The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996/05/15 - Agenda Packet CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. May 15, 1996 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rm~cho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Diane Willjams, Councilmember Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 989-1851 City Council Agenda May 15, 1996 All items submitted forthe City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. 1. Roll Call: A. CALL TO ORDER Alexander Biane , Curatalo Gutierrez , and Willjams__ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Presentation of a Proclamation Declaring the Week of May 19 through May 25, 1996 as National Public Works Week. Presentation to the Award Winners of Waste Prevention Week Essay and Coloring Contest. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutes: March 20, 1996 April 17, 1996 Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 4/24/96 and 5/1/96; and Payroll ending 4/18/96 for the total amount of $1,608,441.03. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of April 30, 1996. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Burgers 4-U, Louis Williams, Jr., 10707 Town Center Drive, Suite 110. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for A Chen's Restaurant, Chuan Chuan Chang and Weibin Chen, 9799 D Base Line Road. 13 15 6. Approval to amend Fiscal Year 1995/96 Appropriations. 17 City Council Agenda May 15, 1996 2 Approval of the Environmental Initial Study, Parts I and II for the proposed Metrolink Corridor Beautification Project at locations along the Metrolink Corridor between Archibald Avenue and Milliken Avenue, and issuance of a Categorical Exemption therefore. RESOLUTION NO. 96-065 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK CORRIDOR BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND MILLIKEN AVENUE Approval of Landmark Designation 96-01 - SAN BAG -- A request to designate an existing residence and accessory structures (Sam and Alfreda Maloof residence and workshop - National Register eligible), located at 9553 Highland Avenue - APN: 202-101-18. Related files: Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, Conditional Use Permit 96-09, and Design Review 96-03. RESOLUTION NO. 96-066 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK 96-01, TO DESIGNATE THE MALOOF RESIDENCE AND WORKSHOPS, LOCATED AT 9553 HIGHLAND AVENUE, AS A LANDMARK, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202- 101-18 Approval to execute a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for DR 95-08, located at 5550 Crooked Creek Drive, APN: 1074-171-21, submitted by Thomas Aaron Gifford and Jodi Ann Gifford. RESOLUTION NO. 96-067 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM THOMAS AARON GIFFORD AND JODI ANN GIFFORD AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME 76 77 91 109 111 113 City Council Agenda May 15, 1996 3 10. 11. 12. 13. Approval to execute Program Supplement Nos. 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017 and 019 (CO 96-017, 96-018, 96-019, 96-020, 96-021, 96- 022 and 96-023) to Local Agency-State Master Agreement No. STLPP-5420 for the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the State of California for the improvement of portions of Base Line Road, Fourth Street, Hermosa Avenue, Milliken Avenue, Hellman Avenue and Jersey Boulevard. Reimbursable Funding from the Supplement Agreement shall be deposited to the SB140 Account. RESOLUTION NO. 96-068 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND SIGNING OF PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NOS. 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017 AND 019 TO LOCAL AGENCY- STATE MASTER AGREEMENT NO. STLPP-5420 FOR THE STATE-LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PORTIONS OF BASE LINE ROAD, FOURTH STREET, HERMOSA AVENUE, MILLIKEN AVENUE, HELLMAN AVENUE AND JERSEY BOULEVARD Approval to execute an Agreement (CO 96-024) with San Bernardino County Foodbank to continue to serve as a distribution site for U.S.D.A. commodities. Approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement (CO 96- 025) with Austin-Foust Associates for updating of the City Traffic Model and Transportaljon Fee Schedule. Project to be funded from Account Nos. 32-4637-9109 and 09-4637-8780 for $30,000.00. Approval to execute a CooperaWe Agreement (CO 96-026) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County Transportaljon Authority for the funding of the Haven Avenue Street and Storm Drain Improvement Project from Deer Creek Channel to Base Line Road, and authorizing the Mayor to sign same. RESOLUTION NO. 96-069 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND EXECUTING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SANBAG) FOR THE FUNDING OF THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION FOR THE HAVEN AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM DEER CREEK CHANNEL TO BASE LINE ROAD 114 116 118 123 125 126 City Council Agenda May 15, 1996 4 14. 15. 16. 17. Approval to award and authorization for execution of contract (CO 96-027) for Haven Avenue Storm Drain and Street Improvements, from Deer Creek Channel to Base Line Road, to be funded from SB140 Funds Account No. 35-4637-9027 and Measure I Funds Account Nos. 32-4637-9027 and 32-4637-9537. Approval to award and authorization for execution of contract (CO 96-028) for the Replacement of Cobblestone Curb along the east side of Etiwanda Avenue, to Camino Irvine Company, in the amount of $48,970.57 (44,581.70 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Beautification Funds Account No. 21-4647-8822. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for CUP 95-15, located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Rochester Avenue, submitted by Howard D. Chastain. RESOLUTION NO. 96-070 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR CUP 95-15 RESOLUTION NO. 96-071 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CUP 95-15 Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for CUP 95-19, located at 11167 White Birch Place, east of Elm Avenue, submitted by Regis Contractors, L.P. RESOLUTION NO. 96-072 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR CUP 95-19 127 128 131 133 134 137 139 City Council Agenda May 15, 1996 18. 19. RESOLUTION NO. 96-073 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CUP 95-19 Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13759, located on the west side of Haven Avenue south of Victoria Street, submitted by Fu Mai Limited. RESOLUTION NO. 96-074 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13759 Approval to Release Bonds and Notice of Completion for CUP 93- 13, located on the east side of Hermosa Avenue, south of Eighth Street. Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $ 88,000.00 No. 172602S RESOLUTION NO. 96-075 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 93-13 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 140 143 145 146 147 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at. one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. No Items Submitted. City Council Agenda May 15, 1996 F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 - SACRED HEART CHURCH - Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the bell schedule for a proposed church and school facility in bhe Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22 and 23 RESOLUTION NO. 96-076 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE BELL SCHEDULE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-16, A CHURCH AND SCHOOL FACILITY, IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, BETWEEN SUMMIT AND HIGHLAND AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22 AND 23 CONSIDERATION OF CONDITION USE PERMIT 96-04 - FRANCIS BALCHAK - An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 1,075 square foot video arcade and a 2,207 square foot pool room in conjunction with a 2,100 square foot restaurant within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) shopping center located at the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Base Une Road - APN: 208-202-17. (TO BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 5, 1996) CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15732 o LEWIS HOMES - Appeal of a condition of approval regarding school facility financing for a proposed subdivision of 33 single family homes on 9.46 acres of land in the Community Service designation, located at the northwest corner of Base Une Road and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 277-522-05, 07, and 08. (TO BE CONTINUED TO JUNE 5, 1996) CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL DRAFT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR FY 1996-97 - The review of the Federally required Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 1996/97, including the final selection of projects for the Community Development Block Grant annual application, based on an estimate of $1,024,000 (current year's allocation). 148 179 182 184 186 City Council Agenda May 15, 1996 CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT AND RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 96-077 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. PD-85 (HERITAGE AND RED HILL COMMUNITY PARKS) CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT AND RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1.2, 3.4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 96-078 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT AND RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1.2.3A. 3B, 4.5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1997/97. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED RESOLUTION NO. 96-079 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 248 250 251 254 255 258 City Council Agenda May 15, 1996 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. No Items Submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. DISCUSSION OF SKATEBOARDING CONSIDERATIONS AS PRESENTED BY THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION 2. UPDATE FROM ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK FORCE 259 I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. L. ADJOURNMENT MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTNE SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE ROBERT DOMINGUEZ, ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIRECTOR, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS. I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 9, 1996, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. March 20, 1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Re.aular Meetin.~ A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, March 20, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:39 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Manager; Olen Jones, Sr. RDA Analyst; Jan Reynolds, Assistant RDA Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buller, City Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bill Makshancff, Building Official, Robert Dominguez, Administrative Sewices Director; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Capt. Ron Bieberdorf, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS No announcements or presentations were made. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Jane Bradshaw, C-Car, asked the Council not to approve the Resolution relating to the five interchanges for the Route 30 Freeway. She felt all of the problems should be taken care of before a vote is take n. C2. Derby Wheeler of ~e Rancho Cucamonga Visitors Center and Museum presented information to the Council about an event in June in conjunction with the Los Angeles Visitors Bureau for a tour on Route 66 which Rancho Cucamonga will be involved in. He felt the City might want to put up a banner or billboard. He asked if this could come back on the next agenda to discuss. Mayor Alexander stated this would come back on the next agenda for discussion. City Council Minutes March 20, 1996 Page 2 D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Minutes: February 21, 1996 March 5, 1996 March 6, 1996 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 2/28/96 and 3/6/96; and Payroll ending 2/22/96 for the total amount of $1,851,352.30. D3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of February 29, 1996. D4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale General Eating Place for Claim Jumper, Claim Jumper Enterprises, Inc., G.P., located at 12499 Foothill Boulevard. D5. Approval of a Request by the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce to waive City fees in conjunction with the Annual Business and Community Expo. D6. Approval to appropriate $300,000.00 from the fund balance of Fund 20 to be placed in Account No. 204532-8924, appropriate $70,000.00 from Fund 14 fund balance to be placed in Account No. 14-4150-9507, reject the bid of the apparent low bidder, Terra Cal Construction, as non-responsive to the needs of the City and award and authorize the execution of the contract (CO 96-011) for Northeast Park and East Avenue Street Improvements to the second low bidder, Valley Crest Landscape, with a bid total of $1,250,782.00 ($1,136,913.00 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Account No. 47-4130-9528 in the amount of $375,782.00; from Account No. 34-4532-8924 in the amount of $190,600.00; from Account No. 27-4130-9528 in the amount of $214,400.00; from Account No. 20-4532-8924 in the amount of $300,000; from Account No. 14-4150-9507 in the amount of $70,000.00; and from Account No. 10-4637-9507 in the amount of $100,000.00. D7. Approval to execute a $22,500 increase to the Professional Services Agreement (CO 95-055) with Envicom Corporation for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (to be funded from Developer Deposit through Account No. 01-4333-6035) for General Plan Amendment 95-03A and Industrial Specific Plan Amendment 9504, within the area bordered by 6th Street, Archibald Avenue, 4th Street and the Cucamonga Creek Channel. D8. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion for Tract 14192, located south of Nineteenth Street, between Hellman Avenue and Amethyst Street. Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $ 250,000.00 No. 229987S Accept: Maintenance Guarantee Bond 25,000.00 No. 229987S RESOLUTION NO. 96-032 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 14192, LOCATED SOUTH OF NINETEENTH STREET, BETWEEN HELLMAN AVENUE AND AMETHYST STREET AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK City Council Minutes March 20, 1996 Page 3 D9. Approval to accept the Traffic Signal and Safety Lighting at the Intersection of Archibald Avenue and Eighth Street Project, Contract No. 94-082, as complete, release the bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $103,800.00. RESOLUTION NO. 96-033 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND SAFETY LIGHTING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND EIGHTH STREET PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D10. Approval to accept the Bike Lockers and Racks Project, Contract No. 95-015, as complete, release the bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $17,850.00. RESOLUTION NO. 96-034 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR BIKE LOCKERS AND RACKS PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK D11. Approval to accept the 1994/95 FY Pavement Rehabilitation Program Phase II Project, various locations throughout the City, Contract No. 95-021, as complete, release the bonds and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and approve the final contract amount of $544,791.64. RESOLUTION NO. 96-035 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR 1994/1995 FY PAVEMENT REHABILITATION PROGRAM PHASE II PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained in the Consent Calendar. Motion carded unanimously, 5-0. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES No items were submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS No items were submitted. City Council Minutes March 20, 1996 Page 4 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS No items were submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS No items were submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. CONSIDERATION TO EXTEND THE MOBILE HOME ACCORD ('CO 92-014) FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS (ORAL REPORT) Coundlmember Biane stated he and Mayor Alexander are working with staff and the owners and the resident's committee members on this agreement. Mayor Alexander thanked everyone that has worked on this. He added that Sycamore and Pines have not signed the agreement yet, but that the other six parks have agreed to sign it. He mentioned they have until Tuesday, March 26 to sign, and added he hoped all eight parks would sign. Councilmember Gutierrez felt this was a step in the right direction. James Markman, City Attorney, felt the credit should go to the park owners for initiating this. MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to approve the amendment to both of the agreements which extend the Accord to 2002 for all of the parks. Bill Schweinfurth, Director of Operations for Alta Laguna Mobile Estates, thanked the members of the Council Subcommittee for their work on this. He stated if there is anything he can do to further this process, he will do it. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. 12. UPDATE REPORT ON PROPOSED LAWN MAINTENANCE ORDINANCE (ORAL REPORT) Councilmember Gutierrez stated he and Councilmember Curatalo had a meeting earlier in the evening with residents and staff. He stated one phrase can be added to the existing codes which states "front yards, side yards or backyards abutting a street or aley which are in public view and which lack substantial landscaping." He added the main interest is rental units or homes that have gone back to the lender that sometimes have yards that die out and cause blight to the neighborhood. He stated they have had letters of support from Sarah Bonaza, Candlewood Street, and Dods Beckner, concerned citizen on this matter. He stated they have asked staff to bring back an ordinance amendment, and would have to discuss this further at budget time as far as cost for additional enforcement. Councilmember Williams asked whose definition would the City use for the words "substantial landscaping"? City Council Minutes March 20, 1996 Page 5 James Markman, City Attorney, stated the best definition to use would be the Council's intent on the record. He stated it is very difficult to give definition to these kinds of violations that would satisfy a criminal standard. He stated someone that would only go out and plant one bush could not say they have substantial landscaping. He stated a prosecution would work when you go to court with pictures showing someone that has a dilapidated extedor of their house, and that the court would be able to figure out what you mean by substantial landscaping. Coundlmember Williams felt the words "in view" should somehow be incorporated into the amendment. She stated she is pleased that the Subcommittee is using something we already have in place and modifying that. Councilmember Willjams asked for an update on the particular property that brought this whole issue to the surface. Councilmember Gufierrez continued to update Councilmember Williams on the action taken on this property. Mayor Alexander also commented on a property that had a problem, but that the owners are now cleaning it up. Greg Durst asked why Councilmember Williams is so against this, Coundlmember Williams stated she is only against the City forming another layer of government to patrol this. ACTION: Staff directed to prepare amendment to existing codes that would address this. 13. ORAL REPORT BY COUNCILMEMBER GUTIERREZ ON RECENT FEDERAL LEGISLATION REGARDING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES (H.R. 2927) Councilmember Gutierrez presented a report which is on file in the City Clerk's office. He added he would bring back a Resolution for the Council to consider at a future meeting. 14. CONSIDERATION OF THE ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATION FOR FREEWAY INTERCHANGES Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. Councilmember Curatalo felt the word "thorough" in paragraph 4 should be deleted. Mayor Alexander stated after eighteen months and a detailed discussion on this subject, he felt it was appropriate to leave the word "thorough" in. He stated there is no reason why things can't be changed later, but that the Ad Hoc Task Force has worked very hard and considered very thoroughly every interchange. Councilmember Williams pointed out the title of the Resolution includes the words "with appropriate mitigation measures for each interchange". She felt this spells out that there shall be continued, appropriate measures for each interchange which was the consensus of the Task Force. Councilmember Gutierrez asked if most of the dissent was regarding one particular interchange. Councilmember Williams stated not necessarily because there were concerns for other interchanges as well. She stated the point is that the Resolution states that all five interchanges are necessary for the proper circulation. She added the proper mitigation measures that have to be worked out with each one will be ongoing. City Council Minutes March 20, 1996 Page 6 Councilmember Biane asked what the Subcommittee felt it would take to get a 100% unanimous vote on all five interchanges. Councilmember Williams felt it was a great accomplishment with the vote that this received and felt that everyone on the Task Force would probably have their own separate opinions about which interchange they possibly saw a problem with. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing the City Council were: Jim Frost, City Treasurer, stated he applauded the Council for what they are doing. Steve Rentoria, lives near the Milliken off-ramp, stated he likes all of the five interchanges with the stipulation that the mitigating measures are carried out. Gayle Hinazumi, C-Car, stated she agreed with Mr. Rentoria, but felt she would probably be more comfortable if the mitigation measures were on paper so there would be a guarantee on them. She stated she did not think all five interchanges should be voted on until the Task Force knew what they would look like. Councilmember Curatalo stated he agreed with everything that both Mayor Alexander and Councilmember Williams have stated, but still felt the word "thorough" should be deleted and then everyone involved on the Task Force would be happy. Councilmember Williams stated she had no problem with changing one word in the Resolution. Councilmember Biane stated he was not sure this should have been voted on because of the mitigation measure issue Ms. Hinazumi brought up. He stated he felt the five interchanges are necessary for the traffic flow of the City, but felt the word "if mitigation measures are met" should be added. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, pointed out that each intersection was discussed. He stated the City is going to be responsible for some of the mitigation measures as well as Caltrans being responsible for some. Councilmember Gutierrez felt the words "if appropriate mitigation measures for each interchange are implemented" should be incorporated into the title of the Resolution. Mayor Alexander stated the changes in the freeway would not have occurred if C-CAR had not gotten involved. He thanked them for their involvement and stated they were the driving force behind this. RESOLUTION NO. 96-036 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIVE ROUTE 30 INTERCHANGES (CARNELIAN, ARCHIBALD, HAVEN, MILLIKEN AND DAY CREEK) WITH IF APPROPRIATE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR EACH INTERCHANGE ARE IMPLEMENTED MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Gutierrez to approve Resolution No. 96-036 as amended. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. City Council Minutes March 20, 1996 Page 7 J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC No communications were made from the public. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Williams to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss Property Negotiations per Government Code 54956.8, located at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue; Valley Baseball and Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager, negotiating parties; regarding Terms of Payment. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. No action was taken in Executive Session. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: April 17, 1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meetin.q A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, April 17, 1996, in the Coundl Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:06 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager; I.jnda D. Daniels, RDA Manager; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Brad Buffer, City Planner; Lain/Henderson, Principal Planner; Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Robed Dominguez, Administrative Services Director; Ingrid Blair, GIS Supervisor; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Capt. Ron Bieberdorf, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS James Markman, City Attorney, stated a closed session is needed to discuss the Ahn vs City of Rancho Cucamonga Settlement Offer by the plaintiff and asked for the Council to add this to the agenda. MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to add the Executive Session, Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. B1. Presentation of a Proclamation Recognizing the Rancho Cucamonga Lakers as the Southern California Municipal Athletic Federation Girls Basketball Champions (ages 8-9). The proclamation and plaques were distributed to all of the team members. B2. Presentation of a Proclamation declaring the week of April 14-20, 1996 as Library Week in Rancho Cucamonga. Mayor Alexander presented the proclamation to Deborah Clark, Library Manager. City Council Minutes Apdl 17, 1996 Page 2 B3. Presentation of a Proclamation declaring the week of April 21-27, 1996 as Victims' Week in Rancho Cucamonga. The Proclamation was presented to Mr. Fleiss. Mr. Fleiss told about their support group for victims. He talked about a tree planting ceremony for Saturday at 10:00 a.m. at Beryl Park to remember loved ones. B4. Presentation of Outstanding Citizen Patrol Officer of the Year Awards - 1995 to Donna Hoover and Larry Henderson. Mayor Alexander presented plaques to Donna Hoover and Larry Henderson. B5. Mayor Alexander presented a Proclamation to Andrew Hall for his years of service to the City and the Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation. Councilmember Willjams added that Andrew Hall was also supportive of events in the City, the Chamber's activities and always assisted whenever possible. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Derby Wheeler of Visitor's Bureau updated the Council on the event to be held in June in conjunction with the Los Angeles Visitor's Bureau. He presented signs to the Council to hang on Route 66. Mayor Alexander stated he would like to meet with Mr. Wheeler to decide on the placement of the signs. Jack Lam, City Manager, added that staff has set a meeting with the Route 66 people to help with their event. Councilmember Williams asked if the Central Park item, which was at the end of the agenda, could be moved to the front of the agenda under Communications From The Public. Item C2. Herman Remple stated there are people skating on the church property near him and that they are not supposed to be there. He added he felt something needed to be done for these skaters so they can have an area to skate. Mayor Alexander asked that this be on the agenda in one month for the Council to discuss. Councilmember Williams asked for Suzanne Ota to contact Mr. Remple to update him on what has been done on this so far. Item K1 was discussed at this time, but the minutes will remain in agenda order. City Council Minutes April 17, 1996 Page 3 D. CONSENT CALENDAR Jack Lam, City Manager, announced there were corrections to some of the Resolution Nos. as was pointed out in the memo that was distributed. D1. Approval of Minutes: April 3, 1996 D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 03/27/96 and 04/03/96; and Payroll ending 03/17/96 for the total amount of $2,299,714.57. D3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of March 31, 1996. D4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Howell's Care, Richard A. Howell and Richard A. Howell Jr., 8733 Etiwanda Avenue. D5. Approval of PCN96-01, a request to consider making a determination of Public Convenience or Necessity (PCN) for the issuance of an Alcohol Beverage Control License (Beer and Wine) within an impacted census tract for a future Mobil Oil Co. mini-market to be located within the Masi Commerce Center at the south west corner of Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive. D6. Approval to fly P.O.W./M,I.A, flag at Epicenter along with other official flags. D7. Approval to appropriate $10,000.00 donated by The Friends of the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library into Library Expenditure Accounts. D8. Approval to lease/purchase one (1) Athey/Mobil Model 2TE5DB Street Sweeper. RESOLUTION NO. 96-054 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEASE/PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENTTHROUGH MUNICIPALLEASING ASSOCIATES, INC. D9. Approval to execute an agreement (CO 96-015) with San Bernardino County Credit Union to market an Affinity Credit Card for the Rancho Cucamonga Public Library. D10. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, Monumentation Cash Deposit and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 2 for DR 95-30, located on the east side of Beryl Street, south of Hillside Road, submitted by H & H Homes and release of previously submitted Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Cash Monumentation Deposit accepted by City Council on December 6, 1989 from James Bice. RESOLUTION NO. 96-055 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES, AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT FOR DR 95-30 AND RELEASING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 6, 1989 City Council Minutes April 17, 1996 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 96-056 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 FOR DR 95-30 D11. Approval to set annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 93-3 (Foothill Marketplace). RESOLUTION NO. 96-057 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAX FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE) D12. Approval to set annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 88-2 (Drainage and Law Enforcement). RESOLUTION NO. 96-058 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAXFOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 88-2 (DRAINAGE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT) D13. Approval to set annual special tax for Community Facilities District No. 84-1 (Day Creek Drainage System). RESOLUTION NO. 96-059 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-ESTABLISHING ANNUAL SPECIAL TAXFOR COMMUNITY FACILITIESDISTRICTNO. 84-1(DAY CREEK DRAINAGESYSTEM) D14. Approval of Resolu~on establishing an annual levy within the Alta Loma Channel District No. 84-2, the Sixth Street Industrial Park Refund District No. 82-1 R, the Rancho Cucamonga Drainage District No. 86-2 and Milliken South of Arrow District No. 89-1. RESOLUTION NO. 96-060 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RE-AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF AN ASSESSMENT SURCHARGE FOR THE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS IN VARIOUS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS D15. Approval of Resolution establishing an annual levy within Benefit Assessment District No. 91-2 (Day Canyon Drainage Basin Area). City Council Minutes April 17, 1996 Page 5 RESOLUTION NO. 96-044 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE COST OF SERVICE TO BE FINANCED BY BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS TO BE LEVIED IN DRAINAGE AREA NO. 91-2 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996-97 AND DETERMINING AND IMPOSING SUCH BENEFIT ASSESSMENTS D16. Approval of Preliminary Engineer's Report and Setting of the Public Hearing for May 15, 1996 to levy the annual assessments for Fiscal year 1996/97 and approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report for Park and Recreation Improvement District (PD-85). RESOLUTION NO. 96-045 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85) RESOLUTION NO. 96-046 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85), FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO D17. Approval of Preliminary Engineer's Report and Setting of the Public Hearing for May 15, 1996 to levy the annual assessments for Fiscal Year 1996/97 and approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report for Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. RESOLUTION NO. 96-047 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 RESOLUTION NO. 96-048 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR lg96/97 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO D18. Approval of Preliminary Engineer's Report and Setting of the Public Hearing for May 15, 1996 to levy the annual assessments for Fiscal Year 1996/97 and approve the Preliminary Engineer's Report for Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1,2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. City Council Minutes April 17, 1996 Page 6 RESOLUTION NO. 96-049 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, OF PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CITY ENGINEER'S ANNUAL REPORTS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1,2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 RESOLUTION NO. 96-050 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1,2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972; AND OFFERING A TIME AND PLACE OF HEARING OBJECTIONS THERETO MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Curatalo to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained in the Consent Calendar as corrected. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES No items were submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS F1. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15725 - LEWIS HOMES - A residential subdivision of 30 single family homes on 3.45 acres of land in the Low-Medium Residential designation (4-8 dwelling units per acre) of the Terra Vista Planned Community, located on the south side of Terra V'b-ta Parkway, west of Belpine Place - APN: 1077-091-35. Staff report presented by Scott Murphy, Associate Planner. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was: Patrick Loy, of Lewis Homes, stated they concur with the staff report. There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 96-051 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15725, A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION OF 30 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON 3.45 ACRES OF LAND IN THE LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE TERRAVISTA PARKWAY, WEST OF BELPINE PLACE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-091-35 MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Gutierrez to approve Resolution No. 96-051. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. City Council Minutes April 17, 1996 Page 7 F2. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96- 01A - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request for land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. Staff report presented by Miki Bratt, Associate Planner. Mayor Alexander called a recess at 7:59 p,m. Councilmembers present. The meeting was called back to order at 8:12 p.m. with all Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Fred Deaux, 11606 Shaw St., asked that the Council vote this project down. He felt timing was an issue for approving this project for development. He commented on the marketing study that was done and felt it did not recommend any rezoning of commercial property. He stated he did not see any necessity to rezone this in order to build the project. He felt there were already a lot of commercial units that are standing vacant. He also mentioned he felt Councilmember Gutierrez should abstain from voting on this matter because he has received campaign contributions from Wohl and that Councilmember Biane should abstain because he is in the development business. Councilmember Gutierrez stated it is legal to vote on issues if you have received support for an interest, i.e., campaign contribution. He added if he was working for Wohl, then he could not vote. He also mentioned he has received more campaign contributions from Lewis Homes than he has from Wohl. He stated he would vote what is best for the City and the people of the City. Councilmember Biane stated he felt his record was clear because when there has been a conflict in the past with a development, he has not voted on it. He stated he has no conflict with Wohl. James Markman, City Attomey, stated he has not received any facts as to why any City Councilmember should not vote on this matter. Jeff Chavez, resident for 20 years, felt a strip mall on Foothill would be very beneficial. He felt approving it would be great for the economy. Jack Masi stated he felt the project looks like it will have a strip mall. He stated he was not allowed to do this and did not feel Wohl should be able to. He felt if this one is allowed, then others should be allowed to come into the City and build a strip mall. Michael Scandi~o, of Masi Partners, stated there are no findings to support this development. He talked about what was required of his project, but that Wohl was not required to do the same things. He felt Lewis has played by the rules and that Masi has also. He stated no one has ever come into Rancho Cucamonga and made a deal because you have to meet standards. He felt this is the wrong project for this location at the wrong time. He felt it should go back to the Planning Commission for further study. James Sharp, of Etiwanda High School, stated he did not feel there needed to be another strip mall in Rancho Cucamonga. He stated there needed to be a place for the kids to go such as an underaged dance club. City Council Minutes Apd117,1996 Page 8 Peter DeForge, Wohl Partners, stated they are playing by the rules of the City. He stated they have worked with the hotel about what they have planned for this site. He pointed out their architect is the same one that did Term Vista. He felt this project would provide a variety of retail shops for residents to go to. He felt their parking yield is as much as Petsmart has. He felt the center would provide shops forthe residents. He stated they are asking for a rezoning and to be able to do what is allowed across the street. Tom Bond, Architects Paci~ca, told about the project and stated that it would be a good project for this site. He felt it would create healthy competition. He felt a zoning change would create a healthy change south of Foothill. Brad Umansky, 7269 Fermo, felt it was beneficial to rezone the property. He felt a hotel and retail center are compatible. He brought up why Lewis Homes continues to build more retail when they have a vacancy rate. Deb Daniels, 10970 Deer Canyon, did not feel the project would have any negative effect on the City. She felt it would create choices for people. Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, stated when he first heard about this project, he was against it, but now there have been some changes made and he thinks it is a good project. He did not think City standards should be compromised, but felt this would be a good project. He stated he did not think the land use study was anything but a flop. He stated it is repetitive page after page. Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Homes, told about what his company has gone through to get their project approved, and why they have built on certain parcels of land. He read a letter dated April 17, 1996. He stated they would like to be given the same consideration as Wohl. Andrew Hall, Manager of Best Western Heritage Inn, stated when he first heard of the project. he was against it. He stated he has now changed his mind about the project because of Mr. Wohl's concern forthe hotel and the community. He felt they would provide a proper project and he felt retail would help the hotel's business. He asked that the land use change be approved. Doug Manning, Masi Project, felt the Masi project would benefit the community. He felt the Masi project would be farther along if they had asked for some of the things that Wohl is asking for. He stated if Wohl gets their zone change, he would like to come back for Masi and ask for general commercial. Bob Chambers, Leasing Agency for Masi Plaza, thinks Rochester and Foothill will eventually be ready for national tenants. There being no further comments, public hearing was closed. Councilmember Gutierrez felt past visions of City fathers needed to be looked at and also trends should be considered. He did not think Wohl was getting any preferential treatment. He stated what he is hearing is to wait until there are not any more retail vacancies. He stated there has been spot zoning all over the City and did not feel it was appropriate to deny Wohl. He stated the commercial study said the City should act aggressively. He asked that the people not think the Council can be bought and give them credit to do what is right for the City. Councilmember Biane stated he would make a decision that is best for the City, not just an individual developer. He stated when he ran for Council he ran on pro-development. He felt it was best to support this project. City Council Minutes April 17, 1996 Page 9 Councilmember Williams stated she has never had anyone demand a paycheck from her because of a previous campaign contribution. She stated she did meet with the three main players and listened to them on an individual basis. She stated she felt something needed to be done to the zoning that is more suitable. She did not want this to be wide open, but that it should have some limits. Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, suggested that staff provide the Council with community commercial information. Councilmember Curatalo stated he would not support any amendment to the General Plan. He stated he would not override the Commission's decision to deny this. He suggested that this not be voted on tonight, but be sent back to the Planning Commission to look at uses for community commercial. Mayor Alexander stated this could result in spot zoning. He stated he agreed with a couple of the Planning Commissioners as far as changing standards to accommodate the developer. He stated he would like to get together with the Planning Commission to discuss this to address the north and south side of Foothill. Councilmember Williams referred to the memo, page 4, alternative 3 which states "recognizing that Terra Vista Town Center now extends to Elm Avenue, the Wohl site could be viewed as a continuation of the logical extension of the Haven and Foothill Activity Center. Using the Terra Vista Community Plan as a model for Community Commercial Retail, the following text could be added to Subarea 7, "and then using the following text. She felt this could be put into a motion. James Markman, City Attorney, suggested the following motion: "Direct staff to prepare a Resolution approving the General Plan change application to be brought back at the next meeting, and to direct the staff at the Planning Commission level to produce the text for a Community Commercial designation for this particular site in the Specific Plan that conforms to the area that Councilmember Willjams just mentioned". RESOLUTION NO. 96-052 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01A, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69 CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for consideration. RESOLUTION NO. 96-053 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, NORTH OF EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND WEST OF ELM AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69 City Council Minutes Apdl 17, 1996 Page 10 Motion: Moved by Williams, seconded by Biane to direct staff to prepare a Resolution as suggested by the City Attorney. Motion carried 3-2 (Curatalo and Alexander voted no). No items were submitted. No items were submitted. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS I. COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION REGARDING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES (HR 2927 (Continued from April 3, 1996) (ORAL REPORT) Councilmember Gutierrez asked that this be continued to May 1, 1996 meeting and to study the Resolution distributed tonight. ACTION: Item continued to May 1, 1996. 12. UPDATE REPORT FROM THE ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK FORCE Staff report presented by Rick Gomez, Community Development Director. ACTION: Report received and filed. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING No items were identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. DISCUSSION OF THE CENTRAL PARK PROPERTY Councilmember Williams stated she was approached by citizens about the Central Park project because of the discussion about the Green Lawn Ordinance. She stated there was also another rumor out in the public about the sale of the Central Park property. She felt citizens should be able to discuss this with the Council and deny these rumors. City Council Minutes April 17, 1996 Page 11 Hugh Johnson, resident, stated he would like to state his discontent of the condition of the Central Park property. He stated when he bought his property ten years ago, he felt the park would be built soon, but that it has not. Nannette Bhaumik, resident, commented on the City's General Plan. She felt Central Park was greatly needed. Patdda Carlson, of Tustin area, stated she would like to see it a priority that the property is not sold and that the development of the park move forward. She stated she would like to clean up the property and create ideas for the development of the park. She stated she would like to see trees planted so they can start growing into large trees. She mentioned she would like to see the citrus and farmland preserved. Mayor Alexander stated no one can sell a park. He invited the residents to come to the next Park and Recreation Fadlitjes Subcommittee to discuss this further. He suggested this be placed on the Subcommittee's next agenda which would be May 1. Brad Umansky commented on an accident across from Elena Park and felt there needed to be stop signs put in there. Mayor Alexander asked that this be passed on to the Traffic Engineer. L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Biane, seconded by Williams to adjourn to Executive Session as added above to discuss Litigation per Government Code Section 54956.9, Ahn v. City of Rancho Cucamonga. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 10:24 p.m. No action was taken in Executive Session. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: I · · · l- · · · I' · · · · · · I · · ..1| gl I · · · el ~1~1 ~1~1 o1=! I' · · Zl · 31 · I~1 I=i I~1 I~1 I~1 · · · · · ~ · · n · · ~ · · Z · · ~ ~ · · ~ll · · ~ · · Izl I~1' 0~ I~1 J I~1 ~ ~ I~1. · I I~1 · · II · · · · · I I · · I · · · · · · · I · · · I · · · I · I |1 · · · · || I · I · · · · · · I · · · · · · · · I~1 II I~1 I~1 I~1 I~1 · · o .4' o,, ,..I A A A A A A A A ~ A A A A o~oooo~oo~~~oo~oo~oo~oo~~'~~oo~ I,,,* Z w c3 ~) · w. ~,~ .,J t..I I- N Z Ze / % t~ q. JllZl ,v,4, ..r3 ~.tL,.~ I-,~ .,I I-. t.~ IL · · · I' · · · · · · · · NI I · · I · · · · · · 0~1.(I I I I I I I I ~:: I I I;I I~1 I~1 141 I I I I I I I I I: I' I I I I I I I I I I ~ I~:- I~1 I~1 I~1 I~1 I~1 I~1 I I I~1 I~1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I: I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I i. ! I I I~1 :~I I~1 I · · ~ 0 ,4 V~ V~ ,3 i-iX: I UJ I- ~ W ~OZW~ z~wO UOO4ZZWO ,,4Z .,( t,,,,I I-- Z'rW 4 )- N I-,. ~) ~,%41,-ZuJO. I- · I I--( I-, Z ~H ~U d ZO W OJWZ~ ~ w4Z wwwO OZ3wZw ~Z~wZw2~ZZ~wO~ Z 1 Q ~0 ~luJ .J $ A A A ~ A A A °~°°~~~~°°~°°~oo ZZOz~Ow H~O~ ~ WOO O0~OO W ,/ ~ o ~ o~ .,J I- C3 I- I 4~ I Z ,/ · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · -II · I · I~1 ~1~1 ~1 · ~1~1 o1~1 · · eel · ~1 · ~1 · ~1 I · · ~1 · I~I I~1 I~1 I~1 131 · · · · · · · · · · I · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · I · · I~1 I~1 I~1 INI I~1 I~1 !~1 · · I~1 · · II · · · · · · ! · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · |1 I · · · · · · · · · I · · I · · · · · · · · · I I~1 I~1 I~1 I~1 · · I~1 I~1 I~i · · $ I ~ ~ ~O0~OO000~O0~OONO00~O000 ~ONOO~NO000~O00~O 00~ ........ . ..... .,. ~ ~N~N~OOOONOOW~ V~V V V V V ~ ~ V V ~ ZZ DZ ZZ Z Z Z N · · I · · · · I · · · · · I · · · · · · · · l · · I · · · · · · · · I · · · I · · · · · · · · · · · · I · I · · · I I · · · · I · · · I I · I · · ! · · · · · I · · · · l · I I · I · · · · · I · · · · · · · · I t · · · · · · · · I · · · · · · · m zz zz Z zzz ~w ~ ~ (z~w~z~Z~z~z~z~ZzZzZZz~m~Z zz U~z~zZ z)zZ u Z3Z~ Zo o o O~OOooooO0o~zox~Oow~%H~Oo oHO(wz o~oo~oooo:oo~~~:oo~oo~:oo~:~oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~ ~ V ~ ~ U V ~UZUZZ~ZZZZZZZ ~ ZZZ~Z~ ~ZZ Z~ ZZZZZZ~ g ~ZHZ ZZ ZZZZZZZ~ L)~ZZZ Z~ Z~UZZ Z~Z~gZZZZZZ~ J~ W W H Z Z UZ Z ~ ~ w ~ Z ~(0 ~ ~ Z (1--1 ~Je,I I0 .J O00NO~NO00000~O0000~O0000 ~ ~O0~OlhOOOOOh~OONO0~O0000 ~ eeeoeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeeeeee ~ W ..r ~J W ~Z Z W · Z ~ZZ~ZZZ~Z 3~300~00 ODDDO OW I-,I t~/ 4v), 3, es WN' Z O~ esr e.,, ~ I-,I)-WiX),- 3,0 ( C3W'~'' 3eJ~..)P-'*3 Q~Z Z:::) J .( I-- I-- 7 05/07/1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAJ4ONGA PN - 1 PORTFOLIO MASTER S{Y CITY APRIL 30, 1996 CASH AVERAGE ---YIELD TO MATURITY--- PERCENT OF AVERAGE DAYS TO 360 365 INVESTMENTS BOOK VALUE PORTFOLIO TERM MATURITY EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT Certificates of Deposit - Bank ............... Local Agency Investment Funds ................$ Federal Agency Issues - Coupon ...............$ Treasury Securities - Coupon .................$ Mortgage Backed Securities ...................$ Small Bus. Adm/NiscellaneousAgency .......... $ 12,325,532.20 20.42 511 228 6.~ 6.089 15,424,380.32 25.55 1 1 5.481 5.557 30,934,040.63 51.24 1,509 1,282 6.579 6.671 272,845.00 0.45 1,180 487 6.569 6.660 309,493.69 0.51 6,338 3,118 8.908 9.032 1~101,562.50 1.82 9,131 5,563 8.184 8.298 TOTAL INVESTMENTS and AVERAGES .............$ 60,367,854.34 100.00% 1,082 824 6.223% 6.309% CASH Passbook/Checking Accounts ...................$ 1,149,415.00 1.973 2.000 (not included in yield calculations) Accrued Interest at Purchase .................$ 23,937.11 TOTAL C~a~H and PURLq{ASE INTEREST .............$ 1,173,352.11 TOTAL CASH and INVESTMENTS .................$ 61,541,206.45 MON~q{ ENDING FISCAL TOTAL EARNINGS APRIL 30 YEAR TO DATE C~rent Year $ 303,444.22 $ 2,881,005.95 AVERAGE DAILY BALANCE EFFECTIVE RATE OF RETURN $ 59,872,108.33 $ 54,768,953.16 6.17% 6.30% T DATE I certify that this report accurately reflects all City pooled investments and is in comformity with the investment policy adopted August 16, 1995. A copy of the investment policy is available in the Administrative Services Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures. 05/07/1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA PN - 2 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVESTMENTS CITY APRIL 30, 1996 CASH INVESTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED ---YTM--- MATURITY DAYS NUMBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK 00937 FOOTHILL INDEP BANK 04/06/95 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.950 6.950 7.047 04/09/97 343 00930 GREAT WESTERN 02/15/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 6.900 6.900 6.996 08/16/96 107 00955 GREAT WESTERN 08/21/95 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 5.650 5.650 5.728 08/21/96 112 00965 GREAT WESTERN 01/25/96 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 5.050 5.050 5.120 01/29/97 273 00966 GREAT WESTERN 03/04/96 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 4.700 4.700 4.765 03/04/97 307 00970 GREAT WESTERN 03/12/96 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 1,810,532.20 4.800 4.800 4.867 09/17/96 139 00924 SANWA 12/28/94 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,O(M),O00.00 7.250 7.250 7.351 12/27/96 240 ~33 SANWA 02/23/95 500,000.00 500,000.00 500,0(N).00 6.920 6.920 7.016 02/24/97 299 00945 SANWA 05/02/95 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.410 6.410 6.499 05/02/97 366 00954 SAI~A 07/31/95 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 1,515,000.00 5.480 5.480 5.556 07/30/96 90 0(0)58 SANWA 11/22/95 500,0(03.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 5.600 5.6(~3 5.678 11/26/96 209 SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES 12,325,532.20 12,325,532.20 12,325,532.20 12,325,532.20 6.0(~S 6.089 228 ~ AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 00804 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES 14,119,921.41 14,279,511.35 14,279,511.35 14,279,511.35 5.557 5.481 5.557 1 1,144,868.97 1,144,868.97 1,144,868.97 5.557 5.481 5.557 1 15,424,380.32 15,424,380.32 15,424,380.32 5.481 5.557 1 FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES - COUPON 00964 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 01/16/96 00969 FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANK 03/05/96 00922 FEDERAL HONE LOAN BANK 12/19/94 00925 FEDERAL HONE LOAN BANK 12/28/94 00939 FEDERAL HONE LOAN B~NK 04/06/95 00940 FEDERAL HONE LOAN BANK 04/06/95 00962 FEDERAI~ HOME LOAN BANK 12/18/95 00971 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/19/96 00957 00968 00921 00947 00959 00960 SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES FEDERAL HONE LOAN MORTG. CO 04/06/95 FEDERAL HONE LOAN NOETG. CO 11/20/95 FEDERAL HONE LOAN MORTG. CO 03/06/96 FEDERAL HONE LOAN NORTG. CO 02/22/96 FEDERAL NATL ~ ASSN 12/21/94 FEDERAL NATL )(TG ASSN 12/29/94 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 05/08/95 FEDERAL NATL NTG ASSN 11/29/95 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 11/24/95 30,934,040.63 2,000,000.00 2,000,0(N).00 2,000,000.00 6.030 6.030 6.114 01/16/01 1,721 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,00),000.00 6.165 6.165 6.251 03/05/01 1,769 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,037,810.00 8.030 8.030 8.142 12/19/97 597 1,065,134.38 1,090,000.00 1,093,749.60 6.360 7.789 7.898 09/19/96 141 965,156.25 1,000,000.00 981,560.00 4.570 6.638 6.730 12/30/96 243 942,968.75 1,000,000.00 976,250.00 5.240 7.030 7.127 11/30/98 943 4,000,0(0).00 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 6.195 6.195 6.281 12/18/00 1,692 995,312.50 1,000,000.00 995,312.50 5.880 6.053 6.137 03/19/99 1,052 1,002,031.25 1,000,000.00 1,019,380.00 7.420 7.226 7.326 09/23/99 1,240 2,500,0(N3.00 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 6.290 6.290 6.377 11/17/00 1,661 1,998,750.00 2,000,000.00 1,998,750.00 5.990 6.005 6.088 03/06/01 1,770 1,985,312.50 2,000,000.00 1,985,312.50 5.695 5.867 5.948 02/16/01 1,752 1,981,250.00 2,000,000.00 2,020,620.00 7.050 7.607 7.712 10/10/96 162 1,998,125.00 2,000,000.00 2,145,312.50 7.700 7.752 7.859 12/10/96 223 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,539,375.00 7.270 7.270 7.371 05/08/00 1,468 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 6.230 6.230 6.317 11/28/00 1,672 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 5.970 5.970 6.053 11/25/98 938 30,934,040.63 31,293,432.10 31,090,000.00 6.579 6.671 1,282 05/07/1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PM - 3 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVESTMENTS CITY APRIL 30, 1996 CASH INVESTMENT AVERAGE PURflHASE STATED ---YTM--- MATURITY DAYS NU)U~F..R I~UER BALANCE DATE BODK VALUE FACE VALUE RARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT TREASURY SECURITIES - CO UPO{{ ~3 TREASURY NOTE AVEPAGES 06/08/94 272,845.00 277,000.00 275,786.74 6.141 272,845.00 6.569 6.660 08/31/97 487 ~RTGAGE ~CF, ED SECURITIU 00071 FEDERAL HO~E LO~ {40RTG. ~ 02/23/87 00203 FEDERAL NATL }]TG ASSN 09/21/87 0004)2 ~VEPJO4ENT NATIONAL NORTO A 07/01/87 00069 GOVERN){ENT NATIONAL ~R'I'G A 07/01/87 S~TOTALS and AVERAGES 311,124.92 54,869.14 56,331.24 442,907.10 113,217.67 122,563.11 612,753.80 117,074.50 118,706.72 663,389.28 24,332.38 23,852.53 84,710.58 309,493.69 1,803,760.76 321,453.60 8.000 8.336 8.452 01/01/02 2,071 8.500 9.557 9.~9 09/01/10 5,236 8.500 8.631 8.751 05/15/01 1,840 9.000 8.515 8.634 03/15/01 1,779 8.908 9.032 3,118 SMALL MS. ADN/MI~ELLANEOUS AGENCY 0(0)04 E MSINESS AI~dlN 07/25/86 1,101,562.50 1,000,000.00 1,065,142.39 9.125 8.184 8.298 07/25/11 5,563 AVEPAGES 1,101,562.50 TOTAL INVESTMENTS and AVG. $ 60,367,854.34 62,188,034.51 59,065,026.66 60,438,366.12 6.223% 6.309% 824 05/07/1996 CITY OF RAN(3]O CUCA~NGA PM - 4 INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - CASH CITY APRIL 30, 1996 CtSH INVESTMENT AVERAGE PURCHASE STATED --- TIM --- ~TURITY DAYS NUMBER ISSUER BALANCE DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT CHECKING/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS 00180 BANK OF AMERI~ AVERAGES 807,081.67 1,149,415.00 2.000 1.973 2.000 Accrued Interest at Purchase TOTAL C~H $ 1,173,352.11 05/07/1996 CITY OF RANGHO CUCAMOMGA PORTFOLIO NASTEN INVESTMENT ACTIVITY BY TYPE APRIL 1, 1996 - APRIL 30, 1996 CITY CASH STATED TRANSACTION PURCHASES SALES/MATURITIES TYPE INVESTMENT # ISSUER RATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITI]DRANALS BALANCE CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK BEGINNING BALANCE: 12,325,532.20 12,325,532.20 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUNDS (Monthly Summary) 00005 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 5.643 00804 LOCAL AGENCY INVST FUND 5.557 SUBTOT~ and ENDING BALANCE 3,458,096.11 15,744.41 BEGINNING BALANCE: 800,000.00 12,750,539.80 3,473,840.52 800,000.00 15,424,380.32 CHECKING/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS (Monthly Summary) 00180 BANK OF AMERICA 2.000 BEGINNING BAL~diCE: 2,453,000.00 1,615,000.00 311,415.00 1,149,415.00 FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES - COUPON BEGINNING BALANCE: 30,934,040.63 30,934,040.63 TRFASURY SECURITIES - COUPON BEGINNING BAJ_~3CE: 272,845.00 272,845.00 MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES 00071 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG. CORP. 8.000 00203 FEDERAL NATL }f~G ASSN 8.500 00002 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 8.500 00069 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORT(] ASSN 9.000 SUBTOTAlS and ENDING BALANCE BEGINNING BALANCE: 04/15/96 1,018.36 04/25/96 638.30 04/16/96 1,287.61 04/02/96 46.48 312,484.44 0.00 2,990.75 309,493.69 SMALL BUS. ADN/MISCELLANEOUS AGENCY TOTALS BEGINNING BAIJ~iCE: $ BEGINNING BALANCE: 1,101,562.50 1,101,562.50 58,008,419.57 5,926,840.52 2,417,990.75 61,517,269.34 CALIFORNIA APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: Name of Business: · Location of Business: Number and Street File Number ............ 319209 Receipt Number ......... 1083400 Geographical Code ........ 3615 Copies Mailed Date .... 4/19/96 Issued Date RIVERSIDE BURGERS 4-U 10707 TOWN CENTER DR SUITE 110 City, State Zip Code County Is premise inside city limits? Mailing Address: (If different from premise address) RANCHO CUCAMONGA If premise licensed: Type of license Transferor's names/license: RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO YES 7268 ' PARKSIDE PL CA 91730 CA 91730 License TYpe Transaction TVDe Fee Tvoe Master DUD Date Fee 1.41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ORIGINAL NA YES 0 APR 19,1996 $300.00 : 2.41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ANNUAL FEE NA YES 0 APR 19,1996 $205.00: 3. NA NO LICENSE TYPE STATE FINGERPRINTS NA YES 0 APR 19,1996 $39.00 : TOTAL $544.00 Have you ever been Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control convicted of a felony? NO Control Act, or regulations of the department pertaining to the Act? NO Explain any "Yes' answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed part of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a license, e, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SAN BERNARDINO Date APR 19,1996 Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (I) He is an applicant. or one of the applicm~ts. or an executve officer of the applicant corporation. named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no person o~er than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which axis application is made; (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into mor~ than ninety (90) days preceding the day on which the transfer application is filled with the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of u'ansferor; (5) that the u"ansfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the iicensee with no resulting liability to the DeparunenL Applicant Name(s) Applicant Signature(s) WILLIAMS LOUIS JR ,/~z ~" /7 ""~" ABC 211 (9/93) (]') 0 (D ~ ] -.,,;;T". Z CALIFORNIA APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOL BEUERAGE LICENSE(S) TO: Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 4505 Allstate Drive, Suite 102 Riverside, CA 92501 (909) 782-4400 DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: Name of Business: Location of Business: Number and Street City, State Zip Code County Is premise inside city limits? If premise licensed: Type of license Transfewr's names/license: File Number ............ 318719 Receipt Number ......... 1081376 Geographical Code ........ 3615 Copies Mailed Date 4-5-96 Issued Date RIVERSIDE A CHEN'S RESTAURANT 9799 D BASELINE RD RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO YES CA 91730 License TVDe Transaction TYpe Fee TYPe Master DUD Date Fee 1.41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ORIGINAL NA YES 0 APR 05,1996 $300.00 : 2.41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ANNUAL FEE NA YES 0 APR 05,1996 $205.00: 3. NA NO LICENSE TYPE STATE FINGERPRINTS NA YES 0 APR 05,1996 $78.00 : TOTAL $583.00 Have you ever been Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control convicted of a felony? NO Control Act, or regulations of the department pertaining to the Act? NO Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall b~ deem part of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SAN BERNARDINO Date APR 05,1996 Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (I) He is an applicant, or one of the applicants, or an executive officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application. duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that he has read the foregoing and knows the content~ thereof and that each of the above statements therein made are true; (3) that no pe~on other than the applicant or applicants has any aireel or indirect interest in the applicant or applicant's business to be conducted under the license(s) for which ~i$ application is made; (4) that the transfer application or proposed transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninety (90) days p~ceding the day on which the transfer application is filled with the Department or to gain or establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of uansferor; (5) that the transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the li~ensee with no resulting liability to the Depasuneat. Applicant Name(s) ]CHEN CHUAN ICHEN WEIBiN Applicant Signature(s) CHUAN CHANG ~ ~b/ I ,'c Z d CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council, Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Susan M. Stark, Finance Officer AUTHORIZATION TO AMEND FISCAL YEAR 1995/96 APPROPRIATIONS RECOMMENDATION Approve all fiscal year 1995/96 budgetary adjustments for all City funds, General and Special Revenue. BACKGROUND When the budget development process begins, staff is actually projecting estimated revenues and appropriations fourteen to sixteen months ahead of anticipated needs. In general, estimated revenues and expenditures have been adjusted to reflect a more realistic level of activity in all funds. There has been no shift of estimated revenues and expenditures which digresses from the direction Council has requested of staff. Capital improvement programs, as they are addressed, are approved as separate Council items throughout the year. The attached schedules submitted for your review indicate the prior year budgeted revenues and expenditures, the current year's (1995/96) adopted budget amounts, and the 1995/96 recommended adjusted amount in each account area. Respectfully submitted, Susan M. Stark Finance Officer Attachments sms:wp\amndbd96 REVENUES 'L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F,c;TIMATFF) RFVFNIIF POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 115,010 117,903 ACCOUNT DESCRIPTION AMENDED BUDGETED BUDGETED REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 1995-1996 1995-1996 GENERAL FUND 01-3900 01-3900 01-3900 0t-3900 01-3900 0t-3900 01-3900 0t-3900 0t-3900 01-3900 01-3900 0t-3901 01-3901 01-3901 01-390t (1) TAXES 1020 1030 1040 1060 t065 1075 1080 1100 11t0 1185 1800 4550 455t 4552 4553 Property Tax - C/Y secured Property Tax - C/Y unsecured Prop Tax - P/Y sec & unsec Property Tax - penalties/interest Supplemental Taxes Unitary Tax Utility Users Fee Sales & Use Taxes Prop t72 112 Cent Sales Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Property Transfer Tax Franchise Fee - Gas & Electric Franchise Fee - Residential Refuse Franchise Fee- Commercial Refuse Franchise Fee - Cable TV 1,322,080 1,252,880 t,296,630 83,650 99,120 80,000 73,060 151,330 130,000 58,260 55,000 55,000 60,180 15,000 10,000 0 100,000 100,000 5,600,000 5,663,310 6,500,000 7,505,760 8,000,000 8,600,000 148,600 148,600 16~000 96,000 96,000 110,000 200,000 250,000 215,000 1,205,770 1,275,000 1,269,260 630,000 825,000 950,000 650,000 700,000 825,000 375,0Q0 442,650 44~650 Total Taxes t8,008,360 19,073,890 20,745,540 (2) LICENSES & PERMITS 0t-3900 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 2200 Business Licenses 2220 BIcycle Licenses 2290 Building Permits 2300 Other Licenses & Permits 800,000 800,000 800,000 250 100 100 585,000 650,000 670,000 4,660 7,500 7,500 Total Licenses & Permits 1,389,910 1,457,600 1,477,600 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FRTIMATFD RFVFNIJF POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 --' 104,887 115,010 117,903 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 (3) FINES & FORFEITS 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 2460 2461 2472 2473 3450 Vehicle Code FInes Parking Citations Vehicle Release Fee CitaUon Proof of CorrecUon Fee General Ordinance Fines 100,000 90,000 0 0 10,000 190,000 85,700 98,000 100 14,000 200,000 85,700 112,500 300 15,000 Total Fines & Forfeits 200,000 387,800 413,500 (4) MISCELLANEOUS 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 4610 7910 7950 8520 8740 8523 Interest Eamings Re RDA Loan Sale of Printed Matedale Retumed Item Charge Other Revenue Sale of Machinery & Equipment Recyclable Matadal 300,000 50,000 300 10,000 0 100 300,000 72,000 300 10,000 0 0 300,000 78,000 300 0 2,000 0 Total Miscellaneous 360,400 382,300 380,300 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FSTIMATFD RFVFNI IF POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 115,010 117,903 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION AMENDED BUDGETED BUDGETED REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 t995-1996 1995-1996 (5) INTERGOVERNMENTAL 0t -3900 01-3900 01-3901 5230 5250 5338 Motor Vehicle in Lieu Homeowners Property Tax Relief Off Highway License Fees 3,693,710 3,738,040 4,000,000 20,000 22,000 22,000 2,250 2,000 1,500 Total Intergovernmental 3,715,960 3,762,040 4,023,500 (6) CHARGES FOR SERVICES 01-3901 01-390t 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 0t -3901 01-3901 01-3901 0t -3901 01-3901 01-3901 01-3901 1186 1200 2400 3455 3973 7260 7280 7290 7300 7310 7320 7330 7340 7350 Finger Print Fees D.A.R.E. Program Reimbursement Candidates Filing Fees False Alarm Fee Booking Fees Recoven/ Plan Check Fees Planning Fees Engineering Fees Disaster Prep. Special Program Fees Planning Dept. Special Program Fees Community Services Special Program Fees DARE Program Promotions & Contributions Building & Safety Special Services Fees Engineering Special Services Fees Total Charaes for Services t3,000 18,000 14,880 89,610 100,910 100,910 3,600 0 0 2,000 8,000 8,000 0 900 400 350,000 360,000 315,000 250,000 250,000 275,000 414,000 214,000 322,000 39,200 39,000 39,220 10,000 10,000 135,000 26,340 17, 190 20,660 2,000 4,000 5,000 t 0,000 20,000 46, 1 oo 0 1 t 5,000 1 t 5,000 1,209,750 1,157,000 1,397,170 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FgTIMATFr') RFVFN|JF POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 115,010 117,903 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995- t 996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 (7) OTHERS 01 -xxxx 01-3999 0t-3999 01-3999 01-3999 01-3999 0t-3999 01-3999 xxxx 8522 8523 8524 8525 8530 853t 8532 Transfer In: 94/95 Project (6195 Reserve) Non-Abatsd Reimbursements Special District Reimbursement Reimbursement From RDA Fire District Payroll Abatement Reimbursement From Other Funds Reimbursement From FEMA Claims Pdor Year Reimbursement Total Others 0 35,000 666,700 2,314,120 150,920 324,110 0 0 3,491,450 150,000 52,000 743,090 1,304,770 179,110 406,030 0 0 2,835,000 150,000 45,500 743,090 659,160 122,900 4t2,030 300 21,800 2,154,780 w, emlm.ek4 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 28.375.830 29,055.630 30.592.390 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FSTIMATFID RFVFN!IF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 117,903 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 02-3900 02-3900 02-3900 02-3900 02-3901 02-3901 02-390t 02-3901 02-3901 02-3901 02-3901 02-3901 02-3901 02-3901 02-3901 02-3992 LIBRARY 1020 1030 1940 1065 1504 1505 1506 1507 1508 1509 1510 1511 1512 7910 8520 9001 R C Library Prop Tax/Current Year Secured R C Library Prop Tax/C Y Unsecured R C Library Prop Tax/Prior Yr Sec&Unsec. R C Library Prop Tax/Supplemental Taxes Community Room Rentals Direct Mall Solicitations Library Card Sales Library FInes & Fees Media Rentals Information Services Fees Pdvate ContribuUons Pubtic Library Foundation Video Rentals Sale Of Printed Materials "Other" Revenue: 95196 & 96197 From Fd 111 Transfer In: 95196 & 96~97 Transfer In From Fd 25 Total Library Fund 984,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 994,800 916,850 0 0 0 100 5,000 1,000 89,000 52,000 0 5,000 20,300 0 4,800 0 0 1,094,050 825,820 27,200 14,500 2,000 30 21,140 430 85,000 50,000 0 50,000 20,300 0 4,800 7,670 100,000 1,208,890 03-3901 03'3901 03'3901 Reimb. State & County Parking Cit. Surcharge 2462 2463 2464 State Park CIL Surcharge County Jail Park Cit. Surcharge County Court Park CiL Surcharge Total Relmb. State & County Parking Cit. Surchg 3,500 2,500 2,500 8,500 3,500 2,500 2,500 8,500 3,500 2,500 2,500 8,500 05-3901 05-3901 05-3901 05-3901 05-3901 05-3901 05-3901 05-3901 05-3901 05-3901 05-3901 05-3992 05-xxxx Sports Complex 2465 2466 2467 2468 2469 2470 2471 2474 2475 2479 8520 8000 xxxx Activity Revenues/Concessions Activity Revenues/Special Event Rental Activity Revenues/Admissions Tax Activity Revenues/Stadium Lease Activity Revenues/Recreation Dept. Prog. Activity Revenues/Parking Fees Activity RevenueslMaint Services Stadium Security Reimbursement Activity Revenues/Ticket Sales Baseball Security Reimbursement Other Revenue Tranfers In: From General Fund Tranfers In: From Fund Balance Total Sports Complex 154,000 9,000 148,000 190,000 360,870 73,300 0 0 0 0 0 129,500 0 1,054,670 189,720 33,400 287,100 50,000 393,200 100,000 78,040 52,000 0 0 183,500 88,850 0 1,455,810 162 720 67 620 194 960 50 000 423 520 74940 92 380 52 500 108 330 34780 185 290 366 360 77 000 1,890,400~:~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATFn RFVFNi!F SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 117,903 AMENDED BUDGETED BUDGETED ' REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 1995-1996 1995-1996 ReimbursementslCCWD 5891 ReimbursementslCCWD Total Reimbursements CCWD 103,110 22,040 22,510 103, 110 22,040 22,510 ReimbursementslCal Trane 07-3901 5891 ReimbursementslCal Trsn 15,540 15,540 204,270 Total Reimbursements Cal Trans 15,540 15,840 204,270 08-3901 Reimbursement: San Bemardino County 5891 Reimbursement/County of S.B. Total Reimbursementa San Bemardino County 102, 150 80,010 80,410 102,150 80,010 80,410 09-3901 09-3900 09-3900 09-3900 09-xxxx Gas Tax 2106, 2101, 2107.5 4600 5110 5130 5150 Intersst Eaminga State Gas Tax - 2106 State Gas Tax - 2107 State Gas Tax - 2107.5 Transfers In: From Fund Balance 25,000 5,000 5,000 375,000 390,000 390,000 745,000 850,000 850,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 261,510 549,400 612,420 Total Gas Tax 2106, 2107, 2107.5 1,416,510 1,804,400 1,867,420 10-3900 10-3901 10-xxxx GAS TAX 2105 - PROP 111 5140 4600 Gas Tax 2105 - prop 111 Interest Earnings Transfers In: From Fund Balance Total Tax 2t05 - Prop 111 494,990 700,000 700,000 10,000 1,000 1,000 697,780 396,200 421,940 t,202,770 1.097,200 i,122,940 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F,qTIMATFI' RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 117,903 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 12-3901 12-xxxx SB325/TDA ART.8 4600 Interest Eamings xxxx Transfers In: From Fund Balance Total SB325/TDA ART. 8 8,000 668,410 676,410 0 22,930 22,930 0 161,510 161,510 13~901 13-xxxx RecreaUon Services 7710 RecreaUon Fees xxxx Transfers In: From Fund Balance 752,920 41,120 807,240 132,340 715,220 219,680 Total RecmaUon Services 794,040 939,580 934,900 AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT 14-3901 4600 14-3900 5001 14-xxxx xxxx Interest Earnings Air Quality Improy Grant Revenue Transfers In: From Fund Balance Total Air Quality Improy. Grant 0 135,000 21,990 156,990 3,000 135,400 21,770 160,170 6,840 135,400 101,960 244,200 Pedestrian Grants/Article 3 16-3900 5180 PedestdanlBicycle Sidewalks 56,780 80,000 11,840 Total Pedestrian Grants/Article 3 56,780 80,000 11,840 19-3901 19-3901 Drainage FacilltleslEtiwanda 4600 Interest Earnings 7485 Storm Drain Fees 360 0 0 20,000 0 13,670 Total Drain. FaciliUeslEUwanda 360 20,000 13,670 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATFn RFVFN!IF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 117,903 AMENDED BUDGETED BUDGETED REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 1995-1996 1995-1996 20-3901 20-3901 Park Development 4600 Interest Eamings 7730 Park Development Feee 0 0 1,170 475,000 582,440 640,000 Totel Park Development 475,000 582,440 941,170 21-3901 21-3901 21 -xxxx BeauUficaUon 7441 Developer's Participation 7780 BeauUficaUon Fees xxxx Transfers In: From Fund Balance 0 0 9,000 135,500 150,000 141,000 230,290 28t ,130 62, 140 Totel Beautiflcation 365,790 431,130 212,140 22-3901 22-3901 22-3901 22-xxxx Systems Development 4600 7431 7432 Interest Eamings TraneportaUon: Development Fee Transp.: Emergency Vehicle Fee Transfers In: From Fund Balance 5,870 10,000 10,000 575,000 600,000 600,000 3,000 6,000 6,000 457,810 1,543,380 969,540 Totel Systems Development 1,041,680 2,159,380 1,585,540 23-3901 23-XXXX Drainage FacilitlesiGenerel City 7480 Storm Drain Fee xxxx Transfers In: From Fund Balance Totel Drainage FadGeneral City 120,000 120,000 100,000 0 0 130,150 120,000 120,000 230,150 24-3900 24 -xxxx I.S.T.E.A. (FAU) 6750 Federal Highway Grants xxxx Transfers In: From Fund Balance 2,720,000 2,250,000 0 0 0 52,530 Total FAUISt. Transl~ortation Program 2,720,000 2,250,000 52,530 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATFn RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 [] 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 117,903 AMENDED BUDGETED BUDGETED REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 1995-1996 1995-1996 25-390t 25-3901 25-xxxx Capital Reserve 4600 Interest Eamings 8520 Other Revenue 8000 Transfer In: From Fd 25 Reserves Total Capital Reserves 100,000 260,000 260,000 0 0 588,000 0 0 100,000 100,000 260,000 948,000 R.Z'BergGrant 26-3900 5890 R.Z'BergGrant 29,090 29,090 0 Total R.Z'Berg Grant 29,090 29,090 0 1988 Conservation Grant 27-3900 5880 1988 Conservation Grant Revenues 269,600 214,400 214,400 Total 1988 ConservaUon Grant 269,600 214,400 214,400 28-3901 Grants - CDBG 5880 CDBG Reimbursements 1,179,010 1,508,910 1,t90,830 Total Grants - CDBG 1,179,010 1,508,910 1,190,830 Measure I - Transportation Revenue 324900 5000 32-3900 6000 32-3901 4600 32-xxxx xxxx Measure I: Local Street Allotment Measure h Specific(Arterial ) Projects Interest Income Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total Measure I 550,000 650,000 700,000 3,500,000 0 2,500,000 10,000 5,000 5,000 0 934,400 391,760 4,060,000 1,589,400 3,596,760 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F, TIMATFn RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 117,903 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 33-3901 33-3901 Special Districts' Administration 8520 Other RevenuelSpreclal DisL Transfers In 4600 Interast Income Total Special Dist. Admin, 439,100 S,000 430,880 8,620 439,500 424,940 8,62O 433,560 Public Resources Grant 34-3901 5880 Public Resources Grant Income 239,850 190,600 190,600 Total Public Resources Grant 239,850 190,600 190,600 35-3901 35-3901 SB 140 Grant 5880 SB 140 Grant Income 4600 Interest Income Total SB 140 Grant 625,000 500 625,500 85,000 0 85,000 412,000 0 412,000 36-3901 STATE PROP 108: PASSENGER RAIL & CLEAN AIR BOND ACT OF 1990 5200 SLProp.108 Pass. Rail Bond Act Revenue Total State Prop. 108 694,210 694,210 69,100 69,100 92,880 92,880 37-xxxx S.B.Cnty. MEASURE h COMMUTER RAIL xxxx Transfers In: From Fund Balance Total Measure I Commuter Rail 0 0 4,960 4,960 40-3901 40'3901 40'3901 40'3901 40'3901 40-XXXX Land Malnt Dst #1 General 1020 Property Tax - crf Secured 1040 Property Tax - P/Y Secured 1060 Penalty & Interest 4600 Interest Earnings 8520 Other Revenue xxxx Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total Landscape Maintenance District #1 947,940 20,510 4,100 17,600 7,800 183,140 1,080,990 811,320 31,550 6,310 17,160 9,000 250,500 1,125,840 829,400 27,34O 6,310 26,070 6,000 285,540 1,180,660 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATFn RFVFNI IF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 117,903 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 4t-3901 4t-3901 41-3901 41-3901 41-xxxx Land Maint Dst #2 VIctoria 1020 1040 1060 4600 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total Landscape Maintenance District #2 1,537,600 48,500 9,700 31,920 518,760 2,146,480 1,571,420 31,550 9,380 32,550 293,090 1,937,990 1,626,820 48,910 9,38O ,50,490 242,570 1,976, 170 42-3901 42'3901 42'3901 42'3901 42 -XXXX LMD 3A 1020 1040 1060 4600 Prkwy So. of6th E. of 1-16 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance 1,950 900 180 60 1,260 2,620 710 140 70 6,300 2,620 710 140 100 6,270 TOtal Landscape Maintenance District #3A 4,350 9,840 43-3901 43-390i 43-3901 43-3901 43-xxxx Land Maint Dst W4 Terra Vista 1020 1040 1060 4600 xxxx Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total Landscape Maintenance District At4 920,080 540 110 18,410 452,160 1,391,300 1,022,160 7,680 1,540 20,630 611,760 1,663,770 1,01 2,790 7,680 1,920 30,670 295,350 1,348,410 44-3901 44-390t 44-3901 44-3901 LMD #5 NE Corner 24th & Hermosa 1020 1040 1060 4600 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total Landscape Maintenance District #5 4,680 90 20 100 0 4,890 4,980 0 0 100 11,020 16,100 4,830 0 0 140 11,230 16,200 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FSTIMATFI'} RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 117,903 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 45-390t 45-3901 45-3901 45-3901 45-xxxx Land Maint Det ~6 Caryn Comm 1020 1040 t060 4600 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total Landscape Maintenance District 262,940 5,990 1,200 5,400 63,060 338,590 268,960 7,990 1,600 5,570 93,490 377,610 271,850 7,950 1,650 8,44O 102,250 392,080 48-3901 46-3901 48-390t 48-3901 46-3901 46-xxxx Land Maint Dst #3B General Industial Area 1020 1040 1060 4600 8520 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Other Revenue Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total Landscape Maintenance District #3B 421,070 14,710 2,940 9,610 41,500 228,980 718,810 421,780 30,800 6,160 9,770 30,000 109,460 607,970 500,130 20,850 2,640 15,900 6,550 27,350 573,320 47'3901 47-3901 47-3901 47'3901 47-XXXX Land Maint Dst #7 North Etiwanda 1020 1040 1060 4600 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance 266,970 10,520 2,100 5,590 118,740 272,750 19,920 3,980 5,930 299,070 215,610 4,000 650 6,610 388,260 Total Landscape Maintenance District #7 403,920 601,650 615,080 48-3901 48-3901 48-3901 48-3901 48 -xxxx Land Maint Dst ~8 South EUwanda 1020 1040 1060 4600 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Eaminge Transfer In: From Fund Balance 15,940 130 20 310 1,040 15,710 120 20 320 8,050 15,870 200 48 480 7,810 Total Landscape Maintenance DIstrict ~8 17,040 24,220 24,400 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F,qTIMATFn RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 117,903 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 55-3901 55-3901 55-3901 55-3901 55-3901 55-xxxx LighUng Dist #1 Arterial 1020 1040 1060 4600 8520 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings "Other" Revenue Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total Lighting Distdct #t 388,510 7,570 1,510 7,950' 0 10,350 415,890 399,380 10,230 2,050 8,230 0 52,950 472,840 409,240 10,230 2,050 2,050 6,100 28,440 458,t10 56-3901 56-3901 56-3901 56-3901 56-3901 56-xxxx Lighting Dist #2 ResidenUal 1020 1040 1060 4600 8520 xxxX Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings "Other" Revenue Transfer In: From Fund Balance 231,280 3,960 790 4,720 0 18,520 232,290 8,320 1,660 4,850 0 9,210 232,290 1,660 1,650 7,100 1,000 0 Total Lighting District #2 259,270 256,330 243,710 57'3901 57'3901 57'3901 57'3901 57-XXXX Lighting Dlst #3 Victoda 1020 1040 1060 4600 XXXX Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance 170,060 4,030 810 3,500 4,630 180,770 2,950 590 3,690 0 182,510 6,950 1,200 5,720 0 Total Lighting District #3 183,030 188,000 196,380 58-3901 58-3901 58-3901 58-3901 58-3901 58-xxxx LighUng Dist if4 Terra Vista 1020 1040 1060 4600 7250 Property Tax - crf Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Developer's Fee Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total LighUng District At4 88,010 490 100 1,770 0 13,510 103,880 89,690 670 130 1,810 0 87,110 179,410 90,620 3,500 880 2,910 1,620 60,360 4,000 163,890 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATFn RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,88t ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 117,903 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 59-3901 59-390t 59-3901 59-3901 59-xxxx LIghting DIet #5 Caryn Comm 1020 t040 1060 4600 Property Tax - Cry Secured Property Tax * P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance 36,870 160 30 740 17,560 37,680 1,180 240 780 33,580 38,090 300 50 1,150 12,410 Total Lighting DIstrict ~5 55,360 73,460 52,000 60-3901 60-3901 60-3901 60-3901 60.3901 60-xxxx LighUng Diet ~6 Industrial Area 1020 1040 1060 4600 8520 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - Pry Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings "Other'' Revenue Transfer In: From Fund Balance 48,720 040 170 990 0 7,070 94,660 780 160 1,110 0 9,540 65,680 2,550 360 2,150 3,000 0 Total LighUng DIstrict #6 57,790 66,250 73,740 61-3901 61-3901 61-3901 61-3901 61-3901 61-xxxx LighUng Diet #7 North Etlwanda 1020 1040 1060 4600 8520 Property Tax - cry Secured Property Tax .- Pry Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings "Other'' Revenue Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total LlghUng DIstrict #7 18,530 560 110 380 0 4,340 23,920 18,940 510 100 390 0 18,600 38,540 11,780 510 100 380 400 25,490 38,660 62-3901 62-3901 62-3901 62-3901 62-xxxx LighUng Dist #8 South Etiwanda 1020 1040 1060 4600 Property Tax - Cry Secured Property Tax - Pry Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total Lighting District 6,630 20 10 130 0 6,790 6,630 20 10 130 6,150 12,940 6,940 200 40 210 3,290 10,580 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F.qTIMATFID RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 117,903 AMENDED BUDGETED BUDGETED REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 1995-1996 1995-1996 AD 89-1 MILUKEN SO.OF ARROW(St & Drainage Imprv) CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 63-3901 4600 63-xxxx xxxx Interest Income Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total AD 89-1 Cap ProJ Fund 3,300 310 0 0 0 18,800 3,300 310 18,800 AD 89-1 Milliken S. Of Arrow Street & Drainage Improy. REDEMPTION FUND 64-3901 1020 64-3901 4600 64-3901 8000 64-3901 8000 Property Tax: C/Y Secured Interest Income Transfers IN: From Fund 65 Transfers IN: From Fund 63 Total AD 89-1 RedemptionlAgency Fund 490,650 492,510 492,510 3,000 5,380 9,850 40,000 46,000 46,000 0 0 18.800 533,650 543,890 567,160 AD 89-1 Milliken S. Of Arrow Street & Drainage Improy. RESERVE FUND 65-3901 4600 65-xxxx xxxx Interest Income Transfers Out: To Fund 64 Total AD 89-1 Reserve Fund/Agency Fund Intergovemmental Service 72-3901 4600 72-3901 9002 72-xxxx xxxx 72-xxxx xxxx Interest Earnings Users Fees Transfers In: From Fund Balance Transfers In: From Fd 25 Reserves 42,000 46,130 65,000 (40,000' (46,000: (46,000: 2,000 130 19,000 160,000 100,000 160,000 385,940 370,000 326,620 220,000 629,500 302,880 0 0 20,000 Total IGS Fund 765,940 1,099,500 809,500 73-3901 Benefit Contingent 4600 Interest Earnings Total Benefit Contingent Fund 40,000 24,000 20,000 40,000 24,000 20,000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-c;TIMATFrl RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 [] 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 117,903 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 CFD 88-2 Etiwanda/Highland 75-3901 4600 Interest Earnings 34,390 85,000 Total CFD 88-2 Cap ProJ Fund 34,390 85,000 CFD 88-2 Flood District(Redemp. Fund) 76-3901 1020 76-3901 1040 76-3901 1060 76-3901 4600 76-xxxx xxxx 76-xxxx xxxx Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance Transfer Out: To Fund 78 Total CFD 88-2 Fid DisUAgency Fd 257,150 42,860 8,570 6,170 0 (240: 314,510 350,600 29,390 5,880 7,710 73,590 (240: 466,930 349,240 4,000 700 10,610 0 (240: 364,310 AD 88-2 Law Enforcement (Redemption Fund) 78-3901 4600 78-3992 8000 78-3992 9000 Interest Earnings Trensfera In From Fund 76(240) & Fund Bal(16,000) Transfer Out: To General Fund 01 Total CFD 88-2 Law EnflAgency Fd 10 240 0 250 10 16,240 (16,000: 250 10 16,240 (16,000: 250 80-3901 AD94-2 Alta Loma Channel I Improvement Fund 4600 Interest Earnings Total AD 84-2 Improvement Fund 200 200 490 490 1,000 1,000 81-3901 81-3901 81-3901 81-3901 81-3992 81-xxxx AD 94-2 Alte Loma Channel I Redemption 1020 1640 1060 4600 8000 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Trensfere in: From Fund 82 Transfer in: From Fund Balance Total AD 94-2 Redempt/Agency Fd 152,140 8,180 1,640 3,500 12,690 12,980 191,t30 163,380 10,420 2,080 3,660 17,310 0 196,850 159,170 26,000 19,000 6,940 17,310 0 228,120 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FSTIMATFrl RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,8dl ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 117,903 AMENDED BUDGETED BUDGETED REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 1994 - t995 1995- t996 1995-1996 82-3901 82-xxxx 82-xxxx AD 84-2 Alta Loma Channel I Reserve 4600 Interest Earnings xxxx Transfer In: From Fund Balance xxxx Transfers Out: To Fund 81 Total AD 84-2 Reserve/Agency Fd 13,000 2,500 10,900 0 14,810 6,410 (12,690', (17,310; (17,310: 310 0 0 83-3901 83-xxxx AD 82-1R 6th Street Industrial 4600 Interest Earnings xxxx Transfers In: From Fund Balance 3,000 3,340 7,650 55,270 194,910 187,260 Total AD 82-1 Cap Proj Fund. 58,270 198,250 194,910 86-3901 CFD 84-1 Day Creek 4600 Interest Earnings Total CFD 84-1 Cap Proj Fund 41,000 44,910 44,910 41,000 44,910 44,910 87-3901 87-3901 87-3901 87-3901 87-3901 87-XXXX 90-3901 90-3901 90-3901 90'3901 90-3901 CFD 84-1 Day Creek I Redemption 1020 1040 1060 4600 7906 xxxx Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property TaX - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Contributed Capital - RDA Transfer In: From Fund Balance Total CFD 84-11Agency Fund PD 85 Red Hill & Heritage I Redemption 1020 1040 1060 4600 8520 Property Tax - C/Y Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Other revenue 864,400 808,460 853,960 26,700 9,070 16,880 5,340 1,820 3,500 20,000 25,000 37,730 976,210 1,000,000 1,000,000 0 12,480 0 1,892,650 1,856,830 1,912,070 1,495,310 1,530,120 1,548,200 61,890 56,320 52,320 12,380 11,260 11,260 31,890 10,000 49,100 25,000 25,000 25,000 Total PD 95 RedemplAgency Fund 1,626,470 1,632,700 1,685,880 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F TIMATFn RFVFN! IF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCALYEAR 1994-1995 117,903 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1995 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1995 91-3901 PD 85 Red Hill & Heritage I Reserve 4600 Interest Earnings 20,.000 16,020 27,240 Total PD 85 Reserve/Agency Fd 20,000 16,020 27,240 93-3901 93-3901 93-3901 93-3901 93-xxxx AD 82-1R 6th St. Induetlal I Redemption 1020 1040 1060 4600 xxxx Property Tax - Cry Secured Property Tax - P/Y Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfers In: 6195=From Fd 94; '96=From Fd Bal 730,540 9,510 1,900 15,000 8,000 676,830 30,000 6,000 14,260 172,010 731,280 200 50 14,630 0 Total AD 82-1 RedemplAgency Fd 794,950 899,100 746,160 94-3901 94-xxxx 94-xxxx AD 82-1R 6th SL Industlal I Reserve 4600 Interest Earnings xxxx Transfer In: From Fund Balance xxxx Transfers Out: To Fund 93 10,000 0 (8,000: 6,000 318,510 0 17,210 0 0 Total AD 82-11Agency Fund 2,000 324,510 17,210 95-3901 95-xxxx AD 86-2 4600 R/C Drainage District Interest Earnings Transfer In: From Fund Balance 3,000 218,880 6,110 246,390 12,500 0 96-3901 96-3901 96-3901 96-3901 96-XXXX AD 86-2 1020 1040 1060 4600 Total AD 86-2 Cap Proj Fund R/C Drainage District I Redemption Property Tax - cry Secured Property Tax - Pry Secured Penalty & Interest Interest Earnings Transfers In: 6195=From Fd 97; '96=From Fund Bal 221,880 192,870 3,64O 730 2,500 3,280 252,500 185,820 5,320 1,060 3,940 53,960 12,500 182,720 5,320 1,060 5,670 0 Total AD 86-2/Agency Fund 203,020 250,000 194,770 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F- TIMATFn RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION 115,010 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1996 117,903 BUDGETED REVENUE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 AMENDED REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR 1995-1996 97-3901 97-xxxx 97-xxxx AD 86-2 R/C Drainage DIstrict I Reserve 4600 Interest Earnings xxxx Transfers Out: To Fund 96 xxxx Transfer In: From Fund Balance 2,500 (3,280~ 780 3,500 0 78, 150 9,800 0 0 Total AD 86-2/Agency Fund 0 81,650 9,800 Metrolink Maintenance & Secudty Program 109-3901 5880 Grant Income 100,000 100,000 100,000 Total Metrolink Maint. & Security Program Fund: 100,000 100,000 100,000 110-3901 Used Oil Recycling Grant 5880 Grant Income Total Used Oil Recycling Grant: 0 0 36, 110 36,110 36,110 36,110 California Literacy Campaign Grant I Library 111-3901 5880 Grant Income 0 84,370 Total Calif. Literacy Campaign Grant I Library 0 84,370 Weingart Foundation Grant I Library 112-3901 5880 Grant Income 0 5,000 Total Weingart Foundation Grant i Library 0 5,000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FRTIMATFn RFVFNIIF SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS POPULATION ESTIMATES: CENSUS 1990 = 104,887 115,010 117,903 ACCOUNT CODE DESCRIPTION AMENDED BUDGETED BUDGETED REVENUE REVENUE REVENUE ESTIMATE FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR FISCAL YEAR 1994 - 1995 1995-1996 1995-1996 125-3901 125-3901 128-3901 131-3901 CFD 93-3 Foothill Marketplace 1020 Property Tax: Current Year Secured 4600 Interest Earnings Total CFD 93-3 Foothill Marketplace Fund: AD 93-2 So. Etiwanda Drainage 7441 Developer Participation Fee Total AD 93-2 So. EUwanda Drainage Fund: AD 93-1 Masi Commerce Center 7441 Developer ParticipaUon Fee Total AD 93-1 Masi Commerce Center 432,210 432,500 432,500 8,650 4,320 5,320 440,860 436,820 437,820 0 0 25,110 0 0 25,1t0 5,000 15,000 15,000 5,000 15,000 15,000 TOTAL SPECIAL FUNDS 33,376,t50 32,893.380 32.612,210 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS (INCLUDES FUND 01) 61.751,980 61,949.010 63.204.600 EXPENDITURES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET ACCOUNT NUMBER F TIMATFI' FXPFNnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET SUMMARY BY FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND FUND Ol 02 03 05 06 07 08 09 10 12 13 14 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 32 33 34 35 36 37 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 GENERAL LIBRARY REIMB/STATE COUNTY PRKG CIT SPORTS COMPLEX CCWD CALTRANS AGREEMENT S.B. COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AGREEMENT GAS TAX 2106, 2107 & 2107.5 PROPOSITION 111 TDA ARTICLE 8 FUNDS COMM SRVCS-RECREATION AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT GRANT PED. GRANT/ART.3 DRAINAGE ! ETIWANDA PARK DEVELOPMENT BEAUTIFICATION FUND SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT DRAINAGE: GEN'L CITY F.A.U. / ST. TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM CAPITAL RESERVE FUND R-Z'BERG GRANT FUND 1988 CONSERVATION GRANT C.D.B.G. FUND MEASURE I SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMIN PUBLIC RESOURCES GRANT SB 140 STATE PROP 108: Passenger Rail & Clean Air Bond Act of 1990 S.B.Cnty. MEASURE h COMMUTER RAIL LMD 01 GENERAL LMD 02 VICTORIA LMD 03A PRKWY SO. OF 6TH ST. E.OF !-15 LMD 04 TERRA VISTA LMD 05 NE CORNER 24TH & HERMOSA LMD 06 CARYN COMMUNITY LMD 03B GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AREA LMD 07 NORTH ETIWANDA LMD 08 SOUTH ETIWANDA SLD 01 ARTERIAL SLD 02 RESIDENTIAL SLD 03 VICTORIA SLD 04 TERRA VISTA SLD 05 CARYN COMMUNITY SLD 06 INDUSTRIAL AREA SLD 07 NORTH ETIWANDA SLD 08 SOUTH ETIWANDA AD 89-1 MILLIKEN SO OF ARROW / IMPRVMT AD 89-1 MILLIKEN SO OF ARROW / REDEMP. 27,778,190 29,055,630 29,790,100 984,800 1,107,620 1,180,750 8,500 8,500 8,500 1,064,670 1,467,840 1,890,400 103,110 22,510 22,510 15,540 16,170 204,270 102,150 80,410 80,410 1,416,510 1,826,240 1,867,420 1,202,770 1,101,710 1,122,940 676,410 23,410 161,510 794,040 945,570 934,900 156,990 160,500 244,200 55,000 80,000 0 0 13,000 3,000 441,330 582,440 889,040 365,790 433,420 212,140 1,041,680 2,168,230 1,585,540 67,480 67,150 230,150 2,253,380 2,250,000 52,530 0 0 100,000 29,090 29,090 0 269,600 214,400 214,400 1,179,010 1,514,820 1,190,830 4,006,090 1,592,850 3,596,760 428,550 427,040 423,270 239,850 190,600 190,600 625,000 85,000 411,370 684,2 10 69, 1 O0 92,880 0 0 4,960 1,080,990 1,127,320 1,180,660 2,146,480 1,948,860 ' 1,976,170 4,350 9,840 9,840 1,391,300 1,670,900 1,348,410 2,870 16,100 16,200 338,590 377,810 392,080 718,810 610,330 573,320 403,920 601,720 6 ! 5,080 17,040 24,220 24,400 415,890 472,840 458,110 259,270 256,330 240,520 183,030 183,060 154,970 103,880 179,410 163,890 55,360 73,580 52,000 57,790 66,440 55,130 23,920 38,660 38,660 4,750 12,940 10,580 0 0 18,800 504,920 502,860 532,860 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FRTIMATFR FXPI::NnlTIIRFR SUMMARY DESCRIPTION' BY FUND (con't) 1994-95 t 995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET FUND 72 FUND 76 FUND 78 FUND 81 FUND 83 FUND 87 FUND 90 FUND 93 FUND 94 FUND 95 FUND 96 FUND 97 FUND 109 FUND ll0 FUND I I l FUND I 12 FUND 125 FUND 128 FUND 131 INTER-GOV'T SERVICES: Equip. Replacement CFD 88-2 ETIWANDA/HIGHLAND IMPROV.:F!ood AD 88-2 LAW ENFORCEMENT AD 84-2 ALTA LOMA CHANNEL: REDEMPTION AD 82-1R 6TH ST INDUSTRIAL: IMPROV. CFD 84-1 DAY CREEK REDEMPTION FUND PD 85 RED HILL & HERITAGE: REDMPT AD 82-1R 6TH ST. INDUSTRIAL: REDEMPTION AD 82-1R 6TH ST. INDUSTRIAL: RESERVE AD 86-2 R/C DRAINAGE DIST.: IMPROV. AD 86-2 R/C DRAINAGE DIST.: REDMPT AD 86-2 R/C DRAINAGE DIST.: RESERVE FUND METROLINK MAINT. & SECURITY PROGRAM USED OIL RECYCLING GRANT CALIFORNIA LITERACY CAMPAIGN GRANT WEINGART FOUNDATION GRANT CFD 93-3 FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE AD 93-2 SOUTH ETIWANDA DRAINAGE AD 93-1 MASI COMMERCE CENTER 220,000 629,500 649,500 292,430 319,750 319,750 240 240 240 191,130 196,850 187,270 58,270 194,910 194,910 1,886,550 1,856,830 1,881,830 1,587,870 1,638,860 1,641,470 571,900 899,100 583,820 0 324,510 9,510 221,880 252,500 4,080 190,160 250,000 192,240 0 81,650 2,400 96,020 97,950 84,530 0 36,110 36,110 0 0 84,370 0 0 5,000 432,210 428,200 428,200 0 0 25,110 5,000 15,000 15,000 GRAND TOTAL ALL FUNDS 59,456,560 60,928,430 60,912,400 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F,qTIMATFI FXPFNr IT! IRF,q DESCRIPTION GENERAL FUND 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 014110 014110-1100 014110-1900 014110-3t 00 014110-3300 014110-3900 014110-3960 014110-6028 014110 TOTAL: CITY COUNCIL REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 36,000 36,000 36,000 13,320 13,320 13,320 12,250 12,250 12,250 500 500 250 4,280 4,280 4280 200 200 200 3,000 3,000 1,500 69,550 69,550 67,800 01 4122 014122-1 t 00 014122-1900 014122-3100 014122-3300 '014122-3900 014122-3931 014122-3956 014122-3960 014122-6028 CITY MANAGER REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE DUES GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 287,760 305,730 290,000 106,470 113,120 113,120 8,650 8,650 1,600 7,450 7,450 7,450 8,500 8,500 7,740 2,800 0 0 3,130 3,130 3,130 420 390 390 11,000 11,000 6,000 014122 TOTAL: 436,180 457,970 43~430 014125 014125-1100 014125-1300 014125-1900 014125-31 O0 01 4t 25-3900 014125-3915 014125-3931 014125-3956 01 4t 25-3960 014125-6020 014125-6028 014125-6035 014125-7044 0t 4125 TOTAL: DISASTER PREPAREDNESS REGULAR SALARIES PARTTIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS MEETINGS & TRAVEL MAINT & OPERATIONS MAINT & OPERATIONS: CONTRIBUTIONS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY HAZARD.WASTE REMOVAL CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES: REIMBURSABLE CAPITAL OUTLAY: EQUIPMENT 122,330 99,170 99,170 0 t8,570 16,430 45,260 38,360 38,360 t ,360 t ,860 1.860 12,550 16,630 t 6,630 23,580 23,580 7,580 5,720 5,810 ~810 280 280 280 790 830 830 20,000 15,000 t~000 1,430 1,430 1,430 13,130 18,000 18,000 2,500 0 910 249,530 239,520 2~l ~90 ACCOUNT NUMBER 014126 014126-11 O0 01 4t 26-t 200 01 4 t 26 - 1900 014126-31 O0 014126-3900 014126-3956 014126-3960 0t 4126-6028 014126-7044 014126-7047 014126 TOTAL: 014127 014127-1100 014127-t 900 01 4t 27-3300 014127-3960 014127-6028 014127 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F TIMATFr FXPFNr ITi IRFR DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 199546 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET CITY CLERK REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITIES CONTRACT SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY: EQUIPMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ADMINISTRATION REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS MILEAGE GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 138,290 148,130 16t ,320 1,500 1,500 750 51,170 55,030 59,660 2,650 2,650 2,080 55,510 44,900 27,770 630 630 630 1,510 650 650 92,000 .17,000 11,000 1,700 0 0 2,000 0 50,250 347,020 271,090 320,110 496,156 5t 3,410 466,080 183,560 189,960 189,960 3,000 3,000 3,000 120 t20 120 8,800 8,800 0 691,856 715,290 659,160 014156 014150-1100 014150-1300 014t50-1900 014156-3100 014150-3300 014150-3900 0t 4150.3956 014150-3960 0t 4150-6028 01 4t 50 TOTAL: ADMINISTRATNE SERVICES REGULAR SALARIES PART-TIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITIES CONTRACT SERVICES 148,230 162,860 15'7,800 18,460 18,830 24,500 55,220 59,820 59,820 2,300 2,800 1,000 3,500 3,500 3,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 600 600 300 80 490 490 0 40,000 40,000 230,390 290,900 288,910 014151 01415t -t t O0 014151-1900 01 4t 51.3t O0 014151.3300 014151.3900 014151.3956 0t 415t -3960 014151-6028 014151 TOTAL: FINANCE REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 314,310 309,000 302,000 116,290 114,330 114~330 2,800 3,300 3~SO0 3,250 3,250 3,250 20,350 20,350 20,450 1,1 O0 t ,1 O0 1,130 670 540 540 39,540 26,000 26,000 498,310 477,870 471200 ACCOUNT NUMBER 01 4 152 014152-1100 014152-1900 014152-31 O0 014152-3300 014152-3900 014152-3956 014152-3960 0t 4152-7047 0t 4152 TOTAL: 01 4t 53 014153-1100 014153-1900 014153-31 O0 014153-3300 014153-3900 014153-3956 014153-3960 014153-7047 014153 TOTAL: 014154 014t54-1100 01 4t 54-1900 014154-3100 01 4t 54-3900 014154-3956 014154-3960 014154-6028 014154 TOTAL: 0141SS 014155-1100 014155-1900 014155-3100 01 4t 55-3900 014155-3956 014155-3960 014155-6028 014155 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FRTIMATFn FXPFNr ITIIRF,q DESCRIPTION BUSINESS LICENSING REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY C/O: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT PURCHASING REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY C/O: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 1994-95 1995-96 199546 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 80,790 85,780 86,090 29,890 31,740 31,740 700 700 560 300 300 t50 7,000 7,000 3,000 50 50 50 80 80 80 0 0 ~000 118,810 t 25,650 123,610 98,370 103,160 103,700 36,400 38,170 38, t70 t,t50 1,150 710 500 500 0 9,480 9,480 ~050 240 240 250 110 110 110 0 0 4,500 146,250 152,810 148,990 RISK MANAGEMENT REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 41,020 44,870 15,180 16,600 1,300 1,300 8,800 6,800 650 650 240 220 13,000 13,000 40,000 16,600 1.300 3j50 450 220 13,000 ' TREASURY MANAGEMENT REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT. & OPER. DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 80,190 83,440 81,120 600 600 610 220 220 220 1,100 1,100 t,100 200 200 200 400 400 400 20 20 20 500 500 500 3,040 3,040. 3J50 ACCOUNT NUMBER 014156 0t4t56-1100 014t56-1900 014156-1901 0t 4156-31 O0 014156-3300 014156-3900 014156-3956 014156-3960 014156-6028 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET I=,qTIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRFR PERSONNEL REGULAR SALARY FRINGE BENEFITS NEW POS CONTINGENCY TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 104,180 111,670 t 11,590 38,550 41,320 41,320 5,000 0 0 2,000 1,900 t ,900 200 100 100 18,300 39,800 39,800 250 250 250 340 450 450 t 3,000 3,000 3,000 014156TOTAL: 181,820 198,490 t 98,410 0t 4 t 57 0t4157-t100 014157-1200 0t 4151-1300 014157-1900 014t57-3900 014157-3960 0t 4157-6028 FIRE DISTRICT REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME PART-TIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 89,810 117,600 77,850 8,500 0 1,000 0 1 t ,270 0 33,250 43,140 43,650 570 570 300 190 100 100 18,540 9,000 0 014157 TOTAL: 150,920 182,280 122,900 014159 014159-11 O0 014159-1200 0t 4159-1900 014159-31 O0 014159-3300 014159-3900 014159-3960 014159-6028 RES. SRVCS - ADMINISTRATION REGULAR PAYROLL OVERTIME FRINGE BENEFIT TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 135,350 0 0 0 0 0 56,080 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 0 0 56,150 0 0 2,090 0 0 151,640 0 0 014159 TOTAL: 396,310 0 0 014160 014160-11 O0 014160-1900 014160-31 O0 014160-3900 014160-3956 0t 4160-3960 0t 4160-6028 014160 TOTAL: RES. SRVCS-GEOINFO SYSTEM REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 92,550 98,220 98,000 34,240 36,340 36,340 1,000 1,000 2,500 7,600 7,250 6,910 250 250 250 120 350 350 3,500 26,300 26,640 139,260 169,710 170,990 ACCOUNT NUMBER 014161 014161-1100 014161-1900 014161-3100 014161-3900 014161-3956 014161-3960 014161-6028 014161-7047 014161 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FSTIMATFI FXPFNRIT!!RF,q DESCRIPTION RES. SRVCS - MGMT INFO SYSTEM REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CAPITAL EXP - EQUIPMENT 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 205,750 304,890 282,950 76,130 112,810 112,810 1,450 1,500 2,500 23,000 34,500 34,500 670 520 520 280 2,650 2,650 2,500 228,630 228,630 0 2,500 18,000 309,780 688,000 682,560 014162 014162-3900 014162-3960 014162-6028 014162-6019 014162-6020 01 4t 62-6021 014162-8022 014162 TOTAL: ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES MAINT & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES TELEPHONE UTILITIES GAS UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES 2,200 2,200 500 900 900 900 79,300 79,300 79,300 500 500 500 1,000 1,000 300 2,500 2,500 2.400 4,500 4,500 t0,000 90,900 90,900 93,900 014245 014245-1100 014245-t 200 014245-1900 014245-3900 014245-39t 4 014245-3931 014245-3956 0t 4245-3960 014245-6028 014245-6036 014245-6019 014245-8020 014245-6021 014245-8022 014245-7044 014245-7045 014245 TOTAL: CITY FACILITIES REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS MAINT. & OPS: City FaciliUes/Maint. Dept. VEHICLE MAINT. & OPERATIONS DUES GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES: City Facilities/Maint. Dept. TELEPHONE UTILITIES GAS UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES CAPITAL OUTLAY: EQUIPMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY: VEHICLES 125,780 142,760 156,380 5,000 5,000 5,000 46,540 52,820 52,820 257,650 199,240 199,240 0 61,060 74,360 2,800 2,800 2,800 520 520 520 13,660 13,850 13,850 496,910 126,050 t 26.050 0 388,090 425,140 185,000 200,000 250.000 22,000 26,000 26,000 23,000 23,000 23,000 378,000 358,000 358,000 0 40,000 32,000 0 10,500 t 0,500 1,556,860 1,649,690 1,755,660 ACCOUNT NUMBER 01.44265 01.4265-1901 01.4265-210O 01.4265-2400 01.42653966 01.4265-3975 01.4265-6028 01.4265 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F- TIMATFIn FXPt=NnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL OVERHEAD RESERVE CONTINGENCY COFFEE CONTRIBUTION EMPLOYEE DEVELOPMENT MEDICAL INSURANCE SAFETY FOOTWEAR CONTRACT SRV: Personnel ClassificaUon Study 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 100,000 0 0 1,200 1,200 1,200 20,000 30,000 30,000 132,000 126,660 126,660 15,000 15,000 15,000 0 40,000 30,000 268,200 2t2,860 202,860 01-4285 0t .4285-3t 00 01.4285-3900 01.4285-3956 01.4285-3956 01.4285-3969 01.4285-3961 01.4285-3973 01.4285-3974 01.4285-6028 01.4285-7047 01.4285 TOTAL: 01.4313 0:1-4313-1100 01.4313-1900 01.4313-31 O0 014313-3300 01.4313-3900 01.4313-3956 01.4313-3960 01.43t 3 TOTAL: GENERAL OVERHEAD TRAVEL & MEETING MAINT. & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS AUTOMOBILE INSUR FIRE INSURANCE GENERAL LIABILITY BOOKING FEESISB2557 PROP.TAX ADMINISB2551 CONTRACT SERVICES CAPITAL OUTLAY: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT COMMUNITY DEV ADMIN REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY 11,000 14,000 12,750 25,000 g,O00 5,000 27,700 27,900 27,900 25,000 30,000 32,290 25,000 40,000 30,000 800,000 800,000 550,000 228,000 266,430 266,430 48,000 35,000 35.000 609,900 612,300 597,300 5,000 0 0 1,804,600 1,834,630 1,556,670 134,890 25,680 95,920 49,910 9,500 38,140 1,250 0 1,000 3,000 0 2,080 5,950 0 ,6,000 1,100 0 SO0 110 0 0 196,210 35,180 143,040 ACCOUNT NUMBER 014333 014333-1100 014333-1300 01..4333-1900 014333-3100 014333-3300 014333-3900 014333-3931 014333-3956 014333-3960 014333-6028 014333-6035 014333-7047 014333 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATI=ID FXPFNnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 199546 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET PLANNING REGULAR SALARIES PART-TIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINT & OPER DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES REIMBURSABLE CONTRACT SERVICES C/O: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 794,340 658,380 627,480 0 0 1,500 293,910 243,600 243,600 2,280 2,280 1,640 3,000 3,000 3,000 20,250 33,150 33,t 50 3,960 1,640 1,640 1,410 1,230 1,230 1,180 660 660 77,210 14,630 20,500 10,000 10,000 135,000 0 3,000 3,150 1,207,540 971,570 1,072,550 014353 01-4353-1100 01-4353-3100 014353-3900 014353-3960 014353-6028 014353 TOTAL: 014373 014373-1100 014373-1900 01-4373-3100 614373-3300 014373-3900 014373-3931 014373-3956 014373-3960 014373-6028 014373-6035 014313-7041 014373 TOTAL: PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR SALARIES TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES BUILDING & SAFETY REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE DUES & SUBSCRIPTION GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICESlREIMBURSEABLE C/O: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 6,940 6,040 6,040 750 750 750 250 250 250 10 210 210 0 20,000 40,820 7,050 27,250 48,070 915,290 1,119,600 1,119,170 338,660 414,250 414,250 1,250 1,500 1,500 3,000 3,000 3,000 16,600 44,010 44,530 30,290 30,000 30,000 750 930 930 1,000 2,080 2,080 38,300 118,800 118,800 10,000 20,000 35,180 0 78,170 25,000 1,355,140 1,832,340 1,794,440 ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4451 014451-11 O0 01-4451-1300 014451-1900 014451-3100 014451-3110 01445t -3900 014451-3910 014451-3931 014451-3935 014451-3956 014451.6028 014481.6030 014451-7044 014451-7045 014451-7047 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATt=n FXPFNIDITIIRFR 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET POLICE DEPT REGULAR SALARIES PART-TIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS TRAVEL & MEETINGS ~ D.A.R.E. MAINT & OPERATIONS MAINT & OPS ~ D.A.R.E. PROGRAM VEHICLE & EQUIP MAINT VEHICLE & EQUIP MAINT%Dj~.R.E. DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES ~ D.A.R.E. CAPITAL OUTLAY: EQUIPMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY: VEHICLES CAPITAL OUTLAY: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 53,220 32,080 30,650 109,770 111,970 109,110 19,690 11,870 1 t ,810 5,000 5,000 4,850 6,400 6,400 6,210 59,410 60,110 65,050 35,300 35,300 34,240 264,860 272,000 263,640 5,980 5,980 5,800 5,060 5,060 4,900 8,475,320 8,964,650 8,817,400 148,200 151,780 151,780 1,270 0 0 20,000 0 40,000 4,610 0 0 014451 TOTAL: 9,214,350 9,662,200 9,545,700 014532 0t4532-t100 014532-1300 014532-1300 0t4532-1900 01-4532-t 900 014532-31 O0 014532-3300 014532-3900 014532-39t 5 014532-3931 014532-3956 014532-3960 014532-6028 014532-7044 01-4532 TOTAL: 014540 0t -4640-31 O0 014640-3900 01-4540-3950 014640-3960 COMMUNITY SERVICES REGULAR SALARIES PART-TIME SALARIES REG PART-TIME SAL FRINGE BEN - REG SAL FRINGE BEN - Prr SAL TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS MAINT & OPERATIONS: CONTRIBUTIONS VEHICLE MAINT & OPER DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CAPITAL EXP - EQUIPMENT PARK/REC. COMMISSION TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY 525,910 555,110 553,000 112,350 t 31,060 130,960 14,950 14,710 14,710 194,610 205,390 206,390 6,280 7,010 7,010 3,250 3,200 3,200 3,850 3,800 3,800 163,330 t 73,360 t 73,360 26,340 15,640 18,500 2,850 2,890 2,890 1,350 1,340 1,340 2,050 2,020 2,020 8,440 2,000 3,000 0 20,000 22.770 1,065,530 1,143,430 1,141,950 750 750 750 350 350 350 450 450 450 20 20 20 014540 TOTAL: 1,570 1,570 1,570 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F.qTIMATFIn FXPFNnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995~J6 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 014637 0t 4637-11 O0 014637-1300 014637-1900 0t-4637-3100 01.4637-3300 014637-3900 014637-3931 014637-3956 01.4637-3960 01.4637-6028 ENGINEERING ADMIN REGULAR SALARIES PART-TIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINT & OPER DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 150,890 t 57,290 157,290 0 20,400 20,400 55,830 58,610 58,610 2,350 2,850 2,850 3,000 3,000 3,000 15,850 16,000 16,000 6,230 190 190 t ,020 1,020 1,020 1,010 270 270 523,000 4,000 4,000 0t 4637 TOTAL: 759,180 263,630 263,630 01.4638 014638-1100 014638-1900 01.4638-3100 01.4638-3900 01.4638-3956 014638-3960 014638-6028 014638-6035 ENG-DEVELOPMENT MGMT REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES: REIMBURSABLE 465,900 489,020 489,020 172,380 180,940 180,940 370 370 370 4,050 19,850 t 9,850 180 480 480 1,220 1,390 1,390 117,000 3,500 3,500 0 115,000 t t 5,000 014638 TOTAL: 76t,100 810,550 810,550 014639 01.4639-1100 014639-1900 01-4639.3100 014639-3900 014639-3931 014639-3932 014639-3956 014639-3960 014639-6028 014639 TOTAL: ENG-TRAFFIC MGMT REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHILE MAINT & OPER EQUIPMENT MAINT DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 144,010 150,900 150,900 53,280 55,830 55.830 850 850 850 1,250 2,530 2,530 4,940 2,750 2,750 500 500 500 370 460 460 150 150 150 8,000 8,000 LO00 212,450 221,970 22t.970 ACCOUNT NUMBER 014640 014640-1100 01-4640-1900 0t 4640-3100 01-4640-3900 0t 4640-3956 014640-3960 014640-9400 01-4640 TOTAL: 01494t 01-4641-1100 0t4641-1200 01-4641-1900 01464t -3100 014641-3900 014641-393t 014641-3956 014641-3960 014641-6028 014641 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F TIMATI=r FXPFNr ITIIRFR DESCRIPTION ENG-PROJECT MGMT REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTINGENCY: Pavement Rehabilitaion Projects ENG-CONSTRUCTN MGMT REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 94,420 t 00,290 t 00,290 34,940 37,1t0 37,110 400 460 460 3,000 4,280 4,280 510 530 530 40 50 50 757,156 257,000 257,000 890,460 399,120 399,720 222,460 231,590 231,590 200 200 3,000 82,310 85,690 85,690 730 130 730 3,000 4,280 4,280 24,140 19,040 19,040 150 150 150 330 260 260 6,000 2,000 2,000 338,320 343,940 34~,740 014645 014645-1100 01-4045.1200 014045-1900 014645.3900 01-4645-393t 014645-3960 014645-64)28 0t 4645-7044 014645-7045 014045 TOTAL: ENG.: NPDES PROGRAM (NaUonal Pollutsnt Discharge Elimination System) REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME FRINGE BENEFITS MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CAPITAL EXP - EQUIPMENT CAPITAL EXP - VEHICLES 0 164,740 154,740 0 16,000 t 5,000 0 57,250 57,250 0 34,000 34,000 0 40,320 40,320 O 1,240 1,240 0 50,000 130,000 0 39,200 135,000 0 60,000 180,000 0 45t ,750 747,550 ACCOUNT NUMBER 01-4646 0t -4646-1100 014646-1200 014646-t 900 014646-3100 01-4646-3900 01.4646-3930 014646-3931 014646-3960 014646-6028 01-4646-7043 014646-7044 01-4646-7045 014646-7047 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F, TIMATFn FXPFNInlTIIRF. DESCRIPTION COMMUNITY DEV. - MAINT.VEHICLES & EQUIP. REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT. & OPERATIONS FUEL VEHICLE/EQUIP MAINT. GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CAPITAL EXP -FACILITIES CAPITAL EXP - EQUIPMENT CAPITAL EXP - VEHICLES CAPITAL EXP - COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 161,620 112,150 117., 150 6,000 8,000 8,000 59,800 63,700 63,700 800 800 800 65,000 50,000 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 150,000 124,000 124,000 3,190 3,150 3,150 3,200 40,000 40,000 11,000 3,500 3,500 0 10,000 10,000 0 60,000 60,000 2,770 0 0 014646 TOTAL: 563,380 635,300 635,300 01.4641 01-4647-1100 014647-1200 01-4647-1300 014647-1900 014647-3100 014647-3900 014641-3931 014641-3932 014647-3933 014647-3956 014647-3960 014647-6027 014647-6028 014647-7043 014647-7044 014647-7045 014647-7047 014647-7048 014647-8021 014647-8022 014641-8050 014641 TOTAL: COMMUNITY DEV. - MAINT. PUBLIC WORKS REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME PART-TIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE & EQUIP DEPRECIATION EQUIPMENT MAINT EMERG & REG VEH RNTL DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS GENERAL LIABILTY HAZARDOUS WASTE RMVL CONTRACT SERVICES CAPITAL EXP-FACILITY CAPITAL EXP - EQUIPMENT CAPITAL EXP - VEHICLES CAPITAL EXP - COMPUTER EQUIPMENT CAPITAL EXP - PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES SLURRY SEAL & RESTRIPE PRK LOT ~ LIONS & HERMOSA 699,850 724,580 724,580 70,000 70,000 t 55,000 11,490 12,240 t 2.240 258,940 268,330 268,330 1,300 1,300 1,300 560,060 532,960 532,660 264,720 221,180 221,180 13,500 t 8,000 t 4,500 22,000 10,000 10,000 2,850 3,750 3,750 16,380 t6,360 16,360 17,000 40,000 40,000 655,410 697,010 697,0t 0 0 34,800 34,800 0 16,520 16,520 56,930 45,800 45,800 0 19,000 9,000 0 10,000 10,000 85,050 89,000 164,,530 16,500 23,000 t 3,000 O 4,000 4,000 2,751,980 2,857,830 2,934,560 ACCOUNT NUMBER 014650 014650-1100 014650-1200 0t 4650-1900 014650-3100 014650-3300 014650-3900 014650-3956 014650-3960 014650-5900 014650-6028 014650-9501 014650 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET I=-qTIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION INTEGRATED WASTE MGMT REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES GENERAL LIABILTY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES EAST LION'S CENTER RENOVATION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 233,430 236,970 236,230 0 10,000 t0,000 86,370 87,680 87,680 820 820 820 600 600 600 155,700 155,700 43,160 100 250 250 2,330 2,330 2,330 75,000 75,000 75,000 510 510 510 0 175,000 175,000 554,860 744,860 632,180 014991 014991-9000 014991 TOTAL: TRANSFERS TRANSFER OUT 129,500 738,850 1,444,360 129,500 738,850 1,444,360 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F.qTIMATFn FXPFNInlT!IRF.q SPECIAL DESCRIPTION REVENUE FUNDS 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 024532 024532-11 O0 024532-1200 024532-1300 024532-1900 024532-31 O0 024532-3300 024532-3900 024532-3912 024532-3956 024532-3960 024532-6028 024532-6032 024532-6019 024532-6020 024532-6021 024532-6022 024532 TOTAL: LIBRARY: PROGRAM SERVICES REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME SALARIES PART TIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETING MILEAGE MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS: Maint, Dept. DUES GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES: Maint. Dept. TELEPHONE UTILITIES GAS UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES 311,790 385,600 367,310 1,000 t ,000 1,000 116,870 182,510 182,510 117,700 146,320 146,320 3,200 3,000 2,500 3,250 3,500 3,800 91,500 111,100 153,310 9,260 11,830 1 t ,830 4,000 2,550 2,100 4,330 3,880 3,880 143,250 64,000 158,500 76,920 91,640 18,690 16,800 t 8,000 t 5,000 2,240 0 0 3,300 3,300 4,000 73,390 73,390 50,000 984,800 1,101,620 1,180,750 034451 034451-3900 REIMBISTATE & COUNTY RE PARKING CITATIONS PARKING CITATIONS SURCHRG 8,500 8,500 8,500 034451 TOTAL: 8,500 8,500 8,500 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATFn FXPFNnlTI IRF,q DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 054150 054150-1100 054150-1200 054150-1300 054150-1900 054150-3t O0 054150-3300 054t50-39tt 054150-39t2 054150-3913 054150-393t 054150-3933 054150-3956 064150-3960 054150-6028 054150-6031 054150-6032 054150-6033 054150-6034 054150-8019 054150-8020 054150-802t 054150-8022 .054150-7043 054150-7044 054150-7045 054150-7047 054150-9504 054150-9529 054150-9534 SPORTS COMPLEX REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME SALARIES PARTrIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT. & OPERATIONSIRecreaUon Programs MAINT. & OPERATIONS/Stadium Maint. MAINT. & OPERATIONS/Complex MainL VEHICLE MAINTENANCE/DEPRECIATION EMERG & ROUTINE VEH & EQUIP RENTAL DUES GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CONTRACT SERVICES/RecreaUon Programs CONTRACT SERVICES/Stadium MainL CONTRACT SERVICES/Complex Maint. CONTRACT SERVICES/Special Events TELEPHONE UTILITIES GAS UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES CAPITAL OUTLAY: BUILDINGS CAPITAL OUTLAY: EQUIPMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY: VEHICLES CAPITAL OUTLAY: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT CAPITAL PROJECT: IrrigaUon UpgradelStadium CAPITAL PROJECT; Access Exit Gate CAPITAL PROJECT: Foul Pole Support Structure 263,880 293,070 295,040 30,500 33,000 73,520 129,450 195,300 285,820 103,190 t 20,650 120,650 900 2,000 2,000 330 330 330 63,360 73,120 73,450 10,600 43,t 50 43,150 5,050 41,600 41,600 3,000 3,000 3,000 6,000 8,000 8,000 160 230 400 5,300 1,380 1,380 0 0 34,780 116,030 96,020 97,650 98,300 211,300 211,300 0 1,00O 1,000 0 0 140,000 1,850 1,850 14,400 7,500 7,500 7,500 62,000 62,000 59,000 148,720 t 75,000 t 75,000 0 41,500 45,490 2,000 2,340 13,850 0 23,500 23,500 0 t 0,000 10,200 0 3,000 3,000 0 0 t3,390 0 0 80,000 054150 TOTAL: 1,004,670 1,467,840 1,890,400 064631 064637-1100 064637-1900 CCWD REIMBURSEMENT REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS 75,260 16,430 16,430 27,850 6,080 6,080 064637 TOTAL: 103,110 22,510 22,510 074047 074647-1100 074647-t900 074647-9533 CALTRANS REIMBJMNT. REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS SIGNAL & ST WIDENING ~ EAST & HIGHLAND 1t,340 11,800 11,800 4,200 4,370 4,370 0 0 188,100 074647 TOTAL: 15,640 16,170 204,270 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F TIMATI=I' FXPFNr ITIIRF DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 08.4647 08.4647-1100 08.4647-1300 08-4647-1900 08.4647-6028 S.B.CNTY REIMBIMNT. REGULAR SALARIES PARTTIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS CONTRACT SERVICES 2,300 2,520 2,520 15,690 16,010 16,010 1,160 1,250 1,250 83,000 60,630 60,630 08.4647 TOTAL: 102,150 80,410 80,410 09.44631 09.4637-11 O0 09.4637-1900 09.4637-3931 09.4637-6028 09.4637-70,14 09.4631-7645 09.4637-6022 09.4637-8601 09.4637-6780 09-4631-9209 09.4637-9211 09.4637-9212 09.4637-9302 09.4637-9303 09.4637-9364 09.44637 TOTAL: GAS TAX 2106, 2107 & 2107.5 REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS VEHICLE MAINT & OPER CONTRACT SERVICES CAPITAL EXP-EQUIPMNT CAPITAL .EXP-VEHICLE ELECTRIC UTILITIES MWD 4~ MILLIKEN GRADE SEPARATION TRANS STUDIES & FAC i HIGHLAND ~ LOCUST ARCHIBALD ~ BASELINE BASELINE 4~ CARNELIAN NIE CORNER BASELINENPL VICTORIA W. OF PECAN 9TH ST ~ HELLMAN 654,320 804,860 817,380 242,100 297,800 302,430 41 ,t 90 41,980 41,980 69,000 206,000 206,000 0 59,700 59,700 75,900 115,900 t 15,900 320,000 300,000 300,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 7,310 0 0 10,160 2,000 0 1,560 2,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 6,000 0 0 2,000 0 0 1,416,510 1,826,240 1,867,420 10-4637 10.4637-t 100 10.4637-t 900 10.4637-6028 10.4637-7642 10.4637-9110 10.4637-9113 10.4637-9210 10.4637-9307 10.4637-9315 10.4631-9505 t 0.4637-9506 10.4637-9507 PROPOSITION 111 REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS CONTRACT SERVICES C/O: LAND ACQUISITION PAVEMENT MGMT PROGRAM LOCAL STREET REHAB. (VAR.) ROCHESTER e SFRR IMPROV. SAPPHIRE: BANYAN TO MOON ROCHESTER (RC High School Mitigation Proj) JERSEY (HAVEN TO RR SPUR) SUMMIT (EAST AVE. TO 1200' EAST) EAST AVE. (NORTH OF SUMMIT) 134,870 164,020 164,020 49,900 60,690 60,690 204,000 100,000 1 (X),000 O O 8,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 700,000 400,000 403,570 110,000 0 t 0,000 2,000 0 0 0 0 24,660 0 250,000 250,000 0 25,000 0 0 100,000 100,000 10.44637 TOTAL: 1,202,770 1,10t ,710 1,122,940 ACCOUNT NUMBER 124637 124637-11 O0 12-4637-1900 124637-8828 124637-8833 124637-9203 124637-9305 124637-9310 124637-9401 124637-9533 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FRTIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION TDA ARTICLE 8 REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS SIG.19TH & HERMOSA SIG.FOOTHILL ~ RAMONA SIGNAL BASELINE (g~ EAST AVE SIGNAL: FOOTHILL ~ BAKER SIGNAL CHURCH i~ TERRA VISTA PRY SIGNAL: ARROW ~ WHITE OAK SIGNAL & ST WIDENING ~ EAST & HIGHLAND 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 80,590 17,090 17,090 29,820 6,320 6,320 90,000 0 O 90,000 0 0 186,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 520 140.000 0 87,580 0 0 50,000 124631 TOTAL: 616,410 23,410 161,510 134563 34563-1100 34563-1300 34563-1900 34563-3100 34563.3300 34563-3900 34563-3956 34563-3960 34563-5900 34563.6028 34563-7043 34563-7044 34563-7947 34563-9501 COMM SRVCS-RECREATN REGULAR SALARIES PART-TIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS DUES GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINJGENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES C/O: BUILDING & LAND IMPROVEMENTS C/O: EQUIPMENT & FURNITURE/FIXTURES C/O: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT EAST LION'S CENTER RENOVATION 30,220 39,930 3~930 224,780 240,940 235,100 19,240 23,560 ~.~O 0 400 400 400 400 400 124,000 106,130 t t 5,630 0 400 400 4,710 4,770 4,770 112,220 117,720 t 17,720 234,470 252,170 237,040 2,000 2,000 2,000 42,000 19,880 t 9,880 0 10,600 11,300 0 126,770 125,770 134563 TOTAL: 194,040 945,570 934,900 144158 144158-11 O0 144158-1900 144158 -31 O0 14 4158 -3900 144158-3956 144158-3960 144158-8028 144158-7044 t44158-9415 144158-9561 144158-9507 144158 TOTAL: AIR QUALITY IMPRMNT GRANT REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETING MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS DUES GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CIO: EQUIPMENT ARROW ROUTE BUS BAY (West Of Haven) EAST LION'S CENTER RENOVATION EAST AVENUE (NORTH OF SUMMIT) 11,360 11,830 11J30 4,200 4,380 4~380 200 200 200 57,000 67,000 73.000 280 280 280 950 1,110 1,1t0 38,000 43,700 6,400 45,000 7,000 20,000 0 32,000 0 25,000 25,000 O O 70,000 156,990 160,500 244,200 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FsTIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRF, DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 164631 164631-9106 164631-9402 164631-9508 164637 TOTAL: PED.GRANT/ART.3 WHEELCHAIR RAMPS (VAR.LOCA) BERYL ST IMPV(BASELINE 119TH) ALPINE/RAMONA SIDEWALKS 4,000 4,000 0 51,000 51,000 0 0 25,000 0 55,000 80,000 0 194637 194637-5900 194637-9120 194637 TOTAL: DRAINAGE FAC: ETIWANDA ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENTS 0 · 3,000 3,000 0 10,000 0 0 13,000 3,000 20.4532 204532-3960 204532-6028 204532-6770 204532-6924 204532-6927 204532-9103 204532-9501 204532 TOTAL: PARK DEVELOPMENT GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES CREEKSIDE PARK NIE COMM PRK CONCEPTUAL NIE COMM PRK DB RETR CHAFFEY COLLEGE FIELD MNT EAST LION'S CENTER RENOVATION 70 6,550 0 0 409,1t0 25,000 0 441,330 70 6,550 0 0 409,710 30,000 136,110 582,440 70 6,550 6,600 300,000 409,710 30,000 136,110 889,040 214647 21-4647-1t00 214647-1900 214647-3100 21-4641-5900 214647-6028 214647-7043 214647-7786 214647-8135 214647-6822 214647-6956 214647-9403 214647-9404 214647-9501 214647-96)0( 214647 TOTAL: BEAUTIFICATION FUND REGULAR PAYROLL FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES C/O: BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 4TH STREET MEDIAN IMPRV ARCHIBALD PARKWAY BEAUTIFICATION ETIWANDA COBBLESTONE BASELINE MEDIAN IMPRV. WIETIWANDA 19th St. Pkwy. Beaut,(W.City Limit/Carnelian) 19th St. Pkwy. BeauL(Hemlosa/Haven) EAST LION'S CENTER RENOVATION SENIOR CENTER SIGNS t01,390 39,130 t,500 25,610 2,000 0 0 162,500 0 0 12,000 t 5,000 0 0 365,790 83,880 31,040 1,500 22,500 2,000 0 25,000 132,000 25,000 15,000 0 15,000 80,500 0 433,420 83,880 3t ,640 250 22,500 2.,000 7,000 0 35,000 25,000 0 0 0 0 5,470 21~140 ACCOUNT NUMBER 224637 224637-11 O0 224637-1900 224637-3900 224637-5900 22.4~7-7047 224637-8017 22-4637-8846 22-4637-8851 224637-8855 22-4&37-8856 224637-9120 22.4~7-9206 224637-9206 224637-9210 224637-9211 22-4~7-9306 224637-9308 224637-9313 224637-9402 224637-9509 22-4~37-9510 22-4tk37 -951 t 224637-9512 224637-9513 224637-9514 224637-9515 224637-9516 22-4~37-9517 224637-9532 224637-9535 224637 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F, TIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-K ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FUND REGULAR PAYROLL FRINGE BENEFITS MAINT & OPERATIONS ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD C/O: COMPUTERS EAST AVENUE (SUMMIT TO HIGHLAND) BAKER 4~ ATSF RR HAVEN RR XING 4~ ATSF WILSON IMP-AMETHYST ARCH IMPISIO BANY DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENTS ROCHESTER-HGHLND TO BANYAN BANYAN-MT. BALDY PL-RCHSTR ROCHESTER Q STSF RR BASELINE Q ARCHIBALD INTRSCTN BASELINE(DAY CREEK/VICTORIA PRK LN) 4TH ST.(WEST CITY LIMITS/HAVEN AVE.) CARNELIAN: BASELINE TO 19TH BERYL (BASELINE TO 19TH) ETIWANDA ~ ATSF RR EAST AVENUE (HIGHLAND TO VINEYARD) ETIWANDA ~ ATSF RR TO ARROW SIGNAL: CHURCH ~ MILLIKEN SIGNAL: VICTORIA PARK LANE ~ MILLIKEN SIGNAL: ARROW Q BAKER SIGNAL: BASELINE 4~ 1-15 SIGNAL: MILLIKEN 4~ 4TH (WIO ONTARIO 112) 6TH STREET ~ RR SPUR WILUCAS RANCH ROAD ATSF RR CROSSING ~ lth ST. ARROW RT WIDENING (~ ATSF RR SPUR 145,310 323,660 367,720 53,760 119,750 13~,060 1,910 7,900 11,910 86,700 90,900 90,900 0 11,020 18,200 0 300,000 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 t49,070 1,000 0 0 1,000 0 0 0 100,000 0 50,000 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 450,000 25,000 0 0 89,000 350,000 0 350,000 280,500 0 0 5,000 0 0 17,000 0 0 0 20,000 0 0 310,000 0 0 20,000 0 0 130,000 0 0 130,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 20,000 0 0 0 45,900 0 0 301,780 1,041,680 2,168,230 1,58~,540 23'~37 234637't t O0 23'4637-1900 234637-5900 234~37-8785 23-4637-8863 234637-9120 23-4~7-96xx 23-4~37 TOTAL: GENERAL CITY DRAINAGE REGULAR PAYROLL FRINGE BENEFITS ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CUCAM.DAY, DR CRK AREA VI LEMON S.D. DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENTS HAVEN AVE (Deer Creek to Baseline Road) 12,030 12,520 12,520 4,450 4,630 4,630 18,000 18,000 18,000 1,000 1,000 0 2,000 1,000 0 30,000 30,000 0 0 0 19S,000 67,480 67,150 230,150 ACCOUNT NUMBER 244637 244637-1100 244637-1900 244637-8914 244637-9314 244637 TOTAL: 254285 254991-9000 254285 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F.~TIMATFr~ FXPFNnlT!IRF,~ DESCRIPTION F.A.U. I ST. TRANSPORTATION PROGRAM REGULAR PAYROLL FRINGE BENEFITS ARCHIBALD ~ 8TH STREET TRAFFIC SIG. CARNELIAN: S.B.ROAD TO BASELINE 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 60,860 0 0 22,520 0 0 0 0 52,530 2,170,000 2,250,000 0 CAPITAL RESERVE FUND TRANSFERS OUT 2,253,380 2,250,000 52,530 0 0 100,000 0 0 100,000 264532 264532-8168 264532 TOTAL: ROBERTI Z'BERG GRANT FUND MISC. PARK IMPROVEMENTS 29,090 29,090 29,090 29,090 274532 274532-8924 274532 TOTAL: 1988 CONSERVATION GRANT NIE COMMUNITY PARK DESIGNIDEVEL. 269,600 269,600 214,400 214,400 214,400 214,400 ACCOUNT NUMBER 284333 284333-8185 28-4333-8189 284333-904S 284333-9105 284333-9106 284333-9107 284333-9115 284333-9315 284333-9316 284333-9318 284333-9500 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F.qTIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRF.q C.D.B.G FUND 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED DESCRIPTION BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET PERSONNEL GENERAL ADMIN: SALARIES & F.B. HOME IMPRV: SALARIES & F.B. GRAFFITI REMOVAL: SALARIES & F.B. NEIGHBORHOOD CTR: SALARIES & F.B. WHEELCHAIR RAMP: SALARIES & F.B. SIDEWALK GRINDING: SALARIES & F.B. CALAVERAS(gTH TO ARROW): SALARIES LION'S CTR.: SALARIES & F.B. 9TH ST.DESIGN: SALARIES & F.B. SALINA I VINMAR: SALARIES & 'F.B. TARA VIA: SALARIES & F.B. 113,430 t 18,480 118,480 1t ,510 74,420 74,420 15,520 16,170 16,170 16,110 0 0 12,650 13,740 13,740 12,650 13,740 t 3,140 25,800 0 0 12,920 0 0 12,270 25,330 25,330 21,970 0 0 0 26,040 26,040 284333 284333-8t85 284333-8181 284333-8 189 284333-8955 284333.8045 284333-9105 284333-9106 284333-9101 284333-9114 284333-9115 284333-9213 284333-9214 284333-9215 284333-9315 284333-93t 6 284333-9317 284333-9318 284333-9413 284333-9500 284333-9501 284333-9502 284333-9503 284333 TOTAL: C.D.B.G FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS ADMINISTRATION FAIR HOUSING HOUSING REHAB. HIST. PRESERV. REHAB. GRAFFITrl REMOVAL NEIGHBORHOOD CTR IMPROV WHEEL CHAIR RAMPS SIDEWALK GRINDING LANDLORD TENANT MEDIATION CALAVERAS AVE.(AROW TO 911-1) HOMELESS OUTREACH HOUSE OF RUTH OLD TIMERS FOUNDATIION WEST LION'S CENTER (ADA Improvements) 9TH STREET DESIGN S .O.V.A. SALINA I VINMAR CONSTo Y.W.C.A. TAPIA VIA DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION EAST LION'S CENTER RENOVATION (ADA Improvements) FOOTHILL FAMILY SHELTER BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB 8,740 12,330 12,330 11,300 11,300 t 1,300 170,670 201,010 201,010 0 2,540 2,540 14,480 7,110 1,170 46,750 2,000 2,000 6,190 7,720 7,720 22,230 9,340 9,340 8,570 8,570 8,570 184,200 210,000 210,000 8,000 8,000 8,000 7,600 7,600 7,600 8,000 8,000 8,000 194,750 432,990 115,000 130 239,960 239,960 7,000 7,000 7,000 157,970 0 0 7,000 7,000 7,000 0 20 20 0 35,350 25,350 0 3,000 3,000 0 6,000 0 1,179,010 1,514,820 1,190,830 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F,qTIMATFn FXPFNnlT! !RF.q DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 324631 324637-11 O0 324637-1900 324631-9027 324637-9031 324637-9109 324637-9314 324637-9328 324637-9505 324637-9508 324637-9510 324631-95t 8 324637-95t 9 324637-9520 324637-9521 324637-9522 324637-953t 324637-96XX 324637 TOTAL: MEASURE I REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS HAVEN ST IMPROV PHI t9TH (CARNELIAN & AMETHYST) TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICE INV CARNELIAN: S.B.ROAD TO BASELINE MILLIKEN AVE (ARROW TO FOOTHILL) JERSEY (HAVEN TO RR SPUR) ALPINE RAMONA SIDEWALKS EAST AVE. (HIGHLAND TO VICTORIA) BERYL (BASELINE/19TH STREET) WILSON ~ ARCHIBALD IMPROVEMENTS HERMOSA (4TH TO FOOTHILL REHAB.) HAVEN (BASELINE TO WILSON) ARROW (MILLIKEN TO RR SPUR) VICTORIA ST IMPV (HERMOSA TO TEAK) HAVEN AVE (DEER CREEK TO BASELINE) 129,260 124,710 124,710 47,830 46,140 4~,140 3,500,000 0 2,50~,000 2,000 0 109,720 15,000 0 312,000 250,000 55,000 0 0 9,980 0 330,000 330,000 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 17,000 0 0 50,000 0 0 270,000 0 0 395,000 0 0 100,000 0 0 5,000 0 0 380,000 4,006,090 t,592,850 3,596,160 334131 33413t -11 O0 334131-1900 334131-31 O0 334131-3300 334131-3900 334131-3960 334131-5900 334131-6028 334131 TOTAL: SPECIAL DISTRICTS ADMIN REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETINGS MILEAGE MAINT & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES 192,390 202,270 202.270 71,180 74,840 74~40 800 1,000 2,000 300 300 300 56,900 55,900 57,330 1,630 1,480 t ,480 65,850 61,240 61,240 39,500 30,010 23,810 428,550 427,040 423,270 344532 344532-8924 344532 TOTAL: PUBLIC RESOURCES GRANT NIE COMM.PARK DESIGNIDEVLPMNT 239,850 190,600 190,600 239,850 190,600 190.600 ACCOUNT NUMBER 35.4631 35.4637-9021 35.4637-9031 35.4637-9306 35.4631-9308 35.4637-9505 35.4637-9520 35.4637-9521 35.44631 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATFIn FXPFNI~ITIIRF,q DESCRIPTION SB 140 FUND HAVEN: FOOTHILL TO BASELINE 19TH(CARNLIAN/AMTHY) BASELINE: DAY CREEK TO VPL 4TH ST.(WEST CITY LIMITS TO HAVEN) JERSEY (HAVEN TO RR SPUR) HERMOSA (4TH TO FOOTHILL) HAVEN (BASELINE TO WILSON) 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 520,000 0 332,000 0 0 4,370 50,000 0 50,000 55,000 0 0 0 25,000 25,000 0 25,000 0 0 35,000 0 625,000 85,000 411,370 36.44637 36.4637-1100 36-4631-1900 36.4637-9326 36.44631 TOTAL: 37.4637 37.4631-9326 37.44637 TOTAL: STATE PROP 108: Passenger Rail & Clean Air Bond Act of 1990 REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS METROLINK STATION & FACILITIES S.Cnty. MEASURE h COMMUTER RAIL METROLINK STATION & FACILITIES 61,470 0 0 22,740 0 0 600,000 69,1 O0 92,880 684,210 69, t O0 92,880 0 0 4,960 0 0 4,960 ACCOUNT NUMBER 404130 404130-11 O0 404130-1900 404130-1001 404130-3900 404130-393t 404130-3932 404130-3933 404130-3960 404130-5900 404130-6028 404130-6029 404130-7043 404130-7044 404t 30-7045 404130-7048 404130-8019 404130-6021 404130-8022 404130-8050 404130-9217 404130-9320 404130-9332 404130-9333 404130-9334 404130-9335 404130-9405 404130-9406 404130-9401 404130-9412 404130-9523 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F,qTIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION LMD #1 GENERAL 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET REGULAR SALARIES 49.510 53,990 FRINGE BENEFITS t8,320 19,980 ASSESSMENT ADMIN 5t ,880 48,110 MAINT & OPERATIONS 40,940 39,680 VEHICLE MAINT & OPER 16,310 16,310 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0 500 EMERG. & REG. VEHICLE RENTAL 1,000 1,000 GENERAL LIABILI1~( 8,240 8,180 ADMIN/GENERAL OVERHEAD 67,340 65,640 CONT SRV-REG MAINT 481,150 450,460 TREE MAINTILNDSCP AD 12,000 12,000 CAPITAL OUTLAY: BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 8,000 0 CAPITAL OUTLAY: EQUIPMENT 0 960 CAPITAL OUTLAY: VEHICLES 3,850 26,010 CAPITAL OUTLAY: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT 0,000 10,000 TELEPHONE UTILITIES 0 200 WATER UTILITIES 141,750 141.750 ELECTRIC UTILITIES 42,000 42,000 SLURRY SEAL/RESTRIPE PRKNG LOT(BeryI,Church,OIdTown) 0 7,000 LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL REPLACEMENT t 2,000 t 0,000 MANDATORY ADA STUDY/Implementation 0 9,700 CONTROLLER CABINET(Retrofit/Nail Elec. Code) 13,000 0 IRRIGATION IMPRVMNTS TO CNTRL CONTROL: Parks 16,250 0 HAVEN MEDIAN IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS 1,430 0 PARKWAY TREE REPLACEMENT 8,000 0 ADA TOT LOT RETROFIT: Bear Gulch Park 30,000 0 IRRIGATION CONTROLLER IMPROVEMENTS 600 0 IRRIGATION IMPRVMNTS TO CNTRL CONTROL: Parkways 79,420 0 CALSENSE RETROFITS 0 151,250 SOCCER FIELD RENOVATION ~ BERYL 0 12,000 53~90 lg~SO 48,110 36,760 t6,310 500 1,000 8,18o 65,640 450,460 t2,OOo 55,490 960 26,o10 10,oo0 1,050 t38,5'/0 42,0O0 7.000 10,000 9,100 3,O00 0 0 to0 0 o 0 15t,250 12,000 404130 TOTAL: 1.080,990 1,127,320 1,180,660 ACCOUNT NUMBER 414130 414130-11 O0 414130-1200 414t30-t300 414130-1900 414130-t 001 414130-3900 4t 4130-3931 414130-3932 414130-3933 4t 4130-3960 414130-5900 414130-6028 414130-6029 414130-7043 414130-7044 414130-7045 414130-7048 414130-8019 414130-6021 414130-6022 414130-6050 414130-9217 414130-9320 414130-9332 414130-9333 414130-9335 414130-9405 414130-9401 414130-9408 41 4t 30-9412 414130-9524 414130-9525 4t 4t 30 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F*qTIMATFR FXPFNnlTIIRF.q DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET LMD #2 VICTORIA REGULAR SALARIES OVERTIME SALARIES PART-TIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINT & DEPRECIATION EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EMERG. & REG. VEHICLE RENTAL GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONT SRV-REG MAINT TREE MAINTILNDSCP AD CAPITAL OUTLAY: BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS CAPITAL OUTLAY: EQUIPMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY: VEHICLES CAPITAL OUTLAY: PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT TELEPHONE UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES SLRY SEAL& RESTRIPE PRKNG LOTS(Windrows,Kenyon,Vintag LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL REPLACEMENT MANDATORY ADA STUDY/lmplementaUon CONTROLLER CABINET(Retrofit/Nat'l Elec. Code) IRRIGATION IMPRVMNTS TO CNTRL CONTROL: Parks PARKWAY TREE REPLACEMENT ADA RETROFIT: Windrows, Kenyon, Groves & Vintage Parks) IRRIGATION IMPRVMNTS TO CNTRL CONTROL: Parkways WOOD EXERCISE STATION REPLACEMENT CALSENSE RETROFITS PARK IRRIGATION - KENYON CONCRETE FENCE RPLC(Windrows Prk,NV~NL & Etiwanda Trail) 355,830 393,600 393,600 5,000 5,000 5,000 4,650 5,700 5,700 131,660 145,630 145,630 21,340 20,670 20,670 65,720 62,930 62,930 10,000 10,000 t 0,000 0 2,000 2,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 t 1,360 12,270 12,270 122,010 124,520 124,520 539,200 651,090 651,090 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 2,000 2,000 2,300 14,560 t4.560 22,950 17,750 17,750 8,000 0 0 0 700 1 ,S00 346,500 324,170 276.150 20,000 20,000 20,000 0 4,000 4,000 20,000 6,590 t8,460 0 29,680 29,680 11,600 0 2,740 4,800 0 t,580 1,500 0 0 140,000 0 0 286,000 0 58,340 5,000 0 0 0 12,000 12,000 0 35,000 35,000 0 38,000 38,000 2,146,480 1,948,860 t ,976, t 70 424130 424130-100t 424130-3900 424130-3960 424130-5900 424130-6028 424130-802t 424130-6022 424130-9217 424130-9332 424130-0412 424130 TOTAL: LMD #3A PRKWY SO OF 6TH ST. EAST OF 1-15 ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINT & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONT SRV-REG MAINT WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL REPLACEMENT CONTROLLER CABINET(Retrofit/Nat'l Elec.Code) CALSENSE RETROFITS 40 40 40 200 270 270 30 40 40 230 270 270 t,530 2,200 2,200 600 600 600 120 120 t20 1,400 700 t30 200 0 0 0 5,600 6,170 4,350 9,840 9,840 ACCOUNT NUMBER 434130 434130-t100 434130-1200 434t30-t300 434130-1900 434t 30-1001 434130-3900 434t30-3931 434130-3932 434130-3933 434130-3960 434130-5900 434130-6028 434130-6029 434130-7044 434130-7046 434130-8019 434130-8021 434130-6022 434130-6050 434130-6956 434t 30-9217 434130-9320 434130-9332 434130-9333 434130-9334 434130-9405 434130-9401 434t 30-9408 434130-9409 :434t 30-9410 434130-9412 434130-9526 43~4130-9521 434130 TOTAL: 444130 444130-1001 444130-3900 444t 30-393t 44-4130-3960 444130-5900 444130-6028 444130-80t9 444130-802t 444130-8022 444130-9217 444130-9332 444t 30-9405 444130-9412 444130 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F.qTIMATFI') FXPFNr ITI IRF,q DESCRIPTION LMD W4 TERRA VISTA 1994-95 1995-96 1995-~ ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET REGULAR SALARIES 168,980 251,320 OVERTIME SALARIES 0 1,000 PART-TIME SALARIES 4,650 3,180 FRINGE BENEFITS 62,520 95,2t0 ASSESSMENT ADMIN 12,220 t 2,220 MAINT & OPERATIONS 42,600 52,660 VEHICLE MAINT & OPER 30,000 30,000 EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE 0 2,000 EMERG. & REG. VEHCILE RENTAL 1,000 1,000 GENERAL LIABILITY 5,180 5,540 ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD 70,440 78,900 CONT SRV-REG MAINT 211,990 221,460 TREE MAINT/LNDSCP AD 7,000 9,000 CAPITAL EXP-EQUIPMNT 2,300 35,560 CAPITAL EXP-VEHICLES 38,340 36,750 TELEPHONE UTILITIES 0 700 WATER UTIUTIES 120,000 t 20,000 ELECTRIC UTILITIES 23,150 20,000 SLRY SEAL PRK LOT & RESTRIPE(Coyote,Milliken,Spruce & W. 0 4,000 TERRA VISTA/BSLN RECNST HAVEN MED & RPLC PLANT MAT 374,000 374,000 LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL REPLACEMENT 10,000 t 5,000 MANDATORY ADA STUDY/ImplementaUon 0 14,600 CONTROLLER CABINET(Retrofit/Nail Elec. Code) 7,400 0 IRRIGATION IMPRVMNTS TO CNTRL CONTROL: Parks 4,800 0 HAVEN MEDIAN IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS 3,730 0 ADA RETROFIT: Milliken & Coyote Canyon Park Tot Lots 90,000 199,950 IRRIGATION IMPRVMNTS TO CNTRL CONTROL: Parkways 81,000 0 WOOD EXERCISE STATION REPLACEMENT 5,000 0 DRAINAGE CORRECTION TO WEST GREENWAY 5,000 0 IRRIGATION IMPROVEMENTS TO PARKWAYS 10,000 t0,000 CALSENSE RETROFITS 0 40,000 HAVEN MEDIAN LANDSCAPE LIGHT REPLACEMENT 0 7,260 REGRADE LEFT FIELD (~ SPRUCE 0 17,000 25/.320 1~)00 3,780 95,210 12220 62230 30,000 2,000 1,000 5.540 78,900 234~890 9,000 ~.560 75,140 700 t 06,660 20,000 4,000 0 17,060 14,600 7,400 0 0 199.950 0 0 0 t 0,000 40,000 7.250 17,000 LMD #5 NE CORNER 24TH & HERMOSA ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINT & OPER GENERAL LIABILITY ADMIN/GENERAL OVERHEAD CONT SRV-REG MAINT TELEPHONE UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL REPLACEMENT CONTROLLER CABINET(Retrofit/Nat'I Elec,Code) ADA RETROFIT TOT LOT CALSENSE RETROFIT 1,391,300 1,670,900 1,34.8,410 240 240 240 490 530 530 70 70 70 30 30 30 370 380 380 1,060 t,310 t.310 120 120 280 280 280 130 130 130 0 500 500 200 0 100 0 7,5t0 1.510 0 5,000 S,000 2,870 16,10O 16.200 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F*qTIMATFn FXPFNr ITI IRF-q DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 454130 454130-11 O0 454130-1900 454130-1001 454130-3900 454130-3931 454130-3933 454130-3960 454t 30-5900 454t 30-6028 454130-6029 454130-7045 454130-6019 454130-602t 454t 30-6022 454130-92t 7 454130-9332 454130-94t t 454130-9412 454130-9525 454t 30 TOTAL: LMD #6 CARYN COMMUNITY REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINT & OPER EMERG. & REO. VEHICLE RENTAL GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONT SRV-REG MAINT TREE MAINTILNDSCP AD CAPITAL OUTLAY: VEHICLES TELEPHONE UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES LANDSCAPE & PLANT MATERIAL REPLACEMENT CONTROLLER CABINET(Retrof'K/Nat'I Elec.Code) TREE REPLANTING CALSENSE RETROFIT REPLACE CONCRETE FENCE ON BANYAN 35,980 7,550 7,550 13,310 2,790 2,790 6,330 6,340 6,340 4,540 8,430 8~130 t,910 1,910 1,910 500 500 500 2,670 2,870 2,870 20,670 21,310 21,310 160,130 174,600 174,600 I 0,500 10,500 10,500 0 3,150 3,150 0 700 700 60,000 60,000 70~60 2,550 2,550 2,550 15,000 15,000 18,390 3,000 0 620 1,500 0 0 0 3,180 3,t80 0 56,430 56~30 338,590 377,810 392,080 464130 464t 30-t 1 O0 464130-1900 464130-1001 464130-3900 464130-3931 464130-3933 464130-3960 464130-5900 464130-6028 464130-6029 464130-7044 464130-7047 464130-8019 464t 30-8021 464130-6022 464130-9217 464130-9324 464130-9332 464130-9334 464130-94t 2 464130 TOTAL: LMD #3B GENERAL INDUSTRIAL AREA REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE DEPRECIATION EMERG. & REG. VEHICLE RENTAL GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONT SRV-REG MAINT TREE MAINT/LNDSCP AD CAPITAL OUTLAY: EQUIPMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TELEPHONE UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL REPLACEMENT MILLIKEN AVE LANDSCAPE REHAB. CONTROLLER CABINET(Retrofit/Nail Elec.Code) HAVEN MEDIAN IRRIGATION IMPRVMNT. CALSENSE CONNECTIONS TO CENTRAL 65,360 87,020 8?,020 24,180 32,200 32,200 2,480 2,600 2,600 28,060 23,100 25.100 1,030 1,030 1,030 1,000 0 0 5,860 4,860 4,860 36,610 37,390 37,390 269,820 t77,930 177,930 30,000 30,000 30,000 3,000 0 0 3,000 0 0 0 t,000 1,540 136,000 132,000 83,000 81,200 81,200 75,180 10,000 0 0 0 0 14,210 3,200 0 1,200 1,950 0 0 10,000 0 0 718,810 610,330 573.320 ACCOUNT NUMBER 414130 474130-1100 474130-1900 474130-1001 474130-3900 414t 30-393t 474130-3933 414130-3960 414130-5900 414130-6028 474130-6029 474130-7045 474130-6019 474130-8021 474130-6022 474130-92t7 474130-9332 474t 30-0411 474130-04t2 474130-9528 414130 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F.qTIMATFr FXPFNnlTIIRF,q DESCRIPTION LMD #7 NORTH ETIWANDA REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS ASSESSMENT ADMIN. MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINT & OPER EMERG. & REG. VEHICLE RENTAL GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONT SRV-REG MAINT TREE MAINTILNDSCP AD CAPITAL OUTLAY: VEHICLES TELEPHONE UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL REPLACEMENT CONTROLLER CABINET(Retrofit/Nafi Elec.Code) TREE REPLANTINGS CALSENSE CONNECTIONS TO CENTRAL NE COMMUNITY PARK TOT LOT & PICNIC AREAS 1994-95 1995-96 1995-~ ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 2,300 2,520 2,520 850 930 930 5,350 5,340 5,340 203,980 3,480 1,900 t ,330 1,330 t ,330 500 500 500 1,580 1,400 1 ~00 2t ,390 22,690 22.690 89,500 71,280 15,260 18,500 t 8,500 18,500 0 6,040 6,040 0 500 1,500 16,000 t 6,000 14,320 740 740 t ,0t 0 t 0,000 5,000 9,900 t ,400 0 410 5,500 0 0 25,000 3,000 3,000 0 442,470 442,470 403,920 601,720 61 5,080 484130 484130-1001 484130-3900 484130-393t 484130-3960 484t 30-5900 484130-6028 484130-6029 484130-1045 484130-6019 484130-6021 484t 30-6022 484130-9217 484130-9332 LMD #8 SOUTH ETIWANDA ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINT & OPERATIONS VEHICLE MAINTIOPER GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONT SRV-REG MAINT TREE MAINT. I LANDSCAPE C/O: VEHICLES TELEPHONE UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES LANDSCAPE PLANT MATERIAL REPLACEMENT CONTROLLER CABINET(Retrofit/Nafi Elec.Code) 580 580 580 600 490 490 370 370 370 150 190 190 1,200 1,210 1,210 4,000 6,760 5,760 6,500 8,500 8,500 0 3,630 3,630 0 120 t20 1,360 1,290 t ,470 80 80 80 2,000 1,000 1,000 200 0 0 484130 TOTAL: 17,040 24,220 24,400 554130 554130-1001 554130-3900 554130-3960 554130-5900 554130-6028 554130-8022 SLD #1 ARTERIAL ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINTJOPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONT. SRV-REG. MAINT ELECTRIC UTILITIES 93,380 89,690 89,690 17,200 17,200 17,200 4,120 4,680 4,680 30,4t0 31,490 3t,490 1,000 60,000 60,000 269,780 269,780 255,050 554130 TOTAL: 415,890 472,040 458,110 ACCOUNT NUMBER 564130 564t 30-1001 564130-3960 564t 30-5900 564t 30-8022 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET FRTIMATFn FXPI=NnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION SLD #2 RESIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT ADMIN GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITIES 1994-95 1995-96 1995.96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 32,610 29,230 29,230 2,570 2,540 2,540 18,060 18,530 18,530 206,030 206,030 190,220 564130 TOTAL: 259,270 256,330 240,520 574130 574130-1001 574130-3960 514130.8900 574130-8022 SLD #3 VICTORIA ASSESSMENT ADMIN GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD ELECTRIC UTILITIES 2t,180 20,490 20,490 1,810 1,810 1,810 13,380 14,1 O0 14,1 O0 146,660 146,660 118,570 574130 TOTAL: 183,030 183,060 154,970 584130 584130-1001 584130-11 O0 584t30-1900 584t 30-3900 584130-3960 584t 30-5900 584130-8028 584t 30-8022 SLD P, TERRA VISTA ASSESSMENT ADMIN REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS MAINTIOPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONT SRV-REG MAINT ELECTRIC UTILITIES t2,230 t2,220 t2,220 t 3,910 0 0 5,170 0 0 10,000 0 0 540 1,780 1,780 6,780 6,920 6,920 5,000 108,600 108,600 49,890 49,890 34,370 584130 TOTAL: 103,880 179,410 163,890 594130 594130-1100 594130-1900 594130-1001 594130-3900 594130-3960 594130-5900 594t 30-6028 594130-8022 SLD #5 CARYN COMMUNITY REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINTJOPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONT SRV-REG MAINT ELECTRIC UTILITIES 4,080 4,470 4,470 1,5t 0 1,650 t ,650 6,340 6,340 6,340 12,780 12,780 12,780 490 670 610 2,830 2.990 2,990 0 17,350 0 27,330 27,330 23,100 594130 TOTAL: 55,360 73,580 52,000 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F TIMATF FXPFN ITIIRFR DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 604130 604t 30-1100 604130-1900 604130-1001 604t 30-3900 604130-3960 604130-5900 604t 30-6028 604130-6022 SLD ~6 INDUSTRIAL AREA REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINTJOPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES ELECTRIC UTILITIES 6,120 6,700 6,700 2,260 2,480 7.,480 2,060 2,150 7.,150 2,500 2,500 2,500 490 570 570 3,800 4,250 4,250 6,580 13,810 7.,500 33,980 33,980 33,980 604130 TOTAL: 57,190 66,440 55,130 61 4130 614t30-1t00 614130-1900 614130-1001 614130-3900 614130-3960 614130-5900 614130-6028 614130-6022 614130 TOTAL: SLD #7 NORTH ETIWANDA REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINTJOPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES ELECTRIC UTILITIES 4,080 4,470 4,470 1,510 1,650 1,650 3,340 3,340 3,340 200 200 200 180 320 320 1,410 1,500 1,500 1,370 15,410 15,410 t 1,770 11,770 11,770 23,920 38,660 38,660 624130 624t 30-1001 624130-3900 624t 30-3960 624130-5900 624130-6028 624130-6022 624130 TOTAL: SLD #8 SOUTH ETIWANDA ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINTJOPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES ELECTRIC UTILITIES 200 200 200 130 130 130 50 130 130 510 510 610 0 8,110 8,110 3,860 3,860 1,500 4,750 12,940 t 0,580 634130 63-xxxx-xxxx 634130 TOTAL: AD 89-1 MILLIKEN SO. OF ARROW IMPROVEMENT FUND TRANSFERS OUT: (FY 96197 to Fund 64) 0 O 18,800 0 O 18~00 ACCOUNT NUMBER 644130 644130-1001 644130-3900 644130-3960 644130.6900 644t 30-7920 644130 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRF,q DESCRIPTION AD 89-1 MILLIKEN SO. OF ARROW REDEMPTION FUND ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINT & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINJGENERAL OVERHEAD PAYMENTS TO TRUSTEE 1994-96 1995-96 1995-9~ ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET t 20 120 t 20 0 0 30,000 5,000 4,980 4,980 9,800 9,760 9,760 490,000 488,000 4M,O00 564,920 502,860 532,860 724225 724225-7044 124225-7045 724225 TOTAL: INTER-GOV'T SERVICES: EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT & USAGE CAPITAL OUTLAY: EQUIPMENT CAPITAL OUTLAY: VEHICLES 10,000 44,500 44,500 210,000 585,500 605,000 220,000 629,500 649,500 764130 764130-1001 764130-3960 164t 30.6900 764130-6028 764130-7920 764130 TOTAL: CFD 88-2 ETIWANDA/HIGHLAND IMPROV.(Flood) ASSESSMENT ADMIN GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES PAYMENTS TO TRUSTEE 2,400 2,400 2,400 2,900 3,170 3,t 70 29,980 40,740 40,740 0 1,850 1,850 257,150 271,590 271,590 292,430 319,750 3t 9,750 784130 784t 30-6028 784t 30 TOTAL: AD 88-2 LAW ENFORCEMENT CONTRACT SERVICES 240 240 240. 240 240 240 81-4637 814637-1001 814637-3960 81-4637-5900 814637-7920 AD 64-2 ALTA LOMA CHANNEL IMPROVJREDEMP. ASSESSMENT ADMIN GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD PAYMENTS TO TRUSTEE t,500 t,500 1,500 1,890 1,950 1,950 3,710 3,820 3,820 164,030 189,580 180,000 814637 TOTAL: 191,130 196,850 187~70 7/ ACCOUNT NUMBER 83..4637 834637-11 O0 83-4637-1900 83-~31-3900 834637-3960 834637.6900 834637.6028 834637 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F-qTIMATFn FXPFNInlTilRFR DESCRIPTION AD 82-tR 6TH ST. INDUSTRIAL IMPROV. REGULAR PAYROLL FRINGE BENEFITS MAINT & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMIN I GENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 13,780 0 0 5,100 0 0 500 0 0 390 1,930 1,930 0 3,960 3,960 38,500 189,020 189,020 58,270 194,910 194.910 814t30 874130-t001 874t30-3960 874130-5900 874t30-1920 874130 TOTAL: 904130 904130-t t O0 · 904130-1900 904130-1001 904130-3900 904130-393t 904130-3932 904130-3933 904t 30-3960 904t 30-5900 904130-6028 904130-7920 904130.6019 904t30.6021 904130.6022 904130 TOTAL: CFD 84-1 DAY CREEK I REDEMPTION FUND ASSESSMENT ADMIN. GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD PAYMENTS TO TRUSTEE PD 86 RED HILL & HERITAGE I REDEMPTION REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINTJOPERATIONS VEHICLE DEPRECIATION EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE EMERG.& ROUTINE VEHJEQUIP.RENTAL GENERAL LIABILITY ADMIN/GENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES PAYMENTS TO TRUSTEE TELEPHONE UTILITIES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES 18,500 18,470 18~70 t8,680 18,380 18,380 71,980 70,000 70,000 1,777,390 t,749,980 1,774,980 1,886,550 1,856,830 t ,88t ,830 243,360 264,050 264,050 90,040 97,700 97,700 137,240 134,440 134,440 62,040 76,480 78~t60 24,000 24,000 24,000 6,000 4,000 4,000 1,000 2,000 2,000 12,420 12,040 t 2,640 121,990 122,450 122,460 11,000 30,300 30,530 680,180 677,000 677,000 0 1,200 t ,700 96,650 96,650 96.650 95,950 95,950 95,950 1,587,870 1,638,860 1,641,470 934130 934t30-1001 934130-3900 934130-3960 934130-5900 934130-7920 934t 30 TOTAL: AD 82-1R 6TH ST. INDUSTRIAL I REDEMPTION ASSESSMENT ADMIN MAINT & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE 1,480 1,480 1,480 0 500 0 5,660 8,900 8,900 9,400 17,440 17,440 555,360 870,780 556,000 57t,900 899,100 583,820 ACCOUNT NUMBER 944130 944130-3960 944130-5900 944130-7920 94 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F TIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION AD 82-1R 6TH ST. INDUSTRIAL I RESERVES GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET O 3,210 3,210 O 6,300 6,300 0 315,000 0 0 324,5t0 9,5t0 954637 954637-11 O0 954631-1900 954637-3960 954637-6028 954631 TOTAL: AD 86-2 R/C DRAINAGE DISTRICT IMPROV. REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS GENERAL LIABILITY CONT SRV-REG MAINT 14,510 5,370 2,000 200,000 221,880 0 0 2,500 250,000 252,500 380 0 ~.500 1~00 4,080 964130 964t 30-1001 964t 30-3960 964t 30-5900 964130-7920 AD 86-2 R/C DRAINAGE DISTRICTIREDEMP. ASSESSMENT ADMIN GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD PAYMENTS TO TRUSTEE 6,060 1,880 2,220 t80,000 6,060 2,480 4,850 236,610 6,060 2,480 4,850 178,850 964130 TOTAL: 190,160 250,000 1gL240 974130 974130-3900 914130-3960 974130-5900 974130-1920 91 TOTAL: AD 86-2 R/C DRAINAGE DISTRICT/RESERVES MAINT & OPERATIONS GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD PAYMENTS TO TRUSTEE 500 810 t ,590 78,750 81,650 O 810 1~90 0 Z400 1094941 1094647-1100 1094947-1900 1094947-3900 1094941-3933 1094941-3960 1094941-6028 1094641-6021 1094647-6022 1094647-7945 1094647 TOTAL: METROLINK MAINT. & SECURITY PROGRAM REGULAR SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS EMERG.& ROUTINE VEH.IEQUIP.RENTAL GENERAL LIABILITY CONTRACT SERVICES WATER UTILITIES ELECTRIC UTILITIES C/O: VEHICLES 3,520 1,3OO 11 ,TOO 500 900 57,600 3,500 17,000 0 96,020 3,670 t,360 8,500 800 870 57,000 3,500 17,000 5,250 97,950 3~670 1~360 ~000 800 870 54~80 3,500 9.500 ~250 84~30 ACCOUNT NUMBER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F.qTIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRF.q DESCRIPTION 1994-95 1995-96 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 1104631 1104637-1200 1104637.3900 1104637-6028 1104631 TOTAL: USED OIL RECYCLING GRANT OVERTIME MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS CONTRACT SERVICES 0 6,460 6,460 0 19,850 t9,850 0 9,800 9,800 0 36,110 36,110 1114532 1114532-1100 11t4532-1300 1114532-t900 1114532-3100 1114532-3300 1114532-3900 1114632-6910 1114532-6028 1 t 14532-8019 1114532-7044 1 t 14532-7047 1114432 TOTAL: CALIFORNIA LITERACY CAMPAIGN GRANT REGULAR SALARIES PARTrIME SALARIES FRINGE BENEFITS TRAVEL & MEETING MILEAGE MAINTENANCE & OPERATIONS LIBRARY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD CONTRACT SERVICES TELEPHONE UTILITIES C/O: EQUIPMENT C/O: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0 0 tt,160 0 0 11,t60 0 0 8,260 0 0 550 0 0 200 0 0 7,210 0 0 7,670 0 0 27,170 0 0 900 0 0 1,050 0 0 3,040 0 0 94,370 1124532 1 t 24532-7047 1124432 TOTAL: WEINGART FOUNDATION GRANT C/O: COMPUTER EQUIPMENT 0 0 5,000 0 0 S,000 1254130 1254130-1001 1254t 30-3960 1254t 30.8900 1254130-1920 CFD 93-3 FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATION GENERAL LIABILITY ADMINIGENERAL OVERHEAD PAYMENT TO TRUSTEE 70 3,980 30,160 398,000 70 4,240 29,580 304,310 0 4,240 29,580 394,310 1254130 TOTAL: 432,210 428,200 428,200 1284130 1284130-6028 AD 93-2 SOUTH ETIWANDA DRAINAGE CONTRACT SERVICES 25,110 t 284130 TOTAL: 25,110 ACCOUNT NUMBER 1314130 131 4t 30-6028 1314130 TOTAL: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FISCAL YEAR 1995-96 AMENDED BUDGET F~TIMATFn FXPFNnlTIIRFR DESCRIPTION AD 93-I MASI COMMERCE CENTER CONTRACT SERVICES 1994-95 1995-99 1995-96 ADOPTED ADOPTED AMENDED BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET 5,000 1S,000 1S,00O 5,000 15,000 15,000 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May15,1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Laura J. Bonaccorsi, RLA, Landscape Designer APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY, PARTS I AND II FOR THE PROPOSED METROLINK CORRIDOR BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT AT LOCATIONS ALONG THE METROLINK CORRIDOR BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND MILLIKEN AVENUE, AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION THEREFOE RECOMMENDATION: It is hereby recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting and approving the Environmental Initial Study, Parts I and II for the proposed Metrolink Corridor Beauti~cation Project between Archibald Avenue and Milliken Avenue and issuance of a Categorical Exemption therefore and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS This report presents an Environmental Assessment Initial Study for the proposed Metrolink Corridor Beauti~cation Project between Archibald Avenue and Milliken Avenue. Said project entails the landscaping of surplus right-of-way areas adjacent to the Metrolink corridor. It is the Engineering Staff's finding that the proposed project will not create a significant adverse impact on the environment and therefore recommend that these improvements be classified as Categorically Exempt. Respectfully~ William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LJB:dlw Attachment RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED METROLINK CORRIDOR BEAUTIFICATION PROJECT BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AVENUE AND MILLIKEN AVENUE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has reviewed all available input conceming the proposed Metrolink Corridor Beauti~cation Project; and WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves the Environmental Assessment Initial Study and issuance of a Categorical Exemption for the proposed Metrolink Corridor Beautification Project. Section 2: The City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 77 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM PART I - INITIAL STUDY General Information 1. Name and address of developer or project sponsor: City ofRancho Cucamonga - 10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga. California 91730 2. Address of project: Surplus right-of-wa.v areas adjacent to the active Metrolink Corridor between Archibald Avenue and Milliken Avenue. 3. Name, address and telephone number of person to be contacted conceming this project: City of Rancho Cucamonga. 10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga. California 91730 - Contact: William J. O'Neil. City Engineer. (909) 477-2740 4. Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: N/A 5. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, including those required by City, Regional, State and Federal Agencies: Metrolinkpermit and Ci.tv Council approval. City of Rancho Cucamonga. California 6. Existing zoning district: Adjacent uses to RR corridor include Heavv Industrial. General Industrial. Industrial Park Recreation and Low and Low-Medium Residential. 7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed): Scenic Landscaping Project Description and Effects: 8. Site Size: See Attachment 9. Square Footage: 151,000 SF 10. Number of floors of construction: N/A 11. Amount of off-street parking provided: N/A 12. Attach plans: N/A 13. Proposed scheduling: See Attachment 14. Associated project: N/A 15. Anticipated incremental development: N/A 16. If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices of rents and type of household size expected: N/A 17. If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of sales area and loading facilities: N/A 18. If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift and loading facilities: N/A 19. If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimate occupancy, loading facilities and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A 20. If the project involves a variance, conditional use or reasoning application, state this and indicate clearly why the application is required: N/A the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes Are (attach additional sheets as necessary). 21. Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, hills or substantial alteration of ground contours. 22. Chance in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public lands or roads. 23. Change in pattem, scale or character of general area of project. 24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter. 25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity. 26. Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or quantity or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity. 28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10% or more. 29. Use of disposal or potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammable or explosives. 30. Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire, water, sewage, etc.). 31. Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil, natural gas, etc.). 32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects. Environmental Setting: 33. Yes No X X X X X X X X X X X X Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability, plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing structures on the site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site, snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. See Attachment -2- 34. Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height, frontage, set-back, rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity, snapshots or Polaroid photos will be accepted. Certification I hereby certify that the statements fumished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are tree and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the Planning Division. See Attachment Date: May 8, 1996 Title: City Engineer -3- ATTACHMENT - PART I Project Description and Effects: 8, 9, 13, 23, 33, 34 The project involves the landscaping of 151,000 sfwithin several surplus r.o.w. parcels adjacent to the active Metrolink Corridor and paralleling the r.o.w of Eighth Street, between Archibald Avenue and Milliken Avenue. The proposed landscaping is intended to naturalize and will mitigate the noise, dust and appearance of the corridor while improving air quality and scenic character. The anticipated project schedule for construction is from January 1997 to November 1997. The project is situated within an existing, unimproved transportation corridor, bordered by predominantly industrial uses with some residential uses. The proposed improvements will not have a significant impact on plants, animals, !and resources, or any historical, cultural, or scenic resources. Photos attached. EXISTING CONDITIONS x,V['i~[ ITN PROJECT BOL~DARIES TYPICAL SITE CIIAIL:XCTER CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PART II - INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST BACKGROUND 1. Name of Proponent City ofRancho Cucamonga 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent 10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucarnonga. CA 91729 3. Date of Checklist Submitted 4. Agency Requiring Checklist 5. Name of Proposal, if applicable Avenue and Milliken Avenue May 15. 1996 City of Rancho Cucarnonga Metrolink Corridor Beauti~cation Project between Archibald ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanation of all 'yes' and 'maybe' answers are required on attached sheets). YES MAYBE NO 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? Disruptions, displacements, compaction or over covering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? X X X X X X Page 2 YES MAYBE NO g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors: c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? W~tter. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?. c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? d. Change in the amount of surface water in any body of water? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of grotmd waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 3 YES MAYBE NO i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plant into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shell-fish, benthie organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use and Planning Considerations. Will the proposal have significant results in? X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 4 YI~8 MAYBE NO a, A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? b, A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies, or adopted plans of any governmental entities? C, An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing consumptive or non-consumptive recreational oppommities? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: 11. 12. a, A risk of an explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? b, Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? Alterations to present pattems of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X X X X X X X X X X X X Page 5 YES MAYBE NO e. Alterations to water-borne, rail, or air traffic? f. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemmental services in any of the following areas? a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? f. Other govemmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? __ 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a, Electric power? Natural or packaged gas? Communications systems? Water supply? Waste water facilities? Flood control strncmres? Solid waste facilities? X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 87 Page 6 YES MAYBE NO 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in the alteration of, or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? X Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d, Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X Page 7 YES MAYBE NO Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future). X Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cnmulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two of more separate resources where the impact on each impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of these impacts on the environment is significant.) X Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION (Narrative description of environmental impacts.) Page 8 IV .DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency.) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fred that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required. X I find the proposed project CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT per Article 19, Class 1 C, Section 15301 of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act. Date May 8, 1996 William J. O'Neil City Engineer Title CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner L. J. Henderson AICP, Principal Planner LANDMARK DESIGNATION 96-01 - SANBAG - A request to designate an existing residence and accessory structures (Sam and Alfreda Maloof residence and workshop - National Register Eligible), located at 9553 Highland Avenue - APN: 202-101-18. Related files: Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, Conditional Use Permit 96-09, and Design Review 96-03. RECOMMENDATION Approval of the attached Resolution as unanimously recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission and staff. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The San Bernardino Area Governments Association (SANBAG) as the designated transportation planning agency for San Bernardino County has filed the subject application in order to comply with the mitigation measures required within the Master Environmental Impact Statement (MEIS) for the Route 30 Freeway extension. The planned Freeway extension would have adversely impacted the existing Maloof Residence and Accessory structures, which were identified in the MEIS as a National Register Eligible historic/cultural resource. In accordance with Federal regulations, SANBAG explored with the Maloofs several alternatives and the current alternative (landmark designation, alteration, relocation, and reuse as a residential museum - arts and crafts center) was chosen as the preferred mitigation. On April 24, 1996, the Historic Preservation/Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the landmark designation and approved the previously referenced and related applications. Documentation prepared as part of the Cultural Resource Review for the Route 30 MEIS and subsequently reviewed by the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) determined the existing residence and workshop buildings qualified as National Register eligible structures. A copy of the previous cultural resource documentation is attached for reference within Exhibit "A." The determination of a National Register level significance clearly demonstrates that the site and buildings meet the City's criteria for landmark designation. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT LD 96-01 - SANBAG May 15, 1996 Page 2 FACTS FOR FINDING The Facts for Finding are contained in the attached Resolution of Approval. City Planner BB:LH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report dated April 24, 1996 Resolution of Approval r" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 24, 1996 Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation\Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner LANDMARK DESIGNATION 96-01 - SANBAG - A request to designate an existing residence and accessory structures (Sam and Alfreda Maloof residence and workshop - National Register eligible), located at 9553 Highland Avenue - APN: 202-101-18. Related files: Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, Conditional Use Permit 96-09, and Design Review 96-03. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND LANDMARK ALTERATION PERMIT 96-01 - SANBAG - A request to move an existing residence and accessory structures (Sam and Alfreda Maloof residence and workshop), from 9553 Highland Avenue to a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low (VL) zone located at the southeast corner of Carnelian and Almond Streets - APN: 1061-281-16. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Related files: Landmark Designation 96-01, Conditional Use Permit 96-09, and Design Review 96-03. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-09 - SANBAG - A request to conveal a relocated residence and accessory structures (Sam and Alfreda Maloof residence and workshop) to a House and Workshop Museum (Arts and Crafts Center), located on a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low (VL) zone located at the southeast corner of Carnelian and Almond Streets - APN: 1061-281-16. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Related files: Landmark Designation 96~01, Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, and Design Review 96-03. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW 96-03 - SANBAG - A request to construct a new residence on a 5.54 acre site in the Very Low (VL) zone located at the southeast corner of Carnelian and Almond Streets APN: 1061-281-16. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Related files: Landmark Designation 96-01, Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, and Conditional Use Permit 96-09. EXHIBIT "A" to May 15, 1996 City Council Staff Report Y HPC/PC STAFF REPORT LD 96-01, LAP 96-01, CUP 96-09, & DR 96-03 - SAN BAG April 24, 1996 Page 2 Background: The San Bernardino Associated Governments (SANBAG), as the designated transportation planning agency for San Bernardino County, has filed the subject applications in order to comply with the mitigation measures required within the Master Environmental Impact Statement (MEIS) for the Route 30 Freeway extension. The planned Freeway extension would have adversely impacted the existing Maloof residence and accessory structures, which were identified in the MEIS as a National Register eligible historic/cultural resource. In accordance with Federal regulations, SANBAG explored several alternatives with the Maloofs; and the current relocation alternative was chosen as the preferred mitigation. A detailed background and project description is contained in the applicant's submittal included with the initial study (Exhibit ~L"). General Plan Designations: The project site, as well as all surrounding properties, is designated Very Low (VL) Density (0-2 dwelling units per acre). Site Characteristics: The proposed relocation site is approximately 6 gross acres in size, and is presently an abandoned citrus grove. This site has a natural water course that is located on the east side and Eucalyptus tree rows on the north and east property lines. The general grade of the property is approximately 8 percent and slopes from north to south consistent with the general pattern of the area. The site was chosen after a review of similar sites throughout the Alta Loma area in order to find a site that closely conforms to the existing site on Highland Avenue. D. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided New 2 bedroom 2,448 2 covered 2 2 residence (approx.) per unit Relocated residence (converted to Museum/ Arts and Crafts Center) 6,312 1 per employee 22 22 + I per 3 visitors (60 visitors maximum) Relocated/reconstructed guest house 593 1 per artist in residence 2 2 (maximum 2) Relocated/reconstructed workshops TOTAL 3,692 1 per employee 3 3 (maximum 3) 29 29 HPC/PC STAFF REPORT LD 96-01, LAP 96-01, CUP 96-09, & DR 96-03 - SANBAG April 24, 1996 Page 3 ANALYSIS: A· Historic Landmark Designation, Landmark Alteration, Conditional Use Permit, Design Review: Landmark Designation - Documentation prepared as part of the Cultural Resource Review for the Route 30 Freeway MEIS and subsequently reviewed by the California Office of Historic Preservation (COHP) determined the existing residence and workshop buildings qualified as National Register eligible structures. A copy of the previous cultural resource documentation is attached for reference (Exhibit "L"). The determination of a National Register level significance clearly demonstrates that the site and buildings meet the City's criteria for landmark designation. Landmark Alteration - The relocation of the landmark structures as part of a federally funded freeway project requires the review and concurrence of the California Office of Historic Preservation and compliance with the Federal Secretary of Interior Standards for alterations. The required compliance with California Office of Historic Preservation will assure that the alterations for the Landmark will be minimized and treated sensitively. Conditional Use Permit - Pursuant to Section 17.08.030(7) Uses Within Recognized Historic Structures, "Historic structures within a Residential District may be used for uses other than residential" subject to a Conditional Use Permit and subject to four criteria contained in Subsections (a) through (d). The essential evaluation before the Commission is contained in Subsection (b) which states: "Any use proposed shall not cause intensification or disruption to any adjacent uses or neighborhood." In staff's opinion, the proposed use will not cause an intensification or disruption to the area for the following reasons: The basic operation of the Maloof's custom furniture construction and tours of the grounds, house, and arts and crafts collection is essentially the same as currently exists at the present location on Highland Avenue. In researching the current activities, staff was unable to find any history or evidence of conflict or nuisance with the adjacent neighborhood during its many years of operation. The new proposed site is adequately buffered from adjacent uses with streets bordering on all four sides. Given the limitations proposed within the application restricting the number of employees (2 foundation, 3 arts and crafts, and 2 artists in residence) and maximum 60 visitors no more than four times per week, the applicant's engineer has projected an average maximum of 62 trips per day compared to 80 trips per day if the site were to develop at the allowed density of eight single family residences. Design Review - The site layout and orientation are designed with the following influences and characteristics: The relocated and replicated structures are located and oriented to match the historically accurate layout at the existing site on Highland Avenue· Such historical HPC/PC STAFF REPORT LD 96-01, LAP 96-01, CUP 96-09, & DR 96-03 - SANBAG April 24, 1996 Page 4 accuracy is mandated by the National Register criteria. Another example is the proposed driveway from Almond Street, which is designed primarily for ceremonial purposes only. The major access for the House Museum/Arts and Crafts Center is via the double driveway on Carnelian Street. The new residence is oriented to Hidden Farm Road with a separate access. The separate access to Hidden Farm Road will assure the Maloof family residence privacy during foundation activities. 3. The site is proposed to be surrounded by decorative metal fencing to provide security. The proposed new residence is designed to match the architectural style of the relocated and replicated structures. The architectural features are of a rustic rural flavor with exposed board-on-board siding and a blue colored metal standing seam roof. The applicant is requiring the recordation of a conservation easement on the property that will assure the site is maintained in the same manner it is proposed, thereby precluding any additional subdivision and development of the site. Therefore, in staffs opinion, the proposal is consistent with the area and the appropriate provisions of the General Plan. Neighborhood Meeting: On March 30, 1996, the Applicant conducted a neighborhood meeting at the existing Maloof residence on Highland Avenue. Approximately half of the 48 property owners, applicant representatives, and City staff attended the meeting. The meeting included a tour of the house and workshops and a presentation on the proposed project. Although the attendees had several questions the overall reaction was positive. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Lumpp, McNiel, Henderson) reviewed the development submittal on April 2, 1996, and unanimously recommended approval as presented. Grading and Technical Review Committees: The Grading and Technical Review Committees reviewed the development submittal and determined that, with the recommended conditions of approval, the project is in conformance with applicable standards and ordinances. EJ Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study was completed and a Negative Declaration was prepared and is attached hereto for reference. FACTS FOR FINDING: The project is consistent with the General Plan and the Development Code. The project will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, or cause nuisances or significant environmental impacts. The Facts for Finding for each action are contained in the applicable attached Resolutions. CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper as a public hearing, the site has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the site. HPC/PC STAFF REPORT LD 96-01, LAP 96-01, CUP 96-09, & DR 96-03 - SAN BAG April 24, 1996 Page 5 At the time this report was written, staff had received one letter from a neighboring property owner (Exhibit "P") who could not attend the public hearing. The letter indicated two concerns. The first question had to do with the new drainage pipe under Hidden Farm Road. The applicant's engineer contacted the neighbor and answered the concern with regards to drainage. The second concern had to do with street lights which he did not feel would benefit the rural atmosphere. It was explained that the street lights are a public safety policy required by the City. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Landmark Designation 96-01, Landmark Alteration Permit 96-01, Conditional Use Permit 96-09, and Design Review 96-03 and issuance of a Negative Declaration. City Planner BB:LH:mlg NOTE: ONLY EXHIBITS "A" AND "L" INCLUDED WITH CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Landscape Plan Exhibit "D" - Site Elevation Exhibit "E" - Phasing Plan Exhibit "F" Natural Features Map Exhibit "G" - Grading Map Exhibit "H" - Slope Profile Map Exhibit "1" Slope Profiles Exhibit "J" - New House Elevations/Floor Plans and Sections Exhibit "K" - Existing Site, Elements, and Building Plans Exhibit "L" - Architectural Inventory Evaluation Form Exhibit "M" - Initial Study Exhibit "N" - Drainage Report Exhibit "O" - Traffic Analysis Exhibit "P" - Correspondence from Neighboring Property Owner Resolution Recommending Approval Of Landmark Designation 96-01 Resolution of Approval for Landmark Alteration 96-01 Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit 96-09 Resolution of Approval for Design Review 96-03 n -----FZ- <x:: Z .......... Ji1) :~ ~u"'~ F- <: '/ zEx/-fl.~/7" A CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ARCHITECTURAL INVENTORY/EVALUATION FORM County - Route - Peelmile: SBd 30 0.0/22.8 ( ) (X) IDENTIFICATION MAP REFERENCE NO. 32 (supplement) LISTED ( ) DETERMINED ELIGIBLE APPEARS ELIG1BUE ( } APPEARS INELIGIBLE 1,Cammob Name: Sam and Airreds Maleof Residence and Studio 2.Historic Name: ,~amo 3.Sireel or rural address: CIty: Rancho Cucamonga (Alia Lama) 4.Pnrcel Number: 202-101-01 and -18 Address; 9553 Highland Avenue 5.0wnemhlp Is: ( ) Public ( × ) Privale 6. Present U,~e: Residence and 9553 Highland Avenue ZIp Code: 91701 County: Sen Bernardtoo · -' Present Owner: Sam and Arfreda Maleof CIty: Rancho Cuc~n~unga (Alto I.oma) Zip Coda; OrlglnaZ Use: Residence and studio 91701 DESCRIPTION To.Architectural Style: Contemporary 7b. Brlofly dogcrlbe the present PHYSICAL CONDITION of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from Its original condition: The various buildings or this proport,/, well-hidden from view, are situsled in the middle of a lernon grove. A~though this properly [.~ under one ownemhip, it is actually two separate. adjacent proeels. Sam Maleof first ar. quired the eastern lot which consiste,,'J of part o[ the lemon grove, a chicken hou-':o and a small, older residence. The lot on the west was occupied by a c. 1940 house. This was later acquired and combined with the Maleof proport),; it is now occupied by the Ma[cx~fs' son. This residence is a'one-story house with a medium hippod roof and a stucco exlo~ior; ~ has l:~en ec<tonsivoiy remodeled over the years. (SEE CONTINUATION SHEF'T 1 ) 8. C,~nn|ruoUon date E,,tlma~ed: ( ) Factual: (1052-present) Archllacl: Sam Malcx}f 10, Builder: Sam 11. Approx. properly size (In fe~!) Frontage: 440' Depffi: 522' 12. Dale(a) el encto=od photograph(s): Febmay 17, 1989 13.Cond[tlon: Excellent (x) Good ( ) Fear( 14.Altoratlone; Continuous expansion or house 15.Surroundings: (Check more than one if necesary) Densely builFup ( ) Residential ( x ) Industrial ( ) ) Deterior,uled ( ) Open land (.) Sc~fiered buildings ( C-~mmercial ( ) Other: CitruS grove 15.Thraets to sits: None known ( ) Private Development ( Publlc Works Project ( x ) .. 17.1s r, ho structure: On its original site? ( x ) Moved? ( 18.Related features: ) Zoning( ) Vandali.~m( ) ) Unknown? ( ) Guest house, garage, .'.lorago shed..lemon grove, additional residence SIGNIFICANCE lg.13rlefly state historical and/or architectural Importance (including dates, events, and per~ns associated with the silo): This property is ellg~le for. inclusion in the National Rogl~_lor of Hislode Places under Criteria B and C. While it is less than 50 years of age, It has exceptional impatience under Criterion B based upon its a~ociation with a living artistic figure of international prominence, 9nd the level of recognition and professional ,~tudy afforded to his work, and under Criterion C based upon the exceptional architectural merit of the house and studio independent of it= association with its owner/builder. The property is the home end studio of the internationally- ~cdaimed woodworker and furniture designer, Sans Maleof, and his wife Alfred~ Ward Maleof, a former Santa Fe museum and crafts program director. Sam Maloo~ began making his fumtture at his AI~ Lama workshop in the 1950s. His work can been seen In a number of AmeriCan museums, and has been featured In numerous tolevisbn and film productions, as weft as popular and scholarly works on American furniture and crafts. His homo/studio has been a pilgrimage site for local colleges and universities, and the G~rnblo House Associate..; o~ Pasadena conduct an annual tour to tim property. (SEE CONTINUATION SHEETS 1.-4) 20.Main theme of the historic resource: (If more th~n one Is checked, number in order of Importance.) Architecture ( ) Ads & Leisure ( x ) Economic/Industrial ( ) Exploration/Settlement Government ( ) Military ( ) Religion ( ) SociaLEducation ( ) ( ) 21.Sources (LIst books, documenls, surveys, personal interviews and their dates.) SEE CONTINUATION SHEET 5. Leefish skelch map (draw & label ~ite and surround;ng sb'eets, roacLs, and prominent landmarks): 22.Date form prepared: Feb. 17, 1989, rev. July 8, 1990 By: Donnie W. Parks, Aaron A. Gallup Organization: Caitrans Addresa: 1120 N Street City: Sacramento Zip Code: 95814 Phone: (916) 920-7683 or 920-7672 7'* /*** /co CONTINUATION SHEET 1 I,~AP REFERENCE No, 32 (Supplement) 7b.~rlefiy describe tile present PHYSICAL CONDITION of the site or structure and describe any major alterations from Its original condition; (CONTINUED) Maleof storied building on Ihe eastern parcel in 1952 with the constnJcllon or his woodworking shop. The present house, allached to the workshop, was begun in 1956. The home si1:~ within a 5 acre lemon grovo-.-.one of the last in the area. The.original small residence was lorn down about 30 years ago and replaced by lho structure which is now called *lhe guesl house'. This flat-reeled structure, r~mini'~cent of residences of the fate phase of the International Style, sits in the shade of a massive avoc. ade tree and has an encircling, covered deck. on all four sides; the main entrance Is on the east. Dlroclly east across the driveway is 1he garage, a one-car facility wllh unpaintod vertical oxlorlor board siding. 1Zho driveway terminates at a smNI parking area north of the workshop. The original house, begun as a few rooms. forms the core o[ [he proseal building, which has grown incrementally over the years, creating an interplay of varying holehis, exposures and padtally enclosed courtyards. Interior rooms are often gallory-I~e, wllh soaring spies and indirect natural llghl providing a perfect display for the owners' ox'ton.,;ive cotleclion of a~t and crafts. Each addilbn was designed and constructed by Sam MateeL Each has been carefully integralad into the overall building, and display 1he bullder's trealment of archilecturo as a line art. wi~h an obvious love for working in the wood medium ot construction. Many rooms tn the rambling collection of unique and . wonderful spaces faaluro I~and finished lumber with handcrafted dewsled, mortise and tenon connections-treated more like furniture than buildi~k3 parts. The pdman/doors uf !he house are uniquely designed and have handcrafted wooden hinges, hasps, and latches, The original house and studio form a one-story, L- shaped unit at the southwest corner of the plan. Small additions expand these spaces 1o the west and north, while a major two- .slory section on lho east serves as a living room with a central atrium encircled on the upper leve~ by a balcony. This is a beautifully craJled space both architecturally and In terms of its 'finishing details. The baJcony opens into other upper level mores, including a "conference room' addition above the original house, and ~ small library alcove with a view over the lemon grove. A throe story tower admits light into the lower level on the east as the alignment of the plan shifts from east-west to north-south. This leads Into a one-story sectiori mntainlng tile main bedroom, followed by a two story sealion with loft reached by a magnificent Imndora~ed circular slajrway. A work of azt. the stairway was constructed of wood from Taiwanoso motorboat crates laminated together; e~ch stop was c. arvod and '...the joints are sculpted so that the steps taper from the center posl like polaJs on a flower (Slono 1996:76)." The railing was made from six laminates and assembled using one hundred clamps. From this room, several steps lead up to the north, c~nnecting with a wood- and glass-sided short bridge-I~e passage which then slaps down to the guest bedroom. The overall design encloses a courtyard at the center, with a partial court on the south. A deck and afoot are ~,.ccassed on the west from the kitchen. A ~mall storage building atentis a~ the soulhwest corner of the complex. 19.Briefly orate historical anger architectural Importance (Include dates, evontu, and persons associated with the alto): (CONTINUED) ..Criterion R - The Man and Hi~ To say Sam Maleof is a woodworker is like saying Michelan0elo was a .~tonecarver, yet that Is how he identifies himself in the title of his book and in his professional life. Born in Chine in 1916, of Lebaneso parents who came 1o ~h~ Unlled Sislee In 190o, he grow up In Soulhorn Collierale. I'fe and Alfreda have made their home lot over 35 years at the 9553 HIghland Avenue address In the Alia Lom,~ portion of Rancho Cucamonga. The 'woodwork" Sam Maleof creates is fine'furniture; "mastercraftsman" is the term others use to describe him. His exquisite designs feature sculpturol modern lines. A hallmark of his wo~k, and the innovation for which ha is famous, is exposed joinery. The robbated, dovetail, hip, and box joints, the pegs, and the spllnes are all visible and considered part of the design. In the introduction to Mabof's book Jonathan Fairbanks, curator at the Boslon Museum of Fine Arts. says, 'Perhaps the hallmark of Maleof furniture Is i~s half-lap joint. exposed where the legs meet the seal This is a complex tongue and groove joint, which follows the contour of the chair surf'ace'. Structurally sound and visually appealing, this joint artfully provides detail at the point el transition (Maleof 1983:19).' The lurni~ure is made primarily of walnut and is never stained. All pieces are finished by hand-rubbing with numerous coats of a combination of linseed and tung oils and beeswax. CONFnNU/~TION SHEET 2 MAP REFERENCE No. 32 (Supplement) In his book American Fdrniture. 162,0 tn fhe Present. Jonmhan Fairbanks includes Sam Maleof in an elite group of three artist-craftsmen in wood furniture (the others being George Nak~shirna and Arthur Carpenter) who make up the first generation to follow Wharton Esherick (1887-1970)--the senior figure in the new craft, movement which took place after World War II. Of this movement, Fairbanks says that these three 'fopresent the relntegralion of craft, ad and personal communication with the consumer (Fairbanks 1981:496). Michael A. Stone, in his book G. on~emoorary &"L~3.r.i.GCu3_W. Oo~¥Orkers' (1986). narDwed a list el over 100-cratlsman to ten which included Sam Maleof. His choices are all ,'Bsociated with tl~e above-mentioned post-World War II craft resurgenco, a period which, he says, "saw an explosion of new styles end methods." el this group. Stone says. 'The older craftsmen [Maloof being one] are particularly important because they took risks and built a market for their work when support for the independent designor-craftsn~an was [virtually ',~bs0nt} (~tone 1986:Prefa~o)." el Maleat. SIena writes that he "...typifio~ the first generation of po3twar craftsmen who were sell-taught. fiercely Independent and forced to create their own market at a lime when handmade furniture was nearly unknown (Stone 198G:69)." Describing Maleel, Fairbanks also -~peaks of his "...noteworthy contributions to the recent craft movement and to the 'California schooF of modern woodworking. known for ils organic sl~ap~9 and soulplod Joints. Sarn's work has Influenced so .many craftsmen that one is tempted to pl~ce him at the head of a 'school' (Maleof 1983:19)." His chairs, tables, and case pieces furnish the board rooms of several wry large corporations. Besides those of his own homo, he has also designed and crafted the interiors and furnishings for sever~ churches which led to his participation in the "Exhlbll, lon of Liturgical Aria" at the 4tat Internoriginal Eucharist Congress. in Philadelphia, in 1976. His work is also housed in the colleclions of approximately ten museums including the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the American Craft Museum. In New York City; the Boston Museum of Fine Ads. which owns fourteen pieces; fi'~e Los Angeles County Museum and the Craft and Folk An 'Museum in Los Angeles; and the Philadelphia Museum of Art. His furniture is also In the White House and In the Vice Prosldent's House' in Washington, D. C. He. has participated In over fifty exhibits since 1970. Some of lhese include -Objects U. S. A." at the Smlthsonlan Institute; "Woodenworks' in the Ranwick Gallery of the Smithsonion; 'In Prair. o of H~nds' an international exhibition of crafts by the World Craft Council in Toronto; 'A Renaissance In Furniture as Art: Master Woodworkam" at the Esther Sake Gallery, in Chicago; "Craft Today: Poetry of the Physlcsl" at the American Craft Museum. in New York City; and "Masters: A Tribute to Sam MaleoF at L~'~ Jolla Gallery Eight, in La Jolla. California. In 1978. he participated In a exhibit and seminar at 1he Vatican, In Rome. A more complete list of shows and exhibits is attached to lhis form. Sam Maleof has been the .~ubjoCt of several television prograrn% lho first being "NBC On The Go* with Jack Linkletter in 1959, the latest being "America," a feature for German Tolevlslo. n, In 1986. In addition to his own book, publisl~ed in 1983, and pra,~ently going Into-a second printing, ho and his work have been have boon featured in 25 publications. Two of ll~e more scholarly and noteworthy el thooo are: American D~,co.r~tiv~ Ads: 300 Years of. ..Creative DqsigQ by Robert Bishop and Particle Coblonlz, and Am~ricnn Furnihrre: 1620 to the Present by .Jonathan Fairbanks. Robed Bishop Is one of the loremost authors on the decorative arts in America. Jonathan Fairbank.s, identified above, also wrole the previously cited Introduction for Maloof's book. Maleof and his work have also been featured in over seventy articles in over 28 different magazines or journals including American Craft. 1981 and 1987: Craft Horizons. 1954, 1964, 1968, 1970, and 1971; Creative Craff.s. 1960 and 1961; Fine Woodworking. 1980: and Pacific WooCw~er_ke~. 1983 and 1986. A more ~mplet~ list of film~ and publications is attached. Sam Mabel was the first recipient of the Louis Comfort Tiif~ny Grant for the Craltsm~n Apprentice Program, in 1969, which allowed him Io take on an apprentice. He Is also One of the few to receive a John D. and C~horine T. MacArthur Foundation Fellowship (1985). Among his numerous other awards are the American Craft Council Gold ModGI (1988) and a National Endowment forthe Arts Fellowship Grant (198,t). He is a Fellow of the American Crafts Council. He was declared a Living Treasure of Rancho Cucamonga by the City Council in 1984. ~d was featured in the "Living Treasures of California" exhibition at the Cracker Art Museum in Sacramento in 1985. (A more complete list of awards and henam is attached.) At an aucllon for the Amoric-=n Craft Mueeum In 1983, one of Maloof's chairs brought $8000. Through his work, Sam Maleof has become a personal friend of Jimmy Cartar and Joan Mendale. among many others. The Maleale have visited the Cadam in Plains. Georgia. where they house the several pieces of his furniture that they own. L-.., CON11t~UATION SHEET 3 MAP REFERENCE No. 32 (Supplement) Sam and All'rode Maloo~'s own home is filled with a ~nugnHicent pe~son~l collection which Sam M~loof says consists "rno.stly pieco.~ at' follow craftsmen I know." In addition Io these modern piecos-or~jlnal paFntings, sculpture. and a I,~rge qu;~nli~y of patlory--the collecllon includes museum quality pdmhive Mexican and South A~norican folk art, Pre-ColumbiBn art, San Ildei'on~o pottery, other Indian (mostLy Novale) rugs arid potIery, and oriental carpels. The love el American Southwest art and cratts is a special Interest shared by Airredo W.'~rd Maleof. Who serv~:l as the director of the .cr;~fts program and museum ~f the Santa Fo Indian School in the I~to 1930s. In keeping with his philosophy of sharing his talent with oth~rs, Sam Maleel has given Over 100 lectures; opened his home and wed(shop to 50 home tours; and tau0ht classes at fiv~ different inslitutions; and conducted o,opr0ximately 50 wo~'ksl~ops, from Alaska to Maine. from New Mexico to Florida. In 1959. solving as a consultant to the State Department on a proled to_._onco!:mrags crnft industries in developing nations. lie lravolod to Iran and Lebanon. At a crafts and religion seminar at tile Valican Museum In Rome, mentlon. od above, Maleof spoke of what he terms' a tri-union babyson thu object maker. the m~erial 'with which he works, and lhe person for whom he Is working. Beyond that, paraphrasing himsoil in a I.~ter interview, he s-hid. "...I fool it Ironscanals into something greater .... God. the master craftsman who creates all 1hinge, uses our hands as his instruments to make these beautiful objects (Diarnonstein 1983:144)." Maloof'.s per.serial philosophy is reflected in his craft. Fie says: I hope that my happiness with what I do Is rol'luctad in my furniture. Furniture. any furniture. lolls a story of the person who made II. I do not try consciously to m'aJ<u my pieces reflect their maker, but I hope that my furniture is an outgoing parl of my personajib/and my way of thinking. I hope that k is vibrant, alive, and frlondly to the peop!e who use it....I repeat over and over that I want my chairs to invite a person to sit. I want my chairs to embrace tha~ person, to give comfort (Maleof 1983:200), Althou0h he is still living and slill producing, the foregoing.discussion clo~ly illustrates that Sam Maleof. his career and his body of wo~:k have achieved a recognition and have been the subject of scholarly and popular study sufficient to give it historical perspective required for the e~-eptlon tu thu rul~ r~garding properties a'~soclated with living persons. His present designs are I~rgely outgrowths of, or slight Impmvomontc on. oarliar protempos. as he continues to produce designs originated over the last thirty years. Fairbanks states. "11~is consistency of vision is unusual for a designer or a craftsman in the twentieth cent.ry. 11 represents a traditional approach to de3ign that is not dependent on fashionable style trends (F;i~banks 1981:519).' Robert BIshop (cited above) says of the man and his work. "The purily of Malool's design and the great skill he demongtral~s In their nxacu~lon have earned him a deserved reputation as one of the leading American croa~om of fine handcrafted home furnishings (Bishop and Coblontz 1982:374). CrierIon O - The Homo and $t~.Jdio Sam Maloof's workshop and house are both the products of necessity which evolved over time. The house is also a product of its builder'5 croaLivity, his love of his crafl and its raw material--wood. 'Uko the homes built by his conternporarios Eshor~ck and Carpenter. every detail ic cratted to reflect Maloof's sense of design and passion for wood (Stone 1986:78)." Of his home MaJoof says: I am not an archhecl, I certainly would not call myself ahour. o dot;lOner. but lha house does not look like -', patched-up job. It does"not h~ve a front: back. or sides because I hz~,ve always felt a house should be a monolith: it ~hould leek handsome regardless of tl~e an01e Item which you approach it. Sometimes we have people walking around trying to find the fron! door. I do not use drawings when I am adding onto the house, I Just hold up a two~by-four and think, "l'ha~ looks pretty good,' and then n~il It up. I do it all by eye (Maleof 1983:195). I do not have the dine Io build the house the way I build a, piece of furniture. I do tantasize about buildir~ e. small, pedecl house where ~1 the wocK'Jwork is beaulifully shaped. I have manGOod to add little touches lo our house, for instance, by puttinrJ wooden hinges and I~tcher, on oven/door, each one ditloront (Maleof 1983:196}. _ My environment Is a wonderful on~', but again, it is '~omething that was created by hand (Maleof 1 g03:200). CON'RNUATION SHEET 4 MAP REFERENCE No. 32 (Supplement) ,The homo and studio, described in section 7b, exhibit an exceptional level of craftsmanship and design. I-land built t~omos became par~ o[ the popular culture of the 1960s and 1970s a.~ part of the back-to-tllo.-eartl~ counterculture movement. Many homes of this movement are documented in two works by Art Booricke--J:b,~[~'~e He.~.~.'~..~.G..U.Ld_e to the Woodb~jtcher's Art, 1973 Grid k~'~Lr~ade ~onl~s,~ TI]o. Natural Way Io BUild. 1981. Those books illustrate numerous such structures arid show them to be charming. imaginative. and possessing great Ingenuity. Salvage~l and n~tursI materials contribute to these qualities. None however, possess the level of sophistication and craftsmanshi~ exhibilod in Sam Maloof's home. Further. Maleof began his house In 1956, well before the movement. and during a period when the machine othic dominated the construction induslry, and handcralted JigLisa8 were a rarity. While he built it himself partly for econbrnic reasons, he also did so because of his love for wood as a matoffal and becel~se of his own aesthetic sen~.~. }-{is house is an extension of himself and of his work. The dillorenco between M~.-doof's homo and those illustrated h~ Boaricko's book is the diflorence between genius and ingenuity. and between aosthotlcs and cutenose. ThG details In the house are exquisite and finiohod appropriately to their purpose. While many of the beams and rafters are sawn lumber. In some mama, such as the two-ste.ry living room. these members feature hand shaping and finishing. As Maleof does not like metal and exposes none in his lurniluro, he has oxlended this preference to the construction of the house whore many of the connections are mortise and tenon with the joinery exposed as in his turnituro. All the primary doors have wooden hinges,.hasps, and lalchos; all are different and designed for the door they sane. Thus, while 1he house and the craftsman are inexlrlc~.~ly linked, the house. wi~h the c~a~lsmanship of its c~nstruclion and details, especially at the time of its initial construction, stands as a structure of unusually high artistic merit to tend it exceptional importance as a property that has achieved nignificance within the I~st fifty years. h is exceptional in the suburban areas east of Los Angeles where tract hot~.~ing has been the norm since the 1950s. .~ma~ This. property meets Criteria B and C at the Nallonal Roglstor of Historic Places as a loss-than-fifty-year-old property associmed wi~h ~ living person. As Sam Maloof has produced the main body of his work (with the exception of his earliest pieces. conslructed In the garage of his previous residence) in this home and studio, and owns nQ other property. it Is the only property associated with this mastercraftsman during his furniture making career. I1 embodies IlLs craft and philosophy, and is the site to which those who wish to learn. purchase, or just admire make pilgrimages. It is a structure unique to its bUilder, and the world. and Is of e×ceptional arti=lic merit. The boundaries of the property are the legal boundaries defined by assessors percol number= 202-101..01 and 202-101-18, see attached map. The 8ottlng of the prop~rty consists of the 5..1 acres of structures and orange groves Included wilhln the two parcels. The house and studio ere contributing structures to the site. The guest house and the remodeled 1940s residence on the western parcel ~re non-contributors. CONTiNUA"RON SHEET 5 MAP REFERENCE No. 32 {Supplement) 21. Sourcam '. Bishop, Robed and Patrids Coblontz. z.Am~icm3_D..~grafive Ad0L3.E,~ Yearn o~ CCo~live Design. New York: Harry Abrams. Inc., 1982. Bishop, Robert Conturie.l.f].Gd Styles of JIbe American Chair. New York: E.P. Dutton & Co., 1972. Boorid<o. Art a~d 13arry Shapiro,Handmad'i~ ~o.~es: A Guid'eJoj~39~chor's Ad. New York: Dolacorte Press, 1973. ' Beerid<e, Art and Berry ,Shapiro,Handmade Homes: ll~ Nalura[ Way to RuiLd., Now York: Delacorlo Press, 1981. Diamonstoin. 8arbarcaee, Ha, ndrnade in Ame. l'j.C~. New York: Harry N. Abrams, PubJishers, 1988. Fairbanks. Jonathan L, American FulnlLure 1620 1o the Pl'~.senl. New York: Ricl~&rd Marok Publishers. 1981. Melee(, Sam, ~_ej31,MaJ.oo.r, Woodwc~rker. l'okyo: Kodansha InlernaZional, Ltd., 1983, Paz, Octavio and the World Craft CouncilJr~ PrqjJtEOf H~nds: CoOlemoor~E_G~:a~[~ or tim World, Toronto: New Yolk Graphic Society, 1974. Stoobo, Martha Gaines, The hi[story of Alta Loma. Californl~-._1_880-19(i0. Alta Loma. 1 991. Stone, Michael A..C,~za~ra~ Amerlcer~3Voodworkers. Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smhh, Inc. 1986. Sam Maloot, Alta Loma. February 17, 1989. © ® . M~loof J:rop~rty 9553 Hichland Ave, Par. 4 ~.~ssAc ~ ?. I F " I Property Boundaries 'SAN HAL00F RESIOENCE AND STUDIO SKETCH FLOOR PLAN SITE PLAN ur'."-.fum-. OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION '. POST OFFICE 80X 942898 ~AOR;:,M~NTO, CALIFORNIA 94296,O(~01 (9161 445-8006 Bruce E. Cannon, Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration P. O. Box 1915 Sacramento, CA 95812-1915 FHWA900209A Auqu8~ 27, 1990 Re: Maleof property (07-~-30-2.4/7.8; 08-SBd-30-0.0/22.8) Dear Mr. Cannon: Thank you for requesting our comments on a supplement to the Historic Property Survey Report for construction of State Route 30 on new alignment from La Verne to San Bernardino. The supplement is a roevaluation of the Sam and Alfreda Maleof residence and studio at 9553 ]{ighland Avenue in Rancho Cucamonga. Based on this information, we concur in your determination that the Maleof property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places at the local level of si nificance under criteria B and C. Althou?h associated with a living person, and with a period of signifzcance that goes back only to the beginning.of its construction in 1952, the Maleof property qualifies as being of exceptional significance. It is the only propert associated with master craftsman Sam Maleof durin hie woodwork~~ ng career,and it is a unique building, of except Boundaries are the lot lines. This building is the only onal artistic merit. contributor, and two other buildings are noncontributors. Thank you for the opportunity to review your reevaluation. If you have any questions, please feel free to call staff historian Doterie Clement at (916) 322-9600. Sincerely, State Historic Preservatio~' Officer l:HWA.Sacramenro A I DIV AD ADA , ABMIN HIEC BRIDGE ROW , DIST A B L_- RESOLUTION NO. (::~2(...~, ~ O (-.~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK 96-01 TO DESIGNATE THE MALOOF RESIDENCE AND WORKSHOPS, LOCATED AT 9553 HIGHLAND AVENUE, AS A LANDMARK, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF- APN: 202-101-18. A. Recitals. 1. The San Bernardino Associated Governments has filed an application for Landmark Designation 96-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Landmark designation request is referred to as "the application." 2o On April 24, 1996, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and recommended approval. 3. On May 15, 1996, the City Council held their meeting and concluded said meeting on that date. 4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The application applies to approximately 5 acres of land, basically a rectangle configuration, located at 9553 Highland Avenue. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council, including minutes of the public hearing by the Historic Preservation Commission on April 24, 1996, written and oral staff reports, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Council hereby makes the following findings and facts: A. Historical and Cultural Significance: Finding 1: The proposed Landmark was connected with someone renowned or important or a local personality. Fact/s: The property is the home and studio of the internationally acclaimed woodworker and furniture designer, Sam Maloof, and his wife Alfreda Ward Maloof, a former Santa CItY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. LD 96-01 - MALOOF RESIDENCE May 15, 1996 Page 2 Fe museum and crafts program director. Sam Maloof began making his furniture at his Alta Loma workshop in the 1950's. His work can be seen in a number of American museums, and has been featured in numerous television and film productions as well as popular and scholarly works on American furniture and crafts. His home/studio has been a pilgrimage site for local colleges and universities, and the Gamble House Associates of Pasadena conduct an annual tour to the property. Historic Architectural and Engineering Significance: Finding 1: The construction materials or engineering methods used in the proposed Landmark are unusual or significant or uniquely effective. Fact/s: The home/studio exhibit an exceptional level of craftsmanship and design. Hand-built homes became part of the popular culture of the 1960s and 1970s as part of the back-to-earth counterculture movement. Finding 2: The overall effect of the design of the proposed Landmark is beautiful, or its details and materials are beautiful or unusual. Fact/s: Sam Maloof's house and workshop are both the products of necessity which evolved over time. The house is also a product of its builder's creativity, his love of his craft and its raw material, wood. Every detail is crafted to reflect Maloof's sense of design and passion for wood. 4. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, as Landmark designations are exempt under CEQA, per Class 3.e. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves Landmark Designation 96-01. 6. The Mayor shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Maria E. Perez, Assistant Engineer ACCEPTANCE OF REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FOR DR 95-08, LOCATED AT 5550 CROOKED CREEK DRIVE, APN 1074-171-21, SUBMITTED BY THOMAS AARON GIFFORD AND JODI ANN GIFFORD RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Cotmcil adopt the attached resolution accepting the subject Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and causing it to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS DR 95-08, located at 5550 Crooked Creek Drive, on the west side of Crooked Creek Drive south of Hillside Road (iee Exhibit "A"), in the very Low Residential District of the General Plan, was approved by the City Planner in a letter dated May 1, 1996. As part of the conditions of approval, the Developer, Thomas Aaron Gifford and Jodi Ann Gifford, is submitting a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement to guarantee the installation of frontage improvements at such time the improvements are deemed necessary. The street is currently not dedicated, fronted by ten separate lots. Three of the ten lots have made an irrevocable offer to dedicate street right-of-way. This property will be the fourth irrevocable offer of dedication and together with the standing offers will constitute over 1/3 of the streets full dedication. A copy of the agreement is available in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, . WJO:MEP:dlw Attachments III CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIVISION ITEM: TITLE: EXHIBIT: VICINITY MAP DR 95-08 5550 Crooked Creek RESOLUTION NO. 6/(4~-- OC~ 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM THOMAS AARON GIFFORD AND JODI ANN GIFFORD AND AUTHOR/ZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO SIGN THE SAME WHEREAS, the City Planner of the City of Rancho Cucamonga approved DR 95-08 in a letter dated May 1, 1995, which establishes requirement for the installation of public improvement in conjunction with building permit issuance; and WHEREAS, installation of frontage improvements established as prerequisites to issuance of building permit for DR 95-08'Tiave been met by entry into a Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement by Thomas Aaron Gifford and Jodi Ann Gifford. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, HEREBY. RESOLVES and does accept said Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement, authorizes the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign same, and directs the City Clerk to record same in the Office of the County Recorder of San Bemardino County, Califomia. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 15, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. Oq',leil, City Engineer BY: Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NOS. 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, AND 019 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE MASTER AGREEMENT NO. STLPP-5420 FOR THE STATE-LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PORTIONS OF BASE LINE ROAD, FOURTH STREET, HERMOSA AVENUE, MILLIKEN AVENUE, HELLMAN AVENUE AND JERSEY BOULEVARD. REIMBURSABLE FUNDING FROM THE SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO THE SB 140 ACCOUNT. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing the execution of Program Supplement Nos. 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, and 019 to Local Agency-State Master Agreement No. STPLL-5420 for the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program. A certified copy of the Resolution along with the executed original copies (two each) of the program supplements will be sent to the State of California for their execution. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Caltrans has forwarded to the City for execution supplemental agreements to the Local Agency-State Master Agreement STLPP-5420 for the State-Local Transportation Parmership Program. The agreement supplement numbers, projects, project costs and state reimburseable amount are as follows: //4 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT May 15, 1996 Page 2 NUMBER PROJECT 012 Base LineRd. from Victoria Park Lane to Day Creek Blvd. 013 Fourth Sreet from West City Limits to Haven Avenue ESTIMATED COST $335,500 $203,063 STATEREFUND $20,093 $11,940 014 Hermosa Ave. from Foothill $295,000 $17,346 Blvd. to Fourth Street 015 Milliken Ave. from 4th Street to $ 50,000 $ 2,940 6th Street 016 Base Line Rd. from Hellman Ave. $268,000 $15,758 to Milliken Ave. 017 Hellman Ave. from Cucamonga Channel to 9th St. $ 57,000 $ 3,352 019 Jersey Blvd. from Haven Ave. to $605,000 $35,574 Railroad Spur Crossing The State will provide the funds to the City upon completion of the projects. Those funds will be deposited in the SB 140 account. Respectfully submitted, Williarn~~eil~2~ City Engineer Attachments WJO:BH:sd RESOLUTION NO. q(fi., ~) (~(~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND SIGNING OF PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NOS. 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, AND 019 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE MASTER AGREEMENT NO. STLPP-5420 FOR THE STATE-LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF PORTIONS OF BASE LINE ROAD, FOURTH STREET, HERMOSA AVENUE, MILLIKEN AVENUE, HELLMAN AVENUE AND JERSEY BOULEVARD WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter referred to as "Local Agency") has for its consideration and execution Program Supplement Nos. 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, and 019 to Local Agency-State Master Agreement No. STPLL-5420 for the State- Local Transportation Partnership Program authorizing reimbursement of State Share Funds for the improvement of the streets in the amounts listed as follows: SUPPLEMENT NUMBER LOCATION AMOUNT 012 Base Line Rd. from Victoria Park Lane to Day Creek Blvd. $20,093 013 Fourth Street from West City Limits to Haven Avenue $11,940 014 Hermosa Ave. from Foothill Blvd. to Fourth Street $17,346 015 Milliken Ave. from 4th Street to 6th Street $ 2,940 016 Base Line Rd. from Hellman Ave. to Milliken Ave. $15,758 017 Hellman Ave. from Cucamonga Channel to 9th St. $ 3,352 019 Jersey Blvd. from Haven Ave. to Railroad Spur Crossing $35,574 TOTAL $107,003 WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of Transportation, District Office 8 (hereinafter referred to as "State") processes and monitors State funded project; and WHEREAS, as a condition to reimbursement payment of State Share funds for said projects, the City shall approve and execute said Program Supplement Nos. 012, 013,014, 015, 016, 017, and 019. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, does hereby resolve to: /2c RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 Authorize the Execution of Program Supplement Nos. 012, 013, 014, 015, 016, 017, and 019 to Local Agency-State Master Agreement STLPP-5420 for the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program for the reimbursement of State Share Funds for the improvement of the streets listed above. Authorize the Mayor to sign said Supplements and direct the City Clerk to attach a certified copy of this Resolution, as well as type in the Resolution Number and Date in the blanks in the second block of said Supplements, and for the return of the original copies of said Supplements to the State of California Department of Transportation along with the certified copy of this Resolution. BE IT FLIRTHER RESOLVED that the Local Agency shall also comply with the "Special Covenants or Remarks" attached to said supplement including: It is mutually understood between the parties that this contract may have been written before ascertaining the availability of legislative appropriation of funds, for the mutual benefit of both parties, in order to avoid program and fiscal delays that would occur if the agreement were executed after that determination was made. The total amount of State-Local Transportation Partnership funds payable by the State shall not exceed the amounts shown above to be encumbered and reimbursed in F.Y. 95/96. This agreement is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available by the California State Legislature. Said reimburseable funds as received will be deposited into the SB-140 Account. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 15, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: BY: Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II 3~'1/ SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT WITH SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FOODBANK TO CONTINUE TO SERVE AS A DISTRIBUTION SITE FOR U.S.D.A. FOOD COMMODITIES RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached agreement to continue to serve as a distribution site for U.S.D.A. food commodities for Rancho Cucamonga residents. BACKGROUND As City Council is aware, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has participated in the distribution of U.S.D.A. food commodities since the early 1980's. Through this program the City of Rancho Cucamonga assists low-income residents by distributing a variety of surplus food commodities on a monthly basis. Our City distribution takes place on the first Monday of each month from 1:30 p.m. until 3:00 p.m. at the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. Commodities are distributed on a first-come, first serve basis. Proof of residency and qualifying income is required. In addition, the City through its volunteers, offers a homebound delivery program for senior residents and the disabled. Currently the program services nearly 500 Rancho Cucamonga households. The homebound program serves nearly 200 households. FISCAL IMPACT Staffing for this program includes 5% of the Management Analyst' s time as well as one-part time human services leader who spends an estimate of 10% of her time in the coordination of this program. In addition, approximately 50 volunteers provide 4 hours each monthly to provide a variety of tasks (packing commodities, screening applicants, and delivering commodities to homebound) that ensure the success of this program. The City bears no cost for the commodities. .. Rispectfully submitted~,~ "' ~SUz~unity Services Manager SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FOOD BANK Agreement For The Distribution of USDA Commodities 1. The San Bernardino County Food Bank will define the specific geographical area to be served. Geographical area may be defined by street boundaries, zip codes, and/or city served. 2. DS will insure that proper storage will be provided for dry, re- frigerated and frozen commodities as indicated on the containers of each commodity until distributed and that commodities will be distributed as soon as possible to ensure greatest possible fresh- ness and palatability. 3. DS will insure that commodities provided under this agreement will be made available only to those eligible persons as defined by the most recent eligiblity guidelines and in accordance with the distri- bution rates established by the State Department of Social Services (SDSS). (See Exhibit A). 4. DS will verify recipient income eligi~ilXly by requesting to see current evidence of eligibility in another public assistance pro- gram (i.e., paycheck stubs, tax forms, etc.), or by self-certification that recipient meets the income guidelines: and in all cases will require each recipient to sign the eligibility certification form. (See Exibit B). 5. DS will insure that USDA surplus food received for distribution shall not be sold, exchanged, battered or-transfered for money, services, or other products. 6. DS will insure that under no circumstances shall recipients be re- quired to make any payments, in money, materials, or services for, or in connection with the receipt of donated foods, nor shall volun- tary contributions be solicited in connection with the receipt of donated foods for any purpose. Service will be on a first come, first served bases and in a fair, equitable and nondiscriminating manner. 7. DS understands and acknowleges that the distribution of USDA surplus food commodities shall not be used for political purposes, and in connection therewith specifically agrees that any commodities distri- buted under this agreement will not be wrapped or packaged in, or distributed with any material containing the names or identification of any individual elected official, candidate for office, or political party. 8. DS agrees to promptly investigate all reports of misuse of donated food within their distribution area and to provide pertinent infor- mation to the San Bernardino County Food Bank. Con ' t DS Agreement Page 2 of 3 9. DS agrees to keep an inventory of commodities showing what is on hand, received, distributed and/or returned to the EFO. A summary report shall be submitted to the San Bernardino County Food Bank by the 5th day immediately after a distribution detailing the number of individuals served, the number of units of each commodity dis- tributed and the number of units of each commodity remaining. (See Exhibit C). 10. DS by signing this agreement verifies that it is either a government agency, or a private/public non-profit entity with tax-exempt status. 11. DS will not reallocate their food allotments to any other agency. If the DS is unable to distribute the USDA food allocated, the San Ber- nardino County Food Bank reserves the right to revoke the allocation and redistribute the food. 12. DS agrees that all USDA distributions will be open and publicized for all eligible recipients within the ~es~hate~ service area. 13. DS agrees to tranport USDA Commodities in vehicles and under'con- ditions that provide for safe vehicle operation and prevention of spoliage. 14. DS agrees that no damaged or spoiled food shall be distributed. Any such food must be returned to the San Bernardino County Food Bank. 15. The Agency agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the County, its agents, officers and employees from and against any and all lia- bility, expense, including defense costs, legal fees and claims for damage of any nature. 16. Upon approval of this agreement by the Community Services Department it will continue year to year unless it is terminated by either party. The DS or the San Bernardino County Food Bank may terminate this agreement by giving thirty (30) days advance notice in writing to the other party. 17. The San Bernardino County Food Bank reserves the right to monitor DS distributions, as required by the State Department of Social Services. 18. DS agrees to post fliers at strategic locations within the DS dis- tributing area, e.g., supermarkets, post office, shopping malls, bulletin boards, etc., or use a public service announcement to en- sure that all eligible participants are advised of distribution times and locations. The sites used for distributions must be accessible to the general public. 19. Allocations of USDA Commodities for distribution will be based on the number of households and persons served in previous distributions by the DS. Additional commodities may be allocated (if available) with a written request and justification submitted two (.2) weeks prior to a distribution. Con't DS Agreement Page 3 of 3 The San Bernardino County Food Bank is administered by the Community Services Department of San Bernardino County. The undersigned Non-Profit Agency agrees to comply with the aforemen- tioned revised conditions for the distribution of USDA Surplus Com- modities. c. 4ty n[ T~.rhn C.,,r~mnn ~ (R~noh~ C.,~r~mn ~ .qen~or Center] Legal Name of Non-~rofit Agency $D~istribution Site - DS) Address where distributions will take place: 9791 Arrow Route, Rancho CucamonEa, CA 91730 Authorized Representative: (Please Type or Print) ~- --.- Signature: / Signature Volunteer Coordinator: Title Date Date (Do not sign below this line-Food Bank use only) Agreement approved by Community Services Department and San Bernardino County Food Bank. Authorized Representative: Herman Pe~a (San Bernardino County Food Bank) / Manager II Title Signature: / Date HP/ff Revised 08-18-94 R6~licati(~ To Distribute U.S.D.A. Cem.naities ( Type or Print ) A. ~li~t Infor~mti~: Information noted in ( ) denotes distribution site/personnel Ce 1. Name of Agency: City of Rancho Cucamonga (Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center) Mailing 2. Address:10500 Civic Center RC 91730 (9791 Arrow Rt. RC 91730) Zip 91730 3. Contact Person:Paula Pachon (Julie Silva) Phone: 4. Title: Management Analyst ( Human Services Leader) 5. Applicant is: A. Government Agency X 6. Tax Exempt # N/A B. Pro~ Info~ti~: / "" -. 477-2760 x 2105 B. Private/Public Non-Profit 1. Provide a concise description of your agency/program and attach a brochdre or fact sheet if available. The City of RC is a copeunity of approximately 115,000 residents. Human services and information/referral services are provided at the RC Senior Center. The City also provides programming for residents from 6 months of age and up. As well as being the site for commodity distribution, the Senior Center also houses senior programs, classes and activities, daily nutrition meals and English as a Second Language classes. In addition a wide range of human service delivery agencies are.at the Center on a regular basis to provide residents with information/services. 2. How many households do you plan to serve with the U.S.D.A conmodities? 500 3. What days and hours will you distribute the commodities? First Monday/month 1:30-3:00 p.r 4. Specific geographic area that will be served: City of Rancho Cucamonga 5. Who is currently eligible for your services? Those residents of our community who fall within income guidelines set by State Department Social Services. Storage Facilities, ~ransportationand Equi[~-e~_~t: 1. Does your agency have storage facilities? Yes X No Give dimensions: Refrigerator: Freezer: Dry Storage Area: 10' x 30' 2. Do you have adequate transportation to pick up the commodities? NO Describe: In past commodities have either been delivered to our site by County or have been picked up throuRh services/vehicle provided by volunteer. 3. Number of tables 18 Number of Chairs 150 D. Personnel: 1. Number of paid staff and volunteers that will assist with the distributions. A. Paid Staff 2 B. Volunteers 50 Return to: San Bernardim~ County Food Bank Attn: Ser---q Pe~a 255 P~-t Drake, B]dg. D San Berparalno, CA 92408 HP/ff 08-18194 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Paul Rougeau, Traffic Engineer APPROVAL TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR UPDATING OF THE CITY TRAFFIC MODEL AND TRANSPORTATION FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the above-referenced agreement be approved to provide consultant services to accomplish the updating necessary to keep the City' s traffic model and Transportation Fee Schedule current with the development trend being experienced. BACKGROUND Periodic recalibration of the City's traffic model is recommended in order to maintain the model' s integrity as a reliable planning tool. It is generally recommended that a traffic model be recalibrated every five to seven years, particularly if significant land use or circulation changes to the existing setting have taken place. The current base year version of the City's model was calibrated to 1989 conditions, therefore an update to 1995/96 conditions would be consistent with the recommended recalibration duration. More importantly, an updated base year Congestion Management Program (CMP) model has been developed for the region and a set of city model consistency criteria has been adopted by the regional governing agencies (RCTC, SANBAG and SCAG). The rederivation of the City's model from the latest regional model and the refinement of the City's model to conform to the regional model consistency criteria are important steps in maintaining the City model's validation of future condition traffic forecasts. It is also important that the long-range (Post-2010) version of the City' s traffic model (RCTM) be updated to be consistent with the current 2015 CMP regional model. Similar to the base year model update, the model buffer area will be extended into the City of Upland, current 2015 land use projections for the surrounding cities will be incorporated into the model database, and 2015 travel pattern data will be obtained from the regional model. Once this has been accomplished, an updated set of long-range (2015) RCTM traffic projections and database summaries for both the base year CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT AUSTIN-FOUST ASSOCIATES May 15, 1996 Page 2 and the 2015 versions of the updated model will be submitted to SANBAG for use in their evaluation of the RCTM's consistency with the regional CMP model. A transportation improvement fee program is currently in place in the City. The program's package of circulation improvements was determined based on Post-2010 RCTM traffic projections, and the fees were established through a set of nexus procedures that integrate modeled traffic share data with circulation improvement cost estimates. Updated 2015 RCTM traffic forecasts will be used to reevaluate the fee program improvement package, and the development fees themselves will be updated based on an adjusted set of improvements and/or cost estimates. The cost of this project is estimated at $30,000.00 to be funded from Account Nos. 32-4637-9109 $24,000.00) and 09-4637-8780 ($6,000.00). Respectfully submitted, William J. OqXleil City Engineer WJO:PAR:dlw DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager, William J. O'Neil, City Engineer APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY-OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (CONTRACT NO. q~. t~) FOR THE FUNDING OF THE HAVEN AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM DEER CREEK CHANNEL TO BASE LINE ROAD, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN SAME REC01VlMENDATION It is recommended the City Council approve the attached Resolution approving the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SANBAG) (Contract No. q/p- eOt4~) for the funding of the Haven Avenue Street and Storm Drain Improvement Project from Deer Creek Channel to Base Line Road, and authorizing the mayor to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSI S On May I, 1996, the SANBAG Board approved a Cooperative Agreement between the City and SANBAG that committed $2,500,000 from Arterial Measure I for the funding of the Haven Avenue Street and Storm Drain Improvement Project from Deer Creek Channel to Base Line Road. The project will result in the widening of the west side of Haven Avenue within those limits to three lanes and will install curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, and the improvement of the traffic Signal at Church Street. In order to widen the pavement, a storm drain pipe will be constructed to replace the existing open channel. The $2,500,000 from SANBAG is in conjunction with various City funding sources as well as a $300,000 State grant from the State/Local Partnership program. The project is estimated to cost $4,250,000. Respectfully submitte, d, Willij.~O,NeilC/2/Q~gx'~ City Engineer WJO:WS:sd Attachment RESOLUTION NO. qC6~ ' O~;~ q A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AND EXECUTING THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (SANBAG) FOR THE FUNDING OF THE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND CONTRACT ADM/N/STRATION FOR THE HAVEN AVENUE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FROM DEER CREEK CHANNEL TO BASE LINE ROAD WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, has for its consideration and execution, the Cooperative Agreement between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and SANBAG for the design, construction, and contract administration of the Haven Avenue Street and Storm Drain Improvement Project from Deer Creek Channel to Base Line Road; and WHEREAS, SANBAG processes and monitors Measure I funded projects; and WHEREAS, as a condition to payment of Measure I funds for said project, the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall approve and execute said Cooperative Agreement (Contract No. ); NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Authorize the execution of Contract No. , Cooperative Agreement between the City ofRancho Cucamonga and SANBAG for the design, construction, and contract administration of Haven Avenue from Deer Creek Channel to Base Line Road in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, San Bemardino County. To authorize the Mayor to sign said agreement and direct the City Clerk to attach a certified copy of this Resolution, as well as type in the Resolution number and date in the blank of the third block of said supplement and for the remm of the original copies of said supplement to SANBAG along with the certified copy of this Resolution· CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: By: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Linda Beek, Jr. Enginee~ i/ AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR HAVEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM DEER CREEK CHANNEL TO BASE LINE ROAD, TO BE FUNDED FROM SB140 FUNDS ACCOUNT NO. 35-4637-9027 AND MEASURE I FUNDS ACCOUNT NOS. 32-4637-9027 AND 32-4637-9537 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award and authorize for execution the contract for Haven Avenue Storm Drain and Street Improvements, from Deer Creek Channel to Base Line Road, to be funded from SB140 funds Account No. 35-4637-9027 and Measure I funds Account Nos. 32-4637- 9027 and 32-4637-9537. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited and a bid date of May 14, 1996, was set. To avoid any delay in this project a bid summary and announcement of the lowest responsive bidder will be submitted to council prior to the Council meeting. The Engineer's estimate was $3,681,000.00 Respectfull submi~ C~i~nng~~~ WJO:LRB:dlw Attachment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: By: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O~Neil, City Engineer Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer;"~ AWARD AND AUTHOR/ZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF COBBLESTONE CURB ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, TO CAMINO IRV1NE COMPANY, TO BE FUNDED FROM BEAUTIFICATION FUNDS ACCOUNT NO. 21-4647-8822 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award and authorize for execution the contract for the Replacement of Cobblestone Curb along the East side of Etiwanda Avenue, to the lowest responsive bidder, Camino Irvine Company, in the amount of $48,970.57 ($44,518.70, plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Beautification funds Account No. 21-4647-8822. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on April 30, 1996, for the subject project. Camino Irvine Company is the apparent lowest bidder, with a bid amount of $44,518.70 (see attached bid summary). The Engineer's estimate was $53,326.60. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. Respectfully submitted, . William J O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:dlw Attachment f,r,l Z 0 O~ r,,)z oo O~ 0 0 Z 0 ............. .< 0 /,_~0 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O~leil, City Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CUP 95-15, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ARROW ROUTE, EAST OF ROCHESTER AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY HOWARD D. CHASTAIN RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving CUP 95-15 Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS CUP 95-15, located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Rochester Avenue, in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, was approved by the Planning Commission on August 23, 1995. This project is for the construction of a 75,192 square foot public storage facility with caretaker's residence on a 5.7 acre parcel. The Developer, Howard D. Chasmin, has submitted an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Labor and Materials Ce~ific~e of Deposit $98,000.00 $49,000.00 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's office. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 95-15 - HOWARD D. CHASTAIN May 15, 1996 Page 2 A letter of approval has been received from the Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submittel:l, William~'Neil ~ City Engineer Attachments WJO:WV:dlw RESOLUTION N0. q(~ ._ 0 7C) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR CUP 95-15 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on May 15, 1996, by Howard D. Chastain as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the north side of Arrow Route, east of Rochester Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to as CUP 95-15; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Securities, which are identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2. That said Improvement Securities are accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attomey. RESOLUTION NO. %-o7/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CUP 95-15 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofRancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 ,., CL//c~ PI-/5 · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - " "COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO ~. .-~ .. STATE OF CALIFORNIA C//,,~ ~.~'-/_,e" /~-.5' EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: CUP 95-15 STREET LIGHTS: Di~. 5800L S1 --- S6 --- NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16,000L 22,000L 3 ...... 27,500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Di~t. D.G.S.F. L3B --- Turf Non-Turf Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. ...... 23 ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S 1 S6 L3B N/A 5.7 11.4 5.7 5.7 Annexation Date: May 15, 1996 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O~Neil, City Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CUP 95-19, LOCATED AT 11167 WHITE BIRCH PLACE, EAST OF ELM AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY REGIS CONTRACTORS, L.P. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving CUP 95-19 Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS CUP 95-19, located at 11167 White Birch Place, east of Elm Avenue, in the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, was approved by the City Planner on July 25, 1995. This project is for the construction of a 67,000 square foot flour manufacturing plant in an existing industrial building. The Contractor, Regis Contractors, L.P., has submitted an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities to guarantee the construction of the public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond Labor and Materials Bond $9,600.00 $4,800.00 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's office. 137 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 95-19 - REGIS CONTRACTORS, L.P. May 15, 1996 Page 2 The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully subm~?~_~ William~ City Engineer Attachments WJO:WV:dlw RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR CUP 95-19 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on May 15, 1996, by Regis Contractors, L.P. as contractor, for the improvement of public fight-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at 11167 White Birch Place, east of Elm Avenue; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to as CUP 95-19; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Securities, which are identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and 2. That said Improvement Securities are accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attomey. q C/- o A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR CUP 95-19 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Caiifomia, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafter referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all tree and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6-..,, ... Cd/= ~,~' G ~'A/D 5x l S T//V. '~- S T.n~e r Z ! GN .r 8 ..,.::-.CI'TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -- o -' C UNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO · .~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA /~// EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: CUP 95-19 STREET LIGHTS: Dist. 5800L S1 --- S6 3' NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16.000L 22,000L 27.500L LANDSCAPING: Di$t. L3B Community Equestrian Trail D.G.S.F. Turf Non-Turf Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. ...... 4 ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S 1 S6 L3 B N/A 8.58 17.16 8.58 8.58 * Existing items installed with Original project. This CUP will add 4 street trees only. Annexation Date: May 15, 1996 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Linda R. Beek, Junior Engineer ,~ APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FOR TRACT 13759, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF HAVEN AVENUE SOUTH OF VICTORIA STREET, SUBMITTED BY FU MAI LIMITED RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject agreement and security extensions and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities to guarantee the construction of the public improvements for Tract 13759 were approved by the City Council on January 21, 1993, in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: $1,326,000.00 Labor and Materials Bond: $ 663,000.00 The securities, Stand By Letters of Credit, have been extended 12 months and the developer Fu Mai Limited, is requesting approval of a 12-month extension on said improvement agreement due to the economic situation. Copies of the Improvement Agreement and Securities Extension are available in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully sub~~/~~ William.O~~eil City Engineer WJO:LB:dlw Attachments FORMOSA INVESTMENTS & DEVELOPMENTS FU MAI LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 801 S. Garfield Ave. Suite 200 Alhambra, CA 91801 U.S.A. Tel 818-28Q-0223 Fax 818-289-4806 April 16, 1996 Linda Beek Jr. Engineer Con~nuniry Developen!nt Department Engineering Division The City of Rancho Cucamonga ! 0500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RE: TRACT 13759 IMPROVE~MENT AGREEMENT Please accept this letter as our formal request to extend, for one ( I ) year, the above captioned agreement. This request is respectfully made in order to allow us the time necessary to secure our developemnt financing for this project. Thank you in advance for you continued knjd courtesy and consideration. Sincerely, Garry Chen / General Partner Fu Mal Ltd. Partnership RESOLUTION NO. q(t~ .- 0 7 ~/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACT 13759 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofRancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement Extension executed on April 15, 1996, by Fu Mai Limited as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the west side of Haven Avenue south of Victoria Street; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said Tract 13759; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City ofRancho Cucamonga, Califomia hereby resolves, that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Security be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement Extension on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O~Neil, City Engineer Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer RELEASE OF BONDS AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CUP 93-13, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HERMOSA AVENUE, SOUTH OF EIGHTH STREET RECOMMENDATION The required street improvements for CUP 93-13 have been completed in an acceptable manner and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $88,000.00. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS CLIP 93-13 - Located on the East Side of Hermosa Avenue, South of Eighth Street Developer: E & R Rancho Pacific, Incorporated 9852 Cresent Center Drive, Suite 801 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street Improvements) No. 1726025 $88,000.00 Respectfully submitted, William.O~2~eil~//CC5~ City Engineer Attachments WJO:LRB:dlw RESOLUTION NO. ~ '- (D 75 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR CUP 93-13 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for CUP 93-13 have been completed to the satisfaction ofthe City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. /47 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 - SACRED HEART CHURCH - Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the bell schedule for a proposed church and school facility in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the bell schedule for Sacred Heart Church through adoption of the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND On January 24, 1996, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 95-16 for the construction of a church and school facility. During the public hearing on the Conditional Use Permit application, property owners in close proximity to the proposed church location expressed concern about the potential noise generated by the church bells. Lacking sufficient information to properly evaluate the impact of the bells, the Planning Commission added a condition of approval requiring the final bell schedule to be reviewed and approved prior to the church construction. Following the Planning Commission's decision, Sacred Heart Church filed an appeal about the bell condition (Exhibit "A"). In the interest of trying to resolve the matter, however, the church representative requested a meeting with the Planning Commission to resolve the bell schedule prior to City Council consideration. Depending on the outcome, the Church could then either withdraw their appeal or proceed to the City Council for consideration. On March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted an advertised workshop to discuss the bell schedule. The church representative presented a letter from its consultant indicating the noise level of the existing bells at their facility on Foothill Boulevard. Also, the church representative stated that he would be willing to reduce the length of the hymns from 7-1/2 minutes to 5 minutes. The church representative played a tape for the Commissioners of the angelus, the hour strike, and the hymns currently in use. Several residents were in attendance who voiced their concerns about the bells. Because of time constraints, the meeting was continued to April 10, 1996. ,Y CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 95-16 - SACRED HEART CHURCH May 15, 1996 Page 2 On April 10, 1996, the Planning Commission was provided with additional information on the bells. Staff circulated a list of the existing bell schedule (Exhibit "C") and two proposed bell schedules for the Commission's consideration. The first alternative eliminated the 1/4 and 3/4-hour bell strikes. The second alternative eliminated the 1/4 and 3/4-hour strikes and terminated the bells at 6:00 p.m. Staff also presented the Commission two charts identifying the existing noise levels permitted (Exhibit "F") and a comparison of different noise sources that may be experienced during the day (Exhibit ~G"). The residents presented the Planning Commission with a survey (Exhibit "H") conducted for the area within roughly 1/4-mile of the site. The survey identified the various opinions about the introduction of bells to the neighborhood. After considering the information, a majority of the Planning Commission believed that bells should be allowed. Because the church was moving into the residential area, however, the Commission felt that the existing bell schedule, while appropriate for Foothill Boulevard, should be reduced/restricted at the new location. The Commission approved (3-2 vote) a bell schedule that would eliminate the 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 hour strikes (Exhibit ~D"). One commissioner stated his "no" vote was because he believed the City should not be regulating bells at all. The other commissioner voting "no" felt that the bells would be an intrusion into the quiet residential area and should not be allowed. Following the Planning Commission's decision, an appeal was filed by a resident voicing concern about the Commission's decision (Exhibit "B"). Additionally, the church is requesting their appeal go forward as well (Exhibit "A"). ANALYSIS Church's Appeal: The basic reason for the church's appeal of the Planning Commission's decision is based on what they believe to be their right to play bells as part of the church operations. The church has used the bells in Etiwanda since the completion of the church in 1957 and bells have been used by Catholic churches/missions throughout history. The Planning Commission recognized the existing use of the bells and thought it was acceptable given the present church location along a major arterial in a commercial zone. The Commission felt that the church, in relocating to the new area, should be cognizant of the existing residents. The Commission felt the limitations on the bells were reasonable to provide greater comparability between the church and the existing residents. Resident's Appeal: In his letter of appeal, Mr. Matejka, a local resident, raised several issues about the workshop and the process conducted by the Planning Commission. First, Mr. Matejka questions the notification process of the property owners in the area. The City sent out letters to all property owners within 300 feet of the site, using the same notification as was done for the original public hearing. Also, letters were sent to those individuals who raised concerns about the bells at the public hearing. Staff received telephone calls from citizens inquiring about the workshop who had been approached by residents going door- to-door. Some of these residents lived outside the 300 foot radius area. Mr. Matejka also felt the Commission did not adequately review, discuss, or consider the survey of neighborhood residents. The Commission, while not directly citing the survey, included the residents' concerns about the bells, resulting in a schedule more restricted than proposed by staff. The Commission felt that the hourly strike, given the noise level of /¢¢ CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 95-16 - SACRED HEART CHURCH May 15, 1996 Page 3 the bells relative to the City's noise standard, was acceptable to allow the church to use the bells while minimizing the impact on the community. The third concern raised by Mr. Matejka was the Commission's intent on reaching a speedy conclusion and moving on to the next meeting. The Commission did, in fact, have a regularly scheduled meeting to attend following the workshop. The Commission, however, was not under any obligation to act on the bell schedule that night. The Commission believed that they had received sufficient information on which to base a decision. As with any formal approval by the Planning Commission, a simple majority is all that is required to approve the bell schedule. The final issue raised by Mr. Matejka was the implication that the decision was a "negotiated" agreement. In reviewing the minutes, the Council will find that the "negotiation" actually occurred amongst the Planning Commissioners. Initially, two of the Commissioners felt that no restrictions should be placed on the church at all, one member was opposed to the bells, and two felt that limited bells were appropriate. When it became apparent that a majority was not available for any one of the options, one commissioner who opposed regulations agreed to the limited operation so the application could move forward. As a whole, the Planning Commission believed that the church should be allowed to play their bells. The limitations placed on the church were in response to the concerns of the neighborhood, while still allowing the church to exercise their choice to ring the bells as they have historically. City Planner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" - Exhibit "G" - Exhibit "H" - Exhibit "1" - Exhibit "J' - Exhibit "K" Resolution Sacred Head Church Letter of Appeal (dated February 5, 1996) Mr. Larry Matejka's Letter of Appeal (dated April 17, 1996) Existing Bell Schedule Approved Bell Schedule Letter From Mr. William Castle Regarding Noise Measurements of Existing Bells (dated February 13, 1996) City's Noise Standards Relationship of Sound Levels Chad Survey of Neighborhood Planning Commission Minutes of January 24, 1996 Planning Commission Minutes of March 27, 1996 - Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 1996 Approving the Bell Schedule 2-teart Catholic Church 12704 FOOTHILL BLVD. · RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA 91739-9795 PHONE (909} 899-1049 RECEIVE, February 5, 1996 FEB - 5 1996 City Clerk City of RAncho Cucamonga PO Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729 CITY OF RANCHO CUC~MU~,~u,..., CITY CLERK RE: Conditional Use Permit 95-16 Dear Clerk: We wish to exercise our right of appeal to Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-04, Planning Division report section 9. page 4. The reason for the appeal is that we presently have bells at our church and we are simply relocating our facilities in the near future. We have been one of the founding churchs of Etiwanda and have always had the bells as a part of our church operations. We do not feel that the bells have been an intrusion on the area and are a traditional part of all Catholic churchs. This is clearly seen even in California where the entire chain of California Missions each had bells. Our church from its earliest foundations back almost 2000 years has used bells for our churchs. Thus we wish only to continue what is presently a reality. Further, as the condition reads, a separate study should be made, which we feel is unnecessary given the fact of present usage of the bells. Also the church bells are not used for school activities and the condition presently reads that bells or other sounds even for school activities needs a study. It is impossible for us to operate a school without bells or similar sounds. Given these facts and the findings of'the Rutherford Foundation on our rights to these bells as part of our church operations, we submit this appeal. Enclosed also find our check in the amount of $126 for this appeal. lncere , s Rev. Fred R. Gaglia, Ph.D. Pastor Encl: 1 /5/ April 15, 1996 City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Calif. RECE!V' : APR 1 ? 1996 ~;I'EY OF RANCHO CITY CLERK City Clerk: I disagree and request an appeal of the decision made on April 10, 1996 by the Planning Commission regarding the conditional use permit 95-16- Sacred Heart Catholic Church bell ringing recommendation. This appeal is based on the following: Many of the residents in the affected area are unaware of the bell issue. There were no signs posted on the concerned property and only a few homes adjoining Etiwanda Ave. were notified as to the "public" Planning Commission meeting on Jan. 24, 1996. Subsequent Planning Commission meetings and their final recommendation still remains a mystery to most residents. The commission did not adequately review, discuss or consider the limited survey of neighborhood resident opinions. The commission was more intent on reaching a speedy conclusion to this issue, via quorum vote, and moving on to their next meeting. The commission implied that a "negotiated" agreement was the only principal option (by having a workshop style meeting) available in reaching a "compromised" recommendation. It is my understanding that this issue will now be place on calendar by the City Council for further public input. Sincerely, ~a~ry Matej ka 13122 Arapaho Rd. Etiwanda, Ca. 91739 PROJECT: EXHIBIT: EXISTING BELL SCHEDULE DAILY 6:00 Angelus (9 strikes) 9:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutes) 9:15 1/4-hour tone 9:30 ~-hour tone 9:45 3/4-hour tone 10:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 10:15 1/4-hour tone 10:30 ~-hour tone 10:45 3/4-hour tone 11:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 11:15 1/4-hour tone 11:30 ¼-hour tone 11:45 3/4-hour tone 12:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutes) Angelus (9 strikes) 12:15 1/4-hour tone 12:30 ~-hour tone 12:45 3/4-hour tone 1:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 1:15 1/4-hour tone 1:30 ¼-hour tone 1:45 3/4-hour tone 2:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 2:15 1/4-hour tone 2:30 ¼-hour tone 2:45 3/4-hour tone 3:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 3:15 1/4-hour tone 3:30 ¼-hour tone 3:45 3/4-hour tone 4:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 4:15 1/4-hour tone 4:30 ¼-hour tone 4:45 3/4-hour tone 5:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutes) 5:15 1/4-hour tone 5:30 ~-hour tone 5:45 3/4-hour tone 6:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Angelus (9 strikes) 6:15 1/4-hour tone 6:30 ¼-hour tone 6:45 3/4-hour tone 7:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 7:15 1/4-hour tone 7:30 ~-hour tone 7:45 3/4-hour tone 8:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike SATURDAY 6:00 Angelus (9 strikes) 9:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutes) 9:15 1/4-hour tone 9:30 ¼-hour tone 9:45 3/4-hour tone 10:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 10:15 1/4-hour tone 10:30 ~-hour tone 10:45 3/4-hour tone 11:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 11:15 1/4-hour tone 11:30 ¼-hour tone 11:45 3/4-hour tone 12:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutes) Angelus (9 strikes) 12:15 1/4-hour tone 12:30 ~-hour tone 12:45 3/4-hour tone 1:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 1:15 1/4-hour tone 1:30 ¼-hour tone 1:45 3/4-hour tone 2:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 2:15 1/4ohour tone 2:30 ¼-hour tone 2:45 3/4-hour tone 3:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 3:15 1/4-hour tone 3:30 Y=-hour tone 3:45 3/4-hour tone 4:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 4:15 1/4-hour tone 4:30 ¼-hour tone 4:45 3/4-hour tone 5:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutes) 5:15 1/4-hour tone 5:30 Call to Worship 7:15 1/4-hour tone 7:30 ~-hour tone 7:45 3/4-hour tone 8:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike SUNDAY 6:00 Angelus (9 strikes) 7:30 Call to Worship 9:30 Call to Worship 11:30 Call to Worship 1:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 1:15 1/4-hour tone 1:30 ~-hour tone 1:45 3/4-hour tone 2:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 2:15 1/4-hour tone 2:30 ¼-hour tone 2:45 3/4-hour tone 3:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 3:15 1/4-hour tone 3:30 ¼-hour tone 3:45 3/4-hour tone 4:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 4:15 1/4-hour tone 4:30 ¼-hour tone 4:45 3/4-hour tone 5:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutes) 5:15 1/4-hour tone 5:30 ¼-hour tone 5:45 3/4-hour tone 6:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Angelus (9 strikes) 6:15 1/4-hour tone 6:30 ¼-hour tone 6:45 3/4-hour tone 7:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 7:15 1/4-hour tone 7:30 ¼-hour tone 7:45 3/4-hour tone 8:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike BELL SCHEDULE - APPROVED ALTERNATIVE (Eliminate 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 hour stroke) DAILY 6:00 Angelus (9 strikes) 9:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutca 5 minutes*) 10:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 11:00 Full hour tone plus hour strik 12:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutca 5 minutes*) Angelus (9 strikes) 1:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 2:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 3:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 4:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 5:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutca 5 minutes*) 6:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Angelus (9 strikes) 7:00 Full hour tone plus 8:00 Full hour tone plus SATURDAY 6:00 Angelus (9 strikes) 9:00 Full hour tone plus Hymn (7.5 minutc3 10:00 Full hour tone plus 11:00 Full hour tone plus 12:00 Full hour tone plus Hymn (7.5 minutcs Angelus (9 strikes) 1:00 Full hour tone plus : PROJECT EXHIBIT: hour strike hour strike hour strike 5 minutes*) hour strike hour strike hour strike 5 minutes*) hour strike 2:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 3:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 4:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 5:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutcs 5 minutes*) 5:30 Call to Worship 8:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike SUNDAY 6:00 - 7:30 9:30 11:30 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:O0 Angelus (9 strikes) Call to Worship Call to Worship Call to Worship Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutcs 5 minutes*) Full hour tone plus hour strike Angelus (9 strikes) Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Proposed by Church in their letter to Planning Commission ' ScC H U L M E R I C H R1LLONS, INC. Feb. 13, 1996 Sacred Heart Catholic Church 12722 Foothill Blvd. Etiwanda, Ca- 91730 Attention Father Gaglia: At the request of your office I came to your church last Friday Feb. 9th, to take Sound Reading Measurements for the Carillon Instrument. The Carillon is a Novabell N25, installed in February, !993. i have ~iven your secretary information regarding the various sound levels which are considered normal in any environment. The instrument I used is a Realistic Sound Level Meter, 42-30!9. T look readings at approximately 660 feet from the tower and also at approximately 1300 feet. I listened to the bells as they played on various songs, and the Hour Strike. 660 Ft. readings ranged from 65 to 75 Db. I used the C WeiWhting, and t~stad both the slow and fast response. !300 Ft. readings ranged from 65 Db to 70 Db. using the C Weighting and both slow and fast response. To get comparisons I also tested the sound level at the street in front of the church, and got ~n average of 80 Db for cars and up to 97Db for trucks. I also tested the instrument in conversation inside and at 10 ft. measured 65 Db. If i can be of further assistance please let me know. ~liam L. Castle District Manager, So. Schulmerich Carillons Inc. ~7~ N Cedar St Orange, Ca. 92668 (714) 978-27!2 The bell capital of the world. Carillon Hill o RO. Box 903 o Sellersville. PA 18960-0903 o 215-257-2771 Noise Standards "A weighted" refers to measurement of human hearing "C weighted" refers to measurement of music According to acoustical consultants, the "A weighted" measurement provides an indication of what the human ear would hear. The ear filters out certain frequencies/tones/pitches, etc. The "A weighted" measurement can be anywhere from 3-12 dBA less than the "C weighted" measurement. Base Levels(I) 10:00 pm- 7:00 am 7:00 am - 10:00 pm Exterior Noise 55 dBA 60 dBA Interior Noise 40 dBA 45 dBA 15 Minute/Hour (2) Exterior Noise 10 Minutes/Hour (3) Exterior Noise 5 Minutes/Hour (4) Exterior Noise 55 dBA 60 dBA 60dBA 65dBA 69dBA 74 dBA (1) (2) (3) (4) Note: As measured at the property line of any property Base Noise Level for a cumulative period of not more than 15 minutes in any hour. Base Noise Level plus 5 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than 10 minutes in any hour. Base Noise Level plus 14 dBA for a cumulative period of not more than 5 minutes in any hour. The Base Level plus 15 dBA may not be exceeded at any time. PROJECT: EXHIBIT: F Z w 0 sldoad :soLu Jo 5u! -~sq gq~ gpe~Bgp o~ Aig~,!I s! g~s4 s^oqe s~nsodxg snonu!zuo3 ~o s5ueW W t- Z z D z Oo _.1 - W z ~ "~ o '~ U F u o [] O Z < W z > o W < c J D c Z > ~ '~ w h _ c, c~ U w }-- J< 0 0 O 0 W o 0 0 2 d Z PROJECT: EXHIBIT: TO: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission FROM: Mike & Shelley Cockrell 12966 Cherokee Rd. Etiwanda, ca. 91739 RE: Bell Schedule For Sacred Heart Catholic Church. As a result of our discussions at the march 27th workshop, and at the request of several of our neighbors, we performed a survey of ALL of the residences within an approximate 1/4 mile radius of the future church site. Over the past 2 weeks, we were able to eventually contact 83.6% of these homeowners. The results of that survey are shown below. For the survey. we identified ourselves as local residents, and bde~y explained the nature and scope of our survey. The papers we gave each contacted homeowner (see attached copies) showed the current bell schedule, as taken from the churchs' schedule provided at the march 27th workshop (copy attached), and presented some alternate schedule options, from which they might choose what they thought would be an appropriate schedule for the new facility. We encouraged them to suggest variations on any of the listed options, and a number did in fact do so, some adding extra occurances, and some removing occurances. We tded not to make an argument for any option, though readily admitted our own position (-option "C"). Approximatly 17% choose to split between 2 options, and are so noted. SURVEY RESULTS Surveyed homes within 1/4 mile ..........................73 Homeowners contacted .....................................61 Choices of those contacted: Option A - Retain current schedule ..........................4 Option B - No bell recordings ..................................5 B/C - Prefer no bells, will settle for some ...........8 Option C - sundays and special occasions only .......40 C/A or C/?? - Daily ok, not eady, not so often ..4 (one said on 1/2 hour, several said on the hour) ( 83.6 % ) (6.6%) (8.2%) (13.1%) ( 65.6 %) (6.6%) Those who said a saturday "call to worship" would be ok, and the few who said 1 - 5 times a day on weekdays would be acceptable, are included with the "C" group, as they did not want anywhere near the current 46 times a day. Of the 4 families who indicated option "A", we should point out that they were all near the far reaches of the 1/4 mile boundry of this survey, and when the noise standards were explained to them, 2 of them doubted they would even hear the recordings. Many mentioned being familiar with the current bells a'nd thought them too loud, and wished that we convey to the Planning Commission their insistence that, at the new facility, they would be required to comply with the established Residential Noise Standards. HOMES CONTACTED FOR SURVEY REGARDING BELL SCHEDULE FOR SACRED HEART CHURCH - DURING THE 2 WEEK PERIOD BETWEEN MARCH 27TH, AND APRIL 9TH, 1996. ADDRESS CHEROKEE RD. (NORTH SIDE) 12902 12918 12934 12950 12966 12982 12998 13014 13030 13046 13062 OPTION CHOSEN C B/C B C B/C C C C C A (CORNER OF ETIWANDA AND CHEROKEE) UNABLE TO CONTACT PLUS WEEKDAYS AT 6:00 AM. NOON AND 6:00 PM ( FAR EDGE 1/4 MILE FRINGE ) (SOUTH SIDE ) 12901 12917 12933 12949 12965 12981 12997 13013 13029 13045 13061 C B B/C C B C C C B + NOON & 6:00 PM WEEKDAYS (COR OF ETIWANDA) PLUS I TO 3 TIMES DURING WEEK. NOT COUNTED AT ALL - MOVING / SOLD ( FAR 1/4 MILE FRINGE ). ARAPAHO RD. (NORTH SIDE) 12902 12918 12934 12950 12966 12982 12998 13014 13044 13090 C C C C C B/C C C UNABLE TO CONTACT UNABLE TO CONTACT PLUS A FEW TIMES PER DAY ( FAR 1/4 MILE FRINGE). (SOUTH SIDE ) 12905 12921 12937 12953 12969 12985 13001 13017 C C C C C SOME SATURDAYS & WEEKDAYS OK NO WEEKDAYS !! PLUS A FEW TIMES DURING THE WEEK NO CONTACT NOT COUNTED - SOLD - VACANT NOT COUNTED - SOLD - VACANT ETIWANDA AVE (EAST SIDE ) 6293 C 6251 6233 NC 6215 B/C 6195 C 6188 NC 6163 NC NOT ABLE TO CONTACT NOT AT 6:00 AM, ON 1/2 HOUR OK DURING WEEK. PLUS SOME DURING WEEK - NO LONG, NO 6:00 AM WEEKDAYS ON HOUR - NO 6:00 AM WEEKDAYS ON HOUR - NO 6:00 AM (WEST SIDE ) ?? COR. OF HIGHLAND C 6244 C 6208 C 6162 BLUE GUM CT. ( 2 CUL-DE-SACS) 6214 B/C 6220 C 6231 C 6238 C 6250 C 6255 B 6271 B/C 6272 C SOME Ok ON WEEKDAYS PLUS I - 3 TIMES A DAY UNABLE TO CONTACT ( DOG / FENCE ) FEW EXTRA OK BLUE GUM DR (SOUTH SIDE ) 12997 B/C 13015 13031 13047 NC 13063 A DID NOT UNDERSTAND ENGLISH UNABLE TO CONTACT ON THE HOUR OK WEEKDAYS DOUBTS SHE WILL HEAR - FAR 1/4 MILE FRINGE COLONY CT. (CUL-DE-SAC.) 6224 6225 6235 6236 6239 6240 6245 C C C A 3 TIMES a DAY Ok WEEKDAYS LEFT PAPERS WITH CHILDREN - DID NOT CALL EACH 3 HOURS A DAY WEEKDAYS OK 3 TIMES A DAY OK - NONE EARLY UNABLE TO CONTACT UNABLE TO CONTACT SHASTA (WEST END HOMES ONLY, NEAR ETIWANDA AVE - REST ARE BEYOND 1/4 MILE) 12920 A 12937 C 12940 C 12967 C SAT CALL TO WORSHIP OK WE ARE LOOKING FOR INPUT FROM ALL FAMILIES WITHIN THE APPROXIMATE 1/4 MILE HEARlING RANGE OF THE PROPOSED BELLS. OPTION A DO YOU BELIEVE THE BELL RECORDINGS AT THE NEW LOCATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE PLAYED AT THE SAME FREQUENCY AND VOLUMN AS INDICATED ON THE A'I'I'ACHED SCHEDULE. OPTION B NO BELL RECORDINGS TO BE PLAYED, AS THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. (THIS IS THE CASE WITH THE OTHER LARGE CATHOLIC CHURCH IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA - ST PETER & ST PAUL). OPTION C LIMIT THE BELLS TO SUNDAY'S AND SPECIAL OCCASIONS ONLY, AND ON SUNDAY'S. JUST THE "CALLS TO WORSHIP" (NOT TO EXCEED 5 PLAY!NGS). ALSO, THE VOLUMN OF THE RECORD!r,SSS WOULD NOT BE ALLOVV'ED TO EXCEED THE CITY'S RESIDENTAIL NOISE CONTROL STAr,4DARDS (SECTION 17.08 OPTION D ????? YOUR OWN PERSONAL OPT!ON. JUST ABOUT A!,~Y 'v'ARIA°F~ON ON THF_ ONCE A DAY DURLNG THE WEEK, 3 TIMES ON SATURDAY. WF4AT--V~ '¢OU THINK FOR ADDITIONAL INFGR.MATDN COMMENTS, ,DR TO PROVIDE ,,'.,,dE ?../]TH '(OUR RESPONSE. PLEASE CALL AND LEAVE A MESSAGE ('NHICH INCLUDES YC, UR ADDRESS) BY MONDAY, APRIL 8TH. WiLL BE T,-GK NG THE RESULTS _:'-" THiS =_,:jP,',,:Ev TO A PLANNING COMMISS',ON MEETING C,.,",.; ".,VED~'.ES-D/'-,'f'. APRIL ' .:TH. THANK YOU FOR vr',,i ip T!!-,,'ic jVVtLL L~ v,",'Z'-.'Li :~'l''r''',~ THE ;::.c-, T~ .:,.:':TE~, THE "I!KE COCKRELL 899-3207 Ex,/-//e/f ¢" / THE FOLLOWING IS A SCHEDULE OF THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED PLAYING OF THE BELL RECORDINGS BY THE SACRED HEART CATHOLOC CHURCH, SOON TO BE RELOCATED IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVE. MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY. 6:00 AM ANGELUS RECORDING ( 9 STRIKES ) 9:00 AM 9:15 AM 9:30 AM 9 45 AM 10:00 AM 10:15 AM 10:30 AM 10:45 AM 11:00 AM 11:15 AM 11:30 AM 11:45 AM WESTMINSTER RECORDING, THEN 9 STRIKES, THEN 5 TO 7 MINUTE HYMN. 114 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING 1/2 OF WESTMINSTER. 314 OF WESTMINSTER. WESTMINSTER RECORDING, AND 10 STRIKES (THE HOUR). 1/4 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING 112 OF WESTMINSTER. 3t4 OF WESTMINSTER. WESTMINSTER RECORDING, AND 11 STRIKES (THE HOUR) 114 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING. 1/2 OF WESTMINSTER. 314 OF WESTMINSTER. 12:00 12:15 12:30 PM 12:45 PM 1:00 PM 1:15 PM 1:30 PM 1:45 PM 2:00 PM 2:15 PM 2:30 PM 2:45 PM 3:00 PM 3:15 PM 3:30 PM 3:45 PM 4:00 PM 4:15 PM 4:30 PM 4:45 PM 5:00 PM 5:15 PM 5:30 PM 5:45 PM 6:00 PM 6:15 PM 6:30 PM 6:45 PM 7:00 PM 7:15 PM 7:30 PM 7:45 PM 8:00 PM NOON WESTMINSTER RECORDING, THEN 12 STRIKES, THEN 5 TO 7 MINUTE HYMN. PM 1/4 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING. 1/2 OF WESTMINSTER. 314 OF WESTMINSTER. WESTMINSTER RECORDING, THEN 1 STRIKE (THE HOUR). 114 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING. 1/2 OF WESTMINSTER. 3/4 OF WESTMINSTER. WESTMINSTER RECORDING, THE 2 STRIKES (THE HOUR). 1/4 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING. 112 OF WESTMINSTER. 314 OF WESTMINSTER. WESTMINSTER RECORDING, THEN 3 STRIKES (THE HOUR). 1/4 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING. 1/2 OF WESTMINSTER. 314 OF WESTMINSTER. WESTMINSTER RECORDING, THEN 4 STRIKES (THE HOUR). 1/4 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING. 1/2 OF WESTMINSTER. 314 OF WESTMINSTER. WESTMINSTER RECORDING, THEN 5 STRIKES, THEN 5 TO 7 MINUTE HYMN. 1/4 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING. 1/2 OF WESTMINSTER. 314 OF WESTMINSTER. WESTMINSTER RECORDING THEN 6 STRIKES (THE HOUR). 1/4 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING. 1/2 OF WESTMINSTER. 314 OF WESTMINSTER. WESTMINSTER RECORDING, THEN 7 STRIKES, (THE HOUR). 1/4 OF WESTMINSTER RECORDING. 1/2 OF WESTMINSTER. 314 OF WESTMINSTER. WESTMINSTER RECORDING, THEN 8 STRIKES (THE HOUR). SUNDAYS 6:00 AM ANGELUS RECORDING. ( 9 STRIKES ) 7:30 AM CALL TO WORSHIP. ( THE LENGTH OF THIS RECORDING IS 9:30 AM CALL TO WORSHIP. UNKNOWN TO ME AT THIS TIME. ) 11:30 AM CALL TO WORSHIP. 1:00 PM TO 6:00 PM SAME SCHEDULE AS WEEKDAYS, ABOVE ( EACH 1/4 HOUR). BELL RECORDINGS ARE NOT PLAYED ON SUNDAYS DURING SERVICES, AS THEY ARE CONSIDERED DISRUPTIVE TO THE CHURCH PROCEEDINGS.. ~X/'//~"T' ',~-S "' property. He said there had been complaints at that location about activities in the parking lot. He stated that particular owner runs a tight ship within the bar but observed that it is more difficult to was left open. He acknowledged that Mr. Rausa is trying. He observed that the consultant indi ted a canopy could be installed by the door but the applicant had stated the he is a small busines ~)wner and cannot afford to spend a lot of money. He was concerned it will not work. He comp mented Mr. Rausa in making a good faith attempt but felt that if the application were approved t ere would be complaints from the neighbors. He noted that the applicant had stated he woul ~ke to have outdoor eating and drinking and he felt that would also be disruptive. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by Melcher, to adopt the resolution approyihg Entertainment Permit 93-03 with modification to require additional sound attenuation around t ~fexisting exit doors Z:::/:: 72:'::':::'.'.7',:' ::.': :%::: Z r rhood bar, but a bar on a major thoroughfare and a different case from the other bar which was refer, enced by the Commissioners. He suggested the design of the proposed canopy modification be~ubmitted to staff along with a commentary by the acoustical engineer prior to installation. The motion failed to carry by the following vote: AYES: "NbES: ABSENT: LUMPP, MELCHER BARKER, MCNIEL TOLSTOY - failed Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attomey, stated the floor is open to another motion. He Commissioner Tolstoy would be prese the effect of a tie vote is that the motion is null and ested the matter be continued to a future date when Chairman Barker reopened the available to Commissioner Tol., g. He stated that a copy of the minutes would be made Motion: Moved by February 14, 1996. seconded by McNiel, to continue Entertainment Permit 93-03 to carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKE LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER - carried VARIANCE 95-04 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH - A request to exceed the maximum height limit of 35 feet for the construction of a church facility on 20.14 acres of land in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Associated with the application is Conditional Use Permit 95-16 and Tree Removal Permit 95-14. Planning Commission Minutes .ZS~(./t./'/~,(,),- 'rZ' -7- January 24, 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH - A request to construct a church facility and school consisting of a 31,017 square foot church, a 28,480 square foot community center, a 16,460 square foot education center, a 10,898 square foot parish center office, a 9,400 square foot rectory, a 10,110 square foot adult education and youth center, a 5,180 square foot chapel, and a 9,387 square foot adult center on a 20.14 acre site in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Staff recommends issuance of a mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts. Associated with the application is Variance 95-04 and Tree Removal Permit 95-14. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He stated that the plans posted this evening reflect an increased height for the bell tower up to 72 feet, additional stone work around some of the arches, and a dormer-style window treatment on the community center and church building. He noted that staff had received a call from a resident voicing concern about the impact of the bells. He stated staff was concerned that the bells may be an intrusion on the residential area and had recommended that the bells not be allowed for the church but it was not staff's intent to limit the school bells. He reported that the adjacent property owner to the southwest had submitted a letter requesting a wall along the eastern border of the church property where it abuts his property. Commissioner McNiel questioned if the applicant had made all the changes which were requested at the January 2 Design Review Committee meeting. 'Mr. MUrphy replied that some had been incorporated into the plans shown this evening, including some additional stone work and arches on the rear of the community center building and a similar arch treatment to the walls on both sides of the rotunda. He noted that the Committee had suggested some statues might be added to the rotunda area. Commissioner Lumpp asked if a wall is not being built around the entire property. Mr. Murphy replied that a wrought iron fence will be around the perimeter with a block wall with wrought iron on top being installed only in the areas where a retaining wall would be required. Commissioner Lumpp asked where the adjoining property owner wanted the wall to be placed. Mr. Murphy responded that the properly owner wanted the wall to be extended to the south along the east property line to the end of the playground. Commissioner McNiel asked if the wall would be at the foot of the slope. Mr. Murphy replied it would be at the top of the slope. Commissioner Melcher asked the width of the two driveways going out to the east end of the property. Mr. Murphy replied it is 26 feet, the same as a typical perimeter drive aisle in a shopping center. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Father Gaglia, Sacred Heart Church, 12704 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had been surprised by the proposed condition prohibiting the use of the bells. He requested that the condition be deleted. He believed that a church has unique functions in a community because it is a unique entity. He stated that church bells are traditional in the Roman Catholic church and remarked that bells were in each mission and along rural highways of early California. He said they have used bells at their present location since it opened in 1953 and had never been told that they Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 24,1996 are offensive. He felt the bells lend a sense of peacefulness, rather than being a nuisance. He stated that bells am allowed at all the other schools in the City and said it is necessary to sound the school bells throughout the day as classes change, etc. He noted they also have a monthly fire drill. Chairman Barker asked Father Gaglia to describe the pattern and frequency of bell ringing. Father Gaglia responded that, at present, the bells start at 6:00 a.m. He stated that at 6:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 6:00 p.m., the bells ring for approximately 14 seconds with three sequences of three peals each followed by 21 additional rings. He said the bells ring every quarter hour from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., with 3 dings at the quarter hour, 6 dings at the half hour, 9 dings at the three-quarter hour and 12 rings followed by a ding for each hour on the hour. He reported that at 9:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 5:00 p.m., they ring three additional religious hymns, taking approximately seven minutes each time. He indicated the pattern changes on Saturdays and Sundays to accommodate the mass schedule. He said on Saturdays it rings the aforementioned pattern until 5:00 p.m., then through the hour of 7:00 p.m. and the hour of 8:00 p.m. He stated that on Sundays it rings at 6:00 a.m. and then no hourly rings, but a call to mass at 7:30 a.m., 9:30 a.m., and 11:30 a.m., followed by the regular hourly rings from 1:00 p.m. through 8:00 p.m. Pat Van Daele, 2900 Adams Street, Suite C-25, Riverside, stated he was speaking on behalf of the church. He said their preference was to maintain the wall plan as proposed. He believed there is adequate screening for the residential neighborhood and remarked there is a grade differential between the church site and the area currently zoned for future residential. He felt the additional ..... planting along the church perimeter will provide adequate screening. Mike Cockrell, 12966 Cherokee Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives a couple hundred feet from the bells. He expressed surprise with how far along the project had progressed. He acknowledged that when he moved into his home, signs were up saying future relocation site of the church, but said he and his neighbors were greatly taken back by the size and scope of the operation. He thought most people would feel that a church should not be 120,000 square feet. He felt it is not a church, but a big business roughly the size of a grocery store, pharmacy, bank, video store, and fast food restaurant combined. He felt it is a seven day a week, 365 days a year, morning until night business. He was very concerned about traffic and noise. He thought Etiwanda Avenue should be widened because a lot of traffic will dump onto it. He was not opposed to the appearance and size so long as noise and traffic considerations are addressed. He suggested another entrance onto Highland Avenue. He stated he had spoken to others who are aware of the bells as they exist and are opposed to the bells in their residential neighborhood because they feel they are intrusive. He said it is not a bell to call people to mass, but rather a bell that rings from morning into the night. He observed that the bells are not a problem in the church's present location but noted that the bells are easily heard when standing in front of Price Club even with the ambient traffic noise. He felt people had moved to the neighborhood because it is a quiet area and the bells would be out of context. He did not object to using the bells to call people to mass and said his biggest problem is early morning and late evening. He acknowledged that the church members have every right to express their religion, but felt it unfair to have religious bells continually thrust upon him. Kristen Westfall, 6656 Brownstone Place, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated she lives just south of East Avenue, approximately three block down Highland and one block down East Avenue. She stated she moved to the area for peace and quiet and serenity. She felt that most people understand that a church is to provide a community and safe haven for parish members. She felt bells are not a nuisance and they are not unreasonable but rather the practice of religion in a symbolic manner. Gina Johnson, 7895 Ocean Court, Fontaria, stated she had contacted the Rutherford Foundation, and was told that nuisance is subjected by law to the reasonable person standard. She did not feel church bells are unreasonable. She thought that it would be against the First Amendment for the City to prohibit the bells because she felt the bells are a part of the church ministry because it is customary for Catholic churches to ring bells. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 24, 1996 Don DLugos, 12902 Cherokee Road, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed concern about the land use around the church and questioned if property will be salable for residential use once the church is built. He suggested a traffic signal by the church exit because the street will be congested. He felt seven minutes of music is too long. He thought bells for church only would be acceptable, but they should not be pealed at 6:00 a.m. He suggested a buzzer be used for the school rather than the bells. He noted that Father Gaglia had said the tradition of the bells go back hundreds of years to call in the farmers from the field, and said the farmers did not have watches. He thought the bells are not needed any more. He suggested the church expand in its present location. He felt the City will lose out because builders will not construct houses in the area. David Burger, Senior, 7422 Lariat Place, #A, Rancho Cucamonga, felt a community should not be built without a church in it. Sean Judson, 6346 Choctaw, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is employed by the Etiwanda School District. He felt the work of the Planning Commission is impodant to the aesthetic appeal and overall quality that makes Rancho Cucamonga desirable place. He welcomed Sacred Heart Church to his neighborhood and indicated he thinks churches are the center of the community. He stated he hears the Etiwanda School band practicing and bells from Summit Intermediate School, but they are tangible, audible symbols of a community that focuses on children and family. Christine Roski, 6990 Goldenrain Way, Rancho Cucamonga, stated bells are not a nuisance and they are a church, not a business. She said she hears the bells of Windrows School welcoming the children. She felt the City has unfairly added architectural demands on the church and it is urnreaSonable to 'prohibit the bells. She thought bells are part of countryside, rural churches and are a comforting sound and a reminder to give thanks to the Lord. Gweyn Frost. 12996 Victoria, Rancho Cucamonga, noted that when other churches were constructed, there were discussions about traffic, but there have not been any problems. She said she can hear bells from a school located approximately a mile away, but she has become used to them and they are not really noticed. Michael Magallis, address unknown, stated he moved to the area partially to be near a church. He said St. Peter & St. Paul has bells and is in the middle of a residential area. He requested approval of the bells and thought that people get used to the sound of bells. He commented that four housing tracts are being built in the area which will bring a lot of noise and traffic and those people will be looking for a church. He said that three other churches on Etiwanda Avenue have bells. Commissioner McNiel questioned if bells are used at St. Peter & St. Paul and if they are the same decibel level and ring the same number of times for the same length of time that the bells at Sacred Head will ring. Father Gaglia responded that St. Peter & St. Paul has the bells but he did not know the decibel level. He stated they probably have different tunes because they have different tapes. He thought the equipment is the same for both churches. Commissioner Lumpp asked what type of tunes are played. Father Gaglia replied they are classical religious hymns. Maria Diaz, 6242 Colony Coud, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives four houses from the proposed church and is a parish member. She said none of her neighbors have complained to her about the bells and she is looking forward to hearing them. Planning Commission Minutes -10- January 24, 1996 Ross Jarrette, 12974 Summit Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said he live four houses from the church He felt bells are serene. He thought there will be an increase in traffic just because the community is growing. Floemz Munoz, address unknown, stated he was bom in Mexico 57 years ago. He said farmers had no watches and knew it was time to go to church when the bells rang. He stated the City is growing and needs more churches and bells. He felt those near the church would be blessed. Michele Viscone, address unknown, felt the sound of fireworks at Quakes Stadium is obstructive but said she had not heard anyone complain about them. She thought church bells are a lot less intrusive than the fireworks. Frank Landa, 6244 Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, indicated he lives adjacent to the church at the northeast corner. He stated he did not know the bells were an issue and did not care about them except he was not happy that they will ring every 15 minutes. He felt the bells should be allowed, but not every 15 minutes. He thought someone from the church should have contacted the neighbors and the church proposal has gotten out of hand. He feared he will lose his privacy. He questioned where block walls will be constructed and asked that one be built adjacent to his properly. Gilbed Cortez, 6645 Brownstone Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, hoped there would be no discrimination against the church. He felt the church will be an asset to the community. H~adng no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. He observed there were two issues, the bells and the wall. Commissioner Melcher felt the peal of church bells for any denomination is part of the American scene. He thought the bells are pad of the church, whether it is a small or large church in the country or a big church in an urban environment. He felt the bells should be permitted and be pealed as often and as long as the church desires. He noted that the Design Review Committee had disagreed about the height of the bell tower and noted that he favored the lowest possible height for the bell tower. He preferred that the bell tower be eliminated because he felt it is not an asset to the architecture. Commissioner Lumpp observed that it is okay for roosters to crow and dogs to bark and he thought it should also be okay for a church to ring its bells. He recognized why staff had suggested the condition, but he disagreed and he felt the church should have the bells as they are currently used in their current facility. He noted that the tradition of bells goes back way before the birth of America. Commissioner McNiel stated this is a very urban church in what will be a very suburban community. He noted that when the City adopted the various specific plans, provisions were made specifically to allow churches in residential neighborhoods. He agreed that it belongs there. He felt that in terms of decibel levels, there are things that are appropriate and things which may no longer be appropriate. He noted there was a time when church bells performed a very functional element, whereas they are now only a symbolic element. He said the bells no longer call people to church because people travel many miles to go to their favorite churches. He felt the bells are an intrusion at certain times of the day into people's lives who are not associated with this particular church but live nearby. He suggested finding out what is being done at St. Peter & St. Paul to see if they have a limited amount of bells or a muted bell. He stated the Planning Commission has a responsibility to not only the church members, but to other community members as well. He observed that there was a time when some communities revolved completely around the church, but he noted that is no longer the case. Chairman Barker stated that when he lived in a small community, the church bells were a part of life but he did not recall hearing them every hour. He did not remember hearing bells when living in a Planning Commission Minutes -11- January 24, 1996 large city except when attending church because of the traffic noise. He observed that the church is moving into a neighborhood and changing the status quo and asserting it has the right to it and the citizens will get used to it. He said he lives near St. Peter & St. Paul and he did not (hink they play tunes or bells every 15 minutes. He said he was uncomfortable with a new neighbor coming into an area and indicating they will play seven minutes of tunes. He did not feel it is a First Amendment issue, but rather a new neighbor coming into a neighborhood and changing the pattern. He did not oppose bells in the morning nor did he oppose using bells for the school. He was concerned about whether the current pattern is intrusive. He was surprised that someone would state that what is appropriate on a major thoroughfare in a commercial area may be appropriate to bdng into what at the moment is a rural, lower density area. He observed that hundreds of people attended meetings when the Etiwanda Specific Plan was being developed and the residents wanted to maintain the area as rural as possible. He thought bells are rural, but he did not feel long playing songs are rural. He did not suppod elimination of the bells but he felt there should be room for recognition of the impact the bells will have on the area and residents. He noted that churches are generally good at finding ways to work things out and he hoped things could be worked out with the community. He commented that school bells are functional and not continuous. It was the consensus of the Commission that school bells were acceptable. Chairman Barker asked if Father Gaglia had any response to the concerns he had raised. Father Gaglia stated the church is an important part of the already existing neighborhood because .... 3! perCent of the people who live in the Etiwanda Specific Plan area are members of Sacred Heart Church. He stated the bells dng mostly during the day when most people are at work. He observed that when Sacred Heart Church was first built at its present location, it was a rural, grape growing area, not a commercial area. He noted they have had a sign up for 10 years in the new location indicating that they would be moving there. He reiterated that the seven-minute hymn sessions are at 9:00 a.m., 12:00 noon, and 5:00 p.m. He suggested they would be willing to cut down from four hymns to two hymns in order to reduce the time. Chairman Barker felt that would be a step in the right direction. He noted that one of the residents had indicated he was not overjoyed about the ringing every quarter hour. He felt there should be some negotiating room so far as the songs and materials. He noted that the church is part of the community, but it has not been part of that neighborhood and 69 percent of the residents are not parishioners. He said that once something is there, people know about it when they buy into an area. He was concerned about changing the status quo. Brad Buller, City Planner, felt there was a general majority position by the Commissioners that some level of bells is appropriate. He suggested modifying the condition to read that "The use of bells or other sounds to indicate lime of day, time of mass, or school activities may be allowed under separate approval by the Planning Commission, subject to the submittal of a special study identifying the actual proposed use of the bells. He thought that would give an opportunity to determine if there should be sound limitations, if they should they be subject to the noise ordinance of the municipal code, etc. Chairman Barker felt that would allow the City to sit down in a less judicial role and find a satisfactory solution. Commissioner McNiel supported the revised condition because it would give the Commission an opportunity to review it. Commissioners Melcher stated he would prefer just approving the bells, but he was willing to accept the modified condition. Planning Commission Minutes -12- January 24, 1996 Commissioner Lumpp concurred. He asked if there is a wall adjacent to the existing house at the northeast corner of the church site. Mr. Murphy replied there is not, but there is a Eucalyptus windrow. Commissioner Lumpp questioned why a wall is being required along the southeast property line, where there is no adjacent development. Chairman Barker thought it was because of the grade change. Commissioner Lumpp suggested a wall be required to buffer Mr. Landa's residence at the northeast corner of the property with the details to be worked out with staff. He thought a wall would be appropriate because of the number of vehicles which will be using the driveway. He did not feel the Commission should require a wall along the southeastern border where it abuts the vacant lot and thought a wall should be required in connection with future development of the residential land. Chairman Barker questioned if Mr. Landa wanted a wall. Mr. Landa nodded his approval that he would like a wall. Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher said the exhibit depicts a retaining wall to bring the wall up to the level of the driveway along ihe southeast property line. He asked if there will not be a bank. Mr. Murphy indicated that at the Planning Commission workshop and the Design Review Committee meeting there were discussions regarding providing a slope. He said that Condition No. 3 requires the applicant to make a good faith effort to obtain a slope easement from the adjacent property owner and to provide a slope if it is granted. He said if the easement is not granted, the applicant is to construct a retaining wall with a decorative finish with the final design to be approved by the City Planner. Commissioner Melcher observed that at the first workshop on the project, he had contended that the site is planned in such a way that it forces things which would not need to be done if a different approach were taken on the plan. He said they were told that the site plan arrangement had been mandated by the diocese. He expressed disappointment that the site plan had not been modified. He felt the site plan should be revised to eliminate the two right-angle turns at the main building of the two long 26-foot wide driveways. He thought the necessity to seek a slope easement from an adjacent property shows that the site plan is too crowded. He said he had heard a lot of things tonight that he agreed with such as the sentiments, reasoning, ideas of community, location of the church, etc. However, as a design professional and a Planning Commissioner, he felt the wall situation indicates the shortcomings of this padicular plan and he thought it will lead to problems for the church in the future. Chairman Barker asked Commissioner Melcher to comment on extending the wall. Commissioner Melcher did not think the Commission should extend walls on the basis of a request from an adjoining property owner. He supported staff's recommendation so far as the walls. Commissioner McNiel agreed with Commissioner Lumpp that the adjacent existing house on the northeast corner should be buffered by a wall and landscaped. He thought the wall along the southeast side is sufficient as recommended by staff. Chairman Barker stated that the wall is being constructed if necessary for a specific reason, as a retaining wall, not a decorative item. He agreed with Commissioners Lumpp and McNiel regarding Planning Commission Minutes -13- January 24, 1996 (7o the wall to provide privacy for Mr. Landa's properly. He observed that Commissioner Lumpp preferred that the tower be tall, while Commissioner Melcher wanted the tower to be short or non- existing. Commissioner McNiel felt the tower as presented tonight was acceptable. Chairman Barker agreed with the tower. Motion:. Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Vadance 95-04 and Conditional Use Permit 95-16 with modifications to require separate Planning Commission approval of the use of bells following a study and to provide a wall adjacent to the existing residence at the northeast corner. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY MELCHER NONE - carried Commissioner Melcher observed that his no vote was not against the church or the land use but because he thought the site plan should be improved. Chairman Barker remarked that Commissioner Melcher had been consistent in voicing that opinion regarding the site plan. ~ORTS E. PLIES - A reque%st o~nsider initiation of text changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to ad"a'8'~utomotive Sales an~L_l:_eases as a conditionally permitted use to parcels adjacent to the 1-15 Freeway in Subarea 8."~ Brad Buller, City Planner, presented tF~e%'staff report. --,,.. Commissioner McNiel stated he did not oppose~,.s. tarling the process to consider text changes; however, he said he has reservations about auto Sahe, s and their recent tenancies toward freeway adjacent marque signage. Chairman Barker agreed that future signage will be an issue. H~_~v~a,s concerned about access with the property in question. He asked if the applicant was present. Daniel Plies, The Plies Companies, 22706 Aspen Street, Suite 701, Lake F~rest, stated he owns the property. Chairman Barker asked if he was looking at the surplus Southern California Edis . E)strip in the area. ~. Mr. Plies responded affirmatively. He said they had previously sold the land to SCE a~"~ y are now. negotiating to purchase it back. He indicated they are also in the process of negoti:%o purchase the vacant land to the west. Planning Commission Minutes -14- January 24, 1996 /71 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting March 27, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: STAFFPRESENT: ANNOUNCEMENTS PRESENT: David Barker. Heinz Lumpp, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: Larry McNiel Brad Buller, City Planner; Scott Murphy. Associate Planner There were no announcements. OLD BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH - A discussion of the bells to be used at a church facility and school on a 20.14 acre site in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues o APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Brad Bullet, City Planner, gave a brief introduction of the project. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Father Gaglia, pastor at Scared Heart Church, explained the existing bell schedule. Father Gaglia indicated that a letter was presented to the City indicating the volume of the existing bells based on testing conducted within 600 and 1,300 feet of the source. CommisSioner Melcher asked if the hymns are played every day. Commissioner Lumpp stated that the hymns are played everyday, except Sunday, at 9:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., and 5:00 p.m. Father Gaglia played a tape of the various bell patterns and hymns currently in use. Michael Cocknell, 12966 Cherokee, Rancho Cucamonga, questioned the quality and noise level of the recording. Father Gaglia stated that the recording was taken about 100 feet from the church. Mr. Cocknell felt the bells are much touder than the tape portrayed. He said he has sat in his car at Price Club and heard the bells more clearly and loudly than heard on the tape. 'v' " } Gina Johnson, 7895 Ocean Court, stated that she owns a convertible and can not hear the Sacred Heart bells when sitting in front of the church, Mr. Cocknell indicated he was familiar with decibel equipment. He felt the noise levels allowed by the Citys Noise Ordinance seem reasonable. He stated that environmental factors, however, can affect the noise level. Pat Loy, representing Sacred Heart Church, felt that the Price Club center offered ideal noise transmission conditions because of the expanse of asphalt and open area. Landscaping, unpaved areas, and buildings all help to dampen noise impacts. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the tape player is attune to the human voice, not bell sounds. The tape is not intended to reproduce the actual noise level but to demonstrate the type and length of the various sounds generated throughout the day. Larry Matejka, 13122 Arapaho Road, Rancho Cucamonga, said he found out about the meeting on Sunday. He reported he had called the Los Angeles Archdiocese about the church policy on bell ringing and he was told that bell ringing is a decision of each individual church. Mr. Matejka stated that he can hearthe noise from Interstate 15 now. He thought the church would be an asset to the community but was opposed to the use of bells that close to his house. He indicated that other members of the community should be contacted and their input should be considered. He stated that on the weekends he can hear motorcycles, shotgun blasts, etc., that are occurring in the County area at the nodh end of Etiwanda Avenue. Mr. Cocknell pointed out that the Noise Ordinance indicates the interior noise level shall not exceed 45 dBA. He thought any house can be used to determine compliance with the Ordinance. He noted the exterior noise limits are much higher. He said the density in the area is very low and many people have landscaped their back yards in order to enjoy the outdoors. He felt the bells will intrude on their ability to enjoy the outdoors. Doug Peterson, 6271 Blue Gum Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he looked for a quiet area when he moved into the area three years ago from a noisy city. He said the introduction of bells posed a serious concern for him. Mark Detter, 12949 Cherokee, Rancho Cucamonga, asked the current schedule of bells. Chairman Barker repeated the bell schedule. Mr. Detter asked if the schedule could be curtailed. He felt that 6:00 a.m. was too early for bells to be going off. He thought special occasions were acceptable but bells playing every quatier-hour, seven days a week was too much. He observed there will eventually be homes on all sides of the church. He felt playing hymns at 12:00 p.m. was okay but the 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. times should be eliminated. Mr. Peterson felt that Sundays were acceptable. Don DLugos, 12902 Cherokee, Rancho Cucamonga, felt the bells should be allowed only on Sundays. Ms. Johnson stated that there is no legal research with respect to church bells. She thought the area where the church is proposed is changing and will continue to change. She felt the bells, if viewed by the church as part of their religion, are protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution. She stated that Sacred Head is regulated by the San Bernardino/Riverside Diocese, not Los Angeles. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- March 27, 1996 Chairman Barker stated that St. Peter and St. Paul Church does not have bells because a neighbor cut the wire. Mr. Matejka suggested that the meeting be continued to allow other residents to participate. Mr. Cocknell felt that the days of bringing people to mass with the bells is over. He stated that if the bells were toned down during the week he might find them acceptable. Chairman Barker recommended that the item be continued for two weeks. The other Commissioners agreed with the continuance. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Castle, the person who took the sound readings for the church, could be present. Father Gaglia did not think that would be possible but said he would try to have him attend. Chairman Barker asked that any technical information be provided to the Commission and the Church at the earliest opportunity. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes ¸-3- March 27, 1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Adjourned Meeting April 10, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman Barker led the pledge of allegiance. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: STAFF PRESENT: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: None Brad Buller, City Planner; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS There were no announcements. OLD BUSINESS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-16 - SACRED HEART CATHOLIC CHURCH - A discussion of the bells to be used at a church facility and school on a 20.14 acre site in the Very Low Residential designation (1-2 dwelling units per acre) of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, between Summit and Highland Avenues - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, and 23. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. He also presented two bell schedule alternatives for the Planning Commission's consideration: Altemative 1 eliminating the 1/4- and 3/4-hour strike, Alternative 2 eliminating the 1/4- and 3/4-hour strikes and terminated the bells at 6:00 p.m. Father Gaglia indicated that there was really only one issue for discussion. He observed that the bells, with one minor adjustment, can comply with the Noise Ordinance. He felt the issue of whether the bells should be allowed falls under the First Amendment of the Constitution and is not really an issue-the church has the right to play the bells. In the interest of working with the community. He said the church believes that Alternate 1 provided by staff is acceptable. Mike Cocknell, 12966 Cherokee, Rancho Cucamonga, spoke about the impact varying decibel readings will have. Commissioner Melcher asked for an explanation of the decibel levels allowed within the residential zone, Mr. Murphy explained that the Noise Ordinance allows noises to exceed the base levels if the cumulative time does not exceed certain time limits. For example, noise not exceeding five minutes * in an hour may exceed the base level by 14 decibels which would allow the noise level to reach 74 dBA compared to the 60 dBA base level. Commissioner Melcher asked if staff is able to deten'nine which times are not in compliance with the Noise Ordinance. Mr. Murphy responded that staff is not able to identify violations at this time and extensive readings would have to be conducted before an assessment could be made. He noted that environmental factors can affect the readings from one day to the next and the same reading could not be assumed at the same location at the same time. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that humidity can have a big impact on the readings. Commissioner Lumpp asked Father Gaglia to identify when the bells are played. Father Gaglia explained the timing of the bells between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the church could move the Angelus from 6:00 a.m. to 7:00 a.m. Father Gaglia stated that was not the traditional Angelus time of 6:00 a.m., 12:00 p.m., and 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if any of the bells from the church are used for the school. Father Gaglia indicated that few of the bells are used for both purposes. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the church would eliminate the 1/2-hour strike. Father Gaglia stated that the Parish Council had met and determined that Alternative 1 is acceptable, eliminating the 1/4- and 3/4-hour strikes. Mr. Cocknell submitted a survey for the Planning Commission's consideration. He surveyed the neighborhood within a 1/4-mile radius of the church. He said the majority of homeowners preferred the bells on Sunday only or at mass times. Father Gaglia stated that Chickasaw Street was not included in the survey. Mr. Cocknell responded that it was not within a 1/4-mile radius. Marcia Diaz, 6242 Colony Coud, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she had spoken with a neighbor who was within the 1/4-mile radius and in support of the bells. Chairman Barker stated that the honesty of the survey was not the issue. He said the Commission needs to determine if a solution is possible. Chairman Barker indicated that bells on Sundays did not seem to be a problem. Also, he felt hourly bells were acceptable to the Commission. Father Gaglia reiterated his concern that the church has a right to play bells and that they can comply with the Noise Ordinance. Chairman Barker asked for discussion amongst the Commissioners. Commissioner McNiel asked what scale of measurement was used in the Noise Ordinance data. Mr. Murphy responded that the "A weighted" scale was used. PC Adjourned Minutes -2- April 10, 1996 Commissioner McNiel asked why St. Peter and St. Paul does not play bells. Father Gaglia stated that the system St. Peter and St. Paul uses is a much older system and parts are difficult to come by. He said maintenance of the system is very costly. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that there is also a neighborhood issue with the bells in addition to the maintenance issue. Janthe Tibbetts, 12997 Shasta Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that St. Peter and St. Paul has homes much closer than Sacred Heart. Mr. Cocknell felt that most residents would not have a problem if the 60 dBA base level was met. Chairman Barker asked if that included seven days a week. Mr. Cocknell stated that he received a variety of answers. Father Gaglia indicated that the church property is nearly 1/4-mile in length north-to-south and east- to-west. Commissioner McNiel stated that this is a residential neighborhood. He said bells were originally used to serve a function and purpose but now the bells are simply tradition. He felt if tradition intrudes, the City will have a problem. He stated that if this were any other type of application, there would be no discussion of the bells. He observed that St. Peter and St. Paul"s bells do not ring and no damage has been done to the church. He felt the use of bells is difficult to support in any significant fashion and the problem will continue to grow. Commissioner Melcher stated he was opposed to any regulation of the bells. He stated bells do not make noise, they make music. He felt the church has a Constitutional right to play their bells. He noted the church had offered to accept Alternative 1 and he thought the Commission should snatch up the oppodunity and be done with it. Commissioner Tolstoy agreed that the church has a right to use bells. However, he thought the church must be sensitive to the neighborhood. He felt that Alternative 1 could be supported with the elimination of the 1/2-hour strike. Commissioner Tolstoy was sorry to hear the church would not move the Angelus to 7:00 a.m. but said he would, however, accept 6:00 a.m. Commissioner Lumpp asked how anyone could accept the crowing of a rooster or the barking of a dog but not bells. He noted the survey suggests that bells are acceptable on Sunday when most people are home asleep. He thought that during the week, the bells would play when most people are at work. He felt the City should not regulate the bells but noted Alternative I was acceptable to the church. He added that the hymns should be reduced to 3 minutes instead of the 7-1/2 minutes. He could support elimination of the 1/2-hour strike if the other Commissioners agreed. Chairman Barker stated that he personally had no use for hymns. He felt the hour strike was acceptable. While he could appreciate the church's position, he believed that if a church opened across the street and played bongoes that no one would understand. He noted two Commissioners supported Alternative I and he asked Commissioner Tolstoy if he could live with the 1/2-hour strike. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he would not like it. Chairman Barker stated that if Commissioner Tolstoy said yes, the Commission would have the three votes necessary for passage; if not, it appeared the vote would be two in favor of Alternative 1, two in favor of Alternative I with the elimination of the 1/2-hour strike, and one no. PC Adjourned Minutes -3- April 10, 1996 Commissioner Lumpp indicated he could go along with Chairman Barker and Commissioner Tolstoy for Alternative 1 with the elimination of the 1/2-hour strike. Commissioner Melcher reiterated his opposition to regulating the bells. Chairman Barker asked for a motion. Mr. Buller indicated that minute action would suffice. He recapped the vote as Chairman Barker and Commissioners Lumpp and Tolstoy in favor of Alternative I with the elimination of the 1/2-hour strike, Commissioners McNiel and Melcher opposed, but for different reasons. Commissioner Tolstoy said that the church needs to live within the neighborhood. Commissioner McNiel felt the bells would be an intrusion into the neighborhood. Commissioner Melcher stated that the City should not regulate the bells. Chairman Barker stated that the church or the neighbors would have the ability to appeal the decision to the City Council. Mr. Buller asked the church if they would notify staff on their plans for the appeal so they could notify the residents if questioned. Father Gaglia stated that the church has compromised and wanted to know if the church can file complaints about barking dogs in the neighborhood. Chairman Barker indicated that any complaints may be filed through the proper channels. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. COMMISSION BUSINESS There was no Commission business. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 6:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Brad Buller Secretary PC Adjourned Minutes -4- April 10, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. ~l~, 0 ? ~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE BELL SCHEDULE FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-16, A CHURCH AND SCHOOL FACILITY IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATION (1-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) OF THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ETIWANDA AVENUE, BETWEEN SUMMIT AND HIGHLAND AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 225-171-12, 20, 22, AND 23. A. Recitals. 1. Sacred Heart Catholic Church has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 95-16, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of January 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public headng on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 3. After considering the public input, the Commission approved Conditional Use Permit 95-16 through adoption of Resolution No. 96-04. Planning Division Condition No. 9 requires the use of bells to be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission under separate approval with the applicant providing additional information about the hours, noise level, and type of bells and/or sounds to be used. 4. On February 5, 1996, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision within the time limits prescribed by law. The appeal specifically addressed Planning Division Condition No. 9. 5. The applicant agreed to postpone action by the City Council until such time as the Planning Commission had the opportunity to review the proposed bell information in more detail. 6. On March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed workshop to review the bell information. The workshop was continued to April 10, 1996. 7. On April 10, 1996, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop to review the bell information and concluded said meeting on that date. After considering all public testimony, the Planning Commission approved the bell schedule through minute action. 8. On April 17, 1996, Larry Matejka, a local resident, filed an appeal within the time limits prescribed by law. 9. On May 15, 1996, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing on that date. 10. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. L,7 7 CiTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CUP 95-16 - SACRED HEART CHURCH May 15, 1996 Page 2 B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on May 15, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, south of Summit Avenue with a street frontage of 331 feet and lot depth of 1,259 feet and is presently vacant; and b. The properties to the north and east of the subject site are designated for residential uses and are developed with single family residences. The properties to the west and south are designated for residential uses and are vacant; and c. The construction of a church is conditionally permitted within the Very Low Residential designation of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and d. The application, with the attached conditions of approval and approval of Variance 95-04, complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Etiwanda Specific Plan; and e. The construction of a church is consistent with the Very Low Residential designation of the General Plan and the Etiwanda Specific Plan. 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby approves the bell schedule as contained in the attached Exhibit "A." 4. This Council hereby provides notice to Sacred Heart Church that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 5. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Sacred Heart Church at the address identified in City records. BELL SCHEDULE - APPROVED ALTERNATIVE (Eliminate 1/4, 1/2, and 3/4 hour stroke) DAILY Angelus (9 strikes) 9:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutc3 5 minutes*) Full hour tone plus Full hour tone plus 6:00 1:00 hour strike 2:00 hour strike 3:00 hour strike 4:00 hour strike 5:00 6:00 Full hour tone plus Angelus (9 strikes) 7:00 Full hour tone plus 8:00 Full hour tone plus SATURDAY 6:00 Angelus (9 strikes) 10:00 hour strike 11:00 hour strik 12:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutc3 5 minutes*) Angelus (9 strikes) Full hour tone plus Full hour tone plus Full hour tone plus Full hour tone plus Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutc3 5 minutes*) hour strike hour strike hour strike 9:0O Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutcs 5 minutes*) 10:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 11:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 12:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutc3 5 minutes*) Angelus (9 strikes) 1 ;00 Full hour tone plus hour strike Exhibit "A" 2:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 3:00 Full hour tone plus hour strike 4:00 5:00 5:30 8:O0 Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutc3 5 minutes*) Call to Worship Full hour tone plus hour strike SUNDAY 6:00 7:30 9:30 11:30 1:00 2:00 3:00 4:00 5:00 6:00 7:00 8:00 Angelus (9 strikes) Call to Worship Call to Worship Call to Worship Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Hymn (7.5 minutc3 5 minutes*) Full hour tone plus hour strike Angelus (9 strikes) Full hour tone plus hour strike Full hour tone plus hour strike Proposed by Church in their letter to Planning Commission CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: May 15, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-04 - FRANCIS BALCHAK - An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 1,075 square foot video arcade and a 2,207 square foot pool room in conjunction with a 2,100 square foot restaurant within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) shopping center located at the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 208-202-17. RECOMMENDATION The applicant has provided a written request for a continuance of this item until the June 5, 1996 meeting. In accordance with State and City requirements, the application request has been advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the site was posted, and notices were mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the subject site. Staff recommends that the applicant's request for continuance be granted. e% sRespec submitted, BB:AW:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Request for Continuance FROM:DEANNA TO: 9099~8!548 MAY 8, 1995 ll:!2AM P.OI MAi,,TNE!q:][N'O & iSR::IZGUGLIO 9333 Baseline Road, Suite 110 Rancho Cuca~nonga, Ca!ifor~ia 91730-1311 (909)980-1!00 Facsimile: (S09)941-8610 SENT VIA FACSI}f!LE DATE: 5-8-96 TO: Brad Bul]er FAX NUMZER: (909) 477-2847 COMPANY: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA / PI,ANNING DEPARTMENT Bunky's Sb~JECT: Deanna SENDER: N"u~ER OF PAGES INCLUDING THiS COVER: 2 PLEASE NOTE: Th~ info_--m,a~ion contained in this facsimile message is' =rivi!eged and ccnfidencia!, and is intended only for the use of the individual named above and others who have been specifically au:horized cc receive in. r= you are ncc the intended reciDienz,. you are hereby notified thac any dissemina[ion, distribution or copying of this ccn~nunication is s~ricz!y urohibited. if you have received this ~h] ~ms cccur with tran:~m/ssicn,. cc~T. unication in error, or i~ any ~ .... please.contact Sender ci call (909)980~1100. That2< you. THiS SPACE Fj~Y BE USED FOR SUPPL5~F-NTAL ~/ESSAGE Attached js ~ copy of the letter forwarded on yesturday's date. P]ease note, John has the file with him so I copied the letter from disk; hence no signature. Let me know if you need anythin[ further. Thank you! FROM:DEANNA TO: 9099481648 MAY 8, 1996 I!:!2AM P.02 MANNERINO 0 BRIGU L "' u ,~. w "'o ~= j:::': c ~' s JOHN D. MANNFRINO ,SAL BHIGUGLIO MI'I CHFLL RO'l May 7, i996 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCILtS OFFICE 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 9].729 Mr. Brad Buller THE CITY OF I~NCHO CUCAMONGA Plannin9 Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Conditional Use Permit 96-04 / Balchak Dear Council Members and Mr. Bul].er: In order to more fully present our appeal, and to addzress tile concerns of the planning staff, we hereby apply for a continuance of the currently calendared hear~-ng date of May 15, 1996, to June 5, 1996. Kindly respond to the undersigned at your first and earliest convenience. Your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this matter are most appreciated. Very truly yours, MANNERINO & BRIGUGLI0 By: John D. Mannerino jDM/drf cc: Mr. and Mrs. Frank Balchak · ' 9333 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE 110 I RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 / 'tEL (909)980-1100 t I:AX (909)941-8510 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 15, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Brent Le Count, Associate Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15732 - LEWIS HOMES -Appeal of a condition of approval regarding school facility financing for a proposed subdivision of 33 single family homes on 9.46 acres of land in the Community Service designation, located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 277-522-05, 07, and 08 BACKGROUND: The applicant, Lewis Homes, has requested a continuance of City Council consideration of the above matter to the next City Council Meeting (see attached letter of request). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council continue consideration of this matter to the next regularly scheduled meeting of June 5, 1996. Respectfully submitted, City Planner BB: Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter 05/87/'!996 14:11 9~-949-57L5 LEWIS HOMES MGMT CO PAGE RECEIVED LEWIS HOMES ENTERPRISES 116~ N. I~untll~ Avenue ! P. O. Box 170 / Uldenc~ C.,,4iornla 11711-0170 ~Ogzt~-Of?'l FAX: lOl/14g--i700 Lege] ~ FAX: ll)t/M~672l May 7, 1996 MAY 0 ? 1996 city of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Refer to File No. G-1729 Mr. Rick Gomez City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 VZA TELECOPIER 909/477-2849 Re: Lewis Homes Enterprises' Appeal of Standard Condition No. 5 to Tentative Tract No. 15732 Dear Mr. Gomez: Following our telephone conversation yesterday, I discussed with Clayton Parker, legal counsel for the Etiwanda School District, the school fee issue raised in Lewis Homes Enterprises' ("Lewis"} April 17, 1996 appeal of Standard Condition No. 5 to Tentative Tract No. 15732. Mr. Parker and I are hopeful that the matter can be resolved amicably and without the necessity of having Lewis' appeal heard by the City Council. Accordingly, in the interest of accommodating ongoing discussions with the Etiwanda School District, Lewis requests that the hearing on its appeal currently scheduled fDr May 15, 1996, be continued until the next City Council meeting thereafter. In making this request, we are relying upon your assurances that the City staff will continue processing plans for Tract 15732 pending the hearing of the appeal. If this request for a continuance cannot be accommodated by the City or will result in any delay of the processing of Lewis' plans for Tract 15732, please advise me immediately s9 that we can withdraw this request and proceed in preparation for the City Council meeting of May 15, 1996. Should I not hear from you, I will assume that the continuance has been granted. Your and Brad Buller's efforts in working toward the amicable resolution of this matter are very much appreciated by Lewis. Very truly yours, S HO uT!sea~ENT CORP. JMM:mez:v\G1729 CC: Mr. Brad Bullet (via telecopier 909/477-2849) Mr. Gene Newton, Etiwanda School District (via telecopier Ms. Sue Sundell, Chaffey Joint Union High School District (via telecopter 909/984-1164) Mr. Clayton Parker, Esq. (via telecopier 714/573-0998) Mr. Leon C. Swails Mr. David W. Graf 909/899-1656) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Larry Henderson, Principal Planner CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL DRAFT ANNUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR FY 1996 - 1997- The review of the Federally required Annual Action Plan for fiscal year 1996 - 1997, including the final selection of projects for the Community Development Block Grant annual application, based on an estimate of $1,024,000 (current year's allocation). RECOMMENDATION The City Council conduct a second public hearing and take public testimony regarding the application for funding; and adopt the attached plan, therein authorizing the Mayor to submit the Annual Action Plan to HUD for consideration of funding. BACKGROUND Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds are provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to cities and counties based on a formula which considers the community's population, extent of poverty, and age of housing stock. To be eligible for CDBG funding, activities must meet at least one of the two primary goals of the CDBG program: The development of viable urban communities, including decent housing and a suitable living environment; and The expansion of economic opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income. In addition, CDBG regulations provide that at least 70 percent of all funds be directed to activities that benefit low and moderate income persons. Of the activities proposed for the fiscal year 1996 - 1997, 100 percent benefit low and moderate income persons. This year's grant allocation of $1,024,000 represents no change over last year's allocation. The City received 23 proposals, of which 19 were for public service related activities. In evaluating the proposals, first priority was given to those projects that were in progress and on going. Exhibit A is a list of the proposals received and those agencies recommended for funding. ,J CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CDBG FUNDING MAY 15, 1996 PAGE 2 Capital Improvement: In regard to the Capital Improvement projects, the Engineering Department has presented the following projects for the next fiscal year: Tapia Via - Grove to Rancheria (Includes pavement and curbs only) Rancheria - Start the design process for improvements to Rancheria Dr. Wheel Chair Ramps - Retro~tting of existing curbs to accommodate handicapped persons Sidewalk Repair - Involves the grinding of displaced sidewalk and repair replacement Community Facilities: Community facility improvements are intended to be provided, to the extent possible, based on CDBG eligibility requirements. While the Lions Center complex is not located in a qualified target area, handicap improvements to the facility are eligible. Funds to complete the extensive improvements required at the Lions Center, to bring it into conformance with ADA requirements, have been banked for the past three years. Additional funds will be provided this year in order to allow completion of the improvements. The Rancho Cucamonga Public Library will be receiving minor improvements to provide an office center and reading room for their literacy programs. This activity is eligible under CDBG guidelines, because the rooms will benefit low and moderate income persons. Home Improvement: The City's Home Improvement program has been in existence since 1990. The program offers deferred payment loans of up to $25,000 and grants of up to $5,000. Since the program's inception it has been overwhelmed with requests for assistance from both the single- family and mobile-home community. There are currently 57 residents on the waiting list for single- family rehabilitation and 36 residents on the mobile-home waiting list. Public Services: Federal regulations allow communities to use up to 15 percent of their grant allocation to fund public service activities. The amount recommended for FY 1996 - 1997 is $87,472. The projects that will be funded meet the priority of assisting an immediate public health and safety need, such as food and shelter. A summary of CDBG fund allocations is included in Exhibit B. City staff has met with the Council Sub-Committee composed of Rex Gutierrez and Paul Biane and the representatives from the YMCA-Northtown Housing Development Corporation regarding the proposed funding of their project. The applicants have presented one revised proposal and are pursuing an alternative site to locate the proposed after school program. After the applicant confirms the securing of a CDBG eligible location and presents a revised proposal, staff will meet again with Council Members Gutierrez and Biane to reach a recommendation for the full Council's consideration. City staff will comment verbally on the outcome of these meetings. CORRESPONDENCE Notice of availability of the draft Annual Action Plan, of proposed funding allocations and of the public hearing was published at least ten days prior to the meeting on May 15, 1996, in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, as a display ad. Notice was also published in the La Voz newspaper. Resp Ily Sub ' ed r% BB:wh Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Summary of CDBG Applications Exhibit "B" - Draft Annual Action Plan Exhibit "C" - Executive Summary D~<Z~ >- ~ < C.7, "' Z 'T < ~ o ~ ~ ~ .:- Z ~ ~. -< ._ Z ~ ~z z~ ~ ~ ~> ~ < <= < · . · , ~ ~ ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SF-~24 1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION: Application: 2. DATE SUBMITFED: Applicant Identifier: 3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE: State Identifier: 4. DATE RECEIVED BY FEDERAL Federal Identifier: 5. APPLICANT INFORMATION: Legal Name: Organizational Unit: Address: County: Contact person: Telephone Number: 6. EMPLOYER ID NUMBER: 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: 8, TYPE OF APPLICATION: If revision: 9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY: APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE N 05/22/96 b-96-MC-06-0558 II AGENCY: // CiW of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P.O. Box 807 10500 Civic Center Dr Rancho Cucamonga CA San Bernardino Larry J. Henderson, Principal Planner (gO9) gSg-1861 95-3213002 C C U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Preapplication: 91729 10. CATALOG OF DOMESTIC FEDERAL ASSISTANCE NUMBER: 14218 Title: Community Development Block Grant 11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT: Housing Rehabilitation; Sidewalks and Street mprovements' Handicap AccessabiliW Improvements; Publlic Services, Homeless Outreach, Fair Housing, Landlord Tenant Mediation, Graffiti Removal, YWCA, House of Ruth, Foothill Family Shelters 12. AREAS AFFECTED BY PROJECT: Cib/wide 13. PROPOSED PROJECT Start Date: 14. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS: Applicant: 15. ESTIMATED FUNDING: Project: Federal: 1024000 Applicant: 0 State: 0 Local: 0 Other: 0 Program Income: 0 TOTAL: 1024000 07/01/95 35 35 End Date: 06130/97 16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO 'REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS? C / I Program:CDSG Exhibit B Page 1 of 2 ANNUAL ACTION PLAN SF--424 APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE Program:COSG 17. IS THE APPLICANT DELINQUENT ON ANY FEDERAL DEBT? N 18. THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN AUTHORIZED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE APPLICANT: Authorized Vvilliam J Alexander Representative: Title: Mayor Telephone Numbers: (909) 989-1861 Date Signed: 05115196 Exhibit B Page 2 of 2 In this submission for Fiscal Year 1996-97, the Annual Plan will provide a plan of investment and outline activities expected to be undertaken in order to address the priority needs and local objectives identified by the City and determine goals for individuals and households to be served. RESOURCES AVAILABLE Federal Resources COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT Community Development Block Grant funds are the primary source of Federal Funds available to the City during the coming year. The City's grant allocation available for this year is expected to be $1,024,000. The City does not expect to receive any additional program income during the 1996-97 program year. SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY The San Bemardino County Housing Authority serves as the local housing authority for the region. The Agency currently operates over 5,000 Section 8 housing units and has developed, or is in the process of developing, approximately 151 affordable units. The Agency currently owns 16 single family homes in Rancho Cucamonga and rents them to qualified households at affordable rents. Sources of funds available to City residents through the Housing Authority would include funds for the Section 8 Certificate/Voucher Program as well as Comprehensive Grant Improvement Funds. COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The County receives Federal funds to implement a HOME Consortium. The City joined the County consortium in July 1995. However, no funds have been received by the City to date, nor does the City expect to receive funds in the upcoming fiscal year. Other Resources THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY State law requires redevelopment agencies to set aside at least 20 percent of tax increment revenue for increasing and improving the community's supply of low and moderate income housing. Between July 1, 1994, and June 30, 1999, approximately $23 million dollars will be generated by tax increment for affordable housing. Tax increment revenue for 1996-97 is expected to be $4,807,659. /© Leveraging and Matching Funds The primary source of fund leveraging will occur in conjunction with activities carried out through the Redevelopment Agency with 20 Percent Set Aside Funds. This is accomplished through public/private partnerships with non-profit housing development corporations such as the North Town Development Corporation and the Southern California Housing Development Corporation. Other potential sources for leveraging include HOME Funds and Low Income Housing Tax Credits. ACTIVITIES TO BE UNDERTAKEN Affordable Housing OBJECTIVE 1 Conservation of the Citv's existing single family and multiple family affordable housing stock. Program 1.1 Acquisition of existing multiple-family units to be held for future affordable housing stock. Activity This activity will include not only the acquisition of restricted at-risk units but also those which have not previously been restricted. Lead Agency The Redevelopment Agency will participate with the Southem California Housing Development Corporation in acquisition of these units. Geographic Location Will primarily occur in the Redevelopment target area; however, units may be acquired citywide. Resources Redevelopment Agency 20 Percent Set Aside Funds, approximately $2,745,640.00. Accomplishments and Time Frame By July 30, 1997, it is anticipated that 20 new unrestricted multiple-family units will be acquired, of which 10 will be held for households with incomes below 50 percent of the area median and 10 units will be held for households with incomes below 80 pement of the area median. During the previous fiscal year, over 80 multiple-family units were acquired by the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency and the Southem Califomia Housing Development Corporation. Program 1.2 Activity Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame OBJECTIVE 2 Program 2.1 Activity Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame Acquisition and substantial rehabilitation of existing single family homes. The Redevelopment Agency has undertaken a program in the North Town target neighborhood whereby the North Town Housing Development Corporation, in conjunction with the Agency, purchases available homes and, if necessary, rehabilitates them and then the units will be either rented or sold. It is possible that this activity could occur outside of the North Town area. Redevelopment Agency in conjunction with the non-profit organization the North Town Housing Development Corporation or the Agency on its own. The North Town target neighborhood. However, additional purchases may occur in the Monte Vista target neighborhood. Redevelopment Agency 20 Percent Set Aside Funds, $100,000. Within the next year the Agency expects to assist in the acquisition or substantial rehabilitation of 2 single family units of which 1 will be for households below 50 percent of the median and 1 will be for households below 80 percent of the area median. Provide direct renter assistance to extremeIv low and low income households in order to obtain or retain permanent housing. Support applications by the Housing Authority of San Bernardino County for future Section 8 and public housing assistance. The Housing Authority routinely requests assistance from the City in order to apply for Federal funds for additional Section 8 Housing Certificates and Vouchers or public housing assistance. The City will continue to support these applications in the future. Housing Authority of San Bernardino County. Section 8 Certificates and Vouchers may be located citywide. Single family public housing units are scattered throughout the City. Federal Housing and Urban Development Funds. Continue support of at least 166 Section 8 applicants and 16 public housing applications on an annual basis. Program 2.2 Activity Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame OBJECTIVE 3 Proeram 3.1 Activity Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame OBJECTIVE 4 Prol~ram 4.1 Activity Consider providing additional direct tenant assistance through participation in the County of San Bernardino's HOME Consortium. Direct tenant assistance is offered through the HOME Consortium. If the City were to receive funds during the fiscal year, a program would be instituted to provide tenant assistance. City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Division and Redevelopment Agency. Benefits of the program would be available Citywide. Federal funds available through the County HOME Consortium. Development of formula that would enable cities to receive funds through the County HOME Consortium. Increase housing opportunities for low and moderate income home ownership. particularly through first-time home buver assistance. Administer First-TimeHome buyerr Program The Redevelopment Agency is administering a first-time home buyer program usingDown paymentt Assistance Loans. The loan is ten percent (10%) of the purchase price up to a $16,000.00 maximum. The loan is forgiven if the buyer remains in the unit for thirty (30) years. Redevelopment Agency. Eligibility for this program would be citywide. Redevelopment Agency 20 Percent Set Aside Funds. $400,000 By July 30, 1997, the goal is to assist 20 first-time home buyers in the purchase of a new home. Rehabilitation of the City's existing housing stock with emphasis on owner-occupied housing. Moderate rehabilitation of owner occupied, single-family and mobile homes for extremely low, low, and moderate income homeowners. The City 'has in place a moderate rehabilitation Home Improvement Program available to eligible owner-occupied households, those earning less than 80 percent of the area median income. The program offers deferred payment loans of up to $25,000 and grants of up to $5,000, including emergency repair grants. Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame Program 4.2 Activity Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame OBJECTIVE 5 Program 5.1 Activity Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Division. The program is available to eligible applicants citywide. Federal Community Development Block Grant Funding, $275,430. Provide assistance to 35 households with incomes below 80 percent of the area median by July 30, 1997. Consider implementation of a rental rehabilitation program. This is a program that would be available to residents should the City receive funds from the San Bemardino County HOME Consortium. City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Division. The benefits of this program would be available citywide. Federal funds through the County HOME Consortium. Development of formula that would enable cities to receive funds through the County's HOME Consortium Improvement of the living conditions for extremely low and low income households. Continue to support applications of the Housing Authority for their Annual Comprehensive Grant to enable improvement in living conditions for public housing residents. Each year the City has certified consistency of the Housing Authority's Comprehensive Grant program with the CHAS. The City will continue to do so for the Comprehensive Plan. San Bernardino County Housing Authority. This program will benefit residents citywide. Federal Comprehensive Grant Funds Improvements to the existing public housing units. Homeless OBJECTIVE 1 Prol~ram 1.1 Activity Develop a Comprehensive Homeless Assistance Program to assist homeless individuals. families. and persons with special needs. and those at-risk of homelessness. Continue the support of local homeless facilities and services. The City currently provides assistance to a variety of organizations that provide immediate assistance, advocacy, and short term shelter assistance. The City will continue to address priority needs but will continue to evaluate the possibility of providing transitional shelter assistance. The agencies currently funded include: Homeless Outreach Educations and Programs (HOPE) The agency's offices are located at 213 N. Fem, Ontario CA. This agency provides assistance to persons who are or are at-risk of homelessness. A variety of services are provided including advocacy, education, shelter voucher, and referrals. Pomona Valley Council of Churches - West End Hunger Program (SOVA) The PVCC offers the West EndHunger Program from offices located at 635 South Taylor Avenue, Ontario, CA 91761. The program offers economically disadvantaged residents a five-day supply of food (15 meals total) for all members of a household. In addition advocacy and referral services are provided. House of Ruth Domestic Violence Shelter and Services The main offices are located in Claremont CA. The mailing address is P.O. Box 457, Claremont CA 91711. The House of Ruth offers shelter, programs, opportunity, and education for battered women and their children who are at-risk of homelessness. Services provided include 24- hour emergency safe shelter for up to 30 days, 24-hour crisis intervention hotline, 24-hour emergency transportation, outreach offices, and children programs. Foothill Family Shelter Located at 167 North Third Avenue and at 230 & 238 N. San Antonio Avenue in Upland. Provides a 90-day transitional shelter to homeless families with children. Support services are provided to these families to enable them to obtain independent and permanent living situations. Lead Agency City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Division. Geographic Location The benefits derived from this program occur citywide. Resources Federal Community Development Block Grant Funding HOPE, $8,000 West End Hunger Program (SOVA), $7,000 House of Ruth, $7,600 Foothill Family Shelter, $3,000 Accomplishments and Time Frame Through July 30, 1997, the City will assist homeless or near homeless individuals or families through support of organizations including: Homeless Outreach and Educations (HOPE) - 241 Persons West End Hunger Program (SOVA) - 1,101 Persons House of Ruth - 113 Persons Foothill Family Shelter - 4 families Homeless Annual Plan As discussed in the Consolidated Plan the City's goal is to develop a comprehensive homeless assistance plan that will provide a continuum of care with the purpose of ultimately assisting individuals in obtaining and retaining permanent housing. As the first priority in the plan, the City intends to continue funding those agencies that are able to provide the first line of defense in providing outreach and advocacy in assisting individuals and families who are homeless or who are at risk of homelessness. Included in these activities would be emergency shelter and shelter vouchers, food distribution, advocacy, and referrals. Additionally, the City will continue to fund landlord/tenant activities as an additional means of assisting those who are at risk of homelessness in keeping their homes. It will be encouraged that additional assistance be provided to those agencies that provide longer term transitional shelter and assist in the transition to permanent housing opportunities. Special Needs OBJECTIVE 1 To provide necessary rehabilitation services to special needs populations with emphasis on assisting the elderlv and frail elderly. Program 1.1 Provide minor and emergency rehabilitation services to households with emphasis on assistance to low and moderate income seniors. eligible Activity The City currently funds the Old-timers Foundation, which is an agency that provides minor rehabilitation and emergency assistance to low and moderate income residents and senior citizens. The agency is located at 8572 Sierra Avenue, Fontana CA. Residents who are owner occupants are eligible to receive two visits, with a cost of up to $100 per visit and with the allowance for a one-time material charge of up to $250 for emergency situations. In addition to household repairs, the Old-timers Foundation also constructs exterior handicap ramps for disabled residents. Lead Agency City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Division. Geographic Location The benefits of this program are available to residents citywide. Resources Federal Community Development Block Grant Funds. Old-timers Foundation, $8,000 Accomplishments and Time Frame Through July 30, 1997, the Old-timers Foundation will assist at least 50 low and moderate income households in the City. OBJECTIVE 2 Provide support when possible to service providers assisting special needs populations. Program 2.1 Provide support to special need services in areas where there is significant under-served needs. Activity Develop and enhance senior citizen classes and activities in the focus areas of; Physical illness and wellness, recreational and educational development, mental health and emotional well-being. Geographic Location Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center 9161 Base Line Ave. Resources Federal Community Development Block Grant Funds, $3,000 Accomplishments and Time Frame By July 30, 1997 to have assisted 500 persons through these activities Special Needs Annual Plan Objectives 1 and 2 stated above identify actions the City intends to take over the next year to address the needs of persons who are not homeless but have special needs. Non-Housing Community Development Needs OBJECTIVE 1 Provide improvements to public areas and public facilities in order to enhance living environments and improve the quality of life in tow/moderate income neighborhoods and for lower income individuals, seniors, and handicapped. Program 1.1 Complete all necessary infrastructure improvements and sidewalk improvements in qualified target areas. Activity Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame Program 1.2 Activity Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame Program 1.3 Activity Lead Agency Completion of street improvements within the Southwest Cucamonga target neighborhood to include Tapia Via from Grove to Rancheria. Begin design of street improvement for Rancheria. These projects will involve the street reconstruction and addition of curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and streetlights. In addition to street reconstruction, an existing sidewalk repair and replacement program will occur throughout the target neighborhoods as needed. City of Rancho Cucamonga's Engineering and Planning Divisions. Street improvements will occur on both sides of Tapia Via Street from Grove to Rancheria. Both of these street are located in the Southwest Cucamonga target neighborhood Census Tract 21, Block Group 2. Sidewalk repair and reconstruction may occur in all eligible target neighborhoods including Census Tract 21, Block Groups 2, 3, 6, and 7 and in Census Tract 20.01, Block Group 4. Federal Community Development Block Grant Funding. Tapia Via design from Grove to Rancheria, $122,244 Sidewalk Repair and Replacement, $23,080 Rancheria (design only), $30,000 By July 30, 1997, completion of construction and design improvements for Tapia Via design from Grove to Rancheria and approximately 3,900 square feet of sidewalk improvements. Complete interior improvements to Rancho Cucamonga Public Library The improvements would provide an office center and study rooms to accommodate the Rancho Cucamonga's Public Library's Adult Literacy program. City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning and Engineering Divisions 7368 Archibald Ave. Federal Community Development Block Grant Funds $39,216 By July 30, 1996, to have completed all design work and begun construction of improvements Parking and Landscaping Improvements to Senior Center City will fund the continued renovation of the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. The improvements to be completed are in compliance with ADA requirements. City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning and Engineering Divisions Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame OBJECTIVE 2 Program 2.1 Activity 9161 Base Line Ave. Federal Community Development Block Grant funds, $29,350 By July 30, 1997, to have completed all design work and begin construction on improvements. Continue to fund local and public service agencies that function to improve the quality of life for lower income persons and those with special needs. Fund public service agencies that assist groups in the highest priority categories including youth-at-risk, fair housing, landlord/tenant counseling, food distribution, and battered womens' shelter. The City will continue to utilize its resources to fund public service agencies including: YWCA Y-Teen and YW-Pact Programs Programs to assist junior high and high school aged girls. The programs are offered at the Rancho Cucamonga Middle School and at Alta Loma High School. The Y-Teen program provides junior high aged girls with a weekly after school club type environment in which many at-risk and health-threatening behaviors are addressed. The YW-Pact is a program to empower teens and teen parents who in turn share this information and counsel other teens. Fair Housing The City contracts with the Inland Mediation Board, located at 1005 Begonia Dr., Ontario, CA 91762, to provide public education, mediation, counseling, testing, and legal referral services to promote fair housing. Landlord Tenant Mediation The City contracts with Inland Mediation Board, located at 1005 Begonia Ave., Ontario, CA 91762, to provide landlord/tenant dispute mediation services as well as to provide information and referrals to City residents. Pomona Vallev Council of Churches - West End Hunger Program (SOVA) The PVCC offers the West End Hunger Program from offices located at 635 South Taylor Avenue, Ontario CA 91761. The program offers economically disadvantaged residents a five-day supply of food ( 15 meals total) for all members of the household. In addition, advocacy and referral services are provided. Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame House of Ruth Domestic Violence Shelter and Services The main offices are located in Claremont CA. The mailing address is P.O. Box 457, Claremont CA 91711. The House of Ruth offers shelter, programs, opportunity, and education for battered women and their children who are at-risk of homelessness. Services provided include 24- hour emergency safe shelter for up to 30 days, 24-hour crisis intervention hotline, 24-hour emergency transportation, outreach offices, and children's programs. Boys & Girls Club - Superfit/Smart Moves Program They are located at 9087 Arrow Highway, Suite 250, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730. The Boys & Girls Club offers at-risk youths recreation programs through which preventative and educational information is presented. Foothill Family Shelter Located at 167 North Third Avenue and at 230 & 238 N. San Antonio Avenue in Upland. Provides a 90-day transitional shelter to homeless families with children. Support services are provided to these families to enable them to obtain independent and permanent living situations. City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Division. Benefit from these programs will be provided to residents citywide. Federal Community Development Block Grant Funding. YWCA, $7,000 Fair Housing, $12,470 Landlord/Tenant Mediation, $10,062 West End Hunger Program (repeat) (SOVA), $7,000 House of Ruth (repeat), $7,600 Boys & Girls Club, $6,000 Foothill Family Shelter, $3,000 By July 30, 1997, the following numbers of individuals and households will have received assistance: Fair Housing - 100 Persons Landlord/Tenant - 377 Households YWCA - 30 Persons House of Ruth - 100 Persons West End Hunger Program (SOVA) - 900 Persons Boys & Girls Club - 500 Persons Foothill Family .Shelter - 4 families OBJECTIVE 3 Program 3.1 Activity Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame Program 3.2 Activity Lead Agency Geographic Location Resources Accomplishments and Time Frame Program 3.3 Activity Lead Agency Ensure accessibility to all public facilities and structures. Provide complete handicap improvements to the Lions Center Facility. Lions West is the City's primary community center. Handicap improvements required to bring Lions West into conformance with ADA requirements are extensive and involve widening rooms and hallways, constructing a new handicap accessible entrance, as well as new hardware. Improvements to Lions West have been intended for several years and funds have been allocated each year toward completion of this work. City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning and Community Services Divisions. The Lions Park Community Center is located at 9161 Baseline Rd.. However, as this is the main community center for the City, improvements will benefit handicapped residents citywide. Federal Community Development Block Grant Funds Lions West, $206,257 For Lions West - to have completed all design work and begun construction of improvements to the structure. Installation of handicap ramps at all curb retums. This program has been underway for several years and provides handicap accessible improvements to all inadequate curb remms in the city in order to make all streets accessible to handicapped individuals. City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning and Engineering Divisions. All curb retums throughout the City. Federal Community Development Block Grant Funds. Wheelchair Ramps, $21,460 The addition of handicap ramps at all curb retums within the City_ approximately 2,880 square feet of curbing. Minor interior improvements to Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center Complete minor interior improvements at the Senior Center including new acoustical tiles throughout the facility, completion of chair rail and comer guards throughout the center, and new restroom partition and doors. City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning and Engineering Divisions. Geographic Location 9161 Base Line Ave. Resources Federal Community Development Block Grant Funding $50,681 Accomplishments and Time Frame By July 30, 1997 to have completed all improvements OBJECTIVE 4 Provide the necessary planning and administrative capacity to implement the City's CDBG Program and the provisions of the Consolidated Plan. Program 4.1 Continue to fund necessary planning and administrative activities each year. Activity Includes research and analysis with regard to completion of program applications, performance reports, target area studies, historic preservation evaluations, housing documents and the like. Lead Agency City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Division. Geographic Location Benefits of the program are eligible citywide. Resources Federal Community Development Block Grant Funding, $130,810. Accomplishment and Time Frame Completion of all necessary reports and documents including target area assessment and the Consolidated Plan. OBJECTIVE 5 To revitalize and upgrade housing conditions: prevent and eliminate blight and blighting influences: and eliminate conditions detrimental to the health, safety, and public welfare. Program 5.1 Continue improvements to residential energy efficiency, lead-based paint hazard reduction, and code enforcement through the City's Home Improvement Program. Activity The City currently funds a Home Rehabilitation program in which, through the course of that activity, the improvements mentioned above would be completed. Therefore, a separate activity or program will not be developed. Lead Agency City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning Division. Geographic Location The benefits of the Home Improvement Program are available to eligible residents citywide. Resources Federal Community Development Block Grant Funds. Accomplishments and Time Frame. There will be no accomplishments listed separately as improvements will occur for residents eligible for the Home Improvement Program. Program 5.2 Continue to fund a Graffiti Removal Program. Activity City crews operate in lower income target neighborhoods to remove incidents of graffiti as quickly as possible. Lead Agency City of Rancho Cucamonga's Planning and Engineering Divisions. Geographic Location Available in all eligible target neighborhoods including Census Tract 21, Block Groups 2, 3, 6, and 7 and Census Tract 20.01, Block Group 4. Also, the Monte Vista Target neighborhood may become eligible during the year. Resources Community Development Block Grant Funding Graffiti Removal, $23,340 Accomplishments and Time Frame The removal of approximately 14,999 square feet of graffiti by July 30, 1996. OTHER ACTIONS Obstacles to Meeting Under-Served Needs The primary obstacle identified toward meeting under-served needs was a lack of available resources. However, this is and will continue to be an issue. The best way to address this matter is to combine efforts and resources and tap new funding sources. The City is striving to do all three by forming public/private partnerships as well as seeking out new sources of funding, such as HOME Funds in order to better leverage available funding. Actions to Foster and Maintain Affordable Housing The majority of the Objectives and actions identified as part of this plan are specifically aimed at increasing or maintaining the City's existing affordable housing stock. Activities such as new construction, conservation of at-risk units, and preservation of existing units are all striving to increase the affordable housing stock. II 0 n f,) 00~.. ~0~n 0 0 0 N ZZZL~"r 0 0 LL E 0 W II 0 0 0 .-- 0 ._ ._ 0 0 ~ - ~ 0 GO · o c~cu'~ :,= ,.ul---.<~: [Z ~ . O) 0 '~' ._ 0 I1:, "l:3 ~ ~ ~1. o ._ ~ C J3 ~ >., '~ = -- (D 0.~0'''0 -=-~<~N ~ --- v-. ~ ~ (I) 0 "~ >" (D (1) ,.- ~L,,~O..) (D o cn~',~ o c~ < O 0 0 I~ ZZ~ Z '-1 0 0 0 0 c~ 07 CO ~,0 t.O 0 ~' ~ ~ z ,~- v- =:J C) OCO0::::):I 0 ':' (D (-) 0 0 0 ZZZ 0 o :a ~ ~ · ~ Ow ~o D o :~_ ow ..,.jZ oZ ooo~ ZZZ~O UJ E r- r' r- o m_ 0 00000000 ,~ '~' '~ 0 ~ ~ ~ z ('3 ~ e') 0 · ,o 00,.._ -r~O EI:J...._I 3 o 'E ~- ~ 0 > _o oQ..~ 0 0 0 ZZZ < 0 0 > C rn 0 I-- · L; 0 r-' '- · G o ~ :F--, 0 := 0 0') _1 0 0 I~. 0 ~ C~ 0 · -r~o ~ 0 0 D w I-- D 0 0w ~---w oZ ~w o-~ ~C.) & 0 c o 0 B. 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 OOu,_ "r'U~O 00o~ -t~fJ (D 0 ~ 0 0 -o 0 0 ~ a~ o~cs orn~ ~LlJ 0 Z o~ '~ LU '~ 0 ~ 0 · '~ =~ 0 I~L 0 C1 CD ~ o~ ~o ~ D ~ (D ~LU · - ~ Z -a u 0 0 Z ~:: OnuD >- >- >.,~r'~O tYtY ~0 0,..._3 ~, 0 ~ C) C:) 0 ¢::) o. c:,. o. z 1'-- I".- t- >... .~ C,DLU ~:0 .- ~_u_~,¢ o 'E ._ > .u ~ ~ .-ad W 0 ~- 0w .jZ o Z IL 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 > e "~'-'l). 0o,,,_ t- .,.,Or. ~= n ._~ ED..--I 1~. >, GO .,-.- ._ o > .o c,,I ~ ..o o t- o o o O W I-- ._J _J cO C:) (D W Z W m W W Z W ..c c: .co o I-~c t-- O) t- ~ OJ ~),C ~ '0 '0 ,- E 'o ~- o~.c ~ o ~'0 ~ · '-P-' ~'F --- ' 0 ~-- m[ ~ ~""~ o_ ~ ,..-- E® o -- ol.- E ~-~ ¢"E~' ~ ~-~ =" ~ o'~ ~ ,, > a~ a~ m._oO °:~oFRO-.o c, o o ~ ~ cO =~.cc~- or~"~oG'~ ~ z o ..... E ~'~' .~ ~ ¢~1'-C) E E o .do~ o a~ 0 u) O CO"~ 0 0 ~ ID >-- 0 ~ CL ~ O) 0 ,r' - Ol--~ (1) t"<I:: CO '-- t~ ~ ~ 0 ~ " o "~,-'.z ~ ~ o-o E o ~....="Z -~ m -- 'r_ ~ ~- '~ 0 -o c~~- E c m'5 ~n ~n u~O 0 I1 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ z 0 0 0 ZZZ · LLI 0'-- =, 0 -r D : ,'~ 0w · -- _J Z 0 rJ rS) ~lJJ ._> {u~ ~,,, · :~r'o {n ,~: ,v-ff,n 0.. 0 0 -,~.--~. 00,.,,- 00 ..,(Dc D U3 0 :sI_ 0"' 0 Z 01,,--3 ~ UJ ~ 0 03 ._J 0.-- -- 0 O uD 0 < 0 >- r- ~-_j -.-LU oZ °!. UJ o -- 0 00h..--~ ZZZu">C) E ci 0 CO r-- c,1 -r- o u") o') · 'q' LU 0 :r_. ~ ci o Z U 0 o .J ;> = 0 '~ >~ 0 ~ 0 o Q_ .~- 0 ~ U .-- -- ~ c~ 0 '0 ~ [- C Z ,jJ / ~I, 0 0 · 00~, 'r~no ~0~ D r' m CO..-. ,oD ._=0 ~ .._. ,- <~ · r- m 0 ~ C O o~ ~) U 0 o ~.~0 0 · -- ~ c~ ~ 0 ~ .... ,~ '~ o ._ II CO 'r='T="rO < O) r' 0 0 -I L) 0 r' (J ~-- r (- _J fi 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 fJ Cq '-- 0 D LU 0 0w JZ 0Z o] 0 0 0 ~ ZZZu~C) 0 to c,J 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ z 0 · 00~_ 0O~:D -oo...~°'; >' · - i,.,, . LL ,.,, ,c{ := CJOCOO::D:I: 0 '~- 0 0 0 ZZZ cod oLU Z~ D D <( ~j '~ 0 < 0 ~f 0 0 > J3 < ~0 PE .~ o o, o, z C > 0 ~" < 0 0 0 7ZZ 0 a~ o c 0 rn '~ 0 "0 0 c) 0 c- ¢) t-- · '- W 0 C~ 0., 0 ~ ~ z 0 v-- t', >, · o OLU ~0 = nOcoO'~z 0 '~' LL (JiEL,UIiCOlI<~iI-- ---- 0 c <{ oc0 0 0 0 III I-" --,,w col-- oZ ~w C:) -- I'-- ._1 ¢) C) oW D D ~J '~ 0 <C o C~ 0 E -1 0 .C 0 t- .- <C ._1 (].) Actions to Remove Barriers to Affordable Housing There were no significant barriers to affordable housing identified that would need to be revised or ameliorated. All of the regulations and policies currently in place are necessary in order to maintain the public health, safety, and welfare. Actions to Reduce Lead-Based Paint Hazard In conjunction with the Community Development Block Grant Program, the City will continue to implement current Federal requirements conceming lead-based paint reductions. HUD requires that for any program utilizing CDBG Funds, all owners and/or tenants be notified in writing about the dangers of lead-based paint. In addition, units constructed prior to 1978 which are occupied by children under the age of 7 are inspected for defective paint surfaces. If a child residing in the home has an elevated blood lead level, then defective chewable surfaces will be treated and lead abated. It is also recommended that housing rehabilitation efforts carried out by the Redevelopment Agency also follow the same guidelines as those used for the CDBG Home Improvement Program. Actions to Reduce Poverty Generally, the City has relatively little control over the many factors which may affect the determination of an individuals income level. The primary activity that may be utilized by the City toward this end would be the support of public service agencies that incorporate job training and life development skills into their programs, which includes most of the agencies currently receiving funding from the City. Additionally, most of the activities funded by the City, particularly those related to non-housing community development, act indirectly to increase economic development in the City. Additionally, the City, through its CDBG contract activities, complies with Section 3 requirements encouraging the employment of local low income individuals. From a housing perspective, all of the priorities, objectives, and programs aimed at increasing affordable housing will hopefully increase the stock of housing available to those in the lowest income categories. Actions to Develop Institutional Structure and Enhance Coordination The Consolidated Plan evaluated gaps in the institutional structure and actions that might be taken to strengthen the system. It was determined that one main action that can be taken toward this end is the increasing expertise of staff and the Council which in tum will increase efficiency and effectiveness. An additional activity includes the continued support of local coordinating agencies such as the San Bernardino County Homeless Coalition. The City shall continue to encourage direct contact between itself and the Public Housing Agency and other service providers operating in the region. Most of the coordination efforts in the west end are tied to funding resources and the type of service provided. Public Housing Improvements Each year the City reviews the Annual Comprehensive Grant application submitted by the Housing Authority in that the City must certify consistency of the activities with the goals and objectives of the CHAS and now the Comprehensive Plan. MONITORING Monitoring serves as an effective tool to ensure that federal funds are being spent in a manner consistent with the National Objectives of the CDBG program and that programs and projects are achieving stated goals. The following outlines the basic monitoring requirements that are followed in implementation of the CDBG program: Standards Utilized for Review · Is the program meeting intended objectives? Is the agency capable of tracking/documenting necessary benefit information and is it capable of carrying out the responsibilities of its program consistent with federal requirements? · Is appropriate documentation submitted correctly in a timely manner? Monitoring Procedures CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS All construction projects are expected to comply with federal labor and procurement procedures as well as the various affirmative action and equal opportunity requirements required by various federal and state laws. To ensure this end, the CDBG staff has developed a Procurement and Contract Compliance Manual that outlines in detail the various procedures and steps required as pan of contract management. Additionally, the CDBG coordinator oversees and reviews contract preparation at each step from bid preparation, contract document preparation, pre-construction meetings, and on-going project inspections, including review of weekly payroll documents. SUBRECIPIENT AGENCIES All subrecipient agencies must sign a contract with the City in which the scope of work, time line, and documentation requirements are outlined. Agencies must submit detailed information regarding number and type of individuals benefitted with City CDBG funds on a monthly basis. Additional quarterly summation reports are required of some agencies in which further information is provided on activities accomplished in the past quarter. Finally, the City conducts an on-site inspection of each agency at least once a year, preferably toward the end of the funding cycle. Other Activities Generally, other activities funded through the CDBG program that do not fall under the above headings, such as the Home Improvement Program, are required to provide adequate documentation to ensure that appropriate eligible individuals are benefitting from the program and that all appropriate federal procurement regulations are being followed. This is generally accomplished through the provision of monthly activity reports and through continual review of activities with the CDBG Coordinator. FAIR HOUSING The City has contracted with the Inland Mediation Board since 1984 to provide education and enforcement of State and Federal housing laws for all residents who request assistance. Having Inland Mediation Board administer the City's Fair Housing Program assures that there are no impediments to fair housing choices in the program. In addition, affirmative outreach to program applicants most likely to experience impediments to fair housing choices at the hands of private individuals is assured, since the Board routinely targets its fair housing program outreach programs to such persons. Recently, Inland Mediation Board conducted an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. A summary of the analysis is attached as Exhibit C. CERTIFICATIONS In accordance with the applicable statutes and the regulations governing the Mousing and Community Development Plan regulations, the jurisdiction certifies that: Citizen Participation Plan -- It is following a detailed citizen participation plan which: Provides for and encourages citizen participation, with particular emphasis on participation by persons of low and moderate income who are residents of slum and blighted areas and of areas in which funds are proposed to be used, and provides for participation of residents in low and moderate income neighborhoods as defined by the local jurisdiction; Provides citizens with reasonable and timely access to local meetings, information, and records relating to the grantee's proposed use of funds, as required by the regulations of the Secretary, and relating to the actual use of funds under the Act; Provides for technical assistance to groups representative of persons of low and moderate income that request such assistance in developing proposals with the level and type of assistance to be determined by the grantee; Provides for public hearings to obtain citizen views and to respond to proposals and questions at all stages of the community development program, including at least the development of needs, the review of proposed activities, and review of program performance, which hearings shall be held after adequate notice, at times and locations convenient to potential or actual beneficiaries, and with accommodation for the handicapped; Provides for a timely written answer to written complaints and grievances, within 15 working days where practicable; and 6. Identifies how the needs of non-English speaking residents will be met in the case of public hearings where a significant number of non-English speaking residents can be reasonably expected to participate; Citizen Participation -- Prior to submission of its housing and community development plan to HUD, the jurisdiction has: 1. Met the citizen participation requirements of §91.xxx Prepared its housing and community development plan and annual use of funds in accordance with §91.xxx and made its housing and community development plan submission available to the public. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing -- The jurisdiction will affirmatively further fair housing, prepare an analysis of impediments and maintain records pertaining to carrying out this certification. Anti-Discrimination -- The grants will be conducted and administered in compliance with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d), the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-3620), the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Orders 11063, 11625, 12138, 12432 and 12892, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 794), the Americans with Disabilities Act (title II) and implementing regulations. Anti-displacement and Relocation Plan -- It will comply with the acquisition and relocation requirements of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended, as required under §91.xxx and Federal implementing regulations; and that it has in effect and is following a residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan required under section 104(d) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and the relocation requirements of §91.xxx governing optional relocation assistance under section 105(a)(ll) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; Drug Free Workplace -- It will or will continue to provide a drug- free workplace by: Publishing a statement unlawful manufacture, possession, or use of notifying employees that the distribution, dispensing, a controlled substance is prohibited in the grantee's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken against employees for violation of such prohibition; Establishing an ongoing drug-free awareness program to inform employees about - (a) The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace; (b) The grantee's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace; (c) Any available drug counseling, rehabilitation, and employee assistance programs; and (d) The penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations occurring in the workplace; Making it a requirement that each employee to be engaged in the performance of the grant be given a copy of the statement required by paragraph 1; Notifying the employee in the statement required by paragraph 1 that, as a condition of employment under the grant, the employee will - (a) Abide by the terms of the statement; and (b) Notify the employer in writing of his or her conviction for a violation of a criminal drug statute occurring in the workplace no later than five calendar days after such conviction; Notifying the agency in writing, within ten calendar days after receiving notice under subparagraph 4(b) from an employee or otherwise receiving actual notice of such conviction. Employers of convicted employees must provide notice, including position title, to every grant officer or other designee on whose grant activity the convicted employee was working, unless the Federal agency has designated a central point for the receipt of such notices. Notice shall include the identification number(s) of each affected grant; Taking one of the following actions, within 30 calendar days of receiving notice under subparagraph 4 (b), with respect to any employee who is so convicted (a) Taking appropriate personnel action against such an employee, up to and including termination, consistent with the requirements of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended; or (b) Requiring such employee to participate satisfactorily in a drug abuse assistance or rehabilitation program approved for such purposes by a Federal, State, or local health, law enforcement, or other appropriate agency; Making a good faith effort to continue to maintain a drug-free workplace through implementation of paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The grantee may insert in the space provided below the site(s) for the performance of work done in connection with the specific grant: Place of Performance state, zip code) (Street address, city, county, Check if there are workplaces on file that are not identified here;The certification with regard to the drug-free workplace required by 24 CFR part 24, subpart F. Anti-Lobbying -- To the best of the jurisdiction's knowledge and belief: No Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, amendment, or modification of any Federal grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; renewal, contract, If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accordance with its instructions; and It will require that the language of paragraph (n) of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subcontracts, subgrants, and contracts under grants, loans, and cooperative agreements) and that all subrecipients shall certify and disclose accordingly;The jurisdiction is in compliance with restrictions on lobbying required by 24 CFR part 87, together with disclosure forms, if required by that part. Legal Authority -- It possesses legal authority under Sta~e and local law to make grant submissions and to execute a community development and housing programs and the jurisdiction's governing body has duly adopted or passed as an official act a resolution, motion or similar action authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the grantee to submit the housing and community development plan and amendments thereto and all understandings and assurances contained therein, and directing and authorizing the person identified as the official representative of the grantee to act in connection with the submission of the housing and community development plan and to provide such additional information as may be required; Applicable Laws -- The jurisdiction will comply with the other provisions of the Acts covering programs covered by the HCD plan and with other applicable laws. Signature Date Title Specific CDBG Certifications The Entitlement Community certifies that: Use of Funds -- It has developed its HCD plan one-year projected use of funds so as to give maximum feasible priority to activities which benefit low and moderate income families or aid in the prevention or elimination of slums or blight; (the projected use of funds may also include activities which the grantee certifies are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available); except that the aggregate use of CDBG funds received under section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, and if applicable, under section 108 of the same Act, during program year(s) 199 , (a period specified by the grantee consisting of one, two, or three specific consecutive program years), shall principally benefit persons of low and moderate income in a manner that ensures that not less than 70 percent of such funds are used for activities that benefit such persons during such period; Community Development Plan -- It has developed a community development plan, for the period specified in the paragraph above, that identifies community development and housing needs and specifies both short and long-term community development objectives that have been developed in accordance with the primary objective and requirements of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended; Special Assessments -- It will not attempt to recover any capital costs of public improvements assisted in whole or in part with funds provided under section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, or with amounts resulting from a guarantee under section 108 of the same Act by assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of low and moderate income, including any fee charged or assessment made as a condition of obtaining access to such public improvements, unless: Funds received under section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, are used to pay the proportion of such fee or assessment that relates to the capital costs of such public improvements that are financed from revenue sources other than under Title I of that Act; or 2. For purposes of assessing any amount against properties owned and occupied by persons of moderate income, the grantee certifies to the Secretary that it lacks sufficient funds received under section 106 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, to comply with the requirements of subparagraph (1) above; Lead-Based Paint -- Its notification, inspection, testing and abatement procedures concerning lead-based paint will comply with §570.608; Excessive Force -- It has adopted and is enforcing: A policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and A policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such non- violent civil rights demonstrations within its jurisdiction; Signature Date Title OPTIONAL CERTIFICATION CDBG Submit the following certification only when one or more of the activities in the final statement are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency as specified in 24 CFR 570.208(c): The grantee hereby certifies that the projected use of funds includes one or more specifically identified activities which are designed to meet other community development needs having a particular urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of the community and other financial resources are not available to meet such needs. Signature Date Title APPENDIX TO CERTIFICATIONS INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING LOBBYING AND DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE REQUIREMENTS: A. Lobbying Certification This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by section 1352, title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. B. Drug-Free Workplace Certification By signing and/or submitting this application or grant agreement, the grantee is providing the certification set out in paragraph (o). The certification set out in paragraph (o) is a material representation of fact upon which reliance is placed when the agency awards the grant. If it is later determined that the grantee knowingly rendered a false certification, or otherwise violates the requirements of the Drug-Free Workplace Act, HUD, in addition to any other remedies available to the Federal Government, may take action authorized under the Drug- Free Workplace Act. For grantees other than individuals, Alternate I applies. (This is the information to which entitlement grantees certify). For grantees who are individuals, Alternate II applies. (Not applicable to CDBG Entitlement grantees.) Workplaces under grants, for grantees other than individuals, need not be identified on the certification. If known, they may be identified in the grant application. If the grantee does not identify the workplaces at the time of application, or upon award, if there is no application, the grantee must keep the identity of the workplace(s) on file in its office and make the information available for Federal inspection. Failure to identify all known workplaces constitutes a violation of the grantee's drug-free workplace requirements. Workplace identifications must include the actual address of buildings (or parts of buildings) or other sites where work under the grant takes place. Categorical descriptions may be used (e.g., all vehicles of a mass transit authority or State highway department while in operation, State employees in each local unemployment office, performers in concert halls or radio stations). If the workplace identified to the agency changes during the performance of the grant, the grantee shall inform the agency of the change(s), if it previously identified the workplaces in question (see paragraph five). Definitions of terms in the Nonprocurement Suspension and Debarment common rule and Drug-Free Workplace common rule apply to this certification. Grantees' attention is called, in particular, to the following definitions from these rules: "Controlled substance" means a controlled substance in Schedules I through V of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C.812) and as further defined by regulation (21 CFR 1308.11 through 1308.15); "Conviction" means a finding of guilt (including a plea of nolo contendere) or imposition of sentence, or both, by any judicial body charged with the responsibility to determine violations of the Federal or State criminal drug statutes; "Criminal drug statute" means a Federal or non-Federal criminal statute involving the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, use, or possession of any controlled substance; "Employee" means the employee of a grantee directly engaged in the performance of work under a grant, including: (i). All "direct charge" employees; (ii) all "indirect charge" employees unless their impact or involvement is insignificant to the performance of the grant; and (iii) temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the grant and who are not on the grantee's payroll. This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the grantee (e.g., volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the grantee's payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces). EXECUTIVF~ SUMMARY A literature search ~vas conducted in several areas; housh~g discrimination. Ci':y's l-[ousing EIement. Five year Consoticrated Plan, and Grantee .Pe.,-'rbrmance Report 1994-1995, federal and state fair housing laws. area demographics, national, state 8rid local housing policies, public he.using, 1990 census data, historical racial housing problem in renting and real estate purchase, zoning and discrin~nation correlation. Surveys were used to accumulate the data base. These surveys were formulat,:d to Bather ix~tbrmation on housing discrimination, figr housing knowledge, quality of the present kousing, and other information which could help housing policy makers to identify problem areas. 1. Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) data was requested from eight lenders. 2. Eight lenders showed activity within the city. 3. Individual intenqews were completed with tenants. propert3' management/owners, and Realtors. 4. Additional intbmmtion and statistical data was contributed by CDBG city staftZ County of San Bernardino Housing Authority, California Depamn,?nt of' Fair Employment and Housing, and Urban Development Fair Housing I)Msion. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Findings The data compilation identified Discrimination Issues the following other major findings: lack of understanding fair housing laws/differential treatment unequal terms/differential treatment buyer refusal lenders HMI)A data tracking tracking lender's housing loans Housing Issues · affordable housing both rental and homeownership - job/housing co relationship · neighborhood safety/crime · neighborhood deterioration in rental and homeownership · transportation · good schools RANCHO CUCAMONGA,IIMB/FHAI. 5/96 EXECU'.F IVE S UM~'IARY FA.[R HOUSING ACTION PLAN The fbllowing plan of action outlines strategies reflecting the survey findings. objectives have been identified in P,,ancho Cucamonga's In:pediments to Fair Housing. Workable Fair Housing The city's contracted Fair Housirtg agency needs to intensi,5, et'ibrts in the tbllo~,,-ing areas. 1. To educate rental property owners/managers to their responsibilities ur~der the fair housing laws. · educational courses · newsletters · workshops 2. Target the renting population through an ongoi~g fair housing educatior~ program. · Public workshops · High school seniors/parent groups · Adult education 3. Monitor lending practices of major lenders under the Home Mortgage Dis:losure Act within the city. Track the same lenders Community Reinvestment con':rnitn~ent to improve the citfs housing. 4. Accomplish media outreach by: feature articles a~d paid ads in local newspapers radio an~ouncements used for public service spots regular periodic radio programs in Spanish ~'<CIIO CUCA-\4-ONG.-~,'iMB.'TII.~-I. 5,<)6 · provide information to the Community Billboard, in addition to live interviews provided in certain communities. 5. Network with both Federal and State Fair.Housing departments and other related services to assist the complainant. 6. Network with the association of Realtors and the Apartment Rental Owners Association as technical advisor. 7. Mediate/conciliate complaints of discrimination. 8. Assist complainants in filing charges with enforcement agencies. 9. Promote April as fair housing month with government municipalities, housing industry and the general public. 10. Monitor newspapers for classified advertising which is written in such a way to discriminate against certain groups in housing. 11. Make recommendations to local governments and review components of any local housing-related plan. 12. Provide assistance and network with the County of San Bernardino Housing Authority for the Section 8 certificate and voucher program. City Program The city retains the responsibility of establishing the direction, providing a yearly monitor and evaluating the performance of these various functions. Maintenance and preservation of housing rehabilitation of the city's substandard housing. · · RANCHO CUCAMONGAfIMB/FHAI. 5/96 aggressive marketing of rehab money to rental and home owners. housing taskforce to identify areas needing property revitalization. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 15,1996 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORT AND RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY OF THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (PD-85) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council hold the public hearing and approve the Annual Engineer's Report and attached Resolution authorizing the levy and collection of asssessments within Park and Recreation Improvement District (PD-85) for Fiscal Year 1996/97. The Engineer's Reports are on file in the City Clerk's Office. The Public Works Subcommittee has reviewed the staff report and concurs with the recommendation. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: This Park and Recreation Improvement District was created to provide funds to finance the cost of construction, maintenance, operation and debt payment of Heritage Community Park and Red Hill Community Park. Heritage Community Park is a 40 acre facility located on the southwest comer of Hillside Road and Beryl Street. Red Hill Community Park is 42 acres and is located on the southwest comer of Base Line Road and Vineyard Avenue. The District boundary includes all of the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the general exception of land east of the Deer Creek Channel and the Victoria and Terra Vista Planned Communities. Pursuant to the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, each year the City Council must adopt resolutions, giving preliminary approval of the Engineer's Report and declaring its intention to levy and collect assessments for FY 1996/97. The assessment rate increased from $35.00 to $52.00 during the 1991/92 Fiscal Year, this rate is recommended to remain at $52.00 for the 1996/97 Fiscal Year. Assessments for PD-85 will be levied according to the following schedule: Definition Single Family Residential Less than 1.50 acres 3.51 acres to 7.00 acres 7.01 acres to 14.00 acres 14.01 acres to 25.00 acres 25.01 acres and Larger Respectfully submitted~ William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LEH Attachments: Resolutions Annual Engineer's Report Assessment per Parcel $52.00 $26.00 $182.00 $364.00 $728.00 $1,300.00 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE PARK AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NO. PD-85 (HERITAGE AND RED HILL COMMUNITY PARKS) WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofRancho Cucamonga, Califomia, did on the 17th day of April, 1996, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 96-046 to order the therein described work in connection with the Park and Recreation Improvement District which Resolution of Intention No. 96-046 was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner as required by law, shown by the affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received and considered evidence, oral and documentary, concerning the jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and concerning the necessity for the contemplation work and the benefits to be derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to order the proposed work. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: That the public interest and convenience requires the levy and collection of assessments within the Park and Recreation Improvement district for the Fiscal Year 1996/97, and said City Council hereby order that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of Intention No. 96-046 be done and made; and SECTION 2: Be it further resolved that the report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; and SECTION 3: Be it finally resolved that the assessments for Fiscal Year 1996/97 method of assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby approved. ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PD-85 Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: William J. O'Neil, Ctt~J Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Report PD-85 Fiscal Year 1996/97 AUTHORITY FOR REPORT This report for the 96/97 fiscal year is prepared pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, being Division 15, Section 22500 of the Streets and Highways code. Provisions for this annual assessment are included in Chapter 3 of the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. The purpose of this report is to set forth findings and the assessment analysis for the annual levy of assessments for the Parks and Recreation Improvement District No. PD-85, thereafter referred to as "the District". This District, using direct benefit assessments, has been created to provide funds to finance the cost of construction, maintenance, operation and debt payment of Heritage Community Park and Red Hill Community Park in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. FINDINGS Section 22573, Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states: "The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements." The means of determining whether or not a parcel will benefit from the improvements is contained in the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7, commencing with Section 5000 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California). The 1972 Act also provides for the classification of various areas within an assessment district into benefit areas where, by reason of variations in the nature, location, and extent of the improvements, the various areas will receive differing degrees of all territory receiving substantially the same degree of benefit from the improvements and may consist of contiguous or noncontiguous areas. As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee, not a tax; and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA. Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, county, state, or the federal government, are not assessable without the approval of the particular agency and, normally, are not assessed. Certain other parcels used for railroad mainline right-of-way, public utility transmission right-of-way, and common areas are also exempt from assessment. The assessment for mobile home parks will be based upon underlying lot acreage. DISTRICT ANALYSIS A. Improvement District Boundary The improvement district includes all of the City of Rancho Cucamonga with the general exception of land east of Deer Creek Channel and the Victoria, Caryn & Terra Vista Planned Communities. All parcels of real property affected are more particularly described in maps prepared in accordance with Section 327 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, which are on file in the office of the San Bemardino County Assessor in the Hall of Records, 172 West Third Street, San Bemardino, Califomia and which are hereby made a part hereof by reference. District Name City of Rancho Cucamonga Parks and Recreation Improvement District No. PD - 85. Facilities The existing works of improvement are generally described as follows: 1.The construction of Heritage Community Park including, but not limited to, grading, planting, irrigation, onsite roads, sidewalks, parking lots, lighting, restrooms, equestrian facilities, playground equipment, picnic facilities, athletic facilities, and walking, jogging and equestrian trails. 2.The construction of Red Hill Community Park including, but not limited to, grading, planting, irrigation, onsite roads, sidewalks, parking lots, lighting, water scape, restrooms, senior citizen facilities, playground equipment, picnic facilities, major lighted athletic facilities, jogging trail, underground storm drain system, and adjacent public street improvements. The assessment rate for the 96/97 FY is $52.00, this rate will not increase for the 96/97 FY. It is estimated that this assessment rate will cover the districts maintenance and operation expenses for the 96/97 FY. ESTIMATE OF WORK The Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 permits carrying forward surpluses or recovering deficits in subsequent fiscal years. Costs for the district will be reviewed annually. Any surplus credited against assessment or any deficits shall be included in the assessment for the following fiscal year. CATEGORY A - includes parcels based on the number of existing residential units within certain ranges of parcel size. CATEGORY B - includes all parcels not defined in Category A or Category C. CATEGORY C - includes exempt parcels. Exempt parcels were discovered by searching the County Assessor's computer tapes for those parcels that are listed as exempt by the Assessor or which have an assessed value of less than $500. In conducting the search, several parcels were included as exempt that show parcel sizes in excess of 1.5 acres and type codes of, for example, residential or agriculture. These parcels were added back into the rolls and assessed. Formula The assessment formula is based on actual land use information contained in the current San Bemardino Assessor's computer files and Assessor's parcel maps. Category A: All parcels containing existing residential dwelling units and meeting the following conditions. Parcel Size Range Number of Existing Res. Dwelling Units/Parcel Less than 1.5 acres and 1.51 to 3.5 acres and 3.51 to 7.0 acres and 7.01 to 14.0 acres and 14.01 to 25.0 acres and 25.01 acres & larger and 1 or more dwelling units 2 or more dwelling units 4 or more dwelling units 8 or more dwelling units 15 or more dwelling units 26 or more dwelling units Category A is based on the number of existing residential units. The actual assessment for Bond Debt Service per existing residential dwelling unit may decrease each year as more residential units are built within the improvement district. Maintenance costs, however, are expected to increase annually and will somewhat offset the anticipated decrease in assessments due to new development. Category B:All parcel not defined in Category A or Category C. Category C:All exempt parcels as defined below: All properties currently tax exempt; All public ownerships; Railroad mainline rights-of-way; 5. 6. 7. Major utility transmission rights-of-way; Mineral rights; Parcels so small they currently cannot be built upon; All normally assessable parcels within an assessed valuation of less than $500 and 1.5 acres or less; and, C. Summary of Preliminary Assessment Amounts Category A: The preliminary estimated assessment rate which will be levied during fiscal year 1996/97 is $52.00 per dwelling unit for those parcels in Category A. Category A parcels containing more than one residential dwelling unit will be assessed for an amount equal to $52.00 times the number of dwelling units. Category B: The assessment which may be levied for parcels within Category B during fiscal year 1996/97 shall be according to the following schedule: Definition Assessment Per Parcel less than 1.50 acres 1.51 acres to 3.50 acres 3.51 acres to 7.0 acres 7.01 acres to 14.0 acres 14.01 acres to 25.0 acres 25.01 acres & larger $ 26.00 $ 78.00 $ 182.00 $ 364.00 $ 728.00 $1,300.00 Category C: The assessment shall be $0.00 for Category C parcels. PROJECTED 1996/97 ASSESSMENTS 22,703 Single Family Parcels 266 Multi-Family Parcels Less than 1.50 Acres (1182 Parcels) 1.5 Acres to 3.50 Acres (417 Parcels) 3.51 Acres to 7.0 Acres (203 Parcels) 7.01 Acres to 14.0 Acres (123 Parcels) 14.01 Acres to 25.0 Acres (41 Parcels) 25.01 Acres or larger (22 Parcels) 22600 units at 5819 units at 1078 units at 420 units at 203 units at 119 units at 42 units at 22 units at 30,413 units $52.00 $52.00 $ 26.00 $ 78.00 $182.00 $364.00 $728.00 $1,300.00 = $1,180,556 = $302,588 = $28,028 = $ 32,760 = $ 36,946 = $ 43,316 = $30,576 = $28,600 $1,683,370 PARK AND RECREATION IMRPOVEMENT DISTRICT - 85 (PD-85) ANNEXATIONS FOR FY 96/97 May 17,1995 TR 14116 18 du u.! J~m ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 ~.~ANTA ,~AR,~ARA . - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 15, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORTS AND RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City council hold the Public Hearing and approve the Annual Engineer's Reports and Resolution establishing the assessment rates for Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, and 8. It is recommended there be no increase in assessment rates in these districts for Fiscal Year 1996/97. The Engineer's Reports are on file in the City Clerk's Office. The Public Works Subcommittee has reviewed the staff report and concurs with the recommendation. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Below is an itemized analysis on a district by district basis. To summarize, the assessment rates in all eight of the Street Light Maintenance Districts are not recommended to be increased this fiscal year. These assessments cover the actual costs of the districts. Southem Califomia Edison, during the current fiscal year, decreased their electrical rate. This rate is expected to remain stable for the 1996/97 fiscal year. In prior years State Gas Tax Funds were used to subsidize the districts. At the present time, each district is able to stand on its own without additional funding from other sources. In some districts there is an increase in the number of street lights being maintained. However these will not effect the assessment rate at this time. Edison charges for traffic signals are also included in the applicable districts. In addition, Operations and Maintenance charges for traffic signals, will also be borne by the applicable districts. In past years any available prior year carryover was used to keep assessments below the annual assessment revenue requirements. This policy continues for the FY 96/97 and will allow the assessment rates to remain stable. The following, in conjunction with reference to the Preliminary Engineer's Reports, identifies proposed FY 96/97 rates which are not recommended for an increase from the FY 95/96 rates. The Preliminary Engineer's Reports identifies the required budget for each district and any carryover used to offset maintenance costs. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 - Arterial The assessment rate is recommended to remain at $17.77 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Prior year carryover funds will still be used to keep the rate from increasing. However, these carryover funds may not be available in future years. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 2 - Local The assessment rate is recommended to remain at $39.97 for Fiscal Year 1996/97.. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district. However, these carryover funds may not be available in future years. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 3 - Victoria Planned Community The assessment rate will remain at $45.15 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 4 - Terra Vista Planned Community The assessment rate will remain at $28.96 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 5 - Caryn Planned Community The assessment rate will remain at $34.60 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 - Commercial/Industrial The assessment rate will remain at $51.40 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 7 - North Etiwanda An assessment increase is not recommended in this district, the rate will remain at $33.32 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 8 - South Etiwanda An assessment increase is not recommended in this district, but remain at $193.75 for Fiscal Year 1996/97. This proposed rate is higher than the average lighting district due to a disproportionate number of street lights to assessment units. As more assessment units are annexed to the district it is expected that the street light-to-assessment unit will be reduced thereby reducing the assessment rate. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:leh Attachments: Resolution Annual Engineer's Reports RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. l, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the 17th day of April, 1996, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 96-048 to order the therein described work in connection with the Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 which Resolution of Intention No. 96-048 was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner as required by law, shown by the affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received and considered evidence, oral and documentary, conceming the jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and conceming the necessity for the contemplation work and the benefits to be derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to order the proposed work. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: That the public interest and convenience requires the levy and collection of assessments within the Street Lighting Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for the Fiscal Year 1996/97, and said City Council hereby orders that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of Intention No. 96-048, be done and made; and SECTION 2: Be it further resolved that the report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; and SECTION 3: Be it finally resolved that the assessments for Fiscal Year 1996/97 method of assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby approved. ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 1 (ARTERIAL STREETS) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: · William J. O'N~ Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial Streets) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (Arterial) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Street Light Maintenance District No. 1 (SLD #1) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is assigned to this City-wide district. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development proj ect's approval. Traffic signals can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southem California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted operating costs for SLD #1 is for electric utility charges for the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipate to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #1 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Total Personnel Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Contract Services Emergency & Regular Vehicle Rental General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: Total Revenue Required: Less: FY 95/96 Carryover Assessment Revenue Required: $0.00 $17,200.00 $920.00 $60,000.00 $1,500.00 $4,560.00 $255,050.00 $339,230.00 $121,640.00 $26,883.00 $148,523.00 $487,753.00 <$39,701.00> $448,052.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 are not recommended to be increased. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $17.77. This is the same rate as FY 95/96. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Commercial Acre 1,745.97 $17.77 2 $35.54 $62,052.00 Single Family Parcel 16,067.00 $17.77 1 $17.77 $285,511.00 Multi-Family Unit 5,655.00 $17.77 1 $17.77 $100,489.00 Total $448,052.00 STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 1 ANNEXATION FOR FY 96/97 April 5, 1995 TR 14208 20.00 du April 19. 1995 CUP 94-37 3.33 ac April 19, 1995 DR 94-16 19.42 ac May 3, 1995 PM 14457 1.24 ac May 17, 1995 TR 14116 18.00 du June 21, 1995 DR 94-21 8.14 ac July 5, 1995 DR 95-09 35.94 ac July 5, 1995 DR 95-03 12.00 du September 6, 1995 MDR 94-11 0.52 ac October 4, 1995 CUP 94-30 1.10 ac October 18, 1995 MDR 95-10 2.51 ac November 15, 1995 MDR95-11 0.31 ac Resolution No. 95-036 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSs::SSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I LiGHTiNG iviAiNTENANCE DiSTRiCT NOS. I AND 2 r ~'/A CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONG,atk COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA -r~-r EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT,NOS. I AND 6 6TH STREET Pr1473~ P.H, 42/56 EXISTING ITEMS TREE STREET LIGHT PH~'012 P.fl. 77/91 - CUP 94-37 - 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-37 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT 'A' A~.....iESSMENT DiA~3RA... LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3E5 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS, I AND 6 /j I I d t91 II I!1 'll Rx~w~4.- pJ-vb. : 'AMF.--RON 'PI:~I:~R'r'y i;,I L/'///// //// /// /, ; DR 94-16 , ;A.PN 229-131.-03: ~ ~//////////2/, . i · ~ .. c,*rv..u,.,,~....i ,, , b,TH ST:'..: CITY OF RANCNO CUCAMONGA' ,..*.~* COUi~TY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DR 94--16 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0.3 i5 STREET LiGHTiNG MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 z.. ,, . ARROW _ _ ~ ......... ,:..., iRQ-U'EE I ~ . ,e,,.l~'"""I"~"""~_.,- -t"" ""i- ~--.',','~."'" ,,~ '-~.~ ....-':;:-~ .......... /~"' ~,..,~, ,,... ,,,., ,. ,,,, I , PARCEL I PARCEL 2 I CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA" COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 / I / / ~.f 8 6 .5',=./,tMD/0,90 SF OF Cir Y'MA ~H~ (,/8 ,~ ,k ~,eo UMD CO YF_B ./ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 7"/~=/-~//G STATE OF CALIFORNIA l/'/1 ,::/' ~ ~ ~ EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 //--e ~ e GSND ... CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ::::::::::::::::::::::::: Resolution No. 95-107 Page 3 EXHIBIT "A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. DISTRICT NO. ~ El ,9'TREET LIC__=HllNG MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I AND 6 Z LEGEND STREET UGHT 8 F.A. ~ STREET TREE 36 EA I: ~:~ EXISTTNG STREET UGHT (~ 7~ ,,~ EXISTING STREET TREE/8 4 TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUC~ COUNTY OF SAN BERNAFIDINO STATE OF CAUFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 ~TAK~c)' ~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 95-122 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 8TH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MDR 94-11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~;~T-A.. EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 BASE LINE ROAD Ii1 I-- ¢/ PAR GEL I P,M, ND~ 4,_8,6~ BK, 4,9/P~, 4G~47 A.P.N. 0207-031-27 LEGEND STREET LIGHT STREET TREE 1 EA. 12 EA. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-30 Resolution No. 95-145 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSiSSSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3~> STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 APN 209-021-22 9TH · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MDR 95-10 . ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA Ex,~B~T "A" 4 b, EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 E, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 ~, ":~ 9464 BASE LINE ROAD · ,- APN 202-092-05 ~~~ ~ "T ..---"-"'-~"~ ....~--. ~ :-.,,-- ;/J' I ~'*L ~j d BASE_;L..INE_.ROA-D~_ _ '~'j __,, -: I'P.?,', " - !!'.- T ,EGF, ND 'O INSTAI,L STREET-TREES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA MDR ~N."F.s. ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 2 (LOCAL STREETS) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: Wihiam J. O'Ne~ineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (Local Streets) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Street Light Maintenance District No. 2 (SLD #2) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local street throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally this area encompasses the residential area of the City west of Haven Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets generally west of Haven Avenue. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted operating costs for SLD #2 is for electric utility charges for the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipate to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #2 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Total Personnel Maintenance and Operations Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: Total Revenue Required: Less: FY 95/96 Carryover Assessment Revenue Required: $0 $0 $0 $2,370.00 $190,220.00 $192,590.00 $47,270.00 $15,222.00 $62,492.00 $255,082.00 <$1,378.00> $253,704.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 are not recommended to be increased over FY 95/96 rates. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $39.97. This is the same rate as FY 95/96. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Commercial Acre 10.68 $39.97 2 $79.94 $854.00 Single Family Parcel 5403.00 $39.97 1 $39.97 $215,958.00 Multi-Family Unit 923.00 $39.97 1 $39.97 $36,892.00 Total $253,704.00 ASSESSMENT DIAGRA~ LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. /./ / G /r'Z A /1/D A I AND 2 ..... 77f~'6'~'.' AREA -"4 OF C/r Y-MA /NTA/N,nD ,/ ~ ~'~EXYD CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO 7"/P/.,~//G STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2 t ~Tz~eH?' ~ 4 ~A. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #2 ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 May 17, 1995 TR 14116 18 du July 5, 1995 DR 95-03 12 du ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 3 (VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: ' William J. O'Neil, ki~ Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (Victoria Planned Community) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 3 (Victoria Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Backeround: Street Light Maintenance Dislrict No. 3 (SLD #3) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Victoria Planned Community. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Deer Creek Channel, south of Highland Avenue, north of Base Line Road, and west of Etiwanda Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Victoria Planned Community. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #3 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Total Personnel Maintenance and Operations Contract Services Traffic Signal Adjustment General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: Total Revenue Required: Add: 95/96 Deficit Recovery Assessment Revenue Required: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,530.00 $118.570.00 $120,100.00 $34,480.00 $7.766.00 $42,246.00 $162,346.00 $31,812.00 $194.158.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 have not been increased. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $47.15. following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Land Use Type Units Commercial Acre 92.44 Single Family Parcel 3763.00 Multi-Family Unit 170.00 Total R~e $47.15 $47.15 $47.15 This is the same rate as FY 95/96. The Unit Rme/ Factor A.U. Revenue 2 $94.30 $8,718.00 1 $47.15 $177,424.00 1 $47.15 $8,016.00 $194,158.00 ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 4 (TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Street Light Maintenance District No. 4 (SLD #4) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Terra Vista Planned Community. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Haven Avenue, south of Base Line Road, north of Foothill Boulevard, and west of Rochester Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Terra Vista Planned Community. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #4 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #4 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budeet for 1996/97 Total Personnel Maintenance and Operations Contract Services Traffic Signal Inventory General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $540.00 $34.370.00 $34,910.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $19,150.00 $1.887.00 $21,037.00 Total Revenue Required: $55,947.00 Add: 95/96 Deficit Recovery: $38,453.00 Assessment Revenue Required: $94.400.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 will remain at $28.96 per year. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the recommended rate per assessment unit is $28.96. This is the same as the rate for FY 95/96. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Commercial Acre 147.33 $28.96 2 $57.92 $8,533.00 Single Family Parcel 1660.00 $28.96 1 $28.96 $48,074.00 Multi-Family Unit 2610.00 $28.96 1 $28.96 $37,793.00 TOTAL $94,400.00 ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 5 (CARYN PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: William J. O'Nei~i~lEngineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 5 (Caryn Planned Community) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 5 (Caryn Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Backeround: Street Light Maintenance District No. 5 (SLD #5) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located within the Caryn Planned Community. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Milliken Avenue, south of Banyan Street, north of Highland Avenue, and west of Rochester Avenue. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the Caryn Planned Community. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #5 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #5 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Over Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Emergency & Regular Vehicle Rental Contract Services General Liability Capital Expenditures: Street Light Installation Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: $4,470.00 $500.00 $1,650.00 $12,780.00 $630.00 $500.00 $0.00 $460.00 $0.00 $23.100.00 $44,090.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Delinquency Contingency Subtotal: $9,260.00 $1.621.00 $10,881.00 Total Revenue Required: $54,971.00 Less: FY 95/96 Carryover <$14.454.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $40,517.00 Analysis: There are no substantial increases in the district's budget and no new assessment units have been annexed into the district. It is recommended the assessment rates for FY 96/97 not be increased. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $34.60. This is the same as the rate for FY 95/96. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 1.171.00 $34.60 1 $34.60 $40.517.00 Total 1,171.00 $40.517.00 ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 6 (COMMERCIAL/iNDUSTRIAL) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: · William J. O'Neil, ~Engi~eer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (Commercial/Industrial) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Backeround: Street Light Maintenance District No. 6 (SLD #6) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on commercial and industrial streets throughout the City but excluding those areas already in a local maintenance district. Generally this area encompasses the industrial area of the City south of Foothill Boulevard. It has been determined that the facilities within this district benefit this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on industrial or commercial streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on industrial or commercial streets generally south of Foothill Boulevard, Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #6 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #6 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budeet for 1996/97 Regular Salaries Over Time Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Emergency & Regular Vehicle Rental Contract Services General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: $6,700.00 $500.00 $2,480.00 $2,500.00 $300.00 $500.00 $0.00 $450.00 $33,980.00 $47,410.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $7,710.00 $7,014.00 $14,724.00 Total Revenue Required: $62,134.00 Add: 95/96 Deficit Recovery $15,804.00 Assessment Revenue Required: $77,938.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 are not recommended to increase. FY 1996/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the recommended rate per assessment unit is $51.40. This is the same as the rate of FY 95/96. The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Industrial/Comm. Acre 1516.53 $51.40 1 $51.40 $77,938.00 Total $77,938.00 STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT #6 ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 April 19. 1995 CUP 94-37 3.33 ac April 19, 1995 DR 94-16 19.42 ac May 3, 1995 PM 14457 1.24 ac June 21, 1995 DR 94-21 8.14 ac July 5, 2995 DR 95-09 35.94 ac September 6, 1995 MDR 94-11 0.52 ac October 4, 1995 CUP 94-30 1.10 ac October 18, 1995 MDR 95-10 2.51 ac November 15, 1995 MDR95-11 0.31 ac EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3E~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT.NOS. I AND 6 6TH STREET Pt147,~1 P.rl. 42/56 r,.) EXISTING ITEMS TREE STREET LIGHT pr. lFO e ? P.M. 72/91 - CUP 94-37 - 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-37 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT 'A' A~ ...iESSMENT DIAGRA,., LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 JL J ~/i I AND 6 : AMr-..RON I:~I~ERTy //////////////, ; DR 94-16 , :A~'N 229-131-03: :1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDiNO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DR 94-16 Resolution No. 95-122 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO S. I AND 6 8TH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO f~R 94-13- STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, 39 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 BASE LINE ROAD Ld Ld ILl Z ¢/ PARCEL -1 BX, 49/P~, 4,~47 A.P.N. 0207-031-27 LEGEND STREET LIGHT STREET TREE 1 -EA. 12 EA. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-30 Resolution No. 95-145 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSE:SSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 APN 209-021-22 I I 9TH · CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO M/DR 95-10 (~ . ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~.x~z~ "~" EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 ,,~~,. 9464 BASE LINE ROAD 7j; / ':"' APN 202-092-05 T .EGF, ND INSTALL STREET-TREES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA MDR ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 7 (NORTH ETIWANDA) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (North Etiwanda) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (North Etiwanda) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Street Light Maintenance District No. 7 (SLD #7) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of street lights and traffic signals located on local streets in what is termed the North Etiwanda area of the City. Generally this area encompasses the area of the City east of Day Creek Channel and north of Highland Avenue within the incorporated area of the City. It has been determined that the facilities in this district benefit the properties within this area of the City. The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion thereof) on local streets within the North Etiwanda area. Typically, street lights are installed by private development as a condition of a development project's approval. Traffic signals and street lights can be installed by development or as a City capital improvement project. Historically, the installation of street lights and traffic signals has not been funded with Street Light District funds, however, this is permitted under the Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972. Any new street lights in areas to be maintained by the District, will become part of the active work program at such time as these new areas are annexed into the District. The normal process will be the dedication of the areas to the City, at which time a sufficient non-refundable deposit will be made by the developer to the City. This deposit will provide for costs of energizing and six months of ordinary and usual maintenance, operation and servicing of the street lights in each development at the time of initial operation of the lighting system. The costs will be based on the number and type of street lights and based on Southern California Edison Company's rate for street lights. Immediately upon energization of the street lights, those street lights will become a part of the work program of the district. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for SLD #7 is for electricity charges for the power to the street lights and traffic signals within the district. A tax delinquency amount is added to arrive at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #7 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Salaries Over Time Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Contract Services Street Light Inventory General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: $4,470.00 $1,000.00 $1,650.00 $200.00 $140.00 $15,410.00 $320.00 $11.770.00 $34,960.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $4,850.00 $8.854.00 $13,704.00 Total Revenue Required: $48,664.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover <$28,072.00> Assessment Revenue Required: $20,592.00 Analysis: Assessment rates for FY 96/97 are not recommended in increase. No new assessment units have been annexed into the district this year. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $33.32. There is no increase in this assessment rate over the FY 95/96 rate The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 618.00 $33.32 1 $33.32 $20,592.00 Total 618.00 $20,592.00 ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STREET LIGHT DISTRICT NO. 8 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: William J. O'Neil, Engineer at the Revenue Required to maintain the district. This is a projected amount of delinquency tax payments which is anticipated to occur during FY 96/97 based upon actual tax receipts. There are no tax delinquencies in the district for this fiscal year. The projected costs to operate and maintain SLD #8 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Bud~et for 1996/97 Total Personnel Maintenance and Operations Contract Services General Liability Electric Utilities Operations and Capital Subtotal: $0.00 $130.00 $0.00 $20.00 $1,500.00 $1,650.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $200.00 $0.00 $200.00 Total Revenue Required: $1,850.00 Add: 95/96 Deficit Recovery $5,125.00 Assessment Revenue Required: $6,975.00 Analysis: It is recommended the assessment rates for FY 96/97 not be increased. No new units have been annexed into the district this year. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: For FY 96/97 the rate per assessment unit is $193.75. There is no increase in this assessment rate over the FY 96/97 Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 36.00 $193.75 1 $193.75 $6,975.00 Total 36.00 $6,975.00 ,_l CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May15,1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL ENGINEER'S REPORTS AND RESOLUTION FOR THE LEVY OF ANNUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICTS NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5 6, 7 AND 8 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 96/97. NO INCREASE OF ASSESSMENT RATE IS PROPOSED. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council hold a Public Heating and approve the Annual Engineer's Reports and Resolution establishing the assessment rates for Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. It is also recommended that there be no increase in assessment rates in these districts for Fiscal Year 1996/97. The Engineer's Reports are on file in the City Clerk's Office. The Public Works Subcommittee has reviewed the staff report and concurs with the recommendation. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Below is an itemized analysis on a district by district basis. To summarize, it is recommended that assessment rates not be increased in any of the Landscape Maintenance Districts for the FY 1996/97. Reasons for this recommendation include water costs savings due to water conservation efforts that include a program to computerize the irrigation systems for all of the District's maintained landscape areas. In many of the districts back taxes have been paid with interest and penalties thereby increasing the revenue in those districts. In some districts an increase in the amount of landscape area to maintain has caused an increase in the amount of maintenance and operation costs. These costs will be offset by increases in revenue. In past years any available prior year carryover was used to keep assessments below the annual assessments revenue requirements. In some districts this is still true and has allowed the assessment rate to remain constant. The following, along with reference to the Preliminary Engineer's Reports, identifies proposed FY 96/97 rates. The Preliminary Engineer's Reports identifies the required budget for each district and any carryover used to reduce rates. A tax delinquency amount is added to each district's budget to cover anticipated delinquencies in tax payments. If the delinquencies are less than expected, funds within the district can be added to the districts fund balance. Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 - General City It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $92.21 for the FY 96/97. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 -Victoria Planned Community It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $422.00 for the FY 96/97. LMD #2 has the largest landscape area of any district in the City with 123.49 acres, of which 32.37 acres is parks. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Landscape Maintenance District No. 3A - Hyssop It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $413.74 for the FY 96/97 Landscape Maintenance District No.3B -Commercial/Industrial It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $352.80 per acre for the FY 96/97. Prior year carryover funds will be applied in the district, however they may not be available in future years. 22.87 acres of the Adult Sports Complex is maintained by this district. Landscape Maintenance District No.4 - Terra Vista It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $252.50 for the FY 96/97. LMD #4 has 38.25 acres of parks. La Mission Park located at the northwest comer of Elm Avenue and Church Street will be accepted into the District this fiscal year for maintenance. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Landscape Maintenance District No. 5- Tot Lot It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $113.29 for the FY 96/97. Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 - Caryn It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $246.97 for the FY 96/97. Prior year carryovers will be applied but may not be available in the future. Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 - North Etiwanda It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $307.05 for the FY 96/97. Northeast Park located on the east side of East Avenue noah of and adjacent to the Summit Intermediate School will be accepted into the district this fiscal year for the maintenance of 12 acres. Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 - South Etiwanda It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $151.45 for the FY 96/97 Respectfully Sub~ Willi:~O'Neil City Engineer Attachments: Resolutions Engineer's Reports A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 AND 8 PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPE AND STREET LIGHTING ACT OF 1972 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga did on the 17th day of April, 1996, adopt its Resolution of Intention No. 96-050 to order the therein described work in connection with the Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 which Resolution of Intention No. 96-050 was duly and legally published in the time, form and manner as required by law, shown by the affidavit of Publication of said Resolution of Intention on file in the Office of the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, said City Council having duly received and considered evidence, oral and documentary, conceming the jurisdiction facts in this proceeding and concerning the necessity for the contemplation work and the benefits to be derived therefrom and said City Council having now acquired jurisdiction to order the proposed work. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1: That the public interest and convenience requires the levy and collection of assessments within the Landscape Maintenance Districts Nos. 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for the Fiscal Year 1996/97, and said City Council hereby orders that the work, as set forth and described in said Resolution of Intention No. 96-050, be done and made; and SECTION 2: Be it further resolved that the report filed by the Engineer is hereby finally approved; and SECTION 3: Be it finally resolved that the assessments for Fiscal Year 1996/97 method of assessment in the Engineer's Report are hereby approved. ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. (GENERAL CITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: William J. O'Neil, ~ Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City Parkways, Medians, Parks and Community Trails) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (General City Parkways, Medians, Parks and Community Trails) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Backeround: Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 (LMD # 1 ) represents 33.05 acres of landscape area and 38.25 acres of parks which are located at various sites throughout the City. These sites are not considered to be associated with any one particular area within the City, but rather benefit the entire City on a broader scale. As such, the parcels within this district do not represent a distinct district area as do the City's remaining LMD's. Typically parcels within this district have been annexed upon development. The various sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees, entry monuments, Community Trails and parks. The 38.25 acres of parks consist of Bear Gulch Park which is 5 acres, 20 acres of East and West Beryl Park, 5 acres of Old Town Park. 6.5 acres of Church Street Park and the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center (formerly Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center) which consists of 1.75 acres. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 95/96 96/97 Ground Cover and Shrubs 21.97 24.07 Turf 1.47 1.61 Parks 38.25 38.25 Community Trails 7.37 7.37 Total Area in LMD #1 69.06 Acres 71.30Acres The ground cover, shrubs and turf areas of the various landscape areas and the parks are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company while the equestrian trails are maintained by the City's Trails and Application Crew. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #1 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs and the maintenance of the parks. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a' private landscape maintenance company. The City's Trails and Application Crew maintains the equestrian trails within the district. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #1 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Overtime Salaries Part-time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations - Landscaping Maintenance and Operations - Facilities Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Emergency & Routine Vehicle Equipment Rental Equipment Maintenance Contract Services Parkway & Median Landscape Maintenance Park Landscape .Maintenance Tree Maintenance Other Maintenance Services Tree Inventory Field Data Collection Contract Services - Facilities Capital Expenditures Rebuild Softball Field Arc at Old Town Tree Shrub & Ground Cover Replacement Calsense Retrofits Mandatory ADA Study/Implementation for Parks Infield Irrigation Upgrades Capital/Equipment Outlay Capital/Building Improvements Capital/Playground Equipment Outlay - Parks Capital Vehicles Outlay General Liability Water Utilities Telephone Utilities Electric Utilities $76 460.00 $1 400.00 $2 430.00 $28 340.00 $35 270.00 $14 000.00 $16,990.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $299,350.00 $192,250.00 $16,500.00 $18,000.00 $0.00 $8,000.00 $3,000.00 $10 000.00 $69 960.00 $30 000.00 $3 000.00 $6 130.00 $2 780.00 $10 000.00 $0.00 $8,990.00 $138,570.00 $1,070.00 $42,000.00 Subtotal: $1,038,490.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $112,590.00 $63.962.00 $176,552.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover Assessment Revenue Required Total Revenue Required: $1,215,042.00 <$301,306.00> $913,736.00 For 96/97 the Capital Project Outlay budgeted for the district is as follows: $3,000 for rebuilding the softball field arc at old town park, $10,000 for tree, shrub and ground cover replacement throughout the district, $69,960 for calsense retrofits throughout the district, $3,000 for infield irrigation upgrades and $30,000 for ADA required tot lot retrofit Phase I for Bear Gulch Park.. Capital Equipment Outlay of $1,450 for 25% of a Wood Splitter, $1,380 for 25% of a Pneumatic Pruning System and $3,300 for 10% of Turf Sprayer. Capital Building Outlay of $1,280 for 25% of a Cargo Container & Concrete Pad for Nursery and $1,500 to Replace Pipe Chase Doors. Capital Playground Equipment of $10,000 to enlarge Exercise Pads to Meet ADA requirements at Church Street Park. Analysis: It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $92.21 for the fiscal year 1996/97. The tax delinquency represents the amount of unpaid taxes within the district. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Assess. Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 7183 $92.21 1.0 $92.21 $662,344 Multi-Family Parcel 5452 $92.21 0.5 $46.11 $251.392 Total $913.736 LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #1 ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 May 17, 1995 TR 14116 Single Family - 18 du July 5, 1995 DR 95-03 Single Family - 12 du April 5, 1995 TR 14208 Multi-Family - 20 du · · · ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. I STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 OF ClT Y-MA INTAINED CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA I~z IIG EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 2 k k kk~kk SrRgg)' ~ 4 gA. /~ g,~. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 'i COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA Resolution No. 95-036 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 STRE=_T LiGHTiNG MAINTENANCE DiSTRiCT NOS. I AND 2 ~.,.; ..;i. /k '/'77 //,;'///' ,' "/'/'.,t r ~,'/A ,f //~ d .~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA -r~,~-~ N~. ~,+~e ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 2 (VICTORIA PLANNED COKggJNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (Victoria Planned Community) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (Victoria Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 2 (LMD #2) represents landscape sites throughout the Victoria Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within Victoria and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that community. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that planned community. The sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, paseos, Community Trails and parks. The 32.37 acres of parks in Victoria consist of Kenyon Park, Victoria Groves Park, Vintage Park, Windrows Park and Ellena Park. Ellena Park, which is 4.87 acres was accepted into this district for maintenance in March 1996. Ellena Park is located on Ellena East at Kenyon Way. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 95/96 96/97 Ground Cover and Shrubs 47.99 48.68 Turf 40.13 40.61 Parks 32.37 32.37 Community Trails 3.00 3.00 Total Area in LMD #2 118.62Acres 124.96 Acres The ground cover, shrubs and turf areas are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company while the Community Trails are maintained by the City's Trails and Application Crew and the parks are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crews. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #2 are for direct maintenance of tuff, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The City's Trails and Application Crew maintains the equestrian trails and the City's Park Maintenance Crews maintain the parks within the district. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #2 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Overtime Salaries Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations - Landscaping Maintenance and Operations - Facilities Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Mileage Emergency & Routine Vehicle & Equipment Rental Contract Services Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Contract Services - Facilities Capital Expenditures Capital Improvement Projects Capital Vehicle Outlay Capital Equipment Outlay Capital Outlay./Building Improvement Capital Outlay/Computer Equipment General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: $470,370.00 $5,000.00 $5,700.00 $174,150.00 $66,730.00 $12,000.00 $10,520.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 $695,240.00 $10,240.00 $11,000.00 $206 000.00 $24 000.00 $50 980.00 $1 900.00 $1 200.00 $12 530.00 $276 150.00 $20 000.00 $1.500.00 $2,059,410.00 Assessment Admin. & General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $145,290.00 $69.226.00 $214,516.00 Total Revenue Required: $2,273,926.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover <$543,262.00> Assessment Revenue Required $1.730.664.00 For FY 96/97 the district budgeted $1,000 for Capital Outlay/Building Improvements to replace Pipe Chase Doors and $900 for 20% of a Cargo Container & Concrete Pad.; $19,000 for Capital Outlay/Equipment for 50% of a Riding Mower/Trailer, $2,500 for 50% of a Small Riding Mower, $1,000 for 50% ofa Edger, Blower and Line Trimmer, $3,500 for 50%ofa Pressure Washer, $4,000 for 50% of an Aerator, $7,500 for 50% of a Cushman Type Utility Vehicle, $1,160 for 20% of a Wood Splitter, $1,100 for 25% of a Pneumatic Pruning System, and $11,220 for 35% of a Turf Sprayer; $1,200 for Capital Outlay/Vehicle for 50% of a Crew Cab Stake bed and $12,000 for 50% of a Utility Body F-250; and $1,200 for Capital Outlay/Computer Equipment for a Lap Top Computer. Also, budgeted is $10,000 for Calsense Retrofits, $50,000 for Tree, Shrub & Ground cover Replacements, $6,000 for Infield Irrigation Upgrades at Windrows Park and $140,000 for Phase I - ADA required retrofit for Windrows, Kenyon, Groves and Vintage Parks. Analysis: In FY 95/96, the assessment rate for LMD #2 was $422.00. It is recommended this rate not increase for the FY 96/97. Part of the reason that the rate did not increase is due to the fact that water usage is down partly due to the implementation of the Calsense Moisture Control irrigation system and partly because of the increase of rainfall last season. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor Revenue Single Family Parcel 3,764.00 $422.00 1.0 $422.00 $1,588,408 Multi-Family Parcel 170.00 $422.00 1.0 $422.00 $ 71,740 Commercial Acre 24.23 $422.00 2.0 $844.00 $ 20,450 Vacant Acre 474.55 $422.00 0.25 $105.50 $ 50,066 TOTALS $1,730,664 ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3A (HYSSOP) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a (Hyssop Maintenance District) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a (Hyssop Maintenance District) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Backeround: Landscape Maintenance District No. 3a (LMD #3a) represents a landscape parkway on Hyssop Drive south of Sixth Street. The site is associated with an area within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: Ground Cover and Shrubs Turf Total Area in LMD #3a 95/96 96/97. 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.14 Acres 0.14 Acres The ground cover and shrubs areas are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #3a are for direct maintenance of ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #3a are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Contract Services Landscape and Tree Maintenance Capital Expenditures Tree and Shrub Replacement General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $0.00 $0.00 $350.00 $0.00 $2,200.00 $700.00 $40.00 $600.00 $120.00 $4,010.00 $240.00 $629.00 $869.00 Gross Revenue Required: $4,879.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover _ <$1.569.00> Total Revenue Required: $3,310.00 For 96/97 the district budgeted $700.00 for tree and shrub replacement. No equipment purchases are budgeted in 96/97. Analysis: It is recommended the assessment rate for LMD #3a remain at $413.74 for the FY96/97 to cover the current maintenance costs of the district. The tax delinquency represents the estimated amount of unpaid taxes within the district. No new assessment units were annexed into the district this year. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit Rate/. Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Industrial Parcel 8 $413.74 1.0 $413.74 Revenue $3.310.00 ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3b (COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: Williim J. O'Neil, ~yEngin~er City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Backffround: Landscape Maintenance District No. 3b (LMD #3b) represents landscape sites throughout the Commercial/Industrial Maintenance District. These sites are associated .with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites that are maintained by this district consist of median islands, parkways, street trees, entry monuments and 22.87 acres of the Adult Sports Park (this does not include the stadium, parking lots or the maintenance building. The Metrolink Station located on the west side of Milliken Avenue between Jersey Boulevard and 7th Street will be accepted into the District this fiscal year. The Metrolink Station is a 2.45 acres facility that consists of entry and perimeter drives, parking facilities, passage loading and unloading platform, ticketing facilities and landscaping. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 95/96 96/97 Ground Cover and Shrubs 7.10 9.81 Turf 3.39 3.40 Parks 22.87 22.87 Total Area in LMD #3b 33.36 Acres 36.08Acres The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas in the median island, parkways and entry monuments are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company. The Adult Sports Park is maintained by City landscape and facility maintenance crews. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #3b are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #3b are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Overtime Salaries Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Emergency & Reg. Vehicle & Equipment Rental Contract Services Landscape Maintenance - Parkways & Medians Tree Maintenance Landscape Maintenance - Sports Complex Landscape Maintenance - Metrolink Capital Expenditures Calsense Retrofits Tree Shrub & Ground cover Replacement Capital Outlay - Building Capital Outlay - Equipment Capital Outlay - Computer Equipment General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: $86.180.00 $2.500.00 $9.550.00 $32.080.00 $31.630.00 $1.030.00 $10 000.00 $1,000.00 $179,740.00 $30,060.00 $3,500.00 $10,000.00 $10,650.00 $26,000.00 $110,880.00 $28,370.00 $180.00 $4,740.00 $87,000.00 $75,180.00 $1,540.00 $741,810.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency $42,880.00 $46,468.00 Subtotal: $89,348.00. Gross Revenue Required: $831,158.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover _ <$250,305.00> Total Revenue Required: $580,853.00 The 96/97 Capital Project Outlay budgeted for the district is as follows: $26,000 for tree, shrub and ground cover replacement, $10,000 for calsense retrofits for the district and $650 for 35% of calsense retrofits for central/sports; for Capital Outlay/Buildings, $230 for 5% of a Cargo The 96/97 Capital Project Outlay budgeted for the district is as follows: $26,000 for tree, shrub and ground cover replacement, $10,000 for calsense retrofits for the district and $650 for 35% of calsense retrofits for central/sports; for Capital Outlay/Buildings, $230 for 5% of'a Cargo Container & Pad, $3.650 for Upgrading Fueling system to meet code, $4,000 to build roofs to cover Washrack, Geo-Tex Storage, and Maintenance Buildings, $3,000 for equipment carport in maintenance yard and $100,000 for ADA access to softball dugouts; for Capital outlay/Equipment $1,500 for box grader for field rake, $5,000 for 3 point hitch hydraulic linkage for Unit 53, $10,500 for 50% of a Vertidrain, $6,000 for Cushman 670, $290 for 5% of a wood Splitter, $280 for 5% of pneumatic Pruning System, $3,300 10% turf sprayer and $1,500 for a 50 gallon skid type sprayer; and for Capital Outlay Computer Equipment $180 for HP plus Printer. Analysis: It is recommended that the assessment rate remain at $352.80 for the fiscal year 1996/97. The tax delinquency represents the amount of unpaid taxes within the district. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Assess. Unit Rate/ Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Comrn/Ind Acre 1646.41 $352.80 1.0 $352.80 Revenue $580,853 Other Revenue: User Fees from Sports Field Lighting LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT #3B ANNEXATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 April 19, 1995 CUP 94-37 3.33 ac April 19, 1995 DR 94-16 19.42 ac May 3, 1995 PM 14457 1.24 ac June 21, 1995 DR 94-21 8.14 ac July 5, 1995 DR 95-09 35.94 ac September 6, 1995 MDR 94-11 0.52 ac October 4, 1995 CUP 94-30 1.1 ac October 18, 1995 MDR 95-10 2.51 ac November 15, 1995 MDR 95-11 0.31 ac C EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3E~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT.NOS. 1 AND 6 6TH STREET Ptf47)l P.rl. 42/'~6 > PM7012 P.M. EXISTING ITEMS TREE STREET LIGHT - CUP 94-37 - 4TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-37 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT 'A' AL ..~ESSE;ENT DiAGRA,., LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 I I d t!1 !l 111'11 Rxr~u.L et-~b. ~ AME. RO N I; :1 CITY OF RANCtiO CUCAMONGA COUi~ITY OF SAN BERNARD|NO STATE OF CALIFORNIA DR 94-16 ~XHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANC~ DISTRICT N0.3 E~ STRE;T L3GHTtNG MAiNT~,NANC~= DISTRICT NCS. I AND 6 I Z: PARCEL I PARCEL 2 _,.2 CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONQA" COUNTY OF SAN BIRNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 + ~ 7?/./~'. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT 'A" Resolution No. 95-107 Page 3 ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO, S'TIREET LIC_.tH'~NG MAINTENANCE DI..RTRICT NO. I AND 6 Z LEGEND STREET UGHT 8 EA STREET TREE 36 E,4, EXISTING STREET LIGHT .,,,T EXISTING STREET TREE/8 4 TH STREET CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CAUFORNIA Resolution No. 95-122 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO S. 1 AND 6 8TH CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO C~R 94-I-I- STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~B~T "~," EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 3B 1 AND 6 BASE LINE ROAD .( PARCEL I BK, 49/Pe, 4,6~47 A.P.N. 0207-031-27 LEGEND STREET LIGHT STREET TREE 1EA. 12 EA. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF 8AN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA CUP 94-30 Resolution No. 95-145 Page 3 EXHIBIT 'A' ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 A,DN 209-021-22 ',. F 9TH · .CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO MDR 95-10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA sxHz~ "~" EXHIBIT 'A' ~., ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 E~ STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6 ,,~ ~ "'~;"~"' '9464 BASE LINE ROAD 1 ,EGEND INSTALL STREET-TREES CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA N.T. 5. ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 (TERRA VISTA PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: William J. O'Neil,~4~ Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community) Fiscal Year 1996/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (Terra Vista Planned Community ) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 (LMD #4) represents landscape sites throughout the Terra Vista Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. La Mission Park located at the northwest comer of Church Street and Elm Avenue will be accepted into the District for maintenance this fiscal year. La Mission is a 7.98 acre park that includes a tot lot, basketball courts, sand volley ball courts, picnic areas, exercise stations, restrooms and a parking lot. The various landscape sites in Terra Vista that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, paseos and parks. The 38.25 acres of park consist of Coyote Canyon Park, Milliken Park, West Greenway Park, Spruce Park and La Mission Park The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 95/96 96/97 Ground Cover and Shrubs 8.35 8.35 Turf 6.58 6.58 Parks 28.25 36.23 Total Area in LMD #4 43.18Acres 51.16 Acres The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, the parks are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crews. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #4 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #4 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Overtime Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations - Landscaping Maintenance and Operations - Facilities Mileage Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Equipment Maintenance Emergency & Routine Vehicle & Equipment Rental General Liability Contract Services Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Contract Services - Facilities Capital Expenditures Infield Irrigation Upgrades-Coyote & Spruce Calsense Retrofits Tree, Shrub & Ground cover Replacement Rip Rap Slopes Capital Outlay / Equipment Capital Outlay / Vehicles Capital Outlay/Computer Equipment Capital Outlay/Building Improvements Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: Subtotal $321,280.00 $1,000.00 $5,370.00 $118,980.00 $56,830.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 $30,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,200.00 $5,790.00 $235,500.00 $12,120.00 $11,500.00 $6,000.00 $10,000.00 $20,000.00 $34,000.00 $49,850.00 $30,000.00 $1,200.00 $6,950.00 $106,660.00 $20,000.00 $700.00 $1,099,930.00 $89,760.00 $21.010.00 $110,770.00 Gross Revenue Required: Less: 95/96 District Carryover: Total Revenue Required: $1,210,700.00 <$155,705.00> $1.054.995.00 For FY 96/97 the district budgeted $6,000 for In~eld Irrigation Upgrades at Coyote and Spruce Parks, $10,000 for Calsense retrofits, $20,000 of tree, shrub and groundcover replacement and $34,000 to rip rap slopes. Under Capital Outlay for Vehicles, $15,000 has been budgeted for 50% of a Crew Cab Stake bed for Parks and $15,000 for 50% of a Utility Body F-250 for the irrigation crews; under Capital Outlay for Equipment $19,000 has been budgeted for 50% of a riding mower w/trailer, $2,500 for 50% of a small riding mower, $1,000 for 50% of an edger, blower and line trimmer, $3,500 for 50% of a pressure washer, $4,000 for 50% of an aerator, $7,500 for a Cushman type utility vehicle $580 for 10% of a wood splitter, $550 for 10% of pneumatic priming system, and $11,220 for 35% of a turf sprayer; under Capital Outlay for Building Improvements $1,000 is budgeted to replace pipe chase doors, $2,500 to resurface Spruce Park restroom floor (drainage), $3,000 to install a drinking fountain in new tot lot/picnic area of Milliken Park, and $450 for 10% of the cargo container & concrete Pad for nursery; under Capital Outlay for Computer Equipment $1,200 has been budgeted for a lap top computer w/modem. Analysis: It is recommended not to increase for the FY 96/97. Attached is the Assessment Rate Computation Chart. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use Type Units A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 1660.00 $252.50 $419,150 Multi Parcel 2610.00 $222.00 $579,420 Commercial Acre 147.33 $382.99 $56,425 TOTAL $1,054,995 000 LL 0 ~.o E E 0 o LL 000 ddo ddd 0 0 >- 0 n~ n .,~ ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 5 (TOT LOT) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: /William J. O'Neil Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 (Tot Lot Maintenance District) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 (Tot Lot Maintenance District) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 5 (LMD #5) represents a landscaped Tot Lot, located on the southwest comer of Andover Place and Bedford Drive. This site is associated with a group of 44 single family parcels which all have a common usage of the Tot Lot such that any benefit derived from the landscaping can be directly attributed to those particular parcels. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those specific parcels. There is only one site maintained by the district. It consists of a Tot Lot and a small amount of shrubs beds and ground cover. The quantities of maintained areas consist of: Ground Cover and Shrubs Total Area in LMD 95/96 96/97 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 The ground cover and shrubs areas are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #5 are for direct maintenance of ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #5 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Contract Services Landscape Maintenance Capital Expenditures Tree, Shrub & Ground Cover Replacement General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency $0 $o $410.00 $7O.OO $1,410.00 $1,000.00 $30.00 $280.00 $130.00 $120.00 $3,450.00 $610.00 $50.00 $660.00 Gross Revenue Required Add: 95/96 Deficit Recovery: $875.00 Total Revenue Required: $4,110.00 $4,985.00 For 96/97 the district budgeted $1,000 for shrub and ground cover replacement. Analysis: The FY 95/96 rate of assessment is $113.29. It is recommended that there be no increase from FY 96/97 No new assessment units have been annexed in the district. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Revenue Single Family Parcel 44 $113.29 1.0 $113.29 $4,985.00 C C ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 (CARYN PLANNED COMMUNITY) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: William J. O'Neil,~ Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (Caryn Planned Community) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (Caryn Planned Community) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 6 (LMD #6) represents landscape sites throughout the Caryn Planned Community. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites in Caryn that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, community trails, street trees and paseos. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: Ground Cover and Shrubs Turf Community Trails 95/96 96/97 20.74 20.74 3.94 3.94 3.30 3.30 27.98 Ac 27.98 Ac The tuff, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, while the Community Trails are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crew. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #6 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #6 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Emergency & Reg. Vehicle Rental Contract Services Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Capital Expenditure Landscape Plant Material Replacement Mt. Baldwin Ct. Playground Block Wall Mt. Baldwin Ct. Playground Lighting Calsense Retrofit Capital Outlay/Building Improvements Capital Outlay/Equipment General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: Gross Revenue Required: Less: 95/96 District Carryover Total Revenue Required: $8,990.00 $520.00 $3,310.00 $7,510.00 $1,910.00 $500.00 $176,430.00 $18,620.00 $20,000.00 $10,260.00 $8,000.00 $10,000.00 $450.00 $1,130.00 $3,060.00 $70,260.00 $2,550.00 $700.00 $344,200.00 $27,160.00 $11,568.00 $38,728.00 $382,928.00 < $93,726.00> $289,202.00 Analysis: The FY 95/96 rate of assessment is $246.97. It is recommended there be no increase for FY 96/97 No new assessment units were annexed in the district. The tax delinquency represents the projected amount of unpaid taxes within the district. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use Type Units Rate FactOr A.U. Single Family Parcel 1,171.00 $246.97 1.0 $246.97 Revenue $289.202.00 a .~Q ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 (NORTH ETIWANDA) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Appproved: ~lliam J. O'Neil, C~ngineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (Etiwanda North) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97 annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No.7 0Etiwanda North) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Axticle 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of Califomia (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Background: Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (LMD #7) represents landscape sites throughout the Etiwanda North area. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. Northeast Park, located on the east side of East Avenue and noah of Summit Avenue, is due to complete construction in August of 1996. It will be accepted into the district for maintenance this fiscal year. Noaheast Park is a 12 acre facility that will consist of two non-lighted football/soccer fields, tot lot, picnic area, open play area, restrooms, parking lot and multi-purpose trail. The various landscape sites in the Etiwanda Noah area that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, Community Trails and paseos. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: 95196 96/97 Ground Cover and Shrubs 7.54 7.54 Turf 4.02 4.02 Parks 0 12.00 Community Trails 2.00 2.00 Total Area in LMD #7 13.56 Ac 25.56 Ac The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, median islands and paseos are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, while the Community Trails and Noaheast Park are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crew and the City Facility Maintenance Crew. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #7 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 1996/97 Regular Payroll Over Time Salaries Part Time Salaries Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations - Landscaping Maintenance and Operations - Facilities Equipment Maintenance Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Emergency & Routine Vehicle & Equipment Rental Contract Services Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Contract Services - Facilities Capital Expenditures General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities $25,730.00 $500.00 $2,280.00 $9,570.00 $13,810.00 $1,900.00 $500.00 $1,330.00 $250.00 $89,650.00 $20,500.00 $3,400.00 $0.00 $1,760.00 $20,000.00 $1,010.00 $1,500.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency S ubtotal: Subtotal: $193,690.00 $21,760.00 $87,887.00 $109,647.00 Gross Revenue Required: $303,337.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover '<$279.00> Total Revenue Required: $303,058.00 For 96/97 Fiscal Year no capital expenditures have been budgeted. Analysis: The FY 96/97 rate of assessment is $307.05 per unit. FY 95/96. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Single Family Parcel 987.00 $307.05 1.0 $307.05 It is recommended there be no increase from Revenue $303.058.00 ANNUAL ENGINEERS REPORT CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 8 (SOUTH ETIWANDA) Fiscal Year 1996/97 Approved: William J. O'Neil, ~ Engineer City of Rancho Cucamonga Annual Engineer's Report Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 (South Etiwanda Area) Fiscal Year 96/97 The FY 96/97annual report for Landscape Maintenance District No.8 (South Etiwanda Area) is prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Division 5 of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California (Landscape and Lighting Act of 1972). Backffround: Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 (LMD #8) represents landscape sites throughout the South Etiwanda area. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived fi'om the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this, assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district. The various landscape sites in the South Etiwanda area that are maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, street trees, Community Trails and paseos. The breakdown of maintained areas is as follows: Ground Cover and Shrubs Turf Community Trails Total Area in LMD #8 95/96 96/97 0.23 0.23 0.14 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.37 Ac 0.37 Ac The turf, ground cover and shrubs areas that make up the parkways, are maintained under contract by a private landscape maintenance company, while the Community Trails are maintained by the City's Park Maintenance Crew. Projected Costs: The majority of the budgeted costs for LMD #8 are for direct maintenance of turf, ground cover and shrubs. These functions, along with tree maintenance and certain irrigation system repair and testing are performed through a Contract Services Agreement the City has with a private landscape maintenance company. The projected costs to operate and maintain LMD #8 are as follows: Proposed Maintenance Budget for 96/97 Regular Payroll Fringe Benefits Maintenance and Operations Vehicle Maintenance and Operations Contingency Tree Replacement Contract Service: Landscape Maintenance Tree Maintenance Capital Expenditures Landscape Plant Material Replacement Calsense Retrofits General Liability Water Utilities Electric Utilities Telephone Utilities Subtotal: $0 $0 $1,100.00 $370.00 $0.00 $6,930.00 $12,000.00 $2,000.00 $5,000.00 $240.00 $1,470.00 $80.00 $120.00 $29,310.00 Assessment Administration and General Overhead Tax Delinquency Subtotal: $1,790.00 $164.00 $1,954.00 Gross Revenue Required: $31,264.00 Less: 95/96 District Carryover _ <$14.904.00> Total Revenue Required: $16,357.00 For 96/97 the district budgeted $2,000 for landscape plant material replacement and $5,000 for Calsense retrofits. Analysis: The FY 96/97 rate of assessment is $151.45. It is recommended there be no increase from FY 95/96. No new assessment units have been annexed in the district. FY 96/97 Assessment Rate: The following itemizes the assessment rate for the district: Unit No. of Rate/. Land Use Type Units Rate Factor A.U. Single Family Parcel 108.00 $151.45 1.0 $151.45 Revenue $16.357.00 C C ! I ' !BAY ~ / ) V~(IIAI~H ~ t CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 15, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF SKATEBOARDING AS PRESENTED BY THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Park and Recreation Commission to work with Community Services, Community Development and Public Works staff to continue research of skateboarding programs, identifying potential skateboarding sites and pursue alternative funding sources for a skateboarding facility. BACKGROUND On October 19, 1995, the Park and Recreation Commission by direction of the City Council discussed skateboarding. The Commission formed a subcommittee consisting of Commissioners Whitehead and Clopton to go over the information that staff had compiled, review what other cities are doing, look into the safety and insurance issue, consider parks wherein a skateboard facility might be feasible, and look into costs to construct. Since that time the subcommittee has brought the issue to the Commission twice for discussion. ANALYSIS The two primary concems discussed by the City Council and the Park and Recreation Commission have been insurability and safety. The following changes have occurred which would make skateboarding a more feasible program at this time. Insurance Currently insurance pools which are used by self-insured cities are providing insurance for "low risk" type of facilities. Not insurable are vertical ramps, half-pipe, and deep bowls. Several municipal skateboard parks have opened and the insurance issue has expanded some to include more popular facility amenities being insurable. The current City insurance carrier confirms that the City could be covered for a "low risk" facility should one be built. Safety Issues Several Califomia cities do have successful rules and guideline documents in place, and these would serve as good resource tools. Per discussion with these cities and presentations made by the cities and designers at professional conferences, the rules and guidelines are followed by the skaters as long as they are reasonable and the skaters themselves are included in the rules development process. CITY COUNCIL MEETING CITY COUNCIL MEETING CONSIDERATION OF SKATEBOARDING AS PRESENTED BY THE PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION May 15, 1996 Page 2 in January of 1993, Assembly Bill #2487 became effective. This bill sets forth some additional protection language which provides legal sanctions on individuals using skateboard parks that do not use protective gear. This helps limit the exposure by the cities who adopt ordinances which require the use of safety equipment to use the facility. Also currently under consideration is AB 2357 which would add skateboarding to the list of hazardous recreation activities for which local governments enjoy limited immunity from liability. The Park and Recreation Commission discussed the appropriateness of a skateboard facility. The general view is that skateboarding and rollerblading will continue to be popular and that dedicated facilities might provide a fun place for recreation activities while reducing the risk that some individuals face skateboarding or rollerblading on sidewalks, streets, and parking lots. It is not possible to eliminate all inappropriate skate use but at least one facility may significantly reduce the risk to the skaters and others as well. The type and size of a skate facility was also discussed. The concluding view was that low-elevation convex and concave shapes, curbs, rails and speed bumps could provide a reasonable compromise between fun and safety. Since the height, width and slope will dictate the speed and difficulty for skaters using facilities, a fun and safe area is possible to develop. Several skate tracks have been successfully designed and used by others that embody this view. It is the Commission's feeling that the location should be central to the city and allow skaters to easily reach the park from most places in the city without having to cross any major streets, most notably Foothill Boulevard. A "pilot" skate facility might provide valuable insight as to community-wide uses, risks, and opportunities. SUMMARY The Park and Recreation Commission strongly believe that a skate facility is needed in the community. The Commission requests permission to delve more fully into the potential development of a skateboading facility. This would include researching potential sites, more in- depth study of the city existing programs and inquiry into potential funding sources. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager SO/kls Attachment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: October 19, 1995 Park and Recreation Commission Kathy Sorensen Recreation Superinten UPDATE ON SKATEBOARDING REQUEST At the June 1995 Commission meeting Mr. Marcus Soloman requested an update on the status of a skateboarding facility in the City. Staff is providing the following information for your review, discussion and direction. BACKGROUND The City of Rancho Cucamonga officially become involved in the skateboarding issue when the City Council passed an ordinance regulating skateboarding within the City. Since that time several meetings both public and informal have taken place on this issue. Attached for your historical perspective are the minutes of public meetings regarding this issue. The last time the skateboarding issue received any official action was during the City Council meeting of April 17, 1991 and the Park and Recreation Commission meeting of April 18, 1991. In brief the minutes state that the issue of insurance needs to be addressed, safety guidelines and standards need to be researched and that a Citizens Task Force be formed to study the issue. UPDATE ON ISSUES Insurance Currently, insurance pools which are used by self insured cities are providing insurance for "low risk" type of facilities. These facilities would include: snake runs with gentle slopes and curves, miscellaneous concrete curbs and elevated platforms around one foot high; concrete curved slopes or small banks not higher than three feet and large cement areas for general runs and tricks favored by "freestylers". Not insurable are vertical ramps, half-pipe, deep bowls. This is from a letter issued by our insurance carrier in 1990. Staff is in process of reviewing this activity with the Citys current insurance carrier. Once a finding is made staff will update the Commission. It is important to note that since 1991 several more municipal skateboard parks have opened an the insurance issue has been more recently addressed on more popular facility amenities being insurable. Skateboarding Park and Recreation Commission October 19, 1995 Page 2 Safety Issues Safety issues have not been directly discussed by staff. However, several cities do have these documents in place and would serve as good resource tools. Attached for your information is a copy of Assembly Bill # 2487 which become effective in January of 1993. This sets forth some additional protection language which provides legal sanctions on individuals using skateboard parks that do not use protective gear. This helps to limit the exposure by the cities who adopt ordinances as stated in the bill. Citizen Task Force No citizens task force has been convened on this issue. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Attached for your information is an article which appeared in the National Park and Recreation Association monthly magazine. I think it is helpful in understanding this issue. In talking with several cities their skateboard parks have been very well received and have had no major injuries reported. Skateboard parks are being used by rollerbladers as well. Cities also report that requests have been made for scheduled use by BMX bicycles. Within this general inland empire area the City of Claremont is researching a skateboarding park to be placed at their teen center located by the high school. The City of Temecula is building a lighted skateboard facility that will be the largest in Southern California. Staff has pictures which will be available for review at the meeting. This park will be open in early spring. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT SUPPLEMENT DATE: TO: FROM: By: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager William J. O~qeil, City Engineer Linda Beck, Jr. Engineer SUPPLEMENT TO CONSENT CALENDER ITEM NO. 14 RECOMMENDING THE AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT FOR HAVEN AVENUE STORM DRAIN AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS, FROM DEER CREEK CHANNEL TO BASE LINE ROAD, TO CALFON CONSTRUCTION, INCORPORATED, IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,745,642.90 ($2,496,039.00 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) BACKGROUND On May 14, 1996, bids were opened for the Haven Avenue Storm Drain and Street Improvements, from Deer Creek Channel to Base Line Road, the lowest responsive bidder is Calfon Construction, Incorporated, with a bid of $2,496,039.00. Engineering staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. Respectfully submitted, William J O~leil City Engineer WJO:LB:dlw Attachment Z 0 n,' 0 m n,0 ZZ cn ~ z 0 (~ nl MANNERINO JOHN D. MANNERINO SAL BRIGUGLtO MITCHELL ROTH May 7, 1996 THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL'S OFFICE 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Mr. Brad Buller THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMDNGA Planning Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 t11.4)"181., Re: Conditional Use Permit 96-04 / Balchak Dear Council Members and Mr. Buller: In order to more fully present our appeal, and to address the concerns of the planning staff, we hereby apply for a continuance of the currently calendared. hearing date of May 15, 1996, to June 5, 1996. Kindly respond to the undersigned at your first and earliest convenience. Your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this matter are most appreciated. Very JD~__ cc: Mr . Frank Balchak uly yours, .~INO & BRIGU IO 3h~ 9333 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE 110 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 / TEL (909)980-1100 / FAX (909)941-8610 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Mayor Pro d Council Member Paul Biane, City Council CDBG Ad hoc Committee-'~ffl. CDBG FUNDING ALLOCATION RECOMMENDATION At the City Council meeting on April 3, 1996, the CDBG Ad hoc Committee was requested to reconsider the joint North Town/YMCA After School Program and any additional Federal Budget fund reductions in order to make a recommendation relative to the Final CDBG 1996-1997 Application. Staff met with the applicants on one occasion and twice with the Ad hoc Committee. Based upon the final federal budget allocation of $998,000 ($26,000 less than last year) and revised North Town/ YMCA After School Program, and further examining all the existing programs and capital projects, the Ad hoc Committee recommends that the Tapia Via Street Project be reduced by $31,000 to a total of $91,244. This $31,000 reduction includes the $26,000 adjustment to the annual allocation and provides $5,000 to be allocated to the Noah Town/YMCA After School Program. RG, PB:gs o ~ < C ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~u = ~,-, o o o = ~ ~o ~ ~< ~ ~ ~ << z Z .~ ~ Z Z ~ O~ --~ ~ ~ --~ z = = z z ~o z Z z ~ ~ u~ ~ o ~ · ' - =o =< o= 6= 6 o z z z > > 8 ~ ~u ~ zu zu zu ,~ z z > ' < z _ O O z z c ~,, -- 0 ~. -- Z2 ;>' ' _.c u < ,., o z ~,, .~ < ._ z ~.~ ~- -- _ O o cj · '~ "' ~ >' Z ' ~ > < d "' "' ~ ..-: <: - _ . ,-.., L.j ~ , ~ .., d 0 ~ 0 0 0 0~ o o~ Z Z~ Z ~ ~< ZO Z o o o o o o ~ o Z < 0 .,.z, .co ,'.--n :7' ""' ,..., ~ ..~ O Z -- :/ ._, ,,,. _ > , .'~ ~ - ,., ,.;: ... ~ ~ .,, .-... ,.: -. .,, ,,-'~- 7._.. -_':"'.- ~_ 0 "' "' 7 -- .C. ..-. _ · ,..,.: .c. ;'.' "' -- o "' ' ~' E ~~~~~. ~! .'...... ............ PARK AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES OF THE FEBRUARY 2i, 1996 REGULAR MEETING A. CAIJ, TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga Park and Recreation Commission was held on Thursday, February 21, 1996, in the City Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. Present were: Commissioners: Chairperson Whitehead, Clopton, and Hahn. Hazegh and Punter absent. Staff Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II; and Kathy Scott, Administrative Secretary. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS/CITY COUNCIl, ACTION UPDATES No Announcements/Presentations/City Council Action Updates. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PURl ,IC No Communications from the Public. D. CONSENT CAI ,ENBAR MOTION: Moved by Clopton, seconded by Hahn to approve the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 18, 1996, as submitted. Motion carded: 3-0-2 (Hazegh, Punter absent). E. COMMISSION BUSINESS El. REPORT ON SKATEBOARD PARKS BY CHAIRMAN WHITEHEAD AND COMMISSIONER CI.OPTON - Commissioners and staff briefly reviewed the reports on skateboarding by Commissioner Whitehead and Commissioner Clopton. Attached to Commissioner Whitehead' s report was a fact sheet on the skate park for the City of Santa Rosa. Park &Recreation Commission I February 15, 1996 Chairperson Whitehead stated a meeting was held with staff and the skateboard subcommittee (Whitehead/Clopton) on January 25, 1996, at which time discussion focused on location, safety, hours of operation/staff, liabilities and size. He said a tour of the parks by the Commission was suggested to better evaluate the park locations. Also, at the meeting the plans for La Mission Park were reviewed. The consensus of the group was that La Mission Park might be the most appropriate location to "pilot test" a low-cost skateboard/roller blade facility, mainly as it contains a detention basin which would limit visibility of the area by adjoining homes and streets as well as make a natural setting for the design of the skate bowls frequently found in such facilities. Chairperson Whitehead said when the Committee looked at the plans it was estimated that the space would be approximately 5 to 6,000 square feet; however, he said the Santa Rosa skate park Architect suggested a minimum of 15,000 square feet. A short discussion ensued regarding the Santa Rosa skate park. No claims or lawsuits have been filed regarding that facility. Commissioner Clopton stated that staff needs to find out how such a facility will work in this community in an isolated but appropriate area which will give us a representative use of the park to get input from other sources, i.e., insurance, police, commtmity, before it's decided to put in another park. He felt the hands-on experience is important. Suzanne said with the current fiscal situation, that makes a lot of sense. Commissioner Hahn stated that at a previous meeting Marcus Solomon had an idea of maybe using funding ~'om a crime bill. Suzanne Ota stated staff would give Mr. Solomon a phone call and get some more feedback from him on this issue. SuTar!Ile Ota stated that staff would also contact the California Amateur Skateboard League in San Bernardino to attain more information. Commissioner Whitehead said what impressed him the most on the Santa Rosa park was that the problems were minimal. He said the only significant problem was the graffiti which was basically limited to the inside bowls of the skate park. Discussion ensued on the graffiti concern. Commissioner Clopton asked if it might not be advantageous for us to accept the fact that is going to happen and maybe have a design contest (murals) to paint those areas. Park &Recreation Commission 2 February 15, 1996 Suzanne Ota stated staff would check their resource "Youth at Risk," which is a book that provides a list of cities that have at risk youth programs. She said staff will check with other cities to find out what their experiences have been on this subject and report back to the Commission. She said some cities provide opportunities for the mural type of an in order to mitigate graffiti. Commissioner Hahn stated the City should'the stand that there will be no graffiti on the facility. Chairperson Whitehead said there needs to be a plan in place; to close it down when there is graffiti or go in and paint over it. Commissioner Hahn stated in her opinion it shotrid be closed down ifgraffiti takes place. She claims it costs the City thousands of dollars and even if it is their culture, it should not be allowed. She said maybe it could be self policed. Chairperson Whitehead said a plan needs to be in place on how to deal with graffiti. Commissioner Clopton stated that you control what you can control, but you don't try to control the impossible. He said it is easier to tell people what they can do and give them something constructive rather than say you can't do that, because as soon as you challenge them they will show you that they can do that. He said if you accept that their culture can be moderated to a point that it is acceptable to society then you have reached a compromise and now you have a situation that can be managed. Chairperson Whitehead said he is not saying how to handle it, but he felt that a plan needs to be in place prior to the project being funded. Commissioner Clopton said it needs to come up in meetings with the skateboarding groups, etc. to see if there can't be an arrangement worked out that is mutually acceptable. He added that they can be told that there are obligations to providing this facility and they need to maintain it and make sure that there is nothing that will adversely affect the image of the City. SuT_anne Ota said staff would like the opportunity to research the following subjects that were discussed, and because two commissioners are absent she suggested that this item be deferred to the March meeting: , talk to Marcus Solomon call the California Amateur Skateboard League , check on the graffiti issue talk to the Police about the possibility of a criminal justice grant consider other funding sources (check with Califomia Amateur Skateboard League and consider sponsorships) ACTION: Subject deferred to the regular meeting of March 1996, to allow staff the oppommity to research items listed above. Park &Recreation Commission 3 February 15, 1996 PARK & RECREATION COMMISSION ..3UBJECT: Skateboard Park Report FROM: Mark Whitehead DATE: February 15, 1996 Chairman COPIES TO: Community Services Dept. On Thursday Jan. 25, 1996 the skateboard subcommittee (Jim Clopton and myself) met with Suzanne Ota and Kathy Sorensen to discuss the issue of a skateboard park within the city. · Discussion centered around the following issues: · Location, · Safety, · Hours of operation and the need for city staff supervision, · Insurance liabilities, and · Size of the facility. Generally it was felt that the location should be central to the city and allow skaters to easily reach the park from anywhere within the city without having to cross any major streets, most notably Foothill Blvd. Also it should be located so as not to be a concern for park neighbors. A tour of the parks by the commission was suggested to evaluate current park locations. The plans for La Mission Park were also reviewed as it contains a detention basin which would limit visibility of the skate area by adjoining homes and streets as well as make a natural setting for the design of the skate bowls frequently found in these facilities. Safety for the skaters was discussed and by limiting the depth of the bowl areas to not more than 2 to 3 feet, injuries should be kept to a minimum. The City of Santa Cruz, which has had a skate facility since 1978 has not had any lawsuits due to accidents there. Hours and supervision was discussed and the general feeling that a site open during regular park hours (no lights) without supervision was best. Staff could have skateboard events programmed at the location. Insurance seems to be the main concern, however, most cities with facilities report minimal or no claims related to skateboards. Skateboarders usually do not report injuries because they fear that the facility will be shut down if there are a lot of claims or complaints. Finally, the size of the facility was discussed and the consensus was that it should be kept small to see the overall impact of such a park amenity. I also attended the CPRS Convention in San Diego on February 10, 1996 to sit in on a seminar on skate parks. The City of Santa Rosa presented information on their park which was opened in 1994. They have had less problems than expected and the facility is highly used. The architect that designed the facility took great pains to 'be sure to get youth involvement in the project, letting the youth select design elements and supervise the construction to be sure they would be happy withthe finished project. He has designed 9 skate parks so far and currently has 12 projects at various stages of development. The positives noted were that the facility is highly used, quiet, no gang problems, positive and friendly atmosphere (no fights), no drugs, and has somewhat decreased skateboarding in other parts of town. The negatives were an increase in vandalism in the park, possibly due to the isolated location, and graffiti. Santa Rosa has decided to allow graffiti within the skate park itself since it seems to be impossible to prevent but to continue to fight it everywhere else. They currently only paint it over when it is obscene. The City of Santa Rosa is self insured and feels that the skate park makes the sport safer by providing a somewhat controlled environment for the skaters. They also felt that they were already liable !or any skating in public areas, so in some ways the park may actually decrease their liability. It was also mentioned that a group exists in San Bernardino called the California Amateur Skateboard League that Santa Rosa hopes to work with in the future to program events at their facility. See the attached sheets for more information on the Santa Rosa facility. CITY OF SANTA ROSA SKATEPARK FACT SHEET (707) 543-3292 Opening Date: Architect: Construction Cost: Total Cost/Includes Design Size: Material: Layout: Hours of Operation: Supervision: Rules: In Line Allowed: Use: Claims/Lawsuitsanj u.ries: Liability: Problems: Overall Santa Rosa Evaluation: June 14, 1994 Ken Wormhoudt Landscape Architect 827 California Street Santa Cruz, CA 95060 (408) 426-8424 $119,000 $150,000 14,000 Square Feet Reinforced Concrete Three bowls connected by runs, fun box, curb, concrete aprons. Maximum bowl depth - 5'. Fenced to keep skateboards in and spectators protected - not gated. Layout attached. 6:00 A.M. to 9:00 P.M. PDT 6:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. PST These are the hours of operation of all Santa Rosa Parks. None - entry is free No bicycles, wear protective gear - see attached. Yes - it is a Skatepark not Skateboard Park - initial minor conflicts have been worked out by users. Heavily used - summer weekends will see 50 to 60 participants at one time, with a similar number watching. Users are 80% skateboarders, 20% in-liners, 98% male, age group primarily 12 - 18. About 70% local but with many visitors from Bay Area, Southern California, Oregon, Nevada & Arizona. No claims or lawsuits filed. Some injuries have been informally reported. City is seif-insured and has assumed risk City umbrella policy through a joint powers agreement specifically excludes coverage for skateparks at this time. Fewer than expected. GTaffiti is an issue on the skatepark, vandalism and trash have increased. High School across the street complained about truancy. Several marijuana arrests and complaints about underage drinking. No noise complaints, fight complaints or calls for police service. A major success with problems not much greater than incurred by any new youth serving facility in a City park. Very intensely used. A good feeling of ownership by the users. City intends to make several improvements by adding new fiatwork in Fall 1996. Skateboard Park Sign: SANTA ROSA SKATE PARK RULES FOR USE Skateboard and skates only - no bicycles Users are required to wear helmets, kneepads and elbow pads suitable to provide protection in the event of falls or collisions. S.R.M.C. 13-24.079 Please observe park hours, keep noise to a minimum and protect your skate park from graftiti and abuse. This is your park, please help to preserve it. WARNING Skateboarding is a hazardous recreational activity. Use of this facility may result in death, paralysis, brain damage, concussion, broken bones or other serious injury. Any use is at your own risk (California Government Code Section 831.7). tui~ign *: :KS11 WO:rl)rlhOTLdt Law4acape Architect ASLA 827 CalLfornia Street, Santa Crux, CA 98060 426-8424 GENERAL INFORJ~TION ABOUT SKATxmOARDERS AND SKATEBOARD TRACKS Skateboarding has been popular for about 30 years and has seen advancements in equipmen= from old style skateboards, with composite wheels, to the introduction of neoprene wheels, high efficiency bearings and the more resilient boards. Most skaters have learned to ska=e on city streets, sidewalks and other public and private places, but many cities have now passed, or are in the process of pas~ing, ordinances that prohibit skaters from skating on the streets and sidewalks. Skaters, left with no place to skate legally, have organized and have approached their city councils to request that their cities provide them with skateboard tracks, Just as cities provide tennis courts, basketball courts, soccer Tields, baseball and softball fields for other citizens of the community. A few cities have responded to the requests by skateboarders and have had skateboard tracks designed specifically for skateboarding, generally built within new or existing public parks. Due to the demands of skateboarders and to the growth of skateboarding as a sport, many other cities are exploring the possibility of having skateboard tracks designed and built in their communities. One of the objectives in building a skateboard track is to get skaterboarders off the city street and sidewalks, where skateboarding is dangerous, inappropriate and, in some cities,- prohibited. The primary objective, though, is to acknowledge that skateboarding is a sport and that a skateboard track would provide a place where skaters could enjoy their sport and improve their skating skills. The sport Of skateboarding is too new, and skateboard tracks are too few, to have generated a body o[ statistical information or design standards. While research has necessarily been subjective, some clear conclusions can be made: skateboarding is not as hazardQus as generally believed. While minor injuries may occur, serious life-threatening, or permanent injuries, are extremely rare. Whil~ the range in age of active skateboarders is from 10 to the mid-20's, the majority are in the 14 to 16 range and are almost excluaively male. On weekdays, the majority of skaters using a track will usually be young, local residents. On weekends, a number of skaters may arrive from out of town, when skateboarders of driving age will be attracted to the track. This may change if more cities had their own skateboard track. Skateboarders generally appreciate any track designed for them, based on lack of alternative places to skate. Most skaters behave responsibly and police themselves in order to retain their use of the track. The design of a skateboard track must include considerations for safety~ be economically feasible; be compatible with other uses if built in a public park; and not adversely impact any nearby residents. =t should incorporate features that allow skaters of different levels of ability to be challenged; it may contain convex and concave shapes in the form of bowls, ridges, valleys, channels, curbs, platforms, ramps and level areas. All features should be interconnected so that skaters can move continuously throughout and around the track. The design of the track should be a reasonable compromise between fun and safety. The height, width and slope of bowls, ridges, valleys and channels will dictate the speed and difficulty for skaters using the track. Vertical slopes and sharp edges should be eliminated from the design, with, instead, a gently rounded lip at the top edge of all slopes. This is not only for the safety of skaters but also for the safety of any non-skater who might wander onto the track and slide into ~ bowl instead of falling vertically into a bowl. It is essential that the design of the skateboard track should not only involve input from city staff'and the city's risk manager, but also involve input from skateboarders. During the design process, for every track that I have designed, I have met with a group of skateboarders in order to outline the objectives and goals for the project, including the safety requirements and necessary limitations. I have had the skateboarders work with modeling clay to enable them to present their ideas three dimensionally to me and to each other for comment. Working with clay allows them to easily visualize their ideas. By incorporating their ideas with my ideas, Z am able to build a scale model of the proposed track. This model is then presented to the skateboarders, the city~s staff and others who might be interested in the project, giving everyone involved an understanding of how the track will look when it is built. The design of a skateboard track should also include the area immediately adjacent to the track, possibly containing a mounded lawn area approximately 3 to 5 feet high, giving skateboarders and spectators a place to sit and watch the activity on the track. Trees and shrubs should be planted far enough away from the track to avoid leaves and twigs from falling on the track. Ground covers are likely to be trampled if planted too close to the track. Benches, fences, drinking fountalns, trash containers and restrooms should also be available for skaters and spectators. For all of the above reasons, locating a skateboard track within a park where other sport activlCes such as basketball courts, volleyball courts, tennis courts, soccer fields and baseball diamonds are located, seems natural, logical and definetly less expensive than locating a skateboard track in an isolated, undeveloped area. skateboard tracks require little maintenance, since skaters tend to keep the paved areas free of any litter. The area required for a skateboard crack may vary, depending on the available space, but generally 1/3 of an acre (a space approximately 120 feet by 120 feet) to 1/2 of an acre (a space approximately 145 feet by 145 feet) are sizes that allow enough space to incorporate bowls, valleys, ridges, channels, curbs,platforms and ramps into the design. The best paving material on which to skate, and for low maintenance, is reinforced concrete with a troweled smooth finish. The construction of a skateboard track is similar to construction of poured concrete walls, swimming pools and pavements requiring reinforcing and trowel finishing. Skateboard tracks I have designed and that have been built have ranged in cost from $65,000 to $100,000, depending on the size of the track, the complexity of the design and the topography of the site. Those costs, including material and labor provided by a contractor, cover shaping and compaction of the subgrade, steel reinforcing and concrete paving. Every city that explores the idea of building a skateboard track fac~s the problem of the city's liability regarding the track. Some skateboard tracks in cities are not officially designated or signed as skateboard tracks, but instead are described as scalprural, multi-use elements of the city park, where skate- boarding is not prohibited. No rules are posted, the tracks are not fenced and safety equipment is not required. The above school of thought is similar to some risk manager's position on the skateboard liability issue that there is risk inherent in any recreational activity or facility and that a skateboard track presents no greater Ttsk than the slides and swings in a park, recommending that the skateboard track not be posted with rules for use or requirements for safety equipment unless the city is able to staff it during operation and completely secure it during other times. Call~ornia passed a law in 1992 (Assembly Bill Number: AB 2487) providing liability immunity for skateboard facilities when a local government adopts an ordinance requtrln~ the posting of signs at the skateboard track requiring the wearing of safety equipment, including helmets, elbow and knee pads. On site supervision is not .required to see that the rules are lollowed. I designed the first municipal sksateboard track in a public park in Santa Cruz in 1978. Since that time I have consulted with over 160 communities throughout the United States and Canada that have requested information concerning skateboard tracks. Within the last few years I have designed skateboard tracks for the cities of Pale Alto, Napa, Santa Rosa and Pleasanton, California. I am presently working on the designs of tracks to be built in Wenarches, Washington, Portland, Oregon, Carson city and Henderson, Nevada, and in the California cities of Petaluma, Milpitas, Yucca Valley, Sonoma, Ventura, Arcata and Ojai. ' Please let me know if I can be of any further help to you. Cordially, Ken Wormhoudt Landscape Architect ASLA Ken Wormhoudt, Landscape Architect, has designed skateboard tracks throughout California and Nevada, working closely with Parks and Recreation Departments, Public Works Departments, Risk Managers and the skateboarders in each community. He has consulted with over 90 Parks and Recreation Departments within the United States and Canada on skateboard projects. Full design services include preliminary · / ~ models, working drawings, specifications !' and supervis~on of installation. Further information available upon request: Ken Wormhoudt Landsca · Architect 230 Alhan~l~ra Avenue Santa Cruz, CA 95062 Phone: (408) 426-8424 tTNITY]) SIcATF,11C}ARD.FEDF RATICJN,INC,,. dbe..m, ..........."C.A.S.L" ,81: "P.8. I." P.O. BOX 30004, SAN BEI~ARDLNO, CA., 92413 phone: (909)883-6176 far. (909)883-8036 pager: (800)518-9637 DAVE MOORE CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA tL~N-CHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91730 MARCH 6, 1996 DEAR DAVE, :'" IT APPEARS TI-L~T A NEW WAVE OF SKATEBOARDING E1VItKYSIAS~i IS 'FAKING PLACE. WE .'ARE ItAPPY 'rlIAT WITH THE CURRENT .RISE IN THE, NI.~tBERS OF SKATEBOARDER5 'HiE CITIES SEEM TO BE TAKING A MORE UNDERSTANDING VIEW A~ND ARE WII,I,ING TO PROVIDE A PLACE FOR ltlE~t WE HA,~E; RECEIVED AN I.NTCREA. SI_N'G NU~'iMBER OF CALLS SUCH AS YOURS, I1~' FACT ON TI4E SA,~iE DAY WE IIAD SPOKEN TO CAL CA~.iARA FRO~I THE CITY OF tlESPERIA CONCERNING THE POSSIBIBL1TV OF THE CITY PROVIDING A SKATEPARK. TO litIS END WE HAVE DECIDED TO USE THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE PROVIDED AND MAKE U~ A FORlq THAT WE CAN SE1NI) TO ALL LNTERESTED PARTIES. YOUR QUESTIONS ARE TYPICAL OF THE CONCERNS OF MOST PARTIES. N,'L~iES OF CON'FACTS IN OTHEP. CO~NITIES, PLANS THAT WE 'ARE ABLE TO SECURE, AND OTHER PERTL~rE~rF INFOI~tATION WILL BE ON THE ACC0~P~LNYING Sit EET, WE ARE PLANNING ON DOING TWO CON'TESTS I~N THE UPLAND AREA THIS U~YER. THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTNiENT IS CO-SPONSORING THIS E~,~r WITI[ US. CATHI' McCARTIIY IS RECREATION SERVICES MANAGER AND OUR CONTACT TIlERE. TIlE DATE OF THE FIRST EVENT IS APRIL 13-14/a\v THE, .~)UTH EAS.,T PARKING LOT OF ,~I~IORIAL PARK- lf YOU WOULI) I,IKE 'TO DROP BY AND SEE WHAT A CROSS SECTION OF SKATERS DO ON A STREET COURSE. THA_NK YOU VERY MT,rCH FOR YOUR INTFEREST IN PROVIDING A PLACE FOR'H{E SKATERS- IF THERE IS ANY OTHER ENFOR~MATION OR ANY WAY WE C~LN BE OF |IEI,P PLEASE DO NOT HESITATE TO CALL ON US. SINCERELY, SONJA M. CATAI,A~NO UNITEl} ICATEI 0A FEDERA TIO NJNC. dbss. ........... "CA.$.L.,, & "P.$.L." P.o. BOX 30004, SAN BERNARDLNO, CA., 92413 phone: (909)~83-6176 fax: (909)883-8036 piger: (800)S18-9637 IN ANSWER TO THE MANY REQUESTS WE HAVE RECEIVED CONCERNING THE POSSIBXLXTY OF MUNXCXPAL SKATEBOARD PARKS WE HAVE TRIED TO PUT TOGETHER AN INFOR~t~T~ON SHEET THAT WX~L BE OF HELP TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES. THE FOLLOWING XS A COMPLILATION FO QUESTIONS WE HAVE RECEIVED AND WE HOPE 1T WILL BE BENEF~CXAL TO YOU, 1. WHAT ARE THE TRENDS ~N SKATEBOARDING? Currently it appears that skateboarding is on a definite rise. Retail sales are up'and we are seeing increasing numbers of skateboarders joining our program. If the requests for information are an indication there is universal interest being shown in this sport. There are an increasing number of municpal skateparks, a sign that it isn't the liability bugaboo that it was thought to be in the Past. Currently there are operating parks located in Huntington Beach, Palo Alto, Pleasanton, Benecia, Santa Rosa, Santa Cruz, Nape, and Davis. TemecuXa has a park that will be opening soon. Privately oPerated parks are located at the Mission Valley YMCA, Encinitas YMCA, Skate Underground(Moreno Valley),Monterey Bay Skate Station. The Grind Skatepark(Sacramento), and several others in planning stages. These are just the California parks we know. 2. WHAT IS THE HISTORY ON SKATEBOARD ACCIDENTS~ IS INSURANCE AVAILABLE? ' Reliable information on skateboard injuries has always been difficult to come by. At one time, during the skateboarding heyday of the 70's & 80's, skateboarding appeared in the U.S. Department of Statistics report as #26..a£ter biking, boating, swimm~ng, etc. all common activities not considered to be highly dangerous. We have been told that insurance is available on an individual.basis but we do not have specific information. However, for municipall~ operated facilities there iea State law which, if posted at the facility, relieves the city of l~ability. (We do not have the code number but will try to obtain it for future reference.)., 3. Some concerns that have been expressed include graffiti, drugs, gangs, and the usual problems that might arise with a congregation of teens and pre-teens. Generally the persons with whom we have had contact have not found that the skateparks are generating alot of problems. Most skateparks are located in city parks or sportsparks with other recreational facilitites. What may be true in one area may not be so in another. We would suggest that you make a personal contact with some of the cities who have operating parks. We strongly urge that if you decide to build a skateboard facility that you enlist the help of several skaters in your area who you feel are responsible. mature, and reliable. Too many times cities have built unskateable facilities and then been disgruntled and disillusioned because they were not used. A skateboard par~ does not need to be "red" or high-risk, but it does need to be PAGE 2 3.(continued) designed so that there iS '~flow" and enough flat surface around the obstacles for adequate speed to utilize the course. This is a common complaint we have heard from the skaters. An on-going committee of several skaters, who appear to be leaders, should be formed to continue to meet with the city representative even after the completion of the park. This way there is a liason between you that will work to your advantage, put responsibiltY on ~he skaters in this group to keep your park trouble free. They will tend to police themselves if they feel they have had a voice in planning and ' rule making. = - We strongly advise fen~lng the area although some we have seen are not. 4.WItAT POSITIVE THING3 HAVE YOU H~ARD AND EXPERIENCED WITH THIS SPORT? As you might surmise...asking us to mention the positives of skateboarding is comparable to asking a house painter if you should paint your house! Just to name a few: Creates excerciee, promores friendships, helps physical dexterity and coordination, provides self esteem, can be done without having to have other r'team" members to participate ..... and many things too numerous to list. We would not be spending all the many, many volunteer hours with this organization for these many years had we not felt it to be a positive experience- 5.ARE THERE OTHER COMMENTS-GOOD OR BAD-THAT WE FEEL YOU SHOULD BE AWARE OF? Please This was pretty well covered in the last paragraph- be aware that tl~e average skateboarder in your co~nunity is your kid, the kid next door. the kid from school or church, and maybe, in some cases, the kid from 3uvenile hall ..... that is the kid that will probably get the greatest benefit of all. It has been our experience that skateboarders are "color blind", come in all ages and sizes, and are just about as good as you expect them to bel! Santa Rosa Recreation & Parks Contact:ShirleY Tucker for Mr. Montgomery 2060 W.College Ave. Santa ROsa, Ca. 95401 [h;(707)543-3738 Fex:(707)543-3736 City of Pleasanton Contact:Dan Diez 200 Old Bernal Ave. P.O.Box 520 pleasanton, Ca.94566 City oi Naps Contact:Gene plscla_Recreaton Superintendent 1100 West Street P.O- Box 660 Naps, Ca. 94559-0660 ph:(707)257-9529 Fax:(707)257-9532 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 15, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Rick Gomez, Community Development Director Willliam J. O'Neil, City Engine~ lVI~',ETING OF TIlE ROUTE 30 TASK FORCE The May meeting of the Task Force was held on Tuesday, the 14th, at 6:00 p.m., attended by thirteen members, one altemate and an audience of two. The agenda items discussed included landscaping, sound walls and lighting, track traffic and the draft resolution regarding the opening of the freeway. The Task Force was informed parking issues at Beryl Park will be considered by the City Council Parks and Recreation Subcommittee on May 15. The City Planner very briefly reviewed his report given last month on landscaping, lighting and sign plans for the Route 15/30 Interchange, which will set the tone for the entire Route 30 Corridor. A discussion ensued regarding the appropriate choice of trees for the center of the interchange area. Plans call for the trees to be Califomia Peppers and it was suggested a type of eucalyptus or even some other tree might be more appropriate. The concern of some Task Force members was the chosen trees potential for blocking the view of the interior of the interchange. The CulTruns representative explained view will not be a problem because the freeway ramps in this area are elevated so the motorists will be looking mostly down on the trees. Also, the theme of this location was to represent an orchard. Fruit trees were not chosen because of maintenance consideration, hence the pepper trees. The CulTruns representative explained the plans are complete and it is very late now to change the tree type, but he offered to have altematives considered by his staff and returned to the Task Force, along with the plans for its review. Joe O'Neil gave a report on the the discussion paper prepared for SANBAG in August of 1990 regarding restfiction of track traffic on Route 30. The report concluded such restrictions may not be desirable and, in any case, would require full concurrence of all cities along the route to be imposed. Task Force discussion then centered on protection of city streets from any truck traffic which might be imposed from trucks exiting Route 30. It was explained many regulations are currently in place but that new or stronger ones could be considered as the need arises in the future. A continuing desire by some Task Force Members to restrict trucks was expressed but CulTruns emphasized the undesirability of these restrictions and that both State and Federal authorities would oppose them. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT ROUTE 30 TASK FORCE May 15, 1996 Page 2 Further discussion about track traffic was. concerned with noise, particularly in the "at grade" section. It was explained the design of the freeway includes sound walls but several Task Force Members were concerned about whether the extent or design of the walls would be sufficient to achieve the mitigation desired by the City. The Task Force felt it would be appropriate for the City and State to continuously monitor sound and mitigate as required in the future, but also wanted a more in depth review of plans for sound walls. CalTrans suggested to make the Task Force review more meaningful, some members and City staff could be briefed on the basics of sound mitigation and offered to provide a brief training session to that end. The Task Force accepted the invitation and a session or sessions will be scheduled for sometime during the summer. The Task Force considered the draft Resolution recommending a single phase opening of the freeway and approved the draft Resolution to be sent to the City Council with changes making it specific to Rancho Cucamonga and to the phasing of the freeway opening only. The next regular meeting of the Task Force was scheduled for September with memorandums during the summer to provide information requested during the May meeting. ResPe~Citted' Rick Gom~ Cor:amunity Development Director RG:WJO:dlw