,214.461,214.460.00REDMOND, MIKE04/24/201800007939AP 1,214.461,214.460.00ROEDER, JEFF04/24/201800007940AP 631.60631.600.00SALISBURY, THOMAS04/24/201800007941AP 499.68499.680.00SMITH, RONALD04/24/201800007942AP 1,736.351,736.350.00SORENSEN, SCOTT D04/24/201800007943AP 499.68499.680.00SPAGNOLO, SAM04/24/201800007944AP 826.04826.040.00SPAIN, WILLIAM04/24/201800007945AP 499.68499.680.00SULLIVAN, JAMES04/24/201800007946AP 1,461.551,461.550.00TAYLOR, STEVE04/24/201800007947AP 1,214.461,214.460.00TULEY, TERRY04/24/201800007948AP 982.80982.800.00VANDERKALLEN, FRANCIS04/24/201800007949AP 923.03923.030.00VARNEY, ANTHONY04/24/201800007950AP 1,538.021,538.020.00WALTON, KEVIN04/24/201800007951AP 1,304.961,304.960.00YOWELL, TIMOTHY A04/24/201800007952AP 9,916.710.009,916.71ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES INC.04/25/201800007953AP 13,390.000.0013,390.00CALIF GOVERNMENT VEBA/RANCHO CUCAMONGA04/25/201800007954AP 3,287.280.003,287.28CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HS DISTRICT04/25/201800007955AP 1,908.000.001,908.00RCCEA04/25/201800007956AP 11,509.110.0011,509.11RCPFA04/25/201800007957AP 2,927,876.000.002,927,876.00SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT04/25/201800007958AP 96.000.0096.00MICHAEL, L. DENNIS05/02/201800007959AP 20.000.0020.00SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY05/02/201800007960AP 188,542.600.00188,542.60SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT05/02/201800007961AP 1,618.701,618.700.00CURATALO, JAMES04/24/201800389866AP 1,461.551,461.550.00KIRKPATRICK, WILLIAM04/24/201800389867AP 1,152.401,152.400.00LONCAR, PHILIP04/24/201800389868AP 1,618.701,618.700.00TOWNSEND, JAMES04/24/201800389869AP 249.30249.300.00WALKER, KENNETH04/24/201800389870AP 355.47355.470.0049ER COMMUNICATIONS04/25/201800389871AP 750.720.00750.72A AND R TIRE SERVICE04/25/201800389872AP 688.800.00688.80A'JONTUE, ROSE ANN04/25/201800389873AP 1,819.000.001,819.00ACEY DECY EQUIPMENT INC.04/25/201800389874AP 40.970.0040.97AFLAC GROUP INSURANCE04/25/201800389875AP 15.560.0015.56AGE-FREE, SERENA04/25/201800389876AP 123.240.00123.24ALBA, CANDACE04/25/201800389877AP 180.540.00180.54ARGUIJO, VASHTI04/25/201800389878AP 1,331.690.001,331.69AROCHO, ALMA04/25/201800389879AP 166.100.00166.10ARS AMERICAN RESIDENTIAL04/25/201800389880AP 834.000.00834.00BARRETO, RAQUEL M.04/25/201800389881AP 148.200.00148.20BAST, KAROLYN04/25/201800389882AP 5,734.910.005,734.91BEST BEST AND KRIEGER04/25/201800389883AP 1,137.500.001,137.50BOOKE, CHRISTOPHER04/25/201800389884AP 750.000.00750.00BRIGHT BOX ENTERPRISES04/25/201800389885AP 16,172.170.0016,172.17BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SERVICES INC.04/25/201800389886AP 37,876.910.0037,876.91BUREAU VERITAS NORTH AMERICA INC04/25/201800389888AP ***41,975.81382.3841,593.43C V W D04/25/201800389891AP 1,750.000.001,750.00CALIFORNIA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION04/25/201800389892AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:2 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 38 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 25.000.0025.00CALIFORNIA SCIENCE CENTER04/25/201800389893AP 100.000.00100.00CALIFORNIA, STATE OF04/25/201800389894AP 8.440.008.44CALIFORNIA, STATE OF04/25/201800389895AP 4,200.000.004,200.00CASTRO, ROBERT04/25/201800389896AP 51,664.200.0051,664.20CCS ORANGE COUNTY JANITORIAL INC.04/25/201800389897AP 249.000.00249.00CENTENO, JASON04/25/201800389898AP 170.62170.620.00CINTAS CORPORATION #15004/25/201800389899AP 720.000.00720.00CLARK, KAREN04/25/201800389900AP 1,137.500.001,137.50CORMIER, JAMES04/25/201800389901AP 129.290.00129.29CUEVAS, AYLA04/25/201800389902AP 858.140.00858.14DAKTRONICS INC04/25/201800389903AP 7,361.380.007,361.38DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION04/25/201800389904AP 32.250.0032.25DEPENDABLE COMPANY INC.04/25/201800389905AP 305.990.00305.99DIAMOND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES04/25/201800389906AP 160.000.00160.00DOLLARHIDE, GINGER04/25/201800389907AP 540.000.00540.00DUNN, ANN MARIE04/25/201800389908AP 52.320.0052.32DURKEL, CAROL04/25/201800389909AP 14,618.780.0014,618.78DYNALECTRIC04/25/201800389910AP 288.000.00288.00EASTERLING, RAY04/25/201800389911AP 60.000.0060.00EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT.04/25/201800389912AP 100.000.00100.00EVERO, MARY04/25/201800389913AP 440.000.00440.00EXECUTIVE AUTO DETAIL04/25/201800389914AP 52.000.0052.00EXPERIAN04/25/201800389915AP 75.460.0075.46FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP04/25/201800389916AP 500.000.00500.00FLORES, PETE04/25/201800389917AP 834.000.00834.00GALE, BRIAN04/25/201800389918AP 2,042.330.002,042.33GEOGRAPHICS04/25/201800389919AP 105.600.00105.60GIORDANO, MARIANNA04/25/201800389920AP 4,053.140.004,053.14GISELLE CHOW CONSULTING04/25/201800389921AP 3,000.000.003,000.00GONSALVES AND SON,JOE A04/25/201800389922AP 733.000.00733.00GOODMAN, ALINA04/25/201800389923AP 1,482.020.001,482.02GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO.04/25/201800389924AP 419.210.00419.21GRAINGER04/25/201800389925AP 59.800.0059.80GRAPHICS FACTORY INC.04/25/201800389926AP 4,190.000.004,190.00GUPTA PERMOLD CORPORATION04/25/201800389927AP 960.000.00960.00HAMILTON, MONIQUE04/25/201800389928AP 1,163.310.001,163.31HAMPTON YOGA04/25/201800389929AP 1,244.750.001,244.75HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 64504/25/201800389930AP 200.85200.850.00HOYT LUMBER CO., SM04/25/201800389931AP 1,210.000.001,210.00INLAND EMPIRE STAGES LTD04/25/201800389932AP 2,460.000.002,460.00INNERLINE ENGINEERING INC04/25/201800389933AP 475.000.00475.00INTERNATIONAL FOOTPRINT ASSOCIATION04/25/201800389934AP 1,204.480.001,204.48INTERNATIONAL LINE BUILDERS INC04/25/201800389935AP 500.000.00500.00JOHNSON, BARBARA04/25/201800389936AP 2,045.830.002,045.83KINDRED CORPORATION04/25/201800389937AP 34.880.0034.88KNIGHT, AMANDA04/25/201800389938AP 1,642.350.001,642.35KVAC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES INC04/25/201800389939AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:3 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 39 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 9,635.960.009,635.96LANDCARE USA LLC04/25/201800389940AP 452.000.00452.00LATREACE, RAINEY04/25/201800389941AP 3,466.470.003,466.47LENOVO (UNITED STATES) INC.04/25/201800389942AP 9,773.290.009,773.29LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC04/25/201800389943AP 35.000.0035.00LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE04/25/201800389944AP 21,477.270.0021,477.27MAGELLAN ADVISORS LLC04/25/201800389945AP 49,575.000.0049,575.00MAGELLAN ADVISORS LLC04/25/201800389946AP 12,159.690.0012,159.69MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC04/25/201800389947AP 12,956.940.0012,956.94MC AVOY & MARKHAM04/25/201800389948AP 945.750.00945.75MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY04/25/201800389949AP 9,580.000.009,580.00MICROSOFT CORPORATION-MICROSOFT IGNITE 201804/25/201800389950AP 233.900.00233.90MIDWEST TAPE04/25/201800389951AP 380.000.00380.00MIJAC ALARM COMPANY04/25/201800389952AP 200.000.00200.00MILES, CHARLIE04/25/201800389953AP 180.000.00180.00MORRIS, RICHARD04/25/201800389954AP 63.260.0063.26MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR04/25/201800389955AP 525.000.00525.00MUSLIM ANTI-RACISM COLLABORATIVE04/25/201800389956AP 15,440.000.0015,440.00NBS04/25/201800389957AP 501.950.00501.95NEIUBER, ROBERT04/25/201800389958AP 466.830.00466.83OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CTRS OF CA04/25/201800389959AP 333.000.00333.00ONTARIO WINNELSON CO04/25/201800389960AP 24,555.000.0024,555.00ONWARD ENGINEERING04/25/201800389961AP 19,410.000.0019,410.00ONWARD ENGINEERING04/25/201800389962AP 1,015.000.001,015.00ORONA, PATRICIA04/25/201800389963AP 750.000.00750.00OTT, LAURA04/25/201800389964AP 648.000.00648.00OTT, SHARON04/25/201800389965AP 1,137.500.001,137.50PACHECO, ART04/25/201800389966AP 36,266.8436,266.840.00PACIFIC PREMIER BANK04/25/201800389967AP 58.980.0058.98PACIFIC TRUCK EQUIPMENT04/25/201800389968AP 13,200.000.0013,200.00PACIFIC UTILITY INSTALLATION INC04/25/201800389969AP 3,500.000.003,500.00PARS04/25/201800389970AP 834.000.00834.00PETROVICH, VICTORIA04/25/201800389971AP 78.380.0078.38PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC04/25/201800389972AP 7.430.007.43PRENTICE, IRENE04/25/201800389973AP 4,828.960.004,828.96PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE04/25/201800389974AP 2,196.000.002,196.00PROPET DISTRIBUTORS INC04/25/201800389975AP 155.160.00155.16PSA PRINT GROUP04/25/201800389976AP 323.570.00323.57PSA PRINT GROUP04/25/201800389977AP 3,166.000.003,166.00RANCHO CUCAMONGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE04/25/201800389978AP 689,070.05689,070.050.00RC CONSTRUCTION SERVICES INC04/25/201800389979AP 68.650.0068.65RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY04/25/201800389980AP 580.000.00580.00REYNOLDS BUICK04/25/201800389981AP 160.000.00160.00RIGLEMAN, ENCARNACION ONTIVEROS04/25/201800389982AP 256.230.00256.23RODAS' AUTO REPAIR04/25/201800389983AP 950.000.00950.00SAFETY CENTER INC04/25/201800389984AP 389.060.00389.06SAMS CLUB/SYNCHRONY BANK04/25/201800389985AP 3,981.000.003,981.00SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFFS DEPT04/25/201800389986AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:4 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 40 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 11,818.8611,818.860.00SAN BERNARDINO CTY04/25/201800389987AP 497.000.00497.00SAN BERNARDINO CTY DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH04/25/201800389988AP 2,640.000.002,640.00SAN BERNARDINO, CITY OF04/25/201800389989AP 1,583.000.001,583.00SBPEA04/25/201800389990AP 24,548.660.0024,548.66SC FUELS04/25/201800389991AP 1,291.161,291.160.00SC FUELS04/25/201800389992AP 620.400.00620.40SENECHAL, CALVIN04/25/201800389993AP 15,000.000.0015,000.00SHAWMUT WOODWORKING & SUPPLY INC04/25/201800389994AP 69.570.0069.57SHIPMAN, LONNIE04/25/201800389995AP 2,976.250.002,976.25SIEMENS INDUSTRY INC04/25/201800389996AP 81.500.0081.50SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC04/25/201800389997AP ***6,750.62814.735,935.89SO CALIF GAS COMPANY04/25/201800389998AP ***20,766.712,510.3918,256.32SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON04/25/201800390006AP 975.50975.500.00SPECTRUM GAS PRODUCTS04/25/201800390007AP 445.000.00445.00SPINITAR04/25/201800390008AP 7,500.000.007,500.00STANLEY R HOFFMAN ASSOCIATES INC04/25/201800390009AP 305.600.00305.60STORAGE CONTAINER.COM04/25/201800390010AP 431.740.00431.74SUITE 106 CUPCAKERY LLC04/25/201800390011AP 466.250.00466.25SUNSATION LUGGAGE04/25/201800390012AP 2,336.000.002,336.00SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC04/25/201800390013AP 225.000.00225.00SWEET DOUGH CAFE04/25/201800390014AP 14,978.450.0014,978.45SYSTEMS SOURCE INC04/25/201800390015AP 445.000.00445.00TEXAS MEDICAL SCREENING LLC04/25/201800390016AP 13,216.960.0013,216.96TOMCO LLC04/25/201800390017AP 100.000.00100.00TORO TOWING04/25/201800390018AP 668.000.00668.00TSAI, THOMAS04/25/201800390019AP 324.000.00324.00TYUS, IDA04/25/201800390020AP 589.710.00589.71ULINE04/25/201800390021AP 58,190.000.0058,190.00UNITED PACIFIC SERVICES INC04/25/201800390022AP 116.000.00116.00UNITED WAY04/25/201800390023AP 22.600.0022.60UPS04/25/201800390024AP 1,046.090.001,046.09UTILIQUEST04/25/201800390025AP 8,000.000.008,000.00VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES INC04/25/201800390026AP 21,000.000.0021,000.00VANDERHAWK CONSULTING LLC04/25/201800390027AP 385.840.00385.84VERIZON WIRELESS - LA04/25/201800390028AP 2,855.800.002,855.80WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO04/25/201800390029AP 8,029.120.008,029.12WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY04/25/201800390030AP 95.000.0095.00WEISSMANN, JOANNA04/25/201800390031AP 1,129.770.001,129.77WEST COAST SAND AND GRAVEL INC04/25/201800390032AP 1,400.000.001,400.00WHITE HOUSE PHOTO INC04/25/201800390033AP 80.490.0080.49WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY04/25/201800390034AP 233.06233.060.00WINZER CORPORATION04/25/201800390035AP 140.350.00140.35WT.COX INFORMATION SERVICES04/25/201800390036AP ***10,134.11437.079,697.04XEROX CORPORATION04/25/201800390039AP ***34,599.5020,808.0013,791.50YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP INC04/25/201800390040AP 834.000.00834.00ZALEWSKI, JOHN04/25/201800390041AP 59.260.0059.26ABC LOCKSMITHS04/26/201800390042AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:5 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 41 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 137.110.00137.11AIRGAS USA LLC04/26/201800390043AP 8,833.050.008,833.05BRODART BOOKS04/26/201800390047AP 790.220.00790.22CALSENSE04/26/201800390048AP 424.15424.150.00CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC04/26/201800390049AP 579.210.00579.21DUNN EDWARDS CORPORATION04/26/201800390050AP 17,727.900.0017,727.90EMCOR SERVICE04/26/201800390051AP 121.880.00121.88EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS04/26/201800390052AP 3,300.270.003,300.27HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC04/26/201800390053AP 1,420.000.001,420.00INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN04/26/201800390054AP 189.75189.750.00INTERSTATE BATTERIES04/26/201800390055AP 118.08118.080.00LN CURTIS AND SONS04/26/201800390056AP ***445.6691.33354.33OFFICE DEPOT04/26/201800390057AP 1,710.120.001,710.12ORKIN PEST CONTROL04/26/201800390058AP 31.420.0031.42SUNRISE FORD04/26/201800390059AP ***2,420.221,114.711,305.51CALIFORNIA BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, STATE OF04/30/201800390063AP 590.440.00590.44A AND R TIRE SERVICE05/02/201800390064AP 1,059.180.001,059.18A.Y. NURSERY INC.05/02/201800390065AP 4,563.850.004,563.85ABLE BUILDING MAINTENANCE05/02/201800390066AP 150.000.00150.00ADOBE ANIMAL HOSPITAL05/02/201800390067AP 175.260.00175.26AGUILAR, ARIANA05/02/201800390068AP 25.000.0025.00AGUILERA, ISAIAH05/02/201800390069AP 465.00465.000.00ALL CITIES TOOLS05/02/201800390070AP 1,032.870.001,032.87ALL WELDING05/02/201800390071AP 3,128.560.003,128.56ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY SERVICES05/02/201800390072AP 500.000.00500.00ALTA VISTA MOBILE HOME PARK05/02/201800390073AP 150.000.00150.00AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES05/02/201800390074AP 3,951.380.003,951.38APPLE INC.05/02/201800390075AP 500.000.00500.00APPLEBEES NEIGHBORHOOD GRILL AND BAR05/02/201800390076AP 25.000.0025.00ARCHIBALD PET HOSPITAL05/02/201800390077AP 85.0085.000.00AT&T MOBILITY05/02/201800390078AP 11,264.000.0011,264.00AUFBAU CORPORATION05/02/201800390079AP 1,034.000.001,034.00AUNTIE M CREATIVE CONSULTANTS INC.05/02/201800390080AP 330.540.00330.54AUTO AND RV SPECIALISTS INC.05/02/201800390081AP 430.000.00430.00BABCOCK LABORATORIES INC05/02/201800390082AP 301.69301.690.00BAILEY, JACOB05/02/201800390083AP 100.000.00100.00BASELINE ANIMAL HOSPITAL05/02/201800390084AP 270.00270.000.00BASTIAN, DAVID05/02/201800390085AP 54.460.0054.46BOLTON, HEATHER05/02/201800390086AP 20.460.0020.46BROWN, JAMIE05/02/201800390087AP 832.27832.270.00C V W D05/02/201800390088AP ***32,116.94829.6531,287.29C V W D05/02/201800390090AP 600.000.00600.00CA LLC - DBA ALTA LAGUNA MHP05/02/201800390091AP 922.000.00922.00CABLE INC.05/02/201800390092AP 254.140.00254.14CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE05/02/201800390093AP 56,344.430.0056,344.43CALIFORNIA BANK & TRUST05/02/201800390094AP 200.000.00200.00CALIFORNIA PRESENTERS05/02/201800390095AP 500.000.00500.00CALIFORNIA UTILITIES EMERGENCY ASSOC.05/02/201800390096AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:6 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 42 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 21.500.0021.50CANSINO, NAELA05/02/201800390097AP 373.410.00373.41CARQUEST AUTO PARTS05/02/201800390098AP 900.000.00900.00CASA VOLANTE MOBILE HOME PARK05/02/201800390099AP 700.000.00700.00CHAPARRAL HEIGHTS MOBILE HOME PARK05/02/201800390100AP 1,100.000.001,100.00CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES INC.05/02/201800390101AP ***15,192.694,370.1210,822.57CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS05/02/201800390102AP ***2,470.03298.982,171.05CINTAS CORPORATION #15005/02/201800390103AP 200.000.00200.00CLEAN OUT SOURCE05/02/201800390104AP 5,474.760.005,474.76CLIMATEC LLC05/02/201800390105AP 1,777.380.001,777.38CONSOLIDATED ELECTRICAL DISTR INC05/02/201800390106AP 4,400.004,400.000.00CONVERSE CONSULTANTS05/02/201800390107AP 540.000.00540.00CRIME SCENE STERI-CLEAN LLC05/02/201800390108AP 860.000.00860.00D & D SERVICES INC.05/02/201800390109AP 4,845.320.004,845.32D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY05/02/201800390110AP 2,845.782,845.780.00DANIELS TIRE SERVICE05/02/201800390111AP 264.500.00264.50DANIELS, NOAH05/02/201800390112AP 10,574.790.0010,574.79DATA TICKET INC05/02/201800390113AP 162.000.00162.00DELANO, LAURA05/02/201800390114AP 93.710.0093.71DEMCO INC05/02/201800390115AP 148.00148.000.00DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION05/02/201800390116AP 28.000.0028.00DEPENDABLE COMPANY INC.05/02/201800390117AP 5,020.420.005,020.42DLIMAGING05/02/201800390118AP 564.550.00564.55DOG WASTE DEPOT05/02/201800390119AP 525.000.00525.00DREAM SHAPERS05/02/201800390120AP 11,195.000.0011,195.00ECONO FENCE COMPANY05/02/201800390121AP 75.0075.000.00EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES AUTHORITY05/02/201800390122AP 1,454.630.001,454.63ENNIS PAINT INC.05/02/201800390123AP 32,225.790.0032,225.79EVOLUTION FRESH INC.05/02/201800390124AP 1,185.000.001,185.00EXECUTIVE AUTO DETAIL05/02/201800390125AP 663.220.00663.22EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY05/02/201800390126AP 21.980.0021.98FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP05/02/201800390127AP 597.11597.110.00FEDERAL SIGNAL CORPORATION05/02/201800390128AP 2,248.862,248.860.00FIRE ETC.05/02/201800390129AP 1,025.141,025.140.00FLEET SERVICES INC.05/02/201800390130AP 300.000.00300.00FOOTHILL MOBILE MANOR05/02/201800390131AP 135.48135.480.00FRANKLIN TRUCK PARTS05/02/201800390132AP ***6,182.08561.815,620.27FRONTIER COMM05/02/201800390134AP 1,412.190.001,412.19FRONTIER COMM05/02/201800390135AP 1,546.930.001,546.93G AND M BUSINESS INTERIORS05/02/201800390136AP 10.000.0010.00GARNICA, JAMI05/02/201800390137AP 540.000.00540.00GATEWAY PET CEMETERY AND CREMATORY05/02/201800390138AP 5,222.870.005,222.87GEOGRAPHICS05/02/201800390139AP 971.100.00971.10GEORGE HILLS COMPANY05/02/201800390140AP 97.520.0097.52GEORGI, MAX05/02/201800390141AP 96.000.0096.00GILLISON, JOHN05/02/201800390142AP 3,800.000.003,800.00GLICKMAN, LAUREN05/02/201800390143AP 793.390.00793.39GLICKMAN, LAUREN05/02/201800390144AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:7 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 43 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 117.480.00117.48GLOBALSTAR USA05/02/201800390145AP 300.000.00300.00GOLDEN OAKS VET HOSPITAL05/02/201800390146AP 2,281.112,281.110.00GOODYEAR TIRE AND RUBBER CO.05/02/201800390147AP 2,796.100.002,796.10GRAINGER05/02/201800390148AP 1,236.440.001,236.44GRAPHICS FACTORY INC.05/02/201800390149AP 1,019.550.001,019.55GREEN ROCK POWER EQUIPMENT05/02/201800390150AP 31,248.000.0031,248.00GRIFFIN STRUCTURES INC05/02/201800390151AP 156.000.00156.00GUERRERO, ALFONSO05/02/201800390152AP 223.950.00223.95HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO05/02/201800390153AP 489.750.00489.75HENRY SCHEIN ANIMAL HEALTH SUPPLY05/02/201800390154AP 573.000.00573.00HERITAGE EDUCATION GROUP05/02/201800390155AP 653.310.00653.31HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INC05/02/201800390156AP 121,893.85121,893.850.00HMC ARCHITECTS05/02/201800390157AP 171.000.00171.00HOFELD, ELIZABETH SUZANNE05/02/201800390158AP 800.000.00800.00HOMETOWN AMERICA RAMONA VILLA05/02/201800390159AP 120.210.00120.21HOSE MAN INC05/02/201800390160AP 79.000.0079.00HSVMA05/02/201800390161AP 100.000.00100.00HUMANE SOCIETY OF SAN BERNARDINO VALLEY INC.05/02/201800390162AP 133.850.00133.85ICE DATA PRICING AND REFERENCE DATA LLC05/02/201800390163AP 3,645.960.003,645.96IDEXX DISTRIBUTION INC05/02/201800390164AP 4,550.000.004,550.00INDEPENDENT ROOFING CONSULTANTS05/02/201800390165AP 530.880.00530.88INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN05/02/201800390166AP 883.750.00883.75INLAND VALLEY EMERGENCY PET CLINIC05/02/201800390167AP 4,840.960.004,840.96INTERVET INC05/02/201800390168AP 286.510.00286.51JCL TRAFFIC SERVICES05/02/201800390169AP 33,900.000.0033,900.00JERICHO SYSTEMS INC05/02/201800390170AP 299.270.00299.27K-K WOODWORKING05/02/201800390171AP 243,577.800.00243,577.80KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN INC05/02/201800390172AP 101,070.780.00101,070.78LANDCARE USA LLC05/02/201800390173AP 5.040.005.04LANDSCAPE FORMS INC05/02/201800390174AP 201.440.00201.44LAWSON PRODUCTS INC05/02/201800390175AP 45.000.0045.00LEAL, RUTH05/02/201800390176AP 395.000.00395.00LEARNING RESOURCES NETWORK INC05/02/201800390177AP 9,081.020.009,081.02LEVERAGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS INC05/02/201800390178AP 15,691.000.0015,691.00LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE05/02/201800390179AP 35.7635.760.00LIGHTHOUSE, THE05/02/201800390180AP 965.000.00965.00LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS05/02/201800390181AP 334.730.00334.73LOS ANGELES FREIGHTLINER05/02/201800390182AP 375.000.00375.00MADD SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA05/02/201800390183AP 2,034.700.002,034.70MAIN STREET SIGNS05/02/201800390184AP 188.360.00188.36MARCO EQUIPMENT CO05/02/201800390185AP 80,341.030.0080,341.03MARIPOSA LANDSCAPES INC05/02/201800390186AP 849.210.00849.21MARTINEZ, NATALIE05/02/201800390187AP 50.000.0050.00MARY S ROBERTS SPAY/NEUTER CLINIC05/02/201800390188AP 224.950.00224.95MCMASTER CARR SUPPLY COMPANY05/02/201800390189AP 80.000.0080.00MEDIWASTE DISPOSAL05/02/201800390190AP 1,175.200.001,175.20MEDLEY FIRE PROTECTION INC05/02/201800390191AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:8 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 44 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 403.870.00403.87MIDWEST TAPE05/02/201800390192AP 481.460.00481.46MIRION TECHNOLOGIES GDS INC05/02/201800390193AP 1,132.861,132.860.00NAPA AUTO PARTS05/02/201800390194AP 4,999.990.004,999.99NEARMAP US INC05/02/201800390195AP 452.690.00452.69NEOPOST USA INC05/02/201800390196AP 241.360.00241.36NEWCO DISTRIBUTORS INC05/02/201800390197AP 602.720.00602.72ONTRAC05/02/201800390198AP 33,107.000.0033,107.00ONWARD ENGINEERING05/02/201800390199AP 396.000.00396.00OPARC05/02/201800390200AP 500.000.00500.00ORTEGA, YADIRA05/02/201800390201AP 6.110.006.11PEP BOYS05/02/201800390202AP 97.520.0097.52PEREZ, CARLEEN05/02/201800390203AP 2,146.450.002,146.45PERSONAL STRENGTHS PUBLISHING INC05/02/201800390204AP 47.660.0047.66PETERSEN DEAN INC05/02/201800390205AP 1,807.490.001,807.49PETES ROAD SERVICE INC05/02/201800390206AP 2,180.002,180.000.00PH&S PRODUCTS LLC05/02/201800390207AP 400.000.00400.00PINES MOBILE HOME PARK, THE05/02/201800390208AP 62.4762.470.00PRISTINE UNIFORMS LLC05/02/201800390209AP 424.570.00424.57PRO SPRAY INC05/02/201800390210AP 988.550.00988.55PRO-LINE INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS INC05/02/201800390211AP 4,893.540.004,893.54PROMOTIONS TEES & MORE05/02/201800390212AP 1,834.760.001,834.76PSA PRINT GROUP05/02/201800390213AP 300.000.00300.00RANCHO REGIONAL VETERINARY HOSPITAL INC05/02/201800390214AP 566.600.00566.60RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE05/02/201800390215AP 246.000.00246.00RC PHOTO CLUB INC05/02/201800390216AP 678.810.00678.81RDO EQUIPMENT COMPANY05/02/201800390217AP 722.410.00722.41RED WING SHOE STORE05/02/201800390218AP 396.180.00396.18REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUTOR05/02/201800390219AP 1,295.000.001,295.00RICHARD WIGHTMAN CONSTRUCTION INC05/02/201800390220AP 3,500.000.003,500.00RICHARD WIGHTMAN CONSTRUCTION INC05/02/201800390221AP 1,900.000.001,900.00RICHARD WIGHTMAN CONSTRUCTION INC05/02/201800390222AP 3,100.000.003,100.00RICHARD WIGHTMAN CONSTRUCTION INC05/02/201800390223AP ***41,376.663,409.6237,967.04RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON05/02/201800390224AP 15,268.560.0015,268.56RJM DESIGN GROUP INC05/02/201800390225AP 822.240.00822.24ROADRUNNER PHARMACY05/02/201800390226AP 72.000.0072.00ROSADO, CHRISTINE05/02/201800390227AP 8,850.000.008,850.00SAFE SOFTWARE INC05/02/201800390228AP 31,322.500.0031,322.50SAITECH INC05/02/201800390229AP 16,275.370.0016,275.37SAN BERNARDINO CO AUDITOR CONT05/02/201800390230AP 3,362.440.003,362.44SAN BERNARDINO CTY AUDITOR CONTROLLER05/02/201800390231AP 840.000.00840.00SAN BERNARDINO CTY OFFICE OF THE ASSESSOR05/02/201800390232AP 50.0050.000.00SBCTOA05/02/201800390233AP 8,249.198,249.190.00SC FUELS05/02/201800390234AP 2,597.132,597.130.00SCL05/02/201800390235AP 450.000.00450.00SCOTT, APRIL05/02/201800390236AP 388.200.00388.20SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION05/02/201800390237AP 175.65175.650.00SHEAKLEY PENSION ADMINISTRATION05/02/201800390238AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:9 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 45 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 100.000.00100.00SIBERT, BRIAN05/02/201800390239AP ***17,156.85331.5016,825.35SILVER & WRIGHT LLP05/02/201800390240AP 4,000.000.004,000.00SIR GEORGE05/02/201800390241AP 995.790.00995.79SITEONE LANDSCAPE SUPPLY LLC05/02/201800390242AP 79.200.0079.20SMITH, MICHAEL05/02/201800390243AP ***2,469.42137.022,332.40SO CALIF GAS COMPANY05/02/201800390244AP 3,734.000.003,734.00SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES05/02/201800390245AP ***14,223.82491.9413,731.88SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON05/02/201800390247AP 79.750.0079.75SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON05/02/201800390248AP 744.500.00744.50SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON05/02/201800390249AP 2,025.690.002,025.69SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON05/02/201800390250AP 86.160.0086.16SPAGNOLO, SAM05/02/201800390251AP 4,495.710.004,495.71STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY05/02/201800390252AP 13,525.280.0013,525.28STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY05/02/201800390253AP 500.000.00500.00STATEWIDE TOWING & RECOVERY05/02/201800390254AP 400.000.00400.00STORAGE CONTAINER.COM05/02/201800390255AP 157.040.00157.04STOTZ EQUIPMENT05/02/201800390256AP 56.160.0056.16SUPARMAN, EDDIE05/02/201800390257AP 3,058.000.003,058.00SWANK MOTION PICTURES INC05/02/201800390258AP 300.000.00300.00SYCAMORE VILLA MOBILE HOME PARK05/02/201800390259AP 1,099.250.001,099.25SYSCO LOS ANGELES INC05/02/201800390260AP 3,760.003,760.000.00TARGETSOLUTIONS05/02/201800390261AP 470.590.00470.59THOMPSON PLUMBING SUPPLY INC05/02/201800390262AP 187.500.00187.50THOMSON REUTERS WEST PUBLISHING CORP05/02/201800390263AP 1,070,544.180.001,070,544.18TOVEY/SHULTZ CONSTRUCTION INC05/02/201800390264AP 5,348.370.005,348.37U S LEGAL SUPPORT INC05/02/201800390265AP 24,870.830.0024,870.83U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #674602250005/02/201800390266AP 1,378.690.001,378.69U.S. BANK PARS ACCT #674602250005/02/201800390267AP 614.000.00614.00UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL05/02/201800390268AP 185.10185.100.00URIBE, JONATHAN05/02/201800390269AP 8.300.008.30VERIZON BUSINESS SERVICES05/02/201800390270AP 3,397.803,397.800.00VERIZON WIRELESS - LA05/02/201800390271AP 2,693.180.002,693.18VICTOR MEDICAL COMPANY05/02/201800390272AP 500.000.00500.00VIRTUAL PROJECT MANAGER INC05/02/201800390273AP 119.120.00119.12VIVINT SOLAR DEVELOPER LLC05/02/201800390274AP 100.000.00100.00WAFER, LEON05/02/201800390275AP 5,701.160.005,701.16WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO05/02/201800390276AP 750.240.00750.24WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY05/02/201800390277AP 450.000.00450.00WESTERN ARTS ALLIANCE05/02/201800390278AP 2,900.000.002,900.00WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE05/02/201800390279AP 1,835.000.001,835.00WESTERN UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCE05/02/201800390280AP 33.000.0033.00WHITWORTH, JANE05/02/201800390281AP 847.560.00847.56WONG, TINA05/02/201800390282AP 1,849.480.001,849.48ZOETIS US LLC05/02/201800390283AP ***1,560.23643.16917.07AIRGAS USA LLC05/03/201800390284AP 14,298.190.0014,298.19BRODART BOOKS05/03/201800390289AP 126.82126.820.00CITRUS MOTORS ONTARIO INC05/03/201800390290AP 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:10 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 46 AmountFireCityVendor NameCheck Date 4/24/2018 through 5/7/2018 Agenda Check Register RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Check No. 81.020.0081.02EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS05/03/201800390291AP 605.900.00605.90FORD OF UPLAND INC05/03/201800390292AP 1,863.601,863.600.00KME FIRE APPARATUS05/03/201800390293AP 415.89415.890.00LN CURTIS AND SONS05/03/201800390294AP ***6,490.84875.245,615.60OFFICE DEPOT05/03/201800390296AP $7,067,017.30 $1,005,357.83 Note: Grand Total: Total Fire: $6,061,659.47Total City: *** Check Number includes both City and Fire District expenditures 07:38:25 05/08/2018Current Date:VLOPEZ - VERONICA LOPEZ Page:11 Time:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_CONSOLIDATED - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout User: Report: Page 47 DATE: May 16, 2018 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:James C. Frost, City Treasurer INITIATED BY:Lori E. Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Tamara L. Layne, Finance Director Sandra G. Ramirez, Management Analyst III SUBJECT:CONSIDERATION TO RECEIVE AND FILE CURRENT INVESTMENT SCHEDULE AS OF APRIL 30, 2018. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council receive and file the attached current investment schedule for the City of Rancho Cucamonga as of April 30, 2018. BACKGROUND: The attached investment schedule as of April 30, 2018 reflects cash and investments managed by the Finance/Treasury Management Division and is in conformity with the requirements of California Government Code Section 53601 and the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s adopted Investment Policy as approved by the City Council on April 17, 2017. ANALYSIS: The City Treasurer is required to submit a quarterly investment report to the City Council in accordance with California Government Code Section 53646. The quarterly investment report is required to be submitted within 30 days following the end of the quarter covered by the report. However, the City Treasurer has elected to provide this report on a monthly basis. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Description Attachment 1 - Portfolio Management - Portfolio Summary April 30, 2018 Page 48 Page 49 Page 50 Page 51 Page 52 Page 53 Page 54 Page 55 Page 56 Page 57 Page 58 Page 59 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:W illiam W ittkopf , P ublic Works S ervices Director E rnest R uiz, Streets, Storm Drains, and F leet S uperintendent Ruth C ain, C P P B, Procurement Manager S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AP P RO V E T HE P URC HAS E O F O NE (1) T RAF F IC S I G N T RUC K I N T HE AM O UNT O F $165,975. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends the City Council authorize the purchase of one (1) traf f ic sign truck from F rontier F ord, of Santa Clara, C alif ornia, in the amount of $165,975, in accordance with R equest for B id (“R F B”) #17/18/111 to be f unded f rom the Equipment/Vehicle Replacement F und (712). BACKGROUND: C ity C ouncil approved the purchase of one (1) traf f ic sign truck to replace the existing traffic sign truck in the F Y 17/18 budget. T his traffic sign truck is used by the Public Works Services D epartment to install and/or replace regulatory, warning, and guide signs in the public right-of -way per the Manual on Uniform Traffic C ontrol Devices (MUT C D). T he P ublic Works Services D epartment provided specifications to the Procurement D ivision for the purchase of the traffic sign truck. P rocurement prepared and posted a formal R equest for B id (R F B) #17/18/111 to the C ity’s automated procurement system. T here were one hundred forty-f our (144) vendors notif ied; nine (9) prospective bidders downloaded the R F B documentation, and two (2) responses were received with only one (1) vendor who met all the City’s specif ications. ANALY S IS: After analysis of the bid response by the Streets, S torm D rains, and F leet Superintendent and Procurement staf f , it has been determined to be in the City’s best interest to recommend an award to F rontier F ord, of S anta Clara, California, f or one (1) traf f ic sign truck. All applicable solicitation documentation is on file in P lanet Bids and can be accessed through the City’s website at www.cityof rc.us. FISCAL IMPACT: T he f unding for this purchase is part of the F Y 17/18 amended budget in the E quipment/Vehicle R eplacement F und (712) from account number 1712001-5604. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: N/A Page 60 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:W illiam W ittkopf , P ublic Works S ervices Director Dean R odia, P arks and L andscape S uperintendent Ruth C ain, C P P B, Procurement Manager P aul F isher, Management A nalyst I S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O AWARD A C O NT RAC T T O M ARI P O S A L AND S C AP E S F O R L AND S C AP E AND I RRI G AT I O N M AINT E NANC E O F L M D S 6, 7, 8, 9, AND 10 PARK WAY S, PAS E O S, AND M E D IANS. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends the City Council award and authorize the execution of a contract with Mariposa L andscapes, I nc., effective J uly 1, 2018 for a one (1) year term with an option to renew for one (1) year increments up to a total of seven (7) years, in an annual amount not to exceed $1,066,000, for “L andscape and I rrigation Maintenance of L MDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Parkways, P aseos, and Medians.” BACKGROUND: T he P ublic Works Services D epartment and the P rocurement D ivision routinely go out for request for proposals to ensure vendor services remain competitive. P ublic Works staf f updated the “L andscape and I rrigation Maintenance f or L MD s 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 P arkways, P aseos, and Medians” contract to include newer terminology, service level specif ications, area adjustments, and better compliance language. W ith these changes to the scope of service, rebidding this contract brings it more in line with current contract requirements and f und resources, while providing the best value for the community. T he scope of services for this contract include the complete landscape and irrigation maintenance of designated sites within L MD s 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. T hese specif ications were then provided to the P rocurement Division to prepare a f ormal Request for Proposal (R F P). T he P rocurement D ivision prepared and posted R F P #17/18-011 f or "L andscape and I rrigation Maintenance of L MDs 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 P arkways, P aseos, and Medians." T here were two hundred and twenty-four (224) notif ied vendors; f orty (40) prospective bidders downloaded or viewed the bid package, and there were seven (7) viable responses received. ANALY S IS: After analysis of the R F P responses and their proven competency in perf orming landscape services for the C ity, Mariposa L andscapes was determined to be the most responsive contractor providing the best value while meeting the scope of services and specifications required. T herefore, staff recommends C ity C ouncil award a contract to Mariposa L andscapes, effective J uly 1, 2018 for a one (1) year term with an option to renew in one (1) year increments up to a total of seven (7) years, for an annual amount not to Page 61 exceed $1,066,000, contingent on approval of the F Y 2018-2019 and f uture budgets. FISCAL IMPACT: T he contract price f or routine monthly maintenance will increase $28,000 (4.93%) overall compared to the current contracts f or F Y 2017/2018. T he new contract rates are within the proposed contract services budget line items in the various General and L andscape Maintenance District f unds f or F Y 2018/2019. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: N/A AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n A ttachment 1 - P roject Co ntract Page 62 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC WORKS SERVICES DEPARTMENT CONTRACT LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE FOR LMD 6R, 7, 8, 9 AND 10 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS AWARD DATE: Wednesday, May 2, 2018 Page 63 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 1 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 2nd day of May 2018, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Mariposa Landscapes, a landscape contractor (“Contractor”). RECITALS A.City has heretofore issued its request for proposals to perform the following services: Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos, and Medians (RFP 17/18-011) (“the Project”). B.Contractor has submitted a proposal to perform the services described in Recital “A”, above, necessary to complete the Project. C.City desires to engage Contractor to complete the Project in the manner set forth and more fully described herein. D.Contractor represents that it is fully qualified and licensed under the laws of the State of California to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement in a good and professional manner. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1.Contractor’s Services. 1.1 Scope and Level of Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, City hereby engages Contractor to perform all services described in Recitals “A” and “B” above, including, but not limited to the complete, continuous, consistent and safe landscape and irrigation maintenance of the designated landscape sites within Landscape Maintenance Districts 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10; with LMDs 6R, 9 and 10 maintained at "Service Level A" and LMDs 7 and 8 maintained at "Service Level B; all as more fully set forth in RFP 17/18-011 and the Contractor’s proposal, dated February 15, 2018, entitled “Scope of Work”, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated by reference herein. The nature, scope, and level of the services required to be performed by Contractor are set forth in the Scope of Work and are referred to herein as “the Services.” In the event of any inconsistencies between the Scope of Work and this Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall control. 1.2 Revisions to Scope of Work. Upon request of the City the Contractor will promptly meet with City staff to discuss any revisions to the Project desired by the City. Contractor agrees that the Scope of Work may be amended based upon said meetings, and, by amendment to this Agreement, the parties may agree on a Page 64 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 2 revision or revisions to Contractor’s compensation based thereon. A revision pursuant to this Section that does not increase the total cost payable to Contractor by more than ten percent (10%) of the total compensation specified in Section 3, may be approved in writing by City’s Manager without amendment. 1.3 Time for Performance. Contractor shall perform all services under this Agreement in a timely, regular basis consistent with industry standards for professional skill and care, and in accordance with any schedule of performance set forth in the Scope of Work, or as set forth in a “Schedule of Performance”, if such Schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit “N/A”. 1.4 Standard of Care. As a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Contractor hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Contractor hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing the Services. 1.5 Familiarity with Services. By executing this Agreement, Contractor represents that, to the extent required by the standard of practice, Contractor (a) has investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (b) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (c) understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. Contractor represents that Contractor, to the extent required by the standard of practice, has investigated any areas of work, as applicable, and is reasonably acquainted with the conditions therein. Should Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of services, Contractor shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor’s risk until written instructions are received from the City Representative. 2.Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be one (1) year(s) and shall become effective as of the date of the mutual execution by way of both party’s signature (the “Effective Date”). No work shall be conducted; service or goods will not be provided until this Agreement has been executed and requirements have been fulfilled. Parties to this Agreement shall have the option to renew in one (1) year increments to a total of seven (7) years, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 14 herein. Options to renew are contingent upon the City Manager’s approval, subject to pricing review, and in accordance to all Terms and Conditions stated herein unless otherwise provided in writing by the City. 3.Compensation. 3.1 Compensation. City shall compensate Contractor as set forth in Exhibit A, provided, however, that full, total and complete amount payable to Contractor shall not exceed $1,066,000 (One Million Sixty-Six Thousand Dollars) for routine maintenance and extra work during the period July 1, 2018 thru June 30, 2019, including Page 65 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 3 all out of pocket expenses, unless additional compensation is approved by the City Manager or City Council. City shall not withhold any federal, state or other taxes, or other deductions. However, City shall withhold not more than ten percent (10%) of any invoice amount pending receipt of any deliverables reflected in such invoice. Under no circumstance shall Contractor be entitled to compensation for services not yet satisfactorily performed. The parties further agree that compensation may be adjusted in accordance with Section 1.2 to reflect subsequent changes to the Scope of Services. City shall compensate Contractor for any authorized extra services as set forth in Exhibit A. 4. Method of Payment. 4.1 Invoices. Contractor shall submit to City monthly invoices for the Services performed pursuant to this Agreement. The invoices shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period and shall separately describe any authorized extra services. Any invoice claiming compensation for extra services shall include appropriate documentation of prior authorization of such services. All invoices shall be remitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 4.2 City shall review such invoices and notify Contractor in writing within ten (10) business days of any disputed amounts. 4.3 City shall pay all undisputed portions of the invoice within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the invoice up to the not-to-exceed amounts set forth in Section 3. 4.4 All records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Contractor relating to services hereunder shall be available for review and audit by the City. 5. Representatives. 5.1 City Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, the contract administrator and City representative shall be William Wittkopf, Public Works Services Director, or such other person as designated in writing by the City (“City Representative”). It shall be Contractor’s responsibility to assure that the City Representative is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services, and Contractor shall refer any decisions that must be made by City to the City Representative. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the City Representative. 5.2 Contractor Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, Terry Noriega, President, is hereby designated as the principal and representative of Contractor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith (“Contractor’s Representative”). It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the Contractor’s Representative were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Page 66 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 4 Agreement. Therefore, the Contractor’s Representative shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. Contractor may not change the Responsible Principal without the prior written approval of City. 6. Contractor’s Personnel. 6.1 All Services shall be performed by Contractor or under Contractor’s direct supervision, and all personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by State and local law to perform such Services, including, without limitation, a City business license as required by the City’s Municipal Code. 6.2 Contractor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the standard of care set forth in Section 1.4. 6.3 Contractor shall be responsible for payment of all employees’ and subcontractors’ wages and benefits, and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer’s liability, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security. By its execution of this Agreement, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 6.4 Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers and employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Contractor’s violations of personnel practices and/or any violation of the California Labor Code. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to City from Contractor as a result of Contractor’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6. 7. Ownership of Work Product. 7.1 Ownership. All documents, ideas, concepts, electronic files, drawings, photographs and any and all other writings, including drafts thereof, prepared, created or provided by Contractor in the course of performing the Services, including any and all intellectual and proprietary rights arising from the creation of the same (collectively, “Work Product”), are considered to be “works made for hire” for the benefit of the City. Upon payment being made, and provided Contractor is not in breach of this Agreement, all Work Product shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City. Basic survey notes, sketches, charts, computations and similar data prepared or obtained by Contractor under this Agreement shall, upon request, be made available to City. None of the Work Product shall be the subject of any common law or statutory copyright or copyright application by Contractor. In the event of the return of any of the Work Product to Contractor or its Page 67 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 5 representative, Contractor shall be responsible for its safe return to City. Under no circumstances shall Contractor fail to deliver any draft or final designs, plans, drawings, reports or specifications to City upon written demand by City for their delivery, notwithstanding any disputes between Contractor and City concerning payment, performance of the contract, or otherwise. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. City’s reuse of the Work Product for any purpose other than the Project, shall be at City’s sole risk. 7.2. Assignment of Intellectual Property Interests: Upon execution of this Agreement and to the extent not otherwise conveyed to City by Section 7.1, above, the Contractor shall be deemed to grant and assign to City , and shall require all of its subcontractors to assign to City , all ownership rights, and all common law and statutory copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual and proprietary property rights relating to the Work Product and the Project itself, and Contractor shall disclaim and retain no rights whatsoever as to any of the Work Product, to the maximum extent permitted by law. City shall be entitled to utilize the Work Product for any and all purposes, including but not limited to constructing, using, maintaining, altering, adding to, restoring, rebuilding and publicizing the Project or any aspect of the Project. 7.3 Title to Intellectual Property. Contractor warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of the Work Product and/or materials produced under this Agreement, and that City has full legal title to and the right to reproduce any of the Work Product. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City’s use is violating federal, state or local laws, or any contractual provisions, relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Contractor shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, software, equipment, devices or processes used or incorporated in the Services and materials produced under this Agreement. In the event City’s use of any of the Work Product is held to constitute an infringement and any use thereof is enjoined, Contractor, at its expense, shall: (a) secure for City the right to continue using the Work Product by suspension of any injunction or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (b) modify the Work Product so that it becomes non- infringing. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8. Status as Independent Contractor. Contractor is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Contractor shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act as an agent of City. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its officers, agents or employees are in any manner employees of City. Contractor shall pay all required taxes Page 68 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 6 on amounts paid to Contractor under this Agreement, and to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Contractor shall fully comply with the workers’ compensation law regarding Contractor and Contractor’s employees 9. Confidentiality. Contractor may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of individuals and City employees. Contractor covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Contractor or provided for performance of this Agreement are confidential and shall not be disclosed by Contractor without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. This provision shall not apply to information in whatever form that is in the public domain, nor shall it restrict the Contractor from giving notices required by law or complying with an order to provide information or data when such an order is issued by a court, administrative agency or other legitimate authority, or if disclosure is otherwise permitted by law and reasonably necessary for the Contractor to defend itself from any legal action or claim. 10. Conflict of Interest. 10.1 Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor “financially interested” (as provided in California Government Code §§1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Contractor has been retained. 10.2 Contractor further represents that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Contractor has not paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Contractor hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 10.3 Contractor has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Contractor, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time during the term of this Agreement, Contractor Page 69 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 7 shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited “conflict of interest” under applicable laws as described in subsection 10.1. 11. Indemnification. 11.1 To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, (collectively, “Indemnitees”),free and harmless with respect to any and all damages, liabilities, losses, reasonable defense costs or expenses (collectively, “Claims”), including but not limited to Claims relating to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts, omissions, activities or operations of Contractor or any of its officers, employees, subcontractors, Contractors, or agents in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall defend Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any such Claims with counsel of City’s choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including actual attorney’s fees and experts’ costs incurred in connection with such defense. The indemnification obligation herein shall not in any way be limited by the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement provided, however, that the Contractor shall have no obligation to indemnify for Claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of any of the Indemnitees. 11.2 Nonwaiver of Rights. Indemnitees do not, and shall not, waive any rights that they may possess against Contractor because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. 11.3 Waiver of Right of Subrogation. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, Contractor, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby waives all rights of subrogation against the Indemnitees, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor. 11.4 Survival. The provisions of this Section 11 shall survive the termination of the Agreement and are in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law. Payment is not required as a condition precedent to an Indemnitee’s right to recover under this indemnity provision, and an entry of judgment against Contractor shall be conclusive in favor of the Indemnitee’s right to recover under this indemnity provision. Page 70 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 8 12. Insurance. 12.1 Liability Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the services hereunder by Contractor, and/or its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. 12.2 Minimum Scope of Insurance. Unless otherwise approved by City, coverage shall be at least as broad as: (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). (2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). (3) Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, and Employer’s Liability Insurance. 12.3 Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) Commercial General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement or the general limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease and Workers’ Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law. (4) The Insurance obligations under this Agreement shall be the greater of (i) the Insurance coverages and limits carried by the Contractor; or (ii) the minimum Insurance coverages and limits shown in this Agreement. Any insurance proceeds in excess of the specified limits and coverage required which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to the City. No representation is made that the minimum Insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of the Contractor under this agreement. Page 71 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 9 12.4 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City and shall not reduce the limits of coverage. City reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any required insurance policy and endorsements. 12.5 Other Insurance Provisions. (1) The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain the following provisions on a separate additionally insured endorsement naming the City, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Contractor; products and completed operations of Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by Contractor; and/or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor. The coverage shall contain no limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials which are not also limitations applicable to the named insured. (2) For any claims related to this Agreement, Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be in excess of Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Contractor’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. (4) Contractor shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self-insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, Contractor shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance. Should Contractor fail to immediately procure other insurance, as specified, to substitute for any canceled policy, the City may procure Page 72 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 10 such insurance at Contractor’s sole cost and expense. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall expressly waive the insurer’s right of subrogation against City, its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. (6) Each policy shall be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City, which is admitted and licensed to do business in the State of California and which is rated A:VII or better according to the most recent A.M. Best Co. Rating Guide. (7) Each policy shall specify that any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the required policy, including breaches of warranty, shall not affect the coverage required to be provided. (8) Each policy shall specify that any and all costs of adjusting and/or defending any claim against any insured, including court costs and attorneys' fees, shall be paid in addition to and shall not deplete any policy limits. (9) Contractor shall provide any and all other insurance, endorsements, or exclusions as required by the City in any request for proposals applicable to this Agreement. 12.6 Evidence of coverage. Prior to commencing performance under this Agreement, the Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates and original endorsements, or copies of each required policy, effecting and evidencing the insurance coverage required by this Agreement including (1) Additional Insured Endorsement(s), (2) Worker’s Compensation waiver of subrogation endorsement, and (3) General liability declarations or endorsement page listing all policy endorsements. The endorsements shall be signed by a person authorized by the insurer(s) to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements or policies shall be received and approved by the City before Contractor commences performance. If performance of this Agreement shall extend beyond one year, Contractor shall provide City with the required policies or endorsements evidencing renewal of the required policies of insurance prior to the expiration of any required policies of insurance. 12.7 Contractor agrees to include in all contracts with all subcontractors performing work pursuant to this Agreement, the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement including the indemnity and insurance requirements to the extent they apply to the scope of any such subcontractor’s work. Contractor shall require its subcontractors to be bound to Contractor and City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to City pursuant to this Agreement, and to require each of its subcontractors to include these same provisions in its contract with any sub- Page 73 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 11 subcontractor. 13. Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Contractor’s performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation that City might require. City shall compensate Contractor for any litigation support services in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. 14. Termination. City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time for any or no reason on not less than ten (10) days prior written notice to Contractor. In the event City exercises its right to terminate this Agreement, City shall pay Contractor for any services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of the termination, provided Contractor is not then in breach of this Agreement. Contractor shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation. City may terminate for cause following a default remaining uncured more than five (5) business days after service of a notice to cure on the breaching party. Contractor may terminate this Agreement for cause upon giving the City D ten (10) business days prior written notice for any of the following: (1) uncured breach by the City of any material term of this Agreement, including but not limited to Payment Terms; (2) material changes in the conditions under which this Agreement was entered into, coupled with the failure of the parties to reach accord on the fees and charges for any Additional Services required because of such changes. 15. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Contractor’s and City’s regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses set forth in this Section, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this Section. All notices shall be addressed as follows: If to City: Dean Rodia, P/L Superintendent City of Rancho Cucamonga Public Works Services Department 8794 Lion Street Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 If to Contractor: Terry Noriega, President Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. 6232 Santos Diaz St. Irwindale, CA 91702 Page 74 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 12 16. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that subcontractors and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. 17. Assignment and Subcontracting. Contractor shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement or subcontract the performance of any of Contractor’s obligations hereunder without City’s prior written consent. Except as provided herein, any attempt by Contractor to so assign, transfer, or subcontract any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be null, void and of no effect. 18. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations in force at the time Contractor performs the Services. Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and compliance with other requirements on “public works” and “maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The applicable prevailing wage rate determinations can be found at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm Contractor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services, available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Contractor’s principal place of business and at the Project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 19. Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Contractor constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Contractor, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default. 20. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of experts. Page 75 Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Last Revised: 05/22/14 Page 13 21.Exhibits; Precedence. All documents referenced as exhibits in this Agreement are hereby incorporated in this Agreement. In the event of any material discrepancy between the express provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of any document incorporated herein by reference, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. 22.Applicable Law and Venue. The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action relating to this Agreement shall be in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. 23.Construction. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted the Agreement or who drafted that portion of the Agreement. 24.Entire Agreement. This Agreement consists of this document, and any other documents, attachments and/or exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto, each of which is incorporated herein by such reference, and the same represents the entire and integrated agreement between Contractor and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. Contractor Name: Mariposa Landscapes, Inc. By: Name Date City of Rancho Cucamonga By: Name Date Title Title By: Name Date Title (two signatures required if corporation) Page 76 POLICY NUMBER:COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 20 10 11 85 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1984 Page 1 of 1 ADDITIONAL INSURED – OWNERS, LESSEES OR CONTRACTORS – (FORM B) This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART. SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) WHO IS AN INSURED (Section II) is amended to include as an insured the person or organization shown in the Schedule, but only with respect to liability arising out of "your work" for that insured by or for you. City of Rancho Cucamonga, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Attachment A Sample Additional Insured Endorsement Page 14 Vendor Initials Page 13 Page 14 Page 77 POLICY NUMBER: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CG 24 04 10 93 THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. CG 24 04 10 93 Copyright, Insurance Services Office, Inc., 1992 Page 1 of 1 WAIVER OF TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE Name of Person or Organization: (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declarations as applicable to this endorsement.) The TRANSFER OF RIGHTS OF RECOVERY AGAINST OTHERS TO US Condition (Section IV – COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONDITIONS) is amended by the addition of the following: We waive any right of recovery we may have against the person or organization shown in the Schedule above because of payments we make for injury or damage arising out of your ongoing operations or "your work" done under a contract with that person or organization and included in the "products-completed operations hazard". This waiver applies only to the person or organization shown in the Schedule above. City of Rancho Cucamonga and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Attachment B Sample Waiver of Subrogation Vendor Initials Page 15 Page 78 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 FOR LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE FOR LMD 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS City of Rancho Cucamonga Procurement Division 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Deadline for Submissions: February 15, 2018 at 3:00 p.m. Exhibit A - Scope of Work (Includes RFP 17/18-011 and Vendor's Proposal, including exhibits and cost proposal) Page 79 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 2 of 32 1. GENERAL INFORMATION 1.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter “City”) is inviting qualified Vendors to submit a proposal response for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10, Parkways, Paseos and Medians in accordance with the minimum Scope of Services and Additional Specifications, Instruction and Other Information as indicated herein. Vendors wishing to participate in the RFP solicitation must be registered as a Vendor on the City’s Vendor List. Vendor registration can be accomplished by visiting the City website at www.cityofrc.us. Only those responses received from registered Vendors will be accepted. Responses must be submitted by the named Vendor that has downloaded the RFP, this information is indicated in the bid system and provides the ability to tabulate the responses in accordance to the named Vendors. Submitting a response under a Vendor name that does not appear to be on the Prospective Bidders list will be deemed as non‐responsive and disqualify said response from further consideration. 1.2 PROPOSAL DELIVERY AND SCHEDULE OF EVENTS RFP responses must be received through the Electronic Bid System no later than the due date and time specified in the below Schedule of Events. Please note, there will be no paper responses accepted. The City shall not be responsible for any delays by transmission errors. Schedule of Events: Post RFP January 16, 2018 Questions Due January 29, 2018 at 12:00 pm Addendum Issued February 5, 2018 RFP Response Due Date February 16, 2018 at 3:00 pm Vendor Interviews / Presentation TBD Letter of Intent to Award TBD (The City reserves the right to change schedule of events without prior notice or responsibility to Vendor.) 1.3 DISCREPANCIES OR OMISSIONS Vendors finding discrepancies or omissions in the RFP or having any doubts as to the meaning or intent of any part thereof shall submit such questions or concerns in writing to the applicable Procurement contact identified herein. All questions must be in writing and no responsibility will be accepted for oral instructions. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFP shall be considered a part of this RFP and shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFP. Page 80 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 3 of 32 1.4 CONTINGENCIES This RFP should not be considered as a Contract to purchase goods or services, but is a Request for Proposal in accordance with the Terms and Conditions herein and will not necessarily give rise to a Contract. However, RFP responses should be as detailed and complete as possible to facilitate the formation of a Contract based on the RFP response(s) that are pursued should the City decide to do so. Completion of this RFP form and its associated appendices are a requirement. Failure to do so may disqualify your RFP response submittal. Vendors must submit signed RFP responses by the due date and time as specified herein. Vendors will be considered non‐responsive if the above requirements are not submitted as requested. If only one RFP response is received, the City reserves the right to return the RFP to the Vendor unopened. Any Scope of Services, Contingencies, Special Instruction and/or Terms and Conditions applicable to this RFP and any Purchase Order derived thereafter shall be effective as of the issue date of Purchase Order (the “Effective Date”), and shall remain in full force and effect until sixty (60) days after the City has accepted the work in writing and has made final payment, unless sooner terminated by written agreement signed by both parties. 1.5 QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS All questions or clarification requests must be submitted in writing directly through the City’s bid system on or before January 29, 2018 by 12:00 PM. Answers and/or clarifications will be provided in the form of an Addendum and will be posted for download from the City’s bid system in accordance with the above “Schedule of Events”. From the issuance date of this Request for Proposal until a Vendor is awarded, Vendors are not permitted to communicate with any City staff or officials regarding this procurement, other than during interviews, demonstrations, and/or site visits, except at the direction of Ruth Cain, CPPB, Procurement Manager, the designated representative of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 1.6 DISPOSITION OF MATERIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL OR PROPRIETARY INFORMATION All materials submitted in response to the RFP solicitation will become the property of the City and will be returned only at the City’s option and at the expense of the Vendor submitting the RFP response. A copy of the RFP response will be retained for official files and become a public record. Any material that a Vendor considers as confidential but does not meet the disclosure exemption requirements of the California Public Records Act should not be included in the Vendor’s RFP response as it may be made available to the public. Page 81 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 4 of 32 If a Vendor’s RFP response contains material noted or marked as confidential and/or proprietary that, in the City’s sole opinion, meets the disclosure exemption requirements, then that information will not be disclosed pursuant to a written request for public documents. If the City does not consider such material to be exempt from disclosure, the material may be made available to the public, regardless of the notation or markings. If a Vendor is unsure if its confidential and/or proprietary material meets disclosure exemption requirements, then it should not include such information in its RFP response because such information may be disclosed to the public. 1.7 KNOWLEDGE OF REQUIREMENTS The Vendor shall carefully review all documents referenced and made a part of the solicitation document to ensure that all information required to properly respond has been submitted or made available and all requirements are priced in the RFP response. Failure to examine any documents, drawings, specifications, or instructions will be at the Vendor’s sole risk. Vendors shall be responsible for knowledge of all items and conditions contained in their RFP responses and in this RFP, including any City issued clarifications, modifications, amendments, or addenda. The City will provide notice of any changes and clarifications to perspective Vendors by way of addenda to the City’s website; however, it is the Vendor’s responsibility to ascertain that the RFP response includes all addenda issued prior to the RFP due date. 1.8 RESERVATION OF RIGHTS The issuance of this RFP does not constitute an agreement by the City that any contract will be entered into by the City. The City expressly reserves the right at any time to: Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, RFP, or RFP procedure. Reject any or all RFPs. Reissue a Request for RFPs. Prior to submission deadline for RFPs, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures, including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be provided under this RFP, or the requirements for contents or format of the RFPs. The City recognizes that price is only one of several criteria to be used in judging a product or service, and the City is not legally bound to accept the lowest RFP response. The City reserves the right to conduct pre‐award discussions and/or pre‐Contract negotiations with any or all responsive and responsible Vendors who submit RFP responses. Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFP by any other means. Page 82 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 5 of 32 Determine that no project will be pursued. The City reserves the right to inspect the Vendor’s place of business prior to award or at any time during the contract term or any extension thereof, to determine the Vendor’s capabilities and qualifications. 1.9 CALIFORNIA'S PUBLIC RECORDS ACT The City of Rancho Cucamonga complies with the California Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6253. (a) Public records are open to inspection always during the office hours of the state or local agency and every person has a right to inspect any public record, except as hereafter provided. Any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be available for inspection by any person requesting the record after deletion of the portions that are exempted by law. Neither an RFP in its entirety, nor proposed prices shall be considered confidential and proprietary. Notwithstanding the foregoing, companies are hereby notified that all materials submitted in response to this RFP are subject to California's Public Records Act. The City's receipt, review, evaluation or any other act or omission concerning any such information shall not create an acceptance by the City or any obligation or duty to prevent the disclosure of any such information except as required by Government Code Section 6253. Companies who submit information they believe should be exempt from disclosure under the Public Records Act shall clearly mark each document as confidential, proprietary or exempt, and state the legal basis for the exemption with supporting citations to the California Code. Pursuant to California Law, if the information is requested under the Public Records Act, the City shall make a final determination if any exemption exists for the City to deny the request and prevent disclosure. The City will withhold such information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act only if the City determines, in its sole discretion, that there is a legal basis to do so. 2. MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS 2.1 BUSINESS LICENSE The selected Vendor awarded a Contract shall be required to obtain a Rancho Cucamonga Business License no later than five (5) business days from notification of award prior to being issued a Purchase Order. Awarded Vendor must possess and maintain all appropriate licenses/certifications necessary in the performance of duties required under this RFP and will provide copies of licenses/certifications immediately upon request throughout the term of the Contract. Vendors shall be responsible for knowledge of all items and conditions contained in their RFP responses and in this RFP, including any City issued clarifications, modifications, amendments, or addenda. The City will provide notice of any changes and clarifications to prospective Bidders by way of addenda to Page 83 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 6 of 32 the City website; however, it is the Vendor’s responsibility to ascertain that the RFP includes all addenda issued prior to the RFP due date. 2.2 PREVAILING WAGES Where labor is required for public work as a part of any requirement covered by this RFP, pursuant to the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, Vendor(s) shall pay no less than those minimum wages. Proof of prevailing wage will be required prior to the issuance of a Contract. 2.3 REPRESENTATIVES Should the awarded Vendor require the services of a third‐party to complete the Scope of Services indicated in this RFP, the awarded Vendor will not assign, transfer, convey or otherwise dispose of the contract or its right, title or interest in or to the same, or any part thereof. Any attempt by the awarded Vendor to so assign, transfer, or subcontract any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be null, void and of no effect. The awarded Vendor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services including Vendors subcontractor. All Services shall be performed by the awarded Vendor or under the awarded Vendor’s direct supervision, and all personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by state and local law to perform such services. The awarded Vendor shall be responsible for payment of all employees’ and subcontractor’s wages and benefits, and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer’s liability, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security. By its execution of this Agreement, Vendor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self‐insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the services. In case of default by the Vendor, the City may take the following actions which shall include but not be limited to; cancellation of any purchase order, procurement of the articles or service from other sources and may deduct from unpaid balance due to the Vendor, or may bill for excess costs so paid, and the prices paid by the City shall be considered the prevailing market prices paid at the time such purchase is made, withholding of payment until final resolution. Cost of transportation, handling, and/or inspection on deliveries, or Vendors for delivery, which do not meet specifications, will be for the account of the Vendor. Page 84 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 7 of 32 City Representative: For the purposes of this Agreement, the contract administrator and City’s representative shall be__________________, or such other person as designated in writing by City (“City’s Representative”). It shall be the Vendor’s responsibility to assure that City’s Representative is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services, and the Vendor shall refer any decisions that must be made by City to City Representative. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the City Representative. Vendor Representative: For the purposes of this Agreement, ________________________________ is hereby designated as the representative of the successful Vendor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith (“Vendor’s Representative”). It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the Vendor’s Representative were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the Vendor’s Representative shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Vendor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. The successful Vendor may not change the Vendor’s Representative without the prior written approval of City’s Representative. 2.4 EMPLOYEE CONDUCT All Vendor personnel must observe all City regulations in effect at the location where the Services are being conducted. While on City property, the Vendor’s personnel shall be subject to oversight by City staff. Under no circumstances shall the Vendor’s or Vendor’s sub‐contractor personnel be deemed as employees of the City. Vendor or Vendor’s subcontractor personnel shall not represent themselves to be employees of the City. Vendor's personnel will at all times make their best efforts to be responsive, polite, and cooperative when interacting with representatives of the City, or any other City employees. The Vendor's personnel shall be required to work in a pleasant and professional manner with City employees, outside Vendors and the public. Nothing contained in this RFP shall be construed as granting the Vendor the sole right to supply personal or contractual services required by the City or without the proper City approval and the issuance of a Purchase Order. 3. RFP RESPONSE FORMAT AND SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS RFP submittals are due on the due date and time indicated in the above schedule of events. Submittals shall be submitted electronically via the City’s bid system; no paper RFPs will be accepted. So that Page 85 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 8 of 32 competing proposals can be compared equally, Vendors must assemble their proposals in strict adherence to the layout requirements stated herein. Failure to follow all proposal layout requirements may result in disqualification of your proposal for being non‐responsive. Vendors shall provide one (1) original proposal response. Proposals should be brief and concise, devoid of extraneous material and promotional information. They should be in sufficient detail to allow a thorough evaluation of the Scope of Services and its correlated costs. Proposals must be assembled in the following order, with a title page separating each of the sections. 3.1 COVER LETTER / INTRODUCTION RFP responses must include the complete name and address of Vendor and the name, mailing address, and telephone number of the contact person regarding the RFP response. A signature by an authorized representative must be included on the RFP response. Said signature shall be interpreted to indicate the Vendor’s ability and willingness to comply with all provisions set forth in this solicitation, unless specific written exceptions are noted. 3.2 TABLE OF CONTENTS The Table of Contents must be a comprehensive listing of the contents included in your RFP response. This section must include a clear definition of the material, exhibits and supplemental information identified by sequential page numbers and by section reference numbers. 3.3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Executive Summary shall condense and highlight the contents of the Vendor’s RFP response to provide the Evaluation Committee with a broad understanding of the Vendor’s approach, Proposal, experience and staffing. 3.4 EXPERIENCE The Vendor shall provide a concise statement demonstrating the Vendor’s Proposal, experience, expertise and capability to perform the requirements of this RFP. Provide a brief history of your company, including; The number of years in business, The Vendor’s service commitment to customers, Whether or not the Vendor is involved in any pending litigation that may affect its ability to provide its proposed solution or ongoing maintenance or support of its products and services. State whether your Vendor is an individual proprietorship, partnership, corporation, or private nonprofit Vendor, and the date your company was formed or incorporated. Page 86 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 9 of 32 3.5 THIRD‐PARTY / SUBCONTRACTORS If the Vendor intends to subcontract, a detailed list of any sub‐contractors, partners, or third‐party Vendors who will be involved in the implementation of the proposed services including but not limited to; Description of the Vendor’s experience with each of the proposed subcontractors, Three (3) customer references for each subcontractor to include references names, addresses, and telephone numbers, for products and services like those described in this RFP, Describe the specific role of each. 3.6 STAFF BIOGRAPHIES Submit the resumes of the individuals who will be performing the services for the City. Resumes shall be formatted in the following order: Position with the Company, Length of time with the Company, Licenses, registrations and certifications as required by law to perform the Scope of Work described herein, Educational background, Role in the Project, Experience with the minimum requirements stated herein, Work history on similar or like projects with the other municipalities. 3.7 NON‐DISCLOSURE CONFLICT OF INTEREST Specify any possible conflicts of interest with your current clients or staff members and the City. A signed “Conflict of Interest and Non‐Disclosure Agreement, Exhibit A” included herein must be submitted under this section of the RFP response. 3.8 COMPANY REFERENCES Provide a minimum of four (4) references, preferably with other municipalities in which similar services are being performed or completed in the past three (3) years. References must be submitted on the “Reference Worksheet, Exhibit B”. Page 87 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 10 of 32 3.9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT In addition to the acceptance of the City’s Terms and Conditions, the successful Vendor will be required to enter into a Professional Services Agreement (“PSA”) with the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a “Sample” of which is attached in the City’s bid system for review. All requirements of said PSA must be completed by the successful Vendor and signed by both applicable parties prior to any services being rendered. This RFP sets forth some of the general provisions which may be included in the final PSA. In submitting a response to this RFP, Vendor will be deemed to have agreed to each clause unless otherwise indicated in the “Exception Summary, Exhibit C” and the City agrees to either, accept the objection or deviation, or change the PSA language in writing. Failure to raise any objections at the time of this RFP response submittal will result in a waiver of objection to any of the contractual language in the PSA at any other time. The signed Exception Summary shall be included under this section of the RFP response. 3.10 INSURANCE Proposers must meet all insurance requirements as outlined in the Professional Services Agreement. Ability to comply with said requirements must be indicated with signature of the “Acknowledgement of Insurance Requirements and Certification of Ability to Provide Coverages Specified, Exhibit D”, which must be submitted with the Bid under the Insurance tab. The awarded Vendor will be responsible for providing the required Certificates of Insurance and must be the Named Insured on the Certificates. Certificates of Insurance from any other entity other than the awarded Vendor, will not be accepted. 3.11 ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Vendor shall hereby acknowledge they have received all posted Addendums, if any. The Vendor understands failure to acknowledge any addenda issued may cause the response to be considered non‐ responsive. It is the Vendor’s responsibility to log into the Bid System to identify and download the number of addenda that have been posted. Addenda issued in correspondence to this RFP shall be considered a part of this RFP and shall become part of any final Contract that may be derived from this RFP Vendors must indicate their acknowledgement of any Addendums by way of signature on the “Addendum Acknowledgement Form, Exhibit E” and must be included under this section of the RFP response. 3.12 VENDOR CERTIFICATION Vendors must verify by way of signature to “Exhibit F, Vendor Certification Form” that Vendor nor any of its proposed subcontractors are currently under suspension or debarment by any state or federal government agency, and that neither Vendor not any of its proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California. The signed exhibit must be included under this section of the RFP response. Page 88 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 11 of 32 3.13 COST PROPOSAL Vendors shall also submit “Exhibit G”, Cost Proposal. The Cost Proposal shall be an itemized list of all proposed costs for services specified herein. The City will not be obligated to any cost not identified in the Cost Proposal submission. Failure to provide the required Cost Proposal in the requested format and on the City’s Form will cause Vendors submittal to be non‐responsive and be eliminated from any further consideration. This is a best value Proposal that will be based on the best value and qualifications prior to cost. When evaluating cost, the total lump sum for the monthly fees will be considered and will not include extra work which is on an as needed basis vs. the monthly standard services to be performed. 3.14 STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS Please download “Attachment A” Additional Specification, Instructions and Other Information for further information regarding required specifications. 3.15 SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY Completion of this RFP form and its associated Exhibits are a requirement. Failure to do so may disqualify your RFP response submittal. If only one RFP response is received, the City reserves the right to return the RFP to the Vendor. “Exhibit H”, Signature of Authority must be included with the Vendor RFP response. 3.16 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE It is hereby understood that other governmental entities, such as cities, counties, and special/school districts may utilize this RFP response at their option for equipment or services at the RFP response price. Said entities shall have the option to participate in any award made because of this solicitation. Any such piggy‐back awards will be made independently by each agency, and the City is not an agent, partner or representative of these agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action of debts that may arise out of such independently negotiated piggy‐back procurement. Each public agency shall accept sole responsibility of its own order placement and payments to the Vendor. A signed “Participation Clause, Section 5.8 herein” must be included under this section of the RFP response. 4. SCOPE OF SERVICES, ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS 4.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION In addition to the submittal of all required documentation herein, Vendors are responsible for downloading “Attachment A “Additional Specifications, Instructions, and other information. All documentation in “Attachment A” is to be completed, signed and submitted with this RFP response. Page 89 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 12 of 32 5. EVALUATION AND VENDOR SELECTION PROCESS 5.1 INITIAL SCREENING All RFP responses will undergo an initial review to determine responsiveness to the instructions herein. Those RFP responses initially determined to be responsive will proceed to the next phase of the evaluation process. 5.2 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES RFP responses deemed as having met the standard RFP requirements as indicated herein are then evaluated by an Evaluation Committee. The RFP submittals are scored and assigned a ranking of one (1) through ten (10), ten being the highest possible score, based upon but not limited to the following evaluation criteria factors: Company’s qualifications and areas of expertise. Experience with and successful maintenance of similar projects. Feedback from clients of other successfully maintained projects of a similar nature. Informal inspection of sites provided within the proposal to determine if they meet the City’s requirements. Understanding and developing an approach to best meet the City’s landscape maintenance needs, including proposed methods, schedule, and the demonstrated ability to meet the City’s standards. Experience and professional qualifications of staff. 5.3 DEMONSTRATIONS/ INTERVIEWS Upon completion of the RFP evaluations and data analysis, and only if necessary, selected top ranked Vendors will be provided an opportunity to interview and conduct a demonstration or presentation to further expand on their RFP response. Vendor interviews/demonstrations are scored and assigned a ranking of one (1) through ten (10), ten being the highest possible score, based upon but not limited to the evaluation criteria factors as stated within the RFP. 5.4 FINANCIAL DOCUMENTATION Vendors that proceed to the short‐list will be required to submit financial documentation as proof of its Vendor’s financial stability and strength. A financial review will be conducted by the City Finance Department. Should a Vendor wish for its financial documentation to be treated as proprietary or be Page 90 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 13 of 32 returned upon completion of the review, the documentation must clearly be marked as such. The following documentation will be required of each Vendor on the short‐list, there are no exceptions: A copy of the Vendor’s most recent annual report. Audited (by a third party), balance sheets and income statements for the past three (3) years. If audited data is not available, Vendor shall submit copies of complete tax returns for the past three (3) years. Describe any regulatory censure and past or pending litigation related to services provided by the Vendor. Indicate all applicable information regarding Vendor ownership changes in the last three (3) years. 5.5 BEST AND FINAL OFFER Upon completion of Vendor presentations and interview the City reserves the right to conduct pre‐award discussions and/or pre‐contract negotiations with all or only top ranked Vendors. At which time the City may request a Best and Final Offer to be submitted from one or all finalists. 5.6 VENDOR SELECTION The final Vendor selection is based on which Vendor is the most responsive, meeting the City’s requirements, offering the best value at the most competitive price. The City is not obligated to award to the lowest price proposal. The City may conduct negotiations with several Vendors simultaneously. The City may also negotiate contract terms with the selected Vendors prior to award. The City, at its sole discretion, reserves the right, unless otherwise stated, to accept or reject all or any RFP responses, or any part thereof, either separately or as a whole, or to waive any informality and to split or make the award in any manner determined to be in the best interest of the City. 5.7 LETTER OF INTENT TO AWARD After a final Vendor selection is determined, a Letter of Intent to Award (LOI) will be posted for review by all participating, responsive Vendors. Negotiations shall be confidential and not subject to disclosure to competing Vendors unless an agreement is reached. If contract negotiations cannot be concluded successfully, City may negotiate a contract with the next highest scoring Vendor or withdraw the RFP entirely. 5.8 PARTICIPATION CLAUSE It is hereby understood that other government entities, such as cities, counties, and special/school districts may utilize this RFP response at their option for equipment or services at the RFP response price Page 91 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 14 of 32 for a period of ________ days. Said entities shall have the option to participate in any award made because of this solicitation. Any such piggy‐back awards will be made independently by each agency, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not an agent, partner or representative of these agencies and is not obligated or liable for any action of debts that may arise out of such independently negotiated piggy‐ back procurement. Each public agency shall accept sole responsibility of its own order placement and payments of the Vendor. Successful Vendor will extend prices as proposed herein to other governmental agencies, please specify. YES __________ NO _________ Page 92 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 15 of 32 “EXHIBIT A” CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CONFLICT OF INTEREST/NON‐DISCLOSURE STATEMENT It is the policy of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to prevent personal or organizational conflict of interest, or the appearance of such conflict of interest, in the award and administration of City Contracts, including, but not limited to Contracts for Professional Services Agreements (“PSA”) with potential Vendors. I do not have specific knowledge of confidential information in regard to RFP responses received in response to the Request for Proposal RFP # 17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians. I agree not to disclose or otherwise divulge any information pertaining to the contents, status, or ranking of any RFP response to anyone. I understand the terms and "disclose or otherwise divulge" to include, but are not limited to, verbal conversations, written correspondence, reproduction of any part or any portion of any RFP response, or removal of same from designated areas. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the following statements are true and correct and that I understand and agree to be bound by commitments contained herein. ______________________________________ (Print Name) ______________________________________ (Relationship to the City) ______________________________________ (Relationship to the Vendor) ______________________________________ (Signature) ______________________________________ (Date) Must be included in final RFP submittal. Page 93 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 16 of 32 “EXHIBIT B” REFERENCES WORKSHEET The following References Worksheet must be complete, failure to do so the required information will disqualify your Solicitation response. Provide a minimum of four (4) clients that are similar in size to the City of Rancho Cucamonga /that your company has conducted comparable or like services. Preferred references should be government agencies and be a current customer within the past three (3) years. Please verify accuracy of contact information. Reference 1 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Description of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Reference 2 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Description of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Page 94 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 17 of 32 Reference 3 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Description of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Reference 4 Company Name Contact Name and Title Company Address Contact Telephone Number Contact Email Description of Comparative Services and Project Cost (please be specific) Must be included in final RFP submittal. Page 95 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 18 of 32 “EXHIBIT C” PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT EXCEPTIONS SUMMARY Mark the appropriate choice, below: _____ Vendor accepts the PSA without exception. OR _____ Vendor proposes exceptions to the PSA. Summarize any and all exceptions below. Enclose a written summary of each change and title as “Exception Summary”, which shall include the Vendor’s rationale for proposing each such exception. Each exception must be labeled with the Section number in the PSA. Failure to properly reference exceptions in the submitted summary may deem the response as non‐responsive. ___________________________________ Signature ___________________________________ Printed Name ___________________________________ Title ___________________________________ Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Page 96 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 19 of 32 “EXHIBIT D” ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AND CERTIFICATION OF ABILITY TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN COVERAGES SPECIFIED I, _______________________________ the ______________________________________________ (President, Secretary, Manager, Owner or Representative) of , certify that the (Name of Company, Corporation or Owner) Specifications and General Provisions regarding insurance requirements as stated within the Professional Services Agreement (PSA), for the Purchase Contract designated Request for Proposal (“RFP”) # 17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians have been read and understood and that our Vendor is able to provide and maintain the coverage as specified in the PSA. Failure to provide said coverage, upon request to finalize the PSA prior to award shall be sufficient cause for immediate disqualification of award. Failure to maintain said coverage shall result in termination of the contract. ___________________________________ Signature ___________________________________ Printed Name ___________________________________ Title ___________________________________ Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Page 97 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 20 of 32 “EXHIBIT E” ADDENDUM ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The Vendor hereby acknowledges the following Addenda Number(s) to this RFP have been received, if any. Vendor understands failure to acknowledge any addenda issued may cause the RFP response to be considered non‐responsive. It is the Vendor’s responsibility to log into the Bid System to identify and download the number of addenda that have been posted. __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ __________________ ___________________________________ Signature ___________________________________ Printed Name ___________________________________ Title ___________________________________ Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Page 98 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 21 of 32 “EXHIBIT F” VENDOR CERTIFICATION FORM I certify that neither __________________ (Vendor) nor any of its proposed subcontractors are currently under suspension or debarment by any state or federal government agency, and that neither Vendor nor any of its proposed subcontractors are tax delinquent with the State of California. I acknowledge that if Vendor or any of its subcontractors subsequently are placed under suspension or debarment by a local, state or federal government entity, or if Vendor or any of its subcontractors subsequently become delinquent in California taxes, our Proposal may be disqualified. ___________________________________ Signature ___________________________________ Printed Name ___________________________________ Title ___________________________________ Date Must be included in final RFP submittal. Page 99 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 22 of 32 “EXHIBIT G“ COST PROPOSAL Attachment A, Schedule III lists the criteria for service levels A through C for ground cover, turf, hardscape and mulchscape. The bidder shall complete this schedule for each of the three service levels for ground cover, turf, hardscape and mulchscape. In addition, the bidder shall complete tables 16‐20 providing unit pricing or labor rates for the extra work items listed therein. The City may execute separate contracts for each District or include any combination of Districts into one or more contracts. In addition, the contract(s) may provide for the same or different service levels for each District. Table 1 Service Level "A" LMD 6R Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 922,929 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Turf 178,257 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 238,489 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Table 2 Service Level "A" LMD 7 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 1,436,179 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Turf 132,979 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 836,516 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Page 100 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 23 of 32 Table 3 Service Level "A" LMD 8 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 23,397 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Turf 6,258 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 15,034 sq. ft. $ $ $ Table 4 Service Level "A" LMD 9 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 181,595 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 150,732 sq. ft. $ $ $ Table 5 Service Level "A" LMD 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 317,278 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 135,570 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Page 101 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 24 of 32 Table 6 Service Level "B" LMD 6R Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 922,929 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Turf 178,257 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 238,489 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Table 7 Service Level "B" LMD 7 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 1,436,179 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Turf 132,979 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 836,516 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Table 8 Service Level "B" LMD 8 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 23,397 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Turf 6,258 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 15,034 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Page 102 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 25 of 32 Table 9 Service Level "B" LMD 9 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 181,595 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 150,732 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Table 10 Service Level "B" LMD 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 317,278 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 135,570 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Table 11 Service Level "C" LMD 6R Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 922,929 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Turf 178,257 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 238,489 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Page 103 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 26 of 32 Table 12 Service Level "C" LMD 7 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 1,436,179 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Turf 132,979 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 836,516 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Table 13 Service Level "C" LMD 8 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 23,397 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Turf 6,258 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 15,034 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Table 14 Service Level "C" LMD 9 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 181,595 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 150,732 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Page 104 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 27 of 32 Table 15 Service Level "C" LMD 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians Description Quantity1 Unit Monthly Unit Cost Monthly Cost Annual Cost (Mo. $ X 12) Continuous Maintenance Per Contract Specifications for Ground Cover 317,278 sq. ft. $ $ $ Continuous Maintenance per Contract Specifications for Hardscape 135,570 Sq. ft. $ $ $ Table 16 PLANTING, MULCH AND DG UNIT COSTS Item Description Est. Annual Qty.1 Unit Unit Cost2 Annual Cost A. Plant 5 Gallon Tree and Stake 10 EA $ $ B. Plant 15 Gallon Tree and Stake 50 EA $ $ C. Plant 1 Gallon Shrub 500 EA $ $ D. Plant 5 Gallon Shrub 500 EA $ $ E. Plant 1 Flat Ground Cover 50 EA $ $ F. Prep, Place and Grade Mulch 200 CY $ $ G. Prep, Place, Compact and Grade DG 100 CY $ $ Total Cost: $ Page 105 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 28 of 32 Table 17 HOURLY LABOR RATES Item Description Est. Annual Qty.1 Unit Unit Cost Annual Cost A. Landscape Maintenance Laborer – Routine3 350 HOUR $ $ B. Landscape Maintenance Laborer – Complex4 955 HOUR $ $ C. Landscape Operating Engineer 40 HOUR $ $ D. Licensed or Certified Chemical Applicator 20 HOUR $ $ E. Supervisor/Foreman 300 HOUR $ $ F. Landscape/Irrigation Laborer 955 HOUR $ $ G. Landscape Hydro Seeder 8 HOUR $ $ H. Landscape/Irrigation Tender5 80 HOUR $ $ Total Cost: $ Page 106 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 29 of 32 Table 18 TREE REMOVAL WITH STUMP GRIND Item Description Est. Annual Qty.1 Unit Unit Cost2 Annual Cost A. 0” to 3” 1 EA $ $ B. >3” to 12” 12 EA $ $ C. >12” to 24” 5 EA $ $ D. >24” to 36” 5 EA $ $ E. >36” 2 EA $ $ Total Cost: $ Table 19 TREE REMOVAL WITHOUT STUMP GRIND Item Description Est. Annual Qty.1 Unit Unit Cost2 Annual Cost A. 0” to 3” 5 EA $ $ B. >3” to 12” 12 EA $ $ C. >12” to 24” 5 EA $ $ D. >24” to 36” 5 EA $ $ E. >36” 2 EA $ $ Total Cost: $ Page 107 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 30 of 32 Table 20 STUMP GRIND ONLY Item Description Est. Annual Qty.1 Unit Unit Cost2 Annual Cost A. 0” to 3” 4 EA $ $ B. >3” to 12” 4 EA $ $ C. >12” to 24” 4 EA $ $ D. >24” to 36” 1 EA $ $ E. >36” 1 EA $ $ Total Cost: $ Notes: 1. The Estimated Annual Quantity given in the proposal is approximate, being given as a basis for the comparison of bids only, and the City does not, expressly or by implication, agree that the actual amount of work will correspond therewith, but reserves the right to increase or decrease the amount of any class or portion of the work, or to omit any portion of the work, as may be deemed advisable or necessary by the Public Works Services Director. 2. Unit Costs shall include all labor, equipment, materials and overhead to perform the task indicated. 3. ROUTINE – mowing, watering, pruning, trimming, weeding, spraying, occasional planting and replacement of plants and janitorial work incidental to such landscape maintenance. 4. COMPLEX – servicing of irrigation and sprinkler systems, repairing of equipment use in such landscape maintenance. 5. Tenders may only perform the following work on landscape/irrigation projects: Assisting the Landscape Laborer with the wire installation, unloading of materials, distribution of pipe, stacking of sprinkler heads and risers, the setting of valve boxes and thrust block, both precast and poured in place, cleaning and backfilling trenches with a shovel, cleanup and watering during construction and all other landscaping, planting and all work involved in laying and installation of landscape irrigation systems. Page 108 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 31 of 32 Table 21 SUMMARY OF ANNUAL COSTS Description Annual Cost Table 1: LMD 6R Parkways, Paseos and Medians ‐ Service Level A $ Table 2: LMD 7 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ‐ Service Level A $ Table 3: LMD 8 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ‐ Service Level A $ Table 4: LMD 9 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ‐ Service Level A $ Table 5: LMD 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ‐ Service Level A $ Table 16: Planting, Mulch and DG $ Table 17: Hourly Labor $ Table 18: Tree Removal with Stump Grind $ Table 19: Tree Removal without Stump Grind $ Table 20: Stump Grind Only $ Grand Total: $ Must be included in final RFP submittal. Page 109 City of Rancho Cucamonga Request for Proposals (“RFP”) #17/18‐011 for Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance for LMDs 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 Parkways, Paseos and Medians ___________________________________________________________________________________________ Submittals Due: February 15, 2018, by 3:00 PM Page 32 of 32 “EXHIBIT H” SIGNATURE OF AUTHORITY The undersigned Vendor declares that he has carefully examined the specifications and read the above terms and conditions, and hereby proposes and agrees, if this RFP response is accepted, to furnish all material in accordance with the specifications and instructions, in the time and manner therein prescribed for the unit cost amounts set forth in the following RFP response. The signature of an authorized representative shall be interpreted to indicate the firm’s/contractor’s ability and willingness to comply with all the terms and conditions set forth in this solicitation, unless specific written. Company Name: Address: (Street, Su. # City, State, Zip) Telephone #: Fax #: E‐mail address: Web Address: Authorized Representative: (print) Title: Signature: Date: Must be included in final RFP submittal. Page 110 SP-1 “Attachment A” Additional Specifications, Instructions and Other Information LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS 6R, 7, 8, 9 AND 10 Section 900 GENERAL 900-1 SCOPE OF WORK The scope of work is complete, continuous, consistent and safe landscape and irrigation maintenance of the designated areas that are specified herein. During, and at the end of the contract period, all plant material shall be in a healthy, growing condition and all irrigation systems will be in the proper state of repair and adjustment. The contractor shall provide all equipment, labor and materials necessary for performing landscape and irrigation maintenance according to the specifications herein. The intent and purpose of this agreement, is to provide a level of maintenance to the areas such that each will present a safe, pleasing, and desirable appearance at all times within the limitations of the contracted service levels. The contractor agrees to maintain all the designated areas covered by this Agreement at such levels. The Public Works Services Director, or his designated representative, shall be the sole judge as to the adequacy and quality of maintenance. The work shall be done in accordance with “The ‘Green Book’ Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction” 2015 edition including subsequent amendments, supplements and/or additions. Copies are available from the publisher, Building News, Incorporated, 1612 So. Clementine Street, Anaheim, California, 92802, telephone (714) 517-0970. Where the Public Works Services Director is mentioned in these Special Provisions, it shall be noted that his designated representative may act in his behalf regarding administration of this agreement. 900-2 TERMS AND DEFINITIONS Agency: The City of Rancho Cucamonga. Board: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Engineer: The Public Works Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting personally or through agents or assistants duly authorized by him. Page 111 SP-2 City: City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California. District: Special districts within the City of Rancho Cucamonga including, but not limited to, Community Facilities Districts, Landscape Maintenance Districts and/or Park Districts. LMD: See Landscape Maintenance District Landscape Maintenance District: A special district within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Public Works Services Director: The Public Works Services Director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting personally or through agents or assistants duly authorized by him. 900-3 CONTRACTOR’S LICENSE Contractor shall possess any and all contractor’s licenses, in form and class as required by any and all applicable laws with respect to any and all of the work to be performed under this contract; including, but not limited to, a Class A (General Engineering Contractor) or Class C-27 (Landscape Contractor) and Class C-31 (Construction Zone Traffic Control Contractor) in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000, et. seq.) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto at the time this contract is awarded. 900-4 COMPETENCY OF VENDOR The bidder shall be licensed under the provisions of Chapter 9, Division 3, of the Business and Professions Code of the State of California to do the type of work contemplated in the contract and shall be skilled and regularly engaged in the general class or type of work called for under this contract. 900-5 CONTRACT TERM The Contract Term shall be from the date of mutual execution and shall remain in full force through June 30, 2019. Parties to any contract resulting from this RFP shall have the option to renew the Contract Term in one (1) year increments up to a total of five (5) additional years. Page 112 SP-3 900-6 BONDS If a contract is awarded, the Contractor shall furnish a good and sufficient surety bond issued by a surety company authorized to do business in the State of California in the sum equal to 100% of the total award, conditioned for the Faithful Performance by the Contractor of all covenants, stipulations any agreements contained in said contract; in addition, the Contractor shall furnish a Labor and Materials Bond in a sum equal to 100% of the contract price, as required by the provisions of Section 9554 of the California Civil Code. 900-7 SUPERVISION AND STAFF The contractor shall assign a supervisor to be on site each working day, working regular working hours, for the duration of this contract. The contractor and his staff shall have skills, expertise, and experience in arboriculture, turf management, pest control, soils, fertilizers, plant identification and irrigation systems maintenance. The supervisor must be fluent in the English language. The supervisor shall be thoroughly knowledgeable of the General and Special Provisions of this contract. The contractor shall have on staff a full-time Water Auditor/Manager certified by the Irrigation Association (I.A.) or California Landscape Contractors Association (C.L.C.A.) as a Landscape Irrigation Auditor available to perform water audits, system checks, and irrigation scheduling as directed by the Public Works Services Director. (See 901-4.6 for an expanded description of responsibilities.) 900-8 PREVAILING WAGE Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public work is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages. This contract is subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. For all new contracts awarded on or after April 1, 2015, the contractors and subcontractors shall furnish electronic certified Page 113 SP-4 payroll records to the Labor Commissioner. Each Contractor or Subcontractor shall preserve his weekly payroll records for a period of three (3) years. The payroll records shall set out accurately and completely the name, address, social security number, occupational classification, and hourly wage rate of each employee, hours worked by him during the payroll period, and full weekly wages earned by him, any deductions made from such weekly wages, and the actual weekly wages paid to him. Such payroll records shall be made available at all times for inspection by the City or its authorized representatives. 900-9 COMMUNICATIONS The Contractor shall provide a cellular telephone to each supervisor and water manager. Each supervisor and water manager shall carry the telephone on his/her person at all times during the workday for communication with the City representative. Each supervisor shall be on call 24 hours per day for emergencies within the contract areas. 900-10 NON-RESPONSIVENESS OF CONTRACTOR Failure of the Contractor or the supervisors to respond immediately (within 1 hour) to the telephone notification by the Public Works Services Director of an emergency condition, or failure of the Contractor to respond within two days of written notification by the Public Works Services Director or his representative, shall give the Public Works Services Director the right to cause necessary work to be performed by City crews, or other contractors and any costs incurred in so doing shall be deducted from the payment for the month in which the work was performed. 900-11 SERVICE LEVELS Now, or in the future, the City may have severe budget constraints within one or more of the landscape maintenance districts (LMDs) to which this Contract applies. As a result, and at any time, the City may choose to contract for maintenance of the affected LMDs at less than the "A" service level for any, or all landscape services as described in Schedule III, Service Level Descriptions. In all cases, the Special Provisions, pages SP-1 through SP- 27 are considered the "A" service level, the highest level of quality. Schedule III modifies certain items, and only those Page 114 SP-5 certain items listed in Schedule III, to lower the cost of maintenance to meet the budget constraints. Service level "A" is included in Schedule III to enable the bidder to easily compare those items that are lessened from the "A" level, to service levels "B" or "C". 900-12 SCHEDULING OF WORK The Contractor shall accomplish all normal landscape maintenance required under this contract between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Exceptions may be made to normal working hours, where incidence of use may be too great during the hours specified to allow for proper maintenance. The Public Works Services Director or his representative may grant, on an individual basis, permission to perform contract maintenance at other hours including weekends. No maintenance functions that generate excess noise that would cause annoyance to residents of the area shall commence before 8:00 a.m. Unless otherwise specified by the Public Works Services Director, the Contractor shall provide no less than weekly scheduled maintenance to each site and supply the City with a schedule of routine work (the Maintenance Schedule Chart) to be followed in the performance of any work required by these specifications. Any changes in scheduling shall be immediately reported, in writing, to the Public Works Services Director. The Public Works Services Director will be notified in writing at least 24 hours in advance of each start date of non-routine maintenance operations including fertilization, chemical application and tree pruning. 900-13 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT The Contractor shall comply with the requirements of Assembly Bill 73. The law states that, "…every person planning to conduct any excavation is required to contract a regional notification center at least 2 working days prior to excavation…" Assembly Bill 73 defines excavation as, "any operation in which earth, rock, or other material in the ground is moved, removed, or otherwise displaced by means of tools, equipment, or explosives in any of the following ways: grading, trenching, digging, ditching, drilling, auguring, tunneling, scraping, cable or pipe lowing and driving, or any other way." The Contractor shall assume all liability incurred from any type of excavation performed at the worksite. 900-14 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT Page 115 SP-6 (a) The Contractor will be paid monthly based upon the Schedule of Unit Cost and Lump Sum Amounts. (b) Whenever the Contractor is required to perform work or furnish equipment, labor, tools and materials of any class for which no price is fixed in the Proposal, it shall be understood that such work, equipment, labor, tools and material shall be provided without extra charge, allowance, or direct payment of any kind. The cost of performing such work or furnishing such equipment, labor, tools and materials shall be included in the unit bid prices in the proposal and no additional compensation will be made therefore. (c) On or about the first day of each month, the Contractor shall present an invoice for the previous month for the contracted monthly amount. The invoice shall include the account number for each LMD and the purchase order number for this contract. (d) Included with the monthly invoice will be notations of the work functions accomplished during that period that are other than routine operations such as fertilization in accordance with Schedule I, chemical application and tree clearance. The quantity invoiced and paid shall be the total square feet shown in the Bid except that the Public Works Services Director shall have the right to increase or decrease the total quantity based upon documented field measurements. (e) The Public Works Services Director will make payment monthly after verification of completion. Sites which, in the opinion of the Public Works Services Director, have not been maintained in accordance with the Contract Special Provisions will be deducted from the monthly payment on a square foot basis for the month. The amount deducted shall be the amount paid per month for the entire site. (f) Extra work shall be separately invoiced in accordance with the hourly rates and unit prices provided in the supplementary "Extra Work Schedule" of the contract bid. (g) Draft extra work reports per LMD should be delivered to the Public Works Services Director prior to invoice preparation. The purpose of which is to expedite the invoicing and payment process, and to approve the work for completion and payment. 900-15 EXAMINATION OF PLANS, SPECIFICATIONS, AND SITE OF WORK Page 116 SP-7 Bidders must satisfy themselves by personal examination of the work site, plans, specifications, and other contract documents, and by any other means as they may believe necessary, as to the actual physical conditions, requirements and difficulties under which the work must be performed. No bidder shall at any time after submission of a proposal make any claim or assertion that there was any misunderstanding or lack of information regarding the nature or amount of work necessary for the satisfactory completion of the job. Any errors, omissions, or discrepancies found in the specifications, or other contract documents shall be called to the attention of the City and clarified prior to the submission of proposals. 900-16 WORK SITES LMD 6R: the boundaries of the district are generally described as north of I-210, south of Banyan Street, west of Rochester Avenue and east of Milliken Avenue, also known as the Caryn Planned Community. The boundaries also include Tract No. 13835 east of Rochester Avenue and Tracts No. 13748, 13857 and 13858 west of Milliken Avenue. See map in Appendix B for exact LMD boundaries and site locations. The site descriptions for LMD 6R are in Schedule IV. LMD 7: the boundaries of the district are generally described as that area of the City known as North Etiwanda, which is generally bounded by I-210 on the south, I-15 on the east, the City limit on the north and Day Creek channel on the west excluding the area known as Rancho Etiwanda and described in LMD 10 below. See map in Appendix B for exact LMD boundaries and site locations. The site descriptions for LMD 7 are in Schedule V. LMD 8: the boundaries of the district are generally described as that area of the City known as South Etiwanda, which is generally bounded by I-210 on the north, East Avenue on the west, Victoria Street on the south and I-15 on the east. See map in Appendix B for exact LMD boundaries and site locations. The site descriptions for LMD 8 are in Schedule VI. LMD 9: the boundaries of the district are generally described as that area of the City known as Lower Etiwanda, which is generally bounded by I-210 to the north, Etiwanda Avenue to the west, Foothill Boulevard to the south and East Avenue to the east. See map in Appendix B for exact LMD boundaries and site locations. The site descriptions for LMD 9 are in Schedule VII. LMD 10: the boundaries of the district are generally described as Page 117 SP-8 that area of the City known as Rancho Etiwanda, which is generally bounded by I-210 on the south, Day Creek Channel on the west, the Southern California Edison powerlines on the north and Blue Grass on the east. See map in Appendix B for exact LMD boundaries and site locations. The site descriptions for LMD 10 are in Schedule VII. 900-17 ADDITIONS During the course of the contract new parkways, paseos, and medians will be developed and may be added to this contract. The Contractor will be given no less than fifteen (15) calendar days’ notice prior to any additions. Further, the Contractor may have the option of accompanying the City inspector on final inspection, prior to acceptance of the site, to comment about the condition of the site. Payment for maintenance of additional sites shall be based upon the Schedule of Unit Cost and Lump Sum Amounts and its supplement "Extra Work Schedule" of this Bid. 900-18 DELETIONS At the Public Works Services Director’s option, any contract areas may be deleted from the contract by notifying the Contractor in writing fifteen (15) calendar days prior to deletions from the Contract. 900-19 QUALITY OF WORK All work shall be performed in accordance with the service level for which the work is contracted and the best irrigation and landscape maintenance practices shall be implemented to provide aesthetically pleasing, healthy and safe parkways, paseos and medians. The Public Works Services Director or his representative shall be the sole judge as to the adequacy and quality of maintenance. All materials, equipment and supplies used to repair and maintain devises and materials pursuant to the specifications for LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE FOR LMD 6R, 7, 8, 9 and 10 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS shall meet current City standards for the individual landscape sites. 900-20 INSPECTIONS Scheduled on a specific day of the week and on a bi weekly basis, the Contractor or his representative will walk and/or drive the project with the Public Works Services Director or his Page 118 SP-9 representative for the purpose of determining compliance with the specifications or to discuss required work. Any specific problem area which does not meet the conditions of the specifications set forth herein shall be called to the attention of the Contractor and, if not corrected within a reasonable amount of time, shall be deducted in accordance with Section 900-8(e). 900-21 REPLACEMENT OF LANDSCAPE MATERIALS & CITY PROPERTY The Contractor shall be responsible for replacement of City property and any other items deemed necessary due to contractor negligence. This includes (but is not limited to) trees damaged by untrained and negligent equipment operators, fencing damaged by mower operator negligence, the failure of the contractor to provide water to a site where the irrigation cannot be repaired in a reasonable amount of time due to circumstances beyond their control. 900-22 UTILITY BILLS The City shall bear all the costs for water and electricity used on the sites covered by this contract as billed on the regular monthly invoices received by the City from the utility agencies. 900-23 CONFORMING TO STATE AND FEDERAL GUIDELINES FOR STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION State and Federal guidelines for storm water pollution prevention are known as Best Management Practices (BMP’s). These practices will help reduce groundwater contamination and pollution to our wetlands, beaches, and coastlines. Since Landscaping can and does contribute to storm water pollution, BMP guidelines taken from the California Storm Water Quality Association’s Handbook are provided for the Contractor’s reference. In addition, these BMP’s shall be reviewed with any new employee before he begins work in the field, and with all crews on at least an annual basis. (See Appendix C) 900-24 PERMITS Prior to the start of any work, the Contractor shall obtain the applicable City permits and make arrangements for City inspections. The City will issue the permits at no charge to the Contractor. The Contractor and all subcontractors shall each obtain a City business license, and shall be licensed in accordance with State Business and Professions Code. The Contractor shall Page 119 SP-10 also obtain any and all other permits, licenses, inspections, certificates, or authorizations required by any governing body or entity. 900-25 WORK AREA TRAFFIC CONTROL 901-25.1 Traffic Control Permit The Contractor shall prepare a permit application for street CLOSURE AND SHALL ATTACH TWO COPIES OF THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC CONTROL signing, barricading and/or detour routing. The permit application and accompanying attachments shall be reviewed by the City Traffic Engineer. Upon the Traffic Engineer's approval, a no- fee Street Closure Permit shall be issued. No Street Closure, Lane Closure, Detour or other work requiring traffic control shall commence prior to issuance of said permit. 901-25.2 Signs, Barricades, and Delineators The Contractor shall provide and install barricades, delineators, warning devices and construction signs in accordance with the current California Joint Utility Traffic Control Manual (CJUTCM) published by the California Inter- Utility Coordinating Committee, the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (WATCH) and the current Caltrans Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones unless otherwise approved by the Engineer. During adverse weather or unusual traffic or working conditions additional traffic devices shall be placed as directed by the Engineer. 901-25.3 Training Upon award of the contract and before work can begin within the public right-of-way, the contractor shall provide written proof of work zone safety training of all supervisory staff. The contractor will be responsible for all work zone safety inspections and regular training of all staff setting up any traffic control. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE See section 900-8(b) for information on payment for routine maintenance tasks not listed on the cost proposal sheet. Page 120 SP-11 900-26 TURF MAINTENANCE 900-26.1 Mowing All turf and adjacent hardscape areas are required to present a neat, clean, and relatively debris free appearance upon the completion of the mowing project for the day. Since this contract requires the use of mulching type mowers, this may require that accumulated debris including leaves, trash, tree bark, branches, twigs, etc. be removed from the turf and surrounding hardscape areas prior to mowing. All turf areas shall be mowed once per week during the period of March 1st to November 1st and at least once every other week, or as needed, during the period of November 1st to March 1st. Exact dates shall be set on the Maintenance Schedule Chart to provide 45 mowings per year. Work shall be performed on the same day each week. Mowing days will be coordinated with the City so that, if possible, mowing occurs 1 day prior to street sweeping. Street sweeper schedules will be provided to the contractor by the City Representative. All mowings missed due to inclement weather shall be rescheduled within 3 working days on the weekly schedule and within 7 days on the biweekly schedule. If weather or ground conditions persist, the Public Works Services Director may change the annual schedule to allow fewer than 45 mowings per year. The Contractor shall use mulching-type mowers that are approved prior to use by the Public Works Services Director. An example of the completed work done by each mulching mower must be presented for approval to the Public Works Services Director. Regardless of the season, the mowing height of tall fescue shall be 2 ½ to 3” unless directed otherwise by the Public Works Services Director. All equipment shall be well maintained, adjusted properly, and blades shall be kept sharp at all times. 900-26.2 Edging All turf grass borders shall be neatly and uniformly edged concurrently with every mowing. In addition to the required concurrent edging, an edger with a metal blade will be required for use on all turf grass borders at least once per month during the period of March 1 to November 1. Mechanical methods shall be used except where physically not possible or practical. Tree wells and valve boxes in turf areas shall be trimmed concurrently with each mowing. Trimming shall be done in a manner to prevent any damage to the tree trunk. "Arbor- Guards" or approved equal will in place at all times on all tree Page 121 SP-12 trunks 4” in diameter or less within turf areas. Bare-soil tree wells are required in all turf areas and shall be maintained by chemical, not mechanical means. The Contractor shall mechanically "bowl" around each irrigation head that is blocked by grass between mowings. 900-26.3 Fertilization All turf areas shall be fertilized in accordance with Schedule I. All proposed changes in formulation shall be submitted to the Public Works Services Director for approval prior to use. Fertilizer shall be applied in such a manner as to insure uniform coverage with minimum overlap. Turf shall be free of moisture at the time of application. Application of the fertilizer shall be done in sections coinciding with the areas covered by the timing stations on the automatic controllers in order that the soil may be thoroughly moistened immediately after the broadcast of fertilizer. All damages resulting from the use of unauthorized fertilizers or improper watering after fertilization shall be repaired or replaced at the expense of the Contractor. 900-26.4 Aeration Mechanically aerate all turf areas spring and fall or more often as needed to reduce compaction and stress. In areas where soil conditions are poor, top dressing may be required and would be considered an extra. Use a core type aerator with ½ inch tines or approved equal. The aeration period will be recorded on the Maintenance Schedule Chart and should be performed prior to scheduled fertilizing, dethatching, overseeding, or pre-emergent applications. Do not aerate for at least 3 months following turf pre-emergent applications or as directed on the pesticide label. 900-26.5 Dethatching Any turf areas in this contract may be required to be dethatched once per year during the fall prior to overseeding. Dethatching shall be accomplished by use of a "vertical cut type" dethatching machine. The degree of thatch removal will be determined by the Public Works Services Director or his representative prior to commencement of work. Dethatching will be recorded on the Maintenance Schedule Chart. Do not dethatch turf areas for at least 3 months following turf pre-emergent applications, or as directed on the pesticide label. Page 122 SP-13 900-26.6 Overseeding All overseeding shall be done with a seed type or blend approved by the Public Works Services Director. The Contractor shall over seed where needed in such a manner as to insure uniform growth with minimum bare areas. One month prior to overseeding, the Contractor shall notify the Public Works Services Director for approval of scope of work. All overseeding operations shall be billed once completed as extra work. Overseeding will be scheduled either in early fall or early spring. Fertilization and overseeding will be concurrently applied. Grass seed shall be applied at the rate specified on the label for the type of seed being used. Seed quality shall meet the following criteria: Minimum purity shall be 98% weed free for all grasses; minimum germination rate shall be 85% for all grasses; no seed shall be applied without prior verification of seed mix and quality by the Public Works Services Director. Once seed has been applied, the contractor shall firm the soil and cover the seed with top dressing to prevent erosion and reduce evaporation of soil moisture. Pre-emergent herbicide applications shall be applied no sooner than three (3) mowings following seed germination. Overseeding shall not be done within at least four months of any pre-emergent herbicide application or as directed on the pesticide label – whichever length of time is greater. 900-26.7 Weed Control A regular program of chemical application shall be used to control weed growth, supplemented by hand removal of noxious weeds in the turf as necessary. Chemical control of broadleaf weeds shall be employed as often as necessary to maintain turf areas in a "Weed Free" condition. In addition, turf grass will be treated as follows: In both late February and in late May, a complete fertilizer plus Dimension (or Public Works Services Director approved equivalent pre-emergent crabgrass control herbicide) shall be applied to all turf areas. See Schedule I for complete details. 900-27 SHRUB, GROUNDCOVER, DECOMPOSED GRANITE (DG) AND VINE MAINTENANCE 900-27.1 SHRUB MAINTENANCE Page 123 SP-14 (a) All shrubs growing in the work areas shall be pruned, as required, to consistently maintain plants in a healthy, growing condition, and to maintain plant growth within reasonable bounds to prevent encroachment of passage ways, walks, adjacent properties, streets, view of signs, traffic or in any manner deemed objectionable by the Public Works Services Director. Dead or damaged limbs or branches shall be removed immediately and all pruning cuts shall be made cleanly with sharp pruning tools, with no projections or stubs remaining. (b) Pruning shall be done in a manner to permit plants to grow naturally in accordance with their normal growth characteristics. Shearing, hedging or severe pruning of plants, unless authorized by the Public Works Services Director or his representative, shall not be permitted. (c) Shrubs shall be fertilized in Spring and Fall using triple fifteen with trace elements or approved equal. All other applications that may be requested by the Public Works Director shall be extra work. Fertilization periods shall be recorded on the Maintenance Schedule Chart. 900-27.2 GROUND COVER MAINTENANCE (a) Trim ground cover adjacent to walks, walls, curbs, mow curbs and fences as required for general containment to consistently present a neat, clean appearance of the planter and surrounding hardscapes within the landscape site. (b) Any paper, litter, or other debris including excessive pine needles or leaf litter that accumulates in ground cover areas shall be picked up on at least a weekly basis. (c) Keep ground cover trimmed back from all controller units, valve boxes, quick couplers, or other appurtenances or fixtures. Do not allow ground covers to grow up trees, into shrubs, or on structures or walls. Keep it trimmed back approximately 4 inches from structures or walls. Coordinate trimming around base of shrubs/trees with the City Representative. (d) Bare soil areas shall be replanted, mulched, or wood chipped as directed. Coordinate replanting/chipping with the City Representative. The contractor shall pay the costs to Page 124 SP-15 replant/mulch bare soil areas caused by contractor negligence. Negligence includes (but is not limited to) the failure to provide water to sites that cannot be repaired in a reasonable amount of time due to circumstances beyond the control of the contractor. (e) Fertilize in accordance with the specifications for shrub maintenance in Section 901-2.1(c) (f) Annually, at the direction of the City Representative, mow overgrown ground cover to a height of three (3) inches. (g) The Contractor shall mechanically "bowl", as often as is required, around all irrigation heads that are blocked by ground cover. 900-27.3 DECOMPOSED GRANITE (DG) In an effort to reduce water use, maintenance and run-off some areas within this contract may currently (or in the future) contain relatively small areas of DG as a landscape element. These relatively low maintenance areas are contained within the landscape and do not include equestrian and walking trails. DG areas shall be inventoried and paid at the same monthly unit cost as groundcover. (a) Any paper, litter, rocks, trash, or other debris that accumulates in these DG areas shall be picked up on at least a weekly basis. (b) The Contractor shall provide complete and continuous control and/or eradication of all weeds, roots, suckers, and pests. Pests include, but are not limited to insects, other invertebrates, and rodents. Pests may be controlled by mechanical means as well as with chemicals. (c) The contractor shall provide complete and continuous maintenance of all non-trail DG surfaces within the landscape at no additional cost to the City. Maintenance shall include but will not be limited to filling and compacting low areas, ruts, washed-out areas, vandalized areas, and any other area deemed hazardous. (d) Maintenance shall include not only the repairs, but shall also include the removal of eroded or contaminated DG Page 125 SP-16 materials from sidewalks, drains, curbs, gutters, cobble, turf areas, planters, and any other areas where the DG does not belong. Eroded DG materials shall not be re-used in the trails or landscape and these materials shall be disposed of off-site at no cost to the City. (e) Surface repair materials shall be clean and uncontaminated stabilized California Gold DG maintained at a minimum depth of 4”. DG is available from Gail Materials in Corona, CA Phone no. (951) 667-6106. Submittal of all DG materials to the Public Works Services Director (or his agent) is required prior to any and all surface repairs. Materials placed without prior approval that do not meet City specifications will be removed and replaced at the expense of the contractor. (f) Proper placement will require good preparation, wetting and compaction. DG shall be placed, wetted, and compacted at no more than 2” at a time. In some cases, an additional lift may be required for the repair. Remove rocks, debris and loose materials and grade smooth. For each 2” of lift, spread the material over the area and grade level and smooth. Take the time necessary to thoroughly water the entire area to ensure the entire depth and profile is moist. Use a shovel to confirm moisture depth. Once properly wetted, roll, vibra- plate, or tamp the surface and allow sufficient time to dry. The surface shall be flush with all curbs, walks, headers and drains. In some instances, it may be necessary to build the material ¼” higher than the hardscapes to promote proper drainage. 900-27.4 VINE MAINTENANCE (a) Vines are to be maintained such that they present a neat appearance at all times and are not a public hazard. (b) To help prevent vines from falling off of the wall, vines are to be trimmed and maintained closely to the wall to which they are attached. (c) Vines that are not growing over the top of a wall will not be allowed to grow over the top. (d) Vines that are growing over the top of a wall will be neatly trimmed on the City side and along the top without allowing clippings to fall onto the homeowner's side. Page 126 SP-17 (e) Cut as few vines growing over to the homeowner's side as is necessary to achieve a neat appearance on the top of the wall, but attempting not to kill the vines on the homeowner's side. If a homeowner requests that the City's vines be removed from the homeowner's side, remove them by pulling the vines from the homeowner's side to the City side and trimming off the excess. (f) In addition to trimming vines at the top of the wall, vines shall also be trimmed along the bottom of the wall as often as is required to prevent them from encroaching into and damaging irrigation, groundcover, hardscapes, trees, shrubs, trails, and sidewalks. (g) The Contractor will not remove any vines from the homeowner's side without the homeowner's permission. (h) The Contractor will reattach to a wall any vines that fall off a wall by using the attachments detailed on the construction plans for the site. 900-28 TREE MAINTENANCE (a) All trees in the work site shall be maintained in their natural shapes. Work shall be accomplished in a manner which will ensure that each individual tree is carefully pruned as described in Appendix A, Pruning Standards, to promote the health and appearance of the tree. All work shall be of the highest quality, performed in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture's (ISA) tree pruning standards. The Contractor shall be responsible for all tree pruning on each of the sites. Tree pruning includes (but is not limited to) dead, diseased, dying, damaged, and deformed limbs and branches. All major pruning operations shall not begin until reviewed with the Public Works Services Director or his representative. (b) Low branches overhanging park and paseo maintenance driveways and all streets shall be raised to a height of thirteen (13) feet above street grade. Low branches overhanging sidewalks and parkways shall be raised to a height of nine (9) feet above grade. Tree branches overhanging equestrian trails shall be raised to a height of ten (10) feet. (c) Young trees that need training shall be pruned on a continuing Page 127 SP-18 basis as needed. Under no circumstances will stripping of lower branches (raising up) of young trees be permitted. Lower branches shall be retained in a "tipped back" or pinched condition with as much foliage as possible to promote establishment, increased caliper, and a strong tapered trunk. If there are any doubts or questions, contract the Public Works Services Director or his representative. (d) Annual fertilization shall be applied in the fall to those trees requiring supplemental nutrients as determined by the City Representative. On all newly planted and unestablished trees (except for palms) Agriform 20-10-5 Plant Tablets (or approved equal) shall be applied as per the manufacturer's directions. Fertilization may require deep root fertilization or foliar applications to correct nutrient deficiencies. All Palms shall be fertilized in spring and fall with an approved Palm specific fertilizer. (e) The Contractor shall bring to the attention of the Public Works Services Director within twenty-four (24) hours any tree that shows signs of root heaving, leaning, having hanger limbs, or for any reason is a safety hazard. (f) The City shall bear all costs for the removal and replacement of dead or dying trees unless the need for removal was due to faulty maintenance or negligence. Faulty maintenance or negligence includes (but is not limited to) mower and string- trimmer damage. The Contractor, as determined by The Public Works Services Director, shall replace trees requiring replacement due to faulty maintenance or negligence. Replacement shall be made by the Contractor in the kind and size of trees as determined by the Public Works Services Director. Where there is a difference in value between the trees lost and the replacement of trees, this difference will be deducted from the contract payment. In all cases, the value of the trees lost will be determined by the Public Works Services Director using the latest edition of ISA’s “Guide for Plant Appraisal” written by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. (g) All trees requiring staking shall be securely staked at all times with two approved stakes set perpendicular to prevailing NE winds and secured to the stakes with at least two flexible ties and approved by the Public Works Services Director. The ties and stakes shall be inspected regularly to ensure against girdling and abrasion. Stakes shall not be Page 128 SP-19 allowed to touch the trunk or any major lateral branches. Therefore, reducing the height of the stakes may be required to prevent damage. Stakes shall be removed as soon as it is determined that a tree can stand on its own without support. Should 36-inch box or larger sized trees need guying, the cost shall be paid by the City. (h) Except for irrigation, debris removal, and fall and spring fertilization, the City shall perform all maintenance on palm trees within the worksite. (i) Any major tree pruning operations performed by the contractor shall be recorded on a written report and submitted monthly to the Public Works Services Director. The report shall include tree species, DBH, location, year & date, and type of work performed. The report shall be written and submitted in an Excel spreadsheet format. 900-29 IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE 900-29.1 General (a) Irrigation shall be done by the use of automatic sprinkler systems where available and operable. However, failure of an existing irrigation system to provide full and proper coverage shall not relieve the Contractor of the responsibility to provide adequate irrigation with full and proper coverage to all areas within the work site. Providing full and adequate coverage may require hand watering, a station master, a battery backup, or a water tender. This type of watering may be billed as an extra on a case by case basis depending upon the circumstances. Failure to comply with this specification resulting in loss of plant material will be subject to section 911 of this contract. Calsense field controllers are installed for scheduling. The Calsense field controllers communicate with a Calsense Central computer to receive daily evapo-transpiration data from the Central. (b) The irrigation schedule for each controller will be set by the City’s Water Management Team along with regular input from the contractor's landscape water manager. The elements of the schedule to be set by City Staff are: days of the Page 129 SP-20 week to irrigate, start times, finish times, minutes per cycle, soak in times, percentage of daily evapo-transpiration per station and assignment of stations to programs. These settings will be done within the guidelines established by the City. (c)The Contractor shall turn off all controllers, except those that communicate with the Calsense Central, when it is unnecessary to irrigate due to adequate rainfall. “Turning off” includes removing any manual programs that are scheduled. (d)The Contractor will be expected to use the absolute minimum amounts of water in all areas required to maintain healthy plant growth. With regular contractor input, the Water Management Team will adjust the percentages of evapo- transpiration for each station on the field Calsense controller to ensure that the zone covered by each station is not too dry or too wet. (e)The Contractor shall periodically inspect the operation of the systems for any malfunction. The Contractor shall maintain all sprinkler systems, at no cost to the City, in such a way as to: guarantee proper coverage and full working capability; and make whatever adjustments may be necessary (including raising the sprinkler heads to the proper height) in order to provide proper irrigation to plants and to prevent excessive runoff into street right-of-ways or other areas not meant to be irrigated. (f)The periodic inspections may occur more often, but not less frequently than one inspection each week. No watering shall be done during the day unless approved by the Public Works Services Director. The Contractor must provide personnel to observe any irrigation system operations during the day. (g)Sprinkler heads will be kept clear of overgrowth that may obstruct operation. Chemical edging with herbicides around turf heads will not be permitted. However, an approved plant growth regulator may be used. (h)Any damages to public or private property resulting from excessive irrigation water or irrigation water runoff shall be charged against the contract payment unless immediate repairs are made by the Contractor to the satisfaction of the Page 130 SP-21 Public Works Services Director. (i) The Calsense Central computer will be operated by City employees. The Calsense field controllers communicate alerts to the Calsense Central. Once the web-based Calsense “Command Center On-Line” is up and running, the contractor will be expected to retrieve their own alerts five days per week, and all irrigators will be required to have hand-held devices that can communicate with these controllers to bring up alert data and operate stations remotely. Until the transition to web-based controllers is complete, the contractor will need to visit the Yard Monday through Thursday. On those days the contractor will be given daily alert reports generated by the Central. The alerts in many cases will be needed repairs or adjustments to systems in the field. Each day that City offices are open, the contractor shall send a representative to the City Corporate Yard to receive these reports. These reports are valuable for locating and identifying many irrigation issues but normally list only a small portion of the irrigation issues that are in the field. Responding to an alert is not a substitute for required routine irrigation inspections and repairs. Any irrigation repairs requested by the Public Works Services Director (including but not limited to alerts) are required to be expeditiously corrected within a reasonable amount of time. The Public Works Services Director will determine the reasonable amount of time, in which the contractor must adhere. The contractor is also required to train the irrigation technicians to a competent level in the use of the Calsense system. The Public Works Services Director will evaluate the competence of the technicians. Upon request of the contractor, the City may provide training concerning the Calsense system. (j) As needed or at least annually, all drip irrigation systems will be flushed out and filter screens cleaned or replaced. (k) As needed and at least annually for each point of connection incorporating a filter, the contractor will inspect, clean, and replace as required. 900-29.2 Shrub Beds & Planter areas Shrub beds and planter areas shall be irrigated as required, to maintain horticulturally acceptable growth and color, and to promote deep rooting. Irrigation rates for shrub and planter areas shall be applied in such a manner as to keep surface runoff at a Page 131 SP-22 minimum. The irrigation rates shall be adjusted to the needs of shrub types, seasons, and weather conditions. 900-29.3 Turf Areas Turf areas shall be irrigated as required in order to maintain acceptable growth and color. Turf areas shall be maintained using the least amount of water possible. These low water use specifications will cause some slight stress. However, the stress should be mild enough for the turf plants to recover quickly when irrigated. Irrigation shall be applied in such a manner as to reduce runoff yet provide deep watering in order to promote deep rooting and improved drought resistance. Failure of the contractor to address severe and on-going over-watering issues will be subject to a site deduction for the month. 900-29.4 New Plant Materials Newly planted trees, shrubs, ground cover and turf shall receive adequate and regular attention until these plants are established. Adequate water shall be applied to promote normal, healthy growth. Proper berms or basins shall be maintained during the establishment period. Routine supplemental deep watering either by quick coupler, water tender, or by the installation of a supplemental irrigation system will be required to avoid dead plant material as well as the prevention of overwatering established plants located on the same hydro-zone. 900-29.5 Repairs and Replacement Routine repairs to irrigation systems such as replacement of wiper seals, worn nozzles, heads and risers and other routine maintenance shall be borne by the Contractor. Replaced or newly installed irrigation heads shall be identical to the heads specified in the approved City Standard Plans unless otherwise specified by the Public Works Services Director or his representative. Further, any other irrigation work shall also conform to the current approved City Standard Plans. Any deviation from these plans is considered a variance and all variances shall be approved in writing by the Public Works Services Director or his representative prior to the commencement of any work. Costs of repairs to backflow preventers, pressure lines, valves, irrigation pumps and controllers shall be borne by the City and paid as extra work. Additionally, costs of repairs beyond the control of the Contractor such as vandalism, vehicular accidents, acts of nature, or other events not deemed contractor negligence shall also be paid by the City. Any irrigation repairs requested by the Public Page 132 SP-23 Works Services Director (including but not limited to alerts) are required to be expeditiously corrected within a reasonable amount of time. Irrigation work not completed in a reasonable amount of time could be considered non-responsive and may result in a deduction of the entire site for the month. The Public Works Services Director will determine the reasonable amount of time, in which the contractor must adhere. The City reserves the right to use other contractors or City staff to complete any work not performed by the contractor. Per section 900-4 of the special provisions in this contract, the City also reserves the right to deduct those costs from the routine billing for the month if the contractor is non-responsive to any emergency. 900-29.6 Landscape Water Manager/Auditor The Contractor is required to have a full-time employee on staff whose sole function for this contract will be Water Manager/Auditor. This person must be fluent in both English and Spanish, proficient in the use of the Calsense irrigation system, and possess or have the ability to acquire an I.A. or C.L.C.A. water auditor’s certificate within one year after the award of this contract. The Water Manager/Auditor will NOT perform repairs. Instead, he or she will report daily to the City’s Water Management Section in a combined effort to manage water use. Primary Responsibilities of the Contract Water Manager/Auditor INCLUDE: Providing regular daily input to the City’s Water Management Team regarding programming and adjustment of field controllers for maximum water savings. This includes input regarding schedules; cycle and soak times; run times; number of water days; setting up and managing special programs; managing hold-over times; and correcting precipitation rate data on each station. Regular probing of the soil to determine moisture requirements and adjusting the Calsense controller accordingly. Weekly monitoring of all locations to locate hot-spots, establish priorities, and to quickly address stressed and dying plant materials in the landscape. Providing water audit reports when requested. Assisting field crews by performing supplemental irrigation checks and issuing work orders as needed. Providing recommendations to the PWSD for irrigation design upgrades. Training contract field crews in English and/or Spanish in basic water management and providing effective communication Page 133 SP-24 between these crews and the City. Immediately after the Award of Contract, the Contractor shall provide the Water Manager/Auditor with one each Calsense Model RRe-TRAN and RR-TRAN Radio Remote Controls. 900-30 PEST CONTROL (a) The Contractor shall provide complete and continuous control and/or eradication of all plant pests and weeds. Pests include, but are not limited to, insects, mites, other invertebrates, pathogens, nematodes, and vertebrates. Pests may be controlled by mechanical means as well as with chemicals. Chemical controls may include plant growth regulators. (b) Annually at the time of contract renewal, the Contractor shall submit a list for approval by the Public Works Services Director of all chemical pesticides proposed for use under this contract. Attached to the list will be the current label and safety data sheet (SDS), for each chemical on the list. Additionally, any changes or updates made to this list shall be supplied to the Public Works Services Director as they are made. Materials included on this list shall be limited to chemicals approved for use by the State of California Department of Food and Agriculture. No chemical pesticide shall be applied until its use is approved in writing by the Public Works Services Director as appropriate for the proposed purpose. The application of chemicals shall conform to the current California Department of Food and Agriculture regulations. (c) Use of all E.P.A. registered pesticides must be preceded by notification to the Public Works Services Director a minimum of one week prior to the planned application date. The notification must be in writing and shall include the pest control advisor's written recommendation and State of California Agriculture Pest Control Advisor License number. A permit from the County Agricultural Commissioner's office to apply any restricted use pesticide must be obtained, and a notice of intent shall be filed at least forty-eight (48) hours before applications with the San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner's office as per State and County guidelines. (d) Only the safest, lowest odor and most environmentally Page 134 SP-25 friendly pesticides shall be used whenever possible. In addition, integrated pest management techniques shall also be used whenever possible; e.g., use of approved biological, mechanical, or exclusionary control methods. (e) The Contractor shall select and supply proper materials and licensed personnel and obtain any necessary permits, licenses, registrations, and pest control advisor recommendations, to comply with City, County, State or Federal regulations and laws. Copies of all County and State licenses, registrations, and permits required shall be supplied to the Public Works Services Director on an annual basis. The contractor will assume responsibility and liability for the use of all chemicals and their applications. (f) Spray pattern indicators or dye markers shall not be used anywhere within this contract without the expressed written consent of the Public Works Services Director. (g) The Contractor's applicator shall hold a valid Qualified Applicator License or a Certified Commercial Applicator Certificate, issued by the State of California Department of Food and Agriculture, and be certified, or licensed, in at least Categories B and C. The Contractor must supply the City with a photocopy of the License or Certificate. If subcontractors are used for any pesticide applications, photocopies of their License or Certificate, County Registration and City Business License must be provided. (h) Pest control advisor recommendations shall be written for all types of chemical applications made in City parks or rights- of-way. Recommendations shall be written on forms approved by the San Bernardino County Agricultural Commissioner and a copy shall be provided to the Public Works Services Director prior to the application for his approval. All recommendations shall follow the guidelines set forth by the State and County Departments of Food and Agriculture, regarding pest control advisor recommendations. Pest control recommendations are registered by the County for one calendar year in January. Therefore, updated recommendations shall be submitted every January. (i) Pesticide application records shall be kept on forms identical to the format provided in Schedule II. A copy of each application form shall be provided to the City at the time of monthly invoicing. Page 135 SP-26 (j) Additionally, and prior to bid acceptance or contract renewal, the contractor shall provide to the Public Works Services Director a schedule outlining a written annual integrated pest management plan describing what products and/or alternative methods of pest control that will be scheduled each month. This monthly information shall include: The target pest (gophers, grassy weeds, broadleaf weeds, shrub growth, insects, etc.) The type of control method to be used (mechanical, chemical, cultural) Where the method of control will be used (turf, hardscape, groundcover, mulchscape) The name of the product to be used (Roundup Pro, Dimension, Ronstar, etc.) The type of product to be used (Pre-emergent, PGR, insecticide, rodenticide, etc.) The application rate to be used (lbs. or ozs. per acre or per 1000 sq. ft.) 900-31 DRAINS The Contractor shall be responsible for periodic inspections of surface and under sidewalk drains located within the landscaped areas. These drains shall be inspected during, prior to, and following any rain event. Any debris or vegetation that could block the flow of water will require prompt removal. 900-32 CLEAN-UP (a) At no time will the Contractor blow grass cuttings/debris into public streets, trails, or gutters without promptly removing the cuttings and/or debris and disposing of it legally, off site. (b) Unless a chipper is used as described below in section 901- 6(d), the Contractor shall remove all debris resulting from the maintenance operations and dispose of it off-site. All grass or other clippings shall be picked up after each mowing or trimming operation. (c) All debris resulting from any of the Contractor's operations shall be removed and disposed of legally at the Contractor's expense. No debris will be allowed to remain at the end of Page 136 SP-27 the work day. (d) In an effort to improve the fertility of planter beds, save water, reduce weeds, reduce the amount of green waste in the landfill, lower soil pH, and improve efficiency, the contractor may be required in many instances to utilize a chipper to mulch brush clippings back into the landscape planter from where the clippings had originated. The contractor will be required to have a trained chipper operator on staff at all times to accommodate this request at no additional cost to the City. This chipper program will be used wherever and whenever it is practical and will be utilized primarily wherever there are larger planter beds that are not wood-chipped. Only clippings from shrubs and trees will be allowed. Grass clippings, leaves, palm fronds, trash and weeds shall not be included in this program. The contractor shall have a commercial brush chipper available at all times at no additional cost to the City. (e) All walkways will be kept clean/clear of debris and weed growth. Care shall be taken not to create unnecessary hazards to the public. (f) Any paper, litter or debris that accumulates within the work site will be picked up weekly (or whenever the debris presents a hazard) and legally disposed of offsite. Any illegal dumping within the work site will be reported to the Public Works Services Director or his representative. 900-33 SECTION 921 PLANTER WOOD CHIP MAINTENANCE (a) The Contractor shall be responsible for maintaining a wood chip depth of no less than three (3) inches in any area that is currently wood chipped. Areas currently wood chipped shall be determined by the existence of wood chips from 4” in depth to only a few remaining particles due to decomposition and/or removal of the original material by maintenance personal. Areas where no visible wood chips exist are not required to be wood chipped. To maintain the three inches of wood chips, the Contractor must replace the material each year. May is the optimum time to add this material however, this project can be performed at any time of the year. (b) The approved material shall be wood chips, weed free, with no excessive visible amounts of other materials. Prior to Page 137 SP-28 placement, a sample must be submitted to the Public Works Services Director or his representative for approval. 900-34 HARDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Hardscape is all masonry or rock materials on a site from the edge of the asphalt/curb and gutter to the tract wall – the edge of the asphalt/curb and gutter shall include the void between the asphalt and the concrete. Hardscape includes features within the landscape such as curbs; mow curbs, cobblestones, concrete pavers and concrete flowlines and sidewalks. All hardscape is to be maintained within the landscape site (including sidewalks) on a weekly basis. Weekly maintenance shall include keeping the hardscape clean, debris- and weed free by using whatever approved methods are necessary. Graffiti removal is not required, but known instances of graffiti shall be reported immediately to the City Graffiti Hotline at 909-481-7999. Also, any spills, stains or damage on the hardscape shall be reported to the Public Works Services Director or his representative. This contract may or may not have hardscapes listed separately on a site inventory, or paid separately from the turf and groundcover areas. In either case, all hardscapes shall be maintained to specification as part of the landscape maintenance contract. 900-35 TRAIL MAINTENANCE Many sites within the LMD's will have trails. Trails are defined as any PVC fencing and/or headers delineating one or both sides of a decomposed granite (DG) surface and the decomposed granite itself. The City will be responsible for all trail maintenance within the sites except for: excessive irrigation runoff and encroaching plant material from contractor maintained landscapes; debris caused by landscape maintenance; eroded mulch and soil from contractor maintained sites, broken PVC fencing caused by Contractor negligence; and, any other trail maintenance problem caused by Contractor negligence. 900-36 MULCHSCAPE MAINTENANCE “Mulchscape” refers to formerly landscaped areas that have been renovated and removed from regular contract maintenance. These areas will be covered with a layer of composted mulch and/or wood chips, and use little or no water. Any trees growing within the mulchscaped sites will remain after conversion. Additionally, some low-maintenance shrubs and groundcover may remain whenever practical. Any maintenance on remaining groundcover or shrubs within the mulchscaped areas will may be billed as extra work. Page 138 SP-29 Conversion of existing sites from landscape to mulchscape may be performed by either in-house City crews or by the maintenance contractor as extra work. Maintenance of these areas will include the following: 900-36.1 Tree Maintenance within Mulchscaped Sites Tree maintenance specifications are the same for all turf and groundcover sites. Specifications are in Section 901-3, Appendix “A” and Schedule III of this contract. 900-36.2 Vertebrate Pest & Weed Control Vertebrate pests are to be reported to the Public Works Services Director or his representative. The Contractor shall schedule weed removal in: early spring and early fall immediately followed by an approved granular pre-emergent herbicide broadcasted at recommended label rates. Any weeds encroaching onto private property, sidewalks, trails, drainage improvements and roadways shall be trimmed or removed on a continuous basis. 900-36.3 Irrigation Maintenance Since irrigation may either be capped or completely shut-off in mulchscaped areas, any irrigation maintenance required will be billed as extra work. All irrigation extra work in these areas must be pre-approved by the Public Works Services Director or his representative. 900-36.4 Trash and Litter All mulchscaped areas are to be maintained for trash and excessive accumulated debris, including but not limited to, leaves, twigs, pine needles, branches and other landscape debris every other week or as required, but no less than every other week, using whatever means necessary. 900-36.5 Composted Mulch or Wood Chip Replacement Mulchscaped areas will be consistently maintained to present a neat and clean appearance. Annually, and preferably in May of each year, composted mulch and/or wood chips will be added to all mulchscaped areas as required to restore the depth of the material to three inches throughout each designated mulchscape site. Submittals are required for approval by the Public Works Services Director or his representative on all materials prior to Page 139 SP-30 installation. 900-36.6 Hardscape in Mulchscaped Areas All hardscape within mulchscaped areas shall be maintained in compliance with Section 922 – Hardscape Maintenance. In addition, any utility box or irrigation boxes shall be kept free of any mulch or soil erosion. 900-36.7 Trails Any erosion of mulch onto a trail shall be removed on a bi- weekly basis. 900-37 TRASH RECEPTACLE MAINTENANCE Currently, there are no trash cans to maintain on this contract. However, a very small number of trash cans could be added in the future to certain sites in response to community requests. The trash cans along the Pacific Electric Trail are maintained under a separate contract and will not be included herein. In the event trash cans are added, the specifications will be: the bags will be collected once per week and replaced with new bags. These bags shall be provided by the contractor. 900-38 STORM DEBRIS CLEANUP (a) The City of Rancho Cucamonga is subject to frequent wind, rain and other types of storms. The storms cause an accumulation of debris on the contracted sites. The debris includes such items as downed trees, limbs, leaves, tumbleweeds, trash and soil deposits. Because it is impractical to perform routine maintenance operations during and immediately following these storms, the Contractor shall promptly remove the debris such that routine maintenance operations are practical. Because the Contractor is removing debris in lieu of routine maintenance, the removal is at no extra charge to the City. In the case of an excessive accumulation of debris that is attributable to another agency, such as blown sand from a recently graded site, the City will take action to have the responsible agency remove the debris. The cost for replanting new plant material to replace storm damaged plant material that cannot be repaired will be an extra. (b) Emergency Storm Work Documentation and Tracking: Page 140 SP-31 All costs borne by the City for emergency storm clean-up work may be subject to re-imbursement through government disaster funds. In the event of an emergency, the City could easily be eligible for Federal, State, or local funds and therefore all costs that are storm related including labor, rentals and materials that are charged to the City shall be recorded and billed separately and labeled/dated as emergency related. In addition, since labor will be shifted away from routine work, all of the shifted routine labor shall be tracked and recorded as emergency related since emergency labor may also be reimbursable. Once the contractor returns to normal operations, the contractor will be required to send a report outlining the shifted routine labor used during the emergency. Section 901 EXTRA WORK (a) Extra work may be required as a result of vandalism, accidents, or acts of nature. Further, work may be required in order to add new landscaping, or to delete or modify existing landscape. (b) Extra work will not be performed without prior approval by the Public Works Services Director unless a condition exists wherein it appears there is a danger of injury to persons or property. (c) Payment for extra work shall be in accordance with the hourly rates and unit prices in the Extra Work Schedule. The invoiced amount for material not listed in the schedule will be at the Contractor's cost including sales tax plus 15%; the 15% being for the Contractor's costs of overhead. (d) The City reserves the right to cause any extra work deemed necessary by the Public Works Services Director to be performed by City crews, other contractors, or day labor, at no cost to the Contractor. Page 141 Page 142 Appendix A, Page 1 APPENDIX A PRUNING STANDARDS PURPOSE: Trees and other woody plants respond in specific and predictable ways to pruning and other maintenance practices. Careful study of these responses has led to pruning practices which best preserve and enhance the beauty, structural integrity, and functional value of trees. To promote practices that encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, the Western Chapter, International Society of Arborists, Certification Committee has established the following Standards of Pruning for Certified Arborists. The Standards are presented as working guidelines, recognizing that trees are individually unique in form and structure, and that their pruning needs may not always fit strict rules. The Certified Arborist must take responsibility for special pruning practices that vary greatly from these Standards: I. PRUNING TECHNIQUES A. A thinning cut removes a branch at its point of attachment or shortens it to a lateral large enough to assume the terminal role. Thinning opens up a tree, reduces weight on heavy limbs, can reduce a tree's height, distributes ensuing invigoration throughout a tree and helps retain the natural shape of the tree. Thinning cuts are preferred in tree pruning. B. A heading cut removes a branch to a stub, a bud or a lateral branch not large enough to assume the terminal role. Heading cuts should seldom be used because vigorous, weakly attached upright sprouts are forced just below such cuts, and the tree's natural form is altered. In some situations, branch stubs die or produce only weak sprouts. C. When removing a live branch, pruning cuts should be made in branch tissue just outside the branch bark ridge and collar, which are trunk tissue. If no collar is visible, the angle of the cut should approximate the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and the trunk. Page 143 Appendix A, Page 2 D. When removing a dead branch, the final cut should be made outside the collar of live callus tissue. If the collar has grown out along the branch stub, only the dead stub should be removed, the live collar should remain intact and uninjured. E. When reducing the length of a branch or the height of a leader, the final cut should be made just beyond (without violating) the branch bark ridge of the branch being cut to. The cut should approximately bisect the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and an imaginary line perpendicular to the trunk or branch cut. F. A goal of structural pruning is to maintain the size of lateral branches to less than three-fourths the diameter of the parent branch or trunk. If the branch is co- dominant or close to the size of the parent branch, thin the branch's foliage by 15% to 25%, particularly near the terminal. Thin the parent branch less, if at all. This will allow the parent branch to grow at a faster rate, will reduce the weight of the lateral branch, slow its total growth, and develop a stronger branch attachment. If this does not appear appropriate, the branch may need to be shortened to a large lateral or be completely removed. G. On large-growing trees, except whorl-branching conifers, branches that are more than one-third the diameter of the trunk should be spaced along the trunk at least 18 inches apart, on center. If this is not possible because of the present size of the tree, such branches should have their foliage thinned 15% to 25%, particularly near their terminals and/or be shortened. H. Pruning cuts should be clean and smooth with the bark at the edge of the cut firmly attached to the wood. I. Large or heavy cut branches should be lowered on ropes or thrown clear to prevent injury to personnel, the tree, or other property. J. Wound dressings and tree paints have not been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing decay. They are therefore not recommended for routine use when pruning. II. TYPES OF PRUNING – MATURE TREES Page 144 Appendix A, Page 3 A. Crown Cleaning Crown cleaning or cleaning out is the removal of dead, dying, diseased, crowded, weakly attached and low-vigor branches and water sprouts from a tree crown. B. Crown thinning includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light and air stimulates and maintains interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength. Thinning reduces the wind-sail effect of the crown and the weight of heavy limbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, no more than 25% of the live foliage shall be removed. At least one-half of the foliage should be on branches that arise in the lower two-thirds of the trees to avoid excessive raising of the trees. When thinning laterals from a limb, an effort should be made to retain inner lateral branches in order to leave a balanced distribution of foliage along each lateral. Trees and branches so pruned will have stress more evenly distributed throughout the tree or along a branch. An effect known as "lion's-tailing" results from pruning out the inside lateral branches. Lion's-tailing, by removing all the inner foliage, displaces the weight to the ends of the branches and may result in sunburned branches, water sprouts, weakened branch structure and limb breakage. C. Crown Reduction Crown reduction is used to reduce the height and/or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining the structural integrity and natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to which a branch or trunk is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut to be made. D. Clearance Pruning Clearance pruning removes the lower branches of a tree Page 145 Appendix A, Page 4 in order to provide clearance for buildings, vehicles, pedestrians, and vistas. It is important that a tree have at least one-half of its foliage on branches that originate in the lower two-thirds of its height to ensure a well-formed, tapered structure and to uniformly distribute stress within the tree. When pruning for view, it is preferable to develop "windows" through the foliage of the tree, rather than to severely raise or reduce the crown. III. SIZE OF PRUNING CUTS Each of the Pruning Techniques (Section I) and types of Pruning (Section II) can be done to different levels of detail or refinement. The removal of many small branches rather than a few large branches will require more time, but will produce a less pruned appearance, will force fewer water sprouts and will help to maintain the vitality and structure of the tree. Designating the maximum size (base diameter) that any occasional undesirable branch may be left within the tree crown, such as ½", 1" or 2" branch diameter, will establish the degree of pruning desired. Page 146 Appendix B, Page 1 APPENDIX B Map of Landscape Maintenance Districts Boundaries and Site Locations It is the Bidders responsibility to visit all specified works sites on their own time. There will not be a scheduled job walk. Bidders must satisfy themselves by personal examination of the work site, plans, specifications, and other contract documents and by any other means as they may believe necessary, as to the actual physical conditions, requirements and difficulties under which the work must be performed. No bidder shall at any time after submission of a Bid make any claim or assertion that there was any misunderstanding or lack of information regarding the nature of or amount of work necessary for the satisfactory completion of the job. Any errors, omissions, or discrepancies found in the plans, specifications, or other contract documents shall be submitted to the attention the City’s Senior Buyer in order to be addressed in an addendum prior to the submission of Bids. Page 147 Page 148 Appendix C, Page 1 APPENDIX C – STORM WATER QUALITY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES Page 149 Appendix C, Page 2 Page 150 Appendix C, Page 3 Page 151 Appendix C, Page 4 Page 152 Appendix C, Page 5 Page 153 Page 154 Schedule I, Page 1 SCHEDULE I ANNUAL FERTILIZER SCHEDULE FOR TALL FESCUE TURF Service Level JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC A & B DIM DIM WIN CAL C DIM WIN Symbol Type of Fertilizer DIM 24‐3‐8 with 0.22% Dimension WIN 12‐8‐16 Winterizer CAL Calcium Nitrate FERTILIZER PROGRAM NOTES & ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES 24-3-8 Fertilizer with 0.22% Dimension – Applications will be split between February and May. To achieve maximum weed control and conform with EPA guidelines, apply 114 lbs. of fertilizer per acre in Feb, and then again in May at “A” and “B” levels. At “C” level apply full rate once in March. 12-8-16 & Calcium Nitrate – Apply at 1 lb. of actual N per 1000 square feet. *If turf areas require overseeding, a pre-plant fertilizer such as Simplot's 6-20-20 (or approved equal) shall be used at the rate of 16 lbs. per one thousand square feet. Page 155 Page 156 Schedule II, Page 1 SCHEDULE II PESTICIDE APPLICATION RECORD Applicator (Print Name) Date Name or Address of Treatment Site CHEMICAL INFORMATION Trade Name Manufacturer Compound Class: Fungicide Insecticide Herbicide Rodenticide Growth Regulator Formulation E.C. Flowable Wettable Powder Granular E.P.A. Registration Number Toxicity Rating (Signal Word) APPLICATION INFORMATION Type of Area Treated (Turf, Trees, Soil, etc.) Plant Species Target Pest Square Footage or Number of Plants Treated Application Method Check Safety Equipment Used Goggles Hat w/face shield Machine Speed Used mph rpm Rubber boots Rubber gloves Respirator Coveralls Nozzle Size or Spreader Setting Pressure Maintained Pump Boom Service Container Labeled Yes No Sample Label in possession Yes No Pesticide Rate (oz/lbs) per acre (oz/lbs) per 1,000 sq. ft. Pesticide to Water Ratio oz/lbs. per gallons of water Application Rate gallons per acre gallons per 1,000 sq. ft. Spray to Wet Total Amount of Final Mixture gallons water oz/lbs. pesticide Total Amount of Mixture Applied gallons Time of Day: start finish Clear Water Cycled Through Tank After Application or Applied to Target Yes No (Do not dump rinse water) Weather Conditions Temperature Wind (speed and direction) Public Safety Controls Other Comments As the applicator of the above-mentioned pesticide, I hereby certify that the information above is correct to the best of my knowledge. Signature date__________________ Page 157 Page 158 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS TURF MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 1 A LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall mow all turf areas once per week during the period of March 1 to November 1; and not less than biweekly during the period of November 2 to February 28. 2. The Contractor shall edge all turf grass borders including (but not limited to) valve boxes, mow curbs, sidewalks and tree wells concurrently with each mowing. In addition, an edger with a metal blade will be required for use on all turf grass borders at least once per month during the period of March 1 to November 1. 3. The Contractor shall fertilize all turf areas in accordance with Schedule I. 4. The Contractor shall mechanically aerate all turf areas both in the spring and the fall of each year and more often as required to reduce compaction and stress. 5. Annually, the Contractor shall mechanically dethatch all turf areas identified by the Public Works Services Director or his representative as requiring de-thatching. This operation should be scheduled immediately prior to overseeding for those areas that are to be overseeded. 6. Concurrently with each mowing, the Contractor shall apply growth regulator or mechanically "bowl" around all irrigation heads that are blocked by grass between mowings. 7. The Contractor shall on a weekly basis remove any trash and debris that accumulates on the turf. B LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall mow all turf areas once per week during the period of March 1 to November 1; and as required during the period November 2 to February 28. 2. The Contractor shall edge all turf grass borders including (but not limited to) valve boxes, mow curbs, sidewalks and tree wells concurrently with each mowing. In addition, an edger with a metal blade will be required for use on all turf grass borders at least bi-monthly during the period of March 1 to November 1. Page 159 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS TURF MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 2 3. The Contractor shall fertilize all turf areas in accordance with Schedule I. 4. The Contractor shall not be required to aerate or dethatch turf areas. 5. Concurrently with each mowing, the Contractor shall apply growth regulator or mechanically "bowl" around all irrigation heads that are blocked by grass between mowings. 6. The Contractor shall on a weekly basis remove any trash and debris that accumulates on the turf. C LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall mow all turf areas every other week throughout the year. An edger with a metal blade will not be required as part of the turf maintenance program at “C” level. 2. The Contractor shall edge all turf grass borders including (but not limited to) valve boxes, mow curbs, sidewalks and tree wells concurrently with each mowing 3. The Contractor shall fertilize all turf in accordance with C-Level on Schedule I. 4. The Contractor shall not be required to aerate or dethatch turf areas. 5. Concurrently with each mowing, the Contractor shall apply growth regulator or mechanically “bowl” around all irrigation heads that are blocked by grass between mowings. 6. The Contractor shall on a bi-weekly basis remove any trash and debris that accumulates on the turf. Page 160 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS MULCHSCAPE MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 3 A LEVEL 1. Mulchscaped areas will be consistently maintained on a weekly basis to present a neat and clean appearance free of trash and accumulated debris. 2. In May of each year, mulch will be added to all mulchscaped areas as required to restore the depth of mulch to three inches throughout each mulchscaped site. B LEVEL 1. Mulchscaped areas will be consistently maintained on a weekly basis to present a neat and clean appearance free of trash and accumulated debris. 2. In May of each year, mulch will be added to all mulchscaped areas as required to restore the depth of mulch to three inches throughout each mulchscaped site. C LEVEL 1. On a bi-weekly basis, mulchscaped areas will be maintained to present a neat and clean appearance free of trash and accumulated debris. 2. When specified by the Public Works Services Director, mulch shall be applied by the contractor to a depth of no less than three inches and billed as extra work. Page 161 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS HARDSCAPE MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 4 A LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall, on a weekly basis remove any weeds, trash and debris that accumulates on the hardscape. B LEVEL 1. The Contractor, shall on a bi- weekly basis, remove any weeds, trash and debris that accumulates on the hardscape. C LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall, on a bi-weekly basis, remove any weeds, trash and or debris that accumulates on the hardscape. Page 162 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS PEST CONTROL Schedule III, Page 5 Note: All pest control, including that for areas inventoried as turf, groundcover, hardscape, vines and shrubs shall be at the level for which turf is contracted. A LEVEL 1. Complete and continuous control and/or eradication of all Landscape pests and weeds. B LEVEL 1. Complete and continuous control and/or eradication of all Landscape pests and weeds. C LEVEL 1. Complete control and eradication of all Landscape pests and weeds within the landscape every 90 days or whenever the Public Works Services Director determines that a pest or weed problem has become a public health or safety hazard. Complete control of weeds shall include the use of pre-emergent herbicides broadcasted over the entire planter area, as well as post emergent herbicides spot- sprayed as required to achieve complete weed control. Complete weed control utilizing the proper selection and application of herbicides shall result in control lasting the entire length of the 90 day period. Page 163 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS GROUND COVER MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 6 A LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall trim ground cover adjacent to any hardscape, structure, fixture, plant, or other area into which it should not encroach such that a neatly trimmed appearance and hazard free condition is consistently maintained. 2. The Contractor shall on a weekly basis clean any accumulated debris and trash from all ground cover areas. 3. The Contractor shall fertilize all ground cover areas two times per year in the spring and fall with 15-15-15 or approved equal. 4. The Contractor shall annually, at the direction of the Public Works Services Director, mow, or otherwise lower, all ground cover to a height of three inches. 5. The Contractor shall mechanically "bowl" around all irrigation heads that are blocked by ground cover. B LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall on a monthly basis trim ground cover adjacent to any hardscape, structure, fixture, plant or other area into which it should not encroach. 2. The Contractor shall on a bi-weekly basis clean any accumulated debris and trash from all ground cover areas. 3. The Contractor shall fertilize all ground cover areas once per year in the spring with 15-15-15 or approved equal. 4. The Contractor shall at the direction of the Public Works Services Director, mow, or otherwise lower, all ground cover to a height of three inches. 5. The Contractor shall at the direction of the Public Works Services Director, edge any groundcover deemed a public safety hazard. 6. The Contractor shall mechanically "bowl", as often as is required, around all irrigation heads that are blocked by ground cover. Page 164 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS GROUND COVER MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 7 C LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall on a bi-monthly basis trim all ground cover adjacent to any hardscape, structure, fixture, plant or other area into which it should not encroach 2. The Contractor shall on a bi-weekly schedule clean any accumulated debris and trash from all ground cover areas. 3. The Contractor shall not be required to fertilize ground cover. 4. The Contractor shall at the direction of the Public Works Services Director, mow, or otherwise lower, to a height of three inches all ground cover that is a fire hazard. 5. The Contractor shall at the direction of the Public Works Services Director, edge any groundcover deemed a public safety hazard. 6. The Contractor shall mechanically or chemically "bowl" as often as is required around each irrigation head that is blocked by ground cover. Page 165 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS SHRUB MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 8 Note: Shrub maintenance will be at the service level for which ground cover maintenance is contracted. A LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall selectively prune all shrubs whenever required such that each shrub grows vigorously and healthily in its natural form without encroaching upon any adjacent area, improved street or sidewalk, or otherwise becomes a public hazard. Shearing on any “A” level plant material shall not be permitted without authorization from the PWSD director. 2. The Contractor shall fertilize all shrubs twice per year in the spring and fall using 15-15-15 with trace elements or approved equal. B LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall shear all shrubs as often as required such that each shrub is attractive and neat without encroaching upon any adjacent improved area, street or sidewalk, or otherwise becoming a public hazard. Shearing shall be done in a manner to permit plants to grow in accordance with their natural growth characteristics. Shrubs shall not be individualized and/or sheared into “boxed,” “balled” or any other unnatural shapes. 2. The Contractor shall fertilize all shrubs once per year using 15- 15-15 with trace elements or approved equal. C LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall shear all shrubs two times per year in the spring and fall such that each shrub is attractive and neat without encroaching upon any adjacent improved area, street or sidewalk, or otherwise becoming a public hazard. Shearing shall be done in a manner to permit plants to grow in accordance with their natural growth characteristics. Shrubs shall not be individualized and/or sheared into “boxed,” “balled” or any other unnatural shapes. 2. The Contractor shall not be required to fertilize shrubs at “C” level. Page 166 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS VINE MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 9 Note: Vine maintenance will be at the service level for which ground cover is contracted. A LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall trim vines as often as required such that they consistently present a neat appearance. 2. The Contractor shall immediately re-attach to a wall any vines that fall off a wall or fence by using the attachments required on the construction plans for the site. 3. The Contractor shall ensure that no vines grow into undesirable places such as groundcover, hardscapes, trees or shrubs. B LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall trim vines twice per year in March and September. 2. The Contractor shall immediately re-attach to a wall or fence any vines that fall off a wall by using the attachments required on the construction plans for the site. 3. The Contractor shall twice per year remove vines that grow into undesirable places such as groundcover, hardscapes, trees or shrubs. C LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall trim vines once per year in September. 2. The Contractor shall re-attach to a wall or fence once per year in September vines that fall off the wall by using the attachments required on the construction plans for the site. 3. The Contractor shall annually, in September, remove all vines that grow into undesirable places such as groundcover, hardscapes, trees or shrubs. Page 167 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS TREE MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 10 Note: Although trees are planted in both turf and ground cover areas within the City, trees will be maintained at the service level for which ground cover maintenance is contracted. A LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall maintain all trees on the work sites in their natural shapes; healthy, disease and pest free; vigorously growing; and safe including vehicle, pedestrian and equestrian clearance; and free of dead, diseased or dying wood and "hangers" or any other public hazard - including wind hazards. 2. Low branches overhanging park and paseo maintenance driveways and all streets shall be raised to a height of thirteen (13) feet above street grade. Low branches overhanging sidewalks and parkways shall be raised to a height of nine (9) feet above grade. Tree branches overhanging equestrian trails shall be raised to a height of ten (10) feet. 3. Low hanging tree branches shall be trimmed as required as to not encroach onto shrubs and surrounding plant materials as well as provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. 4. The Contractor shall maintain young trees in a "tipped-back", not stripped, condition. 5. The Contractor shall maintain the staking for each tree requiring staking in accordance with the current City tree planting standard. B LEVEL 1. Low branches overhanging park and paseo maintenance driveways and all streets shall be raised to a height of thirteen (13) feet above street grade. Low branches overhanging sidewalks and parkways shall be raised to a height of nine (9) feet above grade. Tree branches overhanging equestrian trails shall be raised to a height of ten (10) feet. 2. Low hanging tree branches shall be trimmed as required as to not encroach onto shrubs and surrounding plant materials as well as provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. Page 168 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS TREE MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 11 3. The Contractor shall maintain young trees in a "tipped-back", not stripped, condition. 4. The Contractor shall maintain the staking for each tree requiring staking in accordance with the current City tree planting standard. 5. All tree hazards that are beyond the scope of the specifications of this contract shall be immediately reported to the Public Works Service Director or his representative. C LEVEL 1. Low branches overhanging park and paseo maintenance driveways and all streets shall be raised to a height of thirteen (13) feet above street grade. Low branches overhanging sidewalks and parkways shall be raised to a height of nine (9) feet above grade. Tree branches overhanging equestrian trails shall be raised to a height of ten (10) feet. 2. Low hanging tree branches shall be trimmed in September as to not encroach onto shrubs and surrounding plant materials as well as provide an aesthetically pleasing appearance. 3. All tree hazards that are beyond the scope of the specifications of this contract shall be immediately reported to the Public Works Service Director or his representative. Page 169 SCHEDULE III SERVICE LEVEL DESCRIPTIONS DECOMPOSED GRANITE (DG) MAINTENANCE Schedule III, Page 12 A LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall on a weekly basis remove any accumulated debris and trash from all non-trail DG areas. 2. Surface repairs including the off-site removal and disposal of eroded and/or contaminated DG materials shall be complete and continuous as required. B LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall on a bi-weekly basis clean any accumulated debris and trash from all non-trail DG areas. 2. Surface repairs shall be performed in May when the rainy season has ended, or when it has been determined by the Public Works Services Director (or his agent) that there is an immediate safety hazard. The off-site removal and disposal of eroded DG materials shall be complete and continuous as required. C LEVEL 1. The Contractor shall on a bi-weekly basis clean any accumulated debris and trash from all non-trail DG areas. 2. With the exception of eroded materials, surface repairs will be completed by City crews. The off-site removal and disposal of eroded DG materials shall be performed by the contractor completely and continuously as required. Page 170 SCHEDULE IV SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 6R PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule IV, Page 1 Site # Descriptive Locations CC-1 The south side of Banyan St. from 1290 feet west of Milliken to Milliken. The west side of Milliken & median from Banyan St. to 292 south of Vintage Dr. Ground cover area: 96,892 square feet Turf area: 17,945 square feet Hardscape area: 13,944 square feet CC-3 The paseo on the west side of Morning Pl. from Morning Pl. to Deer Creek Channel. Ground cover area: 2,801 square feet Turf area: 124 square feet Hardscape area: 4,609 square feet CC-4 The west side of Morning Pl., from Banyan St. to Starview Pl. The north side of Starview Pl., from Morning Pl. to Star View Ct. Ground cover area: 14,273 square feet Turf area: 5,513 square feet Hardscape area: 5,000 square feet CC-5 Silver Sun paseo from the end of Silver Sun cul-de-sac to Deer Creek Channel. Ground cover area: 25,890 square feet Turf area: 12,084 square feet Hardscape area: 1,350 square feet CC-6 The east and west side of Netherlands View Loop from Vintage Dr. to Vintage Dr. The Netherlands View Loop paseo from Netherlands View Loop to Mt Sterling Ct. Ground cover area: 88,902 square feet Turf area: 676 square feet Hardscape area: 23,650 square feet CC-7 The east and west side of Hillview Loop from Mt. Rainer Ct. to Kettle Peak. Ground cover area: 14,930 square feet Turf area: 6,318 square feet Hardscape area: 12,236 square feet Page 171 SCHEDULE IV SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 6R PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule IV, Page 2 Site # Descriptive Locations CC-8 The paseo from Hillview Loop to Vintage Dr. Ground cover area: 42,107 square feet Turf area: 22,752 square feet Hardscape area: 4,089 square feet CC-9 The south side of Vintage Dr. from 250 feet west of Hillview Loop to Hillview Loop. The west side of Hillview Loop from Vintage Dr. to Kettle Peak. The west side of Kettle Peak from Hillview Loop to Donner Pass Ct. The east side of Hillview Loop from Kettle Peak to Tioga Peak. Ground cover area: 47,334 square feet Turf area: 4,954 square feet Hardscape area: 9,088 square feet CC-10 The east side of Terrace View Loop from Vintage Dr. to Butler Peak. The west side of Terrace View Loop from Rainbow Falls Ct. to Vintage Dr. Ground cover area: 24,603 square feet Hardscape area: 10,760 square feet CC-11 The paseo from Caryn School to Banyan St. The south side of Banyan St. from the paseo to Rochester Ave. The east and west side of Mt. Baldy Ct. from Banyan St. to Sierra Crest View Loop. The north side of Sierra Crest View Loop from Hilltop Ct. to Woodland Ct. Ground cover area: 47,507 square feet Turf area: 7,810 square feet Hardscape area: 7,825 square feet CC-12 The Separation Paseo from Vintage Dr. to Pinnacle Peak. Ground cover area: 50,325 square feet Turf area: 15,021 square feet Hardscape area: 7,675 square feet Page 172 SCHEDULE IV SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 6R PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule IV, Page 3 Site # Descriptive Locations CC-13 The east side of Hillview Loop from Tioga Peak Ct. to Vintage Dr. The south side of Vintage Dr. from Hillview Loop to Terrace View Loop. The north side of Vintage Dr. from Hillview Loop to Caryn School. The east side of Terrace View Loop from Vintage Dr. to Mt. San Antonio Ct. Ground cover area: 26,162 square feet Turf area: 4,508 square feet Hardscape area: 12,928 square feet CC-14 The east side of Sierra Crest View Loop from Mt. Waverly to Vintage Dr. The north side of Vintage Dr. from Sierra Crest View Loop to Sierra Crest View Loop. The east and west side of Sierra Crest View Loop from Vintage Dr. to Mt. Wilson Ct. The south side of Vintage Dr. from Netherlands View Loop to 330 feet west of Netherlands View Loop. Ground cover area: 73,250 square feet Turf area: 16,525 square feet Hardscape area: 9,885 square feet CC-15 The south side of Sierra Crest View Loop from Mt. Waverly Ct. to Mt. Cambridge Ct. The north side of Sierra Crest View Loop from Mt. Cambridge Ct. to Woodland Ct. The north side of Sierra Crest View Loop from Hilltop Ct. to Caryn School. The Sierra Crest View Loop paseo from Sierra Crest View Loop to Mt. Sherman Ct. Ground cover area: 70,990 square feet Turf area: 7,699 square feet Hardscape area: 20,055 square feet CC-16 The south side of Vintage Dr. from Netherlands View Loop to Rochester Ave. The north side of Vintage Dr. from Rochester Ave. to Sierra Crest View Loop. The east and west side of Sierra Crest View Loop from Mt. Wilson Ct. to Mt. Cambridge Ct. The Netherlands View Loop Paseo from Vintage Dr. to Mt. Sterling Ct. Ground cover area: 77,202 square feet Turf area: 3,954 square feet Hardscape area: 18,195 square feet CC-17 The east side of Milliken Ave. from Vintage Dr. to Banyan St. Ground cover area: 13,740 square feet Turf area: 9,088 square feet Hardscape area: 6,460 square feet Page 173 SCHEDULE IV SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 6R PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule IV, Page 4 Site # Descriptive Locations CC-18 The north side of Vintage Dr. from Milliken Ave. to Hillview Loop. The south side of Vintage Dr. from 104 feet west of Hillview Loop to Milliken Ave. Ground cover area: 32,287 square feet Turf area: 3,889 square feet Hardscape area: 11,188 square feet CC-19 The Terrace View Loop paseo from Vintage Dr. to Terrace View Loop. Ground cover area: 17,496 square feet Turf area: 15,617 square feet Hardscape area: 2,736 square feet CC-20 The east side of Terrace View Loop from Mt. San Antonio Ct. to El Capitan Ct. The west side of Terrace View Loop from Butler Peak Pl. to Mt San Antonio Ct. Ground cover area: 20,627 square feet Turf area: 20,017 square feet Hardscape area: 7,888 square feet CC-21 The west side of Rochester from Banyan to 317 feet south of Vintage Dr. Ground cover area: 31,292 square feet CC-22 The south side of Vintage Dr. from Terrace View Loop to Sierra Crest View Loop. The east and west side of Hillview Loop from Vintage Dr. to Mt. Rainer Ct. Ground cover area: 11,609 square feet Turf area: 3,763 square feet Hardscape area: 6,524 square feet CC-23 The south side of Banyan from Milliken to Butler Peak Pl. The west side of Butler Peak Pl. from Banyan St. to Terrace View Loop. The north side of Terrace View Loop from Butler Peak Pl. to Rainbow Falls Ct. Ground cover area: 12,132 square feet Hardscape area: 528 square feet Page 174 SCHEDULE IV SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 6R PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule IV, Page 5 Site # Descriptive Locations CC-24 The north side of Terrace View Loop from El Capitan Ct. to Butler Peak Pl. The east side of Butler Peak Pl. from Terrace View Loop to Banyan St. The south side of Banyan St. from Butler Peak Pl. to 990 feet east of Butler Peak Pl. Ground cover area: 14,452 square feet Hardscape area: 1,600 square feet CC-26 The east side of Rochester from 210 freeway to Vintage Dr. The north and south side of Vintage from to Rochester to Thunder Mountain Ct. The west side of Rochester from 317 feet south of Vintage Dr. to the 210 freeway. Ground cover area: 35,037 square feet Hardscape area: 19,779 square feet CC-27 The Milliken median and the westside of Milliken from 292 feet south of Vintage to 210 freeway. Ground cover area: 13,365 square feet Hardscape area: 12,300 square feet CC-28 The east side of Milliken from Vintage to the 210 freeway right- of- way. Ground cover area: 17,724 square feet Cobble area: 2,387 square feet Hardscape area: 5,810 square feet Total ground cover: 922,929 square feet Total turf: 178,257 square feet Total hardscape: 238,489 square feet Page 175 Page 176 SCHEDULE V SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 7 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule V, Page 1 Site # Descriptive Location EN-1 The north side of Wilson Ave. from San Sevaine Ave. to Ridgeline Pl. The east side of Ridgeline Pl. from Wilson Ave. to Arcadia Way. Ground cover area: 27,325 square feet Turf area: 19,334 square feet Hardscape area: 840 square feet EN-2 The Metropolitan Water District easement on the south side of Crescenta Way from San Marino Way to Ridgeline Pl. Ground cover area: 38,104 square feet Turf area: 41,250 square feet Hardscape area: 9,000 square feet EN-3 The Wilson Ave. median from Wardman Bullock Rd. to San Sevaine Ave. Ground cover area: 9,016 square feet Hardscape area: 11,088 square feet EN-4 The planters on the north side of the drainage easement that is between and parallel to Highland Ave. and Arapaho Rd. from Etiwanda Ave. east to the end. Ground cover area: 63,972 square feet EN-5 The south side of Wilson Ave. from 1,115 feet west of San Sevaine Ave. to 205 feet east of San Sevaine Ave. The east of San Sevaine Ave. from Wilson Ave. to Youngs Canyon Rd. Ground cover area: 45,584 square feet Turf area: 3,527 square feet EN-6 The north side of Wilson Ave. from Wardman Bullock Rd. to Ridgeline Pl. The west side of Ridgeline Pl. from Wilson Ave. to 120 feet north of Arcadia Way. Ground cover area: 29,226 square feet Turf area: 15,136 square feet Hardscape area: 1,300 square feet EN-7 The parkway on the east side of Wardman Bullock Rd. from Wilson Ave. to 857 feet north of Glendora Ct. The cobblestone between the tract wall and the flood wall. Ground cover area: 10,268 square feet Hardscape area: 31,549 square feet Page 177 SCHEDULE V SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 7 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule V, Page 2 Site # Descriptive Location EN-8 The south side of Crescenta Way from Ridgeline Pl. to Crestline Pl. Ground cover area: 50,305 square feet Turf area: 35,960 square feet Hardscape area: 10,000 square feet EN-9 The paseo from Meadow Brook Ct. to Rock Creek Rd. Ground cover area: 1,400 square feet Turf area: 6,555 square feet Hardscape area: 2,820 square feet EN-10 The paseo from Etiwanda Ave. to Pacific Crest Pl. The west side of Etiwanda Ave. from 175 feet north of North Rim Way to 171 feet south of Golden Prarie Dr. Ground cover area: 49,020 square feet Turf area: 4,445 square feet Hardscape area: 13,026 square feet EN-11 The paseo south of Ridge Crest Dr. to southern boundary of Tract 14139. Ground cover area: 3,548 square feet Turf area: 800 square feet Hardscape area: 4,280 square feet EN-12 The cul-de-sac on the north side of Ridgecrest Pl. at Etiwanda Creek Channel. Ground cover area: 1,870 square feet Turf area: 700 square feet Hardscape area: 450 square feet EN-13 The north side of Wilson Ave. from 574 feet west of Cherry Ave. to the channel east of San Sevaine Rd. The Wilson Ave. median from Cherry Ave. to San Sevaine Rd. The east side of San Sevaine Rd. from Wilson Ave. to 136 feet north of Crescenta Way. Ground cover area: 46,611 square feet Turf area: 5,037 square feet EN-14 The west side of San Sevaine Ave. from 150’ north of Wilson Ave. to 136’ north of Crescenta Way. Ground cover area: 55,166 square feet Turf area: 235 square feet Hardscape area: 6,975 square feet Page 178 SCHEDULE V SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 7 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule V, Page 3 Site # Descriptive Location EN-15 The north side of Youngs Canyon Rd. from 500 feet east of Koch Pl. to 692 feet west of Koch Pl. The south side of Youngs Canyon Rd. from 349 feet east of Koch Pl. to 692 feet west of Koch Pl. The east and west side of Koch Pl. from Youngs Canyon Rd to 132 feet north of Youngs Canyon Rd. The west side of Koch Pl. from Youngs Canyon Rd to 132 feet south of Youngs Canyon Rd. The east side of Koch Pl. from 82 feet south of Youngs Canyon Rd to Youngs Canyon Rd. The trail head north east of the east end of Youngs Canyon Rd to the south end of San Sevaine Horse Trail. The south end of San Sevaine Horse Trail from the trail head to 254 feet north of trail head. Ground cover area: 42,925 square feet Hardscape area: 14,308 square feet EN-16 The east side of Wardman Bullock Rd. from 225 feet south of San Segundo Dr. to 80 feet north of Dona Way. Ground cover area: 2,056 square feet Hardscape area: 3,450 square feet EN-17 The north side of Colonbero Rd. from San Sevaine Channel to Guidera Dr. The south side of Colonbero Rd. from San Sevaine Channel to 400 feet north of Guidera Dr. The north side of Aggazzotti Rd. from Colonbero Rd. to 475 feet east of Colonbero Rd. Ground cover area: 43,241 square feet Hardscape area: 29,125 square feet EN-18 The north side of Aggazzotti Rd from San Antonio Dr. to San Sevaine Rd. The west side of San Sevaine Rd. from Aggazzotti Rd. to 702 feet south of Aggazzotti Rd.. The east side of San Sevaine Rd. from 702 feet south of Aggazzotti Rd. to Regina. Ground cover area: 47,823 square feet Hardscape area: 30,986 square feet EN-19 The south side of Wilson Ave. from Etiwanda Ave. to Estates Way. Ground cover area: 45,727 square feet Hardscape area: 19,229 square feet EN-20 The south side or Wilson Ave. from Estates Way to Bluegrass Ave. Ground cover area: 85,155 square feet Hardscape area: 48,784 square feet Page 179 SCHEDULE V SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 7 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule V, Page 4 Site # Descriptive Location EN-21 The north side of Wilson Ave. from Etiwanda Ave. to Cervantes Pl. The Wilson Ave. median from Etiwanda Ave. to Cervantes Pl. The west side of Etiwanda Ave. from Wilson Ave. to Del Norte Pl. Ground cover area: 88,795 square feet Hardscape area: 27,128 square feet EN-22 The north and south side of Vintage Dr. from 165 feet east of Countrywood to 338 feet west of Countrywood. Ground cover area: 13,603 square feet Hardscape area: 7,365 square feet EN-23 The north side of Wilson and median from Etiwanda west to Etiwanda. The eastside of Etiwanda from Wilson to 1150 feet north of Wilson. Ground cover area: 32,027 square feet Hardscape area: 29,567 square feet EN-24 The north side of Vintage from 360 feet west of Ascot to 230 feet east of Countrywood. The south side of Vintage from Ascot Pl. to 500 feet east of CountryWood. Ground cover area: 34,707 square feet Hardscape area: 92,600 square feet EN-25 The east side of Bluegrass from Banyan to 610 feet north of Banyan. Ground cover area: 4,054 square feet Hardscape area: 5,819 square feet EN-26 The south side of Banyan from Bluegrass to Greenwood. Ground cover area: 6,240 square feet Hardscape area: 3,200 square feet EN-27 The south side of Banyan from Laurel Blossom to Etiwanda. Ground cover area: 1,703 square feet Hardscape area: 8,417 square feet Page 180 SCHEDULE V SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 7 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule V, Page 5 Site # Descriptive Location EN-28 The north side of Wilson from Cervantes to 1715 feet west of Cervantes. The westside of Cervantes from Carmel Knolls Drive to Wilson. The paseo from Wilson to Tejas Ct. The median on Wilson from Cervantes to Bluegrass. The following temporary landscape: There is 1 planter on the westside of Altura at Tejas. There are five planters on the southside of Tejas from Altura to 195 feet east of Altura. Ground cover area: 25,048 square feet Hardscape area: 22,532 square feet EN-29 The south side of Banyan from 787 feet west of East Ave. to East Ave. The west side of East Avenue from Banyan to 600 feet south of Blue Gum. The east side of East Ave. from Banyan to 537 feet south of Banyan. Ground cover area: 16,111 square feet Hardscape area: 15,774 square feet EN-30 The east side of Bluegrass Ave. from 257 feet south of Churchill Dr. to 418 feet north of Churchill Dr.. Ground cover area: 9,303 square feet Hardscape area: 5,302 square feet EN-31 The south side of Banyan Ave. from 375 feet south of Cashew Way to Rose Way. The north side of Banyan Ave. from 435 feet west of Peak Pl. to Wardman Bullock Rd. Ground cover area: 53,000 square feet Hardscape area: 26,855 square feet EN-32 The landscaping south of the equestrian trail from 210 feet west of Grovewood Pl. to 1,170 feet east of Grovewood Pl. Ground cover area: 6,900 square feet EN-33 The north side of Youngs Canyon Rd. from 600 feet east of Banyan Ave. to Banyan Ave. The east side of Wardman Bullock Rd. from Banyan Ave. to Wilson Ave. The south side of Wilson Ave. from Wardman Bullock Rd. to 635 feet east of Fields Pl. Ground cover area: 66,601 square feet Hardscape area: 46,332 square feet EN-34 The west side of Wardman Bullock from Wilson to Banyan. Parkview Way from Wardman Bullock to Soledad Way. The south side of Wilson from 640 feet west of Wardman Bullock to Wardman Bullock. Ground cover area: 67,021 square feet Hardscape area: 34,045 square feet Page 181 SCHEDULE V SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 7 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule V, Page 6 Site # Descriptive Location EN-35 The north side of Day Creek Blvd. from Etiwanda Ave. to Indian Wells Place. Ground cover area: 160,737 square feet Hardscape area: 128,254 square feet EN-36 The south side of Day Creek from 380 feet north of Coyote to Etiwanda. The west side of Etiwanda from Day Creek to 170 feet north of North Rim. The west side of Day Creek from 380 feet north of Coyote to Indian Wells. Ground cover area: 58,398 square feet Hardscape area: 68,127 square feet EN-37 The east side of East Ave. from 235 feet south of Hunt Club Dr. to 375 feet north of Hunt Club Dr. Ground cover area: 5,559 square feet Hardscape: 5,231 square feet EN-38 The west side of East Ave. from 236 feet north of Philly Dr. to 245 feet south of Philly Dr. Ground cover area: 4,605 square feet Hardscape area: 3,394 square feet EN-39 The south side of Banyan from Golden Lock Pl. to Raindrop Pl. Ground cover area: 6,024 square feet Hardscape area: 330 square feet EN-40 The west side of Wardman Bullock from Colonbero to Breeders Cup. The east side of Wardman Bullock from Colonbero to 385 feet south of Colonbero. Ground cover area: 28,527 square feet Hardscape area: 21,723 square feet EN-41 The north side of Colonbero from Wardman Bullock to Ambleside. The south side of Colonbero from 150 feet east of Wardman Bullock to Ambleside. The east side of Ambleside from Colonbero to 700 feet north of Colonbero. Ground cover area: 17,065 square feet Hardscape area: 12,990 square feet Page 182 SCHEDULE V SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 7 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule V, Page 7 Site # Descriptive Location EN-42 The west side of Wardman Bullock from 778 feet north of Coral Sky Dr. to Wilson. The north side of Wilson from Wardman Bullock to 218 feet west of Compass Pl. The east and west sides of Compass Pl. from Wilson to the entrance monuments. Ground cover area: 31,809 square feet Hardscape area: 34,321 square feet Total ground cover: 1,436,179 square feet Total turf: 132,979 square feet Total hardscape: 836,516 square feet Page 183 Page 184 SCHEDULE VI SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 8 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule VI, Page 1 Site # Descriptive Location SE-1 The east side of East Ave. from 480 feet south of Catalpa St. to 182 feet north of Catalpa St. excluding the frontage parkway at 6649 East Ave. The north and south side of Catalpa St. from East Ave. to Brownstone Pl. The west side of Brownstone Pl. from Catalpa St. to 150 feet south of Catalpa St. Ground cover area: 10,355 square feet Turf area: 6,258 square feet Hardscape area: 4,050 square feet SE-2 The south side of Fisher Dr. from 361 feet east of East Ave. to 210 feet east of Starstone Pl. Ground cover area: 9,366 square feet Hardscape area: 4,074 square feet SE-3 The south side of Fisher Dr. from 860 feet west of Mulberry St. to Mulberry St. Ground cover area: 3,676 square feet Hardscape area: 6,910 square feet Total ground cover: 23,397 square feet Total turf: 6,258 square feet Total hardscape: 15,034 square feet Page 185 Page 186 SCHEDULE VII SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 9 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule VII, Page 1 Site # Descriptive Location 9-1 The west side of East Ave. from 380 feet north of Chateau to 290 feet south of Chateau. Ground cover area: 7,244 square feet Hardscape area: 7,525 square feet 9-2 The west side of East Ave. from 339 feet north of Brookfield to 157 feet north of Brookfield. Brookfield from East Ave. to Oak Crest. The east side of Oak Crest to 137 feet north of Brookfield. Ground cover area: 2,390 square feet Hardscape area: 6,874 square feet 9-3 The west side of East Ave. from 790 feet north of Highfield to 256 feet south of Highfield. Ground cover area: 8,769 square feet Hardscape area: 10,669 square feet 9-4 The west side of East Ave. From 295 feet north of Via Veneto to Via Veneto. The north side of Via Veneto from East Ave to Dolcetto. The east side of Dolcetto from Via Veneto to Miller Ave. The south side of Miller Ave from 372 feet west of Dolcetto to 240 feet east of Dolcetto. The west side of Dolcetto from Miller to Garcia. The north side of Garcia from Dolcetto to Etiwanda Ave. Ground Cover area: 48,612 square feet Hardscape area: 28,746 square feet 9-5 The north side of Miller from 429 feet west of Dolcetto to 1029 feet west of Dolcetto Ground cover area: 6,519 square feet Hardscape area: 3,325 square feet 9-6 The north side of Miller from 254 feet east of Dolcetto to 167 feet west of Dolcetto. Ground cover area: 4,089 square feet Hardscape area: 2,854 square feet 9-8 The south side of Baseline from Etiwanda Ave. to Shelby. The Baseline median from Etiwanda to 473 feet east of Shelby. Ground cover area: 16,395 square feet Hardscape area: 14,558 square feet 9-9 The north side of Candlewood St. from Exbury St. to Etiwanda Ave. Ground cover area: 3,362 square feet Hardscape area: 786 square feet Page 187 SCHEDULE VII SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 9 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule VII, Page 2 Site # Descriptive Location 9-10 The north side of Baseline from 522 feet east of Forester to 180 feet west of Forester. The Baseline median from 503 feet east of Forester to 200 feet west of Forester. Ground cover area: 16,930 square feet Hardscape area: 13,600 square feet 9-11 The north side of Mueller Ct. from 40 feet past the east end of Mueller Ct. to 20 feet east of Dicarlo Pl. Ground cover area: 9,420 square feet Hardscape area: 742 square feet 9-12 The north and south sides of Highland Ave. from 217 feet west of Norcia Dr. to 210 feet east of Dicarlo Pl. Ground cover area: 12,471 square feet Hardscape area: 14,445 square feet 9-13 The south side of Carnesi Dr. from Etiwanda Ave. to 395 feet east of Murietta Ct. Ground cover area: 8,919 square feet Hardscape area: 6,203 square feet 9-14 The west side of East Ave. from 665 feet north of Miller to Miller. The north side of Miller from East Ave. to 667 feet west of East Ave. Ground cover area: 9,150 square feet Hardscape area: 16,226 square feet 9-15 The north side of Baseline Rd. from Shelby Pl. to 343 feet east of Shelby Pl. Ground cover area: 3,480 square feet Hardscape area: 4,638 square feet 9-16 The east side of Dolcetto Pl. from Garcia Dr. to Via Veneto Dr. The south side of Via Veneto Dr. from Dolcetto Pl. to East Av. The west side of East Ave. from Via Veneto Dr. to 276 feet south of Via Veneto Dr. Ground cover area: 16,310 square feet Hardscape area: 13,411 square feet 9-17 The east side of Etiwanda from 145 feet south of Miller to Miller. The south side of Miller from Etiwanda to Three Vines Pl. Ground cover area: 7,535 square feet Hardscape area: 6,130 square feet Page 188 SCHEDULE VII SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 9 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule VII, Page 3 Total ground cover: 181,595 square feet Total hardscape: 150,732 square feet Page 189 Page 190 SCHEDULE VIII SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 10 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule VIII, Page 1 Site # Descriptive Location 10-1 The west side of Day Creek from 790 feet north of Richfield to Wilson. The north side of Wilson from Day Creek to 227 feet west of Day Creek. Ground cover area: 16,941 square feet Hardscape area: 3,589 square feet 10-2 The north and south side of Wilson from 497 feet west of Alvarado to Day Creek. The south side of Wilson from Day Creek to Bluegrass. The Wilson median from Day Creek to Bluegrass. Ground cover area: 47,275 square feet Hardscape area: 6,444 square feet 10-3 The west side of Day Creek from Wilson to 144 feet south of Clydesdale. The Day Creek median from Wilson to Banyan. Ground cover area: 32,619 square feet Hardscape area: 10,983 square feet 10-4 The east side of Day Creek from 648 feet south of Keenland to Wilson. Ground cover area: 15,952 square feet Hardscape area: 4,365 square feet 10-5 The west side of Bluegrass from Wilson to 705 feet south of Challendon. Ground cover area: 26,882 square feet Hardscape area: 12,220 square feet 10-6 The south side of Banyan from Rochester to Day Creek. The north side of Banyan from 427 feet west of Rocking Horse to Rocking Horse. The west side of Day Creek from Banyan to Vintage. The north side of Vintage from Day Creek to Paseo ending 153 feet west of Sand Hill. Ground cover area: 44,000 square feet Hardscape area: 16,197 square feet 10-7 The north side of Vintage from 180 feet east of Taylor Canyon Place to Day Creek. The east side of Day Creek from Vintage to Banyan. The south side of Banyan from Day Creek to Bluegrass. Ground cover area: 22,164 square feet Hardscape area: 11,724 square feet Page 191 SCHEDULE VIII SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 10 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule VIII, Page 2 Site # Descriptive Location 10-8 The landscape against the south facing wall north of the 210 freeway from the top of the slope on the east side of Day Creek to 300 feet eastward. The Day Creek median from the 210 freeway to Vintage. The east side of Day Creek from the Caltrans R.O.W. to Vintage. The south side of Vintage from Day Creek to 180 feet east of Taylor Canyon. Ground cover area: 16,841 square feet Hardscape: 7,025 square feet 10-9 The north side of Coyote from Brookstone Place to Day Creek. The east side of Day Creek from Coyote to 358 feet north of Coyote. The west side of Day Creek from 118 feet north of Coyote to 380 feet north of Coyote. Ground cover area: 9,403 square feet Hardscape area: 6,052 square feet 10-10 The north side of Wilson from 395 feet east of Day Creek to Day Creek. The east side of Day Creek from Wilson to Blackstone. The south side of Blackstone from Day Creek to Stoneview. The north side of Blackstone from Day Creek to 165 feet west of Stoneview. Ground cover area: 26,304 square feet Hardscape area: 19,117 square feet 10-11 The west side of Day Creek from 340 feet north of Banyan to Banyan. The north side of Banyan from Day Creek to Rocking Horse. Ground cover area: 20,378 square feet Hardscape area: 11,212 square feet 10-12 The paseo on the east side of Stoneview Rd. across from Duncaster Pl. Ground cover area: 3,326 square feet Hardscape area: 2,374 square feet 10-13 The west side of Day Creek Blvd. from 340 feet south of Vintage Dr. to 915 feet south of Vintage Dr. Ground cover area: 27,416 square feet Hardscape area: 16,167 square feet 10-14 The south side of Vintage from Saddle Tree Dr. to Day Creek. The west side of Day Creek from Vintage to 325 feet south of Vintage. Ground cover area: 7,777 square feet Hardscape area: 8,101 square feet Page 192 SCHEDULE VIII SITE DESCRIPTIONS LMD 10 PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS Schedule VIII, Page 2 Total ground cover: 317,278 square feet Total hardscape: 135,570 square feet Page 193 Page 194 B-1 C O N T R A C T FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT: THAT as Principal, and , as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereinafter called City, in the just and full amount of (Written) $ (Figures) payment whereof we hereby bind ourselves, our heirs, executors administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. Given under our hands and sealed with our seal this day of , 20 . The condition of the foregoing obligation is such that, WHEREAS, the above-named principal is about to enter into a contract with the City, whereby said principal agrees to construct “LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE FOR GENERAL FUND, LMD 3A AND LMD 3B PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS” in accordance with the AGREEMENT dated , which said contract is hereby referred to and made a part hereof to the same extent as if the same were herein specifically set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, if the said principal shall well and truly do and perform all things agreed by the principal in said contract to be done and performed, then this obligation is to be void; otherwise it will remain in full force and effect; PROVIDED, that for value received the undersigned stipulate and agree that no amendment, change, extension of time, alteration or addition to said contract, or agreement, or of any feature or item or items of performance required therein or thereunder shall in any manner affect the obligations of the undersigned under this bond; and the surety does hereby waive notice of such amendment, limitation of time for bringing action on this bond by the City, change, extension of time, alteration or addition to said contract or agreement and of any feature or time of performance required therein or thereunder. WITNESS our hands this day of , 20 . By: Title: Surety: By: Individual Partnership Corporation Other, explain SIGNATURES OF CONTRACTOR MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE A NOTARY PUBLIC. PLEASE ATTACH APPROPRIATE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORMS (INDIVIDUAL, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION, ETC.). Page 195 B-2 Bond No. PAYMENT BOND (Labor and Materials) KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS that: WHEREAS the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA (name of City) (“City”) has awarded to (Name and address of Contractor) (“Principal”), a contract (the “Contract”) for the work described as follows: “LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE FOR GENERAL FUND, LMD 3A AND LMD 3B PARKWAYS, PASEOS AND MEDIANS” WHEREAS, Principal is required under the terms of the Contract and the California Civil Code to secure the payment of claims of laborers, mechanics, materialmen, and other persons as provided by law. NOW THEREFORE, we, the undersigned Principal, and (Name and address of Surety) (“Surety”) a duly admitted surety insurer under the laws of the State of California, as Surety, are held and firmly bound unto City in the penal sum of ($ ), this amount being not less than one hundred percent (100%) of the total contract price, in lawful money of the United States of America, for the payment of which sum well and truly to be made, we bind ourselves, our heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly by these presents. THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION IS SUCH THAT, if the hereby bounded Principal, his, her or its heirs, executors, administrators, successors or assigns, or subcontractors shall fail to pay any of the persons named in Section 9100 of the California Civil Code, or any amounts due under the Unemployment Insurance Code with respect to work or labor performed under the Contract, or for any amounts required to be deducted, withheld, and paid over to the Employment Development Department from the wages of employees of the Principal and subcontractors pursuant to Section 13020 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, with respect to work or labor performed under the Contract, the Surety will pay for the same in an amount not exceeding the penal sum specified in this bond; otherwise, this obligation shall become null and void. Page 196 B-3 Payment Bond (continued) This bond shall insure to the benefit of any of the persons named in Section 9100 of the California Civil Code so as to give a right of action to such persons or their assigns in any suit brought upon the bond. In case the suit is brought upon this bond, Surety further agrees to pay all court costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount fixed by the court. FURTHER, the Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that no change, extension of time, alteration, addition or modification to the terms of the Contract, or of the work to be performed thereunder, or the specifications for the same, shall in any way affect its obligations under this bond, and it does hereby waive notice of any such change, extension of time, alteration, addition, or modification to the terms of the Contract or to the work or to the specifications thereunder. Surety hereby waives the provisions of California Civil Code Sections 2845 and 2849. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two (2) identical counterparts of this instrument, each of which shall for all purposes be deemed an original hereof, have been duly executed by Principal and Surety, on the date set forth below, the name of each corporate party being hereto affixed and these presents duly signed by its undersigned representative(s) pursuant to authority of its governing body. Date: “Principal” “Surety” By: By: Its Its By: By: Its Its (Seal) (Seal) Note: This bond must be executed in duplicate and dated, all signatures must be notarized, and evidence of the authority of any person signing as attorney-in-fact must be attached. Page 197 ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! % ! ! " ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! " ! " ! % ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! % " % ! ! ! ! ! ! % ! ! !! % " ! ! ! §¨¦§¨¦§¨¦ §¨¦ §¨¦ Æñ Æa "¬! "¬! "¬! "¬! "¬! "¬! "¬! "¬! "¬! "¬! "¬!Haven AveSR-210Etiwanda AveMilliken AveRochester AveFoothill Blvd Base Line Rd Wilson Ave RANCHO CUCAMONGACENTRAL PARK RANCHO CUCAMONGAADULT SPORTSCOMPLEX QUAKES STADIUM ETIWANDA CREEKCOMMUNITY PARK KENYONPARK MILLIKENPARK VINTAGEPARK DAYCREEKPARK WINDROWSPARK ELLENAPARK RALPH M. LEWISPARK VICTORIAGROVESPARK GARCIA PARK MOUNTAINVIEW PARK WEST GREENWAYPARK COYOTECANYONPARK SPRUCE AVENUE PARK VICTORIA ARBORSPARK LEGACYPARK RANCHO SUMMITPARK OLIVE GROVE PARK DAY CREEK CHANNEL DEER CREEK CHANNEL ETIWANDA/SAN SEVAINE CHANNEL 15 15 210 210 210 SE3 9-6 9-8 9-9 SE1 EN2 SE2 9-2 EN8 CC5 CC8 9-1 EN5 CC7 EN4 EN3 9-3 9-5 CC1 9-4 CC3 CC1 CC9 EN1 CC4 EN6 CC6 EN7 EN9 EN42 EN41 9-15 9-17 EN40 9-16 9-10 EN39 9-14 EN28 9-12 CC23 CC21 EN38 9-13 CC26 CC10 EN37 9-11 EN17 EN32 CC22 EN11 CC28 EN22 EN24 EN34 EN31 10-1 EN33 EN26CC24 CC12 CC13 10-4 10-7 EN30 EN27 EN12 FH17 EN29 EN19 EN14 CC11 10-2 CC13 EN13 EN36 EN23 CC27 CC18 CC19 10-5 EN21 CC14 10-3 CC15 10-6 EN25 CC17 10-9 EN15 CC20 EN35 10-8 EN16 CC16 EN20 EN10 EN18 10-14 10-13 10-10 10-11 10-12 I 15 FWI 210 FW HAVEN AVBANYAN ST EAST AVFOOTHILL BL BASE LINE RDMILLIKEN AVDAY CREEK BLWILSON AV ROCHESTER AVCHERRY AVCHURCH ST VICTORIA ST VICTORIA PARK LNHIGHLAND AV ELM AVSPRUCE AVKENYON WY I 15 SOUTH RAMP VINTAGE DR I 15 NORTH RAMP ETIWANDA AV19TH ST HILLSIDE RD SAN SEVAINE RDLEMON AV BEECH AV 23RD ST I 210 EAST MILLER AVFENNEL RDRING AV CANISTEL AVMOUNTAIN VIEW DRI 210 WEST RA M P POWERLINE RD RINGSTE M D R WARDMAN BULLOCK RDMONET AVFAIRMONT WY FISHER DR KEW AVLARK DR BLUEGRASS AVARBOR LNVALINDA AVI 15 OFRP DEER C A N Y O N D R BLUE GUM DR MAYTEN AV I 210 EAST RAMP I 210 ONRP STONEVIEW RDTACKSTEM ST I 15 ONRPC R E S T L I N E P L GARCIA DRMELON DRI 210 OFRP RI D G E L I N E P L TERRA VISTA P A R K W A Y W E S T LA VINE ST ELLENA WEST ALTURA DRBELPINE PL ARAPAHO RD SMOKESTONE STDICARLO PLTOWN C E N T E R D R BOULDE R C A N Y O N R D VERSAILLES ST VICTORIA GARDENS LN REGINA DRPADDOCK PLSPLIT REIN DR HESS PLBEECHWOOD DR MA L A G A D R KENSINGTON PLCARNESI DR PECAN AVBARI DR AGG A Z Z O T T I R D CRESCENTA WYASPEN AVPLUM WYPINOT PLINYO PLCONSTITUTION WYPALO VERDE PLT E R R A V I S T A P A R K W A Y E A S T SUGAR GUM ST NORTH MAINSTREET TRINITY PLCOUNTRYVIEW DR VALENCIA AV MORNING PLAPPLE LN SHAW ST HIGH MEADOW PLCANDEL A D R SPYGLASS DR ARCTIC PLSILVERBERRY ST COLONIAL DR CENTRAL P A R K EUCALYPTUS ST TEJAS CT ARENA DR CHAMPAGNE RD PARKSIDE PL CAROB AVJOHNSTON PLWILDERNESS DR COLONBERO RDDAKOTA AVWOO D L E Y R I D G E D R SONORA AVKERN PLPISTACHE ST HOLLY ST DOLCETTO PLHENBANE STALOE CTCARRI A G E D R HYSSOP DRTIPU PLSHERBROOKE PLFROST DR PIZZOLI PLEDEN AVMASI DRRIVER OAK DR GENOVA RD CULTURAL CENTER DRMIMOSA PLTRAVIS PLCORNWALL AVPACIFIC ST LOME L LO WY CHEROKEE RD TERRACINA AVVIANZA PLFONTAINE PLMENDOCINO PLMOSAIC DR GRAPE PLPEACH PLSAN DIMAS LNAMELIA DR OVERLAND DR MANGO STDAPPLE DR RUE WY IVY AV PARKE CR LAUREL BLOSSOM PLLAUREL ST ALVARADO PLASHTON PLNORCIA DR CHESTNUT AV RED OAK ST CASSIA ST SOUTH MAINSTREET HILLVIEW LPQUAIL CT DO N A W Y BUNGALOW WYCOYOTE DR SAGEWOOD DR ANNANDALE LNDELAWARE ST CATANIA PLTAYLOR CANYON PLMUIRFIELD DR MODOC ST LIMA DRVENETO PLMILLENNIUM CT BLACKSTONE DR EFFEN STCARRIAGE PLHIGH HORSE DR SANTA YNEZ PLVANDERBILT PL YOUNGS CANYON RD MESSINA PLWHITESTONE PL SADDLERIDGE DR CHERVIL ST COVINA PLDUNMORE PLAL E N C O N D R STILLWATER PLCOUNTRYWOOD PLPUMA PLCARMELLO CTHEATHER ST AMARILLO STKALMIA STCALLAWAY PLCERVANTES PLCLARET CTPARMA PLRAGUSA DR KEENLAND DR ROGUE RIVER DR SHASTA DR TRIVENTO PLBRANDYWINE PLARCADIA WYWINERY DR MINT CT WILD HORSE WY CATALPA ST S A N B E N I T O A V W H I T E O A K A V VINE ST REDWOOD DR VISTA ST EMMETT WYELLENA EAST VERONA DR ELM AVENUE W E S T MIRADOR DR SEVILLA PLMULBERRY STLANDRIANO PL CHURCHILL DR MT WILSON C T BU N K E R H I L L D R HOPPE DR ASH AVCLAREMONT LNLIPIZZAN PLCOLONNADE DR SHILOH CT SEBASTIAN WY LILY CT LONG MEADOW DRGOLDEN TRAILS AVPINON ST DE C L A R A T I O N D R PENROSE PLSERENA PLSTANISLAUS PLAN N A P O L I S D R CHATEAU DRSANTOLINA PLEQUINE PLMALONE STBRANDY PLVIA TESORO DR GLENDORA DR ATWOOD STCHARLESTON ST CRAWFORD PLDATE AVCHALLENDON DR PLYMOUTH WYTORINO RDVAI BROTHER S D R SHEPHERD DR MEDITERRANE A N D R ROYAL OAKS DR SUNDANCE DR ANTIETAM DR DAYB R E A K P L BOUGAINVILLEA W Y GOLDEN LEAF DR STAMFIE L D D R VIA REGALLO DR RIVA PLCARDIFF PLMANCHE S T E R S T MALVASIA WYFAIRWINDS CTMELODY DRKENWOOD PLETON DR OAKL E A F W YBONITA AVLOCUST AVAPPIAN DR FLAGSTONE PLDORSET STMARTANO PL STONE RIVER DR ZINFANDEL ST LARINO DR FARRINGTON ST CORSICA CT SAN CARMELA CTSADDLE TREE PLDANBURY DRTAGGART PLBASSWOOD PL BREEDERS CUP DR FIRENZA DR ASTI DR HIGHVIEW DR WINDY GROVE DRPEAR AVHEMLOCK ST NORTH RIM WY DECLIFF STARSTONE PLT Y L E R P L ESSEX P L CALISTOGA PLCEDAR MOUNTAIN DRRICHFIELD DR GOODWOOD DR DAISY CT TAHOE PLMONTE VISTA ST CORIANDER CT SAN SEGUNDO DR ARDMOOR CT CHICKASAW RD MUELLER CT SAXON DR BIRMINGHAM PLBELVEDERE PLWOODRUFF PLLUGANO DR LANTANA DRRODEO RD BARRETT D R ASCOT PLPALERMO PLGREYVILLE PLHARN E S S D R EGGLESTONE PLHENDERSON DR CORTLAND ST LAURELTREE DR ADDISON RDCABERNET PLCRAIG DRTULARE PLMONTECARLO PLSHAWNA AVCLOVER PLCARISSA CT WINDSONG PLMARCELLO WYTURNING LEAF PLWESTHAVEN PLNASTURTIUM DR RILEY CTTERNI PL HUNT CLUB DR MT GUNNISON CT SUMMIT LNINDIAN OCEAN DR SAN MATEO PL FREDERICKSBURG AVMT WALLACE CTMT LASSEN C T LARRERA ST BROWN DR LOIRE VALLEY DRFABRIANO PLAL A M E D A A V MORNING GLORY DRMUSCAT PLCOMISO WYYOLO ST VISTA VERDE DRDUNCASTER PL MONUMENT DR CLYDESDALE DR ALTARI PLBAYLOR ST CUMBERLAND PLPORT ST YUBA CT JEREMY CT PAVIA DR MERLOT CT VIA VENETO DRAMBROSIA RDJORDAN CT DOVE CANYON WY THUNDER MOUNTAIN AVFAIRHAVEN PLARABIS PLBRI N D I S I W Y NORWICK STMORNING STAR DRASHFORD ST HIGHGATE DR MT CAMBRIDGE CT MT ROYAL CT SUNSHINE DR GABAY CTPINE RIDGE PLAMBLESIDE PLSAN ANTONIO D R VINTNER D R SHELBY PLDUPONT DR NEVADA CTCHANDON PLROCKROSE AVGREENTREE DR BAHAMA CT FILLY CTIRON HORSE PLMUNGO CT MADRIGAL PL BROWNSTONE PLOXFORD PLAUTUMN GLEN CTCOLUSA ST RED BUD P L ATLANTIC PLSILVER SADDLE DR BRENO PLGALA AV BARTHOLOW DRSTABLE FALLS AVPYRAMID PEAK CT CAPITOL PLBRIDGE WATER DR PIEDMONT ST GOLDENRIDGE PLSCALEA PLNEWMARKET PLPALM DRSTEGMEIR DR SAPRI PLWILLIAMSON RDROSEVILLE DR STALLION W Y RHEIN CTAVON CT MT EVERETT CT EMMETT AVHUNTLEY DR PLUMAS RD RUTLAND CTQUINCY PLBELLUNO PLBLUEBELL PLFOXTAIL CTFLORENCE PLCARANO PLORVIETO CTEMERSON S T FULBOURN CT HIDDEN BROOK PLMT STERLI N G C T JESSIE CT CHABLIS PLRANCH DR FLORA C T COLT DRPROSPECT PLDONNELLY S TGAMAY CTSEVEN PINES DR FINCH AV BALTIMORE DR BROOKFIELD DRSWEETGUM DR MORTON AVMORNING CREST PLGREENHAVEN AVBRANDING IRON PLFILLIPI CTWINDSTAR DR CEDAR CREEK DR SILKTASSEL DR MEYERS DR SANDHILL PLSIERRA CREST VIEW LOOP CANTER DR MURIETTA CTPADRE AVSANTO PLROXBURY PLBERWICK DR FIRETHORN ST CHOCTAW PLGLENDALE CT IRIS PLIRONSTONE DR SAPPADA PLBRIDLE PLNOVARA PLAMIATA DR WOODVIEW DR RESERVE PLMANSFIELD RDPENNY CTGOLDENRAIN WYVENICE PLDE ANZ A D R PINTO PLMARGAUX PLCEDAR HILL PLBRAMBLE CTSIENNA DR VAN FLEET DR GANDINO DR RAVENSWOOD PLPALO ALTO ST HUNNICUTT DR CHESTERTON DRMONZA PLCHIMNEY ROCK D R STRATFORD DR POLO PLBARSAC PLGOLDEN PRAIRIE DR CANDLEWOOD ST V E N T U R A P L NAPOLI DRSUMMERSTONE CTFUCHSIA DR PA R L I A M E N T D R CHEYENNE CTPAVOLA DR WEYBRIDGE DR SAGEMONT DR RAPALLO DR BROOKSIDE RDCHAMBRAY PLSHADY LANE CT CRESTFIELD CTGALATINA PLMT HARVARD CT CARLOW CT DAPHNE DR RIESLING DR GRAPEVINE ST DRY CREEK DRCANTABRIA AVMARINO PLWINGATE DR BY R O N A VSONTERRA CTPOWELL PLPEACH TREE LN ALCAZAR PLWINTERGRE E N S T REGENT DRNORTH MAINSTREET SECRETARIAT DR BLUE SPRUCE DR ELK C O V E C TLOS OLIVOS PLBALDWIN CT DRAKE ST HARWICK DR GEORGE CT VISTA MONTANA PLCALICO CTGREENWOOD PLRIDGE CANYON RD AMARONE PLCARMEL KNOLLS DR OAKD A L E D R MT RITTER ST GROVEWOOD PLESTANCIA CT ELEGANCE DR CREE K B R I D G E S T PORTOFINO DR WILDWOOD DR ASTER CT PENFOLD DR NORTHVIEW DR FENNEL CT RODEO DRGLEN RIDGE CTLONE PEAK DR BARBERRY ST LITTLE OAK CTWATERBURY PLPOZALLO PLLA TOUR CTCONTINENTAL PLCAMASSIA CT MODENA DR BERING CTEAGLEWOOD PLMOUNTAIN ASH CT WINTERBERRY PLHICKCOX LN PALMI DR WEMBLEY CTRUNNING CREEK LNNORTH BEND CT SILVER SPUR CT MIDDLEBURY CTHORSE THIEF PLWINE CELLAR CTMONTEREY PLBETTOLA PLCONCANNON ST MARMANDE PL GLENOAKS DR OAKFORD CTCOUNT R Y S I D E D R WELLINGTON PLSUNBURST DR CALAIS CTGREENPINE CTBETHANY DR TAUPE ST TRAPANI DR BRISAS CTVENOSA P L IRONBARK DR REVOLUTION DR SUNRISE CT SILVER OAK PLLOTUS CTBRIDLEWOOD DR SARATOGA STBERGANO P LSORRENTO RDMERITAGE CT GAINEY CTTORREY PINE CTHOLLAWAY RDROVATO PL COLUMBI N E W Y LINARO RDALBRIGHT PL SILVER ROSE CT BUTTERCUP W Y WEATHERLY PLBRONTE PLDAWNRIDGE DRHINSDALE PLGREENBRIAR PLCAMPANELLA PLTINDARI PLCLARIDGE DRROUNDHILL DR MILANO DR PROVINCE ST INGVALDSEN PLSPRIN G F I E L D D R WHITE FIR CT THISTLE DR NESBITT DR PESCARA RDLOS CEDROS AV STAFFORD ST MT WAVERLY CT TILDEN DR GETTYSBURG DR SHERRY CTMORGAN PLPALACIO CTMANTOVA PLGAINSBOROUGH CTOAKRIDGE CTMONTCLAIR CTROCKING H A M C T HICKOX LN WATERLAND PLA S H T O N C TLOS ALTOS CTLESINA PLEA S T O V E R L O O K D R FORDHAM CT GREENACRE DR OAKLAWN PLPACIFIC CREST PLCORTE PLCHESHIRE PLDOVE TREE DR DOWNING CT SYLVANER CTNORTHWIND PLCANOSA PLSALERNO PLPALOMINO PLCITRUS PLLINDA VISTA CTMARCONI DR ABBEY C TTWIL IGHT PL WHITBY DR FASANO PLTIFFANY PLROBERTS PLWILSON CREEK DR MT JEFFERSON DR FAVARA PLGRIZZLY DR STONERIDGE DR AMERSHAM PLPHILLY DRCALYPSO CTGINGER CTSILVERADO TRAIL PLISLE CTTUSCANY PLCIMARRON CTBUCKSKIN CTOPICI CTSAN MARINO WYHASTING S C T BUNKER DR WOODSTREAM CTGARRETT AVBROKEN BRANCH DR FALLINGSTA R C T FRANKLIN DR CABRINI CTFRESNO CTCASCADE CTTUNB R I D G E C T TEHAMA PLLAZIO CT CENTURY CTDAVENPORT CTMT MIRIAH DR ARENA CT GREENWICH PLSANDPIPER CTANTLER PEAK CT BARI CTROSSANO DR COLONY CTS A L E M C T DEL NORTE PLQUARRY CT BEAL CTLANCIA CTCACTUS CTGLENVIEW PLTRUCKEE PLLUCERNE CT TRENTON CT COPPI CTGALLO CTMT BAXTER CT BLUE GUM CTDI C K E N S C T DAWSON PEAK CT WISTER IA AV BELLFLOWER CT BIOLA PL BIGHORN PEAK CT CELEBRATION DR AURORA PLTOLENTINO PLBLUE SKY RD RAINTREE PLGLOUCESTER CTBRADFORD CTLAMBRUSCO CT STEPHENS PLCOUGA R C T VIA BRUNELLO PLGANNON S T KINGSTON ST HUTCHINSON PLH A C I E N D A C T MANHATTAN CT LOWELL DR BRONCO PLSAN CARLOS CTWARW IC K C T HARNE CTWALDEN PL RUSTIC OAK CT MT SHERMAN CT CORRESPONDENCE PLREFLECTION DR SANCHEZ CTOWENS DRESTATES WYGRANADA CTCAMROSE PLPADOVA CTDEERFIELD DR CONGRESS DR VIOLET CTWORCESTER DR PINNACLE PEAK CT WINDFLOWER DR CASTELLO PLROSS CT WESTWIND D R TOWNSEND CTSTARVIEW CT C A S H E W W Y ORCHID CTTULIP CTTI V O L I P LLAMAR CTJASMINE CTMENLO ST COLORNO CTSTERLING CTTRAMINER CTGRANDVIEW PL FREESIA DR VERBENA CT CERVETTI AVBLUE RIDGE PLMT BALDY PLDEER RUN CTCLOV E R C T SPENCER CTCABLE CREEK CT CLARK CT CAMPBELL PLBOLTON PLCHICAGO CTSTRAWBERRY PLWOODCHASE CT QUEE N S B U R Y D R BIANE CTHIGHGROVE PLCA SO L I P L ADRIA LN GOLDEN SPUR PLLILAC CT SANTA FE CTC O R R A L C T EAGLE PEAK PLGARRISON DR BERTRAND DR ROLLINS C T SAFFRON CT LUCERA DREVERMAY CTMARGATE CTVAQUERO CTDEER CREEK LNLOYOLA C T CREMA PLHARTFORD CTSHORE P INE CTMOONSHADOW PLHENSHAW CT RADCLIFF PLMARKETPLACE HOLLOW TREE DR SOUT H A M P T O N C T SAN PAB L O C T MT COOK CTKENDALL CTMESSINA CT ROSEMARY CTSILVER SUN CTKENTUCKY DERBY CT AUGUSTA DR FUR M A N C TSHADOW LNROAN CTSANTA CLAR A C T PANDINO CTBALTIMORE CTSILK OAK CT BERRA RDAL T A D E N A C T BRINDISI CTSUTTER CTM A I D E N H A I R C TCHANDLER CTOA K B R O O K C T MANGO CT RUSSIAN RIVER CTWHEATON CTBOUGAINVILLEA CTKEARNEY C T CANTERBURY CT TORTONA DR GALA AV EDEN AVI 210 ONRP ETIWANDA AVVICTORIA ST I 210 ONRP I 210 OFRPETIWANDA AVI 210 ONRP VALINDA AVDAKOTA AVI 210 OFRP EAST AVWARDMAN BULLOCK RDHENBANE STI 210 OFRP DAKOTA AVI 210 FW I 15 OFRPDAKOTA AVMANGO STCANDLEWOOD ST P A L M D R CHERVIL STVALINDA AVRIDGE CANYON RD 23RD ST PALM DRWILSON AV I 15 ONRPHIGHLAND AV CHICKASAW RD I 15 ONRPI 15 ONRPPALM DRI 210 ONRP I 15 ONRPI 210 ONRP I 15 FWDAY CREEK BLCHURCH ST HENBANE STWILSON AV I 15 OFRPBANYAN STI 210 OFRP HYSSOP DRI 15 ONRPI 15 ONRPI 210 WEST RAMP I 15 OFRP I 210 ONRPI 210 OFRP I 15 ONRPHYSSOP DRVALINDA AVI 15 OFRPI 210 OFRP I 15 OFRPDAKOTA AVVINTAGE DR HENBANE ST9-17 EN34 The maps, data and geographic information ("Information")available by and through the City of Rancho Cucamongaare presented as a public resource of general information.The City of Rancho Cucamonga makes nor implies nowarranty, representation or guarantee as to the content,sequence, accuracy completeness or timeliness of anyInformation provided to you herein. The user should not relyupon the Information for any reason and is directed toindependently verify any and all Information presented herein.The City of Rancho Cucamonga explicitly and without limitationdisclaims any and all representations and warrantees, including,but not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability andfitness for a particular purpose. The City of Rancho Cucamongashall neither accept nor assume any liability, regardless of thecausation for (I) any errors, omissions or inaccuracies inany information provided and/or (ii) any action or inactionoccurring due to any persons reliance upon the Informationavailable herein. LMD 6, 7, 8, 9, & 10 0 0.5 10.25 Miles . DoIT2/28/2017 LMD6 LMD7 LMD8 LMD9 LMD10 CITY PARK SITES HYDRO PE TRAIL !LOCAL RADIO %Local Radio With Recycle Water #NOT ON CENTRAL "WATER METER ONLY "¬!IRRIGATION PUMP Page 198 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 1 Last Revised: 05/22/14 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of , 20 , by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (“City”) and , a (“Contractor”). RECITALS A. City has heretofore issued its request for proposals to perform the following services: (“the Project”). B. Contractor has submitted a proposal to perform the services described in Recital “A”, above, necessary to complete the Project. C. City desires to engage Contractor to complete the Project in the manner set forth and more fully described herein. D. Contractor represents that it is fully qualified and licensed under the laws of the State of California to perform the services contemplated by this Agreement in a good and professional manner. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the mutual promises, covenants, and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Contractor’s Services. 1.1 Scope and Level of Services. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, City hereby engages Contractor to perform all services described in Recitals “A” and “B” above, including, but not limited to , all as more fully set forth in the Contractor’s proposal, dated and entitled “Scope of Work”, attached hereto as Exhibit “A”, and incorporated by reference herein. The nature, scope, and level of the services required to be performed by Contractor are set forth in the Scope of Work and are referred to herein as “the Services.” In the event of any inconsistencies between the Scope of Work and this Agreement, the terms and provisions of this Agreement shall control. 1.2 Revisions to Scope of Work. Upon request of the City the Contractor will promptly meet with City staff to discuss any revisions to the Project desired by the City. Contractor agrees that the Scope of Work may be amended based upon said meetings, and, by amendment to this Agreement, the parties may agree on a revision or revisions to Contractor’s compensation based thereon. A revision pursuant to this Section that does not increase the total cost payable to Contractor by more than ten Page 199 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 2 Last Revised: 05/22/14 percent (10%) of the total compensation specified in Section 3, may be approved in writing by City’s Manager without amendment. 1.3 Time for Performance. Contractor shall perform all services under this Agreement in a timely, regular basis consistent with industry standards for professional skill and care, and in accordance with any schedule of performance set forth in the Scope of Work, or as set forth in a “Schedule of Performance”, if such Schedule is attached hereto as Exhibit “ ”. 1.4 Standard of Care. As a material inducement to City to enter into this Agreement, Contractor hereby represents that it has the experience necessary to undertake the services to be provided. In light of such status and experience, Contractor hereby covenants that it shall follow the customary professional standards in performing the Services. 1.5 Familiarity with Services. By executing this Agreement, Contractor represents that, to the extent required by the standard of practice, Contractor (a) has investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (b) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (c) understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services under this Agreement. Contractor represents that Contractor, to the extent required by the standard of practice, has investigated any areas of work, as applicable, and is reasonably acquainted with the conditions therein. Should Contractor discover any latent or unknown conditions, which will materially affect the performance of services, Contractor shall immediately inform City of such fact and shall not proceed except at Contractor’s risk until written instructions are received from the City Representative. 2. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall be year(s) and shall become effective as of the date of the mutual execution by way of both parties signature (the “Effective Date”). No work shall be conducted; service or goods will not be provided until this Agreement has been executed and requirements have been fulfilled. Parties to this Agreement shall have the option to renew in one (1) year increments to a total of years, unless sooner terminated as provided in Section 14 herein. Options to renew are contingent upon the City Manager’s approval, subject to pricing review, and in accordance to all Terms and Conditions stated herein unless otherwise provided in writing by the City. 3. Compensation. 3.1 Compensation. City shall compensate Contractor as set forth in Exhibit A, provided, however, that full, total and complete amount payable to Contractor shall not exceed $ ( ), including all out of pocket expenses, unless additional compensation is approved by the City Manager or City Council. City shall not withhold any federal, state or other taxes, or other deductions. However, City shall withhold not more than ten percent (10%) of any invoice amount pending receipt of any deliverables Page 200 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 3 Last Revised: 05/22/14 reflected in such invoice. Under no circumstance shall Contractor be entitled to compensation for services not yet satisfactorily performed. The parties further agree that compensation may be adjusted in accordance with Section 1.2 to reflect subsequent changes to the Scope of Services. City shall compensate Contractor for any authorized extra services as set forth in Exhibit A. 4. Method of Payment. 4.1 Invoices. Contractor shall submit to City monthly invoices for the Services performed pursuant to this Agreement. The invoices shall describe in detail the Services rendered during the period and shall separately describe any authorized extra services. Any invoice claiming compensation for extra services shall include appropriate documentation of prior authorization of such services. All invoices shall be remitted to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 4.2 City shall review such invoices and notify Contractor in writing within ten (10) business days of any disputed amounts. 4.3 City shall pay all undisputed portions of the invoice within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of the invoice up to the not-to-exceed amounts set forth in Section 3. 4.4 All records, invoices, time cards, cost control sheets and other records maintained by Contractor relating to services hereunder shall be available for review and audit by the City. 5.Representatives. 5.1 City Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, the contract administrator and City representative shall be , or such other person as designated in writing by the City (“City Representative”). It shall be Contractor’s responsibility to assure that the City Representative is kept informed of the progress of the performance of the services, and Contractor shall refer any decisions that must be made by City to the City Representative. Unless otherwise specified herein, any approval of City required hereunder shall mean the approval of the City Representative. 5.2 Contractor Representative. For the purposes of this Agreement, is hereby designated as the principal and representative of Contractor authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the services specified herein and make all decisions in connection therewith (“Contractor’s Representative”). It is expressly understood that the experience, knowledge, capability and reputation of the Contractor’s Representative were a substantial inducement for City to enter into this Agreement. Therefore, the Contractor’s Representative shall be responsible during the term of this Agreement for directing all activities of Contractor and devoting sufficient time to personally supervise the services hereunder. Contractor may not change the Responsible Principal without the prior written approval of City. Page 201 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 4 Last Revised: 05/22/14 6. Contractor’s Personnel. 6.1 All Services shall be performed by Contractor or under Contractor’s direct supervision, and all personnel shall possess the qualifications, permits, and licenses required by State and local law to perform such Services, including, without limitation, a City business license as required by the City’s Municipal Code. 6.2 Contractor shall be solely responsible for the satisfactory work performance of all personnel engaged in performing the Services and compliance with the standard of care set forth in Section 1.4. 6.3 Contractor shall be responsible for payment of all employees’ and subcontractors’ wages and benefits, and shall comply with all requirements pertaining to employer’s liability, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security. By its execution of this Agreement, Contractor certifies that it is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code that require every employer to be insured against liability for Worker's Compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and agrees to comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the Services. 6.4 Contractor shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers and employees, servants, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, from any and all liability, damages, claims, costs and expenses of any nature to the extent arising from Contractor’s violations of personnel practices and/or any violation of the California Labor Code. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Contractor under this Agreement any amount due to City from Contractor as a result of Contractor’s failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6. 7. Ownership of Work Product. 7.1 Ownership. All documents, ideas, concepts, electronic files, drawings, photographs and any and all other writings, including drafts thereof, prepared, created or provided by Contractor in the course of performing the Services, including any and all intellectual and proprietary rights arising from the creation of the same (collectively, “Work Product”), are considered to be “works made for hire” for the benefit of the City. Upon payment being made, and provided Contractor is not in breach of this Agreement, all Work Product shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City. Basic survey notes, sketches, charts, computations and similar data prepared or obtained by Contractor under this Agreement shall, upon request, be made available to City. None of the Work Product shall be the subject of any common law or statutory copyright or copyright application by Contractor. In the event of the return of any of the Work Product to Contractor or its representative, Contractor shall be responsible for its safe return to City. Under no circumstances shall Contractor fail to deliver any draft or final designs, plans, drawings, reports or specifications to City upon written demand by City for their delivery, notwithstanding any disputes between Contractor and City concerning payment, Page 202 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 5 Last Revised: 05/22/14 performance of the contract, or otherwise. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. City’s reuse of the Work Product for any purpose other than the Project, shall be at City’s sole risk. 7.2. Assignment of Intellectual Property Interests: Upon execution of this Agreement and to the extent not otherwise conveyed to City by Section 7.1, above, the Contractor shall be deemed to grant and assign to City , and shall require all of its subcontractors to assign to City , all ownership rights, and all common law and statutory copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual and proprietary property rights relating to the Work Product and the Project itself, and Contractor shall disclaim and retain no rights whatsoever as to any of the Work Product, to the maximum extent permitted by law. City shall be entitled to utilize the Work Product for any and all purposes, including but not limited to constructing, using, maintaining, altering, adding to, restoring, rebuilding and publicizing the Project or any aspect of the Project. 7.3 Title to Intellectual Property. Contractor warrants and represents that it has secured all necessary licenses, consents or approvals to use any instrumentality, thing or component as to which any intellectual property right exists, including computer software, used in the rendering of the Services and the production of the Work Product and/or materials produced under this Agreement, and that City has full legal title to and the right to reproduce any of the Work Product. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, harmless from any loss, claim or liability in any way related to a claim that City’s use is violating federal, state or local laws, or any contractual provisions, relating to trade names, licenses, franchises, patents or other means of protecting intellectual property rights and/or interests in products or inventions. Contractor shall bear all costs arising from the use of patented, copyrighted, trade secret or trademarked documents, materials, software, equipment, devices or processes used or incorporated in the Services and materials produced under this Agreement. In the event City’s use of any of the Work Product is held to constitute an infringement and any use thereof is enjoined, Contractor, at its expense, shall: (a) secure for City the right to continue using the Work Product by suspension of any injunction or by procuring a license or licenses for City; or (b) modify the Work Product so that it becomes non- infringing. This covenant shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 8. Status as Independent Contractor. Contractor is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Contractor shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act as an agent of City. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Contractor or any of Contractor’s employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its officers, agents or employees are in any manner employees of City. Contractor shall pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Contractor under this Agreement, and to defend, indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. Page 203 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 6 Last Revised: 05/22/14 Contractor shall fully comply with the workers’ compensation law regarding Contractor and Contractor’s employees 9. Confidentiality. Contractor may have access to financial, accounting, statistical, and personnel data of individuals and City employees. Contractor covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Contractor or provided for performance of this Agreement are confidential and shall not be disclosed by Contractor without prior written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if applicable law requires disclosure. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Contractor’s covenant under this Section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. This provision shall not apply to information in whatever form that is in the public domain, nor shall it restrict the Contractor from giving notices required by law or complying with an order to provide information or data when such an order is issued by a court, administrative agency or other legitimate authority, or if disclosure is otherwise permitted by law and reasonably necessary for the Contractor to defend itself from any legal action or claim. 10. Conflict of Interest. 10.1 Contractor covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, which may be affected by the Services, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Contractor shall avoid the appearance of having any interest, which would conflict in any manner with the performance of the Services. Contractor shall not accept any employment or representation during the term of this Agreement which is or may likely make Contractor “financially interested” (as provided in California Government Code §§1090 and 87100) in any decision made by City on any matter in connection with which Contractor has been retained. 10.2 Contractor further represents that it has not employed or retained any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, to solicit or obtain this Agreement. Contractor has not paid or agreed to pay any person or entity, other than a bona fide employee working exclusively for Contractor, any fee, commission, gift, percentage, or any other consideration contingent upon the execution of this Agreement. Upon any breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right, at its sole and absolute discretion, to terminate this Agreement without further liability, or to deduct from any sums payable to Contractor hereunder the full amount or value of any such fee, commission, percentage or gift. 10.3 Contractor has no knowledge that any officer or employee of City has any interest, whether contractual, noncontractual, financial, proprietary, or otherwise, in this transaction or in the business of Contractor, and that if any such interest comes to the knowledge of Contractor at any time during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall immediately make a complete, written disclosure of such interest to City, even if such interest would not be deemed a prohibited “conflict of interest” under applicable laws as described in subsection 10.1. Page 204 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 7 Last Revised: 05/22/14 11. Indemnification. 11.1 To the maximum extent permitted by law, the Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, and its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, (collectively, “Indemnitees”),free and harmless with respect to any and all damages, liabilities, losses, reasonable defense costs or expenses (collectively, “Claims”), including but not limited to Claims relating to death or injury to any person and injury to any property, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the acts, omissions, activities or operations of Contractor or any of its officers, employees, subcontractors, Contractors, or agents in the performance of this Agreement. Contractor shall defend Indemnitees in any action or actions filed in connection with any such Claims with counsel of City’s choice, and shall pay all costs and expenses, including actual attorney’s fees and experts’ costs incurred in connection with such defense. The indemnification obligation herein shall not in any way be limited by the insurance obligations contained in this Agreement provided, however, that the Contractor shall have no obligation to indemnify for Claims arising out of the sole negligence or willful misconduct of any of the Indemnitees. 11.2 Nonwaiver of Rights. Indemnitees do not, and shall not, waive any rights that they may possess against Contractor because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City, of any insurance policy or certificate required pursuant to this Agreement. 11.3 Waiver of Right of Subrogation. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Agreement, Contractor, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby waives all rights of subrogation against the Indemnitees, while acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Contractor. 11.4 Survival. The provisions of this Section 11 shall survive the termination of the Agreement and are in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law. Payment is not required as a condition precedent to an Indemnitee’s right to recover under this indemnity provision, and an entry of judgment against Contractor shall be conclusive in favor of the Indemnitee’s right to recover under this indemnity provision. 12.Insurance. 12.1 Liability Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain in full force and effect for the duration of this Agreement, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the services hereunder by Contractor, and/or its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors. 12.2 Minimum Scope of Insurance. Unless otherwise approved by City, coverage shall be at least as broad as: Page 205 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 8 Last Revised: 05/22/14 (1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (occurrence form CG 0001). (2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed. 1/87) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 (any auto). (3) Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by the State of California, and Employer’s Liability Insurance. 12.3 Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain limits no less than: (1) Commercial General Liability: $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Commercial General Liability Insurance or other form with a general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this Agreement or the general limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. (2) Automobile Liability: $2,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. (3) Employer’s Liability: $1,000,000 per accident and in the aggregate for bodily injury or disease and Workers’ Compensation Insurance in the amount required by law. (4) The Insurance obligations under this Agreement shall be the greater of (i) the Insurance coverages and limits carried by the Contractor; or (ii) the minimum Insurance coverages and limits shown in this Agreement. Any insurance proceeds in excess of the specified limits and coverage required which are applicable to a given loss, shall be available to the City. No representation is made that the minimum Insurance requirements of this Agreement are sufficient to cover the obligations of the Contractor under this agreement. 12.4 Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self- insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City and shall not reduce the limits of coverage. City reserves the right to obtain a full certified copy of any required insurance policy and endorsements. 12.5 Other Insurance Provisions. (1) The commercial general liability and automobile liability policies are to contain the following provisions on a separate additionally insured endorsement naming the City, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and Page 206 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 9 Last Revised: 05/22/14 agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials, as additional insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Contractor; products and completed operations of Contractor; premises owned, occupied or used by Contractor; and/or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by Contractor. The coverage shall contain no limitations on the scope of protection afforded to City, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials which are not also limitations applicable to the named insured. (2) For any claims related to this Agreement, Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects City, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers or agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials shall be in excess of Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. (3) Contractor’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability. (4) Contractor shall provide immediate written notice if (1) any of the required insurance policies is terminated; (2) the limits of any of the required polices are reduced; (3) or the deductible or self insured retention is increased. In the event of any cancellation or reduction in coverage or limits of any insurance, Contractor shall forthwith obtain and submit proof of substitute insurance. Should Contractor fail to immediately procure other insurance, as specified, to substitute for any canceled policy, the City may procure such insurance at Contractor’s sole cost and expense. (5) Each insurance policy required by this clause shall expressly waive the insurer’s right of subrogation against City, its elected officials, officers, employees, servants, attorneys, designated volunteers, and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City officials. (6) Each policy shall be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City, which is admitted and licensed to do business in the State of California and which is rated Page 207 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 10 Last Revised: 05/22/14 A:VII or better according to the most recent A.M. Best Co. Rating Guide. (7) Each policy shall specify that any failure to comply with reporting or other provisions of the required policy, including breaches of warranty, shall not affect the coverage required to be provided. (8) Each policy shall specify that any and all costs of adjusting and/or defending any claim against any insured, including court costs and attorneys' fees, shall be paid in addition to and shall not deplete any policy limits. (9) Contractor shall provide any and all other insurance, endorsements, or exclusions as required by the City in any request for proposals applicable to this Agreement. 12.6 Evidence of coverage. Prior to commencing performance under this Agreement, the Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates and original endorsements, or copies of each required policy, effecting and evidencing the insurance coverage required by this Agreement including (1) Additional Insured Endorsement(s), (2) Worker’s Compensation waiver of subrogation endorsement, and (3) General liability declarations or endorsement page listing all policy endorsements. The endorsements shall be signed by a person authorized by the insurer(s) to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements or policies shall be received and approved by the City before Contractor commences performance. If performance of this Agreement shall extend beyond one year, Contractor shall provide City with the required policies or endorsements evidencing renewal of the required policies of insurance prior to the expiration of any required policies of insurance. 12.7 Contractor agrees to include in all contracts with all subcontractors performing work pursuant to this Agreement, the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement including the indemnity and insurance requirements to the extent they apply to the scope of any such subcontractor’s work. Contractor shall require its subcontractors to be bound to Contractor and City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to City pursuant to this Agreement, and to require each of its subcontractors to include these same provisions in its contract with any sub- subcontractor. 13.Cooperation. In the event any claim or action is brought against City relating to Contractor’s performance or services rendered under this Agreement, Contractor shall render any reasonable assistance and cooperation that City might require. City shall compensate Contractor for any litigation support services in an amount to be agreed upon by the parties. 14. Termination. City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at any time for any or no reason on not less than ten (10) days prior written notice to Contractor. In the event City exercises its right to terminate this Agreement, City shall Page 208 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 11 Last Revised: 05/22/14 pay Contractor for any services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of the termination, provided Contractor is not then in breach of this Agreement. Contractor shall have no other claim against City by reason of such termination, including any claim for compensation. City may terminate for cause following a default remaining uncured more than five (5) business days after service of a notice to cure on the breaching party. Contractor may terminate this Agreement for cause upon giving the City D ten (10) business days prior written notice for any of the following: (1) uncured breach by the City of any material term of this Agreement, including but not limited to Payment Terms; (2) material changes in the conditions under which this Agreement was entered into, coupled with the failure of the parties to reach accord on the fees and charges for any Additional Services required because of such changes. 15. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports authorized or required by this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand or overnight courier service during Contractor’s and City’s regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses set forth in this Section, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this Section. All notices shall be addressed as follows: If to City: If to Contractor: , 16. Non-Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. In the performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee, subcontractor, or applicant for employment because of race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. Contractor will take affirmative action to ensure that subcontractors and applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. 17. Assignment and Subcontracting. Contractor shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement or subcontract the performance of any of Contractor’s Page 209 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 12 Last Revised: 05/22/14 obligations hereunder without City’s prior written consent. Except as provided herein, any attempt by Contractor to so assign, transfer, or subcontract any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be null, void and of no effect. 18. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, codes and regulations in force at the time Contractor performs the Services. Contractor is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Section 1720, et seq., and 1770, et seq., as well as California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 16000, et seq., (“Prevailing Wage Laws”), which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and compliance with other requirements on “public works” and “maintenance” projects. If the Services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, Contractor agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. The applicable prevailing wage rate determinations can be found at http://www.dir.ca.gov/dlsr/DPreWageDetermination.htm Contractor shall make copies of the prevailing rates of per diem wages for each craft, classification or type of worker needed to execute the Services, available to interested parties upon request, and shall post copies at the Contractor’s principal place of business and at the Project site. Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its elected officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. 19. Non-Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Contractor constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Contractor, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default. 20. Attorney’s Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney’s fees and costs of experts. 21. Exhibits; Precedence. All documents referenced as exhibits in this Agreement are hereby incorporated in this Agreement. In the event of any material discrepancy between the express provisions of this Agreement and the provisions of any document incorporated herein by reference, the provisions of this Agreement shall prevail. 22. Applicable Law and Venue. The validity, interpretation, and performance of this Agreement shall be controlled by and construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action relating to this Agreement shall be in the San Bernardino County Superior Court. Page 210 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 13 Last Revised: 05/22/14 23. Construction. In the event of any asserted ambiguity in, or dispute regarding the interpretation of any matter herein, the interpretation of this Agreement shall not be resolved by any rules of interpretation providing for interpretation against the party who causes the uncertainty to exist or against the party who drafted the Agreement or who drafted that portion of the Agreement. 24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement consists of this document, and any other documents, attachments and/or exhibits referenced herein and attached hereto, each of which is incorporated herein by such reference, and the same represents the entire and integrated agreement between Contractor and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties, through their respective authorized representatives, have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. Contractor Name: By: ______________________________ Name Date ______________________________ Title City of Rancho Cucamonga By:________________________________ Name Date _________________________________ Title By: ______________________________ Name Date ______________________________ Title (two signatures required if corporation) Page 211 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 14 Last Revised: 05/22/14 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Page 212 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 15 Last Revised: 05/22/14 EXHIBIT B SCHEDULE FOR PERFORMANCE Page 213 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 16 Last Revised: 05/22/14 Attachment A – Sample Waiver of Subrogation (Sample Only –Not all forms will look identical to this Sample) The City of Rancho Cucamonga, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City or officials. Page 214 ____________ Vendor Initials PSA without professional liability insurance (contractor) Page 17 Last Revised: 05/22/14 Attachment B – Sample Additional Insured for On-going Projects The City of Rancho Cucamonga, its officers, officials, employees, designated volunteers and agents serving as independent contractors in the role of City or officials. Page 215 Page 216 Page 217 Page 218 Page 219 Page 220 Page 221 Page 222 Page 223 Page 224 Page 225 Page 226 Page 227 Page 228 Page 229 Page 230 Page 231 Page 232 Page 233 Page 234 Page 235 Page 236 Page 237 Page 238 Page 239 Page 240 Page 241 Page 242 Page 243 Page 244 Page 245 Page 246 Page 247 Page 248 Page 249 Page 250 Page 251 Page 252 Page 253 Page 254 Page 255 Page 256 Page 257 Page 258 Page 259 Page 260 Page 261 Page 262 Page 263 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:W illiam W ittkopf , P ublic Works S ervices Director Dean R odia, P arks and L andscape S uperintendent K enneth F ung, Assistant E ngineer S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N T O RE J E C T B I D S F O R T HE “F Y 17/18 PARK S PAI NT I NG P RO J E C T ” AS NO N-RE S P O NS I V E T O T HE NE E D S O F T HE C I T Y. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends the City C ouncil reject the bids f or the “F Y 17/18 P arks Painting P roject” as non- responsive to the needs of the City. BACKGROUND: T he B ase B id for this project involved painting the outside portion of the restroom at the R oute 66 Trailhead, painting the shade shelters and outside wood portions of the restrooms at Golden Oak P ark, painting the wood portions of the shade shelters at E ast B eryl P ark, and painting the shade shelters at R alph L ewis P ark. T he project also included A dditive B id items to paint additional items at the R oute 66 Trailhead, L ions P ark, the Arbor L ane median, R alph L ewis P ark, Etiwanda Creek Park, Garcia P ark, and D ay Creek Park. ANALY S IS: T hree (3) bids for this project were opened at 2:00 pm on Tuesday, A pril 10, 2018 f or the “F Y 17/18 Parks Painting P roject”. T he low bid proposal of $28,000 exceeded the Engineer’s E stimate of $20,000. Attached is a copy of the Bid Summary. Staf f will review and reduce the scope of work to match available f unds and re-advertise the project. FISCAL IMPACT: N/A COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: N/A AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n Page 264 A ttachment 1 - B id S ummary Page 265 Item No.Description Qty Unit Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Average of 3 Bids 1 Paint Outside Metal and Roof of Restroom 1 LS $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $11,352.00 $11,352.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $8,017.33 2 Paint Only the Wood Portions of Northern and 1 LS $4,400.00 $4,400.00 $5,160.00 $5,160.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00 $5,853.33 3 Paint Only Outside Wood Portions of Restroom 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $6,880.00 $6,880.00 $4,600.00 $4,600.00 $4,426.67 4 Paint Only Wood Portion of Shade Shelter 1 LS $2,600.00 $2,600.00 $3,440.00 $3,440.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $5,346.67 5 Paint Wood Shade Shelter Located East of Playground 1 LS $2,500.00 $2,500.00 $3,956.00 $3,956.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $3,952.00 6 Paint the Shade Shelters Located in Bowl East of the Playground 3 EA $2,266.00 $6,800.00 $1,548.00 $4,644.00 $2,800.00 $8,400.00 $6,614.67 7 Paint the Shade Shelters Located in the Upper Bowl Area 3 EA $2,400.00 $7,200.00 $1,204.00 $3,612.00 $2,600.00 $7,800.00 $6,204.00 Yes Yes No Item No. Description Qty Unit Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Unit Price Cost Average of 3 Bids 8 Paint Exterior of Restroom 1 LS $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,900.00 $6,900.00 $4,100.00 9 Paint Wood Portion of Trash Enclosure 1 LS $1,900.00 $1,900.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $2,733.33 10 Paint Metal Portion of Trash Enclosure 1 LS $2,400.00 $2,400.00 $600.00 $600.00 $800.00 $800.00 $1,266.67 11 Paint Light Poles 1 LS $8,300.00 $8,300.00 $9,300.00 $9,300.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00 $9,033.33 12 Paint Old Railroad Bridge 1 LS $3,800.00 $3,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $5,800.00 $5,800.00 $3,800.00 13 Paint Gazebo 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $5,800.00 $5,800.00 $3,133.33 14 Paint Basketball Poles 1 LS $400.00 $400.00 $100.00 $100.00 $620.00 $620.00 $373.33 15 Paint Gazebo and Hand Rails 1 LS $6,900.00 $6,900.00 $7,000.00 $7,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $11,300.00 16 Paint Light Poles 1 LS $7,400.00 $7,400.00 $7,200.00 $7,200.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $8,866.67 17 Paint Hand Railing along West End 1 LS $3,300.00 $3,300.00 $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $3,800.00 $3,800.00 $2,733.33 18 Paint Hand Railing along East End 1 LS $3,300.00 $3,300.00 $800.00 $800.00 $3,800.00 $3,800.00 $2,633.33 19 Paint Trash Enclosure 1 LS $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 $5,600.00 $5,600.00 $2,800.00 20 Paint Seat Walls 1 LS $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $5,400.00 $5,400.00 $4,000.00 21 Paint Basketball Poles 1 LS $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $200.00 $200.00 $620.00 $620.00 $673.33 22 Paint Interior and Exterior of Restroom 1 LS $5,500.00 $5,500.00 $6,900.00 $6,900.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $9,133.33 23 Paint Interior and Exterior of Restroom 1 LS $6,300.00 $6,300.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $8,766.67 24 Paint Exterior of Irrigation Shed 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $2,766.67 25 Paint Interior and Exterior of Restroom 1 LS $4,800.00 $4,800.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $8,266.67 26 Paint Shade Shelters 4 EA $2,225.00 $8,900.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $10,966.67 27 Paint Interior and Exterior of Restroom 1 LS $3,900.00 $3,900.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $7,966.67 28 Paint Only Exterior Wood Portion of Restroom 1 LS $1,800.00 $1,800.00 $4,000.00 $4,000.00 $4,600.00 $4,600.00 $3,466.67 29 Paint Trash Enclosure 1 LS $1,600.00 $1,600.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $5,600.00 $5,600.00 $2,966.67 minus Base Bid Amounts =Funds Remaining Total Additive Bid Costs Is it possible to award some Additive Bid $2,700.00 $17,300.00 $21,000.00 Yes $8,800.00 $1,200.00 $0.00 N/A $5,500.00 $14,300.00 No $16,500.00 -$8,500.00 $18,400.00 No $0.00 $8,100.00 No $3,000.00 $13,700.00 No $2,000.00 $7,300.00 Yes BASE BID ITEMS AJ Fistes Corporation (apparent low bidder) NEP Painting Contractors, Inc. ISR Painting and Wallcovering, Inc. Route 66 Trailhead (General Fund) Golden Oak Park (LMD 1) East Beryl Park (LMD 1) Ralph Lewis Park (LMD 4) Total Base Bid Amount =$39,044.00 $54,200.00 Included signed copy of Addendum No 1? ADDITIVE BID ITEMS AJ Fistes Corporation (apparent low bidder) NEP Painting Contractors, Inc. ISR Painting and Wallcovering, Inc. $28,000.00 $20,000.00 Additive Bid item 11 costiest at $8,300. Route 66 Trailhead (General Fund) Lions Park (General Fund) Arbor Lane Median (LMD 2) Ralph Lewis Park (LMD 4) Etiwanda Creek Park (LMD 7) Garcia Park (LMD 9) LMD 10 $2,000.00 Can choose either Additive Bid items 28 or 29 LMD 4 $8,000.00 Base Bid Amounts exceed available funds LMD 7 $0.00 No Funds available FY 17/18 Parks Painting Project BID SUMMARY LMD 9 $3,000.00 Lowest Additive Bid item is $4,800 LMD 1 $10,000.00 No Additive Bid items LMD 2 $5,500.00 Lowest Additive Bid item is $6,900 Day Creek Park (LMD 10) The summary below is based on AJ Fistes Corp bid amounts Amounts Available in the Following Funds:Comments General Fund Page 266 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer Romeo D avid, Associate Engineer S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N O F A C O NT RAC T WIT H V ID O S AM ARZIC H, INC ., IN AN AM O UNT O F $968,678, P L US A 10% C O NT ING E NC Y F O R T HE F I S C AL Y E AR 2017/18 AD A AC C E S S RAM P I M P RO V E M E NT S AT VARI O US L O C AT I O NS P RO J E C T. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends that the City Council: 1. Approve the plans and specif ications for the Fiscal Year 2017/18 A D A Access R amp I mprovements at Various L ocations P roject on f ile with the City E ngineer (P roject); 2. Accept the bids received for the P roject; 3. Award and authorize the execution of the contract in the amount of $968,678, to the lowest responsive bidder, Vido Samarzich, I nc., f or the total bid; 4. Authorize the expenditure of a 10% contingency in the amount of $96,868; and 5. Authorize a Purchase Order in the amount of $34,560 to Onward Engineering f or on-call construction inspection services BACKGROUND: Each year, a list of access ramps are selected f or compliance review against the A mericans with D isabilities A ct (A D A) ramp requirements. F or Fiscal Year 2017/18, 164 concrete access ramps associated with street repaving and resident concerns require modifications to meet the A D A standard guideline for access ramp installation. A vicinity map illustrating the various location f or access ramp improvements is included as Attachment 1. ANALY S IS: T he scope of work to be performed consists of , but not limited to, constructing concrete access ramps, sidewalks, retaining curbs, curb & gutter, truncated domes, spandrels, rock scape, miscellaneous electrical, restore landscaping, relocate signs, and related items of work. T he contract documents call for sixty (60) working days to complete this construction. T he Notice I nviting Bids was released to the general contracting community and was published in the Daily Bulletin on April 17 and 24, 2018. T he City C lerk’s Office facilitated the formal solicitation for bidding the project. On May 1, 2018, the City Clerk’s Of f ice received eleven (11) construction bids. T he Engineer’s estimate Page 267 for the project was $648,165. T he apparent low bidder, Vido S amarzich, I nc., submitted a bid in the amount of $968,678. Staf f compared the engineer's estimate to the bids submitted and quickly identif ied that the unit costs shown f rom each bid was slightly higher than what was estimated f or this project. Staf f believes this is an outcome of a good construction economy such that prices for construction materials (cement and concrete products) appear to be on rise. A full bid summary is included as A ttachment 2. T he E ngineering staff has reviewed all bids received and found all to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements with any irregularities to be inconsequential. S taff has completed the required background investigation and finds the lowest responsive bidder Vido S amarzich, I nc., meet the requirements of the bid documents. Environmental: Staf f has determined that the project is C ategorically E xempt per the California Environmental Quality Act (C E Q A ) A rticle 19. C ategorical E xemptions. I n A ccordance with Section 15301 “E xisting F acilities” subsection (c), C lass 1 projects consist of minor alteration of existing public facilities, therefore, the F iscal Year 2017/18 A D A Access R amp I mprovements P roject is considered categorically exempt from C E Q A . FISCAL IMPACT: Anticipated construction costs for this project are estimated to be as follows: C onstruction C ontract $968,678 C onstruction C ontract Contingency (10%)$96,868 C onstruction I nspection $34,560 Estimated Construction Costs $1,100,106 A total of $100,000 has been budgeted in F iscal Year 2017/18 to construct A D A access ramp improvements. S ince the U.S . D epartment of J ustice and the U.S. Department of Transportation F ederal Highway A dministration require that A D A access ramps be upgraded for compliance with current standards when roads are rehabilitated, f unding budgeted in F iscal Year 2017/18 for associated local and non-local roadway rehabilitation projects will be used to construct adjoining A D A access ramps. F unding for this project is available in the F iscal Year 2017/18 B udget in the following amounts: Account No.F unding Source Description Amount 11773035650/1150177-0 Measure I F und (177)F Y2017/18 A D A R amps $100,000 11983035650/1022198-0 I nfrastructure F und (198)C itywide L ocal S treets $341,238 11773035650/1932177-0 Measure I F und (177)F oothill & Haven R ehabilitation $202,868 11743035650/1022198-0 Gas Tax F und (174)C itywide L ocal S treets $400,000 11773035650/1934177-0 Measure I F und (177)Hermosa & Arrow Rehabilitation $56,000 $1,100,106 COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: Enhancing Premier Community Status and P ublic S af ety by upgrading A D A Ramps. AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n A ttachment 1 - Vicinity M ap A ttachment 2 -B id S ummary Page 268 66 US CALIFORNIA10 INTERSTATE C A L I FORNIA 210 VICINITY MAP FY 2017-2018 ADA ACCESS RAMP IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATION ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Page 269 UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BIDNO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT11LSMobilization $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $28,000.00 $28,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.0021LSClearing & grubbing$16,000.00 $16,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $139,160.00 $139,160.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.003645 TONConstruct A.C. Pavement$75.00 $48,375.00 $150.00 $96,750.00 $190.00 $122,550.00 $150.00 $96,750.004303 SFInstall rockscape per City Std. Dwg. 542 $20.00 $6,060.00 $16.00 $4,848.00 $30.00 $9,090.00 $20.00 $6,060.00514220 SFConstruct P.C.C. spandrel per City Std. Dwg. 106-A$7.00 $99,540.00 $16.00 $227,520.00 $16.50 $234,630.00 $13.00 $184,860.00665300 SFConstruct PCC acess ramps per plan (Appendix)$6.00 $391,800.00 $6.50 $424,450.00 $5.38 $351,314.00 $9.80 $639,940.0072177 SFInstall truncated dome$20.00 $43,540.00 $30.00 $65,310.00 $29.20 $63,568.40 $25.00 $54,425.00859 EAAdjust pull box cover to grade$150.00 $8,850.00 $200.00 $11,800.00 $350.00 $20,650.00 $350.00 $20,650.0091LSTraffic Signal Systems$15,000.00 $15,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $47,000.00 $47,000.00101LSSigning and Striping$5,000.00 $5,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $8,500.00 $8,500.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00111LSTraffic Control$4,000.00 $4,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $8,000.00 $8,000.00TOTAL BID SCHEDULE$648,165.00 $968,678.00 $1,009,462.40 $1,094,785.00GOLDEN STATE CONSTRUCTORS3BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING MAY 1, 2018ENGINEER'S ESTIMATEFY17-18 ADA ACCESS RAMP IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS PROJECTAPPARENT LOW BIDDER2VIDO SAMARZICH, INC. LC PAVING & SEALING INC.1ATTACHMENT 2Page 270 UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BIDNO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT11LSMobilization $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $90,000.00 $90,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.0021LSClearing & grubbing$7,000.00 $7,000.00 $76,348.00 $76,348.00 $220,000.00 $220,000.00 $380,000.00 $380,000.003645 TONConstruct A.C. Pavement$300.00 $193,500.00 $123.00$79,335.00 $150.00 $96,750.00 $80.00 $51,600.004303 SFInstall rockscape per City Std. Dwg. 542 $20.00 $6,060.00 $76.00$23,028.00 $29.00 $8,787.00 $45.00 $13,635.00514220 SFConstruct P.C.C. spandrel per City Std. Dwg. 106-A$14.00 $199,080.00 $15.00$213,300.00 $7.00 $99,540.00 $11.50 $163,530.00665300 SFConstruct PCC acess ramps per plan (Appendix)$8.50 $555,050.00 $8.00$522,400.00 $7.00 $457,100.00 $6.50 $424,450.0072177 SFInstall truncated dome$25.00 $54,425.00 $35.00$76,195.00 $66.00 $143,682.00 $45.00 $97,965.00859 EAAdjust pull box cover to grade$100.00 $5,900.00 $500.00$29,500.00 $420.00 $24,780.00 $500.00 $29,500.0091LSTraffic Signal Systems$44,800.00 $44,800.00 $66,000.00 $66,000.00 $48,000.00 $48,000.00 $75,000.00 $75,000.00101LSSigning and Striping$18,200.00 $18,200.00 $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $20,468.00 $20,468.00 $19,000.00 $19,000.00111LSTraffic Control$8,500.00 $8,500.00 $99,894.00 $99,894.00 $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00TOTAL BID SCHEDULE$1,097,515.00 $1,234,000.00 $1,239,107.00 $1,279,680.00BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING MAY 1, 2018FY17-18 ADA ACCESS RAMP IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS PROJECT4KALBAN, INC.5HARDY & HARPER, INC.6ARAMEXX CONSTRUCTION7EBS ENGINEERING, INC.2ATTACHMENT 2Page 271 UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BID UNIT BIDNO QTY UNIT DESCRIPTION COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT11LSMobilization $76,085.00 $76,085.00$70,000.00 $70,000.00$80,000.00 $80,000.00$150,000.00 $150,000.0021LSClearing & grubbing$268,950.00 $268,950.00$37,000.00 $37,000.00$12,000.00 $12,000.00$45,000.00 $45,000.003645 TONConstruct A.C. Pavement$205.40 $132,483.00 $200.00$129,000.00 $275.00 $177,375.00 $240.00 $154,800.004303 SFInstall rockscape per City Std. Dwg. 542 $72.00 $21,816.00 $100.00$30,300.00 $30.00 $9,090.00 $30.00 $9,090.00514220 SFConstruct P.C.C. spandrel per City Std. Dwg. 106-A$12.80 $182,016.00 $30.00$426,600.00 $15.00 $213,300.00 $15.00 $213,300.00665300 SFConstruct PCC acess ramps per plan (Appendix)$6.40 $417,920.00 $10.00$653,000.00 $16.00 $1,044,800.00 $14.00 $914,200.0072177 SFInstall truncated dome$40.50 $88,168.50 $10.00$21,770.00 $26.00 $56,602.00 $45.00 $97,965.00859 EAAdjust pull box cover to grade$474.00 $27,966.00 $300.00$17,700.00 $450.00 $26,550.00 $480.00 $28,320.0091LSTraffic Signal Systems$47,191.50 $47,191.50$17,000.00 $17,000.00$6,000.00 $6,000.00$65,000.00 $65,000.00101LSSigning and Striping$17,417.00 $17,417.00$37,000.00 $37,000.00$22,000.00 $22,000.00$19,900.00 $19,900.00111LSTraffic Control$34,747.00 $34,747.00$7,000.00 $7,000.00$12,000.00 $12,000.00$80,000.00 $80,000.00TOTAL BID SCHEDULE$1,314,760.00 $1,446,370.00 $1,659,717.00 $1,777,575.00BID SUMMARY FOR BID OPENING MAY 1, 2018FY17-18 ADA ACCESS RAMP IMPROVEMENTS AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS PROJECT8ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT9MINAKO AMERICA CORPORATION DBA MINCO CONSTRUCTION10CALPROMAX ENGINEERING, INC.11CT&T CONCRETE PAVING, INC.3ATTACHMENT 2Page 272 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer F red Lyn, Utilities Division Manager S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N O F A S M AL L C E L L L IC E NS E AG RE E M E NT WI T H M O B IL I T I E , L L C F O R T HE P L AC E M E NT O F S M AL L C E L L I NF RAS T RUC T URE O N C IT Y-O WNE D P O L E S. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends that City Council approve the attached Small C ell L icense Agreement between Mobilitie, L L C and the City of Rancho C ucamonga and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. BACKGROUND: Small cell technology is used by various wireless providers to better serve their customers by f illing in small gaps in their cellular coverage or to provide additional capacity in an existing service area. ANALY S IS: Mobilitie, L L C desires to enter into a license agreement with the C ity to allow for placement of their small cell equipment within the City right-of -way on City-owned poles. Under this agreement, Mobilitie, L L C would attach their equipment to existing City-owned street lights, or replace existing street light poles with new street light poles designed to support their equipment. T he attached license agreement defines the ownership, maintenance, cost, and value of all future installations and has been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney's of f ice. Page 273 FISCAL IMPACT: L icense F ee compensation and terms are summarized in the table below and in Section 5 of the attached L icense Agreement: Compensation L icense F ee (Up to 4 R adios / A ntennas)$700 Per Pole A dditional Radios / A ntennas $100 P er Antenna P ole Mounted Cabinet $100 P er Cabinet Ground Mounted Cabinet $200 P er Cabinet Annual L icense F ee I ncrease 1.5% Power Cost Reimbursement Up to 75 Watts $4.00 per month $48.00 per year 76 Watts - 149 Watts $8.00 per month $96.00 per year 150 Watts to 225 Watts $12.00 per month $144.00 per year Terms I nitial Term 10 years Renewal Term (up to 3 successive)5 years COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: N/A AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n A ttachment 1 - S mall C ell License Page 274 SMALL CELL LICENSE AGREEMENT THIS SMALL CELL LICENSE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is dated as of _________ ., 2018 (the "Effective Date"), and entered into by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation of the State of California (the "LICENSOR"), and Mobilitie, LLC, a Neva da limited liability company ("LICENSEE"). Recitals A.WHEREAS, the LICENSOR is the owner of certain Poles (as defined in Section 1.11, below) located in the Rights-of-Way (as defined in Section 1.13 below) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and B.WHEREAS, LICENSEE is duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Nevada, and LICENSEE and its lawful successors, assigns, and transferees, are authorized to conduct business in the State of California; and C.WHEREAS, LICENSEE desires to use space on certain of the LICENSOR's Poles and/or in the Rights-of-Way for construction, operation and maintenance of its tele communications Network (as defined in Section 1.10, below) serving LICENSEE's third party wireless carrier customers ("Carriers") and utilizing Equipment (as defined in Section 1.6, below), permitted by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") and/or the PUC (as defined in Section 1.12, below) and in accordance with FCC and/or PUC rules and regulations; and D.WHEREAS, for the purpose of operating the Network, LICENSEE wishes to locate, place, attach, install, operate, control, and/or maintain Equipment on the Poles in the Rights-of-Way, owned by the LICENSOR; and E.WHEREAS, LICENSEE is willing to compensate the LICENSOR in exchange for a grant and right to use and physically occupy portions of the Poles and/or the Rights-of-Way in accordance with this Agreement and applicable provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. Agreement NOW, THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to the following covenants, terms, and conditions: 1.DEFINITIONS. The following definitions shall apply generally to the provisions of this Agreement: 1.1 Affiliate. Affiliate means each person or entity which falls into one or more of the following categories: (a) each person or entity having, directly or indirectly, a controlling ATTACHMENT 1 Page 275 Page 276 Page 277 Page 278 Page 279 Page 280 Page 281 Page 282 Page 283 Page 284 Page 285 Page 286 Page 287 Page 288 Page 289 Page 290 Page 291 Page 292 Page 293 Page 294 Page 295 Page 296 Page 297 Page 298 Page 299 DATE: May 16, 2018 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Ruth Cain, Procurement Manager Darryl Polk, Director of Innovation & Technology SUBJECT:CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL TO UTILIZE THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE PROCUREMENT OFFICIALS (NASPO) VALUEPOINT COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COMPUTER RELATED PROCUREMENTS. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize staff to utilize the Minnesota WSCA-NASPO ValuePoint Master Agreement #MNWNC-117 ("Master Agreement"), on file with the City Clerk's Office, for the procurement of computer equipment including, desktop, laptop, workstation and server class devices, not to exceed $750,000 in total value through the expiration of the agreement in July 2020. BACKGROUND: The Department of Innovation and Technology (DoIT) routinely procures personal computer (PC) equipment to replace damaged or outdated inventory or to add devices for expanded operations. As part of the FY 2018-19 budget, DoIT will begin a project to replace all outdated Windows 7 PCs with Windows 10 capable machines. This is to ensure operational continuity and security in response to Microsoft’s announced end-of-support for the Windows 7 operating system by 2020. The City currently has an estimated 700 PCs in service, supporting nearly 700 full time and part time employees. Staff has developed a multi-year phased approach to replace the outdated machines, allowing us to evaluate the needs of each Department and ensure that appropriate equipment is deployed to meet current and future operational needs while meeting the 2020 deadline to phase out Windows 7. Procuring equipment in direct coordination with the manufacturer, using a cooperative agreement, helps ensure fulfilment accuracy while maintaining cost efficiency. ANALYSIS: The NASPO ValuePoint Master Agreement for computer equipment was awarded in April 2015 to a list of qualified vendors supplying computers and related peripherals. The agreement is overseen by the State of Minnesota and was awarded based on a competitive bid process requesting each participating vendor to provide pre-defined discounts based on equipment categories or discounted fixed-costs for specific devices. This cooperative agreement expires in March 2020 under its current terms and conditions. The Department of Innovation and Technology reviewed the Master Agreement with the City’s Procurement Division and has determined that the terms and process of the contract meet the City’s procurement standards. Utilizing the agreement for the procurement of PCs and peripheral devices willPage 300 allow f or more direct interaction with the supplier, reducing the probability of errors due to vendor substitution or interpretation of desired specif ications. FISCAL IMPACT: I nitial funding for the computer replacement project was submitted as part of the annual budget process for the 2018/19 F iscal Year in Account No. 1714001-5215 (O&M/C omputer E quipment). S taf f plans to request additional funding in subsequent f iscal years, using the budget approval process, to complete the replacement of outdated computers by the end of F Y 2019/20. P rojected costs over the lif e of the project are as f ollows: F Y 2018/19 - $270,000 for replacement of P C s at C ity Hall and P ublic Works F Y 2019/20 - $330,000 for replacement of P C s at remaining City f acilities T his action will also provide an additional $150,000 in procurement ability under the NA S P O Value P oint Master Agreement to purchase additional computer equipment and peripherals as may be needed, subject to f uture budget approval. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: T his project indirectly supports Council’s goals for mid and long-term planning by f acilitating the timely, accurate and cost-effective procurement of computer equipment. Page 301 DATE: May 16, 2018 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Jason Welday, Director of Engineering Services/City Engineer Linda Ceballos, Environmental Programs Manager SUBJECT:CONSIDERATION OF AN APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS IN THE A MOUNT OF $3,000 FROM THE CA RECYCLING/LITTER GRANT (FUND 225) FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH INCREASING BEVERAGE CONTAINER OPPORTUNITIES. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve an appropriation in the amount of $3,000, from the CA Recycling/Litter Reduction Grant (Fund 225) balance to Account No. 1225303-5200 (Operations & Maintenance) for costs associated with beverage container recycling at City facilities. BACKGROUND: CA Recycling/Litter Reduction Grant funds are awarded annually to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the purpose of increasing the collection and recycling of California Redemption Value (CRV) beverage containers. ANALYSIS: This appropriation request would utilize grant funds for costs associated with increasing beverage container recycling opportunities through the purchase and placement of recycling containers at the All- Risk Training Center in the Jersey Station. An appropriation was requested on April 4, 2018, in the amount of $6,000, however, the quotes for the recycle bins for the Sports Center and All-Risk Training Center came in higher than anticipated, and additional funds are needed to cover the costs. FISCAL IMPACT: In order to fund the purchase and placement of additional recycling containers, an appropriation in the amount of $3,000 from the CA Recycling/Litter Reduction Grant Fund (Fund 225) to Account No. 1225303-5200 (Operations & Maintenance). COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRESSED: N/A Page 302 DATE: May 16, 2018 TO:Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM:John R. Gillison, City Manager INITIATED BY:Lori Sassoon, Deputy City Manager/Administrative Services Tamara L. Layne, Finance Director Noah Daniels, Finance Manager SUBJECT:SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 928 AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX COMMENCING IN FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 AND EACH ENSUING FISCAL YEAR SOLELY WITHIN AND RELATING TO NORTH ETIWANDA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the second reading of Ordinance No. 928 which authorizes the levy of the special tax starting in Fiscal Year 2018/19 for North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (Richland Communities) (the “District). BACKGROUND: On May 2, 2018, the City Council opened the public hearing, where any comments from the public were to be solicited and heard by the Council. After noting there was no public testimony, the hearing was closed and City Council was requested to consider Resolution No 18-29 that approved the formation of the District. Following the adoption of Resolution No. 18-29, the City Council conducted an election of the qualified voters of the District and adopted Resolution No. 18-30 declaring the results of the election, which was a unanimous vote in favor of the levy of special taxes. The City Council then introduced and read Ordinance No. 928 authorizing the levy of a special tax commencing Fiscal Year 2018/19 and each fiscal year thereafter solely within and relating to North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. ANALYSIS: As required by the Mello-Roos Act, the notice of special tax lien was recorded at the San Bernardino County Recorder’s Office on May 4, 2018 with a recorded document number of 2018-0163765. The recording of the notice of special tax lien will put all interested parties, including title companies, lenders and future home purchasers, on notice that the property is located within North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and is subject to a special tax. Based on an estimate of costs to be incurred by the City of Rancho Cucamonga for providing the authorized services for North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the maximum annual special tax is $871.77 (in FY 2018/19 dollars) per Residential Dwelling Unit. As specified in the Amended Rate and Method of Apportionment of Special Tax, annual increases in the maximum special tax are limited to an increase of a minimum of two percent (2%) to a maximum annual increase of six percent (6%), determined on an annual basis as needed to satisfy the Special TaxPage 303 R equirement. Should the City Council adopt the ordinance, the City Clerk is required to publish Ordinance No. 928 within 15 days after its passage in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the area of the District. Publication of the ordinance will complete the process to authorize the levy of special taxes within North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga commencing in Fiscal Year 2018/19. FISCAL IMPACT: T he D istrict is separate from the C ity’s General F und. T he special tax revenues proposed to be received for the District will offset the cost of providing services within the District. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: N/A AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n A ttachment 1 - Ordinance A utho rizing Levy of S pecial Tax Page 304 Ordinance No. XXX - Page 1 of 6 ATTACHMENT #03 ORDINANCE NO. 928 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF NORTH ETIWANDA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017- 01 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX IN SUCH COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT A. Recital WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California (the “City Council”), has initiated proceedings, held a public hearing, conducted an election and received a favorable vote from the qualified electors authorizing the levy of special taxes in a community facilities district, all as authorized pursuant to the terms and provisions of the “Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982,” being Chapter 2.5, Part 1. Division 2, Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the “Act”). This community facilities district shall hereinafter be referred to as North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017- 01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the “District”). B. Ordinance NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF NORTH ETIWANDA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. This City Council does, by the passage of this ordinance, authorize the levy of special taxes on taxable properties located in the District pursuant to the Amended Rate and Method of Apportionment as set forth in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (the “Amended Rate and Method”). SECTION 2. This City Council, acting in its capacity as the legislative body of the District, is hereby further authorized, by resolution, to annually determine the special tax to be levied within the District for the then current tax year or future tax years; provided, however, the special tax to be levied shall not exceed the maximum special tax authorized to be levied pursuant to the Amended Rate and Method. SECTION 3. The special taxes herein authorized to be levied, to the extent possible, shall be collected in the same manner as ad valorem property taxes or in such other manner as this City Council shall determine, including without limitation, direct billing of the affected property owners, and shall be subject to the same penalties, procedure, sale and lien priority in any case of delinquency as applicable for ad valorem taxes. Any special taxes that may not be collected on the County tax roll shall be collected through a direct billing procedure by the Treasurer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting for and on behalf of the District. SECTION 4. The special taxes authorized to be levied shall be secured by the lien imposed pursuant to Sections 3114.5 and 3115.5 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, which lien shall be a continuing lien to secure each levy of the special tax, shall attach to all non-exempt real property in the District and shall continue in force and effect until the lien is canceled in accordance with law or until collection of the tax by the legislative body ceases. SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after its adoption. Within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Page 305 Resolution No. 18-XXX - Page 2 of 6 ATTACHMENT #03 EXHIBIT A AMENDED RATE AND METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT FOR THE NORTH ETIWANDA COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2017-01 OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA A Special Tax as hereinafter defined shall be levied on each Assessor's Parcel of Taxable Property within the North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 (“North Etiwanda CFD”) of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and collected each Fiscal Year commencing with Fiscal Year 2018/19 in an amount determined by the City Council through the application of the Amended Rate and Method of Apportionment as described below. All of the real property in the North Etiwanda CFD, unless exempted by law or by the provisions hereof, shall be taxed for the purposes of, to the extent, and in the manner herein provided. A. DEFINITIONS The terms hereinafter set forth have the following meaning: “Acreage” or “Acre” means the land area of an Assessor’s Parcel as shown on County records, such as an Assessor’s Parcel Map and secured roll data, or if the land area is not shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map, the land area shown on the applicable final subdivision map, record of survey, or other recorded document creating or describing the Assessor’s Parcel. If the preceding maps for a land area are not available, the Acreage of such land area may be determined utilizing available spatial data and geographic information systems (GIS). “Act” means the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, being Chapter 2.5, Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California. “Administrative Expenses” means the actual or reasonably estimated costs directly related to the administration of the North Etiwanda CFD including, but not limited to, the following: the costs of computing the Special Taxes and preparing the annual Special Tax collection schedules (whether by the City, the CFD Administrator, or both); the costs of collecting the Special Taxes (whether by the County, the City, or otherwise); the costs to the City, North Etiwanda CFD, or any designee thereof in complying with disclosure requirements; the costs associated with preparing Special Tax disclosure statements and responding to public inquiries regarding the Special Taxes; and the costs of the City, North Etiwanda CFD, or any designee thereof related to any appeal of the levy or application of the Special Tax. Administrative Expenses shall also include amounts estimated or advanced by the City or North Etiwanda CFD for any other administrative purposes, including, but not limited to, attorney’s fees, proposed formation of the North Etiwanda CFD, or any other expenses incidental to the provision of the Services. “Assessor’s Data” means Acreage or other Assessor’s Parcel information contained in the records of the Assessor of the County. “Assessor’s Parcel” means a lot or parcel shown on an Assessor’s Parcel Map with an assigned Assessor’s Parcel number. “Assessor’s Parcel Map” means an official map of the assessor of the County designating parcels by an Assessor’s Parcel number. Page 306 Resolution No. 18-XXX - Page 3 of 6 ATTACHMENT #03 “CFD Administrator” means an official of the City, or designee thereof, responsible for determining the Special Tax Requirement and providing for the levy and collection of the Special Taxes. “City” means the City of Rancho Cucamonga. “City Council” means the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, acting as the legislative body of the North Etiwanda CFD. “County” means the County of San Bernardino. “Developed Property” means for each Fiscal Year, all Taxable Property, for which a building permit was issued prior to the March 1st preceding the Fiscal Year for which the Special Tax is being levied. “Exempt Property” means all Assessors’ Parcels that are exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to Section E. “Fiscal Year” means the period starting July 1 and ending on the following June 30. “Homeowner Association Property” means any property within the boundaries of North Etiwanda CFD which is owned by a homeowners’ or property owners’ association, including any master or sub- association. “Maximum Annual Special Tax” means the maximum Special Tax, determined in accordance with the provisions of Section C below, which may be levied in any Fiscal Year on any Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property. “Non-Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda CFD for which a building permit(s) has been issued for a non- residential structure(s). “North Etiwanda CFD” means the North Etiwanda Community Facilities District No. 2017-01 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. “Proportionately” means for Taxable Property that the ratio of the Special Tax levy to the Maximum Annual Special Tax is equal for all Assessor’s Parcels within each classification (Residential Property, Non-Residential Property, and Undeveloped Property) within the North Etiwanda CFD. “Public Property” means any property which (a) is owned by a public agency, (b) has been irrevocably offered for dedication to a public agency, or (c) is designated with specific boundaries and acreage on a final subdivision map as property which will be owned by a public agency. For purposes of this definition, a public agency includes the federal government, the State of California, the County, the City, or any other public agency. “Residential Dwelling Unit” means any residential dwelling unit constructed or to be constructed for habitable living purposes located on an Assessor’s Parcel as indicated in the records of the County Assessor, or, if not indicated, as otherwise determined by the CFD Administrator based on available official information, including building permit(s) issued. Page 307 Resolution No. 18-XXX - Page 4 of 6 ATTACHMENT #03 “Residential Property” means all Assessor’s Parcels of Developed Property within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda CFD for which a building permit(s) has been issued for purposes of constructing one or more Residential Dwelling Units. “Services” means the maintenance of public trails and trailhead improvements, landscaped areas, parkways, medians and parks and recreation improvements throughout the North Etiwanda CFD and public right-of-ways, including, but not limited to, street trees, fencing, irrigation systems, sidewalks, drainage systems, signs, monuments, graffiti removal, replacement, repair or rehabilitation of playground equipment, sports fields, parking lots, restrooms, sport field lighting, street lighting and other improvements placed in parks, trails, medians, landscaped areas, or public right-of-ways, furnishing of water, electric current or energy, gas, or other illuminating agent for the operation of any improvement within the North Etiwanda CFD. The maintenance and servicing of streetlights, traffic signals and appurtenant facilities, including but not limited to furnishing of electric current, materials, contracted services, and the necessary maintenance, replacement, and repair required to keep the improvements in operational and satisfactory condition. “Special Tax” means the special tax to be levied in each Fiscal Year on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property to fund the Special Tax Requirement. “Special Tax Requirement” means that amount of Special Tax revenue required in any Fiscal Year for the North Etiwanda CFD to: (i) pay for the costs of operation, maintenance and servicing of the Services; (ii) pay Administrative Expenses; (iii) pay any amounts required to establish or replenish any repair and contingency funds, capital improvement funds, or reserve funds for the North Etiwanda CFD; and (iv) pay for reasonably anticipated delinquent Special Taxes based on the delinquency rate for Special Taxes levied in the previous Fiscal Year; less a credit for funds available to reduce the annual Special Tax levy, as determined by the CFD Administrator. “State” means the State of California. “Taxable Property” means all of the Assessor’s Parcels within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda CFD that are not exempt from the Special Tax pursuant to law or Section E below. “Undeveloped Property” means each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property within the boundaries of the North Etiwanda CFD that is not classified as Developed Property. B. ASSIGNMENT TO LAND USE CATEGORIES On, or around, July 1 of each Fiscal Year, the CFD Administrator shall determine the valid Assessor’s Parcel numbers for the current Fiscal Year for all property within the North Etiwanda CFD. Each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property within the North Etiwanda CFD shall be classified as Residential Property, Non-Residential Property or Undeveloped Property, and shall be subject to the levy of annual Special Taxes determined pursuant to Section C below. Page 308 Resolution No. 18-XXX - Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENT #03 C. MAXIMUM ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX The Maximum Annual Special Tax for each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property shall be assigned according to the table below: Property Land Use Fiscal Year 2018/19 Maximum Annual Special Tax Residential Property $871.77 per Residential Dwelling Unit Non-Residential Property $0.00 per Acre Undeveloped Property $2,117.76 per Acre On July 1 of each Fiscal Year, commencing on July 1, 2019, the Maximum Annual Special Tax set forth in the table above shall be increased by a minimum of two percent (2%) to a maximum annual increase of six percent (6%), determined on an annual basis as needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement. D. METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT OF THE SPECIAL TAX Commencing with Fiscal Year 2018/19, and for each subsequent Fiscal Year, the CFD Administrator shall determine the Special Tax Requirement and shall levy the Special Tax on each Assessor’s Parcel of Taxable Property until the amount of Special Taxes equals the Special Tax Requirement. The Special Taxes shall be levied each Fiscal Year as follows First: The Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Residential Property at a rate of up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Annual Special Tax as needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement. Second: If additional moneys are needed to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement after the first step has been completed, the Special Tax shall be levied Proportionately on each Assessor's Parcel of Undeveloped Property at a rate of up to 100% of the applicable Maximum Annual Special Tax to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement. Notwithstanding the above, under no circumstances will the Special Tax levied against any Assessor’s Parcel of Residential Property be increased as a result of delinquencies by owners of other Assessor’s Parcels by more than ten percent (10%) above what the Assessor’s Parcel of Residential Property would have been levied had there been no delinquencies. E. EXEMPTIONS The CFD Administrator shall classify the following Assessor’s Parcels as Exempt Property: (i) Public Property, (ii) Homeowner Association Property, and (iii) and Assessor’s Parcels with public or utility easements making impractical their utilization for any use other than the purposes set forth in the easement. If the use of an Assessor's Parcel of Exempt Property changes so that such Assessor's Parcel is no longer classified as one of the uses set forth above that would make such Assessor's Parcel eligible Page 309 Resolution No. 18-XXX - Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT #03 to be classified as Exempt Property, such Assessor's Parcel shall cease to be classified as Exempt Property and shall be deemed to be Taxable Property. F. REVIEW/APPEAL Any landowner or resident who feels that the amount of the Special Tax levied on their Assessor’s Parcel is in error shall first consult with the CFD Administrator regarding such error. If, following such consultation, the CFD Administrator determines that an error has occurred, the CFD Administrator may amend the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor’s Parcel. If, following such consultation and action (if any by the CFD Administrator), the landowner or resident believes such error still exists, such person may file a written notice with the City appealing the amount of the Special Tax levied on such Assessor's Parcel. The City may establish such procedures, as it deems necessary, to undertake the review of any such appeal. The City shall interpret this Amended Rate and Method of Apportionment and make determinations relative to the annual administration of the Special Tax and any landowner or resident appeals, as herein specified. The decision of the City shall be final and binding as to all persons. G. MANNER OF COLLECTION The annual Special Tax shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as ordinary ad valorem property taxes; provided, however, that the North Etiwanda CFD, may directly bill the Special Tax, and may collect Special Taxes at a different time or in a different manner as necessary to meet its financial obligations. H. PREPAYMENT OF SPECIAL TAX The Special Tax may not be prepaid. I. TERM OF SPECIAL TAX The Special Tax shall be levied, commencing in Fiscal Year 2018/19, as long as necessary to satisfy the Special Tax Requirement. Page 310 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:Candyce Burnett, City P lanner J ennif er Nakamura, A ssociate P lanner S UB J E C T:S E C O ND RE AD I NG AND AD O P T IO N O F O RD I NANC E NO. 929, AM E ND I NG T I T L E 17 O F T HE M UNIC I PAL C O D E T O E NAC T RE Q UI RE M E NT S AND S TAND ARD S F O R T HE D E V E L O P M E NT O F WIRE L E S S C O M M UNIC AT I O N FAC I L IT IE S WI T HI N T HE P UB L I C RI G HT O F WAY. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends that the City Council conduct a second reading of Ordinance No. 922, by title only "A n Ordinance of T he City of Rancho C ucamonga, A mending the R ancho Cucamonga Municipal C ode to Enact R equirements and Standards for the D evelopment of W ireless Communication F acilities W ithin the Public R ight of Way, and Making F indings in S upport T hereof". BACKGROUND: T he introduction and f irst reading of the above-entitled Ordinance was approved at a R egular C ity Council Meeting on May 2, 2018. Vote at f irst reading: AYE S: Alexander, K ennedy, Spagnolo, W illiams A B S E NT: Michael ANALY S IS: Please refer to the May 2, 2018 C ity C ouncil Meeting Staf f R eport. FISCAL IMPACT: Please refer to the May 2, 2018 C ity C ouncil Meeting Staf f R eport. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: Please refer to the May 2, 2018 C ity C ouncil Meeting Staf f R eport. AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n A ttachment 1 - Ordinance Page 311 Ordinance No. 929 – Page 1 of 10 ORDINANCE NO. 929 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AMENDING THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ENACT REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF A. Recitals. 1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has prepared Municipal Code Amendment DRC2018- 00187, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Municipal Code Amendment is referred to as "the application". 2. On March 14, 2018, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above referenced Municipal Code Amendment and, following the conclusion thereof, adopted its Resolution No. 18-xx, recommending that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopt said Ordinance. 3. On May 2, 2018, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: SECTION 1: This City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. SECTION 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to the City Council during the above-referenced public hearing on May 2, 2018, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The City desires to adopt the following changes to Title 17 of the Municipal Code in order to enact permitting requirements and development standards for the development of wireless communication facilities within the public right of way; and b. The changes proposed to Title 17 (Development Code) in the amendment are consistent with the General Plan goals, policies and implementation programs. General Plan Goal LU-11 focuses on maintaining community aesthetics through appropriate regulations. By requiring discretionary review of new wireless communication facilities on public utility poles owned by the City ensures that they will be designed to be compatible with the pole on which they are being located and designed to blend with the surrounding environment as required by General Plan Land Use Policy LU-11.3; and c. Planning Department Staff has determined that the project is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City’s CEQA Page 312 Ordinance No. 929 – Page 2 of 10 Guidelines. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project, amending the Municipal Code to require discretionary review and enact development standards for the development of wireless communication facilities within the public right of way. It does not permit nor allow the construction of any new facilities. Applications new wireless communication facilities within the public right of way subject to this ordinance will be reviewed for CEQA compliance under a separate Minor Design Review application. The applicant may be required to submit environmental studies that analyze the impact(s) (if any) to, for example, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, noise levels, and transportation/traffic caused by the site-specific project. On a case-by-case review of each project, the appropriate environmental document will be prepared to address project-specific impacts. Therefore, this project will not have a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 3: Section 17.140.020 (Wireless communications definitions) of Chapter 17.140 (Wireless Communications Definitions) of Title 17 (Development Code) is hereby amended as follows: “Minor wireless communications facility means a wireless communications facility that is stealth in design and does not exceed the height limit of the district in which it is located, or building-, façade-, or wall-mounted and does not exceed the height of the parapet wall or roofline of the building. A roof-mounted facility, which is screened by a solid material on all four sides and does not exceed the maximum height of the district, shall be considered a minor wireless communications facility. The following shall be considered a minor wireless communications facility: 1) A wireless communications facility located on a public utility pole owned by the city; 2) A wireless communications facility located on public property or within a public right-of- way, other than a public utility pole owned by the city, if it is located 300 feet or more from a residential zone, that is in full compliance with the state public utilities commission joint pole association General Order 95, Rule 94, or any successor provisions thereto, and that does not exceed the height limit for the zoning district.” SECTION 4: Chapter 17.106 (Wireless Communication Facilities) of Title 17 (Development Code), is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: “Chapter 17.106 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES Section 17.106.010: Purpose and intent. Section 17.106.020: Permit requirements and exemptions. Section 17.106.030: Application requirements. Section 17.106.040: Development criteria. Section 17.106.050: Performance standards. Section 17.106.060: Removal and restoration; permit expiration or revocation. Section 17.106.070: Abandonment. Section 17.106.080: Deployment of temporary facilities. Section 17.106.090: Agreement for facilities located on City-owned property. Page 313 Ordinance No. 929 – Page 3 of 10 17.106.010 Purpose and intent. The purpose of this chapter is to establish site planning and development standards for wireless communication facilities. It is the city’s intent, in establishing these standards, to allow for the development of wireless communication facilities where needed in accordance with the Telecommunications Act of 1996, while maintaining development standards and permitting requirements consistent with state law. 17.106.020 Permit requirements and exemptions. A. Minor wireless communication facilities shall require minor design review. B. Major wireless communication facilities shall require a conditional use permit. C. Minor or major wireless communication facilities located within the public right-of-way shall also require a construction permit pursuant to chapter 12.03. D. Wireless communication facilities on city property, except for the public right-of-way, are exempt from permit requirements. E. Removal of wireless communication facilities is exempt from permit requirements. F. Replacement of equipment which does not substantially change the tower or shelter is exempt from planning permits, but may be subject to other building permits. G. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the collocation of a new wireless communication facility on an existing major wireless communication facility that (i) was approved after January 1, 2007, by discretionary permit; (ii) was approved subject to an environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated negative declaration; and (iii) otherwise complies with the requirements of Government Code § 65850.6(b) for wireless communication collocation facilities shall not be required to obtain another discretionary permit approval, but shall be required to obtain all other applicable non-discretionary permit(s), as specified by this title and the city-adopted building code, provided such collocation does not increase the height or change the location of the existing wireless facility or otherwise change the bulk, size, or other physical attributes of the existing permitted wireless communication facility. H. The proposed collocation of a new wireless communication facility on an existing minor or major wireless communication facility that meets all of the requirements stated in the above paragraph may include new appurtenant equipment boxes or shelter units that are colored and/or disguised to match the existing equipment boxes or shelter units and that do not exceed the total volume of equipment boxes utilized by the existing wireless communication collocation facility. 1. The proposed collocation of a new wireless communication facility on an existing major wireless communication facility that meets all of the requirements stated in the above paragraphs may not include the following: a. More additional surface area of antennas than is being utilized by the existing wireless communication collocation facility, provided all antennas are colored and/or disguised to match the existing facility. Page 314 Ordinance No. 929 – Page 4 of 10 b. Any additional tower or additional support structure than is shown in plans and specifications to be reasonably necessary to collocate the permitted antenna panels on the existing wireless communication facility. Unless otherwise approved in writing by the planning director, and except as provided in this subsection, installation of all collocation accessory equipment and enclosures shall comply with the requirements of this chapter. 2. Except as otherwise provided above, a conditional use permit or minor design review shall be required when the proposed collocation facility: a. Increases the height of the existing permitted tower/structure or otherwise changes the bulk, size, location, or any other physical attributes of the existing permitted wireless communication facility; or b. Adds any microwave dish or other antenna not expressly permitted to be included in a collocation facility by this section; or c. Collocates on an existing legally permitted wireless communication facility that was approved on or prior to January 1, 2007; or d. Will serve or be operated by more than one wireless services provider, unless an additional provider has properly obtained a written authorization from the planning director after consideration of the factors applicable to administrative approval of collocation facilities set forth above in this section, the size of the additional, proposed facility, and the potential visual or other impact of the proposed facility. 17.106.030 Application requirements. Where the City determines that it requires expert assistance in evaluating an application, the City may hire a consultant and the fee charged by the consultant shall be reimbursed to the City, with a deposit paid up front by the applicant regardless of the outcome of the application. 17.106.040 Development criteria. A. Screening and site selection guidelines. The following screening and site selection guidelines apply to all wireless communication facilities: 1. Stealth facilities and concealed antennas are preferred. 2. Wireless communication facilities shall be located where the existing topography, vegetation, buildings, or other structures provide the greatest amount of screening. Where insufficient screening exists, applicants shall provide screening satisfactory to the planning director, or as otherwise required herein. 3. Ground-mounted wireless communication facilities shall be located only in close proximity to existing aboveground utilities, such as electrical towers or utility poles (which are not scheduled for removal or undergrounding for at least 18 months after the date of application), light poles, trees of comparable heights, and in areas where they will not detract from the appearance of the city. 4. Wireless communication facilities shall be located in the following order of preference: Page 315 Ordinance No. 929 – Page 5 of 10 a. Collocated with existing wireless communication facilities. b. On existing structures such as buildings, communication towers, or utility facilities. c. On an existing signal, power, light, or similar kinds of poles. d. In industrial districts. e. In commercial districts. f. In residential districts, subject to additional restrictions set forth herein. 5. Major wireless communication facilities are not permitted to locate within 300 feet of any residential structure, within any residential district, or within 300 feet of any existing, legally established major wireless communication facility except as follows: a. When located on any existing nonresidential building or structure or on any existing utility pole provided such location complies with all of the following: i. The collocation is in full compliance with the California Public Utilities Commission Joint Pole Association General Order 95, Rule 94, and any other applicable state or federal regulations; and ii. Existing major wireless communication facility to be utilized for collocation shall previously be granted with a conditional use permit or a minor development review approval, including modification of an existing conditional use permit or minor development review; and iii. All accessory equipment and enclosures shall be located underground or screened from public view as approved in writing by the planning director; and iv. Unless shown in the submitted application documentation to not be technically and/or commercially feasible, all antennas and/or antenna panels shall be flush mounted and limited in number to that amount necessary to achieve the required coverage described in said documentation. b. The proposed facility will replace or modify an existing facility for purposes of collocation. c. The proposed facility will be designed and constructed in a manner to allow for future collocation of an additional wireless communication carrier provided the applicant submits written documentation that shows: i. A more preferable location, as determined by reference to section 17.106.030.A 4 cannot be reasonably accommodated by the applicant due to technical requirements of the proposed facility including, but not limited to, coverage requirements imposed by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) or otherwise by law, or due to other factors beyond the applicant’s reasonable control. d. For the purposes of this chapter, all distances shall be measured in a straight line without regard to intervening structures, from the nearest point of the proposed major Page 316 Ordinance No. 929 – Page 6 of 10 wireless communication facility to the nearest property line of any residential land use, or to the nearest point of another major wireless communication facility. B. Development requirements. 1. As part of the application process, each wireless communication facility applicant may, at the discretion of the planning director, be required to provide written documentation demonstrating good faith efforts in locating facilities in accordance with the site selection guidelines (order of preference). Such documentation shall include at minimum a coverage map (before and as proposed) and analysis of alternative sites. 2. Wireless communication facilities shall not bear any signs or advertising devices other than certification, warning, or other required seals or legally required signage. 3. All accessory equipment associated with the operation of the wireless communication facility shall be located within a building, enclosure, or underground vault that complies with the development standards of the district in which the accessory equipment is located, subject to city approval. If the equipment is permitted to be located aboveground or will be located within the public right-of-way, it shall be visually compatible with the surrounding buildings and include sufficient landscaping to screen the structure from view. 4. Wireless communication facilities shall be of subdued colors and non-reflective materials which blend with surrounding materials and colors. 5. All screening for building-mounted facilities shall be compatible with the existing architecture, color, texture, and/or materials of the building. 6. Monopoles and antennas shall be no greater in diameter or other cross-sectional dimensions than is necessary for the proper functioning of the wireless communication facility. The applicant shall provide documentation satisfactory to the planning director establishing compliance with this subsection. 7. Wireless communications facilities, including on-site generators, shall be designed to comply with the City’s noise ordinance, found at section 17.66.050 and all other applicable noise regulations. C. In addition to the development criteria set forth in subsections A and B, the following criteria shall apply to all wireless communication facilities located within the public right-of-way and installed after [INSERT ORDINANCE EFFECTIVE DATE]: 1. Wireless communication facilities may be located on street lights or utility poles, but may not be placed on historic or decorative street lights, traffic signal poles, or intersection safety lights. 2. The applicant shall submit engineering calculations, sealed by a registered professional engineer licensed in California, to ensure that the existing street light or utility pole and its footing are adequate to support the new loads. If the existing infrastructure is not adequate to support the new loads, the applicant may propose to replace the existing infrastructure with adequate, City-approved, new infrastructure at the applicant’s expense. Page 317 Ordinance No. 929 – Page 7 of 10 3. All cabling and wiring must be contained in conduit, affixed directly to the face of the pole, for as long as it is technically feasible. Exposed slack or extra cable is prohibited. 4. Electrical meters are prohibited. The applicant is responsible for the cost of all electrical usage associated with the wireless communication facility. 5. If installation of the wireless communication facility is within an area governed by the Rancho Cucamonga Fiber Master Plan, the City Engineer may forward the engineering plans to the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility for review and a requirement that the applicant coordinate with the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility may be added to the construction permit to facilitate joint trenching opportunities. 6. Installation and operation of the wireless communications facility shall not damage or interfere in any way with City property or facilities or existing, third- party installations. 17.106.050 Performance standards. No wireless communication facility shall interfere with any public safety radio communications system, including, but not limited to, the 800 MHz trunking system. Wireless communication facilities shall comply with all FCC rules and regulations regarding the avoidance, mitigation, and abatement of any such interference. 17.106.060 Removal and restoration; permit expiration or revocation. A. Upon the expiration date of the minor design review, conditional use permit, and/or construction permit, including any extensions, earlier termination or revocation of the permit, the operator shall remove its wireless communications facility and restore the site to its natural condition except for retaining the landscaping improvements and any other improvements at the discretion of the city. Removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the city. The wireless communications facility shall be removed from the property within 30 days, at no cost or expense to the city. If the facility is located on private property, the private property owner shall also be independently responsible for the expense of timely removal and restoration. B. Failure of the operator to promptly remove its facility and restore the property within 30 days after expiration, earlier termination, or revocation of the permit of the facility, shall be a violation of this code, and be grounds for: 1. Prosecution; 2. Calling of any bond or other assurance required by conditions of approval; 3. Removal of the facilities by the city in accordance with established procedures for abatement of a public nuisance at the owner’s expense; and/or 4. Any other lawful remedies. C. In the event the director of engineering services determines that the condition or placement of a wireless communications facility located in the public right-of-way constitutes a dangerous condition, obstruction of the public right-of-way, or an imminent threat to public safety, or determines other exigent circumstances require immediate corrective action (collectively, Page 318 Ordinance No. 929 – Page 8 of 10 “exigent circumstances”), the director of engineering services may cause the facility to be removed summarily and immediately without advance notice or a hearing. Written notice of the removal shall be served upon the person who owns the facility within five business days of removal and all property removed shall be preserved for the owner’s pick-up as feasible. If the owner cannot be identified following reasonable effort or if the owner fails to pick-up the property within 60 days, the facility shall be treated as abandoned property. D. In the event the city removes a facility in accordance with nuisance abatement procedures or summary removal, any such removal shall be without any liability to the city for any damage to such facility that may result from reasonable efforts of removal. In addition to the procedures for recovering costs of nuisance abatement, the city may collect such costs from any performance bond posted and to the extent such costs exceed the amount of the performance bond, collect those excess costs in accordance with this code. Unless otherwise provided herein, the city has no obligation to store such facility. The operator shall have no claim if the city destroys any such facility not timely removed by the operator after notice, or removed by the city due to exigent circumstances. 17.106.070 Abandonment. A. A wireless communication facility is considered abandoned and shall be promptly removed as provided herein if it ceases to provide wireless communication services for 180 or more days, unless the wireless communication facility is otherwise permitted to remain in the public right- of-way by agreement with the city. Such removal shall be in accordance with proper health and safety requirements and all ordinances, rules, and regulations of the city. B. A written notice of the determination of abandonment shall be sent by first class mail, or personally delivered, to the operator of the wireless communication facility at said operator’s business address on file with the city. The operator shall remove all facilities within 30 days of the date of such notice unless, within ten business days of the date of said notice, the operator appeals such determination, in writing, to the planning commission. The planning director shall schedule a hearing on the matter to be conducted before the planning commission at which time the operator may present any relevant evidence on the issue of abandonment. The planning commission may affirm, reverse, or modify with or without conditions the original determination of abandonment and shall make written findings in support of its decision. The decision of the planning commission shall be final. C. Any wireless communication facility determined to be abandoned and not removed within the 30-day period from the date of notice, or where an appeal has been timely filed, within such time as prescribed by the planning commission following its final determination of abandonment, shall be in violation of this chapter, and the operator of such facility shall be subject to the penalties prescribed herein. Facilities determined to be abandoned and not removed within the time limits prescribed herein hereby are deemed to be a nuisance and, alternative to the procedure described above, may be abated as a nuisance in any manner provided by law. 17.106.080 Deployment of temporary facilities. A temporary wireless communication facility may be deployed subject to approval by the planning director and the following: A. A permanent wireless communication facility has been approved for the property in question. Page 319 Ordinance No. 929 – Page 9 of 10 B. The temporary facility was approved as part of the conditional use permit or minor development review. C. The facility is deployed for no more than six months, provided that two extensions may be granted by the planning director; however, the total period shall not exceed one year. 17.106.090 Agreement for facilities located on City-owned property. No approval granted under this division for locating facilities on city-owned property, including city-owned utility poles, shall be effective until the applicant and the city have executed a written agreement establishing the particular terms and provisions under which the right to occupy city- owned property shall be used or maintained. The terms of any such agreement shall be supplemental to the requirements of this Chapter.” SECTION 7. The City Council declares that, should any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance for any reason is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance, and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions thereof be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 8. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other Ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violations of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. SECTION 9. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause it to be published in the manner required by law. Page 320 Ordinance No. 929 – Page 10 of 10 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of May, 2018. Williams NOES: ABSENT: None _____________________________ L. Dennis Michael, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ) ss CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ) I, JANICE C. REYNOLDS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 2nd day of May 2018, and was passed at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 16th day of May 2018. AYES: Alexander, Kennedy, Michael, Spagnolo, Williams NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None Executed this 17th day of May 2018, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. ____________________________________ Janice C. Reynolds, City Clerk Page 321 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:J ason C . Welday, D irector of E ngineering Services/C ity Engineer L inda Ceballos, E nvironmental Programs Manager S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N O F A RE S O L UT I O N F O R P L AC E M E NT O F S P E C IAL AS S E S S M E NT S AND L IE NS F O R D E L I NQ UE NT S O L ID WAS T E AC C O UNT S . RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends that the C ity C ouncil adopt the attached resolution approving the report of B urrtec Waste I ndustries, I nc. (B urrtec) delinquent solid waste accounts, and authorizing the placement of special assessments and liens against the respective parcels of land to be collected for the C ity of Rancho C ucamonga, at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary C ounty ad valorem property taxes. BACKGROUND: Section 8.17.270 and S ection 8.19.270 of the R ancho Cucamonga Municipal C ode established the requirements for mandatory payment for residential, commercial, and industrial solid waste collection service. A s a result, the municipal code requires all occupied properties within the City to have weekly solid waste collection service, provided by the existing f ranchise hauler, or comply with the terms of the self -haul permit program administered by City staf f . T hese sections of the code allow fees that are delinquent for more than 60 days to become special assessments against the respective parcels of land, resulting in liens on the property for the amount of the delinquent f ees, plus administrative charges. C ity staff reviews the list and property owner addresses to correct any discrepancies that might prevent a property owner from receiving the Public Hearing Notice. T he address that is used f or the notif ication is the address on file with the County Tax Assessor at the time of review. T he P ublic Hearing Notice is then mailed to the property owner by Certified Mail no less than 10 days prior to the P ublic Hearing date. ANALY S IS: T he City received a list of delinquent solid waste accounts from Burrtec on March 5, 2018. I n addition to delinquent accounts from 2017, the list includes delinquent accounts f rom both 2015 and 2016 that were not applied as liens during those respective tax years. Staf f reviewed these accounts and determined that the public hearing notice f or those years was mailed to the address on record, however, the property owner(s) either refused to accept the delivery or did not claim it at the post of f ice. T he list includes over 100 property owners that have been on the delinquent list repeatedly and that have continued to receive continuous solid waste service without payment. T he City Attorney reviewed the process and determined that the mailed public hearing notif ication was an adequate attempt to legally notif y the property owner of the public hearing. A Notice of P ublic Hearing was mailed on April 13, 2018, by Certified Mail to 818Page 322 property owners with delinquent solid waste accounts. I n addition, a Notice of P ublic Hearing advertisement was placed in T he I nland Valley D aily B ulletin newspaper on May 1, 2018. T he list of delinquent accounts in the attached resolution was provided to the C ity by B urrtec on March 29, 2018 and includes 792 delinquent accounts f or a total of $309,617.40. I f the City Council approves this resolution, property owners that are still on the delinquency list will have until J uly 16, 2018, to submit payment to B urrtec. T he final list of delinquent accounts will then be submitted to the County for the 2018- 2019 tax roll. A s of May 7, 2018, City staff responded to 13 inquiries from property owners and the C ity C lerk has received one written protest. FISCAL IMPACT: T he City will receive revenue through the franchise fee when the delinquent accounts are paid through the C ounty of S an Bernardino property tax collection process. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: Not applicable. AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n R eso & Lien List Page 323 Resolution No. 18-XXX - Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 18-XXXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF DELINQUENT CHARGES FROM BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES, INC. FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION, WHICH SHALL CONSTITUTE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LIENS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AND SHALL BE COLLECTED FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS ORDINARY COUNTY AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 8.17.270 and 8.19.270 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code every person who occupies any developed real property within the City of Rancho Cucamonga whether at a residential, commercial, or industrial location, or otherwise shall make or cause to be made with the City of Rancho Cucamonga authorized agent, appropriate arrangements for regular solid waste collection services and it is unlawful for any such person to fail, refuse or neglect to do so; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 8.17.270 and 8.19.270 the solid waste collection fee shall be a civil debt owing or due to the City of Rancho Cucamonga or its authorized agent or contractor from the occupant or property owner required to have service under this Chapter. An invoice for solid waste collection service unpaid for sixty (60) days is considered delinquent; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 8.17.270 and 8.19.270 any fees authorized pursuant to this Chapter which remain unpaid after the delinquent date as set forth in this Chapter may be collected by the City of Rancho Cucamonga as provided in this Section; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has caused to be prepared a report of delinquent charges; and, WHEREAS, a copy of said report is attached hereto, marked Exhibit “A” and made a part of this Resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled 7:00 p.m. on May 16, 2018, at the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Hall located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California as the time and place for hearing the report and any objections or protests thereto; and, WHEREAS, the City Council caused notice of the hearing to be mailed certified to the property owners listed on the report, at their addresses as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing; and, WHEREAS, at the hearing, the City Council heard all objections or protests of property owners, or their representatives, liable to be assessed for delinquent charges; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has made such revisions and corrections to the report as it deems just. Page 324 Resolution No. 18-XXX - Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the delinquent charges for solid waste collection set forth in the report attached hereto as Exhibit “A” are hereby confirmed. Section 2. That pursuant to California Government Code Sections 38790.1 and 25831, the delinquent charges set forth in the confirmed report shall constitute special assessments against the respective parcels of land and is a lien on the property for the amount of the delinquent charges. Section 3. That the City Clerk is instructed to f ile a certified copy of this Resolution, including the confirmed report, with the San Bernardino County Auditor/Controller for the amounts of the respective assessments against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment (tax) roll. Section 4. That the City Clerk is instructed to record a certified copy of this Resolution, including the confirmed report, in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. Section 5. Collection Procedure. That the assessments shall be collected for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary county ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for those taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of county ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to such assessment, except that if any real property to which such lien would attach has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of such taxes would become delinquent, then the lien which would otherwise be imposed by this section shall not attach to such real property and the delinquent charges, as confirmed, relating to such property shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16 day of May, 2018. Page 325 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS Parcel Number Property Owner Information Property Amount 0201 072 03 0000 RICHARD E TAYLOR 6430 TERRACINA AV $222.26 0201 102 45 0000 RICKY ALLAN BERRY 9829 VIA ESPERANZA $174.04 0201 122 09 0000 MOHAMMAD R KHARRAZI 6190 CANTABRIA AV $177.52 0201 301 07 0000 ABDEL HAKIM ALKHATIB 6266 MAYBERRY AV $177.52 0201 304 17 0000 JON J CHAGOLLA 6221 KINLOCK AV $284.72 0201 321 23 0000 MARK NICOLETTE 6215 CARTILLA AV $177.52 0201 321 29 0000 NORMA PEREZ 6242 CARTILLA AV $260.48 0201 341 51 0000 WILLMONT LLC 6644 HELLMAN AV $224.04 0201 362 02 0000 JOSE MOURE 6210 FILKINS AV $675.20 0201 394 25 0000 RYAN MC CRACKEN 6404 ALEATICO PL $400.20 0201 394 65 0000 SARA J HAHN 9798 BALATON ST $284.72 0201 394 74 0000 QIAOZHEN WANG 9755 CALDARO ST $228.32 0201 413 02 0000 JACQUELINE SLAUGHTER‐COLLIER 8250 GARDEN CT $360.48 0201 474 16 0000 JOHN SWEET 6698 ALTA WOODS WY $177.52 0201 553 24 0000 HARRIS V PRATT 10479 LAVENDER CT $270.56 0201 563 27 0000 TAHERA SIDDIQUI 10354 SOUTHRIDGE DR $207.32 0201 573 11 0000 MARIO E MELENDEZ 10211 SOUTHRIDGE DR $253.36 0201 573 40 0000 WEI PAN 10268 CORKWOOD CT $258.93 0201 573 55 0000 JORGE ZALDIVAR 10162 THORPE CT $360.48 0201 584 18 0000 YUHUA BAO 10198 SADDLEHILL TE $540.32 0201 594 12 0000 CLAUDIA GARCIA 6124 CALLAWAY PL $360.48 0201 623 19 0000 STEPHEN LADAM 6197 ORVIETO CT $224.04 0201 623 45 0000 JOSEPH P SARZOTTI 10879 PORT ST $315.52 0201 623 71 0000 R AND Z INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 6266 BRANDY PL $330.51 0201 632 15 0000 ANGELA YIP 6329 BARSAC PL $177.52 0201 632 69 0000 JOSE CARRETO 6311 SEMILLON PL $315.52 0201 632 83 0000 TERRY GASSNER 6349 WINE CT $284.72 0201 663 10 0000 MICHAEL JEFFREY JONES 11104 STONE RIVER DR $675.20 0201 663 39 0000 JEFFERY B CHILDS 11013 STONE RIVER DR $245.64 0201 691 18 0000 KAREN E EBERHARDT 6214 GRANBY AV $300.48 0201 691 69 0000 DEREK X SAENZ 9920 LEMON AV $270.56 0201 701 36 0000 ALLAN G MALTES 10009 BANYAN ST $594.86 0201 731 19 0000 SEAN TERRY 6367 KINLOCK AV $172.87 0201 731 21 0000 STEVEN C CARRILLO 6345 KINLOCK AV $242.98 0201 741 23 0000 JEFFREY C WATLING 6383 REVERE AV $315.52 0201 741 31 0000 LEYLA SADR RASOOLI 10366 ORANGE ST $224.04 0201 741 37 0000 BRENDA A HANDY 10310 ORANGE ST $360.48 0201 751 05 0000 JUAN E RODRIGUEZ 6415 REVERE AV $192.18 0201 761 07 0000 RUBEN CHAVEZ 6195 FILKINS AV $675.20 0201 761 32 0000 PHILLIPA A RILEY 6171 KINLOCK AV $470.48 0201 771 24 0000 KENNETH R TAYLOR 10533 KINGSTON ST $177.52 0201 771 54 0000 EMILY KHAW 10651 CONCANNON ST $315.52 0201 771 82 0000 XI FENG 6249 CALLAWAY PL $314.77 Page 1 of 19 Page 326 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 0201 782 08 0000 CRISTIAN VIGIL 5989 CEDAR MOUNTAIN DR $177.52 0201 782 52 0000 CRYSTAL YANG 11021 SEVEN PINES DR $177.52 0201 801 16 0000 ARUTUNIAN FAMILY TRUST 3‐1‐93 ‐ EST 8348 GARDEN ST $360.48 0201 801 20 0000 MARK R AULT 6628 CITRINE ST $177.52 0201 801 53 0000 ROBERT GARCIA 8380 HAWTHORNE ST $360.48 0201 801 60 0000 JAN WEYANT 8359 GARDEN ST $177.52 0201 811 04 0000 JEANINE MC LELAND 8511 HAWTHORNE ST $177.52 0201 821 08 0000 EDDIE A SR MEDRANO 6168 REVERE AV $267.44 0201 901 32 0000 GORDON L III DIXON 10087 BRISTOL DR $360.48 0201 902 08 0000 XUTAO LI 6374 DAYLILY CT $315.52 0201 912 43 0000 RODRICK T LE MOND 11201 VINTAGE DR $585.16 0201 922 02 0000 ROULA I DEEB 6311 SILVERWOOD PL $293.85 0201 922 06 0000 MARIA SANCHEZ 6351 SILVERWOOD PL $360.48 0201 922 16 0000 LAURA E MUNGUIA 11249 SUMMERSIDE DR $360.48 0201 932 13 0000 ED RIVERAL 11269 OAK BROOK CT $675.20 0201 932 36 0000 XIAOYIN SHEN 6221 MORNING PL $391.20 0201 971 12 0000 BRENT M TODD 5885 ZAPATA PL $551.56 0202 041 24 0000 LINI TOKI 6929 BERYL ST $432.00 0202 071 12 0000 BENJAMIN FAMILY TRUST 3/31/94 7034 AMETHYST AV $177.52 0202 081 01 0000 ARMANDO M ROJO 7137 HELLMAN AV $177.52 0202 082 30 0000 RANDALL C SEPARATE PROP TR 7/ DIXON 9393 LOMITA DR $281.46 0202 102 47 0000 GINA M MACIAS 6604 BRIGHTON PL $675.20 0202 111 02 0000 MARK ALCALA 6791 AMETHYST AV $252.98 0202 111 42 0000 CARLEE R IVERSON 6733 JADEITE AV $270.56 0202 131 39 0000 BELIA MIRANDA 9633 MONTE VISTA ST $847.52 0202 131 50 0000 CAL HOMES GROUP INC 9547 MONTE VISTA ST $360.48 0202 251 01 0000 WILLIAM B HARRIS 8409 18TH ST $192.18 0202 284 02 0000 ERIC D RAAEN 8479 LA GRANDE ST $450.40 0202 286 04 0000 WILFREDO R RUIZ 7042 JASPER ST $360.48 0202 294 01 0000 RYAN M NICHOLSON 9056 LA VINE ST $360.48 0202 305 15 0000 BRIAN S DUNN 8724 LURLINE ST $192.18 0202 305 16 0000 LILLI MAE SHAY 8714 LURLINE ST $360.48 0202 322 18 0000 JOHN C HARVEY 9152 CIELITO ST $360.48 0202 351 07 0000 BARRETT DOLOJAN 6816 CORAL CT $188.48 0202 351 21 0000 JUSTIN CASTILLO 6844 EMERALD ST $360.48 0202 351 25 0000 ALBERTO N CANELA 8741 HOLLY ST $192.18 0202 351 31 0000 RIGOBERTO AGUILAR 6867 CARNELIAN ST $675.20 0202 353 08 0000 HANZHONG YE 8837 HOLLY ST $675.20 0202 353 10 0000 WILDA J BENEFIEL 8859 HOLLY ST $177.52 0202 363 04 0000 CHRISTOPHER L ANDERSON 7217 TOPAZ ST $195.00 0202 366 02 0000 ROBERT JOHN CLAYTON 7273 SIERRA VISTA ST $720.16 0202 372 10 0000 FERNANDO R ORTEGA 8668 LA PAIX ST $284.72 0202 372 20 0000 IAN NASCIMENTO 8562 LA PAIX ST $253.36 0202 392 04 0000 KARL P SCHEIFFELE 6938 EASTWOOD AV $340.32 Page 2 of 19 Page 327 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 0202 413 02 0000 TIBOR JUHASZ 6879 CAMEO ST $314.30 0202 461 03 0000 SUSAN F PACHECO 8903 GALA AV $177.52 0202 461 63 0000 JACK ‐ EST OF HALL 9021 19TH ST $326.01 0202 541 07 0000 ROBERT A JR GLENN 6768 AMBER CT $224.04 0202 541 21 0000 GREG JOHNSON 8898 HAMILTON ST $400.76 0202 541 47 0000 JANE KENNEDY 8892 GALA AV $360.48 0202 571 27 0000 ROGER W HOWARD 6956 AMETHYST AV $675.20 0202 744 04 0000 RAUL E JR LEDESMA 6821 SAUSALITO CT $360.48 0202 751 33 0000 XINMIN NAN 6953 SADDLEBACK PL $360.48 0202 751 85 0000 SEAN HATCH 8955 LA VERNE DR $675.20 0202 822 34 0000 LINDA FORD 9169 MIGNONETTE ST $495.56 0202 822 45 0000 JASON L FITZGERALD 6834 SPRINGVIEW PL $231.00 0202 981 12 0000 JOAQUIN VARGAS 6750 PILGRIMS CT $270.56 0207 022 13 0000 HUGO ROSALES 7520 CARNELIAN ST $360.48 0207 042 01 0000 KEVIN CURTIS 7463 CAMINO NORTE $224.04 0207 042 02 0000 HOLLIS BUTLER 7461 CALLE DEL PRADO $177.52 0207 044 05 0000 GRADY C RUDOLPH 7528 VALLE VISTA DR $1,143.62 0207 044 29 0000 KAIVAN MASHKOTIAZAD 7563 ALTA CUESTA DR $389.00 0207 053 26 0000 LESMA YORKE 7707 BUENA VISTA DR $944.96 0207 053 38 0000 JENNIFER M ROSALES 7766 ALTA CUESTA DR $177.52 0207 111 07 0000 PEI‐FANG PATTY TSAI 8178 RED HILL COUNTR DR $350.40 0207 111 14 0000 MARK FRIZZELL 8159 GROVE AV $227.12 0207 112 21 0000 VAUGHN, ANTHONY 8230 FOOTHILL BL $1,161.11 0207 113 13 0000 VERNOLA, ANTHONY P TR 10/18/00 8189 FOOTHILL BL $4,315.46 0207 123 04 0000 RONNY TOEUNG 8186 RANCHERIA DR $270.56 0207 123 18 0000 CAESAR ALEXANDER LOPEZ 8251 TAPIA VIA $360.48 0207 123 41 0000 LANIETA HICKS 8268 RED HILL COUNTR DR $360.48 0207 141 09 0000 ELSA GONZALEZ 8159 TAPIA VIA $495.36 0207 141 10 0000 RONALD J QUINTERO 8167 TAPIA VIA $420.36 0207 141 51 0000 FRANK JR TORRES 8140 TAPIA VIA $277.34 0207 151 13 0000 JOSE MARQUEZ 8194 VIA CARRILLO $177.52 0207 151 23 0000 CATHERINE M LEFFER 8274 VIA CARRILLO $193.32 0207 161 11 0000 JUAN LOPEZ 8178 AVENIDA VEJAR $492.20 0207 161 30 0000 PAULA M VICENTE 8251 VIA CARRILLO $322.22 0207 182 23 0000 KEVIN H ALLEN 8368 ARROW RT $360.44 0207 241 31 0000 HOUCHIN, ROBERT J 8137 9TH ST $599.56 0207 241 45 0000 CARDENAS INVESTMENTS LLC 8715 GROVE AV $505.48 0207 242 11 0000 MARGARITA HERNANDEZ 8193 9TH ST $253.88 0207 242 20 0000 ROSA SEGURA 8786 VINMAR AV $270.56 0207 243 01 0000 WEI GONG 8795 VINMAR AV $177.52 0207 243 09 0000 JUANA M SANCHEZ 8247 9TH ST $176.82 0207 243 11 0000 CERDA FAMILY TRUST 7/8/13 8255 9TH ST $360.48 0207 243 14 0000 NGA H NGUYEN 8734 SIERRA MADRE AV $360.48 0207 262 38 0000 PANJIANG CHEN 8643 ARROW RT $299.78 Page 3 of 19 Page 328 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 0207 342 25 0000 JUN WANG 8525 VINMAR AV $720.16 0207 351 01 0000 MICHELLE T STANTON 8452 VIA LADERA $173.98 0207 352 06 0000 RANDY FREMMING 7395 VIA PARAISO $206.84 0207 352 15 0000 SUZANNE F LIVING TRUST 10/22/ SUGGS 7359 VIA SERENA $532.41 0207 352 22 0000 EDGAR CAMPOS 8423 VIA LADERA $370.81 0207 353 26 0000 MARION M LIVING TRUST OATES 7420 VIA PARAISO $284.72 0207 381 06 0000 RIVAS REV TRUST 3/20/07 8650 EDWIN ST $410.12 0207 402 04 0000 THOMAS A & M MICHELLE REV T LINDLEY 7919 CAMINO PREDERA $270.56 0207 421 19 0000 PAUL L THOMPSON 8710 CHURCH ST $177.52 0207 421 22 0000 MARIA I SOLIS 7708 ARROYO VISTA AV $360.48 0207 421 24 0000 LAWRENCE R KELLY 7720 ARROYO VISTA AV $214.36 0207 421 26 0000 SHAN C PARK 7740 ARROYO VISTA AV $932.24 0207 422 06 0000 VERN A THOMPSON 7741 SAN DIEGO AV $319.12 0207 422 13 0000 GEORGE FAMILY TRUST 7‐23‐04 7760 VINEYARD AV $224.04 0207 424 11 0000 GREEN PLANET ENTERPRISE LLC 8781 CHURCH ST $272.75 0207 453 10 0000 GARY GOMEZ 8573 EDWIN ST $260.48 0207 454 06 0000 KEI LEUNG WONG 8556 EDWIN ST $305.44 0207 531 02 0000 JANET L LIVING TRUST 12/6/13 MOORE 8716 EDWIN ST $313.80 0207 531 06 0000 SERGIO E ALDANA 8754 EDWIN ST $277.52 0207 531 30 0000 NARO SIHOMBING 8437 9TH ST $224.04 0207 531 35 0000 UCHENNA K NNAJI 8464 CHAFFEE ST $270.56 0207 541 06 0000 R & I FAMILY TRUST 3‐25‐02 BACALLAO 8321 MAIN ST $675.20 0207 551 39 0000 MOHAMED S ABDELGWAD 7507 SUNSTONE AV $177.52 0207 551 68 0000 ERIC DROST 8752 VIVERO ST $177.52 0207 561 18 0000 YVONNE RODRIGUEZ 7441 ARROYO VISTA AV $177.52 0207 571 44 0000 ANTHONY RANKINS 8292 FOREST GROVE LN $172.09 0207 591 21 0000 GILBERT, KENNETH H 8410 BAKER AV $195.41 0207 591 51 0000 RANCHO CONDOS LLC 8464 DITMAR DR 15 $350.04 0207 591 62 0000 RANCHO CONDOS LLC 8480 CARSON PL 26 $360.48 0207 591 64 0000 RANCHO CONDOS LLC 8480 CARSON PL 28 $187.59 0207 591 70 0000 RANCHO CONDOS LLC 8440 CARSON PL 34 $360.48 0207 591 73 0000 RANCHO CONDOS LLC 8430 CARSON PL 37 $593.79 0207 601 32 0000 NANNIE M TRUST (1‐15‐05) LEE 7730 CALLE CLARIN $799.40 0207 601 37 0000 WEIYANG YAO 7805 SIERRA VISTA ST $652.64 0207 622 29 0000 EVA UGAS 8573 SAN JACINTO CT $495.56 0207 623 32 0000 CASTILLO‐SIEGEL FAMILY TRUST 01/30/1 8530 SANDSTONE PL $224.04 0207 691 16 0000 SHETH FAMILY TRUST 11/6/13 8715 CEDAR POINT CT $190.22 0207 731 25 0000 RAJESH VAID 8692 9TH ST 25 $177.52 0207 731 52 0000 CHAN MEAN 8692 9TH ST 52 $269.98 0207 741 06 0000 LI XIAO LI 8552 CAVA DR $300.36 0207 741 15 0000 XIAO HAN 8582 CAVA DR $215.89 0207 741 36 0000 DJSC93 LLC 8476 TAVANO PL $224.04 0207 742 27 0000 FENGLAN YANG 8413 FLORO PL $390.86 0207 742 29 0000 GUIHUI ZHOU 8423 FLORO PL $175.96 Page 4 of 19 Page 329 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 0208 073 11 0000 WILLIAM T SACCO 7634 WHITNEY CT $270.56 0208 073 16 0000 EDWIN PETER ANDREWS 7697 EVEREST PL $177.52 0208 131 72 0000 JUAN C AMANCIO 9524 EFFEN ST $224.04 0208 141 45 0000 ZHENBIN DU 9505 SAN BERNARDINO RD $616.82 0208 141 50 0000 LALITA M REVOCABLE TR 12/1 REMEDIOS 9455 SAN BERNARDINO RD $177.52 0208 143 07 0000 SONJA P SWEENEY 9445 JACK RABBIT DR 107 $505.44 0208 272 18 0000 TIANA V LUCERO 9459 CALLE VEJAR $413.41 0208 281 05 0000 KAVIKAM LLC 8219 ARCHIBALD AV $206.48 0208 283 07 0000 XIAOFENG HU 8211 BURGUNDY AV $228.41 0208 283 13 0000 SHAWN M KENNEDY 8206 MALVEN AV $285.48 0208 291 02 0000 JANICE Y GRABER 9786 ARROW RT $644.26 0208 291 34 0000 FRANCISCO VILLALVAZO 9745 CERISE ST $360.32 0208 302 05 0000 FRANCISCO NAVAZI 8233 MALVEN AV $360.48 0208 303 20 0000 JOHN P CAVENDER 8278 RAMONA AV $675.20 0208 311 51 0000 KYLE A DIRKS 9819 PLACER ST $177.52 0208 311 64 0000 WILLIAM TU 9853 CERISE ST $200.33 0208 361 08 0000 EDWARD ESPINOZA 9210 CALLE VEJAR $360.48 0208 363 03 0000 JOSE B GALLEGOS 9151 CALLE VEJAR $432.98 0208 363 31 0000 MANUEL M RODRIGUEZ 9180 ARROW RT $357.22 0208 365 02 0000 MARIA MACIAS 8431 AVENIDA CASTRO $176.82 0208 372 06 0000 JUAN C BOXLER 9612 HAMPSHIRE ST $310.48 0208 372 07 0000 ESTEBAN A RAMIREZ 9604 HAMPSHIRE ST $224.04 0208 373 06 0000 TIEN YUN CHEN 8232 MALACHITE AV $269.78 0208 375 05 0000 DANIEL ALVAREZ 8233 LEUCITE AV $177.52 0208 384 04 0000 YUEREN CHEN 8287 KLUSMAN AV $540.32 0208 388 11 0000 PATRICIA A WOODSIDE 9679 DEVON ST $215.00 0208 421 09 0000 MARIA E LOLA 9385 PALO ALTO ST $360.48 0208 421 13 0000 MARIA FLOUTSIS 9425 PALO ALTO ST $675.20 0208 431 16 0000 VICTOR D AGUILAR 9390 PEPPER ST $397.98 0208 432 09 0000 ANTHONY ESTRADA 7375 LAYTON ST $360.48 0208 433 04 0000 MARIA C ESPINOZA 7371 ONYX AV $177.52 0208 433 14 0000 CEDRIC A MOORE 9391 PEPPER ST $270.96 0208 441 29 0000 FORTINO M MENDOZA 7515 VINEYARD AV $397.52 0208 451 03 0000 DARRYL R. LE VESQUE 7424 LION ST $492.96 0208 461 39 0000 JEREMY W DUFF 7849 SPINEL AV $500.27 0208 462 01 0000 JANAE LEWIS 7925 LION ST $675.20 0208 464 17 0000 RAMON C URIBE 7950 SPINEL AV $352.12 0208 491 02 0000 DORR FAMILY TRUST 6‐2‐97 9323 CHURCH ST $224.04 0208 503 20 0000 FRANK SUTLEY 7729 SPINEL AV $432.98 0208 505 04 0000 GLORIA B FIGUEROA 9085 HEMLOCK ST $255.20 0208 521 30 0000 TONY BEDINI 7865 LAYTON ST $855.04 0208 524 09 0000 MANUELA N REYES 9430 SAN BERNARDINO RD $460.68 0208 533 05 0000 KAREN C FOOTE 7830 AMETHYST AV $1,202.84 0208 533 07 0000 MAXINO A CRUZ 7850 AMETHYST AV $315.52 Page 5 of 19 Page 330 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 0208 534 02 0000 ARLINE S LOPEZ 9425 HEMLOCK ST $312.84 0208 542 13 0000 MARCO A ORTIZ 7430 KLUSMAN AV $332.98 0208 561 21 0000 ROBERT M SERNA 7656 LAYTON ST $277.71 0208 563 09 0000 DEBORAH MARTINEZ 7595 AMETHYST AV $662.16 0208 593 18 0000 LYNETTE CHALCRAFT BELAND 7398 BERYL ST $360.48 0208 651 07 0000 ELVIA GUTIERREZ 7924 KIRKWOOD CT $360.48 0208 702 04 0000 GABINO LIVING TRUST 10/7/1 ALVARADO 9684 HEMLOCK ST $357.34 0208 703 11 0000 JOSE MARIA MUNOZ 7775 LEUCITE AV $360.48 0208 703 15 0000 JOAN BYRD 7795 MALACHITE AV $788.30 0208 703 26 0000 ANDREW D COPELAND 9605 LANGSTON ST $220.98 0208 743 07 0000 ROMADA INC 8961 HEMLOCK ST $177.52 0208 752 06 0000 ED A MURADLIYAN 8865 HEMLOCK ST $224.04 0208 761 04 0000 RICHARD A REBELLO 8259 AMETHYST AV $375.08 0208 761 25 0000 BRIDGETT L DAVIS 8216 LAYTON ST $175.96 0208 761 33 0000 JAIME MORALES 8287 HELMS AV $282.98 0208 761 82 0000 BECKY R MORENO 8224 KIRKWOOD CT $224.04 0208 761 87 0000 JEREMY LANINI 8278 KIRKWOOD CT $320.17 0208 772 30 0000 DONG I LEE 9395 PLACER ST $314.54 0208 772 40 0000 CYNTHIA J DE JESUS 9310 KONOCTI ST $853.84 0208 772 51 0000 ROSE ORTIZ 8403 HELMS AV $360.48 0208 772 92 0000 JASON D WACHTER 9445 KONOCTI ST $1,008.92 0208 811 04 0000 AHMAD LIVING TRUST 11‐20‐04 9559 CALLE VEJAR $318.76 0208 811 09 0000 ZSUZSANNA MELINDA ABELN 9605 CALLE VEJAR $348.49 0208 811 32 0000 CHARLES COLEMAN 8454 KLUSMAN AV $314.54 0208 811 35 0000 EARL TR MINNIS 8457 LEUCITE AV $226.35 0208 811 54 0000 IRENE GARIBAY 9522 FRIANT ST $260.48 0208 811 56 0000 2017‐2 IH BORROWER LP 8438 MALACHITE AV $270.56 0208 831 29 0000 2017‐2 IH BORROWER LP 9007 CHIANTI CT $470.54 0208 831 41 0000 HARWOOD GARLAND 9007 DUBONNET DR $440.28 0208 851 20 0000 PETER T WILLETTE 8202 KINLOCK AV $360.48 0208 861 04 0000 CARY A MARTIN 10143 HAMPSHIRE ST $279.44 0208 901 53 0000 LOUIS RENE BOYKINS 8234 AVENIDA LEON $675.20 0208 901 63 0000 SAMY M GIRGIS 8281 AVENIDA LEON $552.13 0208 911 72 0000 YU HENG LIAO 9128 PLACER ST $215.52 0208 921 09 0000 DONAVAN R REVOCABLE LIV TR VREM 7444 AVILA AV $315.52 0208 931 48 0000 PAUL HUNTER 7678 ZIRCON AV $188.42 0209 063 13 0000 JOSE RAMIREZ 9896 MAIN ST $357.22 0209 063 15 0000 OSCAR JIMENEZ 9882 MAIN ST $495.36 0209 071 13 0000 DAVID E MADRIGAL 8725 RAMONA AV $813.48 0209 101 37 0000 GILBERT L PEREZ 10158 25TH ST $284.72 0209 102 05 0000 JESS & JENNIE LIV TR ‐ EST GONZALES 10141 25TH ST $315.68 0209 103 06 0000 JOSE VALENCIA 10243 26TH ST $565.32 0209 121 31 0000 DAVID ARSHAWSKY 10390 26TH ST $788.30 0209 122 04 0000 MICHAEL R ROSS 8777 CENTER AV $224.04 Page 6 of 19 Page 331 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 0209 171 30 0000 JIMENEZ FAMILY TRUST 08/30/17 9583 8TH ST $794.24 0209 171 39 0000 PRIHISZTAL, EVA 2014 REVOCABLE TR 1‐9353 8TH ST F $1,688.51 0209 171 43 0000 INLAND CORPORATION 9588 7TH ST $3,733.64 0209 191 13 0000 GEORGE T TR ASSANELLI 8956 BELMONT AV $486.09 0209 292 10 0000 LYDIA E NAVA 9355 DEERBROOK ST $235.62 0209 294 03 0000 MARK W SWANGEL 9243 AMETHYST AV $528.80 0209 295 01 0000 NAOMI GRIJALVA 9396 6TH ST $1,070.55 0209 303 09 0000 KENNETH SPAINHOUR 9984 ALPINE ST $675.20 0209 303 18 0000 TUONGVAN NGUYEN 10070 SALINA ST $847.52 0209 312 04 0000 ANTONIO ORTIZ 8634 FERNWOOD DR $315.52 0209 312 10 0000 ELSA PEREZ 8671 PINE DR $360.48 0209 321 16 0000 MAYRA I HALE 9511 MEADOW ST $266.36 0209 321 22 0000 VICTORIA M FAMILY TRUST GUEVARA 9567 MEADOW ST $254.60 0209 321 32 0000 MARVIN L WRIGHT 9232 MALACHITE AV $402.39 0209 341 60 0000 ANGELA TRUST 12/18/14 SANCHEZ 9112 HELMS AV $215.52 0209 361 04 0000 MARY D LAGUNAS 9165 JADEITE AV $847.52 0209 361 07 0000 JESUS HERRERA 9135 JADEITE AV $315.52 0209 431 25 0000 ALEXANDER OSIFESO 8618 ANDOVER PL $712.67 0209 442 58 0000 JON GONZALEZ 8654 SAN MIGUEL PL $360.48 0209 451 25 0000 DAVID QUEZADA 9208 RANCHO PARK PL $177.52 0209 491 21 0000 UTICA REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC 8707 UTICA AV $2,423.86 0209 554 04 0000 JUSTIN FU 10348 COOKS DR $240.32 0210 461 02 0000 ANDREW Y CHOW 9430 SHADOWBROOK DR $240.31 0210 471 18 0000 HUI YAN 9379 SHADOWGROVE DR $666.48 0210 472 16 0000 MINSHI PAN 9379 LIVE OAK DR $886.51 0210 481 66 0000 LIXIN ZHOU 9547 BROOK DR $268.52 0210 511 33 0000 JA&H LLC 9414 SUNGLOW CT $561.67 0210 561 32 0000 JOSELITO MAGLANQUE 9345 STONEYBROCK PL $215.52 0210 642 26 0000 BIANCA E RODRIGUEZ 9354 CULINARY PL $177.52 0210 644 07 0000 IKER AZURMENDI LASA 9362 GREENBELT PL $222.48 0210 644 14 0000 YUCONG HOU 9365 KLUSMAN AV $202.47 0225 122 51 0000 PRICE W HALL 6061 SUMMIT LN $177.52 0225 122 81 0000 JULIA A GORMAN 13053 23RD ST $847.52 0225 122 82 0000 BLAS CHAVEZ 13055 23RD ST $405.44 0225 191 31 0000 JLM ENTERPRISE LLC 6135 EAST AV $177.52 0225 212 18 0000 JAMES E WARD 11387 MOUNT JOHNSON CT $675.20 0225 221 58 0000 JEFFREY T TRAUGER 11616 MOUNT BAKER CT $270.56 0225 231 55 0000 FAKHOURY FAMILY TRUST 5/16/05 11421 PYRAMID PEAK CT $360.48 0225 241 02 0000 YING JIAN ZHAN 11538 MOUNT RAINIER CT $303.89 0225 241 12 0000 DARLENE REED 11616 MOUNT RAINIER CT $405.44 0225 241 23 0000 MARY M GLOVER 11619 MOUNT RAINIER CT $360.48 0225 251 37 0000 GERALD A STARKEY 6406 EAGLE PEAK PL $316.02 0225 252 34 0000 BRANDON M HEYES 6399 KETTLE PEAK PL $224.04 0225 261 61 0000 MERMON PERRY 11632 MOUNT HOOD CT $675.20 Page 7 of 19 Page 332 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 0225 291 51 0000 DANIEL MICHAEL TRUST 10‐04‐1 CHAVEZ 11810 MOUNT GUNNISON CT $255.32 0225 292 08 0000 GUOYUAN WU 11710 MOUNT CAMBRIDGE CT $720.16 0225 311 12 0000 HONG JIE PAN 11785 MOUNT STERLING CT $675.20 0225 311 27 0000 MICHAELSON CREENCIA 11744 MOUNT LASSEN CT $175.40 0225 311 41 0000 BETHANY KEECH 11737 MOUNT LASSEN CT $315.44 0225 312 22 0000 VERONICA REV LIFETIME DIAZGRANADOS 11825 MOUNT ROYAL CT $360.48 0225 321 08 0000 DARRYL PHILLIPS 6429 CALICO PEAK PL $432.98 0225 331 36 0000 YUANYUAN ZHANG 12511 VISTA VERDE DR $270.56 0225 341 12 0000 STACY C NUNEZ 12724 ARENA DR $675.20 0225 391 01 0000 TRACIE GREATHOUSE 6116 ROBERTS PL $425.20 0225 391 21 0000 MICHAEL FINK 12979 BANYAN ST $251.40 0225 391 22 0000 STEPHEN HEARD 12968 SHASTA DR $235.48 0225 411 09 0000 ANTHONY V RUSSO 6338 SHOW HORSE WY $495.16 0225 411 10 0000 EDWIN MARTINEZ 6348 SHOW HORSE WY $337.28 0225 421 06 0000 MICHELLE MARIE RICO 6288 GOLDEN TRAILS AV $314.54 0225 421 27 0000 OSCAR A FAVELA 12438 HIGH HORSE DR $314.54 0225 442 28 0000 ALEJANDRO JR SALINAS 6386 STABLE FALLS AV $360.48 0225 511 01 0000 YAO HSIN WANG 5930 ETIWANDA AV $397.98 0225 521 08 0000 ROGER CRAWFORD 12644 PARKE CI $847.52 0225 601 22 0000 BRENDA C RIOS 6272 LAUREL BLOSSOM PL $215.02 0225 611 04 0000 ALBERTO ROMERO 12874 BRIDGE WATER DR $341.09 0225 611 10 0000 SHAO BIN TANG 12789 BRIDGE WATER DR $177.52 0225 611 26 0000 FAN LIXIN 12757 ROCK GARDEN CT $360.48 0225 621 48 0000 BENJAMIN MENESES 12239 KEENLAND DR $360.48 0225 631 56 0000 RALPH JR AVILA 12221 CLYDESDALE DR $177.52 0225 641 12 0000 HSIN MING LEE 12414 DAPPLE DR $270.56 0225 642 09 0000 FABIO TOVAR 5981 GREYVILLE PL $675.20 0225 653 03 0000 XIAO‐LIN HAO 12334 SPLIT REIN DR $251.17 0225 653 10 0000 ZHANG‐CHEN TRUST 9/6/06 12355 SPLIT REIN DR $315.52 0225 701 30 0000 XIYI YANG 12237 APPIAN DR $405.44 0225 701 41 0000 JOY RIVERA 6185 CEDAR HILL PL $280.24 0225 721 50 0000 LI GONG 12248 SPLIT REIN DR $630.24 0225 751 22 0000 HSIN‐E LEE 12342 ROCKWEED CT $355.05 0225 751 25 0000 YUE NI 12347 ROCKWEED CT $177.52 0225 791 03 0000 RUI LIU 6257 SHORE PINE CT $686.05 0226 211 18 0000 KAREN EVANS‐COX 5365 COVINA PL $373.76 0226 211 51 0000 JOSEPH NICHOLAS CIRILLO 5348 HACIENDA CT $222.48 0226 231 56 0000 JULIO MEDEL 14059 HASTINGS RANCH LN $290.48 0226 231 58 0000 GUANLIN LI 14072 HASTINGS RANCH LN $349.67 0226 231 62 0000 JOHN S BEGUE 5624 SAN MARINO WY $180.48 0226 241 01 0000 STACY C NUNEZ 5591 CRESTLINE PL $310.48 0226 241 47 0000 YONGZHI LI 14078 ARCADIA WY $596.52 0226 241 50 0000 YUESHUN LIU 14071 HASTINGS RANCH LN $175.20 0226 261 66 0000 HATEM ELKEBIR 14063 GLENDALE CT $405.44 Page 8 of 19 Page 333 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 0226 272 28 0000 BERNARD P JR CHAVEZ 14108 SAN GABRIEL CT $547.52 0226 272 35 0000 PETER YAU TAK WU 14089 CRESTLINE PL $450.40 0226 301 05 0000 JOSHUA ALLEN BLUMENTHAL 14201 ROSS CT $492.24 0226 301 21 0000 SYLVERIO MALAGON 5853 INGVALDSEN PL $360.48 0226 301 28 0000 JAI‐YUL LEE 5880 INGVALDSEN PL $270.56 0226 311 18 0000 WEILI WANG 14057 SHEPHERD DR $405.44 0226 432 05 0000 YARITZA H BARBOSA 5778 EAGLEWOOD PL $270.56 0226 432 24 0000 JOSEPH DE SILVA 13861 LAUREL TREE DR $505.48 0226 432 48 0000 EDWARD M AMODEI 5822 GREEN PINE CT $177.52 0226 502 43 0000 BRANDON EDWARD MCCULLOUGH 6137 WALNUT GROVE CT $177.52 0226 512 16 0000 CHAD SIEGER 13830 HUMMINGBIRD WY $172.06 0226 512 67 0000 FENG XU 13750 DARKWOOD WY $224.04 0226 523 13 0000 BRANDON E EDWARDS 13805 SOLEDAD WY $253.36 0226 631 23 0000 BELINDA T CUEVAS 5131 BIANE CT $205.28 0226 651 17 0000 JOSEPH GILMARTIN 5215 GALLO CT $254.54 0226 661 15 0000 CHAKER I ELHAJJMOUSSA 5145 CONGEMI CT $432.98 0226 671 04 0000 MICHAEL MARK DICESARE 14211 VAI BROTHERS DR $177.52 0226 671 22 0000 DONALD J GRAHAM 14135 REGINA DR $847.52 0226 671 38 0000 Z & F INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 5004 CERVETTI AV $360.48 0226 681 07 0000 ROBERT COOK 4990 PADRE AV $251.40 0227 061 66 0000 CHARLES E GIBBONS 12920 VICTORIA ST $548.52 0227 141 35 0000 ALICE MANZO 13601 VICTORIA ST $193.32 0227 192 16 0000 TYRONE R HORN 13473 WINDY GROVE DR $822.52 0227 193 17 0000 MARILYN REVOCABLE TRUST 9/17/ GORAN 13509 WILLIAMSON RD $630.24 0227 243 17 0000 VICTOR A MUNIZ 6575 PEAR AV $177.52 0227 244 09 0000 MAYSOUN E REVOCABLE TRUST MAZAHREH 13205 CATALPA ST $192.18 0227 256 04 0000 BRANDON P LINE 13091 VISTA ST $432.98 0227 382 05 0000 KHALED AHMED 6937 COLUMBIA CT $495.36 0227 382 06 0000 APRIL E DIGGS 6940 SAND CREEK CT $284.72 0227 472 16 0000 MEI M SHIH 13087 NORCIA DR $270.56 0227 504 02 0000 STUART SACKLEY 12932 CARNESI DR $397.98 0227 582 16 0000 PU ZHANG 7161 EAST AV 48 $250.36 0227 582 57 0000 GEORGE L BARREIRO 7161 EAST AV 18 $360.48 0227 583 05 0000 DALE OLDENBURG 7161 EAST AV 5 $270.56 0227 583 18 0000 7161 EAST AVE TRUST 01072011 7161 EAST AV 72 $360.48 0227 583 25 0000 LORI J GALVAN 7161 EAST AV 104 $365.12 0227 682 05 0000 AMARIN KONGCHALALAI 12972 VIA TESORO DR $312.00 0227 741 12 0000 ROBERT E GREATHOUSE 13543 SMOKESTONE ST $251.18 0227 802 21 0000 KELI LI 7181 SUNNYSIDE PL $432.98 0227 821 25 0000 JIMMY B ANTONUCCI 6550 EGGLESTONE PL $260.24 0227 821 30 0000 KAREN KNEELEY 13428 WHITESTONE PL $177.44 0229 012 35 0000 YNS ENTERPRISE NO 1 LLC 8200 MASI DR $305.09 0229 171 13 0000 MARIA T RUBIO 13217 ARROW RT $224.48 0229 192 11 0000 WALKER FAMILY TRUST 7/14/11 13107 A WHITTRAM AV A $668.37 Page 9 of 19 Page 334 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 0229 192 17 0000 ANITA VASQUEZ 13221 WHITTRAM AV $502.22 0229 262 14 0000 LBA/PPF INDUSTRIAL ‐ RCDC LLC 9041 PITTSBURGH AV $1,071.49 0229 302 11 0000 ANTHONY MILIAN 13060 CHESTNUT AV $675.20 0229 305 01 0000 JOHN ERIC 2007 TR HERNANDEZ 8283 CORNWALL AV $177.52 0229 305 09 0000 REED GIBBONS 8211 CORNWALL AV $184.54 0229 311 07 0000 MAURICIO M VARGAS 12948 CHESTNUT AV $405.44 0229 341 11 0000 WOODBRIDGE HOSPITALITY INC 9550 PITTSBURGH AV $364.59 0229 451 18 0000 HAO WANG 8478 BULLHEAD CT $177.52 0229 461 08 0000 QIUBO SHAN 13218 CHATHAM DR $177.52 0229 461 15 0000 JIANKUN ZHU 13138 CHATHAM DR $185.04 0229 461 16 0000 XINAN LI 13128 CHATHAM DR $457.19 0229 461 39 0000 XIAOYAN SHEN 13186 FLAGSTAFF DR $315.52 0229 462 06 0000 XIU ZENG 13296 JOLIET DR $358.92 0229 462 19 0000 STEVE HUANG 13285 FLAGSTAFF DR $177.52 0229 471 08 0000 YU FENG ZHAO 13173 CHATHAM DR $177.52 0229 471 14 0000 CHUNXI WANG 13146 BAXTER SPRINGS DR $177.52 0229 471 20 0000 JUN WANG 13111 BAXTER SPRINGS DR $247.30 0229 481 42 0000 LISHA ZHOU 13267 OATMAN DR $424.92 0229 481 51 0000 NA CUI 13167 OATMAN DR $238.75 1043 131 08 0000 JEFFREY J GWAY 5804 TURQUOISE AV $495.36 1043 144 23 0000 JESSE HURTADO 7957 GARDENIA AV $620.16 1061 071 06 0000 RAZA RIZVI 5285 DELLA AV $675.20 1061 101 19 0000 SUZANNA TRUST 11/25/14 GIACCHETTI 5276 SAPPHIRE ST $342.96 1061 111 21 0000 JOSE ALONSO 5320 CAROL AV $548.87 1061 111 26 0000 AL OLSON 8107 WHIRLAWAY ST $304.39 1061 121 20 0000 MATTHEW P GARDNER 8150 VINMAR CT $360.48 1061 151 28 0000 THOMAS P MARGRAFF 5211 SAPPHIRE ST $992.88 1061 172 10 0000 ROBERT HERNANDEZ 8348 ALMOND ST $757.04 1061 221 25 0000 JOSE F MIRANDA 8558 LA SENDA CT $297.84 1061 361 19 0000 SHARI ANDERSON 8960 CAMELLIA CT $793.02 1061 401 20 0000 LOIS SMITH 9463 SHERWOOD DR $764.36 1061 571 15 0000 ARLET VARGAS 5580 KLUSMAN AV $642.98 1061 581 27 0000 NOE H ULLOA 5681 AMETHYST AV $177.52 1061 661 27 0000 GILBERT R RAMOS 8715 HILLSIDE RD $253.36 1061 691 02 0000 ANDY J MARTINEZ 5657 SAPPHIRE ST $397.98 1061 741 02 0000 BERTA A VASQUEZ 5575 TURQUOISE AV $254.36 1061 781 09 0000 HILLSIDE TRUST 7/13/99 9245 CARRARI CT $384.16 1062 011 31 0000 LUTHER WILSON 5716 EXETER CT $314.54 1062 031 23 0000 EQUITY PREMIUM INVESTMENTS INC 5794 TROTTERS LN $432.98 1062 081 35 0000 GHASSAN JABER 5753 MALACHITE AV $675.20 1062 111 16 0000 NAVARRO, JOSE RICARDO 5808 HELLMAN AV $1,071.92 1062 161 02 0000 ISAIAS SOLANO 8287 THOROUGHBRED ST $816.70 1062 211 07 0000 F ANIBAL BLANDON 5928 VINEYARD AV $224.04 1062 261 25 0000 RICHARD A SANDERS 9419 COCA ST $192.18 Page 10 of 19 Page 335 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 1062 301 33 0000 DAVID SANCHEZ 8573 QUARTER HORSE LN $559.58 1062 321 10 0000 BRIAN E BORCHERS 8231 SUNFLOWER AV $188.06 1062 332 11 0000 ROSEMARY HERNANDEZ 6367 MARBLE AV $270.56 1062 351 43 0000 WILLIAM D SCHOOLING 6164 AMBERWOOD DR $516.86 1062 431 13 0000 SANDRA HUBER 6248 QUARTZ AV $310.48 1062 501 12 0000 TAMMY L MAYER 6333 CAMEO ST $177.52 1062 501 41 0000 ALEXANDER KHATCHADOURIAN 6321 VIA SERENA $240.48 1062 511 48 0000 GARY E CONLEY 6349 HOLLY OAK DR $430.24 1062 521 28 0000 DAVID B ANDERSON 6325 SACRAMENTO AV $177.52 1062 571 48 0000 ROBY LEE & EUNICE 2006 TRUST QUALLS 9624 HIGHLAND AV $224.04 1062 581 14 0000 MARIO A CETINA 9381 SOMERSET DR $177.52 1062 581 16 0000 MARCOS A RAMOS 9394 SOMERSET DR $177.52 1062 591 11 0000 SHERRY K WYSOCKI 9245 ALTA LOMA DR $254.60 1062 611 12 0000 DORINDA J TRUST OF 2014 DICKEY 6455 SACRAMENTO AV $177.52 1062 621 65 0000 LOLITA ANG SY 6488 HOLLY OAK DR $675.20 1062 621 70 0000 JASON LOGAN 6441 JASPER ST $270.56 1062 631 13 0000 PATRICIA ANN VIQUELIA 8429 ORANGE ST $432.98 1062 641 47 0000 BISHOP FAMILY TRUST 3‐26‐05 8289 ALTA LOMA DR $360.48 1074 041 02 0000 FRANKIE R LIRA 4949 ALMOND CT $447.62 1074 131 28 0000 MOCHIZUKI FAMILY TRURST 11/27/1005 5207 MAYBERRY AV $177.52 1074 211 01 0000 NANCY KOLTONIUK 10015 HILLSIDE RD $389.76 1074 221 06 0000 MEIZHEN XIE 5652 MORNING CANYON WY $470.48 1074 241 11 0000 DARRYL HERSH BAKER 5495 HERMOSA AV $255.81 1074 301 14 0000 FAITH A ETHEREDGE 5626 MESADA ST $432.98 1074 301 26 0000 JIANPING SHEN 10363 POPLAR ST $444.41 1074 461 19 0000 SADEER J ALZUBAIDI 9763 MEADOWOOD DR $214.73 1074 481 19 0000 ROBERT D CHAVEZ 10811 BOULDER CANYON RD $360.48 1074 491 09 0000 E M O & R WESTERN GENERAL FINANCIAL 10919 BOULDER CANYON RD $847.52 1074 511 13 0000 TAO HAN 4964 ROAN CT $171.31 1074 531 07 0000 SUNRAY TRUST 10817 CARRIAGE DR $947.29 1074 561 13 0000 LIVERY LEASING INC 11065 RANCH DR $675.20 1074 621 30 0000 TRACI BOWENS 11090 HIDDEN TRAIL DR $675.20 1076 032 25 0000 JOSE G VALENCIA 9766 WILLOW WOOD DR $360.48 1076 032 53 0000 LYDIA T SANTOS 9737 WILLOW WOOD DR $360.48 1076 032 67 0000 JOYCE Y HILL‐MARTINEZ 9728 WOODLEAF DR $290.44 1076 081 19 0000 JASON KEY 9960 VICTORIA ST $906.74 1076 081 21 0000 JEFFREY L TARBET 6894 TEAK WY $847.52 1076 081 22 0000 HASTI MAHMOUDNEJAD 6884 TEAK WY $270.56 1076 161 05 0000 MARCO A VILLEGAS 6849 MESADA ST $492.24 1076 181 05 0000 CHU‐CHENG TRUST 6/16/15 YANG 7046 RAMONA AV $231.00 1076 181 15 0000 TERESA CUSON 9821 YALE DR $267.28 1076 181 16 0000 MONICA L JENNINGS 9815 YALE DR $405.44 1076 181 28 0000 PAULA E FRENKIEL 7044 WAKEFIELD CT $675.20 1076 181 35 0000 ANWAR Z & ANWAR SHAH 7050 NEWTON PL $485.30 Page 11 of 19 Page 336 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 1076 182 07 0000 HUIFEN SHAO 9845 LA VINE CT $353.43 1076 182 30 0000 XIAO SHAO 9758 LA VINE CT $253.36 1076 231 36 0000 MANUEL M RIVAS 7136 ELMHURST AV $357.18 1076 231 72 0000 STEVE WATSON 9948 ALBANY AV $405.44 1076 251 37 0000 NATALIE MIRIAM RIVERA 6966 FILKINS AV $389.86 1076 261 04 0000 DARLEEN S NELSEN 7032 FILKINS AV $432.98 1076 261 35 0000 WEATHERBEE FAMILY IRREVOCABLE TR 12/ 10236 LA VINE ST $720.16 1076 291 33 0000 MICHAEL TOTTEN 10439 VICTORIA ST $191.88 1076 331 27 0000 MARIA L GONZALEZ 6551 MANGO ST $360.48 1076 341 46 0000 JILL & NOBLETT SCHNEITER 6620 VALINDA AV $175.96 1076 341 78 0000 LUIS FERNANDO ANGEL 10554 HEATHER ST $270.56 1076 351 47 0000 JAVIER PARAMO 6709 MANGO ST $177.52 1076 351 66 0000 DANIEL P GRAY 10641 GALA AV $186.57 1076 381 14 0000 BLUE MOUNTAIN PROPERTIES INC 10791 SONORA AV $375.16 1076 381 36 0000 RUBEN SANCHEZ 10781 RING AV $315.52 1076 381 63 0000 ALBERT CASTILLO 6569 SHAWNA AV $215.52 1076 401 30 0000 TIMOTHY ADAMS 6633 SAN BENITO AV $360.48 1076 411 37 0000 THOMAS SOLOMON 10911 SUTTER CT $315.52 1076 421 19 0000 ROBERT CANTARERO 6890 NEVADA CT $720.16 1076 421 45 0000 MARTIN CELIS 10871 COLUSA ST $177.52 1076 431 45 0000 JORGE CARDONA 6974 DAKOTA AV $284.72 1076 451 33 0000 JAMES WOOD 6930 MENDOCINO PL $270.56 1076 471 06 0000 JULIAN TSUNG 10644 GRANDVIEW DR $221.81 1076 471 61 0000 WAYNE ROGG 10518 DEERFIELD DR $499.60 1076 501 08 0000 VICTOR RAY TRUST 5/13/09 11075 KENYON WY $400.48 1076 501 09 0000 JAMIE LOWELL STEVENS 11081 KENYON WY $210.48 1076 511 17 0000 MARTHA R GONZALEZ 11114 SHAW ST $360.48 1076 511 18 0000 STEVE J MARTINEZ 11108 SHAW ST $270.22 1076 511 51 0000 DONALD A JR LANCASTER 11091 SHAW ST $185.52 1076 512 50 0000 HARLEEN SINGH 11135 PACIFIC ST $250.76 1076 512 57 0000 CYNTHIA J GOMEZ 6630 CAMROSE PL $675.20 1076 521 60 0000 THOMAS H KEARNS 11065 CARLOW CT $177.52 1076 531 33 0000 ROGER A LAWRENCE 10727 MORNINGSIDE CT $315.52 1076 541 06 0000 JONATHAN QUIJANO 6835 SHELTON CT $270.52 1076 541 07 0000 ERIC REVOCABLE TR 3/7/16 DRYDEN 6831 SHELTON CT $272.60 1076 541 44 0000 JUDY J REV TR (09‐1‐05) WORRELL 6654 CAMROSE PL $675.20 1076 541 65 0000 ANGELITO & GLORIA LIV 6‐4 DE LA PAZ 6769 VANDERBILT PL $270.32 1076 551 59 0000 DARLENE S ORELLANA 10901 ROLLINS CT $193.32 1076 561 40 0000 ELMER E NUNEZ 11247 DRAKE ST $177.52 1076 561 44 0000 MIRIAM REVOC TRUST 7/3/07 RODRIGUEZ 11269 DRAKE ST $236.42 1076 562 07 0000 JAI BALANI 11161 DELAWARE ST $262.01 1076 562 12 0000 JANET M REV LV TR (CHRISTI AVALLONE 11187 DELAWARE ST $450.40 1076 562 27 0000 RAFFI N DARAKJIAN 6923 LAMAR CT $177.52 1076 562 31 0000 YOLANDA R HENDERSON 6940 LAMAR CT $220.20 Page 12 of 19 Page 337 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 1076 571 04 0000 KEANG S CHENG 10913 SINCLAIR ST $177.52 1076 571 09 0000 DANIEL ALONZO 10914 SINCLAIR ST $177.52 1076 571 11 0000 ROBERT MAYHALL 10930 SINCLAIR ST $432.98 1076 571 40 0000 CLIFFORD L III MATHEWS 10947 SINCLAIR ST $193.42 1076 581 13 0000 ZHENGHAO ZAI 7055 SHERBROOKE PL $339.50 1076 601 13 0000 OSCAR CEJA 7071 WOODBURY CT $675.20 1076 601 30 0000 YUH‐SHUN HUANG 11132 AMARILLO ST $720.16 1076 611 21 0000 JANICE SANTIAGO 10981 SANTA CLARA CT $270.56 1076 621 13 0000 RICHARD ALFILER 6991 NOVA CT $177.52 1076 621 56 0000 GREGG PAINE 7066 ARMSTRONG PL $174.04 1076 641 58 0000 ORLANDO JR DELGADO 11280 BETHANY DR $360.48 1076 652 16 0000 JAMES E BORDES 11228 WINGATE DR $315.52 1077 011 02 0000 JOHN T GRAY 9817 BASELINE RD B $315.52 1077 021 33 0000 EVERETT R ROWLETT 7455 LONDON AV $841.36 1077 021 75 0000 WILLIAM ESPINOZA 7461 ARCHIBALD AV $305.44 1077 031 26 0000 ALEJANDRO L BERNAL 10021 PALO ALTO ST $585.28 1077 031 68 0000 EDMOND J & LISA A FAMILY TRU SECARD 7438 TEAK WY $199.22 1077 031 92 0000 ANTHONY ESTRADA 7475 RAMONA AV $371.86 1077 041 55 0000 DAVID JR ALVAREZ 7395 RAMONA AV $282.52 1077 051 24 0000 MARY LOU MC MAHAN 10160 PALO ALTO ST $360.48 1077 061 01 0000 BO JIN 10219 PALO ALTO ST $360.48 1077 061 46 0000 EDNA PATRICIA CONTRERAS 10276 MAGNOLIA CT $292.20 1077 061 50 0000 ALISON E CLOSE 10291 MAGNOLIA CT $326.42 1077 122 10 0000 ROBERT C GARDEA 7323 CASCADE CT $360.48 1077 141 06 0000 STEVEN GOMEZ 10655 HARMONY DR $270.56 1077 141 50 0000 FREDRICK COOPER 7452 VILLA CREST PL $675.20 1077 142 11 0000 CHARLES EDWARD JR LIVING TR MOONEY 10543 GREENACRE DR $360.48 1077 151 16 0000 RAMON L DELGADO 10805 SPYGLASS DR $693.84 1077 151 50 0000 CHIN‐TI HONG 10791 SUNDANCE DR $200.40 1077 151 59 0000 CHEN FAMILY TRUST 12‐21‐01 10864 SUNDANCE DR $405.44 1077 161 09 0000 DON CHENG 10923 SPYGLASS DR $177.52 1077 162 23 0000 MICHAEL CRUZ 7449 LANGHAM PL $224.04 1077 181 43 0000 KEVIN T LIPSCOMB 7529 PLYMOUTH WY $944.96 1077 181 63 0000 TRACIE L CONWAY 7600 PLYMOUTH WY $403.88 1077 251 53 0000 EFREM SARGENT 10450 BALSA ST $432.98 1077 261 03 0000 DAVID TRAUTWEIN 7673 CARTILLA AV $270.56 1077 281 25 0000 ALEXANDER R VALENZUELA 7568 LOCKHAVEN AV $944.96 1077 281 34 0000 MARTHA HERRERA 7523 MATTERHORN AV $177.52 1077 281 70 0000 KENJI UMEMOTO 10278 CANDLEWOOD ST $562.96 1077 291 03 0000 STEVEN JAMES & MELINDA A REV HAYDEN 9921 CANDLEWOOD ST $644.86 1077 291 19 0000 WALTER F SIENKNECHT 7506 TEAK WY $405.28 1077 291 79 0000 JAMES RIVADENEVRA 7543 GRANBY AV $265.48 1077 301 07 0000 KERRY MATHEWSON 7635 GRANBY AV $201.36 1077 311 07 0000 JAMAL ELYAZAL 7570 RAMONA AV $314.48 Page 13 of 19 Page 338 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 1077 321 10 0000 JORGE VERNON 7627 ARCHIBALD AV $192.18 1077 321 27 0000 ALEX REZA 7525 MALVEN AV $224.04 1077 351 31 0000 ALFRED FLORES 7801 DARTMOUTH AV $247.22 1077 361 02 0000 CHRISTOPHER A PEREZ 9919 HEMLOCK ST $405.44 1077 361 08 0000 ARTHUR GONZALES 9975 HEMLOCK ST $330.64 1077 361 34 0000 DANIEL POLANCO 9957 LANGSTON ST $1,136.48 1077 361 36 0000 GINA LYNN CHORICH 9977 LANGSTON ST $177.52 1077 361 49 0000 JAY W BAKER 10068 LANGSTON ST $177.52 1077 371 18 0000 DANIELLE SWANN 7740 PARAMOUNT CT $492.20 1077 371 74 0000 GAIL K STUMP 10223 HEMLOCK ST $297.51 1077 381 03 0000 MICHAEL R KILGORE 10266 ASHFORD ST $177.52 1077 381 18 0000 ARTHUR FAMILY TRUST 4‐26‐0 MARTINEZ 10139 ASHFORD ST $940.31 1077 381 43 0000 CALVIN J JR DEHESA 10156 NORWICK ST $220.36 1077 381 75 0000 SHEILA E SMITH 10176 EFFEN ST $177.52 1077 391 18 0000 ISMAEL J GARCIA 10280 DORSET ST $315.48 1077 391 63 0000 2017‐2 IH BORROWER LP 10126 STAFFORD ST $270.56 1077 611 53 0000 SNOWIE JENNY LIU 7980 CAMBRIDGE AV $412.18 1077 673 33 0000 WILLARD MORAN 11220 TERRA VISTA PK 94 $296.72 1077 673 52 0000 MATTHEW CHARLES BELAN 11198 TERRA VISTA PK 112 $360.48 1077 721 08 0000 LINDA RAFFARIN 10994 COUNTRYVIEW DR $177.52 1077 721 33 0000 YVETTE TRUJILLO‐AGUILAR 7760 DEVONSHIRE CT $342.88 1077 731 15 0000 RHONDA MCDANIEL 10940 WEYBRIDGE DR $374.28 1077 741 45 0000 TASHA WILLS 7646 SANDPIPER CT $360.48 1077 741 54 0000 SUSANA CHAVEZ 7621 FAIRHAVEN PL $324.32 1077 742 14 0000 KAI HUA TAN 11147 COUNTRYVIEW DR $212.41 1077 751 14 0000 LDC VILLA CAPRI LLC 10598 COUNTRYSIDE DR $177.52 1077 751 43 0000 HECTOR CALZADILLAS 7662 BARRINGTON CT $988.72 1077 751 45 0000 LDC VILLA CAPRI LLC 7659 GAINEY CT $218.61 1077 751 64 0000 ANTONIO FLORES 7643 BROADMOOR PL $270.56 1077 762 03 0000 ENRIQUEZ FAMILY TRUST 5/31/11 11179 ALENCON DR $440.20 1077 822 25 0000 CHOWDHURY & BORA FAMIILY TR 10/4/10 11249 AMIATA DR $177.52 1077 841 32 0000 LILLIAN R MONSIVAIS 7802 DANNER CT $177.52 1077 862 20 0000 XIAOXI LIN 7744 ASHBURY CT $360.48 1087 101 12 0000 XIAOLING TONG 5112 CRIMSON PL $224.04 1087 111 32 0000 XIN LI 12187 MAROON DR $177.52 1087 111 40 0000 CFK TRUST 9/27/01 12242 SCARLET WY $177.52 1087 121 04 0000 QING ZHANG 12461 MELON DR $675.20 1087 131 21 0000 IGNACIO ZALDUMBIDE 5221 JUNIPER CT $177.52 1087 171 31 0000 KEN HONG 12788 INDIAN OCEAN DR $177.52 1087 201 19 0000 US BLACK HAWK GROUP LLC 4988 WOODLEY RIDGE DR $492.20 1087 211 32 0000 AHMED FAMILY TRUST 2012 5551 RUTLAND CT $360.48 1087 221 44 0000 CHRASHAWN JACKSON 12273 RICHFIELD DR $305.00 1087 221 46 0000 MIN CHEN 12249 RICHFIELD DR $215.67 1087 281 31 0000 RICHARD J GYLFIE 5516 SAGEBRUSH CT $462.26 Page 14 of 19 Page 339 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 1087 321 31 0000 ZHICHENG LIU 12684 SOCORRO DR $422.16 1087 331 32 0000 BALRAJ BILL SIDHU 5653 W OVERLOOK DR $177.52 1087 331 59 0000 RUBEN CARDENAS 5642 CARMELLO CT $490.68 1087 351 43 0000 WEI YE 12597 NAPLES WY $224.04 1089 041 18 0000 JAMES V DAWSON 7217 ALOE CT $432.98 1089 061 02 0000 JIANYONG CAO 6933 FONTAINE PL $330.51 1089 061 29 0000 JING MA 6775 PALO VERDE PL $691.34 1089 091 22 0000 IGNACIO CALERO 12190 STRATFORD DR $270.56 1089 091 24 0000 DENA LARA 12172 STRATFORD DR $432.98 1089 091 45 0000 RAED SAFI 6864 BIRMINGHAM PL $360.48 1089 091 64 0000 JAMES S II ROSS 12165 HIGHGATE DR $675.20 1089 092 56 0000 LARRY E MAYFIELD 12208 STRATFORD DR $253.36 1089 101 26 0000 FRANK L PROUTY 6608 CHESHIRE PL $360.48 1089 101 41 0000 KIMBERLY EGELAND 12240 SILVERBERRY ST $675.20 1089 111 30 0000 2006 FAM TR BURNS 6707 PALO VERDE PL $258.56 1089 121 04 0000 EDITH M WILLIAMS 6565 PALO VERDE PL $675.20 1089 141 13 0000 QUENTIN D JOHNS 6717 FAIRWINDS CT $675.20 1089 151 17 0000 STEVEN J NG‐NEWMAN 11472 FALLINGSTAR CT $269.11 1089 151 35 0000 KATHY A LUGO 6611 AUTUMN GLEN CT $675.20 1089 171 07 0000 BRIAN RICHARD CRAWFORD 6633 MESSINA PL $206.84 1089 171 24 0000 JOHN NUSS 11609 TREVISO WY $558.72 1089 171 41 0000 TAROOB SLMANI 6636 BRINDISI CT $664.96 1089 191 02 0000 BERNARD AND DAVIS FAMILY TRUST 12/6/ 11506 MARCELLO WY $470.56 1089 192 05 0000 CYDNEY K JONES 6871 LANDRIANO PL $177.52 1089 192 22 0000 PAMELA Y SIT 6871 CASTELLO PL $215.52 1089 201 07 0000 KEVIN PI 6732 FLORENCE PL $224.04 1089 211 28 0000 RHONDA LEWIS 11683 PORTOFINO DR $455.20 1089 211 42 0000 QINGMEI YANG 11632 PORTOFINO DR $630.24 1089 211 48 0000 SCOTT THOMPSON 11621 PAVIA DR $360.48 1089 221 20 0000 OMAR CABRERA 6968 CANOSA PL $177.52 1089 221 22 0000 PINGBO HUANG 6948 CANOSA PL $710.00 1089 221 42 0000 TIMOTHY M YOUNGER 6862 BERGANO PL $675.20 1089 231 37 0000 OSCAR GERARDO BORELLO 11842 LAZIO CT $177.52 1089 242 02 0000 JODY TOLLE 6612 VENETO PL $315.52 1089 251 05 0000 SUSAN LEGG 6848 PALERMO PL $313.96 1089 261 42 0000 IRA FAY TR 11/27/0 BURRELL‐SCRIVENS 6959 ROMA PL $362.76 1089 272 06 0000 MIGUEL A ECHEVARRIA 11441 LUGANO DR $525.20 1089 272 07 0000 RICHARD R COURTRIGHT 11431 LUGANO DR $224.04 1089 272 18 0000 KEVIN M PURDY 7059 NOVARA PL $199.76 1089 272 20 0000 CHANG WOOK AHN 7060 MONZA PL $675.20 1089 301 23 0000 GEORGE W LEUNG 6929 BENEVENTO PL $193.19 1089 311 31 0000 RANDY S LUCAS 11788 FORLI DR $847.52 1089 312 36 0000 CHERYL SPRAGUE 7060 POZALLO PL $405.44 1089 321 10 0000 WILLIAM J CHAPMAN 6940 MONTBURY PL $285.44 Page 15 of 19 Page 340 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 1089 321 56 0000 ROBYN S COELHO 6930 HILLHURST CT $315.52 1089 331 46 0000 JOHN JIMENEZ 11992 ARDMOOR CT $208.64 1089 342 21 0000 NELSON CHIN TIEN LIN 7126 TURNING LEAF PL $177.52 1089 371 15 0000 DERICK P SHANNON 7219 ALTARI PL $210.32 1089 371 18 0000 RENATO R VELEZ 11503 AMELIA DR $310.48 1089 381 07 0000 TERRANCE LYNCH 7128 SCALEA PL $675.20 1089 392 39 0000 GERARDO MANCINAS 7277 COMISO WY $270.56 1089 401 21 0000 ERIK MARTINEZ 6534 MIMOSA PL $224.04 1089 401 31 0000 ERIC REVOCABLE TRUST 3/7/16 DRYDEN 6525 MYRTLE CT $360.48 1089 401 54 0000 SERRANN E TRUST MOORE 6569 HAZELNUT WY $232.56 1089 411 52 0000 ERIC G GEPPERT 12373 HUCKLEBERRY CT $177.52 1089 431 21 0000 BUFFY MURRAY 12268 BELLFLOWER CT $360.48 1089 452 49 0000 CAUDILLO 2002 FAMILY TRUST (01‐15‐02 12538 NASTURTIUM DR $344.96 1089 461 04 0000 GAIL E BLUMBERG 6749 PEACH PL $270.56 1089 461 36 0000 ERIC REVOCABLE TRUST DRYDEN 12506 LANTANA DR $205.43 1089 462 41 0000 ALICE S DOMINGUEZ 12618 LANTANA DR $270.56 1089 481 49 0000 MARTIN DURAN 6571 ARABIS PL $675.20 1089 521 01 0000 ETHAN MIZER 12406 COLUMBINE WY $315.52 1089 521 12 0000 GARY S WILSON 12421 SILKTASSEL DR $371.84 1089 521 17 0000 JEREMY MONACELLI 6913 BASSWOOD PL $360.48 1089 521 23 0000 ISAAC N MONTES DE OCA 6926 VIOLET CT $270.56 1089 521 65 0000 MARY K OPBROEK 12456 BLAZING STAR CT $269.00 1089 522 30 0000 MANUEL TORRES 12366 BLAZING STAR CT $224.04 1089 531 02 0000 JOHN CAKLOVIC 12419 IRONBARK DR $969.96 1089 531 10 0000 CYNTHIA D TR 8‐16‐05 FERRARI 12375 SWEETGUM DR $550.24 1089 531 51 0000 BRITTNEE L KOSKA 7083 CROCUS CT $173.52 1089 532 17 0000 OCTAVIO SR BARRON 12371 BLAZING STAR CT $210.56 1089 551 04 0000 ANGELA I GONZALEZ 12608 ASTER CT $270.56 1089 551 11 0000 BOBBIE JEAN DAVIS 12575 ASTER CT $179.04 1089 551 81 0000 DONALD L SEDILLO 12473 VERONICA CT $192.18 1089 562 16 0000 DANIEL K HAMPTON 12572 FUCHSIA DR $218.82 1089 572 40 0000 DANIEL A WESSEL 7172 TRAVIS PL $394.95 1089 592 01 0000 CAH 2014‐2 BORROWER LLC 7193 DUNMORE PL $405.44 1089 592 21 0000 DONALD LOWDERMILK 7111 POWELL PL $224.04 1089 601 14 0000 JOHNNY BUTLER 7229 DUNMORE PL $360.48 1089 601 57 0000 LEALON MC COY 12757 NICOLET CT $432.98 1089 611 28 0000 ANDREW J HERNANDEZ 7219 WESTHAVEN PL $847.52 1089 611 68 0000 GENNARO DERVISO 11938 HUNTLEY DR $172.09 1089 651 18 0000 VALERIE UNGER 7129 WESTHAVEN PL $360.48 1090 021 14 0000 PETER CHEN 7353 W ELLENA 14 $281.21 1090 021 24 0000 LA THEIA C BLACK 7353 W ELLENA 24 $405.44 1090 022 65 0000 EONGRACIA LLC 7353 W ELLENA 185 $405.44 1090 023 08 0000 JAMES STEVEN II ROSS 7353 W ELLENA 68 $450.40 1090 031 04 0000 MARION ROBERTS 11501 STONECREST DR $675.20 Page 16 of 19 Page 341 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 1090 031 45 0000 GEORGINA K ARHIN‐ADOFO 11528 STONERIDGE DR $177.52 1090 041 37 0000 WEI SHI 11530 LANCASTER WY $195.35 1090 051 11 0000 JAMES TOY 11335 FULBOURN CT $540.32 1090 051 54 0000 TING Z YOUNG 11432 FULBOURN CT $725.12 1090 061 08 0000 ROBERT MAYA 11327 DOWNING CT $360.48 1090 061 27 0000 DIANE M PATTERSON 11331 REGENT DR $360.48 1090 071 01 0000 GEORGE JREIJE 11475 CHESTERTON DR $209.53 1090 081 45 0000 ALCALA FAMILY TRUST 10/1/08 7351 LEGACY PL $191.75 1090 081 51 0000 WILLIAM S HOWARD 11715 MONUMENT DR $177.52 1090 091 48 0000 KITTY FAMILY TRUST 5/17/10 CHEUNG 7411 CORRESPONDENCE DR $174.04 1090 091 53 0000 ROSALIO MARTINEZ 7380 CORRESPONDENCE DR $310.48 1090 101 13 0000 EDWARD ELLISON 7436 MASON PL $340.32 1090 101 32 0000 RODEL M MELAYA 7415 ETHAN CT $410.24 1090 101 33 0000 NANCY GONZALES SAIZA 7411 ETHAN CT $360.48 1090 131 15 0000 JING TAN 7596 MERRIMACK PL $293.01 1090 132 05 0000 LUBNA S AHMED 11846 MANHATTAN CT $360.48 1090 132 13 0000 GIRGUIS FAMILY LIVING TRUST 12/10/13 11867 MANHATTAN CT $215.52 1090 132 14 0000 REMELL J JOHNSON 11861 MANHATTAN CT $360.48 1090 132 65 0000 TASNEEM WASIM 11833 WORCESTER DR $675.20 1090 142 32 0000 JUANDI HUANG 7680 CONTINENTAL PL $302.36 1090 142 47 0000 LAYA ALLEN 11861 PROCLAMATION DR $177.52 1090 151 73 0000 MARLON G ARANA 11558 PALM MEADOWS DR $360.48 1090 152 02 0000 MINGXIN WANG 7569 HARDY AV $521.92 1090 152 10 0000 DIMAS FAMILY LIVING TRUST 6/28/10 7548 HARDY AV $175.52 1090 161 13 0000 ISAI BAEZA 11433 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 62 $218.61 1090 161 27 0000 ANDREW K YU 11433 MOUNTAIN VIEW DR 31 $177.52 1090 191 37 0000 PEGGY A GIVENS 11450 CHURCH ST 74 $400.40 1090 191 46 0000 BRANDON STUBBLEFIELD 11450 CHURCH ST 83 $360.48 1090 193 33 0000 KRISTA ANN ADDY 11450 CHURCH ST 141 $315.52 1090 222 63 0000 WEIDONG ZHENG 11848 POTOMAC CT $315.52 1090 231 47 0000 MARIZE SMALEY 11831 POTOMAC CT $844.96 1090 251 08 0000 LEWIS BOUTET FAMILY TRUST 11/08/17 7320 HENBANE ST $195.32 1090 251 31 0000 YINGXIANG CHEN 7339 FENNEL RD $360.48 1090 251 39 0000 BURT R CASAZZA 7370 HYSSOP DR $174.04 1090 261 24 0000 JOSE D J DORADO 7475 HENBANE ST $382.98 1090 271 38 0000 RUDY R BARRERAS 7578 HYSSOP DR $252.38 1090 291 08 0000 JOHN P BARNICK 11994 ASHFORD ST $675.20 1090 291 13 0000 YVETTE VANESSA IBARRA 12037 HEMLOCK ST $267.44 1090 301 39 0000 CHRISTOPHER M UNGA 11960 NORWICK ST $788.30 1090 301 45 0000 L2 GROUP LLC 7851 HYSSOP DR $450.36 1090 311 03 0000 DANIEL PLOSCARIU 12005 STAFFORD ST $360.48 1090 311 37 0000 CHRISTINE RODRIGUEZ 11924 DORSET ST $189.54 1090 311 38 0000 ANA M VILLARREAL 11934 DORSET ST $360.48 1090 351 24 0000 CHAO‐CHUN LIN 12547 VINTNER DR $720.08 Page 17 of 19 Page 342 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 1090 361 04 0000 TAN QUOC NGU 7318 RESERVE PL $728.09 1090 381 14 0000 DERRICK D DAVIS 12862 COLONNADE DR $180.48 1090 381 40 0000 DONG JIANG 12776 COLONNADE DR $177.52 1090 401 05 0000 ANTHONY J CAMPILLO 12850 GOLDEN LEAF DR $270.56 1090 401 17 0000 MICHAEL MATTHEWS 12732 GOLDEN LEAF DR $282.88 1090 431 29 0000 CURTIS HAYS 7512 OAKFORD CT $314.54 1090 441 31 0000 XIAO HUA LI 12471 WILSON CREEK DR $495.36 1090 451 11 0000 CARLOS G OCAMPO 7549 SILVERADO TRAIL PL $777.62 1090 451 14 0000 ROSE E SALAIS 7575 SILVERADO TRAIL PL $745.54 1090 451 48 0000 MINAAZ MOHAMED ZAFAR 7558 SILVERADO TRAIL PL $185.04 1090 461 59 0000 YI WANG 12205 BRIDLEWOOD DR $224.04 1090 471 08 0000 QIAN LIU 7639 PINE RIDGE PL $206.21 1090 481 02 0000 HERMAN D CAKIR 12240 CHANTRELLE DR 2 $360.48 1090 483 33 0000 MARLO R AUBERT 12179 N MAINSTREET 1 $495.36 1090 511 10 0000 AIKUI KALONYAN 7644 CLOUDY BAY CT $360.48 1090 511 26 0000 STEVEN C ALVAREZ 12772 SPRING MOUNTAIN DR $177.52 1090 512 45 0000 TAO HUANG 12860 SPRING MOUNTAIN DR $326.65 1090 541 07 0000 ATH LLC 12188 FOOTHILL BL RANCHO $2,032.52 1090 551 05 0000 RANCHO MALL LLC 8009 DAY CREEK BL $617.08 1090 601 06 0000 KIM, JI HEE 12838 FOOTHILL BL $2,285.54 1100 011 08 0000 JOSEPH R JR SINGLETON 13025 COLONIAL DR $177.52 1100 011 81 0000 ROYCE ANNA HARRIS 7331 SHELBY PL 9 $360.48 1100 011 88 0000 MENYAYO HOLDINGS LLC ‐ SERIES C 7331 SHELBY PL 16 $360.48 1100 021 01 0000 ADRIANA ACEVEDO 7491 ETIWANDA AV $259.28 1100 021 48 0000 STACY S SR PATTON 7425 CRAWFORD PL $360.48 1100 021 52 0000 PATRICK C & VALERIE J TRUST CASTRO 7420 CRAWFORD PL $855.04 1100 041 29 0000 RUBEN J LAGUNA 13029 LOIRE VALLEY DR $360.48 1100 041 41 0000 THEADORE R MCHENRY 13061 MALVASIA WY $224.30 1100 051 31 0000 MARC J JONES 7331 SHELBY PL #143 $177.52 1100 051 40 0000 WALTER OVERHOLT 7331 SHELBY PL 79 $349.88 1100 051 57 0000 BIN YU 7331 SHELBY PL 96 $360.48 1100 051 68 0000 FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATIO 7331 SHELBY PL 64 $260.16 1100 061 48 0000 SALVADOR GOMEZ 7446 BUNGALOW WY $210.48 1100 071 12 0000 SISIRA LUXMAN JAYAWARDENA 7522 MORNING CREST PL $270.56 1100 071 15 0000 TAT W LEUNG 7544 MORNING CREST PL $360.48 1100 072 17 0000 EDWARD E LOYD 7503 PINOT PL $373.76 1100 081 24 0000 JOSE A L TAFOYA 7620 TUSCANY PL $224.04 1100 082 50 0000 ZIYU WU 7689 MORNING CREST PL $556.74 1100 141 46 0000 DEMETRIA RABUN 7855 CHABLIS PL $453.30 1100 141 48 0000 HONG YANG 7873 CHABLIS PL $360.48 1100 141 67 0000 HEXUAN LI 12915 CLARET CT $404.40 1100 171 03 0000 CHENGMIN WANG 13213 MILLER AV $605.96 1100 171 34 0000 JASON N ANDERSON 13233 LAMBRUSCO CT $360.48 1100 171 37 0000 RANDALL C COOPER 13207 LAMBRUSCO CT $540.32 Page 18 of 19 Page 343 EXHIBIT A CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA BURRTEC WASTE INDUSTRIES DELINQUENT SOLID WASTE ACCOUNTS 1100 172 16 0000 ALLEN R ARVISO 13144 SYLVANER CT $300.48 Total Parcels: 792 Total Amount $309,617.40 Page 19 of 19 Page 344 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:J ana Cook, Community I mprovement Manager S UB J E C T:C O NS ID E RAT I O N O F A RE S O L UT IO N F O R T HE P L AC E M E NT O F S P E C IAL AS S E S S M E NT S AND L IE NS F O R C O S T S O F NUIS ANC E AB AT E M E NT O N P RIVAT E P RO P E RT Y. RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends the C ity C ouncil adopt a Resolution approving the list of properties with nuisance abatements, and authorizing the placement of special assessments and liens against the respective parcels of land to be collected for the C ity of R ancho Cucamonga, at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary County ad valorem property taxes. BACKGROUND: I n the interest of public saf ety, the City will occasionally serve notice to a property owner to abate nuisance conditions that are harmful to the public, including open structures that can be an attractive nuisance to children, a harbor f or vagrants, or allow criminal activity. W hen an owner does not comply, the C ity will have the work completed by an independent contractor as allowed by Municipal and State law. T he contractors are paid by the City and the owner is billed f or the work. W hile the funds due are secured by filing a Notice of P endency, there is no penalty f or owners that have not paid f or the resulting benef it to the property. Municipal Code Section 8.23.200 allows unpaid abatement costs to become assessments against the respective parcels of land, resulting in liens on the property for the amount of the nuisance abatement, plus administrative charges. A P ublic Hearing Notice is prepared by the City and mailed to the property owner by Certified Mail no less than 10 days prior to the P ublic Hearing date. ANALY S IS: Property owners that have received the benefit of work performed on private property without reimbursing the City to the cost can be considered to have received a loan of public f unds at no cost. C ollecting these funds as a special assessment will allow the City to recover expended funds in a timely and fiscally responsible manner. City staff established a list of seven (7) property owners with unpaid nuisance abatements and mailed a Notice of P ublic Hearing via Certified Mail to each af f ected property owner on May 2, 2018. A s of May 7, 2018, City staf f received no inquiries on those properties and no written protests were received by the City Clerk. Exhibit ‘A’ includes the seven (7) properties with unpaid nuisance abatements f or a total of $9,291.99. P roperty owners on the list have until J une 29, 2018 to submit payment to the C ity to avoid submittal to the C ounty. P roperty owners remaining on the list after J une 30, 2018 will be submitted to the C ounty f or the 2018-19 tax roll. Page 345 FISCAL IMPACT: T he current annual budget for nuisance abatement in Community I mprovement is $45,000. T he prompt recovery of these costs after expenditure will allow for the continuing f unding of this budget item without negative impacts. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: None noted. AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n E xhibit A R eso lution No 18-032 Page 346 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Community Improvement Special Assessment for Nuisance Abatement Services Owner Address Parcel Date of Abatement Action Contractor Cost and Administrative Fee Lien Release Fee Lien Administration Fee Total Due Maxwell Ryan Thomas 6039 Amethyst St 1062-251-42-0000 5/24/2017 $725.00 $151.00 $65.00 $941.00 Hu Ye F 11941 Sagemont Dr 1089-651-31-0000 2/9/2017 $2,495.41 $151.00 $65.00 $2,711.41 Handy Brenda A 10310 Orange St 0201-741-37-0000 8/1/2017 $525.00 $151.00 $65.00 $741.00 Morgan Jane A 5000 Skyline Rd 1061-172-19-0000 5/27/2017 $925.00 $151.00 $65.00 $1,141.00 Deng Haijian 14005 Hastings Ranch Ln 0226-231-08-0000 8/30/2016 $886.52 $151.00 $65.00 $1,102.52 Tri Lihn and Nguyen Anh Thu 7400 Sonoma Creek Ct 1090-371-03-0000 5/31/2016 $1,162.09 $151.00 $65.00 $1,378.09 Hwang Ray T 6226 Callaway Pl 0201-771-41-0000 9/26/2017 $1,060.97 $151.00 $65.00 $1,276.97 TOTAL DUE:$7,779.99 $1,057.00 $455.00 $9,291.99 Exhibit A May 16, 2018 Resolution 18-032 Page 347 RESOLUTION NO. 18-032 - Page 1 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 18-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONFIRMING THE REPORT OF UNPAID NUISANCE ABATEMENTS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH SHALL CONSTITUTE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AND LIENS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE PARCELS OF LAND AND SHALL BE COLLECTED FOR THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME MANNER AS ORDINARY COUNTY AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.23.160 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, code enforcement staff did issue a Notice to Abate to the property owners of record which included the violation existing at the property and the required correction with a due date at least ten days after the service, and such notice was served by Certified Mail; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 8.23.170 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, the code enforcement officer found the violation remained at the property after the due date for compliance and authorized private contractors to abate the nuisance; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.23.180 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, staff members did keep an accounting of the costs and incidental expenses for abating such nuisance on each parcel; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has caused to be prepared a report of unpaid abatement fees; and, WHEREAS, a copy of said report is attached hereto, marked Exhibit “A” and made a part of this Resolution; and, WHEREAS, the City Council scheduled 7:00 p.m. on May 16, 2018, at the City of Rancho Cucamonga City Hall located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California as the time and place for hearing the report and any objections or protests thereto; and, WHEREAS, the City Council caused notice of the hearing to be mailed certified to the property owners listed on the report, at their addresses as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, not less than ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing; and, WHEREAS, at the hearing, the City Council heard all objections or protests of property owners, or their representatives, liable to be assessed for delinquent charges; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has made such revisions and corrections to the report as it deems just. Page 348 RESOLUTION NO. 18-032 - Page 2 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. That the unpaid costs of nuisance abatement set forth in the report attached hereto as Exhibit “A” are hereby confirmed. Section 2. That pursuant to California Government Code Sections 38790.1 and 25831, the delinquent charges set forth in the confirmed report shall constitute special assessments against the respective parcels of land and is a lien on the property for the amount of the delinquent charges. Section 3. That the City Clerk is instructed to file a certified copy of this Resolution, including the confirmed report, with the San Bernardino County Auditor/Controller for the amounts of the respective assessments against the respective parcels of land as they appear on the current assessment (tax) roll. Section 4. That the City Clerk is instructed to record a certified copy of this Resolution, including the confirmed report, in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. Section 5. Collection Procedure. That the assessments shall be collected for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary county ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for those taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of county ad valorem property taxes shall be applicable to such assessment, except that if any real property to which such lien would attach has been transferred or conveyed to a bona fide purchaser for value, or if a lien of a bona fide encumbrancer for value has been created and attaches thereon, prior to the date on which the first installment of such taxes would become delinquent, then the lien which would otherwise be imposed by this section shall not attach to such real property and the delinquent charges, as confirmed, relating to such property shall be transferred to the unsecured roll for collection. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16th day of May, 2018. Page 349 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:J ana Cook, Community I mprovement Manager S UB J E C T:F IRS T RE AD ING AND I NT RO D UC T I O N O F O RD I NANC E NO. 930, AM E ND I NG T I T L E 17 O F T HE M UNI C IPAL C O D E T O RE V I S E S I G N RE G UL AT IO NS F O R P UB L I C P RO P E RT Y. (IT EM WILL BE CONT INUED TO J UNE 6, 2018 CIT Y COUNCIL M EET ING) RE COMMENDAT ION: Staf f recommends opening the P ublic Hearing and continuing it to the J une 6, 2018 C ity Council meeting. No public testimony will be heard at this time. BACKGROUND: To be provided on the J une 6, 2018 S taff Report. ANALY S IS: To be provided on the J une 6, 2018 S taff Report. FISCAL IMPACT: None. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: Not applicable. Page 350 D AT E : May 16, 2018 T O:Mayor and Members of the City Council F RO M :J ohn R . Gillison, C ity Manager INIT IAT E D B Y:Matthew Burris, D eputy C ity Manager S UB J E C T:UP D AT E O N T HE NO RT H E AS T E RN S P HE RE ANNE X AT I O N P RO P O S AL (NE S AP ). RE COMMENDAT ION: D irect staff to continue working with the community to develop a neighborhood and open space conservation plan for the North Eastern S phere Annexation P roposal area. BACKGROUND: T he North E astern S phere Annexation Proposal (NE S A P ) is a planning effort to investigate the f easibility of planning and annexing approximately 4,388 acres of land in the C ity’s Sphere of I nfluence into the C ity’s C ity L imits. W ithin the NE S A P boundary, 300 acres are within the City and 4,088 acres are within the S O I and this area extends from Haven Avenue, easterly to the City’s boundary with F ontana, and from the northerly City limits to the National F orest boundary. Annexation of this land would extend the City’s land use authority over the land, providing local control of the future development of that land through zoning and development standards. The catalyst for this planning process was S an Bernardino C ounty F lood C ontrol District (S B C F C D) completing construction of various f lood control facilities, resulting in approximately 1,212 of S B C F C D land becoming surplus land. Initial County D evelopment Efforts I n 2008, the County of S an B ernardino initiated an effort to find a development partner for the development of the surplus 1,212 acres. The City distributed a R equest for Q ualif ications (R F Q) for those developers who wished to be considered in a potential joint venture with the C ounty of S an B ernardino to entitle the approximate 1,200 acres. T he County’s land is partially located within the C ity and partially within the unincorporated area of the C ounty, but within the C ity’s Sphere of I nfluence (S O I ). S even proposals were submitted, one later withdrawn, to develop the project area. T he C ounty discontinued the potential joint venture in 2009 due to the economic downturn. As of right now, the C ounty controls the zoning (and thus the uses and density) on approximately 900 acres of their land. Furthermore, the C ity’s E tiwanda North Specific Plan anticipates development on the C ounty’s land f ollowing completion of the f lood control f acilities. I f the County f inds a development partner, the land could be developed and the C ity would have little ability to control the uses, the density, or the impacts to surrounding neighborhoods. T he City would also not collect any property tax revenue to pay for the costs of services and maintenance that would come with new residents using our streets and parks. 2015 Review of the Etiwanda North Specific Plan I n 2015, the City Council reaffirmed their goal of pre-zoning and annexing an approximately 4,100-acre portion of the City’s S O I . I f the land were annexed, it would give the City local control, the ability to achieve quality development, an ability to minimize impacts to the community, and ensure fiscal responsibility. L ater that year, af ter a competitive bid process, the C ity contracted with Sargent Town Planning f or the 4,388- acre North E astern Sphere Annexation P roposal (NE S A P) through the preparation of a S pecific Plan, E I R, and appurtenant support studies and analysis. A decision was made early in the NE S A P process to establish a new specif ic plan as the E NS P does not provide for conservation, does not zone the entire Page 351 NE S A P area, permits a significant amount of development where it should not occur, and does not adequately address development where it could occur. Between the summer of 2015 and the F all of 2017, the consulting team and City worked to develop an initial plan proposal. T he early design considerations proposed maintaining the northerly 3,176 acres as a “conservation priority area”, and f ocused potential development in 1,212 acres of “development priority area” in the southerly portion. Early concepts for the development priority area included a mix of residential product types, a central commercial “town center” with neighborhood retail and restaurants, and public uses and amenities arranged in a compact and walkable land use pattern to encourage active living. F urthermore, as the habitat adjacent to the National F orest is less degraded, initial planning concepts were oriented around directing conservation mitigation easements into the northerly 3,176 acres. I n essence, the development of the County’s land would help ensure the preservation of the land between the C ity and the National F orest through the purchase of land or conservation easements. Staf f worked closely with the U.S . F ish and W ildlife Service (US F W S ) and C alif ornia Department of F ish and W ildlif e (C D F W ) to discuss the NE S A P and elicit their comments regarding potential environmental constraints. Because of their comments and concerns, the NE S A P area was evaluated for the presence of the S an B ernardino K angaroo Rat (S B K R) and extensive trappings were conducted. No presence of the S B K R was found on-site. T he NE S A P area was also evaluated for the presence and quality of R iversidean A lluvial F an S age Scrub (R A F F S S ), which determined that, due to the lack of sand and water flows across the site, the R A F F S S habitat is declining and will continue to degrade. However, the habitat concerns were given strong consideration and heavily inf luenced the resulting plan proposal. A restoration plan to improve R A F F S S habitat was considered in response to agency concerns. T he initial design concept preserved/restored a large central portion of the development priority area, and provided for areas of residential and commercial development around what is essentially the perimeter with a large habitat area in the central core. 2017 Community M eetings I n the fall of 2017, the C ity conducted a series of four C ommunity Meetings held on October 26, November 2, November 9, and November 16, 2017. T hese Community Meetings were held at public school sites in general proximity to the NE S A P area and over a month’s time to provide the greatest opportunity f or public participation. Approximately 6,500 notices were mailed to all property owners north of the 210 freeway and east of Haven Avenue. A ll Community Meetings were well attended, with the number of persons in attendance ranging f rom approximately 60 to 100 persons at each event. At those meetings, staff and the consultant team presented the initial design considerations for the conservation priority area and the development priority area, and some of the reasoning behind those considerations (i.e., US F W S and C D F W comments). T hose in attendance raised questions and objections to the following: · Traf f ic (including existing conditions and potential impacts from future development), · T he proposed number and location of residential units, multi-f amily development (e.g., condos, apartments, attached and S F R), · Trails and equestrian use, · Commercial development, · L oss of view and open space, · I ncreased property taxes, and · T he desire to retain the NE S A P area as it currently exists. D uring this time, the C ity also engaged the community through a survey and found: 64.4% of respondents like the idea of conserving Upper Sphere Area (~3,000 Acres); 63.7% prioritize conserving foothills; 84.7% report local control is important. Revised NE S AP Outreach On D ecember 20, 2017, following the four Community Meetings, the City C ouncil commented on the NE S A P. T he C ity C ouncil agreed with the City Manager’s statement that comments from the public were heard, that staf f would go back and look at the proposal, look at the feedback received and would f urther evaluate the density, housing types, and amount of commercial. F urther development of the NE S A P Page 352 concept and E I R were halted while staf f evaluated the comments received. I n response to the community’s concerns, staff initiated additional community outreach efforts to work more closely with the community in defining the f uture of the NE S A P area. Hearing from the community that the initial proposal seemed too intense and that the community desired a greater opportunity for input, the original NE S A P concept was shelved. I n its place, staff brought a blank slate back to the community, summarizing that three paths are generally: Options:Do Nothing Annex, Keep as Open Space Annex with Community-based Plan Outcome C ounty develops land C ommunity raises $$$, land stays open space C ommunity creates plan for responsible development before C ounty finds a development partner Potential Community Impacts High: our options for mitigating impacts are reduced without land use control None to low: little would change, fire hazards and circulation issues would remain L ow to moderate: most impacts would be offset by mitigation requirements Potential Fiscal Impacts High: we will have to pay for services for new neighbors without receiving tax revenue High: we will have to tax ourselves or otherwise raise $171 Million to pay for and maintain land Neutral to slightly positive: the right mix of land uses will be fiscally neutral to slightly positive Quality & Amenities Unknown D epends on how much money is available High: Our city has some of the highest quality development in S o C al D uring the spring of 2018, staff met with representatives of the home owner associations adjacent to the NE S A P area to explain the project process in greater detail and provide the opportunity to answer any questions. T he City conducted another survey to initiate the community workshops and f ound: · 70.9% prefer local control and · 58.9% support some level of development under C ity zoning. T he C ity then held two Community Workshops on March 22 and April 19, 2018 to work with the community on developing the direction f or the NE S A P area. T hese Community Workshops were held at the C entral Park R ancho C ucamonga Hall with the intent to provide the greatest opportunity for public participation. Approximately 9,700 notices were mailed to all property owners north of the 210 f reeway and east of Archibald Avenue. Additionally, understanding the f uture of NE S A P is a city-wide concern, staf f conducted supplemented outreach activities using email and social media. An additional 20,508 engagements occurred over the course of 5 F acebook L ive events alone. Both Community Workshops were well attended with approximately 100 persons in attendance at the f irst meeting and approximately 230 persons at the second. At the March 22, 2018 Community Workshop, participants worked in groups of 6 to 8 participants each to prioritize community objectives f or the NE S A P area. T he f irst activity asked participants to discuss and identif y their top-5 priorities for the planning of the area. T he top five priorities identif ied that evening were: 1) L ocal C ontrol, 2) Avoid New Property Taxes, 3) D evelopment Compatibility, 4) Preserve Open Space and View Corridors (tied). T he second activity asked participants to design a conceptual land use plan for the NE S A P area considering their responses from the first activity. P articipants were provided a map of the area and various stickers representing different land uses (i.e., housing of various types and densities, neighborhood serving commercial, and parks and open space. As a result, participants prepared 16 maps: · 1 recommended no annexation allowing development under the C ounty, · 1 recommended annexing and keeping the land as open space, and Page 353 · 14 proposed varying ranges and mixes of residential development, neighborhood commercial uses, trails, equestrian facilities, and extending major streets (i.e., W ilson Avenue, Milliken Avenue, and Rochester Avenue). Between A pril 5 and April 12, 2018, the City conducted a series of 9 community P op-Up events and asked participants to complete a survey regarding the NE S A P that served as a “Virtual Workshop.” A total of 262 people completed the survey, which contained questions regarding: · the A nnexation Proposal, · Neighborhood Development, · P arks, Open S pace, and Trails, · S treets, Traf f ic and C irculation, · A nnexation F unding. General comments indicated support for the local control and facilitating local control through low-intensity development, with large lot single-f amily homes, parkland, open space trails and habitat conservation, agreement with the need to connect and complete existing streets, and roughly equal support and opposition f or conserving the area. At the A pril 19, 2018, C ommunity Workshop participants seated around tables with 6 to 8 participants each to answer three questions about the type and nature of development that might make sense (f ocused on Open S pace Types, Neighborhood Types, and Neighborhood A menities) to solicit ref inements to the community priorities and pref erences f or the NE S A P area expressed in the previous Community Workshop. D uring that workshop, the City received wide-ranging feedback on the types of open spaces, housing, and amenities that might be appropriate for the NE S A P area. G enerally, the input coalesced around the idea of creating high-quality, low intensity neighborhoods that continue the equestrian trail network and are rural in character. During this workshop, the idea of finding a mechanism for purchasing and preserving this land was again raised by some community members. Open Space Survey Since the original proposal was unveiled last f all, staf f have received repeated input about the possibility of the community self -taxing themselves to raise money and buy some or all of the NE S A P lands for preservation as open space. Avoiding new taxes has been an operating principle from the beginning of this work effort and this principal was confirmed in the f all meetings, the March workshop, and the Virtual Workshop. However, given the repeated request to look at this option from some community members, staf f initiated a F lashVote survey to better understand whether this may be an initiative the community would support. Staf f estimated the costs for acquisition of the land, installation of basic inf rastructure as would be required under the General P lan, such as finishing trail connections and W ilson Avenue, and providing f or the long- term maintenance of the plan. F or the lower 1,212 acres, costs were estimated to be $129 million. F or the remainder of the un-conserved acreage of the conservation priority area, costs were estimated at an additional $42 million. Between A pril 30 and May 2, 2018, the City conducted a F lashVote to obtain inf ormation regarding community support f or purchasing land within the NE S A P using f unds from a new tax. A total of 601 participants completed the vote, 486 identified themselves as local residents. A pproximately 51.2 percent did not support a new tax to purchase the area and only 33.7% supported purchasing the land through a new tax. ANALY S IS: T here are three options available to the City: 1. Discontinue the annexation proposal. T he NE S A P area would stay under County jurisdiction and any development proposals would be subject to County entitlement processing and County development standards. T he City would not be able to impose its Development I mpact F ees to construct new inf rastructure needed to serve the new population nor collect taxes to operated and maintain its roads and parks that would be impacted by the population living in these new neighborhoods. 2. Annex the area and keep as Open Space. To respect property rights and not put the City at undue risk, conserving the area as open space would require the land be purchased specif ically for Page 354 open space. T here is virtually no grant money available f or the purchase of land of this scale and quality. T he only f easible method identified thus far would be for the C ity to purchase the land. However, the City does not have the funds to purchase this land and the money would have to be raised by a local initiative. Under this option, the City would purchase the NE S A P area, funded through a bond measure (such as a Mello-Roos) to be repaid through a new parcel tax. S taff has evaluated three options, which ref erence the L ower S phere A rea (the 1,212 acres north of L os Osos High School) and the remaining 3,176 acres generally north of the current City boundary (Upper S phere Area). T hese options include the f ollowing and would distribute the parcel tax citywide: · Buy and conserve the L ower S phere Area for approximately $129,000,000, paid for by an additional annual tax of $260 per parcel over 20 years · Buy and conserve the Upper Sphere Area f or approximately $42,000,000, paid for by an additional annual tax of $95 per parcel · B uy and conserve both the L ower and Upper S phere A reas f or approximately $171,000,000, paid f or by an additional annual tax of $355 per parcel 3. Annex the NE S AP with a Community-B ased P lan. T he third option would entail the continued preparation of a community-based plan that would allow enough development to provide f or the desired amenities, such as trails and parks, and open space conservation. T his option would utilize f eedback we have f rom all community meetings and continued community engagement. Of the three broad options available, discontinuation of A nnexation is the least supported by the community. Throughout the community outreach process, via both surveys and workshops, the community has repeated that local control is of the upmost importance: · I n the October F lashVote, 84.7% respondents supported local control · I n the March F lashVote, 70.9% reported local control · I n the March 22 C ommunity Workshop, local control was the top community priority and all but one of the working groups recommended plans f or local control · I n the April Virtual Workshop, the top priority for NE S A P was again local control T hus, we believe O ption 1, in which the City does not continue the ef f ort would not be preferred by the community. Option 2, annexing the area and keeping it as open space, also appears to be a less viable option. T hroughout the process, several community members have stated this option is the preferred option and the community would be willing to self -tax to raise the f unds. The C ity does not have the funds to purchase the land f rom the C ounty or other private land owners in the NE S A P area. Additionally, staff has not been able to identify any outside funding sources that would f acilitate the purchase of this land. T his leaves the suggested path of passing a new bond measure that would be repaid through a parcel tax, but this option does not appear to have enough community support to actually pass a new bond measure: · “Avoid new property taxes” was the second most important priority identified at the first workshop and third most important priority identif ied through the Virtual Workshop · Only 47.7% of respondents to the Virtual Workshop agreed that the C ity should investigate exploring the possibility of a new parcel tax to acquire the lower 1,212 acres However, given the repeated requests f or this option, staff tested this idea via F lashVote to determine how much support there might be f or a new tax to fund acquisition of the land. Only 33.7% of respondent were in f avor of passing bond measure and parcel tax to purchase the land. Given this input f rom the community, staff recommends moving forward with Option 3: A nnex the NE S A P area with a community-based plan f or new neighborhoods and open space conservation. T hrough the community outreach activities this past spring, staff has heard several objectives repeatedly from the community: L ocal control High quality L ow-intensity R ural character Page 355 C ontinue the Equestrian Overlay New trails that connect to existing trails and open space Safe and walkable streets Amenity rich Preserves open space D oes not result in new taxes or costs f or existing residents As such, staf f recommends continuing to work with the community to prepare a plan for the NE S A P area based on this vision. Under this option, staf f envisions working with the community over the course of the next several months to explore and refine the vision for open space and trails in concert with the Equestrian O verlay, high-quality low-intensity neighborhoods, and habitat conservation. T his would include the development of a S pecif ic Plan and E I R as a mechanism for facilitating local control through annexation. T he time necessary to complete the NE S A P will f ollow a path of further community engagement, S pecif ic Plan and E I R preparation, circulation of the project E I R , Planning C ommission consideration and C ity C ouncil consideration, and f inally submitting the annexation application to L A F C O. Staf f anticipates scheduling the NE S A P f or City Council consideration in the first or second quarter of 2019. FISCAL IMPACT: T he f iscal impact of the plan preparation is expected to be neutral as the C ity can recover costs of preparing the plan through a specif ic plan maintenance fee paid for by the future developer of the area. COUNCIL GOAL(S) ADDRE S S E D: By 2018, review the City's long-term objectives for the entire 6,000-acre Sphere area and identify development, mitigation, preservation and annexation potential. City Manager’s Of f ice and Community D evelopment (prior year Council Goal). AT TACHMENT S: D escriptio n A ttachment 1 - C ommunity Workshop #1 R esults A ttachment 2 - Virtual Workshop R esults A ttachment 3 - C ommunity Workshop #2 R esults A ttachment 4 - October FlashVo te Results A ttachment 5 - M arch FlashVo te Results A ttachment 6 - Open S pace S urvey R esults A ttachment 7 - S pring 2018 M edia C overage Page 356 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 1 COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #1 NESAP Community Workshop #1 Summary Goldy S. Lewis Community Center at Central Park 11200 Base Line Rd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701 March 22, 2018 | 6:30 pm - 8:30 pm Workshop #1 involved approximately 100 residents of Rancho Cucamonga. Participants were organized/seated around 16 numbered tables (of approximately 6-8 participants per table). Following an opening summary of work completed to date, and workshop objectives by Matt Burris, Susan Harden, of Michael Baker International, led the group through two “Table Activities” to solicit community priorities for the Plan Area. Each table was asked to discuss and identify their top-5 priorities for the planning of this area. A preliminary list of 20 “Possible Community Priorities” was provided to each table, with the invitation to identify new/alternative priorities if they so wished. Each table was given 5 colored “dots” to be used to identify their top-5 priorities on a large poster to consolidate and summarize the “top priority” trends of the larger group. WORKSHOP OVERVIEW Activity #1: Identify Top Priorities Activity #2: Design the Plan (mapping exercise) Each table then provided with a 500-scale poster of the plan area, as well as sheets of stickers of various sizes (cor- related to acreages in scale with the posters) representing a variety of land uses – ranging from housing of various types and densities, to neighborhood-serving commercial, to parks and open spaces. In light of the top priorities identified in Activity #1, each table was asked to design a conceptual land use plan for the plan area. The results of both activities are summarized in the pages that follow. Page 357 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 2 Page 358 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 3 Local Control Fiscal Impacts Avoid new property taxes Minimize development impacts Preserve open space Development compatibility View corridors Expand trail system Connect Wilson Ave New park facilities New equestrian facilities Neighborhood commercial spaces Housing options for empty nesters Housing options for the young Active, safe and healthy neighborhoods Reduce fire hazards Street network options Existing property rights Community focal points Water & energy conservation ADDED: No commercial ADDED: ½ to 1-acre homes ADDED: 1-acre lots minimum ADDED: No apartments & no condos Table Activity #1: Identify Top Priorities - Summary Findings PRIORITIES Completed “Possible Community Priorities” poster after top priorities were identified by each table group TALLY 11 1 8 4 6 7 6 1 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 2 4 5 0 0 1 1 1 1 Page 359 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 4 Table Activity #2: Design the Plan - Table Transcripts and Poster Summaries TABLE 1 “Our consensus was very low density. A little bit higher density down by Banyan. And also that area, this was a last-minute request, was a small commercial, with a hospital facility, which we don’t have much in our area. We had somebody that works in the hospital industry - (unintelligible) - there were also concerns about another fire station up there. Concerns about the Etiwanda School District and the Chaffey High School District in that area. Parks was big, and kind of goofed - we think we went too high up. But a larger park facility for all youth activities, and then also, if, on the equestrian side, it could accommodate, you’d need a ten, to potentially twelve to fifteen-acre park in that area. And that’s kind of the reader’s digest version.” Table 1 Transcript • Very low density overall • Could include slightly higher density near Banyan • Potential for health-related use and/or additional fire station • Parks and equestrian – particularly in northern plan area (up to 10-15 acre) • Single-family residential VLE/HRE (1-2 du/ac) north of Wilson Ave • Single-family residential L (2-4 du/ac) south of Wilson • “San Antonio Regional Hospital East” • Park-space throughout (up to 10-15 acre) Poster Summary TABLE 2 No information provided. Page 360 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 5 TABLE 3 “I represent the property owners, the people that live to the north of the city, east of the preserve, to the Fontana city limits. We would like to stay rural and county, just like the people that live to the west of the preserve to Upland, which is County, just like they do.” Table 3 Transcript • No Annexation • Maintain existing County Zoning Poster Summary TABLE 4 “Six-year resident of Rancho. Our table was mostly long-term folks that have lived there. One of our concerns in getting to this (gestures to map) was absolutely no sustainability elements in the plan. We came up with the idea that the city go ahead and annex this and leave it as it is, and this - (unintelligible).” Table 4 Transcript • City to Annex the land, and do nothing (maintain as natural open space) Poster Summary Page 361 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 6 TABLE 5 “Our group was mostly longtime residents. My wife and I were the newest to the group. We wanted to make sure, first off, there’s enough money to buy this, or be able to cover the cost with the county. But the one thing we thought our city really need- ed, having kids ourselves, was the open space, the park space, and that doesn’t come free. So, we knew that we would have to put in some housing to cover those costs. Same thing with Wilson. Wilson isn’t free. We really looked at the idea of what is the minimum housing that we could do to cover the costs of what we were laying out. And then there was the idea that, not a full-blown golf course, but there wasn’t a nice three-par anywhere around. Those offsets with the money that brought in would also help develop this. And then the one thing that’s missing in the city is that – I think on here it said (looks at handout) the empty nester and senior - and wanted to make a nice area for that. Because a lot of people have lived here for thirty, forty, fifty years, and they want to stay in their neighborhood and we don’t have a lot of that, especially, I mean there’s nothing to that high up, so we did make one section that really covers that area there.” Table 5 Transcript • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • Par-3 golf course • Balance new amenities with enough housing to pay for it • Housing options for empty nesters / seniors • Single-family residential VLE/HRE, VLE (1-2 du/ac) north of Wilson • Single-family residential L, LM (2-8 du/ac) north of Banyan • Age-Restricted single-family residential LM (4-8 du/ac) north of Banyan • Age-Restricted Attached north of Banyan • Neighborhood Centers along Banyan and Wilson • Park/open space throughout (~130 acres total) Poster Summary Page 362 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 7 TABLE 6 “Very quickly, very similar to the last presentation, we really like the existing pre-zoning for this area. South of Banyan - (unintelligible) - which is pretty consistent with the adjacent residential uses. North of Banyan up to Wilson, up to two dwelling units per acre. North of Wilson, one acre minimum. We’re also emphasizing that the Equestrian Center that’s supposed to happen in Etiwanda should happen somewhere in this area (points generally to the map), and the City’s collected money for that to the tune of $679,000 over the last I heard quoted from. That’s generally what we’re talking about. I obviously want to see trail connectivity. Wilson Avenue was a question that went about half-and- half at our table, but it’s pretty essential in terms of traffic circulation.” Table 6 Transcript • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • 35-acre Equestrian Park north of Wilson • 50-acre Wilderness Area in upper sphere • 25-acre park north of Levee • One-acre minimum north of Wilson • Single-family residential VLE/HRE, VLE (1-2 du/ac) north of Banyan • Single-family residential L (2-4 du/ac) south of Banyan Poster Summary Page 363 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 8 TABLE 7 “We have some newbies and we also have some long-time residents at our table, and most of them are thinking a lot, like we’re all thinking, is we don’t want any more traffic. So, minimize. The annexation’s not a bad idea because we want it under City control. Because left to the County, lord knows what could happen. So, the annexation is not a bad idea to do. So, with that being said, our group has decided to mirror what’s over to the west is Deer Creek and Haven Estates. So we have one acre lots over here (gestures to lower-east). And we have people that would like to, since we lost Empire Lakes, have a golf course. They’d like to see single family homes that are one story. And lots of parks as you can see. And parks don’t need to be huge. Parks can be small. So, there’s a lot of green on our map. That’s because we want to see a lot of green left. We would also like to see ballparks and trails - and let me look at the map - mainly, and the biggest thing, no commercial, none, zero.” Table 7 Transcript • Minimize traffic • Mirror development in Deer Creek/Haven Estates • Single-family residential VLE / HRE (1 du/ac) north of Wilson • Single-family residential VLE (1-2 du/ac) south of Wilson • No commercial • Golf Course south of gravel pit • Park space buffering perimeter of development area Poster Summary Page 364 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 9 TABLE 8 “So, the general consensus of our group was that we would like to see the city annex this space, because we like local control. And in going with that theme, we followed many of the other groups, we want to see a lot of low density housing in there, just enough that it would hopefully pay for itself. And we wanted an emphasis on the equestrian lots to connect with the existing equestrian trails. We wanted a lot of open space if we can get away with it. And we included some senior housing and we definitely want to see Wilson connect and Rochester to alleviate a lot of the traffic areas.” Table 8 Transcript • Connect and complete Wilson Ave and extend Rochester • Low-density housing in the plan area – balanced to fund cost of annexation. • Emphasis on equestrian lots to connect to the existing trail system • Lots of open space (including large space south of levy) • Senior Housing • Large open space area south of levee. • Single-family residential VLE/HRE, VLE (1-2 du/ac) north of Wilson • Single-family residential LM (4-8 du/ac) north of Wilson at Rochester and south of Banyan • Single-family residential VL (1-2 du/ac) south of Wilson • Neighborhood Centers at Wilson & Milliken, and Wilson & Rochester Poster Summary Page 365 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 10 TABLE 9 Facilitator on behalf of table speaker: “I’m reading open space here at the top. Some crossed out houses so maybe this is open space.” Volunteer speaker: “Open space here because this is a levy, so we don’t want anything up in there. The stickers were confusing people, but basically, we want two per acre houses up above like everybody else. A little bit higher density, maybe four per acre to sort of match up with all the other areas, so lower density in here, little bit higher here and down below. And yes, some nice parks in there and the table really liked the idea to put some ballparks next to Los Osos.” Table 9 Transcript • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave and extend Rochester & Milliken • Single-family residential VLE (1-2 du/ac) north of Wilson (west of Rochester) • Single-family residential L (2-4 du/ac) north of Wilson (east of Rochester) • Single-family residential L (2-4 du/ac) south of Wilson • Parks/open space (2-5 acres) throughout Plan with open space above the levy and sports fields next to Los Osos High School Poster Summary Page 366 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 11 TABLE 10 “We were basically on the same page as everyone else’s as far as density. Very low density, and connectivity to the trails all the way around. One big concern we have is this corridor here (gestures to far east annexation border line) should remain as open space, untouched. If there were to be trails, they could be along this side (continues gesturing to far east annexation border line). Preserve this for a flight path for wild birds. There’s been very little attention paid to the interface between the wilderness and urban interface. We think this is a chance to get it right. So many communities along the foothills have gotten it wrong. Let’s do it right Rancho. So, we think this should be just like the way it is.” Table 10 Transcript • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • Connectivity to trails on all sides • Wildlife corridor in SCE Easement • Neighborhood Center beside Fire Dept (Banyan Ave) and in southeast corner (along 210) • 35-acre equestrian park north of Wilson • Single-family residential VLE/HRE, VLE (1-2 du/ac) north of Banyan Poster Summary Page 367 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 12 TABLE 11 First Speaker: “Our team consisted of newbies and long-timers, and when you said make it compatible with the areas at the top of Day Creek right now they’re building large homes and larger lots. We just don’t want to see the high-density homes so we put the one acre lots and general - (unintelligible) - parks.” Second Speaker: “We do need ballparks for Vineyard Little League in Rancho Cucamonga, because they don’t have any place to play ball.” Third Speaker: “They were going to put the baseball fields closer to Los Osos just so that we can maybe get some more parking down in that area, and then over on this side (gestures toward lower-east) and they we kind of threw in some roads here that we desperately need (motions from south to north on west side) so that we can get from the east to the west up at the top of the city, that will kind of relieve some of the other congestion down below, closer around Los Osos.” Table 11 Transcript • Make compatible with large-lot housing and Day Creek • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • Extends Rochester Ave to Wilson • Add new road access along foothills and extend Milliken Ave to new foothill access road • Single-family residential VLE/HRE (1 du/ac) north of Banyan • Parks west of Milliken and east of Rochester, with little league ball fields next to Los Osos High Poster Summary Page 368 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 13 TABLE 12 “We kind of agreed with everybody else regarding the larger homes, equestrian area up here being able to be accessed up into the mountains - the foothills there. Parks throughout. I did like baseball diamonds down in the area where we had just a lot of parks. It would be nice for the kids. It would be nice for Los Osos. And the key, too, is preserving the view for the folks that do have views at the present time.” Table 12 Transcript • Low-density homes • Preserve views of existing residents • Baseball diamonds adjacent Los Osos High School • Single-family residential VLE/HRE (1 du/ac) north of levee • Single-family residential VL, L (1-4 du/ac) north of Banyan (south of levee) • Single-family residential LM (4-8 du/ac) south of Banyan • Numerous 2-5 acre parks throughout the plan area (a concentration of such west of Milliken/south of Wilson) Poster Summary TABLE 13 “We wanted nothing with the land, so we need to buy it with a bond. And I know that would increase taxes. It will be worth it so it will remain open. So that’s the bottom line, we want it to remain the same, sort of like no annexation of here (gestures to another concept map), but we have to buy the land in order to do nothing with it, to leave it alone.” Table 13 Transcript • Purchase the land from the County via bond or new tax • Leave it open Poster Summary Page 369 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 14 TABLE 14 “Our table consisted of longtime residents of the area and newbies as well. The idea here is to maintain the same feel as the way the area is right now, which is basically larger, more equestrian lots towards the top and generally flowing into slightly higher density. But not real high density at all as we get down closer to Banyan.” Table 14 Transcript • Identified “Bands” of development typologies: starting at Banyan and moving north: Band 1: (south of Wilson) single-family residential LM (4-8 du/ac); SFR (age -restricted) LM (4-8 du/ac); Small-lot SFR (8-14 du/ac); Band 2: (north of Wilson) single-family residential LM (2-4 du/ac) Band 3: single-family residential VLE (1-2 du/ac) Band 4: (north of gravel pit and north of levee) single -family residential VLE/HRE (1 du/ac) • Identified continuous park/open space along east side of deer creek channel, and along north side of Los Osos High School Poster Summary Page 370 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 15 TABLE 15 Facilitator on behalf of table speaker: “I’m just going to take the liberty of looking at table 15 and looking at one acre minimum at the top and a little bit higher density but still very low density throughout, looking at a small park as well. So, it looks very similar to the other concepts.” Table 15 Transcript • Large-lot (1-acre housing in general • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • Single-family residential VL (1-2 du/ac) north of Banyan and lining north side of Wilson • Single-family residential (1 du/ac min.) north of SFR VL (south of levee) • Identified SFR L (2-4 du/ac) west of Milliken (south of Wilson) • Sports Park (trails, soccer, etc.) north of Los Osos High School • Large open space north of Levee Poster Summary Page 371 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL www.CityofRC.us/NESAP | 16 TABLE 16 “So basically, what we tried to do is have upper to kind of dense, not super dense, housing. And have a little shopping center up here you can’t cross through. So we have streets that will connect Wilson and Milliken and Rochester and continuing down to have the flow of traffic come down. And have a mix of residential in there, enough that we can have the city be able to pay for the annexing, acquiring the annexing.” Table 16 Transcript • Connect/Complete Wilson Ave • Extend Rochester and Milliken to levee • Add new street connecting Milliken and Rochester south of levee • Adds new connection from Rochester to Day Creek Blvd • A mix of housing (generally low density) to fund annexation • Single-family residential VL (1-2 du/ac) south of Banyan • Single-family residential VL, L (1-4 du/ac) north of Banyan (up to levee) • Small shopping center at Wilson & Rochester • Large “open land” north of Levee and west of deer creek channel • 2-5 acre parks in various locations mixed throughout Poster Summary Page 372 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROCESS VIRTUAL COMMUNITY WORKSHOP RESULTS Wilson Avenue 210 Freeway Banyan Ave Page 373 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop ▪Between April 5th and April 12th, the City conducted 9 Pop-Up events throughout the City to gather community input as a follow up survey to the March 22nd Community Workshop. ▪The Virtual Workshop was available on the City’s NESAP website. ▪A total of 264 surveys were submitted. ▪The results follow bellow. Page 374 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Part 1: Community Priorities At the March 22 Community Workshop, Community Members ranked their top priorities. A preliminary list of 20 “Possible Community Priorities” was provided to each table, with the invitation to identify new/alternative priorities if they so wished. Each table was given 5 colored “dots” to be used to identify their top-5 priorities on a large poster to consolidate and summarize the “top priority” trends of the larger group. Community members expanded the list with, “No Commercial, ½ to 1-acre homes, 1-acre lots minimum, No apartments and no condos.” The rankings and expanded list were evaluated through the Virtual Workshop in the following questions. Page 375 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Yes No Virtual Workshop Results 1.Do you think that these priorities provide appropriate guidance for the annexation process moving forward? Yes: 65.15% (172 responses) No:23.86%(63 responses) Answered: 235 | Skipped: 29 Page 376 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Yes No Virtual Workshop Results 2.Are there additional priorities that should be considered? Yes: 37.12% (98 responses) No:51.89%(137 responses) Answered: 234 | Skipped: 30 Page 377 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: Answered: 89 | Skipped: 175 Page 378 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•Lesser sprawl type developments and consider a denser type of design strategy. •Environmental and Animals •Water Supply •Present Species in the area •Farm land, sustainable farming, research federal grants for “healthy cities” •US Army Corps of Engineers report which allow development in a flood control zone. Not available for public participation , create a USC44,Title VI, violation. Public participation is a channeled community support, that may have been based on "fake news" type decision making, •Protect homeowners’ views by leaving open area •Sports faculty! Like the Fontana Aquatic Center!!! Page 379 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•At least one area of increased density housing •Thea above "Possible Community Priorities" study does not accurately reflect the opinions of those present. We were told to only mark 5 categories. And it was by Table, not by individuals. There was no consensus at our table. I think the process was flawed. •Solar farm and water storage •Water storage and maybe a photo voltaic solar installation on the conservation green space •Environment and future land reserve for our next generations. Protect existing wildlife. •Leave it as open land •Not sure if #1 includes traffic control •Nature Center with focus on Rancho Cucamonga geography, natural habitats in the region with large open space and walking trails Page 380 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•Traffic impacts to city and nearby residents, school over crowding, promise made to AL residents that NO commercial would be built above 19th, original promises made during incorporation, preservation of sage and mitigation •executive golf course; Rancho's previous 2 courses were lost to development •Hospital, like table 1 said •Low traffic •Adding traffic to Banyan Street, between Day Creek Ave and Milliken Ave, needs to be intensely considered and NOT over summer break! It is so busy already and there is NO room to widen it. Adding anything in the area just north of Banyan is going to severely impact ALL residents even more. For example at 7:30am weekdays it takes at minimum 20 minutes to make a turn (right OR left) off of Rocking Horse. Even going out through a different side street takes at least 15 minutes to get onto Day Creek Ave. due to the traffic. Please seriously reconsider ANY and ALL development in this area. Page 381 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•Animal relocation •No commercial buildings. Only Senior housing and 1 acre lots to 1/2 acre lots ONLY. •No high density. Reclaimed water for irrigation. Water storage and solar panel system. •Do not build homes that would obstruct views for the residents along the Deer Creek channel. •General Plan has facilities priority already listed. No Commercial, low housing, Central Park. •Impact on traffic and services provided by County and City. •To build the equestrian facilities with the funds set aside for that purpose. •Maintaining the low crime rate in the area. Adding commercial areas and apartments would increase the crime rate. Current residents of the area paid a lot of money to live in an area of Rancho with low crime and excellent schools. Page 382 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•Crime rate will increase in the area •Someone who didn’t attend the initial workshop may have great ideas too. This shouldn’t be considered an all encompassing list. •Walking and horse trails with lighting powered by solar •If the land is left under county control, do you know what they would consider doing with the land? •flooding (even though the county says it is not...planning is long-term) •If you do this and develop that space, I don't want to hear shit about how "we're out of water" ever again. Plenty of people live here already. No one wants the additional traffic. No new housing should be built anywhere without a plan for where the required water will come from. •The impact on existing homeowners in the contiguous area. •Wildlife •Dedicate the habitat conservation area to solar power generation. Page 383 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•Dedicate the habitat conservation area to solar power generation. •I like small pocket parks that we can walk/ride bikes to. Equestrian trails are underutilized and facilitate crime/drugs. Put them only around equestrian homesites. #16 should allow multiple responses. Disagree with premises of #9, 10, 11..... #21, 23, 25 are poorly worded or need more explanation. •These are listed as if one "priority" is independent of the other. You don't have to be a professional Civil & Environmental Engineer like me to know is not possible to effectively plan that way. Some of these priorities are silly. Of course you can't buy the land with no money so fiscal impacts need to be considered before all else. That doesn't mean if you do have the money you can buy the land without regard to existing plans and minimum lot size that adjacent property owners referred to when deciding weather or not to invest in their properties. Etc Etc. •Rain water capture and storage •Leave it alone Page 384 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•Parks with youth sports fields •Low density –no apartments, commercial or condos •Connect Rochester to Wilson •Impact of development on local schools •THERE NEEDS TO BE APPROPRIATE BUT LIMITED COMMERCIAL SPACE TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONGESTION IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. THE COMMUNITY SEEMS TO DESIRE A TRAIL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE WESTERN AND EASTERN PORTIONS IN THE NORTHERN PART OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPED SECTION OF THE ANNEXATION. SUCH A MODEST TRAIL PLAN MIGHT ASSUAGE THE NEIGHBORS WHO MOST WANT TO RETAIN SOME OF THE RURAL ATMOSPHERE. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT A NINE HOLE GOLF COURSE WOULD BE A COMMUNITY ASSET THAT WOULD PROVIDE USABLE OPEN SPACE. SMALLER FOOTPRINT RESIDENCES AROUND SUCH AN ASSET COULD ALLOW FOR THE DENSITY NEEDED TO MAKE THE PROJECT VIABLE. JUST THINKING THAT REASONABLE COMPROMISES NEED TO BE FLOATED! •New water sources and storage to support more homes •Golf Course •The needed infrastructure to accommodate additional housing and residents, there needs to be more schools and additional police and fire personnel •Connect Rochester to Wilson •Less traffic, no more schools-keep as open land, however, if houses are to be built make it at least 1 acre lots, no gas stations. Page 385 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•Shotgun, trap range, hunting land, trails and hiking paths •Wildlife conservation, parks and recreation for kids/teens •Farm land, sustainable for farming •traffic planning if additional residences/commercial businesses established. traffic is horrible already in that area •No commercial zoning. No apartments/condo living •no commercial zoning/ no low income apartments or housing (minimum sq. foot housing) •Alleviate congestion @VG and add more restaurants and small businesses •Community outreach/environmental awareness. An engaged and active community is a safe and healthy community. •Preserving wildlife habitat & native plant communities •Wild life refuge •The development should blend into the existing RC community. Page 386 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•Affordable housing •More parks than bikes more solar chargers •Developers pay their fair share •Conservation •Compensate existing property owners for the struggle that is coming their way. •Parks. There needs to be a dedicated little league park for the city of Rancho. We pay almost 16K in property taxes a year, and there are no little league fields. It is a shame. Rancho claims to be a great city, but it lacks adequate parks. •Extending this West to include all of the Northern Borders of Rancho Cucamonga •stop building in Rancho! •Preserving land, not increasing traffic, listening to residents who live in the affected area, absolutely no commercial Page 387 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•Land conservation, habitat conservation facility such as an arboretum •Add some commercial development at walking distance instead of driving •Wildlife corridors, street density and parking •Reduce number of single family homes •County Front Country Trial mapping to be confirmed and integrated with the open and conserved spaces to allow connectivity across the entire front country for access all the way to Glen Helen Regional Park for camping -current trail exists on County maps, not gps’d. •Open space for trails •Mixed use development •Affordable housing for young families •Minimize noise and light pollution to the maximum extent practical •Some active senior units •No more housing/apartments or commercial Page 388 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 2.If yes, what are they? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:•You should include a gated community, it adds value to the all the neighborhood •dust control on county terrain and vehicles driving on preserved land all hours of the night, prevent temple from building 85 foot super community, •Don't build on land, habitat conservation, no development at all, no commercial •A plan for the Wildland Urban Interface has not been discussed. I am happy to provide video of the Panorama Fire, one of the historic fires in the area. The old timers will remember. The shape of the annexation actually facilitates this and the low density housing prevalent in the maps is also an advantage in this environment. •Small 2, 3 bedroom home. Board needs to restrict builder’s to comply or don’t build here Page 389 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 3.Based on this list from the March 22 Community Workshop (above), and/or additional priorities you’ve identified in Question #2, what do you believe are the top-5 priorities that should be considered for the annexation of this area? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES: 1.Local Control: 47.73% (126 responses) 2.Preserve Open Space:47.35%(125 responses) 3.Avoid New Property Taxes:40.53%(107 responses) 4.No Apartments & Condos:34.85%(92 responses) 5.Connect Wilson Ave:25%(66 responses) Answered: 244 | Skipped: 20 Page 390 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 3.Based on this list from the March 22 Community Workshop (above), and/or additional priorities you’ve identified in Question #2, what do you believe are the top-5 priorities that should be considered for the annexation of this area? COMMUNITY PRIORITIES:6.Expand Trail System: 24.62% (65 responses) 7.No Commercial:24.24%(64 responses) 8.New Park Facilities:20.83%(55 responses) 9.Water and Energy Conservation:18.94%(50 responses) 10.Development Compatibility:19.32%(51 responses) 11.Active, Safe, healthy neighborhoods:19.32%(51 responses) 12.Reduce fire hazards:25.53%(41 responses) 13.Minimize Development Impacts:40%(40 responses) 14.Fiscal Impacts:14.02%(37 responses) 15.½ to 1-acre homes:13.64%(36 responses) Page 391 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Part 2: “The Vision for the Future” In the March 22 Community Workshop,community members worked in groups of 6-8 people to define their vision for the future and 15 different maps showing possible visions were created. •Twelve maps identified some variation of low-intensity development in the 1,212 acres,compatible with the surrounding neighborhoods,supported by a mix of open space types including neighborhood parks,sports fields,and habitat conservation. •Two maps articulated a desire to keep the land in permanent open space by self- taxing and purchasing the land from the County. •One map articulated a desire to stop the annexation process and leave existing County zoning in place. Page 392 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Part 2: “The Vision for the Future” In the maps that supported some form of development in the lower 1,212-acre area,there also appeared to be general support for completing the City ’s planned street network in various forms,such as finishing the Wilson Avenue connection between Milliken Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard,and in some cases,extending Milliken Avenue and Rochester Avenue northward into the development area.These sorts of changes would add route choices,potentially improving local and regional circulation patterns and decrease emergency-response times. There was less clarity on what an appropriate “upper range”of residential density would be,or whether any “neighborhood-scaled”,neighborhood-serving commercial (as planned by the Etiwanda North Specific Plan)should be included,or how housing types should be distributed in the lower 1,212-acre area. The following questions sought to better understand how the community valued the various trade-offs inherent with developing new neighborhoods. Page 393 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 0 50 100 150 200 250 Agree Disagree Virtual Workshop Results 4.Do you generally agree or disagree that the City should consider annexing this land? Agree: 81.44% (215 responses) Disagree:17.05%(45 responses) Answered: 260 | Skipped: 4 Page 394 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 5.If you agree with Question #4, do you agree (perhaps with some refinements or exceptions) or disagree that the initial direction that some form of low-intensity development is appropriate for the 1,212 acres owned by the County?Agree: 62.12% (164 responses) Disagree:17.05%(45 responses) Answered: 209 | Skipped: 55 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Agree Disagree Page 395 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 6.If new housing is needed to make annexation feasible, do you agree or disagree that new housing adjacent existing neighborhoods should be built at similar densities as surrounding neighborhoods?Agree: 71.21% (188 responses) Disagree:27.27%(72 responses) Answered: 260 | Skipped: 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Agree Disagree Page 396 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 7.If new housing is needed to make annexation feasible, do you agree or disagree that housing density should generally be lower at the north of the property where it is adjacent to conserved open space?Agree: 83.71% (221 responses) Disagree:13.26%(35 responses) Answered: 256 | Skipped: 8 0 50 100 150 200 250 Agree Disagree Page 397 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Equestrian Lots Large Lots Medium Lots Smaller Lots Attached Lots Virtual Workshop Results 8.If you were considering moving into a new neighborhood in this area, would your preference be to live in a neighborhood with: Equestrian lots that allow horse ownership and care: 16.29% (43 responses) Large lots with a semi-rural look and feel:39.77%(105 responses) Medium-sized lots that look and feel like many of the neighborhoods surrounding this area:25.76%(68 responses) Smaller-lots that still include nice private yards, but require less maintenance:9.85%(26 responses) Townhomes, attached homes, or similarly scaled homes with small yards or shared recreation spaces that require minimal mainte nance:5.68%(15 responses) Answered: 257 | Skipped: 7 Page 398 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 9.If it meant you and your children could remain in your neighborhood for a long time, do you agree or disagree that neighborhoods with a variety of housing types for families at all life stages (i.e., young families, empty nesters, etc.) would be appropriate in this area? Agree: 59.85% (158 responses) Disagree:38.26%(101 responses) Answered: 259 | Skipped: 5 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Agree Disagree Page 399 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 10.If it meant a greater financial burden on the City (tax payers), do you agree or disagree that development in this area should be limited to very-low density, large-lot housing (half-to 1-acre lots)? Agree: 53.41% (141 responses) Disagree:44.70%(118 responses) Answered: 259 | Skipped: 5 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145 Agree Disagree Page 400 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 11.If it resulted in a more fiscally responsible development, do you agree or disagree that the City should look at a wider range of housing types as well as neighborhood-commercial rather than exclusively large lot development? Agree: 53.79% (142 responses) Disagree:43.56%(115 responses) Answered: 257 | Skipped: 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Agree Disagree Page 401 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 12.If it meant that more open space could be preserved, do you agree or disagree that it could make sense to reduce some lot sizes? Agree: 63.26% (167 responses) Disagree:34.09%(90 responses) Answered: 257 | Skipped: 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Agree Disagree Page 402 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 13.If it meant that people did not have to drive as far and traffic could be reduced, do you agree or disagree that some limited neighborhood- serving commercial (such as a Bristol Farms, Whole Foods, café, or dry cleaner) would be acceptable uses?Agree: 61.74% (163 responses) Disagree:36.74%(97 responses) Answered: 260 | Skipped: 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Agree Disagree Page 403 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 14.If it would help reduce traffic impacts on Banyan, do you agree or disagree that development should be concentrated along Wilson Avenue more than along Banyan?Agree: 67.05% (177 responses) Disagree:29.17%(77 responses) Answered: 254 | Skipped: 10 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Agree Disagree Page 404 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 15.If new development occurs in the lower 1,212-acres, do you agree or disagree that new neighborhoods should include public open spaces and a pedestrian network of safe streets and new trails for people to walk?Agree: 83.71% (221 responses) Disagree:14.39%(38 responses) Answered: 259 | Skipped: 5 0 50 100 150 200 250 Agree Disagree Page 405 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 16.If new public open spaces are provided in this area, which type should be prioritized: (Choose one) Habitat Conservation: 42.42% (112 responses) Neighborhood-serving parks, greens and playgrounds:35.98%(95 responses) A golf course:8.33%(22 responses) Regionally-serving sports fields:6.82%(18 responses) An equestrian center with arenas and boarding facilities:4.92%(13 responses) Answered: 260 | Skipped: 4 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 Conservation Neighborhood Parks Golf Course Sports Fields Equestrian Center Page 406 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 17.If the completion of Wilson Avenue between Milliken Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard would improve traffic congestion at some nearby intersections and decrease emergency-response times, do you support the completion of Wilson Ave?Yes: 81.82% (216 responses) No:15.91%(42 responses) Answered: 258 | Skipped: 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 Yes No Page 407 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 18.If new streets are built in this area, do you agree or disagree that new streets should be designed and built in a manner to minimize speeding and unsafe driving?Agree: 78.41% (207 responses) Disagree:18.94%(50 responses) Answered: 257 | Skipped: 7 0 50 100 150 200 250 Agree Disagree Page 408 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 19.If new streets are built in this area, do you agree or disagree that new streets should be designed and built in a manner to balance the needs and safety of all modes (pedestrians, bicyclists, local transit, equestrian)?Agree: 81.82% (216 responses) Disagree:15.91%(42 responses) Answered: 258 | Skipped: 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 Agree Disagree Page 409 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 20.If the extension of Rochester Avenue north connecting to Wilson would improve public safety and relieve traffic congestion at some nearby intersections, do you agree or disagree that Rochester Avenue should be extended?Agree: 79.17% (209 responses) Disagree:18.56%(49 responses) Answered: 258 | Skipped: 6 0 50 100 150 200 250 Agree Disagree Page 410 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 21.Do you agree or disagree that it is acceptable for new neighborhoods to add new long-term net costs to the City’s finances? Agree: 41.67% (110 responses) Disagree:53.79%(142 responses) Answered: 252 | Skipped: 12 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Agree Disagree Page 411 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 22.If it meant the community could receive additional amenities such as more parks and open space, trails, sports fields, etc., do you agree or disagree that it would be acceptable to allow for a marginal increase in housing densities in this area? Agree: 54.17% (143 responses) Disagree:43.56%(115 responses) Answered: 258 | Skipped: 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Agree Disagree Page 412 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 23.The initial estimate for the purchase and long-term maintenance of the 1,212 acres as conservation open space is approximately $75 million. Should the City explore the possibility of a new parcel tax to acquire the 1,212 acre property for habitat conservation?Agree: 47.73% (126 responses) Disagree:50%(132 responses) Answered: 258 | Skipped: 6 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Agree Disagree Page 413 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 24.If new recreational facilities are built, how should the maintenance and operation of the facilities be funded? From development fees collected from the new residences: 58.71% (155 responses) From the City’s General Fund:25.38%(67 responses) Other:12.88%(34 responses) Answered: 256 | Skipped: 8 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Development Fees City's General Fund Other Page 414 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results 25.Development of this area will require habitat mitigation at a significant cost per impacted acreage. Very low-density housing (1 acre and 1/2 acre lots) impacts more habitat and costs more per house to mitigate than smaller lots. Would you support raising your property taxes to pay for the acquisition of habitat to help make low density housing feasible?Yes: 30.30% (80 responses) No:67.05%(177 responses) Answered: 257 | Skipped: 7 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 Yes No Page 415 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results Did you attend March 22 Community Workshop? Yes: 12.50% (33 responses) No:84.85%(224 responses) Answered: 257 | Skipped: 7 26.A 0 50 100 150 200 250 Yes No Page 416 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results Were you previously aware of this planning process? Yes: 62.88% (166 responses) No:34.85%(92 responses) Answered: 258 | Skipped: 6 26.B 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 Yes No Page 417 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results If not, how could we improve our community engagement efforts? 26.B Page 418 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results Do you currently live in Rancho Cucamonga? Yes: 83.33% (220 responses) No:15.15%(40 responses) Answered: 260 | Skipped: 4 26.C 0 50 100 150 200 250 Yes No Page 419 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results Do you currently work in Rancho Cucamonga? Yes: 40.15% (106 responses) No:57.20%(151 responses) Answered: 257 | Skipped: 7 26.D 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Yes No Page 420 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL Virtual Workshop Results What is your age? 21 and under: 4.92% (13 responses) 22 -34:22.73%(60 responses) 35 -44:20.08%(53 responses) 45 -54:19.70%(52 responses) 26.E 55 -64: 14.02% (37 responses) 65 and over:12.50%(33 responses) Decline to Answer:4.55%(12 responses) Answered: 257 | Skipped: 7 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 21 & Under 22-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65+Declined Page 421 Great Western Building | 706 South Hill Street, Suite 1200 | Los Angeles, CA, 90014 | 213.599.7680 | www.SargentTownPlanning.com 26 April 2018 NORTH EASTERN SPHERE ANNEXATION PROPOSAL COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 – SUMMARY MEMO CENTRAL PARK COMMUNITY CENTER | 19 APRIL, 2018 | 6-9PM Over 200 members of the public attended the Community Workshop, pictured here during one of three Table Discussions. I. Workshop Summary: Workshop #2 was held at Central Park with a turnout of approximately 230 members of the Public, with participants organized/seated around tables (of approximately 8 participants per table). Following an opening summary – by deputy City Manager Matt Burris – of the annexation proposal, a recap of outreach efforts completed to date (with a general summary of results) and the goals for Workshop #2. Siri Champion, of Michael Baker International, led the group through three “Table Discussions” – 20-30 minute sessions to answer three questions (focused on Open Space Types, Neighborhood Types, and Neighborhood Amenities) designed to solicit refinements to the community priorities and preferences for the Plan Area expressed in previous outreach / engagement efforts. Summaries of those questions and community feedback are provided on the pages to follow, and transcribed responses are provided in Appendix A. Page 422 Page 2 of 5 Three questions were provided to the group to inform each of the Table Discussion exercises. II. Table Discussion Summaries: Question #1: “What types of Open Spaces, housing and/or other amenities might help make such new neighborhoods valuable to you and your family?” Common responses from the groups included multi-use trails (for horses, bikes, and pedestrians), neighborhood-serving parks (with an expressed disinterest in regionally-serving sports parks), and habitat conservation. While not explicitly asked in Question #1, a few groups expressed a preference for larger scale equestrian estates, and a number of groups expressed a preference for no housing altogether. Word Cloud highlighting common responses to Discussion Question #1 Page 423 Page 3 of 5 Workshop participants discussing the first of three questions related to preferences for Open Space in the Plan Area. Question #2: “What types of housing or other uses would you be willing to support if they helped offset the cost of the amenities you want?” Most groups expressed a preference (if housing is necessary) for low density housing; large lot zoned homes (1/2-acre minimum, estates, equestrian estates, and large-lot suburban homes) that are able to provide enough space for horses and stables. Similarly, to the previous question’s responses, there was an expressed interest in the development of trails and for the preservation of nature. Word Cloud highlighting common responses to Discussion Question #2 Page 424 Page 4 of 5 Question #3: “What types of elements or activities might detract from your appreciation of a new neighborhood or the lifestyle you currently enjoy?” Many groups emphasized a strong preference for no commercial of any type (with the preference of keeping all commercial south of the 210 freeway), with the exception of a few respondents who expressed some interest in the possibility of a small neighborhood café, a branch library, or nature/interpretive center. Most responses were in opposition of “high density” development and the assumed congestion that would come with it. Similar to Question #1, there was an expressed interest in the addition of open spaces in various forms, including parks, multi-use trails, and preserves. Word Cloud highlighting common responses to Discussion Question #3 Each Table Group provided their answers to the three questions on a large post-it note that was stuck to three large-format posters for the larger group to view each response at the end of the Workshop. Responses are transcribed in Appendix A. Page 425 Page 5 of 5 APPENDIX A – TABLE DISCUSSION SUMMARIES The following is a transcribed summary of the post-it notes provided by each Table Group in response to the three Table Discussion Questions. Page 426 Results: Proposed Annexation and Open Space Survey Info - This survey was sent on behalf of City of Rancho Cucamonga to the FlashVote community for Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 604 Participants 559 of 1258 initially invited (44%) Margin of error: ± 4% Applied Filter: Locals only Participants for filter: 200 Started: Oct 12, 2017 12:08pm Ended: Oct 14, 2017 12:00pm Target Participants: All Rancho Cucamonga Q1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga is working on a possible “North Eastern Sphere Annexation” of 4,115 acres (6.4 square miles) of land that is along the foothills north of Rancho Cucamonga city limits. This land is currently not within city limits/boundaries and is subject to development under San Bernardino County standards. Prior to reading this question which best describes your knowledge of this topic? (521 responses by locals) Q2 This annexation plan (see map link below) would allow for preservation of 2,916 acres for wildlife and habitat (conservation priority area in orange) and in return, the development of approximately 1,200 acres of this land (development priority area in green), in proximity to existing development. Which best describes your reaction to a possible designation of 2,916 acres of this land as a “conservation priority area”, which means an emphasis on habitat conservation instead of development? (509 responses by locals) FlashVote helps you make a difference in your community Options Locals (521) I didn’t know about the land being unincorporated or about the possible annexation 41.8% (218) I knew about the land being unincorporated, but not about the possible annexation 15.7% (82) I knew about the land being unincorporated and about the possible annexation 39.7% (207) Not Sure 2.7% (14) Page 427 Q3 Which of these annexation features is most important to you? (509 responses by locals) Unfiltered responses I Don't want "City Standards" to be implemented in this area whatsoever. develop under city not county standards and generate taxes that pay for services Golf Course would be nice Multi use park(soccer,baseball, cover eating areas) I like the green annex area for development, but why not let SB County keep conserved area? Options Locals (509) I like it 64.4% (328) I’m neutral 11.4% (58) I don’t like it 9.6% (49) I don’t care 0.8% (4) I’d like more information 13.8% (70) Options Locals (509) Future development in that area is controlled by city standards 13.6% (69) Development in that area contributes taxes for city services 8.8% (45) Infrastructure can be improved in that area (roadways, storm drains, etc.)2.8% (14) The foothills area is conserved against development 63.7% (324) Not Sure 6.9% (35) Other:4.3% (22) Page 428 Q4 How important is it to you that the City of Rancho Cucamonga have local control (zoning, City Development processes and approvals, tax contributions, etc.) over this currently unincorporated land? (506 responses by locals) Q5 Leave it the way it is preserve equestrian lifestyle and trail system. The additional over development of the area. Schools becoming even more crowded. Not enough police coverage for city to expand. Impacts to current residents Maintain the area but make it accessbile for hiking and other outdoor activities I'm for conservation habitat, but VERY CONCERNED about retail/housing development on the 1,200 acre If development occurs, it is sparse and blends with the natural condition. We need more water storage and treatment facilities. It would be cool if there was a big solar PV Future development is to city standards AND the foothills is conserved against future development!! keep the lower area green and allow the higher areas to be developed with very low density. How can you build on a earthquake fault? Nothing should be built on that land at all! Water storage and rain/runoff collection. Solar power generation. We don't need to build something on every piece of open land. I think the whole foothill area should be conserved against development, not just the 2,000 acres. All of the above are important. Major concern re: fire & evacuation impacts in new developed area. Options Locals (506) Not At All Important (1)8.1% (41) Slightly Important (2)7.3% (37) Moderately Important (3)20.6% (104) Very Important (4)28.5% (144) Extremely Important (5)28.3% (143) Not Sure 7.3% (37) Page 429 Unfiltered responses Any other comments or suggestions about possible annexation or development of nearby land? (200 responses by locals) develop area city land needconservetrafficrancho house like preserve already space open fire build see people leave annex park want naturehomehigh cucamonga make wildlife stop water live enough control resident use muchschool tax So long as it's not completely controlled by the Lewis family no more new housing, we are overpopulated as it is right now. we need more protection against crime and coyotes Definitely more information is needed to be able to form any kind of opinion about this issue Please make sure natural beauty and rural atmosphere is maintained. Don't adhere to developers who would ruin the environment. We don't need to develop every square foot that we see! Leave the land wild we don't need any more congestion and pollution. More information is needed.. Conservation and development in the area are both important. Completely wiping out the habitat would be a shame to the local community and local wildlife. Before you develop ANYTHING you need to fund the development at CENTRAL PARK!!!! We have too much traffic and congestion at present. Preserving the land is very important for animals, scenery and the overall feel of our city. Our City is very congested, please do not allow any more homes in our foothills What will the conservation area expenses be and how will they be paid for? Will this annexation make the city limits the same as the fire district boundaries? Rancho is big enough Who really benefits from this annexation? Who is waiting in the wings to get the project monies in the future. I hardily approve of a city that is interested in conserving and protecting wildlife habitats. Too many have dissappeared. Well done RC The city is overwhelming our streets with traffic coming from all this high-density development. Everything north of Banyan needs to continue to be 1/2 acre lots. Please dont destroy our miuntains with more development. Get it and preserve it all for at least 100 yrs. Remember we have a water shortage and have increased traffic when developments are approved. How is these developments going to impact the city's water! Expedite the process Stop taking up all of the vacant land and placing people and structures on it. We don't have enough water for more people. Let the wild life have their homes. no more development... way too many houses and traffic and people here now.... stop already... Leave the land alone. We Don't need the traffic. Rancho doesn't want to turn into Corona. Page 430 no more development, traffic is a nightmare already. Why would you want more development? No more development Don't do it! I'm glad there's a wildlife zone, and future development can't happen Leave it as is. I feel it's just another excuse to create a bond that will be passed to the taxpayers. We ultimately pay the price for land development. Leave the land alone. No more development is needed. Too many people already. We need to stop developing near the foothills. The coyote problem has worsened over the last few years driving them further out. Rancho is too crowded Stop developing so many apartment buildings. Our city is becoming so very over crowded! No more development up here. We need the rural to laser. Put up a soundwall on the south bound side of I-15 to less the freeway noise and increase property values Water supply, fire suppression, law enforcement, and traffic are all key concerns. No. I feel like we don not need anymore residential buildings in the city of Rancho Cucamonga. What are the environmental impacts? Not sure about the project, need more info I would rather have that entire area used for wildlife conservation. I would like to see even more open land and less developed acres. Just make sure it works as planned. Make damn sure the land is preserved better than the etiwanda preserve, and dont develop any more housing. Dont put houses together they will catch fire look at Anaheim Hills Canyon Fire 2 Please protect nature. Thanks I would like to see the ENTIRE AREA preserved, rather than a portion of it being developed!!! Allow pedestrian and bicycle access to conservation area. Also have restaurants in developed area. NO We have so little open space left I wish we could just not develop anymore. The traffic is terrible Completely against annexation if any of the area will be used for residential or commercial development. Annexation = We control what goes there, and we get the taxes. As long as proper safety standards are met and as long as all the natural habitats are not threatened, I am good. A mix of responsible development and conservation areas that are controlled by the city government vs the county gives us more control over our local area. I need to know who owns the land and what might be done on the "to be developed" part. As long as there is no additional burden put upon existing residents. NA Leave the land vacant. Stop the build on every vacant parcel. Enough is enough. Against any more development as we lose our quaint and nice neighborhood. I would like the land not to be developed because of the existing wildlife and possible fire hazards. There is too much development going on in the city. STOP DEVELOPING THE LAST OF OUR GREEN SPACE!! THE CITY HAS ALREADY GIVEN UP SO MUCH TO BIG DEVELOPERS (ALL FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT). LEAVE IT ALONE!!! I am not really sure about why the city, after myself living here for 15 years, would all of a sudden want to develop or look at this area? Page 431 Why now?? Stop developing!!!! Land in the foothills is too susceptible to brush fires. When homes are put in the foothills the cost to all residents is high due to the fire and flood danger. Roads tru esp wilson I would like to have more information about what type of development it would be and how the habitat would be maintained. Wish you would listen to us the voters that we are tired with all the over development. I would like to see the land kept in its natural state with a US Forest Service station in the vicinity. Local woodland firefighters would be helpful. I would like to see more of it conserved with better parking for those who wish to hike. Charge those who do not live in Rancho Cucamonga. Please preserve open space! Park should be built on the north side away from the HS. Support conservation area and the development area as long as development area is not HOA homes and that a public park is included in the development area. Preservation means preservation Before proceeding on this new venture of annexation.... funds, resources, and priorities should be given to the completion of Central Park. I am very much afraid that once Rancho has control over this area that it will be far too easy to change the protected status of the foothills area. Don't build more houses! We have enough empty ones now! Save that land for just land, and stop building apartments!! Don't feel we need any more houses roads or parks in this area leave it as open land and beautiful landscape None I visit the Etiwanda Reserve quite often and hope this would not cause it to be inaccessible for hikes to the falls. Can part of conservation area be turned into a public park with hiking trails? Build a municipal public golf course to replace the open space loss of Empire Lakes Golf Course. Don,t expect the county to do the right thing. The city needs ti incorperate as much surrounding land as possible. As long as standard of living doesn't decrease, i.e., NO subsidized housing. I like the conservation aspect, however not crazy about more development in Rancho. Just curious what they would do with it. The area above Osos. I would like to see minimal development and more conservation of open land. We could use the orange area to rehome the wild animals in Central Park field area. Leave alone and if city is going to annex portions of land, I vote for local control yet keep for habitat and environmental reasons. The area needs to stay how it is now. We have paid big money to live in Deer Creek and we don’t want more intrusion on the area. In this area, a grocery store is needed, parks are needed, Wilson Ave. needs to be expanded from East Ave. to Etiwanda ave. Quit developing every inch of empty land! I have concern about what that would do to additional unincorporated areas. Do not want to see further development up the foothills. Watch what is happening up north with the fires...consider the long fire history of this area...it is very predictable what will occur and with more development up there the more exposed people and structures are to that inevitability. Do not scrimp on fire defenses and public safety infrastructure if any development is to occur....constant vigilance, maintenance of defensible space, public education etc will be necessary.....the open preserve would be a tremendous community asset.....also don't forget the history in that area including the remains of the CCC road camp that is there and the history that accompanies it. We must consider the global demands of developing that area and the surrounding area including roads, emergency services and access, pollution, schools, etc. Devote more to open spaces Page 432 Only wish that eye appeal coincides with the existing beauty of the City. N/A Limited development and no apartment complexes. I need more information about both annexation and development. My concern is that additional development will strain existing infrastructure which is already beyond it's limits. Yay for development. I love my City! Highly support the conservation of undeveloped foothill areas!!! So happy that this is even being suggested as an option. I just want to keep as much of the undeveloped spaces as possible. I think we have more than enough development here. I do not know First develop the land within city limits that remains undeveloped. STOP BUILDING. We need natural land around us. Developed area should have low density housing and just a small local use shopping area. Am concerned about the proposed development of more housing in an over crowded city now! What is the purpose of this proposed annexation? Building more houses would be a strain on her fire-fighting services for when (not if) a wild-land fire eventually comes. Leave the land alone! We already have way too many people and too many uninhabited dwellings in Rancho Cucamonga! Do NOT develop the land please We have too many houses! Development needs to stop. Better to have city standards for development than county standards. Would rather not see ANY more development in that area but would rather it ALL be protected. I just hope that if it does get develop they use a different architect then developed Los Osos High School which is very ugly building County of San Bernardino does not effectively manager all of the land it currently owns, I would like it better of City of RC had control over it. If the annexation means more property taxes I am against it. Make sure it is for the good of the people and wild life as well. Make sure it does not create danger to both human life or wild life. We need to preserve our natural land and the animals we share this space with! What will be the cost to the city (i.e. the taxpayer) be? If land is developed, emphasis should be centered on improving traffic that will increase in that area. - Make sure animals have sanctuary Concerns that this area is not being maintained and is a Fire Hazard. Too much development already in that area. No control over future fire prone area as it is. City resources already overtaxed no DO NOT DEVELOP ANY MORE AREAS. We are already congested, we do not need or want any more developed areas. Reserving for nature is fine, we need more green areas, not more homes, not more people, not more cars. Too much development now. Quality of life in this City has declined ten fold for my family since moving here due to over building and shifting population along with impact of traffic on local streets. Concerned about additional traffic, over crowding at schools, increase in crime, etc. and how annexation/development will imoactof our community. Major concern on impact to Police and Fire services and how response times will be affected. How will additional development will impact the council districts in regard to area size & population equity? Water being a unknown quantity, we have been ask to conserve. It doesn’t make sense to keep building adding more people using water. This is an ongoing concern for the future. This is a great opportunity to build additional water storage and reclamation facilities. Make sure there are wide streets to allow for Page 433 emergency vehicles in case of wild fires. Keep the residential density as low as possible. Rancho Cucamonga has become a MONEY HUNGRY CITY, truly sad. Current homeowner's are not allowed to do with their property without the city having a say as to RV parking, Trailer parking on our driveways. Fontana is looking more promising and offers more to their residents than Rancho Cucamonga does. I would like to see less rental development as it seems to overcrowd the area and lead to conflict of resources. Responsible ownership within this area would be appreciated Prefer the land stay undeveloped. We already have a huge population and often times, we do not have the means to support it. I'm not sure more development would be in the city's best interest. Let's leave nature as-is! I would like to see a larger portion of the land declared a conservation area, with the area being proposed for development reduced by half. Additionally, I think it's extremely important any development be done with City standards/control. Development of this land for homes/businesses will tax this cities police resources which are currently not adequate. Schools are already overcrowded and don't really see how this can improve the city's overall general wellbeing. While I do want our city to gain control in order to prevent problems, I have a concern. Our city is being developed to the point that traffic and services are being overly impacted. I wish we would slow our development down. We pay the price of overcrowded roads and schools when development is allowed at such a high rate. I do like the idea of a conservation/wildlife area. Maybe the coyotes could all move there. NO FRICKING WAY......RANCHO IS ALREADY MAKING VERY POOR DECISIONS ON BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT. THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HAS GONE TO CRAP. STOP ALREADY. I HATE LIVING IN THIS CITY ANY MORE AND CAN'T WAIT TO LEAVE. JUST ANOTHER WAY FOR MORE COYOTES TO COME DOWN INTO OUR LIVING SPACES. CITY MANAGEMENT HAS LOST IT. There must not be development at a later time within the preserved 2900 acres unless it is to promote the wildlife and nature of the area. Such as with the Etiwanda Preserve. Make sure there is plenty of road access for large emergency vehicles to fight possible wild fires. Please also use this opportunity to add water storage and treatment equipment. Install a big solar array that we can all be proud of. NO annexation. City is over populated & we don't need high density and/or low income housing. Because of the drought we are mandated by tiered water to conserve or we pay dearly from our incomes. This is all about taxation of population to subsidize the pockets of city employees. ENOUGH ALREADY! This city is crowded enough. Oh, and what about the fires that rage through the proposed areas every few years? Who pays for that? We like our city population the way it is. No more, please. Stop referring to a conservation "priority" area. This makes it sound like the priority could change. Commit to making it a conservation area and refer to it as such. I am quite sure you would be receiving less backlash from the community. Call it an expansion of the preserve that will remain for conservation and the only thing to be developed is the area identified. Wildlife encounter in the neighborhoods close to the foothills (Brentwood, etc) are becoming common. Possibly because lot of new development are being done encroaching into their habitat. I personally believe that more emphasis should be given to conserve the land than doing development. If development is done it has to be done with a wildlife friendly way and by preserving local flora and fauna. Also the community has to be educated about coexisting with the wildlife. Annex it and leave it as open space for now until a master plan is available so we all can see the plans. I suggest doing nothing to the land for 5 years after annexation. Step back, take a break and forget about revenue. We need a lot more open space!!!! Resident & City Should Watch Out Over all the Land around there City - we should also leave area for the natural wildlife that lives in our mountains - so we all can Live Peaceful Together!! Look at the 210 in the morning 7:30 to about 9:30. Bumper to bumper, all four lanes heading West. East is not quite that dense although it is close. When that traffic merges on to our streets we have frustrating delays. Our lovely town is churning out too many apartments and homes. The density is an encumbrance to our streets, parking lots and our joy in living here. The City should not move forward with this plan. The "preservation" of open space is a sham to put lipstick on the development pig. The plan as proposed goes against the wise current zoning plan for the east side of the city. Multi-family housing should not be allowed. Lot sizes need to be minimum half acre. Developers (who don't care about our city) have been after these 1200 acres for over a decade and now they want to pack as many housing units into it as possible to stuff their pockets. All 4100+ acres are currently undevelopable open space County land. It is an alluvial plain that is necessary for flood control. Because the developers cant acquire the land without a 4/5 vote from the County BOS, they are trying an end run around the BOS by having our City fund the acquisition of the land and approve the development. If this plan goes forward, quality of life will suffer for all RC residents. Crime and traffic will increase. Dont be fooled by greedy developers. I would prefer that all the land be conserved for wildlife and no development be done. That is best. California is burning. No more people in the foothills tempting fate. Our homes are already squeezing out wildlife to the point that bears are wandering streets and coyotes are snatching up cats and opossums are dead all over the road. Leave all of those lands alone. Controlling growth is a primary concern, although I don't believe that has been a significant focus of the City thus far. The City's financial vitality can be assured without new high density housing and without significant new development in newly annexed areas. Keep the rural flavor that exists in some of the proposed area. Want to see more conservation and much less development. Tired of over priced high density housing. If we have more developement, I would like it to get back to basics- single story 3-4 bedroom family friendly homes with a little bit of a front/backyard. Not huge houses crammed on small plots of land being sold at ridiculous prices. The city needs to do a much better job of attracting growing families with young children. Are median age is becoming older and older. It is important not to price out young families. I would actually like see any undeveloped land at the northern end of the city stay natural and undeveloped. We have already encroached upon too much of wildlife's habitat. The coyotes have come down out of the hills and roam freely through out the streets dining on our pets. Let's leave the undeveloped land near foothills as it is. Page 434 any development should include green spaces within the properties - right now, Rancho does a very poor job of developing new areas with sufficient green space for the local resident or business and parking - the minimum requirement are not sufficient. It appears that the land is currently owned by SB County Flood Control. If it's annexed in, will the ownership change? What zoning will be applied to that "development priority" portion? Questions are specific with specific answers. There is too much involved for definite yes or no's. Land under city control is good only if the city follows the wishes of the people and not developers. Who is in whose pocket. Dense development in the wild. Remember the fires. Please maintain the high standards our City has demanded in the past. Randall Lewis is nice and everything but he doesn't, and won't, live in Rancho Cucamonga. What's good for us needn't be sacrificed for what is good for the Lewis Operating Companies. We need to conserve the wildlife areas in the north. I understand the need for growth and development in the area around Los Osos HS with a high demand for traffic infrastructure and consideration of lot size to avoid over population and density in an already heavy residential area. Traffic is a major concern with the 210 and 15 corridor and no room for lane growth on the 210. It is already heavy. So I would propose an area like San Elijo, Ca near Carlsbad which has its own commerce to limit commuting and drive local revenue and employment and offer a more exclusive residential environment which I think Rancho Cucamonga is known for. I oppose this annexation, Rancho is too crowded already. The RCWD is always skiing us to concerve water because they do not have enough water to fill at the current needs. If the development does not pay into city taxes for fire, police, and ems, the city should not provide it for free. This would possibly be a county problems. My taxes should not be used for those who do not pay into the funds. There is already enough building in Rancho Cucamong. Schools over crowded, crime, traffic, etc. 3000 to 4000 HIGH DENSITY housing units at the Lakes, by Lewis, empty business rental sites. Enough building already. Please don’t continue to fill every square foot of RC with high density housing/shops/hotels. Create a plan to make a nice living area for the future. There is already enough traffic and crowding with building residences right on top of each other. Thank you for trying to safeguard the development around RC. I live adjacent to the area that may be developed (in Haven View Estates). I do not like the idea of building and construction and mixed use literally in my backyard. If i knew the area for conservation would remain conservation i would be for it. But our City Counsel gives a lot of exceptions that we the people dont like. I dont think they can be trusted to keep it conservation. Protecting and preserving natural habitat is vital. We see too many Coyotes wandering into suburban areas, and we could be helping several species, by keeping native plants and animals flourishing in this space. I am very interested in conserving open space and limiting development. From what I have read it seems like a developers dream - the open space conservations doesn't seem to be written invert specific terms. And, what about environmental impact of the the development and infrastructure impacts like water and traffic? While the proposed annexation map indicates the northern 2,900 acres to be preserved as open space, I'm not seeing how any sort of development could occur in an area where there are significant flood control facilities such as the Day Canyon and Deer Canyon washes and channels and a levee structure. If the county has not approved any developments there until now, why annex for development purposes? The entire acreage should be preserved for open space and ongoing maintenance of those flood control facilities. I would also like to see a detailed analysis of the potential ongoing costs of additional development to the city in the form of additional services and maintenance of new facilities after any estimated development fees are exhausted. Finally, potential land use designations and zoning for the area proposed to be developed need to be made public as part of any outreach effort to city residents and other stakeholders. This should proposed development densities. I feel the development need to be NOT small side by side house but preserve the area by only development of homes with .5 acre or more. The congestion and traffic is already too much north of 210 That section of land is known to be occupied or to have recently been occupied by listed species. Trading it in to be developed by establishing stronger protections on already protected land is wrong. All of those areas are valuable and rare, and should be a proud part of our city. We have some of the best Sage Scrub habitat left in the Inland Empire, and none of it should be developed. I am strongly opposed to any development in this area. I'd prefer it remain undeveloped and protected as wildlife conservation. The city does not need the additional taxes, with all the continuing development in the city we, the citizens, are seeing the negative side effects. Please leave this land undeveloped! !! I am glad to see so much set aside for preservation, but would like that number increased, and the acres of development to be decreased. I am also concerned about development in an area more threatened by wildfire. If the city does this and annexation gets approved, they will just allow more houses to be built. I am so tired of watching our once wonderful city turn into nothing more than traffic congestion, overcrowded schools, and an extreme rise in crime. Stop the building and let there be some open space. RC city council will not be happy until every square inch of bare land has a house on it. So sad. Not knowing where either the city or the county stand, it's difficult to make the selections that best represent what I think should be done with the land - left alone and protected. People get elected to office and new people come in; I would support the strictest "no land development" rules that are actually impenetrable. Do either the city or the county support that? I haven't a clue; I'm concerned that a media relations or consulting group will be brought in to help pull the wool over the eyes of residents/voters. The city should plan to have nice homes that would bring up the property value of the area. These new homes would definitely impact Los Osos high school, Golden Elementary and Day Creek Intermediate Schools. My concern is that the city would zone for apartments or condos and I don't think that this type of housing should be permitted. Residents would not be happy about that. These new homes or businesses would also increase the traffic on Banyan which is very slow due to the amount of cars getting their students to the schools on Banyan. Page 435 Banyan is a single lane road and a traffic light may need to be added. Not only as a resident of Ranch Cocamonga but a resident of California, I find this plan to be irresponsible. The question is not if the hills will burn but when and this entire area is a high fire zone and I would imagine a high flood zone. Looking beyond the obvious that our city and schools are currently unable to keep up with current resident demands, this expansion will further tax our roads and community services. Not all our open spaces need to be developed. We moved here to get away from the congestion and overdevelopment of other cities, but that is exactly what is happening here now. It needs to stop. Preserve the natural beauty of our city and stop ruining our open land! The City of Rancho Cucamonga should work to improve services and development and of the West and South parts of Rancho Cucamonga. It is very obvious that ONLY the North East side is considered worthy of care and investment - From landscaping, parks, recreational facilities, positive policing, road maintenance, and general upkeep, those in power are creating two different Rancho Cucamongas, Shame on You. The development of the land to include 'some businesses' as noted in the newspaper article would not be a favorable idea. Including multiunit dwellings is not a favorable idea. Both of these will distract from the area's exclusivity. I'm sure the city and developers see this taxation scheme as highly profitable. It is not about the money where WATER and TRAFFIC and CRIME issues are involved. It is most important to me that the nature and ecological elements of this parcel be preserved. Development on this rocky slop is always going to be very unstable and susceptible to earth quakes, heavy rains and fires. The area "designated for conservation" will never get high density, it is not financially feasible to do that in the hillside and thus it will remain relatively undisturbed. What is more important is to conserve more of the areas that are easily buildable green. The residents of Deer Creek are against any land being developed! Our roads up here already can't handle the traffic with the schools and college. We want that land and its habitat to stay as is we will not support this project or any projects to develop uninhabited land in RC If it’s going to decrease my property taxes then I’m all for it. The property tax rate in RC is ridiculous. Fix the crime problem in our neighborhoods. No one wants to live in a home with high property taxes and constant break ins. -I love to see the foothills conserved. They are the best part of living in Rancho Cucamonga. -I would like to see more trails be clearly designated for foot hiking. It is unclear where people are allowed on a lot of them. -Above all, please protect the area at the top of Beryl from development. Rancho doesn't need more housing. It is too crowded in this wonderful town. All of the open fields of beauty are being developed into housing. The beautiful golf course was eaten up by development. The infrastructure is not built for the number of people that now live here. Concrete and asphalt keep in the heat from the sun during the day, so it remains our area doesn't have a chance to cool down in the evenings. Leave land open so the heat from the day can be "eaten" into the ground and cool down the evenings. I know this area has been sought after for development for years . What about he infrastructure ?? The roads are already crowded and Los Osos HS is is near capacity. This area was also involved in wildfires about 10 years ago .....do we really need more development ?? It would be nice to leave the entire area undeveloped and left as habitat for indigenous plants and animals. Not all land has to be developed. Let's be a leader in the area to preserve our local flora and fauna. I believe the priority should be to plan for land use which results in either revenue generating capital improvement or open space. While these concepts may seem in conflict, here's my rationale. Residential growth is typically more burdensome on infrastructure than the property tax revenue it generates. Additionally, unless the goal is to increase revenue generating developments which draw residents, businesses and visitors to Rancho, the emphasis should be on preserving the beauty of the foothills. I major benefit to living in RC is the still untouched 'mountainscape' and ability to quickly find a zero density hiking trail or two within minutes of home and services. It seems most vacant land is having homes built on it. I want to see an empty field with wildlife and greenery. It's important to our children to know their adults were smart enough to protect some beautiful things in nature for them. As time goes on and development proposals are submitted, I imagine the city will approve very dense housing which puts a strain on traffic and services. It doesn't matter what people say at public hearings, they will approve very dense housing instead of various densities. As far as conservation, I think real parks and trails are a great idea. However, the city seems to think that open space consists of 'tot lots' and a few benches where adults can gather. Has no one heard of real parks anymore? We have too many houses and apartments as it is using up precious water and contributing to traffic, etc. More houses in foothills means more fire fighting resources having to be used. I know the city always wants more taxes so the city council can give themselves another raise. Enough is enough! Humanity exist because of the nature we live in, that must be given respect and priority, nature, animals and alike. If given permission to build within the open space, with profit and greed, humanity will always overlook the nature and its purpose! My concerns of adding 1,200 developed acres, residential and commercial, there WILL BE traffic nightmares. There is already constant traffic in this area. Especially when school is commencing or ending. The housing developments to the West (Deer Creek, Compass Rose, etc.) will definitely be impacted. I’m sure part of the proposal will be to allow westerly street access via Wilson & Hillside for people wanting to travel to the west. This is NOT FAIR to people who already own homes in this area. Especially Hillside Rd. I don't feel existing or even improved infrastructure will help. Traffic will be a nightmare. Our streets are already extremely crowded, as is the 210 freeway. PLEASE RETHINK PUTTING HOMES IN THIS AREA. Can’t you leave it alone and make it all conservation area?? Maybe add trails and parks. Leave some area in Rancho the way it used to be. Don’t continue to make it a concrete mecca. If you can’t leave it alone, maybe the county would have a better plan. The conserved land is too costly to develop, and should not be developed. I trust the SB County more not to develop the conserved land, than I do the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The planners at Rancho Cucamonga are more interested in developers and less in the citizens of the city (and that is known by experience). Plus for the city to waste tax payers money on such undevelopable land, it's like having a fire department that rapes the city for benefits, but uses the county's Sheriff department to control local crime. Why not have a county Fire Department instead. Oh, we have councilmen benefitting from the city fire department. Page 436 (c) Copyright 2013-2017 Governance Sciences Group, Inc., Patent pending you must address how water rates will be affected....grandfather/roll back our rates and have new development pay higher water rates based on additional infrastructure required... Open land areas are vital; too many housing developments are being crammed into smaller and smaller spaces which only adds to traffic and diminished natural habitats. No more houses or shopping centers. Fill up the VACANT shopping centers first. Too many people, congestion, school crowding. Our gem of a city is not going to be a gem much longer. A golf course even a nine hole would lead be great. All of Rancho’s golfers are contributing to other cities instead of our own. Even other youth sporting activities would benefit the city. Fontana serves its citizens in parks and recreation better than Rancho Cucamonga Dear City Council members. The Streets of Rancho Cucamonga are already crowded and congested. Why is it that every small piece of land has to be developed. Why can't the area stay in its natural state? When I moved here in 1982 this was the best place in the world to live. I can no longer say that. Take the developers cash filled hands out of your collective pockets. This response is constructive and respectful, I wonder if it will see the light of day If annexation is accomplished, any development should be consistent with existing homes in the north west areas. Half acre properties need to remain the standard. We should not deviate from that plan and allow waivers on lot size. Trails need to be incorporated as part of the Preserve/open space, if this land is annexed. That did not happen in the current Etiwanda Preserve area, which left significant blockages to our east-west trails in that area. I would like to see less development in this city. We have too many people and where is all the water coming from. We are asked to conserve water but you keep adding to the population. Leave it all open land!! You don't even have money to maintain our parks now but you want to add more maintenance to your agenda. Respect the land we have and leave it alone!! Appreciating that it is difficult to plan for a growing population, while protecting our precious natural resources, I ask that the city planners work towards achieving the best possible balance, regardless of the economic bottom line. I am ok with development as long as there is a significant portion going to preservation of land for wildlife and as long as the follow current standards for building and developing of Rancho Cucamonga Page 437 Results: Updated Proposed Annexation Concepts Survey Info - This survey was sent on behalf of City of Rancho Cucamonga to the FlashVote community for Rancho Cucamonga, CA. 626 Participants 580 of 1368 initially invited (42%) Margin of error: ± 4% Applied Filter: Locals only Participants for filter: 526 Started: Mar 16, 2018 1:08pm Ended: Mar 19, 2018 1:05pm Target Participants: All Rancho Cucamonga Q1 For six months, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has been providing information and gathering feedback about a possible "North Eastern Sphere Annexation" of 4,300 acres (6.7 square miles) of land that is along the foothills north of Rancho Cucamonga city limits. This includes an initial FlashVote survey in October 2017 and four Community Meetings in October and November 2017. Did you attend any of the Community Meetings in October or November? (526 responses by locals) Q2 FlashVote helps you make a difference in your community Response Time (ho… 2 14 26 38 50 62 74 0 60 120 180 240 Locals 0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90% Yes No Not Sure 10.6% 88.8% 0.6%0.6% Percent Options Locals (526) Yes 10.6% (56) No 88.8% (467) Not Sure 0.6% (3) Page 438 San Bernadino County owns the 4,300 acres of land and is currently expected to sell it. Without City annexation, the land will be developed under County standards and zoning. With City annexation, the land will be developed under City of Rancho Cucamonga standards and zoning. Which best describes your preference, if any, for control of development standards and zoning? (516 responses by locals) Q3 Which of these hypothetical future development options, if any, do you like the most? (514 responses by locals) Locals 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%55% Strongly pre… Slightly pref… Neutral Slightly pref… Strongly pre… Not Sure 7.0% 3.3%3.3% 8.1% 18.4% 52.5% 10.7% Percent Options Locals (516) Strongly prefer County control 7.0% (36) Slightly prefer County control 3.3% (17) Neutral 8.1% (42) Slightly prefer City control 18.4% (95) Strongly prefer City control 52.5% (271) Not Sure 10.7% (55) Options Locals (514) Keep all 4,300 acres as open space for about $75 million (approximately $1,400 per household) by buying the land from the County 18.9% (97) Page 439 Unfiltered responses Locals 0%5%10%15%20%25% Keep all 4,3… Develop 1,2… Develop 1,2… Develop 2,0… Do nothing… None of these Other: 18.9% 23.3% 22.2% 13.4% 13.2% 3.7% 4.5% Percent acre develop lowopen space density keep residential 1200preserve tax let Preserve the 4,300 acres and do not build. We have too much traffic, too many apartment complexes, and we are still not out of the clear from the water drought. Rancho Cucamonga is turning into LA Options Locals (514) Develop 1,200 acres at low residential density and keep 3,100 acres as open space, at some net cost to the City’s finances 23.3% (120) Develop 1,200 acres at normal mixed-use density and keep 3,100 acres as open space, at no cost to the City or residents 22.2% (114) Develop 2,000 acres at normal mixed-use density and keep 2,300 acres as open space, at some net benefit to the City’s finances 13.4% (69) Do nothing so all 4,300 acres remain subject to County approved development, at no cost to the City or residents 13.2% (68) None of these 3.7% (19) Other:4.5% (23) Page 440 Q4 Think back to October 2017, when a FlashVote survey asked your opinions about the initial annexation proposal. How does your current opinion of possible annexation compare to what you thought then? (510 responses by locals) Open the entire land to development, if any builders are willing to proceed. Lobby the state and county governments to build and expand freeway corridors. Probably the 1200 acre low density option. Can the remaking area be hiking, like the NE preserve? Develop 1200 at low-residential density along with a grocery-store anchored shopping center with restaurants. Wildlife Reserve ‼ Preserve the land as option one. Or, 1/2 acre or larger lots in that area. Zero commercial developed. Zero condos, apartments, low income, multiple family dwellings...preserve land. Develop 1,200 acres a low residential density and keep 3,100 acres as open space, at no cost to the City or residents. Last I heard, property taxes are a percentage of the purchase price. Higher priced homes will have a higher tax to pay vs lower price home. Traffic, schools, crime, etc are TERRIBLE why would anyone I like the develop 1200 acres but, even with some taxable retail (mixed use) zoning, would like to see a significant percentage dedicated to low income and senior housing. Not enough in Rancho.. Let the Buddhist compound be developed, 1200 acres very low density SFR (.no commercial) and keep the rest open space 1200 -1500 acres low residential density, 1000+ acres for some small/medium commercial use, balance open space and a park for mixed use Develop 1,200 acres at low density with a small retail/commercial component and keep 3,100 acres as open space and walkable trails. Whatever is proven to raise the property values, and not create more crime. Spend money to finish central park first, then add a lane to the 210 freeway to help with the traffic congestion. After road capacity has been increased, then consider low density development. Option 1 - keep all 4,300 acres as open space; please explain however, what is meant by $1,400 per household. Develope 2000 low res. homes, large lots, no commercial or develop 1,200 low residential, large lots, build a small 1-2 street of single story village area, add connecting horse/walking/biking trails Purchase the land then hold discussions with the community to determine possible development #2 if there is a clause that prohibits future development of thee 3,100 acres and a clear pictures of "net cost to the City's finances". Extend adjoining Etiwanda Specific Plan over area. 1-2 units per acre (were already zoned), and flood control remain as flood control/open space. EIR must list all alternatives. Estate Lots. Develop 1,200 acres at very low density and keep 3,100 acres as open space. Keep it true to the historical character of Rancho Cucamonga (low-density and open space). Keep control at the local level in every sense. I'd like to see some acres developed at low or normal residential density, and some baseball/softball fields developed, then leave the rest as open space. Develop the lower 2,300 as low residential zoning, letting the Developers to pay for ALL 4,300 acres, and allow upper 2,000 acres remain open space. NO COSTS TO EXISTING CITY RESIDENTS. Page 441 Q5 Unfiltered responses Any other comments or suggestions about a possible North Eastern Sphere Annexation by the City of Rancho Cucamonga? (171 responses by locals) Locals 0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40% I like it mor… I like it abou… I like it less… Not Sure 14.1% 40.8% 17.8% 27.3% Percent develop city areadensity keep commercial plan pleasealready low traffic annex highlotcost Please continue to move on annexing and developing the property to our current hight standards. We really need a grocery store and gas up there! Its way too far to drive down to Highland for services. We do not need a bunch more homes to tax our already overloaded water and traffic systems. Leave the land alone.. we have far too many homes and cars in the area now... we like the rural atmosphere of the hills behind us and would like it to stay that way! No more signs posted to advise of building because we have reached the limit. Open spaces need to remain untouched. I've lived here for 40 years and our quality of life is affected by the road noises, traffic, car fumes, accidents, people, crime and all around too busy a life style. NOISY. We are not New York City people. Concentrate on preserving only what we have and maintaining the status quo. We need a new city Options Locals (510) I like it more now 14.1% (72) I like it about the same now 40.8% (208) I like it less now 17.8% (91) Not Sure 27.3% (139) Page 442 manager who can actually manage the revenues, not spend more and not make the city have to keep increasing on more taxing funded by it's residents. Bring back Jack Lam. Live on a budget. Or does that finance department not know how to do that. No retail, only single family homes with large lots, ideally 20,000 sq. Ft. or larger. No more construction. We should control it. Im also in favor of more housing as we have a shortage in our city and the IE in general. Apartments would be ideal There has been a lot of interest in this topic discussed on the Next Door social app. I think it would be best that the City Council really listen to the views of its residents that clearly want the NESAP to fall under the current General Plan, and be kept as low-density zoning with no commercial activity. Any deviation to this by the council will have big implications in the next council elections this Fall. please keep it open space...too many homes, too many apartments, too many cars! Quality of life in this City should be number one priority. Keeping it open space would not diminish quality of life any further than it has already deteriorated in the past 20 years. I no longer enjoy living here, but life circumstances dictate I must remain for the time being. Contain runaway development. Do not have any problem with annexation by city but do NOT want development of housing or commercial of any kind. IF any housing were approved, can only tolerate very low density housing, but would prefer none We don not need more housing and cars on the roads. Rancho is congested enough. Leave it alone. There were 2 questions that this survey did not allow me to go back to and change. They were inadvertently hit and this system does not allow me to correct the mistake. It moves so fast I did not see the last 2 questions. I think the city should stick to the general plan. I think the city should commit to low density development and keep the city a beautiful uncongested place to live. Rancho Cucamonga should be the city of gracious living. I am not against limited retail that serves the low density residential meaning 1/2 acre equestrian lots. Most people moved here for that lifestyle and value it immensely. As do we. Please don't pull a bait and switch on this community. Na On the last question I indicated I like the idea of annexation better now than I did originally. That answer is predicated on the idea that there be no high-density housing in the plan, that the overall nature of the planning is a rural feel, and that 3100 acres remain as open space (Even if it is at some cost to citizens). I would think most of what the City sees as potential cost to existing citizens could be passed on to the developer of the 1200 acres, and thus onto the purchasers of the rural lots that were then developed. Yes, build more freeways before considering new developments. The additional traffic caused by development needs to be accommodated. DO NOT DEVELOP THE AREA PLEASE don't add any more residential homes. There are already plenty of homes being built in the surrounding area (e.g. North Fontana) that will add traffic to the congested freeways. New freeway interchanges, offramps, and lane additions are built based on existing traffic. Adding new residential homes defeats the purpose and we will always be living or driving in a construction zone. In your hypothetical question about future development, you needed to elaborate on the #1 option - is the $1,400 per household annually or a one time cost per household? And in your last question whether or not you like the idea of the annexation more or less, etc. since the last survey, you should have had a box for other. I don't oppose the annexation. I think it's a good idea for the city to annex and not rely on whatever the county would do to this land. However, I'm concerned what the city would do with this land. I would like to see it left alone OR at the least, very low density housing with NO commercial in this area. I wouldn't be totally opposed to your option of the city developing the 1,200 acres and keeping the 3,100 acres as open space at some net cost to the City's finances, but that would depend on how the City finances would pay for it. Need more information on that. I thought we were in a drought?? Where's the extra water coming from?? DO NOT DEVELOP THIS LAND. We need some commercial (small scale) i.e. a grocery store, gas station, etc. in the proposed area. Be sure the land is used for the advantage and enjoyment of all residents. Page 443 Not enough information is given on this subject. Please sent a map or diagram of this proposed annexation area so people know the boundaries. It is difficult so say without using strong language, so I will be brief. NO MORE GODDAMN HOUSES. That is what makes the city special. Let up a bit. Our representatives and officials are quite well enough compensated already. Thank you for providing opportunities to discuss further. I hope to be able to attend the upcoming meeting at Central Park on this. It needs to be low density up there. That is premium land. I doubt if there should be any or much commercial in there, either. I have no problem with the purchase of the land from San Bernardino. I have HUGE ISSUES with the development of the land with anything BUT very low density housing. When I bought here in 1978, I was assured that nothing North of Wilson would be less than 1/2 acre plots on average. Somehow that promise was compromised on Day Creek. ENOUGH! Less residential and multi housing. No win situation. We do not need additional development in RC. The streets are crowded and it take too long just to drive a simple 5 miles. But if it is going to get developed, I want it developed under the same requirements of RC. No way should anybody develop that land. Why does the County want to sell it and why does RC want Annex it? We don't need more stores & businesses in our area. We have everything we need nearby. More large horse property lots with trails and open spaces. No high density housing is acceptable in this area under any proposal. Tell me what is wrong with the minds of elected officials? Why do they think we need to develop 4,300 acres which will go towards moving more people into an area where there is drought conditions which cause the water company to now restrict our water usage so we cannot even water our exterior plants. What is next?!? Will we only be able to shower once a week? What next after all of those acres are developed. All anyone thinks about is collecting the almighty tax dollars. There isn't even a middle class left in this state. What happens after that. Guess what. Soon there will be no one to collect money from. You all will probably be out of office by then; or you will have left the state. God help the next state you move on to ruination. The poll you provided proves you are of unsound minds. We get to choose between bad and worse things in this so called poll you are now providing. Respectfully yours, * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * I along with affected residents do NOT want the land developed-it should be permanently preserved. If it must be developed, we want NO commercial, apartments, or townhomes in that area. They should be single family homes on 1/2-1 acre lots. Aquire the land and leave it undeveloped. Equestrian and estate lots as well as adhering to hillside development codes as originally envisioned in General Plan is the most compatible development idea. It is what residents were previously told and relied upon when coming to this community. Densifying the hillside is a stupid idea; even if it makes some developer or county more money. Represent your residents interests not developer and outside interests We are overily developed now. Please do not add anymore housing. Any development should be contingent upon availability of water, power, natural gas, police and fire protection and schools, without increased taxes to the rest of the residents. Once open land is utilized for homes or businesses, it NEVER converts back to the beautiful land God created. I am STRONGLY opposed to developing this land!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! we don't need any more delevopment that would increase traffic and tax natural resources. Why would the city even consider the whole idea of more development We moved out here due to low-density housing and the land/vegetation/wildlife and would like to see it kept that way. Keep it open land. Page 444 While I like the thought of having city control as opposed to county. However I strongly do not trust our city planner and city council to keep this land free from development. it should remain as open space. no housing or development. Have the money come from the fightfighter’s salaries, etc. If the city would manage their money better, they could buy it. What does the county have planned? Or what can they do that’s worse than what RC wants to do with it? Leave it open space. Keep large majority open, housing on large parcels, no shopping. Charge the developer for any required park space so the rest of us don't have to pay for it. Leave the land open for Wild Life please do not add any more apartments or any more rental properties (cars, parking lots where you cant find a space, crime) to our once great city. What is happening at the corner of Baseline and Day Creek has the potential to add abt 1000 more cars to our already over-crowded streets. The city doesn't have enough services for the current population. More fire and police means more taxes. Not in favor of city annexation of the property. As long as our taxes do not go up. City needs to be transparent. I am not okay with the high density housing, and commercial being proposed. Preserve the land. Please retain our lifestyle, do not change the density that is consistent with the existing community Keep commercial use and high-density housing out. Complete Wilson Ave. between Milliken Ave. and Day Creek Bl. Development consistent with the area is okay, plus some neighborhood commercial for increased options. Connecting Wilson and Hillside through to the east side would be great! Please don't overdevelop! None Purchase the land to keep the County from developing it and just leave it as green space! Rancho is turning into a crime laden city! There's already too many people and not enough police support to handle what the city is today...what do you think is going to happen if this "high density development" plan is approved? Don't bother coming up with an answer, I'll move before a single soul moves in. No more houses or high residential housing. I don’t want any commercial development only residential and not low income housing at the top of the hill. There is plenty of businesses down the hill to accomodate 1200 new residences. Keep remainder open space and recreational parks. I wouldn't mind a few houses up there. But our roads, schools, and other infrastructure are ridiculously crowded now. There aren't enough roads and it's hell driving around town most of the time. Please don't trade our quality of life for the ability to make more money through taxes or whatever. I know progress is inevitable. But could we be smart about it, please? Listen to your constituents, the people who live here and will have to accept whatever changes are made. Most of us cannot afford to move. Thank you. The homes should be built on half acre lots . We definitely do not need more high density housing in Rancho Cucamonga. There are already too many people in this city and the traffic is horrendous . Our council seems set on squeezing as many people as they can into the smallest area available. We do not want more high density housing, but the city council has proven by their past decisions that our opinion does not matter to them. Keep Rancho Cucamonga rural, traffic, schools, crime, etc are out of control. in these surveys you need to explain terms such as mixed use, low density, etc. and you need to explain why there is cost for low density vs mixed use and how much cost? Leave it alone no need to develop I feel the biggest concern is increase in the traffic flow. There is too heavy a traffic pattern currently! Page 445 No extra comment None Just leave it open space. We moved here 40+ years ago and it was mostly country and open space. Let's keep growth to the bare minimum. none Stop building!! You’ll move more coyotes out of their area. N/A Leave it open, don't develop it. Annex and take city control to guarantee it's not developed. Please keep the residential density low, add a small retail component (like the new Stater Bros. development on Day Creek) to offset the cost to the city, preserve open space, add water storage and keep mixed use or high density from ever being built up there. No high density apartment and condo development! The city has plenty of that already. Would love to see a master planned 55+ community developed in that area. Not assisted living facility, but single family homes in a gated 55+ community with amenities. Ambiguity. Need FIRM facts. What I have read indicates there are variables with each option. Facts! I don't agree with either the city or county proosed control as I firmly believe all facts have not been disclosed. The city of Rancho Cucamonga has grown exponentially over the last decade or two and to lose whatever little open space we have left to high density housing is outlandish. We have a hard time keeping our parks clean and properly maintained with the city population now how much more taxing will it be to have more people living here. Our crime rate appears to have increased as well. We need to better maintain what we have and only then think about adding to it. I agree in buying the property but disagree with developing into housing. Open it as a preserve and label it as a city wide project at conserving our natural resources. Get companies to donate/invest to help with some of its funding. Make it equestrian homes to keep our heritage. Have hiking trails and mountain bike trails so the residents of Rancho can actually have some open space. This city is being over developed!! Leave it alone.!!!!! I would like it to be used as a wild life animal preserve; maybe with a zoo like Hesperia or like the Living Zoo in Palm Springs. Please preserve open space and low density housing Planning needs to ensure wildlife isn't pushed further into residential neighborhoods, and that "more" crime isn't brought to the area. I know there is a great deal of concern about low income housing possibly effecting the crime rates. This may or may not be a real concern, but the research should definitely be prioritized on both of these items. Thank you. The city continues to ignore the will of the people which CLEARLY are in favor of limiting further development in the city. The city is already grossly over built and our resources are already stretched to the limit. Most of the land should be kept undeveloped or used for hiking/preserve area. Concern about additional population growth in the City as we are already experiencing overgrowth symptoms. Major increase in crime, infrastructure that cannot keep pace with additional residents all which impact the quality of life for the residents of Rancho Cucamonga. Residents of Rancho have repeatedly made their opinion known...no stack and pack in the annexation area. Keep the density low with no commercial development. Elected officials we have an election coming up and the PEOPLE you are supposed to serve are watching you. Your behavior so far is disappointing. You will be voted out in spite of your fire unions support Think first about what would lower the cost of services in our city. Riverside has significantly lower power and water costs compared to Rancho. Consider a solar farm in that area instead of housing. There's other areas that are prime for development before introducing more housing. Consider the open fields on Foothill next to Home Depot and on the south side of Foothill. Bringing in business with safe shopping areas would be my first step. Page 446 City planners and city council should have had meetings with the community prior to contracting to do studies regarding the plan that the city council wanted. The community was not informed prior to plans including high density housing and commercial business.. Buy the land and leave it alone. This area serves as a natural habitat for many animals. Development continues to push them out into neighboring areas. Also, RC is unique in its zoning with commercial development restricted to areas at Baseline and below Baseline. Adding apartments and commerce to this area will bring in added crime and upset the balance of an otherwise peaceful area. I would support the option with controlled development including open space and NO commercial development. PLEASE KEEP IT UNDER CITY CONTROL, WHATEVER YOU BUILD THERE......PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE NO COUNTY CONTROL Central Park should be priority. Fix it first! We need more Senior or low cost housing maybe yiu can make it more nature preserve and Senior Low income housing would be nice Open land with trails would be awesome for day hikes/walk. Use all native planting. Yes. Somewhat related. I moved here last June and i am astounded by the number of apartments and condos here, as opposed to single family detached houses. To pile as many people and families as possible into small spaces obviously affects traffic and needed resources. To think of the city copying this model on county land, if it is actually annexed by RC, is an extremely discouraging thought. I lived in Dana Point in the mid 70s, went away to college, and when I came back to that area in the mid 80s, was disgusted to see what had been done to the acres of land that had been developed. Miles and miles of identical looking structures, ugly and more ugly, all for the sake of big money in the developers’ and city’s pockets. Please don’t do that to our beautiful foothill area. PLEASE. PLEASE. PS. The only reason I have not attended city meetings re: this is that I am non weight bearing on my driving foot after foot surgery. When I am recovered I plan to attend. Thanks You spelled San Bernardino wrong in you 2nd question. N/A Development of the land is the worst possible option. The increased congestion, traffic, and drain upon City resources would not be offset by the increased tax base. Keep the land as open space. No commercial period. Large lots. No stack n pal and no low income. Keep it out of County control. I prefer open land but if not then very low density housing with some open land! But I don't want to have it developed and then have people complain about the nuisance animals that lived there first! Must keep development concurrent with housing code--properties north of Banyan, at least 1/2 acre. Maintain Equestrian areas and trails. Please stop all the building. The streets are so crowded, always a shortage of water, more crime, more homeless, I could go on, but it just seems that with all the extra people moving in here, the quality of life is suffering. One of the beautiful things about this area is/was the open spaces, that give/gave a feel of being out from the city life, although they're being used up by developers. It's all about money, I guess. It's all very sad to see happening. The most recent proposal is ore I keeping with good planning ofRancho Cucamonga The less the development the better....any development must preserve the essence and ambiance of the foothills....access and development of the front line trail should be a strong component (not like Claremont though). Leave the buffer in place as it is. A little wilderness is a good thing in my eyes. Can’t wait for this current City Council to be OUT!!! Collectively, over the they’ve done little to enhance the quality of life in Rancho. Quit delaying and annex the area, bringing into the City under the current General Plan. Do not change the General Plan. Allow residential housing only, preferably large lots, No apartments, No condos, No commercial. No Retail. Allow development (or single residences) in as much area as necessary to make it pay for itself and some parks and sport fields. Page 447 The city should annex in the interest of land preservation, instead of seeing the land as potential revenue. Take a step back and look at the map - development of this area will not be attractive, nor will continued development to connect with Fontana. There are storefronts in the city that have stood empty for an extended period of time. I would like to see the city perhaps renovate them so they are made attractive to businesses. Water resources are also a concern. The proposed development will further stress our precious resources. Lastly, the region's homelessness problem has become apparent in the city. I would like to see a focus of time, planning, and resources placed on developing solutions. Please consider forming a partnership with surrounding cities; although each city may be experiencing the issue of homelessness differently, addressing these problems together is more likely to result in viable solutions. Don't be a city that puts dollars over people. Please and Thank you. These surveys are frustrating due to the questions that are NOT asked. Stop development. This is one of the largest growing cities in the nation and the current infrastructure cannot handle more people. The schools I went to were already overcrowded years ago, Lord knows how bad it is now. Just leave the land alone for wildlife. We don't need to build anything up there. Leave it as it is. Do NOT change the city general plan. We bought here because of the open spaces and the quiet and do NOT want any more development! Let’s keep the rhythm of Rancho’s development rather than rely on those outside our interests. Adding any type of residential or business to that area would already negatively impact the city’s increasing population. What we need is more parks. That’s why I moved here over 20 years ago. It is a plus that you are considering low-density construction on the section that is not open space. But I expect there won't be realistic approaches to fire safety, water impact, and traffic impact. In past projects the city gets around these issues by saying they cannot be mitigated (oh yes they can) and the benefits outweigh the risks (I disagree). We favor the annexation but certainly hope the land remains undeveloped and labled a reserve. Absolutely no commercial or high density housing. Provided the development fits with the area I would rather see the city control the area. The county is already about to approve a 24 building Buddhist campus in the area the city would protect so we know the county is planning to allow much more development in those areas surprising the city is not providing that evidence to residents, it's crazy to put a campus in the foothills!! I am not for developing the area. There is enough traffic up there already. The City needs to keep a rural atmosphere in that area. It’s ideal to do nothing for the wildlife but I understand that won’t happen. My biggest concern is any building will add to the already overcrowded schools and traffic. Whatever happens, wider streets and rezoning the schools will be needed. Do not build multi-residential above 210 fwy Rancho Cucamonga's sphere of influence should include the 4300 acres that are between Day Creek and Milliken. This upper land area needs to carefully be planned with consideration for the drought conditions that have been and will continue to affect the lives of all, including the flora and fauna. Traffic patterns for any new residence must be carefully planned around Chaffey College and Los Osos High School . Other considerations would be for developers to match or exceed the square footage of the largest homes already built in the area . Half acre lots would be a minimum requirement N/A We must keep the city's density low I appreciate your efforts to inform the residents about this project. no The city will just turn it into more housing and commerce. No none Page 448 The City of RC has plenty of open land to develop right now and that is where it should focus new development. Leave it alone. We have too much traffic already. Leave some open space, unless you want another over populated L.A. I don't. It needs to be purchased from the county and left alone as a nature reserve. We need more open land and less developments in our hills. Please preserve the beauty of our area and leave it without homes, parks, and grocery stores. No apartments Quit building. Leave the land alone The city is extremely crowded now. The freeways are jammed. Either develop the land as low density or we buy it as a community and leave it undeveloped or make it a park I do NOT want to change the density of the general plan that is known place for the land. I would like to keep it at about 1 house on an acre to 3/4 acre of land even if the City annexes the land. We need housing for the middle class growing family. My own children are finding it hard to continue to live here with the high housing expense. I seems like a great idea to have the land under city control. It would also be good to have some retail up there too. This is a high flood area, as well as a known bog. The safety of the people tricked in to buying new homes on this land is in question. none Do not like the Agenda 21 Development plan. Parcels should remain the half acre lots / equestrian as defined in the General Plan. Efforts to circumvent the general plan and ammend it should not be pursued. It is just dishonest We don't need more land that remains unused for public use such as the land adjacent to current Community and Senior Center. Buying land without an immediate purpose which benefits the entire community is a poor decision. n/a ---- Further development will INCREASE crime, traffic, noise pollution to an already OVER POPULATED city! LEAVE THE OPEN SPACE ALONE!!!! Further development Continues to drive down the quality of life!! None Environmental protection for nature, animals. Environmental impact with traffic, building etc. In my view, there is no other option than the City annexing the land. Keep the developed portion low density. No commercial development needed for the NESP. Too many existing commercial vacancies in RC. I have many concerns regarding the annexation and am interested in hearing what the future developments will be No Commercial. EIR needs to include Absorption Study about impact any new proposed commercial/industrial would have on existing commercial/industrial. (Many existing commercial vacancies along Foothill - area can not support more commercial Existing Schools need impact review, not just automatic acceptance. Water shortage and Park shortage needs to be included in EIR. Residential needs to stay 1-2 units per acre (Estate Lots). Just to be clear, I think it is important for the City to annex the land and for any development to be under City standards. This should be done without changing the general plan as follows: keep the equestrian overlay, allowing only low density housing, preferably large lots, and open space including parks, sport fields and with no apartments, no condos, no commercial, and no retail developments. I don’t know what other options there could be, but I do know that I’m very against housing development in this area that would increase the people population. The infrastructure to accommodate increased traffic Page 449 (c) Copyright 2013-2017 Governance Sciences Group, Inc., Patent pending is not there, especially durning an emergency. I STRONGLY oppose apartments being built in that area. I believe that a golf course and large estates would better fit with the surrounding community and its values of its residents. The part that is developed should match the zoning of the adjacent neighborhoods. No further developments. Hidensity is killing our city. We need water reclamation , no more cement, concrete or asphalt choking our aquafirs! Not enough resources to help in fire or natural disasters in the foothills as they are. Wake up politicians and developers Put Wilson or summit thru ZERO COMMERCIAL, ZERO HIGH DENSITY, PRESERVE LAND AS OPEN SPACE (AS IS) none The City of Rancho Cucamonga is becoming too congested with residential and retail. We need more open space to maintain the beauty of our natural habitats and our community. What initially prompts people to move here. do NOT develop this land, this area is already over developed, it should not cost us money to NOT develop My biggest concern is the impact any commercial or medium to high density development would have on the aesthetics of the area, the impact on traffic, and the impact to the environment. Increased population will lead to greater impact on the local schools, particularly Los Osos High School, strain our limited water resources, and increase air pollution due to increased motor vehicles in the area. I purchased my home in the Northern area of Rancho for multiple reasons, including the aesthetics, the large lots of land, and it being more nature-oriented being at the foothills. Simply put, I do not want apartments or commercial in this northern community and would be willing to pay in the form of a bond or tax or fee to keep that area with the least amount of development as possible. Please no high density housing...low cost section 8 ....or commercial development. IE yet another Starbucks or gas station. I appreciate the ability to take these surveys. Work out that ALL the costs are paid through the Developers (all 4,300 acres) and only develop the lower 2,300 acres and leave the upper 2,000 acres as open space. BTW... I don't trust the City Planners and/or Officials to properly conduct this work. This is why I would trust the County Officials to do a proper and legal process. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is ran no different than the current WH and POTUS business controls. Page 450 Results: Open Space Options for North Eastern Sphere Annexation Survey Info - This survey was sent on behalf of City of Rancho Cucamonga to the FlashVote community for Rancho Cucamonga, CA. These FlashVote results are shared with local officials 601 Participants 536 of 1425 initially invited (38%) Margin of error: ± 4% Applied Filter: Locals only Participants for filter: 486 Started: Apr 30, 2018 1:39pm Ended: May 2, 2018 1:34pm Target Participants: All Rancho Cucamonga Q1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga is continuing to study all options related to a possible 4,300 acre North Eastern Sphere Annexation. One of the options suggested by citizens is purchasing land with money from a new tax. Which of the following options best describes your preference? (486 responses by locals) Q2 The purchase costs in Question 1 were based on paying for the purchase with a bond over 20 years. Which best describes your preference? (175 responses by locals) FlashVote helps you make a difference in your community Respo nse Time (ho… 1 9 1 7 2 5 3 3 4 1 4 9 0 40 80 120 160 Lo ca ls 0 %5%1 0%15%20%25 %30%35 %40%45 %50%5 5 % Buy and con… Buy and con… Buy and con… Don’t buy ei… Not Sure 1 .6%1 .6% 1 0.7% 21.4 % 51.2 % 15.0% Pe r ce nt Options Locals (486) Buy and conserve the Lower Sphere Area (about 1,200 acres) for $129 million, paid for by an additional annual tax of $260 per parcel 1.6% (8) Buy and conserve the Upper Sphere Area (about 1,700 additional acres) for $42 million, paid for by an additional annual tax of $95 per parcel 10.7% (52) Buy and conserve both the Lower and Upper Sphere Areas for $171 million, paid for by an additional annual tax of $355 per parcel 21.4% (104) Don’t buy either one - I don’t support a new tax for those purchases 51.2% (249) Not Sure 15.0% (73) Options Locals (175) I would prefer a higher annual tax increase to retire the debt in 10 years 9.1% (16) I’m ok with the annual tax increases mentioned and retiring the debt in 20 years 34.9% (61) I would prefer a lower annual tax increase to retire the debt in 30 years 49.7% (87) Not Sure 6.3% (11) Page 451 Q3 The annual tax costs in Question 1 were based on spreading the costs across all the parcels in the City. If less than the entire City were responsible for this new expense, the annual tax per parcel would be higher. What would be the fairest way to spread the costs? (475 responses by locals) Lo ca ls 0 %5 %1 0 %1 5 %20 %25 %30%35%40%45%50% I would pref… I’m ok with… I would pref… Not Sure 9.1 % 3 4.9% 49.7 % 6.3 % Pe r ce nt Lo ca ls 0 %5%10%1 5 %20%25%3 0 %35%4 0%45 %50%5 5 % Only tax the… Only tax the… Tax ALL of t… Not Sure Other: 12.6% 1.9%1.9% 50.5 % 1 2 .8% 2 1 .5% Pe r ce nt tax new landbuy pay city purchase develop propertybuildareawantanyone owner already enough fund residence leave houses use high way open space support budget currentparcel need plan go cost Options Locals (475) Only tax the property/parcel owners north of the 210 freeway 12.6% (60) Only tax the property/parcel owners north of Foothill Boulevard 1.9% (9) Tax ALL of the property/parcel owners in the entire city 50.5% (240) Not Sure 12.8% (61) Other:21.5% (102) Unfiltered responses No new taxes,for anyone within the city limits No way are we going to pay anymore taxes for land. There is no fair way. DO NOT purchase this land. We're already taxed enough with little to show. Don't raise taxes on citizens to buy land we don't need. There is federal grant money for this. Do your homework! Don’t buy Don’t purchase Leave the open space alone and as is. We do not need more buildings or houses. Page 452 use the $$ for Central park ...GET RID OF THE EYE-SORE WEEDS no tax tax only the parcels contained within the acquired area plus the developer. DO NOT TAX ANYONE I am not convinced the city can't buy that land without raising taxes No Taxes increase DO NOT leave it open. Build on the land and tax the builders and new home owners. Is there an option of Mello Roos for new development? Only tax the parcels in this new development. We already pay more in this area than those outside. No new taxes or habitations building No New Taxes Only tax those who buy land in that new annexation Don't tax anyone. Let the developers who will benefit by the new building land pick up the entire Do not support purchasing this land and there is not an answer like this. You have no business buying this property with our tax money. Stop taxing us to fund YOUR interests No not do it. No tax would be necessary if low density, high end housing was allowed to go in. We are already paying a lot on taxes....lower the salaries in city planning, city council, all posi Don’t buy it quit finding more ways to tax us Don’t buy it. No one wants to pay for it. Leave the open space as is! No tax on anyone NO TAX No new tax! Use existing funds or do not buy. Use the funds the city made on all the green space they sold to developers over the last years. All other RC residence are not responsible for the payment for the annexed land. Keep thinking DON'T BUY IT! I don't want to pay for a piece of land I will never go to. dont buy the property Tax the new homeowners and developers No new taxes! Only allow free access to the conserved areas for city residents. Others should pay. Don't buy it and no prob l Only new houses or businesses in the new area. The tax should be added to the price of the homes built. Don't buy Offset any tax with development impact fees consistent with the cost to any new development. Enough Tax’s, live with in a budget, reduce the overpaid salaries and retirement of Rancho Cucamong NO NEW or NO EXTRA TAXES or NO BONDS!! No tax Please!!! One cannot agree to any annual tax if not shared with entire city. Shave the budget and save it from current income No to tax. Many people are on a fixed income. This can be a hardship! Page 453 No new taxes. Don’t charge anybody. No taxes for anybody. We don’t NO TAX! DON'T BUY IT Cut the firemans pay to pay for the land Only east of Haven Do not wish current owners to pay higher taxes. Have anything being built in that area pay the tax Don't tax anyone for purchasing something that only city council will benefit from. no tax = no purchase If the city can't afford it, it shouldn't buy it. Just like real people. Do not buy the land. We do not need more taxes. Don't pay for it with tax dollars. Buy it, then sell a portion to developers to pay for it. No tax at all do not buy the land No new tax, don’t purchase land Neither Tax the properties North of Foothill and East of Milliken. More taxes is not what residents want to pay No taxes period. Taxed Enough Already No new taxes. Only tax the builders and land owners for the new area. No tax for current residents! Don’t tax anyone for this purpose! Rancho is already too crowded, it’s schools are impacted, etc.! No more taxes for any I am against this purchase because the city leaders are intent on building more high density housin The city should have enough money to purchase the land without taxing parcels. No new tax Buy the land Upper and Lower and sell a substantial portion of it to developers to offset the cost. Do not favor a tax. New homeowners should pay for it. Not convinced about land usage yet. Too many shopping strips tax the ultra wealthy mansions, they can afford it, basically above 210 but make sure its high inco No taxing. If the city can't buy it with current monies over time, don't buy it. Do not want any more taxes No new tax Is the only way to raise the funds an additional tax? If you buy the property charge the builders and the new residents that purchase the new houses Do not purchase! No additional tax. RC residents already pay high taxes percentage based on proximaty (ex. 75% n/o 210, 15% 210 to Foothill, 10% s/o Foothill Don't annex the property Tax business owners and property owners but don’t develop the land Leave it alone Page 454 Q4 If open space was to be preserved, what types of open space uses would you support? (Choose all that apply) (459 responses by locals) Lo ca ls 0 %10%2 0%30%4 0%50%6 0%70% Strict habita… Habitat con… Habitat con… Sports fields Equestrian c… Golf course Community… Other: 21.1% 22.7% 69.9 % 13.7% 18 .7 % 12.2% 27.2% 9 .6% Pe r ce nt landbuy park golfleave course taxnature preserve city liketrail dont Options Locals (459) Strict habitat conservation with limited human access 21.1% (97) Habitat conservation with restricted recreational access 22.7% (104) Habitat conservation that includes trail access for hiking, biking, and horseback riding 69.9% (321) Sports fields 13.7% (63) Equestrian center 18.7% (86) Golf course 12.2% (56) Community parks 27.2% (125) Other:9.6% (44) No new taxes! Plan B, Don't develop the land. No new property taxes for anyone! Budget and cut back ridiculous salaries and benefits in the city. Use city reserve and pay back with future taxes on future developments I don't support additional taxes I don't support purchase. I want open space. no new taxes Dont buy Don't tax for property Unfiltered responses Page 455 No new land purchases DON'T BUY IT no off road motor vehicles! No, no, no, no. Stop this nonsense A combination recreational hicking and sports for fitness. leave the land alone. No building! Preserve the land none leave it be. Don't buy it! Golf course. What a joke. You just tore out a good golf course. dont buy the property Restaurants, shops (no major chains), a small theater and a Whole Foods BASEBALL & SOFTBALL facility. We lack a nice facility like neighboring cities for these sports. Don't buy Is a golf course sustainable ? There are areas that are more sensitive than others. Can’t commit w/o new EIR We had a golf course and 3 to 4 THOUSAND housing units to be built at the Old Lakes Golf Course ? The area has to be patrolled and monitored so that it is safe and people won't graffiti and damage A splash park/water park, a nice fountain & museum, a natural pond ecosystem for kids to explore Do not purchase Why not finish Central Park before taking on a new project. This is ridiculous! Community pool, example Fontana aquatic park. Off Road Vehicle use It should be a natural preserve. Non-profit organization lottery for specific community development proposals Leave the land "AS IS" and DO NOT run Wilson Ave to Fontana!!!! Keep it out of the hands of the Lewis Operating Companies Cannot take care of the parks that already exist. If open space is not preserved we should not buy it. Pickle Ball courts please!!!!!!!!! ;) No golf course!!! No commercial that north!! opress the obnoxious horse people if youre an equestarian go to the midwest or something We worry community parks will attract homeless, more than other options. Year Round Reservior for habitat and emergency fire management needs. No public access Only with out additional taxes don't forget the handicapped children, they don't have a playground make special for them yet. Buy the land through a tax and then leave the land as it is today. Leave it as is None Motocross track the above require even more funds in addition tax amounts for land, so none Dont buy Page 456 Q5 Any other comments or suggestions about open space and the Northern Sphere Annexation? (160 responses by locals) city tax land develop space open need build pay resident property want like new live leave hikes keep let Leave land as is. Preserve in its natural state [RESTRICTED] will this happen? RC can't even develop central park Unfiltered responses no building of any sort..... Don't sell the community property we need more open space to encourage and give opportunities for all residents too enjoy More homes and shopping, Please! I strongly feel the residential development should be 1 acre lots with NO commercial development The more open space the better Let the county dispose of it if we have to pay more taxes to protect the City of R.C. NO MORE TAXES!!! Let's spend the money to develop the,city park on baseline that should have been completed 25 years ago I believe keeping open space for horses and walking, nature trails would be awesome. Once that space is gone, nothing is going to bring it back so we need to plan for the future with protecting and keeping open space as a priority. I would vote to purchase both the lower and upper sections if the payment was about $150 a year Leave it alone. Do not build any more multi family dwellings. The traffic congestion in this city is already out of control. Stop lining your pockets with developer money. WE KNOW WHAT YOU"RE DOING. With all due respect, once again we are being led down the road to more taxation. We do not need to buy any land whatsoever. How do we pay for this when our monetary resources are being stretched to the max. When does the water tax kick in again this summer? What other taxes do you have in store for the sinking middle income? Signed, Frustrated overtaxed citizen Let the county manage it. Central Park is still incomplete and monies are long gone There is federal grant money to purchase this property. Someone in the City needs to do their homework! Stop building. Leave our open spaces as they are. FIX WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE If you are going to open it up to hiking / running trails please include ample parking so that we do no face the same issues with towing cars like at the Etiwanda Preserve. There should be a mix of development (like already exists in that area) and open space, with the development financing the preservation. NO HOUSING. NO COMMERCIAL BUILDING. Water. Fire danger. Congestion. Infrastructure. More housing brings more crime. CVWD must weigh in on how rates will be affected? No medium or high density housing, no commercial or industrial development. Not everyone is against reasonable and sensible development of some of the area in order to pay for the acquisition. If Rancho doesnt acquire the area I am pretty sure SB County will allow some level of development anyway and likely will probably that development occurs in the area. No new taxes! The land should just not be left open. I agree that it should be annexed, to ensure city control and zoning, but it should be built-out with residential, plus a retail center or two. It seems like the only people opposed to the annexation are those that live near the empty land and somehow expect that the land would never be developed, which seems unreasonable. If they want that land to remain open, tax ONLY them, not the rest of the city. Otherwise, build it out and let those who construct it / live on it pay for it. I think the way that you are asking the questions are leading, especially the first one which sets the stage for the rest of the survey. When you create, in the very first question, a dichotomy between purchasing and conserving the property with higher taxes or not purchasing and Page 457 conserving because they don't want to be taxed, is incorrect and leading methodology. The better way to do it is to ask about the whether they would like the land conserved, then ask if the land should be purchased to be conserved, and then ask if they would like to be taxed to purchase it for that purpose. You are leading the survey respondents to get the answer that you want, which is don't purchase for conservation because it will lead to a tax. This is wrong and a very unethical way of surveying residents. The city has gotten crowded. The traffic is ridiculous. No more development and no more taxes. The homeowners in this area is already paying taxes for services that those outside the area but still in Rancho Benifits from (schools, fire dept, parks, etc). No more habitational buildings in Rancho. No more taxes! Let only those who want it as open space pay the taxes. I am fine with developing it if it means no new taxes Make sure you have sufficient school systems adequate enough to education that whole entire area, whether that is building schools in that land or increasing teacher/staff workforce in existing schools. Keep it open space. By no means should multi-unit residential or commercial development be considered for this area Just PLEASE do not build any more housing (that includes NO apartments) The residents of this city do not want to fund your personal interests. Stop trying to remake the city into your own vision of it and to benefit from those changes. The city belongs to us, not you snake-oil salesmen who think we live here by your good graces. It's time for all of you to be removed from the government of our city; and good riddance too! The land should be purchased and preserved as best as possible, with some areas designated for outdoor use (biking, hiking, parks, etc). No homes, no apartments, no commercial occupancies. The City has grown enough. Let's improve and build on what we've already here (roads, infrastrastructure, public services, etc.) We need open spaces. Allow Rancho Cucamonga to a progressive, modern city with consideration to preserving and respecting the beautiful surroundings this city was built upon. What might happen to this area if RC does not purchase it? Are there other potential buyers with plans? It was pretty clear to me at the last meeting that you can't have it both ways. If you want the land clear, taxes are necessary. I don't think it's fair to the rest of the city to pay additional taxes to make the owners in the northern part of the city happy. Low density, high end housing would take care of the issue. I think I heard that the properties had to be worth $750,000 and higher. That shouldn't be hard to do. Don't make the rest of the city pay for the perks of our horse owning neighbors. While it would be nice to keep that land untouched, maybe it isn't feasible. Wilson should also be completed to give us another east/west route in the city. This is a safety and traffic issue. I grew up in Rancho. While I miss the orange groves and vineyards, they are not coming back. We have to do the best we can moving forward. Leave the open space as it is. It’s nice to look towards the mountains and not have houses right up to the base. IF you continue to develop any part of the Northern Sphere, all costs should be borne by the NEW property owners only. Frankly I don't think existing properties should bear the cost at all. Quit trying to build on every single piece of land! This city has built enough. Please leave the land like it is. I'm being asked to conserve water, yet you want to build...we have a water shortage. I do not want commercial or high density. Preserve the land. If any development is to happen on this land, roads will need to be redesigned to ensure safety of drivers and pedestrians around the high school (which is already a challenge certain times of day). We don't need it and we don't need another TAX!! Don't purchase. Don't develop. If County wants to develop, restrict them from using all RC city services. Create a park/open space like Guasti. Let everything cost as its used. No one complains about Guasti and people love it. We need a facility like that in the Northern part o the city. This is another way of paying for things, instead of raising taxes. Also consider adding more parking to existing parks and add meters to offset the cost. I have lived here for 30 years and I am still waiting for Central Park to be finished. What I see here is more tax that will probably be used for something else other than the annexation. If more tax is the only solution, let the county keep it. If the land MUST be developed, designate parcels as horse property with million dollar+ single family residences ONLY. We don't need additional gas stations, strip malls or high density dwellings. The city should be more forthcoming with public documents. Stick to general plan. NO SPORTS FIELDS. Continued use for horse trails, hiking, biking, picnic areas. Remember this area is NOT the typical RC property. Yes, it is more exclusive. Yes, those who are established residence are paying a premium for living above the rest. Keep it similar. Don't buy it!! I can't afford anything else put on my property taxes. Leave the land alone!! I struggle to pay my property taxes now...I can't afford additional taxes Very limited development Your one question was misleading in the fact that if you only taxed those above a certain portion of the City, would everyone still in the City be granted access? What about private access for those that are paying the tax? Agree with low density housing similar to what is already near the 1200 acre area to preserve the 3,000 other acres. Take control of this land and conserve it, to keep all of Rancho Cucamonga's view of our natural foothills/mountains beautiful. Page 458 And housing or commercial development would severely, negatively impact local infrastructure, including water supply, freeway and local roads, traffic volume, traffic noise, air pollution levels, school populations, law enforcement and all quality of life issues. PLUS, such development will increase the cost of water, all infrastructure maintenance, local law enforcement and public school costs. What might happen if we do not buy this land. Can we still control it's use? I live below Baseline, I most likely will NOT be going all the way up there to use the area. I should not be taxed for purchase of this land. Has the city investigated philanthropic conservation groups, NGO or government funded organizations to see what is available!e other than development Why must the City always need more tax money to do anything (Purchase this land, complete Central Park, properly maintain landscape districts, etc.)? With all the new businesses and residences in the City, where does that additional revenue go? We don’t need more houses we are outbuilt now. A nice baseball softball complex would be awesome. This purchase is splitting this community. Citizens no longer trust the people they elected to take care of their interests. Proceed without compromise and you may find you do not care for the consequences because those voted in can be voted out of office. Please stop over building. Invest in conservation and improving the beautification of our city. Supporting a healthy life style. Purchase the land and put one or two parcels per/acre . With less commercial and business. . NO New Taxes!! The city is obviously trying to put the North and South residents against each other and the question about taxing all or some residents is just absurd. ALL residents in our city are sick and tired of the over building and the lack of respect that the city staff and city council has for our quality of life! The existing overlay of open space needs to be maintained, and consideration needs to be given to a firewise community. The Panorama Fire is one example of the needed stewardship to maintain the northern sphere. Limited development similar to the Deer Creek area or even the Brock Estates would align with the area that could be developed. Please do not repeat the mistakes made in Corona, where apartment city is rapidly developing. Enough building, traffic, schools, crime, quality of life is gone. Why can't it just be left alone the way it is? If we can Zone the property “restricted open space with trails for hiking, biking and equestrian use” without purchasing it, I’m in favor of that too. Improve the parking situation for the EtiwandaWilderness area. I live in the south western part of Rancho Cucamonga, I know I won't have to deal with the impact of traffic, crime, or other concerns as much as my fellow neighbors up north. I do feel that anything that can make our city special and better is a plus, we have enough commercial and industrial areas, so I wouldn't want anymore of that. Nature and open spaces for enjoyment would be nice. Whatever you decide, please make sure to think all aspects through, like parking and trash collection, and whether pets should be allowed. Thanks for all the hard work on this project and good luck! It is clear that the city wants to build homes etc. The taxes that the city is going to force to pay for this needs to be paid by the people who will occupy the new building. We do NOT support building, nor do we support any kind of bond or tax increase! Not sure what it is going to take for the CITY to understand that they have failed the citizens in their mission. Our perception of you is that you are sneaky and underhanded. By the way, if my mission statement as a public employee included the word 'perception' in it, I am certain that I would be at minimum told to change it as it gives the stakeholders the idea that one does not care about the real mission. Develop lower portion Neighborhood retail center like the new Stater Bros on Base Line and Day Creek. They also need a small gas station up there. Preserve this area. Adding trails for hiking and horse back riding in the hills would be a great compliment to our history leaving the rural atmosphere we Rancho residents enjoy. Leave as open space because soon it will be all we have left in this concrete jungle. How about using some of the excess money the city has to purchase it. Let’s have council members take a drop in pay (like most of us have) to finance this project. Higher taxation for multiple dwelling operators to pay for annexation Tax by income is an option. Take care f what’s already on the books. Then take on new projects Ensure impact on wildlife is taken into consideration & protect the wildlife! You never finished centralPark when you could have. But you built Quakes Stadium with the money!!! I remember reading the story in the Daliy Report. I have been in Rancho Sense 1976, and heard all the excuses Why. When my kids were young and needed the park & lakes. Where were they? Just replace the funds and build Central Park like the City was to do!, Also just clean up the weeds it’s an eye sore! But don’t tax us for not building The park when you could have! Just look up the old news paper articles if you don’t belive me. Where are all the Concerts & other money makers that were to be done in Quakes Stadium????? No NEW taxes. California's are being taxed to death. You should show a map with this type of questionnaire. We vehemently oppose any development in the Northern Sphere Annexation. Page 459 Try managing the city as it is now. Take a look at some of the overpaid city positions. Lets get their pay back in line. Look at the way some city departments are being run. Let's lean things down. Maybe put some money into the schools. Take a look at some economic development projects that benefit the city and not just the pockets of city council. RC is the most generic city I have ever lived in. And I have lived in a lot of different cities in a few different countries and a lot of different states. If our taxes are going to rise again I would like to see a project that benefits the community. The land should be used to create space where people in the community can get outdoors and enjoy nature or exercise. I’d love to see more parks and sports fields. do not get involved in a purchase!! Sensible use would be approvable. That is high end land. We don't need a new city up there. No apartments. No shopping centers. High end homes, parks and maybe a small convenience center. Yes, focus on the real needs of the city. We have high taxes, city salaries out of this world, miss management of city funds, hence ongoing increases in city taxes. The cost of living in the city of Rancho Cucamonga has sky rocketed. Our financial department reflects poor stewardship of city funds. Tell the City Council to stop screwing around and listen to all the people who have gone to all the meetings and requested low density housing 1/2 to 1 acre lots. Council stop playing games If you allow some non profit organizations that work direct with the community, usually the cost savings for misc social and Civic services pays for itself. Leave the land "AS IS" and DO NOT run Wilson Ave to Fontana!!!! This is just one option, you say? This whole discussion about these parcels has gotten so confusing. I’ll leave the decision to those that understand it better. We are already on water conservation. Any more development will just tax our resources more. When you ask a question about upper and lower sphere you should include a map! I just believe the open space should remain open space! If we develop this land there will be more coyotes and possums and other wildlife squeezed our of their habitat and driven into our backyards. All the homes bordering it will get the mice that are currently feeding the hawks and we will lose our hawks. We HAD a golf course ... we have HAD open space ... now both are gone and the Lewis family profits. How much is enough, Randall??? Build only single family residences. You should put the information found at the end, in the beginning prior to voting.... I didn't want to pretty any additional taxes until I read the county most sell it. CONSERVE AWAY!! Leave as is. NO MORE DEVELOPMENT!! Fund it by reducing exorbitant salaries and pensions. City compensation is way out of line with normal people. Ontario managed to build their New Model Colony without impacting the established residents with a new tax burden. All costs to the expansion should be borne by the developers and new residents. If Rancho annexes this space, I hope NO houses are built on it! We’re overcrowded as it is, our schools are already impacted, and traffic is heavy. Yet, for some reason, we just keep building and building and bringing in more people! Nature is beautiful and should be preserved with activities that blend with that open space. Since the people who live nearby have been so vocal in what THEY want and who they want around they should be paying the taxes. Most of Rancho Cucamonga will not benefit from conservation area. I personally am against any more high density housing. If we do purchase it, it should only include housing on half acre property and include riding trails and plenty of open space for riding and hiking. Think about the citizens for once instead of how much money you can bring in by building high density. By the way, I don't own a horse but that space was originally designed for horse property and it should remain so. Why do we need this land? There are not enough services in the city now and new taxes would not produce more services only payment for the land we don't need. Keep Rancho Cucamonga Beautiful!! RC has been good at making wise investments. Use good choices and discernment when evaluating. Honestly, I wish this was not such a public forum, most community members only care about themselves and do not consider the City as a whole. Then they make decisions on what's in it for themselves, not the best choice for the City. Do not allow housing, apartments, retail. Add a park or shelter w/bathrooms for hikers and horse riders. STOP overbuilding Rancho, we don't have the water resources. Don’t want more traffic headaches. Prefer not to have tract homes Limit any construction to the lower 1200 acres and with only equestrian style homes. It would help if a map was included in this Survey. Take care of Central Park first!!! I’m 100% in favor of open space, trees, hiking, and parks and I’m willing to pay for them through my taxes. Page 460 What happens to this land will have huge implications for our city and its future. U have an opportunity to raise the value of our city. This won't happen if u are short sighted and go for the quick buck. Do not bring in high density housing or commercial development and lots of traffic. Keep it as natural as possible with as few homes and maybe a small tax to balance that. Thank you The council members need to be present at the meetings and answer ALL questions. If there isn't enough time at one meeting schedule others until ALL questions are answered. That's a lot of money and we need answers. Have all of your experts there so that questions can be answered on the spot, not "I'll get back to you" Keep habitat conservation and as much open space as possible. No high density or commercial building at all. If have to have some type of building (which I don't really want to see, as believe habitat conservation is extremely important), would like minimum half acre or 1 acre properties, or large equestrian properties (5 acres or more). I value the open space and natural habitat To buy this area for housing is poor land management. We live in an overcrowded area with limited water resources. When we conserve water, we wind up paying more for it because of fixed costs and expenses. Maintaining a stable population is critical for future sustainability. Continuing to build and increase population degrades our continued existence. We need to conserve this open land for the wildlife in the area. No new taxes! No annexation! We definitely do NOT need more homes or high-density housing!! If the land is develop do not build high density housing. Build horse property with a minimum of 1/2 acre. and charge the new owners and the builders for the property and not the rest of the city. Why do we have to buy it at all? Stop trying to develop every piece of open space. Listen to your constituents and be transparent and forthcoming. I was born and raised her 49 years ago. Our city has continued to grow. It is a necessity we preserve undeveloped open land space for generations to come to enjoy the hawks, the squirrels, the rabbits, the bobcats, the coyotes, the mountain lions, the bears. Otherwise we may as well live in a concrete city like the east coast that rely on a park in the center of a city. Sad very sad, in my opinion. That's not the Rancho Cucamonga I grew up knowing and loving and having family in. Our city is lucrative in resources, I own a small business here. Please be kind to our city and residents, those residents include the wildlife that makes our city so beautiful, diverse, and a desirable place to live. When did the option of buying the land become a possibility. I have answered more than one of these surveys, and they were always about annexation so that governance would come from City of Rancho Cucamonga instead of San Bernardino County. Since when did outright purchase pop up and why? Rancho Cucamonga should not purchase the property if it will generate additional taxes on residents No apartments!!!! There is only one opportunity to preserve open space. If those are in doubt it would help to look at cities that have made the decision to maintain open space and see how great a benefit there is to the community. Cities such as Monrovia, Huntington Beach, Irvine, San Diego... This is an opportunity that will pass and never be an option again. The only way to truly control development is for the City to own the land. Any other arrangement will be another condition where the city only gets to oversee development done by developers. not understanding the tax implications... how much would each household be paying for this land? Why are the proposed tax increases different for the two areas in question when one section is larger than the other but the smaller one would have a larger tax cost? We all need to commit to conserving open space where we can and where other species, animals and plant life, may continue to exist in their habitat--their rightful place on this planet. If we can do it in such a fashion as to allow safe, limited access to hiking, so as to develop in our fellow citizens an appreciation for the need to protect nature and open space, that would be a very good thing. Do not build more houses. Do not build more schools. Do not build more apartments. Do not build business. Please preserve something for us to enjoy. “The Central Park “ is still waiting. We purchased in 1998. The area is one of the few places in the world where White Sage grows, alluvial flood plains are extremely rare. I would like to know how the costs for the property was determined. Quit playing games and wasting our city dollars with these snake oil salesmen you have masquerading as consultants. None right now. Who owns the land now? The County? I suggest we leave it alone - this area is immediately above my house and it's beautiful just as it is. Protect the land and water resources and you'll earn trust back. You are not elected to line your pockets or decide what gets sacrificed because you think citizens are too dumb to know better. Stop seeing dollar signs. What happened to the original numbers when the City said it would cost 75 million, not 171 million? If parcels were to be taxed for the purchase of part of this property, how many years would each parcel be taxed? If you have to add additional taxes to residents to purchase or develop the Northern Sphere then I am against the annexation! Your survey is bias in that your question about taxes pits the north and the south. The manipulation in your question makes lends an appearance that this process is “Shady”. I would be willing to incur a small tax increase, but the price of $260 sounds incredibly high, especially if shared by all residents of the City. I continue to support this area being open space. Definitely NO commercial/retail development. I support equestrian, trails, wildlife habitat. Look at all the really desirable communities in California. None are wall to wall concrete. To truly retain property values and quality of life we must preserve nature. Page 461 (c) Copyright 2013-2018 Governance Sciences Group, Inc., Patent pending If a selected group or area has to pay for it then they should access to enjoy the area; therefore, it should be the whole city or none. Prudent use for habitat preservation and hiking only ! No Bikes, Horses or other non hiking activities would provide humans a very nice escape form the noise and distractions from Bikers and horses . People need a quite place! No apartments or low income housing! If people want it perserved, they need to pay for it, not all homeowners. We really should not develop further. Our infrastructure is strained enough as it is. My only concern is what can happen if this land is sold to others. no new taxes for purcase We are faced with a dearth of undeveloped open spaces in the city. This purchase is critical to provide recreation and access natural habitat for citizens of the city. This is an investment in the health and lifestyle future generations in Rancho Cucamonga. Leave it as is. Don't buy! Leave land in its natural state. Do not interrupt its existing wildlife and plants. No more high density in R C!! Need to add more areas of uncemented space or permeable products so we can fill our natural aquifers. Preserve our unique and religious properties from code enforcements that will destroy them! I.e.: CW feed, tea house, church property on Helman and baseline, etc. Have developers buy the land with heavy restrictions, and only develop the land around the extension of Wilson. All I know is I can’t afford any more tax hikes. I do not have enough information on it to know how to vote. tax the mansions and the residents there who are rude as hell and especially the horse people who brought their horses into government buildings and my janitor friends had to clean up their [RESTRICTED]. equestrians aren't oppressed try being gay or something. Page 462 NESAP Media Coverage Spring 2018 Page 463 CONTACT US TOP LiSTS Denver,Austin &San Antonio! HOME BUSINESS REAL ESTATE BANKING xc 8asi~ness 2~a’Yy INTCPNATIONA1.AFPPOPT EDUCATION OPINION TOP LISTS CONTACT US DON’T MISS More good housing data Ity /County News >Rancho Cucamonga considers major annexation . Rancho Cucamonga considers major annexation HICKEY MARKETING GROUP By IE Business Daily on Febnsa,y 10 2018 TWEET The city wants to add more than 4,000 acres north of Its border.Some residents am less Than thrilled with the idea. Rancho Cucamonga is trying to become larger.About six square miles larger,to be precise. The city wants to annex approximately 4100 acres of land north of its border,much of which is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Contrd District. That land,which the district has said it no longer needs,is mostly north of the Foothill Freeway and east of Haven Avenue.That puts it within Rancho Cucamonga’s sphere of influence making it easier to bring within the city’s borders ‘I go aimost everywhere in the city,and the traffic is tenible,said Joseph Cowan,a Rancho Cucamonga resident for more than 50 years.turing rush hour it’s almost impossible to move around,and this would make things worse.~can’t handle the extra population,’ Opposition to the project grew late last year,during four community meetings and several online events.A Facebook page,‘Stop Rancho Cucamonga ExpansIon,’was started. In response,staff put together a list of frequently asked questions,with answers,to update and clarify the proposed annexation’s status. One clarification:The city has an agreement with Sargent Town Planning an urban consulting firm in Los Angeles,to prepare a specific plan for the annexation area Sargent Town has also arranged for completion of an environmental impact report Lake Elsinore Lands Ice Manufacturer ki Ice manufacturer and distributor will occupy an Industrial... May It,2018 0 Delinquent Mortgage Payments Drop The Inland Empire’s mortgage delinquency rate dropped slightly between.,, Maylt.201a 0 SHARE SHARE SHARE 0 COMMENTS ma Li ©5 ~lIANCHO tUCAMONtAL~~ upland I Rencho L_c~tçmcnoa Guam !3wsidq ~ 4favket~p.&an&q.Web Oei’w&’p#zeiztSSEO ~etn~a j’ot Inland Income Rtameaa LATEST NEWS POPUlAR COMMENTS Data Backup Strategy By Ryan Kincer Every business knows they need to.., —n —May10 2018 )ntarlo © + Iniernational 8~8~ IMuitlai Pail, ©GienA~ The Rancho Cucamonga City Council has directed staff to study possible commercial and residential development on about 1,200 acres on the southem end of the property. While the county would still own the land,annexing it would place it under the jurisdiction of the city, giving Rancho Cucamcnga more say in what’s developed there,said Matt Bunis,deputy city manager But some residents are concerned about any development in an area that is largely pristine.They believe what is being proposed is too dense and would add to the city’s traffic and air quality problems. http:iebusinessdaily.com!raneho-cucamonga-considers-maj or-annexation!5/10/2018 Page 464 The two-page question-and-answer document,which was released early this month,also makes clear that the annexation is not a done deal. The specific plan and environmental report,both of which are required to complete the process, have barely gotten started,and development rights for areas within the site must be determined. Also,once the city agrees on a final plan,it must be approved by the state Associations of Local Agency Formation Commissions in Sacramento,which has final say regarding annexations. Rancho Cucamonga officials have already revised their plans based on the opposition raised during the community meetings last year,Burfis said. Plans for multifamily housing and an urban village have been dropped,and the city no longer plans to put office buildings in the annexation site.Most of that land is open space,but it has some development,including a few single-family residences,the Ling Yen Mountain Temple and several Southern California Edison transmission lines. Now,city officials are studying plans to possibly develop more single-family homes,and possibly some light retail,on the site,but not much more.The amount of development there could be scaled back to 900 acres,according to Burds, “There was a lot of concem about the amount of development we were proposing,’Burns said.“A lot of people thought it was too dense,and we understand where they’re coming from,It’s their community,and they expect to have some say in how that property is developed. “We’re still going to do the annexation,The question now is how will we develop it once we do annex it.’ Rancho Cucamonga officials have been considering annexing the land —the project’s official name is the North Eastem Sphere Annexation Project —since 2005,when the flood control district began negotiating with developers about selling the property. No deal was reached,opening the door to annexation,which the city wants because it wants any development there to be subject to its zoning laws and other regulations. “Wiiat’s developed there now isn’t as important as having control of that property,’Burns said,“We don’t want something going in there that we don’t like,so we have to come up with a plan.If the county were to decide to leave it vacant,that would be fine with us.’ Some opposition to the planned annexation goes deeper than concems about traffic and dirty air, Cowan said. Rancho Cucamonga has its share of horse owners,and parts of the annexation area permits houses where people may keep horses, “One of our big issues is keeping that equestrian overlay,’said Cowan,president of the Alta Loma Riding Club.“The city’s general plan allows for half-acre [residentialj lots for horse ownership,and we’d like to see it stay that way.’ City officials are planning to hold at least two more public meetings,one in March and another in April,along with more online forums,Burns said. Council members should receive a final proposal in May.and a final environmental impact report could be ready by January. Without annexation,the land would go back to the county,at which point it would have to resume negotiations with a developer for a possible sale, “Neither side wants that to happen,’Burris said. City I County news featured RELATED POSTS http://iebusinessdaily.comlrancho-cucamonga-considers-majorannexatjopj 5/10/2018 Page 465 1)11 Daily Bulletin How Rancho Cucamonga residents can weigh in on the city’s annexation plans Sandra Emerson PUBLISHED:March 19,2018 at 12:55 pm I UPDATED:March 20,2018 at 10:01 am Local News I 4. C •‘I ~ S. https:www.dailybulletin.comJ2Ol 8/03/1 9/how-rancho-cucamonga-residents-can-weigh-in...5 10 2018 Page 466 The city of Rancho Cucamonga will hold community workshops on its plans to annex 4,300 acres of land north of its city limits.The workshops are planned for 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.March 22 and April 19 at Central Park 11200 Base Line Rd.,Rancho Cucamonga. Rancho Cucamonga officials want the community’s help drafting a vision for the future of more than 4,000 acres the city plans to add to the northern part of town. Workshops have been planned for 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.Thursday,March 22,and April 19 at Rancho Cucamonga Hall in Central Park,11200 Base Line Road,as a way to gain community feedback on future development of the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project.or NESAP,area.Dinner and childcare will be provided. ‘We’re bringing the question of what to do with the land back to the community,” said Matt Burns,deputy city manager.‘We’re not bringing a proposal.We’re going back to a blank slate and asking the community to partner with the city on articulating a future for that site.” The 4.300-acre unincorporated San Bernardino County area extends from Haven Avenue east to the city’s border with Fontana and from the northern city limits to the National Forest boundary. Conservation Area I I II https:www.dailybulletin.comI2Ol 8/03/19/how-rancho-cucamonga-residents-can-weigh-in...5/10/2018 Page 467 Initial designs maintain 3,100 acres as a “conservation priority area,”with the remaining 1,200 available for development.The area available for development is north of Banyan Street,between Milliken Avenue and Day Creek Boulevard. Residents criticized an earlier city proposal,expressing concern over the inclusion of high-density housing.In response,the city revised its proposal,eliminating all multi-family housing and scaling back the type of office and commercial uses. ‘We got a lot of negative feedback on that proposal,”Burns said.“We also heard a fairly wide range of concern and suggestions from the community as to what we should do instead.” Overview of North Eastern Sphere Annexation Project area https://www.dailybulletin.com]20 18/03/1 9/how-rancho-cucamonga-residents-can-weigh-in...5/10/2018 Page 468 Burns said there seems to be consensus among the community that having local control of the property’s future development is important and annexation makes sense,but what the land will ultimately be is a question they are trying to answer. “Local control is one thing,but what do we want to do?”he said.‘What do we hope to achieve with that land?” The lower portion of the annexation area,about 1,200 acres surrounded on three sides by the city of Rancho Cucamonga,is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The district no longer needs the land for flood control and is looking to sell it to help fund other projects. Annexing the property would mean any future development would fall under the city’s development plans.Development of the area would take 10 to 20 years, according to the city. The city would benefit from future property and sales tax revenues,officials said. “If there’s going to be development there,we’d like to make sure we have a say in how its developed and we’d like to make sure we’re able to collect at least enough taxes to offset the demand for additional services throughout the city,”Burns added. To RSVP for the March 22 or April 19 workshop,call 909-774-4312. In addition to the workshops,there will be some online engagement opportunities for the public Burns said. The feedback obtained over the next two months will help city staff draft a proposal for City Council consideration in May,he said. https://www.dailybulletin.comI2O 18/03/1 9/how-rancho-cucamonga-residents-can-weigh-in...5/10/2018 Page 469 LOCAL NEWS Rancho Cucamonga residents want local control,quality projects for 4,300 acres proposed for annexation ,r.—1’-.~ •--~ Rancho Cucamonga residents look over a map of the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal area during a community input and discussion meeting Thursday evening March 22,2018 at the James L.Brulte Senior Center in Rancho Cucamonga (Photo by,Will Lester,Inland Valley Daily Bulletin/SCNG) By SANDRA EMERSON I semerson@scng.com I Redlands Daily Fads March 24,2018 at 6:01 am https:www.dailybulletin.comI2Ol8/03/24/rancho-cucamonga-residents-want-local-ccjntrol...5 10 2018 Page 470 Gaining local control,having compatible development and avoiding new property taxes are among residents’priorities for the 4,300 acres of land Rancho Cucamonga wants to annex into its northern city limits. Working in groups,residents identified their priorities for the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal,or NESAP,during a workshop Thursday,March 22,at the Goldy S.Lewis Community Center in Rancho Cucamonga. About 100 residents attended the workshop,which was an opportunity for city staff to hear from the community before presenting a plan to the City Council in May. “What I want to see is development that is consistent with what’s up there right now, that’s super conscious of the effects that it’s going to have on the surrounding neighborhoods,”said resident Ryan Hutchison.“And,also is going to be conscious of just mainta g the feel of Rancho Cucamonga and finding the highest best use for that area for the residents and the community.” The 4,300-acre unincoiporated San Bernardino County area extends flom Haven Avenue east to the city’s border with Fontana and from the northern city limits to the National Forest boundaty. Residents criticized an earlier city proposal expressing concern over the inclusion of high-density housing.In response,the City Council revised the proposal,eliminating apartment homes and scaled back the type of office and commercial uses. City staff has decided to clear the slate and create a new community-based proposal to take to the council,said Man Burns,the city’s deputy city manager of economic and community development. “We need to tell them:Here is a community-based plan.This reflects the will of the community,”Burns said. During Thursday’s workshop,residents ranked obtaining local control over the property as their highest priority. The lower portion of the annexation area,about 1,200 acres surrounded on three sides by the city of Rancho Cucamonga,is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and falls under the county’s zoning laws. https:www.dailybulletin.com/2018 03 24 rancho-cucamonga-residents-want-local-control...5 10 2018 Page 471 The district no longer needs the land for flood control and wants to sell it to help fund other projects. Annexing the property would mean any fhture development would fall under the city’s development plans.The city also would benefit from future property and sales tax revenue. The city is not proposing to purchase the land or levy new taxes on residents,Burns said. “The most important thing for me in all of this is that Rancho Cucamonga maintains local control of this area immediately adjacent to it,”Hutchison said.“That’s my No.1 priority is that the development standards are that of Rancho Cucamonga,not the county.” Hutchison is in good company. More than 70 percent of about 500 residents who responded to a city survey last week were in support of local control,Burnis said. “One of the things we heard pretty consistently is that the community is very interested in local control,”he said. Residents also ranked preservation of open space,preservation of view conidors and respecting existing property rights highly.There are several private property owners in the northern portion of the annexation area,some of whom attended Thursday’s workshop. Building new park and equestrian facilities,housing for young professionals and families,housing for empty nesters and seniors,and community gathering spaces had little to no support. Some people were in favor of connecting Wilson Avenue through the annexation area, which is something that needs to happen,Burns said. “That area of the city was never designed to function with just the 210 and Banyan,”he said.“We need Wilson to alleviate travel impacts and for safety in terms of fire and emergency response.” After the ranking,residents marked their plans on maps of the area. Don Horvatich,who lives nearby,said he does not want to see SectionS or high- density housing. https://www.dailybulletin.comJ2O 1 8/03/24/rancho-cucamonga-residents-want-local-control...5/10/2018 Page 472 “I don’t want to see the sheets overcrowded,”he said.“I see that Fontana is overgrown.We’re surrounded by overgrowth where we are.” Horvatich said he was happy the city invited residents to share their opinions. “1 think it’s a big bonus that Rancho Cucamonga is at least taking our opinions,”he said. A follow up workshop will be held from 6:30 to 8:30p.m.April 19 in the Rancho Cucamonga ball at the community center,11200 Base Line Road. Tags:Top Stories IVDB Sandra Emerson Sandra Emerson covers the cities of Redlands,Highland and Yucaipa for the Southern California News Group. Follow Sandra Emerson @TheFactssandra VIEW COMMENTS Join the Conversation We invite you to use our commenting platform to engage in insightful conversations about issues in our community.Although we do not pre-screen comments,we reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful,threatening, abusive,libelous,defamatory,obscene,vulgar,pornographic, profane,indecent or otherwise objectionable to us,and to disclose any information necessary to satisfy the law,regulation,or government request.We might permanently block any user who abuses these conditions. If you see comments that you find offensive,please use the “Flag as Inappropriate”feature by hovering over the right side of the post, https:www.dai1ybulletin.com/2018/03/24 rancho-cucamonga-residents-want-local-control...5 10 2018 Page 473 1)13 Daily Bulletin How Rancho Cucamonga residents can participate in annexation discussion virtually Sandra Emerson PUBLISHED:April 10,2018 at 5:08 pm I UPDATED:April 10,2018 at 5:10 pm Local News Rancho Cucamonga residents unable to attend the city’s workshops on the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal,or NESAP,can still give their feedback. The city is conducting a virtual workshop through the end of the week as part of its effort to gather residents’ideas for 4,300 acres it plans to annex into its northern boundary. The community will have several more opportunities to share feedback:rn rn t •10 a.m,to noon Wednesday,April 11,at the Archibald Library,7368 Archibald Ave. rn t •6 to 8 p.m.Thursday,April 12,at the LoanMart Field at the Epicenter Sports Complex,8404 Rochester Ave. https://www.dailybulletin.comJ2O 18/04/1 0/how-rancho-cucamonga-residents-can-participa...5/10/2018 Page 474 rn t 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.April 19 in the Rancho Cucamonga hall at the Goldy S.Lewis Community Center,11200 Base Line Road. rn rnAbout 100 residents identified their priorities for the proposal area during a community workshop March 22 at the community center. Among their highest priorities were local control of the property,which is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and various private property owners,compatible development and avoiding new property taxes. Residents criticized an earlier city proposal.expressing concern over the inclusion of high-density housing.In response,the City Council revised the proposa eliminating apartment homes and scaling back the type of office and commercial uses. City staff has decided to clear the slate and create a new community-based proposal to take to the council in May. Participate in the virtual workshop here. For more information on NESAP,visit the city’s website. View more on Daily Bulletin Promoted Stories ,Ar ~ ft.£ https:www.dai1ybu11etin.com/201 8/04/10/how-rancho-cucamonga-residents-can-participa...5/10/2018 Page 475 1)11 Daily Bulletin Top Rated Senior Living And Retirement Communities, Learn More Now Why Rancho Cucamonga equestrians are speaking out about city’s plan to annex 4,300 acres Sandra Emerson PUBLISHED:April23,2018 at 4:31 pm I UPDATED:April23,2018 at 4:34 pm Local News Horse Savannah hangs her head over rider Jennifer Higa of Rancho Cucamonga as they take part in the Rancho Cucamonga equestrian community rally outside the community center prior to the city~s workshop on the North Eastern Sphere Page 476 Annexation Proposal Thursday in Rancho Cucamonga,Calif April 19,2018.(TERRY PIERSON,THE PRESS-ENTERPRISE/SCNG) Don’t forget the horses. That’s the message equestrians in Rancho Cucamonga want to share with their neighbors as the city creates a proposal for 4,300 acres it plans to annex. For several weeks,officials have been working to gather input from Rancho Cucamonga residents to determine their priorities for the land that abuts the city’s northern boundaries.Residents want the city to make open space preservation a priority,but equestrian use has been missing from the list. Joe Cowan,president of the Alta Loma Riding Club.and others set out last week to shine a spotlight on the equestrian community,its needs and its presence in the area targeted for annexation. “We want people to know that we’re here,”Cowan said while atop Charlie,his horse,at a rally Thursday,April 19,in Central park.“We would like them to know https:/fwww.dailybulletin.comI2Ol Page 477 that we would like open space.We would like the equestrian overlay to be in tact and if it’s possible,we would like a nice equestrian center in that project if we can get one.” Cowan and others gathered with their horses prior to a workshop that sought resident input on the annexation plan,called the North Eastern Sphere Annexation Proposal,or NESAP. Zoning in the area supports equestrian living and allows horses on lots larger than 20,000-square-feet.There is also a network of bridal trails. But Cowan and others say they wonder if enough people know about the equestrian community’s use of the area. At a March 22 meeting,residents were asked to rank their priorities for future development of the land.Adding new equestrian facilities did not make the list. “We heard through the last community meeting that non-equestrian community was just not aware that we were here,”Cowan said. After lining up at the park Thursday evening,Cowan and others took their horses back to their trailers and then joined the workshop that was attended by more than 200 people. Before the meeting,Matt Burns,the city’s deputy city manager of economic and community development assured equestrians that the city has no plans to remove the equestrian zoning nor are there plans to remove equestrian amenities. “This is not a meeting to talk about getting rid of horse trails in Rancho Cucamonga,”Burns said.“This is not a meeting to talk about getting rid of equestrian zoning here in Rancho Cucamonga.That being said,we are talking about the future of a big chunk of land up in our equestrian overlay area,so it’s really,really important our equestrian community members are here.” There was a misunderstanding about the city’s intentions over the past week or two,Burns said,but the city’s plan all along has been to maintain equestrian living Page 478 in that part of town. “What we’ve heard at the city is that rural,equestrian living is really important to the community,”he said,“and we agree.” The acreage is currently within San Bernardino County limits. The lower portion of the annexation area,about 1,200 acres surrounded on three sides by the city of Rancho Cucamonga,is owned by the San Bernardino County Flood Control District. The district no longer needs the land for flood control and wants to sell it to help fund other projects. Annexingthe propertywould mean anyfuture developmentwould fall underthe city’s zoning laws.The city would also benefit from property and sales tax revenues from any future project there,which would help pay for the development’s impacts on the city. Residents criticized an earlier city proposal,expressing concern over the inclusion of high-density housing.In response,the city revised its pnposal.eliminating all apartment homes and scaling back the type of office and commercial uses that would be allowed. City staff,however,decided to clear the slate and create a new community-based proposal to take to the council in May.They have collected community input through in-person and virtual workshops. About 100 people at the March 22 workshop identified local control,avoiding new taxes and development compatibility as their priorities for the property.Open space preservation,meanwhile,emerged as a priority in a recent virtual workshop attended by 264 people. At the workshop Thursday,the city asked attendees to further define the type of open space,housing and amenities they would support. Page 479 “Largelywhatwe heard was,ifwe need development there to make annexation feasible,it should be low density.It should be rural in nature,”Burns said. Residents also want connect streets to reduce traffic issues;safe,pedestrian- friendly streets;and an extended trail system to connect the west and east sides of Rancho Cucamonga. Cowan said he didn’t know if his wish for a new equestrian center was financially feasible,but he said it would be a benefit to the community. “It would just be nice to be able to have kids and adults go somewhere where they can see what horses do,take a lesson and get on a horse,”he said.“We’ve packed hundreds of thousands of people in the city,it would just be nice to see them come out and enjoy a horse.” View more on ~~jJy Bulletin Page 480 LAND ANNEXATION MEETING —— I, LAND ANNEXATION MEETING 4 Page 481 -Original Message- From:Joseph Cowan [mailto:joeofire@gmail.com] Sent:Tuesday,May 8,2018 5:40 PM To:Burns,Matt <Matt.Burris@cityofrc.us> Subject:Channel Four News Mayor,City Council and City Staff The Channel 4 News on April 19th implied,by editing my interview,that the Alta Loma Riding Club was opposed to the development of the property associated with the NESAP.This was a misrepresentation of our position.We did not say nor did we infer that we were opposed to the development of the site.The stance of the Alta Loma Riding Club is to protect the “Equestrian/Rural Overlay”.This would include equestrian trails and connecting trails,equestrian crossings of roadways where needed,equestrian-friendly barriers for communities with trails (per code),lots with horse facilities or pads for horse facilities,and equestrian facilities on the east side of the city.The Daily Bulletin portrayed a much more accurate account of our position on the proposed development.We would like to be involved if possible in the planning with regards to equestrian needs.Additionally,equestrian mitigation fees were collected many years ago to build a large,state of the art,equestrian facility on the east ≤ide of the city.Unfortunately it was not built,but we would certainly support such a facility. There seems to be a misunderstanding of some community members as to why there were horses at the April 19 NESAP meeting.We attended the meeting on horseback to show the general community that we are still here and to garner support to protect our rich equestrian heritage.We were not there to voice dissent of the development or annexation, nor to show that the equestrian community had some sort of ongoing disagreement with the City.We were there because in the previous meeting we had heard that the general community had forgotten about us.We were actually there to support the city in fighting for the equestrian community and maintaining the equestrian rural overlay.We notified Deputy City Manager Matt Burns stating our purpose of being there to support the city in it’s goal of protecting the equestrian rural overlay.All equestrians in attendance were in agreement with our goals for the meeting.The Alta Loma Riding Club is proud of our positive working relationship with the City,and all of it’s Staff. Thank You Joseph Cowan President Alta Loma Riding Club Please forward this email to: Mayor Dennis Michael Mayor Pro Tem Lynne Kennedy Council Members Willian Alexander Sam Spagnolo Diane Williams City Manager John Gillison 1 Page 482