Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
1992/01/15 - Agenda Packet
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAiI MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. January 15, 1992 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 •a3 City Councilmembera Deunia L. Stout, Mayor William J. Alexander, Councilmember Charles J. Buquet, Councilmember Diane Williams, Councilmember Pamela J. Wright, Councilmember •a Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adema, City Cterk City Office: 989.1851 PAGE City Council Agenda January 15, 1992 1 All items submitted for the Ciip Council Agenda mutt ba in writing. The deedlive for submitting tbeae iiema is 5:00 p.m. on the Wednecday prior to the meeting. The City Cle rk'a Office receive• all such iiema. A_. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Call: Su quet _, Alexander _, Stout _, Williams _, and Wright B. ANNOVNCEId'N'fS/PRBSENTATIONS C. COMNUNIGTIONS PROM THE PUBLIC Thin is the time and place for the gaveral public to address the Citp Council. state law prohibila the City Council from edd reeaiag sny iaaw not prev ioualp included ov the Agenda. The City Covncil mey receive taativony and set the matter for a aubaequevi meeting. Commeat• are Lo De livited Lo five m ivutee per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR TDe following Consent Cal ender lien ere expected to be routine end von-controvenisl. They will De ectetl upon Dy the Council et one time without discussion. Any item may be removed bq a Ccuncilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutes: December 4, 1991 2. Approval of Wa rca nt e, Req Teter Noe. 1/2/92 and 1/8/92 i and Payroll ending 12/19/91 for the total amount of $3,491,621.80. 3- Approval to receive and file current Investment schedule fi as of December 31, 1991. 4. Approval of Map, execution of Improvement Agreement, 12 Improvement Security and ordering the Annexation to Land scope Nain[enance District No. 9 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nog. 1 and S for Tract 13945, located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of East Avenue, submitted by Citation Bu ildere. PAGE City council Agenda Sanu ary 15, 1392 2 RESOLUTION NO. 92-012 14 A RE50L'JTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFOANI A, APPROVING TRACT MAP N0. 13945, :MPROVF.MENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 92-013 15 A R^c50LUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNE%ATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OISTRI C? NO. 8 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 8 FOR TPACT 13945 5. Approval to order the Annexation to Landscape 2p Maintenance District No. 3 and Street Lighting Mdi ntenance District Noe. 1 and 6 foz OR 89-13, located on the west side of Red oak Street, north of Civic Center ^rive, submit tea by Mighty Development, Incorporated. RESOLUTION NO. 92-014 21 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNE%ATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 89-13 6. Approval to award and authorize for execution of ~fi contract (CO 92-002 for Haven Avenue Improvements at the Atch ieo n, Topeka and Santa Fe to Eob Britton, Incorporated, for the amount of $65,910.24 ($59,918.40 piue 108 contingency) to be funded from Syeteme Development Fund Account No. 22-4637-AA51. 7. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extena ion Eor z,l Tracts 13303, 13303-1 and 13303-2 located on the southwest co: nor of Mountain View Drive and Terra Vista Par kway submitted by Lewis Development Company. PAGE City Council Aganda Sanuary 15, 1992 3 RESOLUTION NO. 92-015 31 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RA2!CHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACTS 13303, 13303-1 ANO 13303-2 e. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bond for the 37 following improvement prof acts: (CO 89-031) 19th street and Haven Avenue Intersection Improvements; (CO 89-075) Ease Line Parkway 6eautif; cat ion Improvement e; (CO 89- 100) Carnelian Eaet Side Parkway eeaut if Leation Improvamenta from Vineyard to Base Line; (CO 89-104) Hillside Roatl Aeconetruction from Nermoea to Mayberry; (CO 09-106) Sierra Madre artd Placida Court Improvamenta from Arrow to Via Carrillo; and (CO 89-013) Haven Avenue Median Phase III, south of Lemon north of Wilson. 9. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bonds Eor the 33 following improvement projects: (CO 89-114) Traffic Sig nale at Baae Line-Ramona, Base Line-Valencia, Heven- Victoria; (CO 89-135) Victoria Street Improvements, East Ave nve to Etiwanda Htgh school; (CO 89-141) Vineyard Improvements at AT 6 SF Croee ing; (CO 89-168) Etiwanda Avenue Cobblestone Curb and Guiier; (CO 89-169) Hidden Farm Aoad Box Culvert; (CO 89-1751 Traffic signals at Haven-7th, Archibald-Lemon; and (CO 89-025) Alta Lema Storm Drain (ASaeeement Diat rict 84-2) improvements. 10. Approval to release Maintenance Guarantee Bantle for 3n Tracts 11606-I, 11606-2, 11606-3, 11606-4, and 11606 Storm Drain located on tF,e south aide of Victoria Street between Haven Avenue and Deer Creek Channel. Role see Maintenance Guarantee Bond: Tract 11506-1 540,300.00 Tract 11506-2 $2'1,600.00 Tract 11606-3 531,800.00 Tract 11606-4 519,000,00 Ttact 11606 Storm Drain 522,000.00 PAGE City Council Agenda January 15, 1992 4 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hea rivgs •t the Lime of firm read ivg. Secovd raedings ere erpectetl to ba routive evd vov-covtravers iel. They will be acted upov by the COUVCil at ova time without diacuasiop. The City Clark will reed the title. Any item can be removed for diacussiov. No items submitted. F. ADYERTI SED PVBLIC EEAAIN6S TDe following items hnve Deen advertised and/or po ated as public hesrivga ea required by Lw. The Chsir will opev thm meetivg to Yeceiva public testimony. 1. REVIEW OF CVRRENT CITY AEGVLATIONS AFFECTING STORAGE AND . ~5 PARKING OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLES ON PRIVATE RESIDENTIAL PROPERT S. ODIFIV•A IO S TO T E%I I G ORDINANCE WSLL BE CONSIDERED (COVtlnned from October 16, 1991 meetivg) ORDINANCE N0. 683 (to include 3 options for con aide ration) ~i;lOn 91 Pn, S~ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE (h>r.1011 L`7 r'n. 53 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 17.08.070-C AND ADDING A ~ItinP u3 nn, y~ NEW SECTION 17.08.070-E TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL cone PERTAINING TO THE REGVLATION OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 2. CONSIDERATION OF UpDATZ NG THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF r V INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED CITY PERSONNEL PURSUANT TO ~ THE PFOVISIONS OF THE POLI"'Z CAL REFORM ACT OF 1974 CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 81000 ET SED. RESOLUTION NO. 80-049C (0 A RESO[UTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMEf1D INC THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESSG NATED CITY PERSONNEL 3. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT THE FINAL DRAFT OF A8 939 EY 6) RESOLUTION (Continued from December 1B, 1991) STAFF REQUESTS CONTINUANCE TO MAACK d, 1991, PAGE city Council Agenda January 15, 1992 5 0 PVHLIC 0E11AINCS The following items hsve um legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public teatimovy. No iteme submitted. H CITY MANAGER'S STAPP REPORTS Tba following items do not lsgmllp require sop public testiwvy, although the Chaix rap open the meeting for public input. No items submitted. I COUNCIL DVSINESS The following items have beso requested by the Citp Couoeil for discussion. Thep era vnt public hearing items, although the Chair up opev the meeting for public input. 1. APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION URGING THE REINSTALLATION OF fi4 THE BARYON PLAZA NAME AE60LVTION NO. 92-016 fid A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, llRG ING WESTINGHOUSE CREDIT CORPORATION TO REINSTALL THE NAME BARYON PLAZA J. IDENTIPICATION OP ITEMS POR NEST NEETIND This is the Lima for City Council to identify the items they vish to discuss st the wart vesting. These iron will vot bm tliscuesed et thin meeting, only idevtif ied for the Wert meet ivg. PAGE City Council Agenda January 15, 1992 6 R. COM./fJNIGTIOBB FRON TR6 PVSLI` Thi• is the tlma end place for the general public to eddrmw the City Council. Stets lsm prohibits the Citp Council from addressing say issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testisony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Coment• are to be limited to five minutes per individual. L. ADJOORNMENT I, ^ebra J. Adana, City Clezk of the City of Rancho Cucanronga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was pooled on January 10, 1992, seventy-two (72) hours prior Lc the meeting par Government Code SG953 at 10500 Civic Cen[ez Drive. December 4, 1991 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Regular Meeting A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, December 4, 1991, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Ce n[er, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Present were councilmembe re: William J. Alexander, Charles J. Ru goat II, Diane Williams, Pamela J. Wright, and Mayor Dennis L. Stout. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Dan ie le, Deputy City Manager; Jerry B. Fu lwood, Deputy City Manager; Rick Come z, community Development Director; Olen Jones, Sr. ADA Analyst; Jan Reynolds, Assistant RDA Analyst; Brad Bu Lle r, city Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Cindy rvorris, Aa eociate Planner; Joe o'Nei1, City Engineer; shintu eoae, Deputy City Engineer; Cindy Nackett, Associate Engineer; Jo Lynne Russo, Integrated Waste Management coor di.nato r; Sim Hart, Administrative sere ices Director; Duane Baker, Assistant to the City Manager; Diane O'Neal, M.a nagement Analyst II; Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I; chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fixe Protection District; Capt. Bruce Zeiner, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. . . x . . . E. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Mayor Stout i:a roduced Jo Lynne Russo, Integrated Waste Management Coo r.dinator, who woald be working for Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. B2. Con ncilmember Bu goat reported that Rancho Cucamonga'a CHOICES program was reccgo ized at SANDAG. 0. COMMVNTCATI ONS FROM TEE PUBLIC C1. Jack Williams stated he was before the Council on behalf of RCMORE, which represents seven mobile home parka in Rancho Cucamonga. He stated there seems to be an impasse in resolving the problems with the Accord. Ne stated the pa rY, owners are adamant in increasing rents. He stated the City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 2 residents are equally firm in not buckling under to the ownere• demands. He added a meeting ie scheduled on December 7 with the Council Subcommittee, the park ownere and the mobile home residents. He stated because of the short time span when the Accord will expire, the residents are extremely apprehensive and frustrated that the problem will not be resolved in the remaining !ime. He asked that the Council see to it that the contents of the Accord are preserved. He hoped that the Council would continue to help to stabilize the rents for mobile home resident a. He stated the Accord was originally developetl because of the rent increases brought about by the park ownere. Hs asked that this subject be added to the City Council agenda for the December 18 meeting. x . . . . + D. CONSENT CALENDAR D1. Approval of Hinutee: Eeptember 2S, 1991 (BUquet absent) D2. Approval of Warrants, Aeg Teter Noe. 11/14/91, 11/20/91 and 11/25/91; and Payroll ending 11/'7/91 for the total amount of $2,568,910.17. D3. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale Beer 6 Wine Eating Place for China Land Buffet, Frank 6 Lily Wang, 9255 Baee Line Rcad, JL. D4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On sale Beer 6 Wine Eating Place for Cucamonga Taco Hut, Maria M. and Mo Tees T. .Iota inde, 9451 Poothill Boulevard. D6. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sale Beer 6 Wine Eating Place for Roy a1 Panda, Roger 6 Vicki Chi and Li Hua 6 Wil ion Pinq, 8740 ease Line Aoad. D6. Approval of the repayment and reborrowing of the annual loan between the City and Redevelopment Agency. D7. Approval and execution of the Coat and Maintenance Agreement (CO 91-OB1) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company foz the Proposed 7th Street Spur Crossing, inc`uding both street and storm drain improvements (part of AD 82-1) at the Atchison, Topeka antl Santa Fe Railway Crossing Dee ignored PUC No. 2-91.6-C north of Sixth Street. AESOLVTION NO. 91-369 A AESOLU'IION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO C[ICAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECVTION AND SIGNING OF THE COST ANO MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT FOA THE CONSTRVCTION OF THF. 7TH STREET STORM DRAIN AND RAILROAD CROSSING IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN 6TN STREET AND 7TH STREET D8. Approval to award and authorize the execution of a contract (CO 91-082) fot a shopping center parking study to P 6 D Technologies foc the amount of $29,880.00, to be funded from fens depoe it ed by Hughes Investments and Lewis Homes Management Coxpo ration. City Council Manatee December 4, 1991 Page 3 09. Approval to execute Contract Change Order No. 3 (CO 90-052) for Professional Services Agreement wLth Centennial Civil Engineers, Incorporated, Foothill Boulevard Implementation Plan, Phase I, for $25,604.00 to be paid from Redevelopment Agency Account Number 15-50200. D10. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement Becurit Lee and acceptance of Real Property Improvement Contract and Lien Agreement for a single family ree idence, located on 5291 Sapphire Street, submitted by James A. Brown and Joyce W. Brown. RESOLUTION N0. 91-370 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR 5291 SAPPHIRE STREET RESOLUTION NO. 91-371 A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING A REAL PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT CONTRACT AND LIEN AGREEMENT FROM JAMES A. BROWN AND JOYCE W. BROWN AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERA TO SIGN THE SAME D11. Approval to execute improvement Agreement Extension for Tract 13270, located on the northwest corner o£ Milliken Avenue and Church Streetr submitted by Lewis Nomee. RESOLUTION NO. 91-372 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFOAN IA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT E%TENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY POA TRACT 13270 D12. Approval to accept Improvements and Release of Bond for DA 87-20, located on the northeast corner of Hermosa Avenge and 6th Street. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $ 2,000.00 RESOLUTION NO. 91-373 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOA DR 87-20 D13. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of 0onde and Notice of Completion tar Milliken Avenue Median Landecaping, located on Milliken Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Baee Line Road. Re le see: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $475,248.00 City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 4 RESOLUTION NO. 91-374 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAN.ONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR MILLIREN AVENUE MEDIAN LANDSCAPING AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexandez to approve the Consent Calendar. M.ot ion carried unanimously, 5-0. H. CONHHNT ORDINANCES E1. CONSIDEAATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSH NT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-C1 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of a request to amend Title 17, Chapter 17.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Cade to eliminate compact parking spaces antl reduce the standard size parking space to 9 feet by 18 feet. (Continued from November 6, 1991) (ITEM PULLED FOR DISCVSSION HY COUNC ILMENBER ALESANDEA) Councilmember Alexander stated he thought after this matter was studied further, it would come back to the Council fur further discussion. He stated he did not think the additional asphalt would make a difference, and did not want to see any more asphalt in a shopping center than was necessary. Ne added he would like to see this reconsidered. Councilmember Williams stated for the Comunezcial/Retail, she liked the 9 feet spaces, but for Rea id ential (multi-family), she ditl not think it was a problem to go with 8.5 feet spaces. She stated she is still having a problem with the Of.f ice Use parking spaces where cars would be parked all day at a location. Mayor Stout stated the large stores are requesting that parking spaces be 9 feet. Ne did not think the length made that much dif Eerence, but felt they shoo ld be 9 feet. He stated he was not as adamant about roe ident ial parking spaces, that he would go either way. Councilmember Williams stated she liked 9 feet for commercial. coo nc ilmember Alexander stated he would qo along with that. Councilmember Eu gust stated he did not have a problem with the ordinance remaining at 9 Eeet. Cou nc is member Wrighc stated she felt consideration should be given to the developers, but also felt the 9 feet space should be approved. Councilmember Alexander stated he would go ahead with the 9' space, but wondered why we ask for a study to be done and then change the recommendation. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 462 City Council Hinutee December 4, 1991 Pages 5 ORDINANCE NO. 462 (eecond reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CAL IFOANIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 91-01, AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 1].12 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, ELININAT ING COMPACT PAREING SPACES AND AEDUCTNG THE STANDARD SIZE PARKING EPACE TO 9 FEET BY 18 FEET, AND HARING FI NOINGS IN SVPPORT THEREOF NOTION: Moved by Wright, seconded by Stout to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 462. Motior. carried 3-2 (Alexander, Williams no). t R M t• f E2. CONSI DEAATION OP ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-OS - CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Consideration of a request to amend Part III of the Indu at rial Specific Plan to eliminate compact parking epanea. (Continued from November 6, 1991) Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 4fi 3. ORDINANCE NO. 463 (eecond reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-01, ELIMINATING COMPACT PARKING SPACES, AND MAKING FI NOINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF NOTION: Novetl by Williams, seconded by Alexander to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 463. Motion carried unan imouely, 5-0. • • r • • w E3. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ETI WANDA EPECI FIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amentl the Etiwanda Specific Plan Lantl Use Map from Medium Residential (5-14 dwelling unite par acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-R dwelling unite per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Speclf is Plan: (5) Approz imately 10.09 acres bordered on the north and west 6y exLet ing Low Medium Residential designated land, on the east by exietinq Office designated land, and on the south by Raee Line Road. The City will cone itler Office Professional as an alternative land use for this entire area - APN: 22'1-131-34 through 36, 52, and 53. (6) Approximately 10.00 acres bordered on the north by the Southern Pacific Railway, on the east by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the south by existing office designated land, and nn the west by exietinq Low Medium designated land and divided in a north-south direction by Eaet Avenue. The CLty will coneitler Low Ree Ldent ial (2-4 dwelling unite per acre( ae an alternative Lend use for this entire area - APN: 227-131-OS and 227-141-14 and 66. City council Ninutee December 4, 1991 Page 6 Debra 1. Adams, city Clerk, read the titre of Ordinance No. 453 ORDINANCE NO. 453 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETS WANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA 5, TD AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM AES IDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-S DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.09 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTH AND NEST BY EXISTING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, ON THE EAST BY EXISTING OFFICE/PAOPESS IONAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY BASE LINE ROAD, AND HAI(I NG PINOINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-131-34 THROUGH 36, 52, AND 93 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander to waive full reading and approve Ordinance No. 453. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. ORDINANCS NUMRER 454 PVLLED FOR DISCUSSION BY COVNCIII~DlER WRIGRT. Counci lmember Wright stated she had this item removed because she had previously voted no, and wanted her vote to remain consistent. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 454. ORDINANCE NO. 454 (second leading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALI FOANIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91 -03, WEST PORTION OF SUEAREA 6, TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFZC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (B-34 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-B DWELLING UNITE PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 10.00 ACRES OF LAND BORDERC^D ON THE NOATN BY THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILWAY, ON THE EAST BY EAST AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH BY EXISTING OFFICE DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE WEST BY EXISTING LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND - ApN: 227-141-14 AND 66, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and approve ordinance No 454. Motion carried 4-1 (Wright no). . . • . . E4. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the General Plan Land Use Map within the Victoria Planned Community ae deecr ibed below: (1) From Medium Hlgh Residential (14-24 d:ae lling unite per acre) to Med tum Residential (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) Eor the following subareas: City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 7 B. For 19.3 acres of land located on the north side of Baee Line Aead, we et of Victoria Park Lane, and east of the RV self storage f aciLity. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN: 227- 091-14 and 15. C. Por 21.77 acres of land located on the northwest earner of Baee Line Aoad and the future Day Creek Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN: Portion of 227-091-1B ahd 19, 227-091-20 through 22, and 227-091-43. D, For 7.895 acres of Land locatetl between approximately 1x000 feet and 1,300 feet south of Highland Avenue on the we et aide of the future Day Creek Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. (2) From Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling unite per acre) to Low Medium Residential (9-8 dwelling unite per acre) for the following subareas: N. For 23.03 acres of land located on the soot heaet cornea of Victoria Park Lane antl Rochester Avenue. The Planning Cortmieeion recommends approval - APN: 227-091-51. I. For 32.14 ac ree of land located on the northeast corner of Base Line Road and Rochester Avenue. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN: 227-091-45 and 46 and a portion of 227-091-44. J. For 20.895 acres of land approximately 892 feet north of the future Victoria Park Lane extension on the west aide of the future Day Creek Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommends approval - P.PN: Portion of 227-021-03 end 13. (3) From Medium High Re cadential (14-24 dwelling unite per acre) to Community Facilities for the following subarea: L. For 2.46 ac ree of land approximately 406 feet south of the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way and approximately 321 Eeet weer of the future Day Creek Boulevard. The Planning Commission recommends approval - APN: Portion of 227-091-18 and 19. (4) From Hedi,um High Residential (14-24 dwelling unite per acre) to Village Commercial Eor the fol Lowing subarea: M. For 7.895 acres of land located between approximately fi00 feet and 1,000 feet south of Highland Avenue on the west aide of the £utuce Day Creek Boulevard. The Planr~Lng Commission recommends approval - APN: Portion of 227-021-03 and 13. O ebra J. Adams read the tit lee of Ordinance Noe. 470, 471, 472, 475, 476, 477, 478 and 479. City COVncil Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 8 OAD INANCE NO. 470 (eecond reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA B, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) TO F.EDIUM AEBIbENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING VNITS PER ACRE) FOA 19.3 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, WEST OF VICTORIA PARR LANE, AND MAKING F INDINCS TN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-14 AND 15 ORDINANCE NO. 471 (eecond reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALI PORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA C, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND URE MAP FROM MEDIUM-HICN [tESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO MEOIVM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING llNITS YEA ACRE) FOR 21.77 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNEA OF BASE LINE ROAD AND THE PUTVRE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OP 227-091-18 AND 19, 227-091-20 THROUGH 22, AND 227- 091-43 ORDINANCE NO. 472 (eecond reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONGA, CALIPOAN IA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA D, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMNUN ITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIVM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (16-24 DWELLING UNITS PER ACAS) TO MEDIVM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 7.895 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET AND 1,300 PEST SOUTH OP HIGHLAND AVENUE AND ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FVTUAE DAY CAEEX BWLEVAAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 227- 021-03 ANO 13 ORDINANCE NO. 475 (eecond reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF TH$ CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAL IFOAN IA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMVNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA H, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PIJMNED COMMUNITY LAND UGE MAP FROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING VNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (d-8 DWELLING VNITS PER ACRE) FOR 23.03 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNEA OF VICTORIA PARR LANE AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN; 227-091-51 City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 9 ORDINANCE NO. 476 (second Leading) AN OAD INANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA I, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP PROM MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4-B DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) FOR 32.14 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTHfiAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-091-46 AND 46 ANO A PORTION OP 227-091-44 ORDINANCE NO. d77 (eecantl reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA~ CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA J, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP PROH MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (R-14 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACRE) TO LOW-MEDIVM RESIDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 20.895 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY E92 FEET NORTH OF THE FVTVRE VICTORIA PARX LANE EXTENSION ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FUTURE DAY CREEA BOULEVARD, AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 227-021-03 AND 13 ORDINANCE NO. 478 (second reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COVNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUBAREA L, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM-NI G:{ RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PEA ACAS) TO COMMUN7TY FACILITIES FOR 2.46 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 406 FEET SOUTH OF THE SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY AND APPROXIMATELY 321 FEET WEST OF THE FUTVRE DAY CAEER BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 227-091-18 AND 19 ORDINANCE NO. 479 (eecontl reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY AMENDMENT 91-03, SUEAREA M, AMENDING THE VICTORIA PLANNED COMMUNITY LAND USE MAP FROH MEDIUM-HIGH RESIDENTIAL (14-24 DWELLING UNITS PF.R ACRE) TO VILLAGE COMMERCIAL FOA 7.898 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED BETWEEN APPROXIMATELY fi00 FEET AND 1,000 FEET SOUTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THP. FUTURE DAY CREEK BOULEVARD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: PORTION OF 227-021-03 AND 13 City Council Minutes Cecember 4, 1991 Page l0 MOTION: Roved by Wi lliame, seconded by Alexander to waive full reading and approve Ordinance Nos. 470, 471, 472, 475, 476, 477, 47A and 479. Motion carried unanimously, 5-D. • r R w R P. ADVERTISED PUBLIC BEARIN63 F1. CONS IDEPATION OF ENVIRON NTA.. ASSESS NT AND DEVELOP NT CODE NDILNT 91-04 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Section 17.12.040 regartli ng bicycle storage requirements and Section 17.08.070 regarding trail maintenance requirements. Staff report presented by Dan Coleman, Principal Planner. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Adams read the title of Ordinance No. 480. ORDINANCE NO. 480 (f itst reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CllCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 91-06, AMENDING TITLE 17, SECTION 17.12 .040.C.4 OP THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING BICYCLE STORACfi FACILITIES AND AMENDING TITLE 17, SECTION 17. OE.070 REGARDING TRAIL MAINTENANCH STANDARDS MOTION: Move6 by Alexander, secondetl by Will fame to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. 6H0 for the December 18, 1991 meeting. Motion carried unanimously, 5-D. f R • A f F2. CONS IDEAATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIPIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-OS - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend Part III, Section tV. F. regarding bicycle storage requirement e. Staff report presented by Dan Coleman, Principal Planner. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing was closed. Debra J. Aflame read the title of Ordinance No. 481. ORDINANCE NO. 4B1 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI PORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-OR, AMENDING FART III, SECTION IV. F., REGARDING BICYCLE STORAGE FACILITIES City Council Minutes December 6, 1991 Page 11 MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Williams to waive full reading and set second reading of Ordinance No. del for the December 18, 1991 meeting. Notion carrietl unanimously, 5-0. F3. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF DENIAL FOA THE PLACEMENT OF A WALL SIGN NITHIN THE TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER - LEWIS HOMES - Cone ideration of an appeal of the Planning Commiselon•e decie ion to deny the request to place a wall sign on the tower of euilding G within the Tetra Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-421-0E, 06, and 18. Staff report presented by Nancy Fong, Senior Planner. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public Rearing. Addressing the City Council were: Richard Hajor, western Land Properties, explained their position for thei5a appeal, and Ee It the sign ehou ld be allowed to be placed on Che tower area and not on the grill work. Hike Laeley, Lewis Homes, stated he fel! the sign should remain above the tower area ae originally proposed. He et ated if the sign was to be lowered, it would be costly to relocate it. Jeff Stern, representing $e Clothing Stores advert ieing, informed the Council if the sign had to be lowered, the size of the letters would have to be smaller, which he felt would have an impact on the public's awazeneea. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed Councilmember Williams stated she did not think the sign on the tower would detract from the design of the building, and did not want anything to change with the grill Work. Mayor Stout gave hackground on the design of this project. Ne also stated signs are to let the public be aware of the store housed there. He stated he did not think the grill work ehou ld be covered up, and felt the sign should 6e allowed to be placed on the tower. Councilmember Buquet et ated he waa not sure it was a good idea to put the sign on the tower, and felt there should be abetter place even other than the grill work area. Counc iimember Wright stated she agreed with Councilmember Buquet, and stated that she felt it stuck out and felt the sign should not be allowed to be left on the tower. Councilmember Alexander et ated he agreed with Mayor Stout and Counc llmember Williams. City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 12 RESOLVT ION NO. 91-375 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO COCAHONGA. CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND VPHOLDING THE PLANNING COt41I SSI0N'S DECISION TO DENY THE REQUEST TO PLACE A WALL SIGN ON THE TOHHR OF BUILD INC G WITHIN THE TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNEA OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HAVEN AVENUE ANO MAEING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-421-Ob, 06 AND lb MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Williams to direct staff to bring back a Resolution granting the appeal and approve the application. Motion carried 3-2 (BUquet, Wright no). • • « x ~ ~ F4. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTIONS RvLATING TO THE FORMATION OF MELLO-ROO_B COMMUNITY PACI CITIES DISTRICT 91-1 (Continued froo November 20, 1991) James Markman, City Attorneys stated a court reporter was present which would be preparing a transcript to De made part of the record if anyone was interested In receiving it. (Refer to Exhibit ^A" which ie attached). RESOLUTION N0. 93-376 A RESOLUTION OP THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THE NECESSITY TO INCUR BONDED INDEBTEDNESS IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,000,000.00 WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CALLING AN ELECTION MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Buquet to approve Reeo lotion No. 91-376. Motion carried unan imouely, 5-0. RESOLUTION NO. 91-383 ESTABLISHING COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY), AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TA% NITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT N0. 91-1 (VICTORIA COMMUNITY) ANO CALLING AN ELECTION MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Stout to approve Re eo lotion No. 91-3R3. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. + w • n r « Mayor Stout called a recess at 9:25 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:45 p.m. with all members of Council present. • R , 4 • ~ City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 13 F5. REVIEW OF COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY lCHASI - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - The CHAS provides review of housing needs and market conditions into a format designed to determine priorities for investment over a five-year period. A one-year. action plan then translates the five year goals and available resources into plans and programs for the number of persons to be assisted in the coming year. staff report presented by Cintly Norris, Associate Planner. She also referred to a letter given to her this evening from the California Partnership for Affordable Housing and commented on their questions. Councilmember Buquet asked if staff would be responding to all o£ the letters received. Cindy Norris, Associate Planner, stated staff could do this. Maycr Stout stated he wished people would distribute the material to the City Council sooner than the night of the meeting. Its also added this matter is something the state is requiring. Mayor stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were: Prank Williams, BIA, stated he submitted a letter this date for the City Council to review. He stated Part III of the plan refers to developing an ordinance and that they would like to be a part of developing that ordinance. Joe Oleson, Lewis Homes, read into the record their pod it ion, which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. He also commended staff for their efforts in working with them or, this matter. Jeff Bu rum, 6057 Della, California Partnership for Affordable Housing, commented on the letter they had submitted this evening to the City Council. There being no further zesponse, the public hearing was closed. councilmember Williams stated that none of the numbers are in atone at this time, and if something needed to be changed, it could be done. She et ated she felt Rancho Cucamonga was moving forward at a very rapid pace. RESOLUTION NO. 91-3]7 A RF.S OIATION OF TI{E CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TIIE COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING AFFORDARILITY STRATEGY (CHAS) AS 1'HE ACCEPTED STRATEGY TO G'v'IDE NOVSING ASSISTANCE DECISIONS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK CRA NT PROGRAM AND OTHER F F.D ERAL ASSISTANCE HOUSING PROGRAMS, AND MAKZNG FINDINGS IN SVpPO RT THEREOF NOTION: Moved by Wil liam e, seconded by Alexander to approve Resolution No. 91- 3"/7. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 14 G. PDRLIC BEARINGS G1. CONSIDEAP.TI ON OF A RESOLUTION REGARDING THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT EE-2 CONSISTENT WITH AGREEMENT CO E9-111 AS APPROVED RY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 21. 19 E9 Staff report presented by Duane Raker, Assistant to the City Manager. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council was: Revin Poh lson, Caryn Company, thanked City staff and offered any assistance the city might need for this project. There being no further response, the public hearing was closed. RESOLUTION NO. 91-3]A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF BONDS, APPROVING BOND PURCHASE CONTRACT, APPROVING BOND INDENTURE AND PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT FOR COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT BB-2 MOTION: Moved by Stout, secondetl by Bu quet to approve Ae so lotion No. 91-378. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. R. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS H1- CONSIDERATION OF RECOMMENDATION TO FIND NORDIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. DEVELOPER OF TRACT 1199]. IN DEFAULT OF THEIR IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT DATED MAY 7, 1987 AI'ID EXTENSION DATFO JUNE 15. 1988 AND AUTHORIZE LEGAL STAFF TO CAUSE THE DEVE LOPEA'S SURETY DEVFI OPERS INSURANCE COMPANY. FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND NO_ 9460775 TO COMPLETE ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SAID TRACT PURSUANT TO THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS Staff report presented by Joe O'Neil, City Engineer. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public comments. There being no response, the public comments were closed. RESOLUTION NO. 91-379 A RESOL'JTTON OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FINDTNG NORDIC DEVELOPMENT COMPANY IN DEFAULT OF THEIR IMPAOVEMF.NT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 11997, AND AUTFIORI2ING LEGAL STAFF' TO CAUSE THE DEVELOPER'S SURETY COMPANY TO CORRECT EXISTING DEFICIENT IMPROVEMENTS AND COMPLETE ALL REMAINING IMPROVEMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PURSUANT TO THE AGREEMENT City Council Minutes December 4r 1991 Page 15 MOTION: Moved Dy Buquet, seconded by Alexander to approve Resolution No. 91-379. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. H2. CONSZDEPATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND ET IWANDA SPECIFIC P A AMENDMENT 91-03 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A proposal to amend the Et iwanda SpeciE is Plan Land Dee Hap from Medium Residential (R-la dwelling units per acre) to Low Medium Residential (4-8 dwelling unite per acre) for the following subareas within the Etiwanda Specific Plan: (Continued froo Nove~Der 20, 1991) (3) Approximately 11.2 acres bordered on the northwest by the Ontario (I-15) Freeway, on the east by Eaet Avenue and existing Low Medium Residential designated land, and on the south Dy Miller Avenue. - APN: 1100-041-04 through 10, Sraff report presented by Jack Lam, City Manager. Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public eommente. There being no response, the public comments were cloeetl. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 482. ORDINANCE NO. 482 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COVNCIL OF THE CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 91-03, THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF SUBAREA 3, TO AMEND THE ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM MEDIUM (8-14 DWELLING llNIT3 PER ACRE) TO LOW MEDIUM (4-R DWELLING VNITS PER ACRE) FOR APPROXIMATELY 11.2 ACRES OF LAND BORDERED ON THE NORTHWEST BY THE ONTARIO (I-15) FREEWAY, ON THE EAST BY E%I STING LOW MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DESIGNATED LAND, AND ON THE SOUTH BY MILLER AVENUE, AND MAEING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1100-061-06 THROUGH 10 MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded 6y Alexander to waive full reading and set second reading for the December 18, 1991 meeting. Motion carried unan lmouely, 5'0. • ~ • • ~ ~ H3. DISCUSSION OF RETAINING pOf,ICE COMMVNITY FACILITY DISTRICT BR-2 Staff report presented by .Terry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager. Mayor Stout opened the meeting far public comments. Address ing the City Council were: Greg Corub, Brentwood Tract, stated he felt this was diecrlmination based on where your house was. He felt the tax shoo ld be stopped. There being no further response, the public comments were cloned. City Council Hinutes December 4, 1991 Page 16 Mayor stout stated he had asked that this item be placed on the agenda. He stated the City only gets 58 of the tax money that a ree ident pays. He felt because the majority of this area will not be annexed into the City, the tax rate should be set at 05. Councilmember Alexander stated he agc eed with setting the rate at $1.00. Councilmember Alexander stated he agreed with the $1.00 amount and did not feel the CFD should be dissolved, He stated he was optimistic that the area could still be annexed into the City. Councilmember Huquet stated he agreed with seducing the amount down to $1.00. Councilmember Williams concurred. Councilmember Y:r fight stated she felt law enforcement is a general fund service. She felt if the City cannot serve the people, we should not be annexing them into the City. She did not think various areas of the City should be taxed differently from each other. MOTION: Roved by Stout, seconded by Alexander to reduce the assessment at the end of the fiscal year tq $1.00. Motion carried 4-1 (Wright no). Councilmember Wright stated the reason she voted no for reducing the assessment was because the Assessment Dietr ict still ez fists by action of the City Council, She stated the £ee can still be raised to anything the Council wants it to be. She stated she realized that there would be advert is inq far the public hearing. She Ee It the District should have been done away with and tnat is why she voted no. Mayor Stout clarified that there is a new policy wheeeby all Assessment Distr ict persons will be notified annually of the it as sesaments and be told of any hearings and so Eorth. Councilmember Nright stated she felt this was a good policy, but still wantetl to vote no because she knew it could come back again for a change in the asses ament. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS 11. ORAL DISCUSSION OF FUNDRAISING EFFORTS BY LYOIA KRDMER FOR A .LACK BENNY STATUE Cou nc!Lmember Huquet stated there have been a number of people, for one reason or another, w9-~o have brought this issue up as it being a City fie sue that the City is involved in and promet ing, and also planning to spend City revenues to construct a Sack Benny statue. He stated this is a mispercept'on. He felt this might be an oppo stun ity to provide some clarification on the issue by those parties involved in th fie. Ne added the Council has not discussed this mattes previously, nor have they taken any action on the matter. City Council Hinutee December 4, 1991 Page 17 Mayor Stout et ated he wanted to apologize to the City Council for any misunderstanding about this project with respect to hie involvement or noninvolvement in it. Ha stated the City ie Sn no way involved in this project as far ae he can determine. He stated it ie strictly a group of private citizens who are exercising their freedom to establish community types of activities without interference necessarily from the City. He stated for some reason, someone hoe gotten the idea that everything that goes on in the City hoe to have City hands in the project. He etatetl anyone in the community that wants to establish something like this hoe that right to organize it. Councilmember Buquet stated he was not sure that an apology was necessary, that was not hie intent in bringing it before the Council. He stated the intent was to provide clarification ae to what the Clty ie or ie not doing about this matter. Mayor Stout asked Bob Dutton, Chairman of the Community Foundation, if he would like to comment on this matter. Bob Dutton stated the Poundat ion was approached about three to four moos hs ago to act ae a facilitator and receiver of funds for the .Tack Benny project. He stated the Foundation•e funds will not be used for this project. He added there are two members of the Foundation that act ae liaisons to Lydia Kremer's group. He stated they had not come to the City Cou ncii because it had not been decided it the stet ue would go on City property, but stated that was an option. He stated he was looking at this being placed at the PerformLng Arte Center. Ne added he hoe written a letter to the editor clarifying that there would not be any taxpayer's dollars spent on this project. Councilmember Wil Name stated after reading the minutes from the Foundation meeting, it looks like the Foundation ana the City are supporting this project. Bob Dutton stated he made it clear to Lydia Kremer that the City hoe not taken a position to support this project. Councilmember Wright stated becau ee there ie dissension in the community about this, it is turning out to be a negative thing. Mayor Stout pointed out that the Foundation ie not to be an arm of the City. Me pointed out that the Council dose not even have the authority to remove any of the Board eE Directors from their positions. Councilmember wr iyht stated possibly the reporter that originally put the artlc le in the paper did not understand Chat the Foundation ie not an arm of the City. ACTION: No action was taken • w • r r . City Council Minutes December 6, 1991 Page 18 12. SAM•S PLACE - coneiderat ion of an appeal of the Planning Commission's decie ion to revoke Conditional Use Permit 78-03 for the operation of a bar in conjunction with a restaurant locatatl in the Neighborhood Commercial District at fi620 Carnelian Street, northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian Streets - APN: 201-811-66 through 60. Councilmember Euguet stated he and Councilmember Williams have met with Mr. Pellegrino and hie attorney and the Reeolutione before the Council area reeu It of the meeting. Councilmembez Alexander stated he likes the conditions that are attached Cou nc ilmember Williams felt there was an equitable agreement made. John Mannerino, attorney representing Mr, Pellegrino, stated he has talketl tc. the landowner about putting signs up preventing parking between the bu ild in9e and the wall, and that the owner has agreed with that. Mayor Stout stated he had vie iced Sam's Place and agreed It ie a well-run establishment and a safe place to go. He et ated hie objection ie because of rte location. RESOLUTION NO. 91-380 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COVNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CVCAMONCA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO REVOKE CONDITIONAL VSE PERMIT 78-03 POR THE OPERATION OF A BAA IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT LOCATED IN THE NE IGHBORH000 COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STREETS AND MAKING FINDINGS IN 5VP PORT THEREOF - APN: 201- 811-56 THROUGH 6J RESOLUTION N0. 93-381 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COVNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTAINING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY THE AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ~8-03 FOR THE REQUEST TO EXTEND THE HDURS OF OPERATION AND AMEND THE CONDITION OF APPROVAL PROHIBITING LIVE ENTERTAINMENT FOR AN EXISTING RESTAURANT ANO BAA LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, NORTHWEST CORNER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STREETS AND MAKING FINOI NCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-811-66 THROUGH 60 City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 19 RESOLUTION NO. 91-382 A RESOLVTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUSTASNING THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COHMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY ENTERTAINMENT PEAHIT 91-02 FOA THE REQUEST TO CONDUCT LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND BAA LOCATED IN THE NE IGHBOAHOOD COMMERCIAL D ISTRZCT AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, NORTHWEST LOANER OF 19TH AND CARNELIAN STREETS AND HARING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 20-1811-56 THROUGH 60 MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Euquet to approve Reeolut ion Noe. 91-380, 91-381 and 91-382. Motion carried 3-2 (Stout, Wright no). I k f R 1 f J IDSNTIPIGTION OF ITENS FOR NETT NHETINO J1. Councilmember Buquet stated he would like a report in respect to moving forward with some coordinated community fundraising with youth sports organizations as a Fallow-up to the hearings pertaining to cost recovery. Ne stated this would be an uptlate and how to move in this direction to cause something to occur that ie a win-win far everyone. J2. Mayor Stout etat ed h0 would like the appointments of the Environmental Hanagement Commission and the Historic Pr¢eervat ion Commission to be on the next agenda. f f. w f f E. CONMVNI GTIONS PROM THE PVBL IC K1. David Denn ie, 6816 Padova Court, stated a letter had been sent to the City Council about some of the rezoning that occurretl at the last meeting. He stated it was late in the evening at the last meeting which the Council had made comnente regarding the lateness of the evening. Ne oleo made other comments about the hearing process. Mayor Stout et ated a ree ident had contacted him about this issue also, end that he was going to meet with this person on Decemher 14 to further explain and address her concerns. Ne pointed out the long term planning the Council hoe gone through in order to get to their decisions made at Che November 18 meeting. 1 R t /r City Council Minutes December 4, 1991 Page 20 L. ADJOiTRlItwEMT MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 11:35 p.m. Reepectf ally submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: EXHIBIT "A" To be included with your packet under separate cover. an K~ ~aiiae° eeal °n ° e e we ° ° e eO ' ee aP o e e e e w er: e air e . . • OPen ~ ~ +re ••.a a O P~ •Tn rTOe n0 n n aO Y .a Nn N nN mn n v n „ r rN w N n n r _• N ~ m i a <a • rYY. ^• TahwPOrNn•naNwPewryn•neN.P rRRRXRRRRRR'F~~~hMR~R~r:„„CR C ~R2^ r^^ ^ ^ NNE^ •S S'r z• ~ + . N N n n „„ NNNNN NNNMNNryNnNNNNNNNryNNryYryNNNNNryNNryry ry ry poe++ ~ ae+eeaoaeaaaa.aPaa•aaaaaaaaea+aaaa+oeaaaw a o ao u 1 If l Owtl . a LL LL w . ea wa LI L. i v P ° n e w e i ' " • • ~ . . . . a i w ~ n e N i \ ~ e . i O V •V V i ! nV ~ '~ YO•\ p T ~ AO O = _ V O U W Y f\ \V :NP ViV _ _ V N V Y OwI V Vhh FI 7. • • i i _ Q _ > y T L L < i• O M ~ + IlV N h~ZZ wN a <L e r In 1 „~ NW • N• Y~I ItLNOV re nn l V`= •• L P + w V• i hN t NSVw Vn W _ a0 SZ U r a Wwn MVUPN lwi! Za L1i VLW~ Vnai V\P V p1~ •=W2 tl Ohj f 2y `ZFF t II"! V!• J O N O I •Z• i r ~ I YLii2 N IJ YN V u wO w0 <Y <L • OOY• ihL< JWIZ<iip[u rc: QO y M JLC;•M• Z W F WF W7~ 2 w U ~l M y Z _ i S u i eV i wLJIN`„ IZ V V Y tl F llN9LiN N ZFIN WM W yw w nwsloW i V ;W • > M , ~ aN~ La^ h :p W ~:zWL ~,, w h l ~iwOh01 u_„ Y •{WLWMY hWLw l O00w< L _ Y N _ <N „<L^iTUNJ Oi V!W WF < p L ~ V• r Nn L V 2 O'V Oh00JOWNZp• >Shl- JLttZ W )I) N) fOON:O LN?< __ _ W=LJOW WW Z u N I TiWV NiVaWh NOUOJVItlJOWy~LV<OWJhZw u _w '1 V W UImNMJOw hONWYNlJN W• M< N VUNLh.w6V O 1 V w7 Lpf•.iLJlJhVV>tl O~NM=P)N •Zwww29<WwwwWJ L pL lu W < O WI LZIYwtlLMJJI`<y P <nLWZVOViLZ)LSLW r<'OpYV.p>u. p u WPJPiZyWOwiWOU V O • N O L >NNw NJN<iVLii6>ULJJ•w Z ZrLwuW>YWJ.lhVN~~W r riN u S Y Z wN0 L FSw VV rZ OF R iNW tw • p V6 i l Ohf W• • Ow • O N O W Y • I VNV N~ NN O $N f O ! YN ii iU0 • • u VN p V • yW W N uV rh WN < w ~ WOJ N y ZFI W W N i NO ~ >N < • • J J I F •t N y h U _ O yI ) n h~ ~ n tl ~ ~W y iw ! .L u t V7 UN! r Z i N J Z N V h tN'wo:.Ll y•Lw N yV6 NZ H ~~ 0 f l V O O ~J J i LY < h _ JI n .WVwLL ~[ ! ••W LNO I.F SOZV Y..VZ •. <V nZNMOWp( v UW JV < N • N Z l uiZ iZ J•iNW i:Vl Z•pV i .VYtlp~• ~ i • • w h W w<hVWp .. yi0„Y„N ULtltlO J LWWZYWWl.. piJf O • N• •• OOiYifNO• . h Y• N OV V L Yw uwVJ WY yJj).O2LV~ywW O NYJ9'J J f ~ Z1{M1 • •2• Z 6 n J OQ ~i!lJJD<IOW tl Li VWYhi)n OIL r . Z iii J6 W WWpL•WUJN)IVNO<lfff.NZhFF.J[Sii.QY oin ..w! <Wwwwppepopeoe y iiiiii: VJi W L w N +. i . « CS••VVUVVVVUVVyUyUyVVVVV ~ OO S tl a ••mwTM1M1wrwwnnmaNN.TO• OPnTrv o ~ rnamrymm•~ inae.warrhi rn N ~ w n nn o enn H~ m ° N w• n rnnw r nNn a• r . i N Nn ry nry. . n w 2 V iNP I ~fo O<O ZZ %LLo QOa OJ U LL 6=3 i i i si rpi~ i{~ ~ ~ •Z• iii D~:~ « e~ e~~a<:eo~~~ea psD~~a aiti aOa +omeooP n°ea<~.°~e oePa~~°an °'oa,°a rvNO.Nn ~n N )n •nNn nn r NNM m Nn . NNn N N N N~ n NaN ar-Yan~:nwn ar FFp~:nNaN ~S~ ~SnMM„AJ~°RRRRRRRNNNNNNNN NaNRR~ „N Ni+V+aNNNNNNNNNNMNNNNNNNNNNNNNrvN D oaWaaa a++<++eaa+<+.v+++a+aaaaaaaaa+aaaaaaa+aw Yaa + aara . a+ . + Yr aFOY O h Vn n{N \ W\ nau u ~ aw is n. ) D\ rr \WiY \ ~ aJY N nl N Yaa IF Y A fN O VWr i YU n{ pVW UNMN { Y •\ n JAN Y M Y NWn wLYi YI ~[ N { JN Yh J7 va~o rW `a z~ N x~¢.. a__rc __ NZO f)n aY ~ Y O INNJ Vj IWOY u ¢<V r~2YYJ Vf wf< MYONN J¢¢UY ai¢ JNV vN Z wl VI+ZFaZN ui{ •a WC ii{Y J¢D¢ +\Fn ¢{ONaWYrNN W N9 ZyW Ilp w0 ~JW~ iWY«InZWYNZJr_Y< )P M_ YN F_ f ¢aOMOhN O ~ n~u1wL N itlU>~NiN:MN J~JN !)¢ WS NNS whi¢N n YVJZ< J{Nw< MU{JwY ZZOJ<VJYWILG N nZ~ MOO{Jp0 a{ {SWpNW D{Z apY wMY OJNO YhN.wiW apY¢ hOa » w VzW6~ <~rV<JWON~~JO{WOV¢pOa 1<MVJWO! LVV Z~ UOVtl fNUVV2YYWVOMr Y_Nas TLOZUNVhNLFI¢Saw Ma s~ NpahYIMO<z rJ rlrzYYrM: Js.o wo:r~i:~ JFYnYLNinuaY2{1O202a• a{ ~•OMWW<Lw JMYU> ro r ZVO~Y~JNf>Y>pYYUn)<~i~G1WPPh{OW~>i.NivFWY.VZJJOVUU<.INW N i O N < u ~ ~ u Y r ~ N M p~ <JN •u M x W V< ~ Oi ~ ~~ ~LL Y ~ Ya_J + iiw NN r2< N u ~> xiJ or rZ0 Nj •< J W<W V WNO wxN Z •O iZiZJri i ¢NUwrx « UVON <VN O. OM .x< Jt y ¢xx Ni y JJ 1ZW <<JVO~Y~ifO>J2N~¢W <ini Oiw W.w ZOJ~V ¢Z Jr0<ZNiN p~LWiZ Yx¢wxJ00}6NwV W~ i N LV JiV lW Nla ¢OIPin JS• WW iNrJ __ n0 NSO FU •f <IL rIW ~>x JON •iJxOY !Yx YVfxN <W x «M •x NYSZOJYhJ .SiW<N<JO Y000~ i< IOyFWNf iN _V U_N MOYW<• yy h V. OWi ¢{<Nf •iC ZwOWO jYrrOiO~N. xVOMiWrV N JJ<xxN¢ ¢ LN NVJV¢aMiIMW OixYfYJiWWWYVCJJNr¢JxVOpJZiii2J.OV0 .uJNNNx <...MJpeDYYMD ..o OOpoJJJ zz2pptlw..Jx2o. aoaowWWwwWwWaWaWaaaaaauu~u~izsszxxzzxr.. .. ..~~-IYWYrv.J ..~~N++aoNaaNaanorN..n+..oYNnaaNV nNP ¢aN )N<P~naarNOPa .. a.,. +an: )N.e~T~ n ..NON rvNa NM N.°.i~.N. • •• .. ~i~ln+ n.P. °n NNnNn:.. .. I~ ,ryy~n 1%.. `, ~a r.Y ~,~ay 1*P ora TNOwaeerrr ~oNo '" N .:..~... . . N . ano No n ^ ^ n ^ n~N rae NnYNar-mwo.~N N+N Nar °p $$$$$ $$e'a <'p 'p ea+ ecaoca7 a N a'~X '.~< <oeoe of E$ NnN X.'e '" nryN NNNnNr NnIN«NNN V N/VNn NMn NNr.n N OpVOppapVap apVpVpVpVaaaapVpYpp VVapVaVpppppppapam aaaa •S• V • VV I • • r • • V V • • V• V A r pNa N _ Z J \ ~ '9 nZZ Z l Vi1O i N YN p.. aJn a p VW ~ f• . ~ JIaV V' rOIO v V r Oirr V Z VBNNwV p2 YhxN N • rll•V ' ra N ~ Z Y 0 ~ J \.J Oi V a _ M Paa iv M N ~M ~ Z~ lvO O .. V~ V ~. Wra NSw..ZV apV WaN V 1 J nF V¢ I w0 J 7Z a<Zra •F J Zt era ~o .~rrn~ >O ~uwr W"$ i~~ °:~i O 1Z• pia V ZU M1ZiN i e ui a WJZeY a l e O :oo ar D i oz e n oe J . .is x a o u zo JS N> . . au Wi` a NON •o .oa ao~N n N wz Ji° r zou vaa WzJre.'.anN n U NJV 62 ZaNZ ZOO '~ wlf W Z.. liYwZre 1211 \Ol w OUa VrJZxV _ J U b J _ _ W ~x:o rJa 8.. Ni V NIaJ ..ems s• ..o e a iuiJe ro u ~. .. NZUV rYZ ~~ e ~ .sNNNW .i . 0 w2 J~ . eaP .o i ~., nm 1F ZUSN ~ OwOWaOaV JoZFi OVIOWaiJll WOZ.~.VINJ\.. ..S wIOW NIW sterYWi N7W' ~ VO[V ZaUe`>V aNVVYrIIJr[RlUJH6Vt6 ..sMJNNOYROWpUNVVi N po ~ Y ~ J ~ .1 i U NV s F l y t U ~ \ w V i N .. Z 6 Z u W W J •+ YJN J a E N OZ bwN ~2 CC w O O Yv J` N ..JVw Nt N Pw ZOJMOiM1 J •Y Vi V rV •i NU J8r . ;~ .~~= o ~.~~~u N a:..:;wW ~ ~a..a .e a~W~~~ .o~ ~ ~~ .. i e w 1 iw i GWOVNa. O.ON .wW . •+ . u : JJ : wti. + rs aNZ oMW~N w wuoxJN ai Nz. +oi 1. Ni~se Y 'ZJ nY~FW°w w~uuz: :aa r .Y.ii~ruy: uywze ~ a ~ u uu ia o Z ii lNN w W ~ e ai YYI ~ . . Y x No ii~i J ciY a aaa s aia zzzzz r NNNNN iz ra .Y N ..nN n aaN i ic .. '"M ~ ~ .. NN. miry .. ..nN .. .. .~ .~N..N. « n.. N . .. .. NN.. . A ?/ e :i~ F• CC yyYY~~pp Onp .fp ly~O~nnn-0iui<O QMNNOUCCNdlW~<Ld«NNNN~NY«'a a ~ < ~ u aeeee+<~ewees+ff f iii i V I Z V Fyn ~f l VLLn Zl~ ~o• aW r •~• V W i r i s> ~ w i c r " i n > V ~ N V V ~ a= W i a N N O Y N i ^WV > 7f0 f HfV y VJ rf >JN fJ ~. OJn i N`V f u~ rF Nal V VJY ' O?: O JN YO ii' µ t JJwFi fYR N IYJ '~>VJ VV ~~~ aiiW NiY Ni iFf aY r '~ s f ~ ~~ rye ntOrcN6 faN Y N N )NnHnW`• V=Fa3iaf t= °Y N~~avCaf q,in~iffN '^irLL ~ ~~~sNU~ afeNSw+~ WJN~tiJ W J AJO OV>Jim aCW mi LNO ~uwi '~VyJO N~y~OV •>Vf ~ Yif JL 1Y O< Ny~Wf^Y> MZ~O}O~>FNfVVOifV1~ti J>wOrY~H NnKirNVJFLLJO~fOOiaJ taVONaN ~i• pia •i~ V i C ~ i J u ` O o J l LL y Y~Y N JV E W'n J nV> ~ w 4wN>40 Y • Z YWiNr FN NjN LLQ ; OMwif ` aOJ JV OWZVw U ND V f~ LLt ~' ~1r~JiVVJJ ~„V `~ NOr' a6)OWOVG::Y>WLWWW wJiu 4W ~:v6VV~HYMr~J JJfi>)f>f OWM >K NNVNNNFnrJJ» JJJ'JJ1 N ^rNn ` Na .~N rvNn Nnn mm ~~+1 N.a a :; I \ ~ p e V +i •h• v ~ O :Y~ '~ ~' D m ~OO• 'V p0 NV ,?~p ^1000 d ^~ Nq+c tla y V~NN.~ apN+m' ~'vr 2 ~ 9 ~ d r~ N~ a~ /~ ~ N ry m ~ 00b00NVVVAPp 00 Nm m^tl ^ V bIV NNNNry ^,N WtlNtlW ~q N yn I I NNNNNN Qusa ~pN \ ry W 1 b tlvVndP 4\v ~ ry,m p+`~ I NNb~NNNNN oTVV~ y l ~ 4F ~i~ 'N fNN ~0 ~ J ~ Oi WNNN ~i ~NNVy. ~ NN„ ~ o ~ =ry VQZ Y ' N ~ ua ~ ~ Z N.~ u _OV^ y ~ yy`~N ~~ 0 nm~ o W ^ ' Y ~ y2~yJ ,Y' WW N' 'r' So fJ Y \ m ~Vm ~j `~O V=FUy4 WytY WW Wy2~ a O ~ \ ~\ ~ 4 S ~ W W m y W i^ 0 "~ '~ O J p ¢ , m a W 0 •M1q~ O H Y4 j04 ~VF yHr'Y VyIW^ jV •~ W LL ¢ ~ p OLL~ Vy ZWf w`jmW Vj '~aF U~S-/~~LL LL 4 o O; O I~t 'W ~ mLL ioLL Om~^ONF~~n1 Np t o y ,w• y y 4 O W ,LL N~ W,OOW OLL f 03 ~r0 4 O v' y ~~„ SOW ~R~ 'kt O~ ~~~ i\ O ~ i Va O y Q N~212M~ '. ~.ZV t]pW 4M f u m ~ 6 ~ Wt y4 ~p~` •P` ORL`y o~vw •W~u WaNW w OZ RZ 4, 6~fLL VOO ~t==2p y W 'VW HW~V JOU KO.Zw W,p~ Y2v ~W~nq N`o ~a Z~Oj ti v m W 1 n t P 1 y n W Y m W y y i Y ~ 4 ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 m O $ N wLV V Y 4 J y a T 4 ~~ u0V ;„J p; ~S~ Z1 ~•; p4P 4 '~ ~ ` 1 Y a 4 h Y= 2Yw y' SW ~ y I Y NN O > Z J • S i ~ 4 n N O S O, w H V ) V r u m f u~ 4 u 4 V t o ti • ~ a a r~ ~^,J4 Oyy SVpa LLwu' trV r• Vy V n N f m m4~~e =[N aSF>tf e ~ N r U o,0 / V C V LN v I ~Z• I •Z/ Z: oNON a .,mN~~ o~...~~we omn NPm N ~» .. ..,w ~ a maN maN maN ~~~~~~~~ o~awwarowNfw~aew<aNwNafa<w5d~~~wnwawf~<na~~<n~a~~~~da w<°s ~xe o[ .~N N w= 2w Mw N N.ya .~ v ~ I <\ ~ ~ UV ^~ V V JJP J JJ a\ < I J a VLL~ [V NNU N+ NJ Zu Ha~IZ ObU y~\ >IV mJMal< j11 7m7v O O[JU= m n F wpn OZ 2 UOULN » o~ ~~Z¢ pLLZZVO OI/r fY i< _ \LwnrZiom wV O'N 0[~n f~ wLY VYO a2~w vLVN w== KILu ZI[f <LVL ZVN I ttJV Mu0 I-I J w2~- ~J~ V>v OSu Mlv >\wm> wtZa aapa < 7KJOnaP ~.opUaiOVO<a<vVVUVUiMUOVIO~[iCwomN IOOmH<U 1mNo S w Z y U 2 VV ~ u 4'JU N P J ~+ N wJ0 NOZ ~Jn V JF ~ZJ i NJ~- vJ1 210 NLJ i-I[rc NZ~ wZO w0 nOUw w\N~N fLLK nWLLUUU, i~ZZLZ2ZxZrr-ri`~"~Y Y~[~[JJJJJZTS]YfiLITZZ/]OUOUamumn N - 4 mPONaN mOtl m W ~.ao ~~e a °0 ^mr i : ^ n n w miN ^+rr PO~OCaC ~ ~" ~ tl ~pOaV VC.pa d~pONnV~4atlavW~o ~ ~ •1~ i J v" v ~ io0 F tl ~ `~ OtlU iw ~ z ~ j Pp VPw_ a iNP ' w U V V Pli~ m woZp u e , fr~ym ~ O V ~ UJ o~p~ u =NJ m t„yt ~. Ly o p o Yw J „LL J_b FQy~ a IO w i wW o p oJ• yJ2N U w iW~UI cLLi=y Z7~ io m h h p4J ~ i YYw w LL •O~ M1Qa .~ o CSo >~~ J m >tiOwo ttllr O llLL n .~ JmILVYw¢1u ~YwY 2 i 2 = va Sm U la 2Vw 2 p a LL ` 3 : o°i^ ao°z u; _..u w "'~.. Na U V u(Yi I r ~`~Y s"3 ~ Z &`- _ ~ a _~_ $~-_z aS ° .. a~°m° =TAE _: €'£ e ., ~]:'Y - ° ~ E<iY C _. _ _ _- - W~ _-c ~~ y~_ d -_ ,~, ~~• g - ~ _-Y3 ' ~~ vg _ o _ '~ g ~k ^i~ - _ - aes _ ~^ -M Tx ~ "a~' a a ~'~. +~ ae?~ ~x:, ~ e _, d 51 V m T R: ~n~ 8 ~ msmm m m _ _ _ ~ sss~ ads a °s _ _ .1 s R a - S S _ ~ q 8 Q ~ r. _ ~., _ _ _ _ `~_ ~. _ ..„ _ _ °- ~R s, _~_ m :~ -' ~ m >3R S ~Sm$ ~ - -, ' F ~.~ S" sg a ~e R€ _% v. ~ m~E, Yd ~~ u3 y~.~edM ~ ~ :3 W€ ,.. ° ' w W~ &~ ~~t~y ~~ f C sa~~ £ +fk ` hg ~~x ~ ~ s x _ , ~ G m ~ y ~ ~ s .. x <. ~ ° :~ a c.~ :: ~~ 1 x= ~a - ~ . . - ~ S i u: . _ £ Ib 3u .~, ~. 4 ~, .. >Y.:' '~„ xs _ _ afi - "sa ~x - ~n s a~ s~ ~ ~°sa^- ~ i m ~mmr_ ~_ s ~ ~ Y Y .V ~ 'i ' M 'i ~~ m Y Y "d ~. .~ m ". m m 4 x' Y " a k, x X55£ ~p F ~yW ~dW~ Y 5 H m£€:i ~ X ~~ _ Y 11 3 5 1 a B X CIT7' OF RANCHO CUCA~tONGA _ STAFF REPORT DATE: January 15, 1992 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Shelley Maddox, Engineering Aide SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT RGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND ORDERING THE ANNExATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 8 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 8 FOR TRACT 13945, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHLAND AVENUE, EAST OF EAST AYENUE, SUBMITTED BY CITATION BUILDERS gECOMMENBATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Tract 13945, accepting the subject agreement and security, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 8 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 8, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. ANALYSIS/BAq(6NWMD Tract 13945, located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of East Avenue, in the Low Density Residential Development District, was approved by the Planning Commission on December 14, 1988 for the division of 15 acres Into 35 1 ots . The Developer, Citation Builders, 1s submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements 1n the following amounts: On-Site Highland Avenue Faithful Performance Bond: (254,000 (405,000 Labor and Material Bond: f127,000 (202,500 Monumentatton: f 4,150 (cash deposit) Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 13945 - CITATION BUILDERS January 15, 1992 Page 2 Letters of approval have been received from the high school and el ementary school districts and Cucamonga County Mater District. The Consent and Maiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the C1ty Clerk's office. Respectfully Wm. Joe O'Nei City Engineer WJO: Attachments suD~tEled, ~~~ 1 / ~3 RESOLUTION N0. ~~ b/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER 13945, IMPROYEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY NHE REAS, Tentative Tract Map No. 13945, submitted by Citation Builders, and consisting of 35 lots located on the south side of Highland Avenue, east of East Avenue, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on December 14, 1988 and is in compl7ance with the State Subdivistan Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Tract Map No. 13945 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Tract Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security by Citation Builders as developer; and WHEREAS, said Developer submits for approval said Tract Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related purposes, the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, THE C[TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and Bald Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication and the final map delineating the same for said Tract Map No. 13945 is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be flied for record. L RESOLUTION N0. G~ '1_ D/3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT ND. 8 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 8 FOR TRACT N0. 13945 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 8, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. i and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 8 (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 NHEREAS, 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 Droposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREOY RESOLVES AS FOLLONS: 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 1n Exhibit "0" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including t~Tie Hof all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. ~~ ~5 n ~ o~ C z p ~ ~ ~ n ~ ~ O m ~ D z own ~ D 2 n Z O r ~ ~ C7 c ?z~ a D D ~ ~ p O z z o ~' m O _ ]O ~~ v -Z O m ~ x D = w CD a -~ in r m © °#~ ~' m z 0 0 0 0 0 m m m m z z z z 0000 m m m rn N N N N ~yyr D ~ o a mnmz m m £ N N ~ D D r v ~ ~ m c~ = a -1 p m n (AfT A•~N~/E ~ ID z (n n TTD jl ' 1 1'1 ~_ i~ D ~''/'~~ Z I I7' 1 m ~ L Z Z n m 0 O !D ~ 'i ~ I~ ~ D EXHIBIT 'B' PROJECT NAME: N0. OF D.U. OR ACREAGE: 35 du TRACT N0. 13945 N0. OF ASSESS. UNIT: 35 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT No. of Lamos to be Annexed District No_ 5800E 9500C -Ib~60~ 21d2J7-5a6' 1 --- 7 --- -- --- 8 20 --- --- --- --- LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Community Turf Ground Cover Trees District No. Street Name EQUest.Tra1T Sa• ft• So, ft. Ea. 8 Highland Ave. --- --- 10,871.63 --- Nhitestone P1. --- --- 11,437.50 49 Egglestone P1. --- --- 5,197.50 22 Fl agstone Pi. --- --- 5,197.50 25 Starstone P1. --- --- 2,475.00 10 SM:1/15/92 ~~ vu. ;-.- CdISEl1T MD iY12VER TO McEID1TI771 F~ Tract 13945 WHEREAS, the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON GA, CALIFORNIA, has previously formed a special maintenance di Strict pursuant to the teens of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1912" (Lhe "Act'), being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of Che State of California, special maintenance distrl ct known and designated as Landscape Matnten ante District No. ~, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. / and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. $ (hereinafter referre2~•:o as the "Maintenance District'); and, WHEREAS, the provisions of Article II of Chapter 2 of the Act authorize the legislative body to order the annexation of territory to the Maintenance District; and, WHEREAS, the legislative body may, Dursuant to said provtsi ors of the Act, order the annexation of territory to the Mat ntenance District without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's 'Report' as would otherwise be reQuired by the provisions o/ the Act tf all of tM owners of property within the territory proDOS ed to he annexed have gf ven written cons Mt to the proposed annexation; and, WHEREAS, the undersigned, the owners of all Droplrty within the territory proDOSed to be annexed to the Maintenance Dtstrtct, acknowledge that pursuant to the Drovisions Of CM Act, the undersigned would be entitled to notice and hearing and the preparation of an Engineer's 'Report' Dertatntng to the annexation of tM property arced 6y tM undersigned to tM Maintenance Dtstrtct. The undersigned, however, acknowledge Lhat they arc aware of the vropased annezatlon to tM Maintenance Dtstrtct of tM property owned 6y the undersigned, and waive any and all right which tM undersigned may now have to notice and hearing or tM filing of an Engineer's 'Report' pertaining to the annexation of the undersigneds' property to the Natntenance District. nOW, THEREFORE, it 1s Mreby declared by tM undersigned property owners as follows: SECTION 1. That tM above recitals are all true and correct. SECTIpI 2. Thal tM undersigned, unstltuting tM amens of tM property described 1n ExhtDit •A• attached Mrcto an6 incorporated herein by this rMerenu and further constituting all of tM Droperty within tM territory proposed to G annexed to tM Maintenance District, herby consent to tM proposed annexation of said property to tM Malntenana 01str1ct rlthout rotlce and hearing or filing of an Engineer's 'Report' pertaining to such annezatlon. C I7ATICN HOMES, a California general DATED: artnershi BY: CITATION BU ILCE"nS, a California genera', partnership 1B ~~,/ ~y~-~~~~ BF~AE1~"~31 ~ ~`' ~,. lint~~n, JY. Ceveloprnent M na ger South rn Division CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF CONSENT AND NAIYER TO ANNEIGITION FOR TRACT N0. 13945 TO U111DSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 8, STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 1 ltND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARCINO CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA WM. d0E 0'NE IL, the undersigned, hereby certifies as follows: That i am the duly CITY ENGINEER of the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. ~ ", Tbat on the ~~ day of '~~ lnHq 1~.I reviewed a Consent and Waiver to Annexat of n pertainipg o annexation of certain property to the Maintenance District, a copy o~ich Ts on file in the Office of the City Clerk . That I caused said Consent and Waiver to Pnnexation to be examined and my examination revealed that said Consent and Waiver to Annexation has been signed by the owners of all of the property within the terrf tory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance Dtstrlct. That said Consent and Waiver to Annexation meets the repuirements of Section 22608.1 of the Streets and Highways Cade of the State of Califarnia. EXECUTED this~~day of/~~, 19~ at Rancho Cucamonga, California. C CITY OF RANC CUCAMONGA STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~~ CITY OF RANCHO CGC~I~SONG.-1 STAFF REPORT r -~ ., DATE: January 15, 1992 s .~! T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council '~. ~~ Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Shelley Maddox, Engineer Atde SUBJECT: CRDERiNG THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 ANO 6 FOR DR 89- 13, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF RED OAK STREET, NORTH OF CIYIC CENTER DRI YE, SUBMITTED eY MIGHTY DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED It is recommended that the City Councll adopt the attached resolution ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No 3 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6. DACK6ROUND/ANALYSIS DR 89-13, located en the west side of Red Oak Street, north of Civic Center Drive is required to fui fill certain condT ti ons of approval along with the normal processing. As part of those condi dons the Developer is required to install certain landscape and street lighting improvements and to have the pro,lect annexed into the appropriate lighting and landscape maintenance districts. the Consent and Waiver to Annexation form has been received from the Developer and is on file in the City Clerk's office. Attached is the resolution requiring adoption by the City Council to complete the proposed annera ti on. Respectfully suba~ltted,,~J- p ~G /~.l' Wm. Joe O'Neil City Engineer V NJ O:SM:dlw Attachment RESOLUTION N0. ~~ _O//` A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT N0. 3 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR DR 89-13 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance Of strict No. 3, 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 anneza tion of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Counc ll is desT rous to to ke 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 CT ty 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 proper y as shown in Ex hlbit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhtblt "8" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including t~i-e levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. ~~ ~ ~ EdMl81T •q• ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 STREET LIQHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. Y ANO 8 vV ~ ~ ~ _- - _ '-- ~~RoJEC~' - ~~ +_- SITE i~ ~•:.~ ~~~. r ~* ~. V /~ ~~ :~ f ~\ - ,y.• I ~ .a ~i +• ~~~~' } CITY OR RANCHO CUCAMONQA COUNTY OR !AN 9ERNARDINO t DR 89-13 ~ STATE OR CALIhORNIA sxeteii .,a.. EXHIBIT 'B` PROJECT NAME: DR 89-13 N0. OF D.U. OR ACREAGE; .93 ac N0. OF ASSESS. UNIT: .93 units STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT No. of Lam s to be Annexed District No. _~_ ~_ ~_ 1 -° 1 '-- --- --- 6 --- --- --- -- -- LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT Community Turf Ground Cover Trees District No. Street Name Eguest.Tra it Sg• ft. Sq. ft. Ea. 3 Red Oak St. --- --- --- 3 SM:1/15/92 CONSENT AND NAIVER 70 AIeIE]UTION FOR DR. Q~-f3 ~IHER EAS, the CITY CGUNC iL of Lne CITY GF RANCHO CUCAMCNGA, CAL IFORNiA, has previously formed a special Taintera nce district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 19?2" (the "Act"?, being Di vi s!on 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, sDeci al ma!ntenance district known and lessgnated as Landscape Maintenance District No. Street Lighting Maintenance District No. ~ and Street L!gh Ling Main enanee D!stria No. ~_ ;hereinafter referre o as 4he "Maintenance Ji strict"1; and, 'aHEREAS, the provisions of Article II of Cnapter 2 of the Act au the r!ze the ?egi slati ve body to order the annexation of territory W the Maintenance District; and, NH EREAS, the legislative body may, pursuant W said provisions of the ,Act, order the annexation of territory to the Maintenance D/strict without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's 'Report as would otherwise be required by the prow si ens of the Act if all of the owners of property within the to rri Wry proposed W be annexed have gi vin written consent W the proposed annexa taco; and, NHEREAS, the undersigned, the owners of all property within the terra Wry proposed W be annexed to the Maintenance 0lstrict, atknawledge that pursuant W the provisions of the Act, the undersigned would Da entitled W notice mod hearing and the preparation of an Engineer's 'Report' perUlntng W the annexatton of the property awned by the undersigned W the Maf ntenance District. The undersigned, however, acknowledge that they are aware of the proposed annexatton W the Mei ntenance 0lstrtct of the property owned by the undersigned, and waive any and all right which the undersigned asy now have W notice and hearing or the filing of an Engineer's 'Report' pertaining W the annexation of the undersigneds' Droperty W the Maintenance 0lsirict. NOM, THEREFORE, tt is hereby declared by tM undersigned property owners as fol loan: SECT1tlN !. That the above reclUls an all trw and correct. SECTION 2. That the underslgned,~ constituting the owners of the property described 1rt Exhlblt A' atUChed MreW and incorporated herein by this nfonnce and further constituting all of the property rlthin 41M Urr1 Wry proposed W M annexed W the Maintenance District, heroby consent W the proDOSed annexatton of Bald property W the Maintenance District rithout notice an4 hearing ar H11n9 of an Engineer's 'Report' perUining W such annexatton. DATED: ~ ~ % , ~' u , ~ „~~ ., ~ ,;. j , ?' ~ CERTIFICATE OF SUFFICIENCY OF CONSENT AND WAIYER TO ANNEXI!TICN FOR - STREET LI6HTIN6 lNINTENAIICE DISTRICT N7. A1o STREET LYGFITIN6 MAINTENRNCE DISTRICT 11~_ o STATE OF CAL IFO PJJiA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARD INO CITY OF RANCHO CUC,MIONGA WM. dGE 0'NE iL, the undersigned, hereby certifies as foil rws: That I am the duly the CITY ENGINEER of the CITY OF RANCMC CU C.AMONGA, CALIFORNIA. / h//~~' 19~-?--I reviewed a Coo servt and That cn the ~ 1 day cf j" Maintenance n0l stric t, parcopy~nof twhtch is nona file in the a0ffi ceopof*theo Ci ty Clerk. That I caused said Consent and Waiver to Annexation to be examined and my examination revealed that said Consent and Waiver to Annexation has been signed by the owners of all of the property within the territory proposed io be an..^.ex ed to the Maintenance Ci strict. That said Consent and Waiver Lo Annexation meets the requirements of Section 22605.1 of the Streets and Ml ghways Code of the State of California. EXECUTED this ~ day of ~ 1~, at Rancho Cucamonga, Cal ifnrni a. CITY OF RANCH CUCAMONGA STATE OF CAL FORMA i1"Cl' Ok' R.A~CFIO C'L'i~:a~liric,:a , STAFF REP®RT . ;~ Of.TE: January 1>, I992 - ~ ' '~° `;.~\ ' - TC: Mayor and Members of the City Council '" Jac.: Lzm, AICP, City Manager ~_l'... FROM: Wm. Joe C'Neii, C7 ty Engineer BY: Linda Beek, Jr. Engineer ~~, SU3JECT: f,W ARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR HAVEN I' AVENUE IMP RDVEMENTS AT THE A?CHISON, TOPEKA ANG SANTA FE i0 ' BG9 BRITTON, INCORPORATED, FO.R THE AMOUNT OF 565,910.24 (559,918.40 PLUS 10`b CONTINGENCY), TO 8E FU NDEC FROM SYS?ELMS DE'/ELOPMENT FUND ACCOUNT N0. 22-4537-8851 RECOMIENDpTiON: It is rec omnended that the City Councll accept all bid proposals a=_ received, award and authorize execution of contract for Haven Avenue Imorovemen is at the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe to the lowest responsive bidder, Bob Britton, Incorporated, for the amount of 559,918.40 and authorize the Admini ;tra Live Services Director to expend 565,910.24 (559,918.40 plus 10'b con ttngency) to Ue funded from Systems Development Fund Account No. 22-4637-8851. BAC1C6 ROUND/AIULLYS I S Per previous Counc 11 action, bids were solicited, received and opined on December 17, 1991, for the subject project. Bob Britton, Incorporated, is the apparent lowest responsive bidder with a bid amcunt of E54,918.4C 'see attached bid summary). The Engineer's estimate was 542,343.40. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to he complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requlrements of the bid documents. Respectfully su4m(tted, '~~ ~~~ wm. Joe O'Neil ~ ' City Engineer k+~10: LR9 ad Attachment cc: Purchasing ..~ ~,.% f z i r' i L ': ,. %i sti =xZ `z_r= yz* <. .: Y 7 T ). - ~ - - __ __ v _ _ _ - _ ~ _ _ _ =~:~: ~ ' _ y n _ v ~ ~» /. -Jt r _ _' n n n r i ~1 -77 n l n n ^ !~ .. :_ r. .,,HS<:~n n T Yi `" ! NI _____ __~gg~ 4 i .n . ` ~..r iI +` ~ 'n n .~I z=~Nk ~nN FX Y VN ,^ f 'C ~~ r r, r, ~_ J s i ~ v ~ - c 3 c' ~¢.:~E. ~~`ros a~~ ~ c.; :: S o x ,: 1! L Y ~ X r Y ~[ .n y. ,'J _ _ _ X X X _ _ _ i X YY. y~yf_yy '=_ y~y ~r-Y~Y~XN ~N~~J~ ~_ ~aSZ .Y - _ ~ X~ R Y i~ X~ Y C z~ n y% .~i. ~ N h- N ~ ~~-Nisi .~„~, ~i `~,.: ri ~ 6 ~ ~+~ Hw ._. F' a~ Y~ N N ._. ~ ^ N fir - .-. ~ ~i y -' N x r r ~ j ~ ./. Z Z :3. r ..~ .~/I N (L iL '1 11 /1 -~ 2 x - a J _ - c _ _ c 5 `° k~ ~~ x s S v .. Y~ Zc STAFF REPORT ,-~~, r -., i DATE: January 15, 1992 -~~y J~ , T0: Mayor, and Members cf the City Council ~~ Jack lam, AICP, City Manager i ~~ FROM: Wm. Joe D'Neil, City Engineer it BY: Steve M. G111 hand, Public Works Inspector I1' w,- ~', SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION FINt TRACTS j 13303; 13303-1 AND 13303-2 LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF MOUNTAIN YIEN DRIVE AND TERRR YISTA PARKWAY SUBMITTED BY I LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. RECOMIEMOAI'ION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, accepting the subject agreement extension and security and authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to sign said agreement. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Improvement Agreement and Improvement Security to guarantee the construction of the public improvements for Tracts 13303; 13303-1 and 13303-2 were approved by the City Council on December 6, 1990, in the following amounts: Tract Tract Tract 13303 13303-1 13303-2 Faithful Performance Bond: 5113,000. 327,000. 216,000. Labor and Material Bond: E 56,500. 163,500. 108.000. The developer, Lewis Development Co., is requesting approval of a 72- month extension on said Improvement agreement in order to complete all improvements. The construction of the required improvements has just recently commenced. Copies of the Improvement Agreement Extension are avast able in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, Wm. Joe O'Neil ~~~~~ City Enginaer WJO:SMGay Attachments a Lewis Homes Management Corp. ^56 Nmrh Mounum Avrnue/P.O. Boe 6]0/Cplud, Celi(nmie 9:]BS~SIXIA ]14.985-0971 FhK: 714ry49~6709 December G, 1991 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P. O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Attn: Steve Gilliland Public Works Inspector Ref.: Improvement Agreement Extensions Tr. 13303, 13303-1, and 13303-2 Dear Steve: Enclosed please find three executed Improvement Agreement Extensions and three checks, each in the amount of $251.00. The project is now under construction; however, th e slowdown in sales results in a need fcr this extension, and we would like to request an extension of one year. Note that this request is fcr Tr. 13303-1 and 13303-2, as well as 13303. Thank you for your, consideration of our request. sincerely, LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. "~ f ~ ~bsepfi M. Ol.eson / ~ -r' 'Vice President Senior Project Manager JMO:ksk Enclosures 3n RESOLUTION NO. /~ ~ ~/ ~/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR TRACTS 13303; 13303-1 AND 13303-2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement Extension executed on January 15, 1992, by Lewis Development Co., as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the southwest corner of Mountain View Drive and Terra Vista; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is Lo be done in conjunction with the development of said Tracts 13303; 13303-1 and 13303-2; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement Extension. NON, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Cal ifornta hereby resolves; that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Securl ty 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. 1 ~ ~~~~ 31 -- clrt• uf- e.ascllr, r~ c.a~ln~c.a STAFF REPORT DATE: T0: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 15, 1992 Mayor, and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Nm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer ~,~ RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR THE FOLLOWING IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: CO 89-031 19TH STREET AND HAVEN AVENUE INTERSECTION IMPROYEMENTS; CO 89-075 BASE LINE PARKWAY BEAUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS; CO 89-100 CARNELIAN EAST SIDE PARKWAY BEAUTIFICATION IMPROVEMENTS, FROM VINEYARD TO BASE LINE; CO 89-104 HILLSIDE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION FROM HERMOSA TO MAYBERRY; CO 89-10o SIERRA MADRE AND PLACIDA COURT IMPROVEMENTS, ARROW TO YIA CARR ILLO; AND CO 89-013 HAVEN AVENUE MEDIAN PNASE III, SOUTH OF LEMON NORTH OF WILSON RECOMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council au thorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Ronds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and vrorkmanship. Respectfully submitted, ~~/ ~~"' VAn. Joe O'Neil City Engineer WJO:LRB:sd Z -.... -- -- - clTr c~F eaSC. Hn ct r.a~uisc.a STAFF REPORT -,. DATE: January 15, 1992 ~~ J' 70: Mayor, and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer 6Y: Linda R. Beek, Jr. EngineerI SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MAINTENANCE GUARANTEE BOND FOR THE FOLLOWING ~' IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS: CO 89-114 ?RAPE IC SIGNALS AT BASE lINE-RAMONA, BASE LINE-VALENCIA, HAVEN-VICTORIA; CO 89-135 VICTORIA STREET IMPROVEMENTS, EAST AVENUE TO ETiWANDA HIGH SCHOOL; CO 89-141 VINEYARD IMPROVEMENTS 'AT AT d SF CROSSING; CO 89-168 ETIWANDA AYE NUE COBBLESTONE CURB AND ~~ ' GUTTER; CO 89-169 HIDDEN FARM ROAD BO% CULVERT; CO 89-175 ~~ TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT HAVEN-7TH, ARCHIBALD-LEMON; AND CO 89- ' ~ 025 ALTA LOMA STORM DRAIN (ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 84-2i IMPROVEh1ENT5 RECOMMENDATION ~ It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to ~ release the Maintenance Guarantee Bonds. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS '~, The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street ~ imp roven~en is remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. Respectfully sub~itted, ~~'Ze~ Wm. Joe O'Neil(/~ City Engineer WJ O:LRB:sd -,-- - CIT'1' OF' R:1SCH(: Cl~('A1~105G.A '> '-. 5TAFF REPORT _ T~;;~ ;~ r ~ •.;r DATE: January 15, 1992 /V' T0: Mayor, and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager I FROM: Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gill~l and, Public Works Inspector-,~ i.--_; I SUBJECT: RELEASE OF MP.I NTE NANCE GUARANTEE BONGS FOR TRACTS 11606-1; 11606-2; 11606-3; 11606-4, AND 11606 STORM DRAIN LOCATED ON THE SCUTH SIDE OF VICTORIA STR Ef,T BETWEEN HAVEN AVENUE AND DEER CREEK CHANNEL It is reccmnended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bonds. BACK6RWND/ANALYSIS The required one year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free from defects in materials and workmanship. DEVELOPER: Grupe Development 940 South Coast Drive 8260 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond Tract 11606-1 E40,300.00 Tract 11606-2 E27,600.00 Tract 11606-3 E31,800.00 Tract 11606-4 E19,OD0.00 Tract 11606 Storm Drain E22,000.00 Respectfully subpsi\tted, , /~ Gam/' ~~ ~' Wm. Joe O'Neil City Engineer WJO:SMG:Iy 3y CITS' OF R.4XC'HO C'CC:\lIOtiUA STAFF REPORT '" '~' dry ,' DATE: January 15, 1992 s~ TG: Ydy Or and Y2P.Ibera of ills ~: LCy C.OUnci1 r Sack Lam, AICP, City Nana oez F ACN: Brad Buller, City P1a;m er By: Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner 8:73J EC T: 2.C RF.ATI OVAL VE HIC/.E PARICI NG AW STO PA GE - Review of current City Regulations affecting storage an3 park inq of Recreational Vehicles on private residential properties. Nod itications ro the existing ordinance will be covside re d. 1~CON~DA7ION It is recommended that the City Council consider three alternate Ordinances. Simply sua®arized, they are: OPTION 1: Existing prow i9 ions. OPTION 2: 1991 grand£atherin g. OPTION 3: 7488 gra r,dfatherinq. Ac a fourth option, th_ issue may be placed on the November 1992 ballot. HACIliI>DOND There has Seen a seriee of pub 11 r, hearings on this issue 6y the Planning Cenmission, Public _^.af sty Co®is sion, and the City Council, and a £ull range of alternatives has been discussed. At the last public hearing or. this matter, the City Council requested the staff and the Council aubc ovuvi ttee to develop a specific ordinance £or parking on private property, with options, available for possible adoption at this meeting. This report outlines the options su ggeated by the subcommittee and includes three Draft Ordinances for consi dezat ion by the fu 11 Council. "pttnns 1, 2, and 3 all have one point in common; they all confirm tha•: permanent st n:a qe of Re czeational Vehicles in fzo na 7ard setback areas of s~.n uie `am ily homes is not approp ri ata in the long non. The drfteranc es among the options are in the degree of "granrJfathering," from vn,ry re st active to verp permissive to ac cn mmorla to pre-e xi.s t;ng onndl.t ions. The three options are sn rtm:a razed Se low and def.ailed Ln ^ho text n` rho attached Dra `.t Ordinances fpleasa note the di fferenres in the ih ree drafts are shown in bold print): GiTY GOVN~^.?L 8^AFF RE PG RT RV GTG RAGE 6 PARKING REGJL ATIGNG danuarY 15, '992 Page . OPTION 1: $ci st ing Provisions. This would result in the adoption o.` a new Recreati onai Vehicle Ordinance rncerporatiny all the key existiny re guiation5. .t would nor ohangs the wing of existing regu iat ions, just separate them from all the other tyoes of vehicles :commercial, etc.) for better ::iaray. The effect aou ld be to keep the 24-hour res tric tios on RV pa r':Tna i^. front yard areas throughout the City. Thrs 's ehe :post restrictive option. OPTION 2: 1991 Gran dfathering This ,ou id confirm restrictions en future RV's and residents but exempt or "yrandfath or" everyone who could demonstrate RV ownersh io and resrde ncy onion to Oecembez 's t, 1991, provided their lot cannot accommodate Rv storage in side or rear yard. Essentially, this would ex^_end the pre-1968 rules to any RV owner residing in the City prior to the eE£ecti ve dat_, except Eor the Punned Convnu ni ties. Please note rh at the 10-foot setback requirement discussed in previous hearings is no Lon gez a part of the Oraft Ordinance as the pre-1988 regulations did not require any setback. T1:is is the least rest ricti va option. OPTION 3: 1988 Grandfathering This version of the ordinance would provide for "grandfat herin g" of nn ly those. RV owners who had a legal right to store their veh icLe s' rn tF.err front yard areas prior to the change in regulations nn August 7, 1998. This option accommodates tYe pre-1988 conditions, but reinstates the current restrictions for everyone else. However, the 24-hour li.m it would be extended Co 48 hours to provide additional flexibility. A11 these altezn olives are based on the assumption that reasonable controls cn the storage of recreatio ral vehicles in residential areas are appropriate and Cher, in the long term, the City should work tewar-1 the elimination of RV storage in areas whi dr were not desryn ed in accommodate such storage. Option 1 basically co nE firms the existrnq ordinance with mrn or mo ii `ica':ons. rp ti ons 2 and 3 are similar 'o w: contain exemptions to a11nw .or a transition to accommodate pre-existing RV's and their ~'w ne Te. OPTION a: The eali nt Option At. ~~.. re.gn~st cf the sub:ommiCr,ee, sto Pf has res~a o. hod :his npta one. Tl:e re are twn ways to pia .e a measure en the ba llo t_: 3~ CITY CODNCTL STP FF REpO RT R'/ STO$A^E 6 pA R.YISG REGtlLATIONS January 15, ~>92 Page 3 The actua_ text of the proprs ed ordinance is placed on the bal.ot; the voters either approve or re }e ct the measure. The :~o to is binding; :` anpr owed, E^.e test he romes to a. 7. ?::^.e second aoproac.^. Ls an advisory v;ae of the ceop_e, and the .eun ril may then adopt ar, ordinance consds te.^.t with that vote. Instead o` plac'_ng specific or di name `_ert on nhe ballot, a reore general question i.s ac%ed of the voters. This don roacS was ased in the past .~. reference `_o the fireworks issue. The City Council wou:d have at least until the end of June to make a decis'^:: whether and hew to structure the Sall nt measure, _, the ba ll~_ op tinn is sole rted• Respe/c~~:y_~y sub d, / ~ c '~ Brad B er City anner BB:OK/jfs attachments: Exhibit "A" F.xhi bit "D" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D1" Ex!;ibit "D2" Exhibit "D3" October 16, 1991, City Council Repnrt June 19, 1991, City Council Repnrt Ordinance No. 360 Draft Cr di nance/Option 1 Draft Ordinance/Option ?. DrafC Ordl nance/Option 3 ~3~ CITY OF RAtiCHO CL'C:~~IGtiGA STAFF REPORT >r, s~~r-~ ,~ DATE: Oct obez te, 1991 T0: Members of the Crty Council and City Manager ,Tack Lam, AICP, City Yana ger FROM: 3rad Hu 11s r, City Planner 3Y: 'tto Krout i.l, Deputy City planner 906SECT: RE rREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE - Review of curt ent City regulations aEEe cting storage and parking of Re Great ror.al Vehl cles on private residential properties. REODMffiNDAT I06 The City Council should take public testimony, review the recommendation made by the Recreational Jehicle Subcommittee, and either confirm or modify the general direction suggested by the Subcommittee. EACIfGIMOpD r oL low ing the Last public hearing on this matter, the City Council selected a 5u bcommi.ttee, consisting of Council Members Williams and Wm ght, to develop a r=commendation Lot consideration by the full Crty Council. The Su bcommtttee has met several times with a working group of residents who have been active in this issue. Th rs working group represented a wide range of opinions. Althou yh it vas not possible to find a solution accepts b]e to everyone, the discussions wr, ce very helpful. Eventually, a consensus on several key poi nts was reached. These tey points .`. orm the basis for the Su bcownit tee's recommendaticn, Gatlin ed in the form of a eu ygrs red "STATEMENT np INTENT" wryic?. Lo Llows. IE this sta Cement can be acrep ted as a valid reEie cti on of :nunril poiicy nn th a issoe. it would become the basis for the actual ordinances mnd if irati ons. ~x~+lr3rT ~rq CIT't COUNCfL ST.gFF REPORT RECREATIONAL VENICLE STORAGE October 16, 1991 Page 2 STATEMENT OF INTENT: Ii is the ultimate goal of the City of Rancho Cucamonga to ensure that recreational vehicles are stored only in areas which are designed and developed to accommodate such storage. This may be on individual private properties, where lot size and site layout permit these vehicles to be stored safely and with senaiti vity to the health and welfare of the neighborhood, or in cousnon storage areas off-site. This goal is reflected in the current ordinance, adopted on August ~, 1988, which prohibits permanent storage of recreational vehicles in the front yard areas of single family homes. The ordinance has recently under yo ne an extensive review by the City's Public Safety and Planning Commissions. Both Commissions have recommended that the ordinance be retained, with only minor modifications. However, the City Council recognizes that many recreational vehicle owners had purchased their homes in the City prior to the adoption and implementation of the new ze gu lationa. The City Council recognizes the hardship created through the adoption of the new ze gu lat ions for those whose properties can no longer reasonably accommodate their recreational vehicle under the new regulations. with these considerations in mind, and in the interest of balancing the needs and rights of individuals with requirements of public safety and the welfare of the coamiunity as a whole, it is therefore directed that the cur xent regulations be modified to accomplish the following: 1. In the long-term, permanent storage of recreational vehicles in Front yard areas should not De permitted. 2. RV owners who can demonstrate ownership of the dwel Li ng and AV prior to August 1988 (effective dace of the current ordinance) should be able to continue to store their vehicles in accordance with regulations in effect prior to August 1988, provided a 10- foot setback from the sidewalk is maintained. 3. RV owners who purchased their dwe llinq or RV between august 1988 and now should be allowed to afore their vehicles in the front yard area or.1y if: a. `,heir lot cannot reasonably accosonoda to Rv storage under current regulations, and b. they can meet the pre-1988 standards and a 10-foot setbark f rem the sidewalk. 39 C iTY COUYCIL STAFF REPORT RECREATIONAL VEiICLE STORAvE October 16, 1991 Pa ye 3 4. Future RV owners should be su b7 act to rile current ordinance which p mtibits permanent front yar3 storage altogether. 5. Pla r.ned Communities of Vrctoria, Terra Vista, and Caryn should con anus ro be governed by Che cucrert raga latiens and the "gra r.dfa ther ir. g" las outlined under 2 and 3 above) should NO? apply in t'nese areas. (Sinc^ their inception, the Piano ed Ccmmunities were developed under a separate set of development standards, with relatively small lots as a trade off foz ccmmon open space, and front yard setbacks too small to accommoda to sto ra qe of recreational veh lc L,+e. ) 5. Th rs approach, rf adopted by the City Council, should be well publicized and the public, and real estate community should be made well aware of all City regulations affecting RV parking and storage. (Important Note: Regulations in effect prior to October 1988 did not allow unrestricted stora ye in front yard setback areas. Rather, these re qu lations speci fled the condixions under which RV storage co~.~ld occur: nn an improved surface located between the driveway and the nearest side proparty line.) CONCLOSI(kl In its re concne ndation, the Subcommittee has attempted to: 11 confrrm and cla rrfy the City's long term goals, L) respect the nr_eds of pre-existing, non-conforming areas, 3) not compromise the requirements of public safety, and 4) recognize the unique qualities of the Planned Communities. if the City council can support this approach through the adopir on of the suggested "Statement of Intent", staff should then be directed to iraft specific mod rf uati.ons to existing ordinances Eor consrderati on dC 3 fu tUre hear ng. Rasp ally itt Bra H er r_~ty P nner HH:O K: sp (_'~i At*.a chments: June 19, 1991 City Council Staff Report CITF OF R~1SCH0 CUCA~SO~G? =^n~-;-. STAFF REPORT `' `' ~ -, CAT<: Jure 19, 1991 ,,,. Nay or and Members o` tre City Council Sack Lam, AIC P, City Manager FROM: 3rad Buller, City Planner RY: Otto Kroutil, Ceputy City Planner S L'B.lECT: P.ECREATIONAL VEHICLE STORAGE - Review of current City regulations affecting storage and parking of Recreational Vehicles on private residential pmpert ies• RSCOMffi1itA2I0N: The Council should review recommendations made by the P laming Conmiss ion and the Public Safety Commission, take public testimony, and provide staff with appropriate policy 3irec Lien. Available opt,i ons include direction to: 1. Retair, the current ordinance, as recommended by the Public Safety Coven fission; or Retain the current ordinance, but relax the time limits from 24 hours to five days, as recommended by the Planning Ccrzmii 9sion; or 3. Ease the re stzictions on certain vehicles, utilizing cr iterla suggested by the two Commissions; or 4. Any other modifications deemed appropriate by the City Council. B11CF>;ROONU: Review of the City's RV regulations for residential properties was initiated by the City Council in re appose to community concerns. The Council requested that Cwo City covmiesinns, the Public Safety Commission and the YLa nninq Commission, review the ex fisting ordinance and make recommendations on the issue to the City Council. Nhst does the carrmt ordinance sayl F.x fist ir,g reyu lations dealing with ALL vehi.c les font just RV's7 drstinqu ieh between "storage," which is considered permanent, and "parkrnq," which is of a temporary nar,ur e. T.he or7imm ce pzoh fib its all "stora qe" in residential front Xa rds; No ;sh rc i.es for ot'ner i+.ems such as equipment, materials, etc.) may be per'manen~ly stored in front yards or corner side yards. Recreational vehicles are considered "stored" after 24 hours of continuous packing. Parking for up to 26 hours is permitted in the front yard areas. ~I ~)(~-H6rr "s~" CITY COi11JCIL ETAFF REPOA^.' RV STORAGE - CITY OF RANCHO CL'CAMONGA Jun_ 19, 1991 Page 2 :he cu rzer.t ordinance does al Low storage of RV's (and other vehic Lesl n^. single family lots, in rear yards and ir.t er for side yards only. Aithou gh screen iug is required, fences need oat exceed fide (f1 feet in height. What is at issue? At issue is whe trier or not Fe rmanent storage of RV's in the front yards of single family homes should continua co be prohibited. Crer the last year, a number of Fublic meetings were held by Sot.*. the Planning Commission and the Public Safety Commission. Represents ^_i ves of the recreational vehicle group were irvo L/ed in di scussicns with staff ar.d 'he two commissions. A wide range of issues were raised during Chese mee tings, and it became apps tent that the only real question is the storage o` recreational vehicles in the front yards of single family homes. Existing restrictions on pnb lic street parking and requirements for screening and maintenance, which we re also 9iscussed, were stated NUT to be an issue fez the RV group representatives. P09LIC SAPSiR COlQII SSIOR R6VISi1: '.^he Public Safety Commi ssinn was charged with a review of the current ordinance from the perspective of public safety. The Public Safety Commi.ss icn reviewed information on sight lines and visibility conflicts, slope conditions, and other safety and security cons:derat_ons. Key information presented to the Commission is attached to t}Ss repnYt. At r,he vonslusion of its review, the Public Safety Commission reccmmen ded to the City Council that no change be made to the present ordi nance~ However, the Public Safety Commission has also recommended that if for soma re asnn the City Council de to rmi nes that modifications to the current ordinance are appropriate, that the following be cn nsi de red: "If the regulations affecting the storage of re main recreational vehicles to front yard areas are to be re la xed, the foil c'wi.na criteria should be used: a. only self-orope 7.led, self-contained, and fully secured vehicles such as motor homes, house cars, and campers mounted nn pickups may be stored in the requited front yard areas. b~ •~,::;h. vehi r,l es may nnT. extend over a puhli~ sidewalk cr right- .°-way i~ne, nor may they be scored within 70 feet, from the ba rk nF sidewalk cr Yight-of-way line. r. Vehicles stored in the front yard may not be lora teA within 5 fret of •he rnaidence, ga ra qe, nr other src'u cture. d. Nn vehicles may bt• stored nn slopes exceeding 10 percent." `12_ CITY CO[NC:L STAFF REPORT P.V STGAAGE - CI :"[ OF RANCRO CCC AMONGA Sure 19, 1997 Page 3 PLANNING COl4QSSIQ7 R&VISV: 4he Planning Ccmmi ssion di scussio rs were en matters of ].and use, aesthetics, mai rtenance, and nn the feasibiii ty o£ _af or re ment. The Planning Commissio r, considered mo di £icat io rs of time limn `s, possible ar aadfatherin q, and de ve ionment of standards based on types of vehicles stored. other cities' regulations were also reviewed. This information is also attached. The Planning Commission concluded its review with a reconmen dot inn that file current ordinance be retained, but that the time ii mi is on pa rk ina ,.. the front yard areas be extended from 7.4 hours to five days of mot i,^.uous parking. This would make the time limits consistent with restrictions on other vehicles. The Commission aiso sugge sled that if the Council desired further mn dif ication s, additional `.lezi bi li ty could be considered under a pe rmi [t inq process: with appropriate criteria to be developed. SUlWT~RY/CONCI.OSION: The Commissions' review of Recreational Vehicle regulations has now beer. completed. The Public Safety Commission recommends that the current ordinance be retained as is. The Planning Commission recommends that the current ordinance be retained, with a re is nation of time limits (corn 2•f hours to five days. Goth Commissions non cur that if the Council feels ad di ticnal mo dif icat iors are necessary, specific, criteria such as minimum setbacks a rd restrictions based on the type of vehicle would be needed. In that event, the Planning Commission would suggest a possible permitting process. The City Council should review these reconmenda lions and prcvide staff with appropriate policy direction. Respe Ly sub e Bra3 ller City Planner 59:0%/jfs A`achmer.ts: Exh ibi.t "A" - Ordinance No. 360 Exhibit "B" - Pl.a nning Commission Staff Report and (draft) Minutes of May 22, 1991 Exh ibi[ "C" - Public Safety Commission Staff Repo r' amt Minutes of De rember 4, 1990 ~~ OR`.SNANCE N0. 350 AN ORDI PAHC% OP IT& OZSY .fit VNCLL CP IRB CI'."Y CP RANQ2C w G!A NGA, GLI FORMA, AlE 27DI2,G S1Hf 5%C2 SON 3i .08.070-C AND :7.12.03 ~B, AND ADDING A NEST ,SOBS%CTIDN 17.20,0`o--C Ib '.HE RAN Q?0 C(iGFp NGA NOMC. PAL 0006 PERyAINAtf„ 1`J PPP-I CLE PARRSNO iiS1H iN RESI ll%NTSAL. CO}QCRCSAL/O PPl CE ANU INS1U S78 iAL DI9'IR S C!'8 - A. Raci tals. ({) On Mny 2.', 2988, the Planning Cmiiraian op the Ciry of Renc!:c Ca casorga conduct ed • duly noticed pabl ie hearing rith re spa ct ce eha tallaa ing pto po sad an endsent to Titls 27 of ch• Rancho Cucuanga Municipal Code :heralntf car referred to •a the °Dwelo pwen4 Co de •) regarding regale tion• .'ar vehlcla pe rkirg within reside nti al: couercial and industrial diatr icc• at the City. (ii) Ac the mncl union of said May 25, 1988, public hearing, the. Pl anninE Coaei pion adopted its Resolution Ho. A8-108 thereby recwaending ahet~ chin pounc it adopt eha pro poNd llnelo pent Cade aasndaent• sa set forth in this Ordinance. (iii) On Jun• 15, 1988, the City Ccunc ll at the Ci4y of Rancho Cu caaonga conducted n duly no ti cyd public Gating ritb uspe ct to the pro po red Davela Pant Coda asendaenu a• Nt for t6 herein and aid has ring net co nclu dad ,riot to the ado pt ion of this Ordinance. (iv7 All legal prsrequi ri¢ed prior Co the adoption of th it Oxd inance have occssr tad. 3. Ordinance. ?AL CS I'Y C-0UHCIL OP Tfl% CZT7 OS RANCHO CO GlfJlCA Lb ES HEREBY 6RIlA SN AS ~T7LLOWS SE CI"i0N 1: 1Lat all of th• facts set forth in the Rscitai a, Part A, of th is Ordinance are [rue and correct. SEC[tON 2: Subeaet ien 17.08.070-C of t6a Davalopaaat Coda of th• Ci cy of Rancho Cucaeanga is beta Ly oaended to read, in eor d+ and Ngur ea, as frlAw t: aehicl• Parkins. Ra parking of vah Sola• in all reside ntiQ di sx ricer shall G suhj scc to the tollw ing pt av lalona: N ~' , r aGR e ~~~~;~ ud .. ..Svence vc. 7r.J ?age .. fin de sign gold+l ir.+e aid rxgc:ecio nn Sot parking Areas shall cc nfotm to the pr cciaiona of ~:npcer I?.li o,` the ^w a'omene Ccda; ~. 7eh ic'_e parking sh ail be rith in the enclo wd garage, to rpott or etS et rey uizsd or auihc ria+d off-etzeet paved pa zkirg arcs; _. ,1i1 pa rkirg aTlRA rith ir. pubi is vice ttaat the at rea t; pubi is right-of-vay or adj ncent pro parties shat' be ;.awed xiiS a petaenrnc paving ante rial. Such area ehnii Se aair.teined - a uw obit condition free of po tbolea srd broken wccions avffic lent to prevenc and and/or du at, richout acctwulation of locw mabzlsl or other deterioration; ~• Veh iclee say b• pa clod of stared ;n the aids or rear yard ptov ided that such area is acrNned trgl vin fro• cbe ac ree t, public right-of-ray and adjacent pro pe rtie• 6y s fence, roll, or equivalent ecteen'_ng rite rial at le ut five (S) feat Sn hsigh t: 5. Vehicle parking with in side end rear yard sreaa eh all bs lie i[ed to five percent (Si) of the to [al lot area or five handed (500) aq va rs feet, rh ichever is greater, unless conatruated por avant to qn approved Minor Dnelo pacer Rerin; 5. '~dpt as provided ir. Subee et ion 9 herein, vehi cl e• parked rith in public vLee in regal nd or authorized parking areas rith in the front gazd, corner •ide ycrd or si d. yard abutting a •tuet shall ba wrlud ox left seceding for is porerg Wria d^ of ties not to exceed five (3) con wcut ive day a; 7. •VShicl aa• a uwd in this acct fan shall include, bur not 6e lfe itod co, rosuee rc3,ai vehid sn, aurwobils •, trucks, trail:ra, ao toz trvcks, sea i-trailers. mo carcycle a, wpsda, co pe u, reaper ahQ L, boats or oth ar large portable racreatio Ml and cosuerci al egaipaenr and 8. No coamercial vnh icle rh ich exce+da a gro as might of one and or»-belt (1 end 1/2) tons. or eaceeda a vidch of eighty (80) inches ar e:ueda a height of seven (p P+et or eacesda a ltngt6 of rust ty-five (23) fret: no epe ciai is ed vorF, rrL C+d vet icle (e, g, tw truck, eta k+bed trucks„etc,) and no spr cial is e6 cork related portable ~ry ui pment (e, g. cement risers, trailers, etc.): eh all M pa clod on arty por don of a reside trial lot un le aa: (1) it is actively imrol ved in raking i ~.C H/rJi1 ~- .rdinnnce b. '_5C ?e $e ~ ick-u pa •nd drliverls a; (2) in m nnecc ion rith, ar,d in aid to cha pe rfetaan<e oP a ten ice to, ar an, the srox rty there :'re vehicle is ro:ke d, ah ilt a<t iveiy i-rvolvrd in each acziv ity; of (3) i.^. co nfo trance xith ffie Condit icna of eppzwrl for a valid 9mr Ott~upa do r, ?emit a• prro idrd ir. Section 17 .04 A60 of the Jeveiopne nc Cade: 9. >b pr iva [e, non-court<iai vehicle which ezcaeda s gro ra weight of one and onrhrlf (3 end :/Z) ¢cr, r, oc exceeds a width of eighty (80) ;ocher, or ex<eeda a height of raven (7) feet ct euead• a length of xventy-tiva (25) fort: and no testier. nw i-cr aii:r, boat oz porta6la recxeaeio nal ea ciPrr,t that; Se pa tked or stored vifh in the front peed, corner side yard of aide yard abutting a atzarc unlera: (i) is is nac a cover<ial vehici• •rd ie parked foc a tampon ry period of tine not to rxce+d cren ty-!our (24) hours: (2) iz i• inyoived Sn loading or unloading activity; and (3) it is Fa rind in co~pl tetra with •rty saber •ppliv bl• City erdinanca; 10. 7iolacion of eery prcv iaicn of t6 i• rabeectian rbail b! F~isba hle as an lntracc ion. SBCTION 3: SUbee<t ion 17.12,030-B(g) of the Onelopwwt Code of N.:o City of lZa ncho Cucuongs in ~are~ stranded to read, in cords and figurer, ea fcilwa; 8. Am arcondsq paved dr iveq or ea ter.ricn of the priaaty dt lvway ah all not be aced sot parking unler r: (:) it conrrcn the pr weary dr iva:ay ec ceu to a taco nd •cqu point rit6 the azwat oe public right-of-raw (i.a, <irculaz drivanq) with • coot Snuow pavaenc s idt6 not exceeding [salve (12) fact (2) ie is an ex tan aion of the pr ;teary dr ivrrey [ward the ne•re •t aids or rear yard ern; oe {3) ie conK tact ed puraw ne to as approved dinar Drvolo Pent Rp iav. SHC?lON 4: Subae<t ion 1?.10.050-0 it hen by addod to rho ~rvrle paent Code of the Ciq of Rancho Cucaaonga to br road, in rocd• and figurer, es .~.iw r: C. ^ahic to Yatking. The P rung ~t vehicl s^ is all <oasercial/ office and induct Kial dintr icc• ehall M auhj act to the follwing prow ;atone: i; 1. Th• da sign gN ;dal lnea trod regal atiena Lnr Peking &• ~ fac it it ire ah all <o nfors to th• prcv iriona at Qiap ter ' ~ +1.12 of the Devalc Prnr Code end •ny appliu blr ~ pt ay iaion• at th• Indarerial Spec ii i< Plan; i I~X NIlI:Y ~~ '~ Ord L-.a nce No. 3EC Page 2. ^eb tic'-s parking ah a/l ba xitb in hail dingx, gars gefi oz otbar raqui red or author ix ed oft-strut paved parking :acil icie r. 3. A1S parking facii itiaa cabin public .tier fray the atree t, public right-of-ray or adj scant pro perry ah ali be paved rith s permanent paving mfitar iel. Such arse shall be maintained ir. a uaeabia condition fret of po tholes and broken pct ions cuff icient ro prevent and andicr doer, rithout accumulation of lco p material et ..then de ter is raticn; ~. ?io vehicle ah all be pa rlv6 foz the par pcp of die pl ~y ing anch vehicle for male of oth ar cowmetci ai activity, includieg, but not limited to, It see, `.rre, edvsrtising, etc. unlss• such veh iclf fa perked by, or rit6 tC• rritten peniuion af, a buaineu on the pre party rhith is prwittad, licenpd and approved to dle pl ay vehiQea for anch prs po pe; 5. No veh icl• shall b. parked for the pmr pop of repair or maintenance uniess: (1) such sock tie Prto ned on veh lcl ea ormd or operated b7 the on-site business v ith in an •ncio rd bull ding nr 7ard ana •crsaeed fraw via !row thf •t rect. public right-of-raj, adjapnt props cries and required ott-etrat perking faciliHe• rith public acu •a; or (Z) in conMttion rich • cnrztnt or sitf bu aineae pens is qd to pe rtoa repair o; maintenance of vehid ea and only during •atabl iahed buaiaeaa hour •; No vehicle rh ich is dip bled, unlicenpd, unregistered, inopen rive or trove rhich •n eapntial or Segel ly rtqui cad opa racing pate tie rroved or visaing ah all ba parked rit6 in publ le vier fzu the straw r; pu631c righ [-ofwm7, adjaunt pro prrciu or required off-atz set Wr4ing faril itie• rich pn631c secs •e: i. No cauazcial vahid• t:ceeding • grog reight of one and onm-half (1 rnd 1/2) tons, or ascpding a ridtL of ;;' •igh t7 (BD) inches, or a traiLr ar aai-[railer ah all M pa eke4 rith in a nommrcisl/otftca diatri ct, unle u: (ll ix tie ecnevd trove pu611c via trove th• street, publ lc righrat- raj and adjacent properties, (2) it is ~`~ ace ivel7 imolvfd in Baking pick-np• and del iverie•; oc ' ~3) in connect icn rith, end in aid to, the perfarwar.ce `}~ cf a ae tv ice to, or on, the pre pa r t7 rhos the vehicle -Y.'- is pa zked, rh ii•activ~ly iwolved io ouch activity; :~ E"xHi~3~r 'C, ' ,r,d .,. _:cacce Vc. ?a ge'S e. '7 eh icl ea' as used in tb is suet ion R6 all include. Sot cot See lin ited :o, coxsr rci z/ '.•vhic/rs, auto•obile w, c nicks, trailer e, ao for trucica, va i-cr^ilere, loco rcy clea, mo W da, car pe z •, tae per a6 e32 e, 'xat.v or och rr large Doers bit ;errea*_ioral or cnsaea;cial eq•;i pmrnt; 4, 7iole:iun of arty pzoV iaion of th it anhw ction eh aii he pxmieh aSle a• an intract is r.. SE C^ION 5: The City Ccunc ii de clerea that, rho old ary pew is io r„ section, pr dgtaph, sentence o- rozd of this Ordinanc: be rerde tad or de d seed ir¢+alid ~ arey final rnurt action in a co utt of cos pe tent jctiaditt is n, or 'ry rauor. of any pr eer~pt ive Iegi alaticn, the remaining prow iaion w, ae ct icn •, r<tagraph r, eentenu e, end rot da oC this Ordinance shall resit. in fall fee ee ar.d of feet. SECTION 6: 1Le Flayor ah all sign this Ordinance and th• City C. erk ahQl uuee tte note to be ppbliehed rich in fifteen (15) drys •t yr iu paarage et least once in ;be Dai 1p Report, a nee •pa per of general cicculation pabl iahed in the ..^.i ty of On utie, ulitorni a, and circai ared in the City of Rancho Cucaaonga. California, 'lw fLyar shall •ign thin Ordinance and cha City C1.vrk shall trot th• run to be oubl iahvd ri:h in fit teen (15) drys •t tar its Pmate •t lewat once in '"he Gaily R•port, a nerep per of gvnrrtl circmml anon pu611ahed in the City of Ontario, Cal itc emir. and circulated in ihv Cf cy of Rancho Cocuon8a, California. PAS SEil, APRtOP ED, and ADO?fED this 6th day of July, 1988. A?ES: Hewn, Auque t, StOUL, Ring, Aright ' ~r WR^~; None AESENTf None ~1 ~ ~n~ nni• L. 5[cut~ lYyor 11"IES T. i~ _ n/~ gvoorly /.~Auth elel vw~~ , ~XI:: L}' Crd ira nce eo. 3b0 Fa gv 6 Y, B69EId.Y A. AU1$E(,E2, CI1T CLSRE of th• City of Rancho Cucgonga, 431forn ia, da hereby certify chat the tozcgo ing Ordinance rae introduced at a regniar xvvting of th• Council of the City of Aoncho Lhcponga held on the i5sh day of June, 1988, end ru finally Faaeed ac • regular awting Sulyhv19B8. Council of the City of Rancho Cuea~eonga held on rha 6th day of Executed [his 7th day o[ July, 1988 •t Rancho Cucuonga, California. vterly Authele= ~~C~ EXH/d/r G ~ OPTION 1 ORDINANCE NO. 7 g AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM.ONGA, CALIFORN ZA, ADDING SECTION 17.08.070-E TO THE ..^.ANCHO CVCAMONGA MUNICIPAL rODE, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATIQN OF RECREATIONAL VEHICLE PA RRING AND STORAGE WITHIN RESIDENTIAL CIST AICTS. A. Recitals. fit On May 16, 1990, the City Council reviewed the current Fecreational Vehicle regulations, and, as a result this review and public testimony, referred the matter to the City's Public Safety Commission and the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. (ii) The Public Safety Commission held public meetings on the issue on June 12, August 7, and December 4, 1990, and recommended that the existing Ordinance be retained. (iii) The Planning r_ommission held public hearings on the issue on June 27, July 25, September 26, 1990, and May 22, 1991, and recommended that the ezistirg ordinance be retained, with minor modifications. (iv1 On June 19, and again on October 16, 1991, and January 15, 1992, the City Council held duly advertised public hearings, reviewed recommendations made by the Planning and Public Safety Commissions, and considered public testimony. These hearings were concluded prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. (v) All legal prerequisites Prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. R. Ordinance. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CU(`AMONGA DOES HE PERY ORbA IN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of th ie Ordinance, are true and correct. SECTION 2: Subse r_t10n 17.08.070-E, to read as follows, is hereby added to the Municipal Code: E. Recreational Vehicle Parking and Storage. The parking and storage of recreational vehicles on residential properties, Sn all residential districts, shall be subject to the provisions of. this Se ct,ion• r~,7R 1 ~l_f 4~. ~ M 1 CITT CO[P.JCIL ORD INA.NCE N0. AV P.4 R.KT. NG 6 STORAGE Sanwar7 15, 1992 Page 2 Rec;eational ve'^. is ].es defined. e^or the purpose eF this Se cticn, "Recreational vehicle" shall mean a motor home, travel trailer, mounted camper, or a boat on a trailer, prodded that suc*, vehicl=s are not commercial vehicles o: used .`or cornier vial purposes. 2. Ae creational vehicle parking s::^.a 11 only ba perm.i tted wi thir, an enclosed garage, carport, or a similar structure, or _. outdoors, in an authorized o£f-street paved Dorking area` Ali other pa rki r.g nr stcra ge shah be pr ohibi to 3. Authorized parking areas. Authorized outdoor parking areas shall be limited to t'ne locations and conditions described below: (a) Aecre at Tonal vehicles may be parked or stored in the side or rear yard areas, provided that such areas are screened from view from the street, public right-of- way, and adjacent properties by a legally constructed fence, wall, oz equivalent screening materiai at least five (5) feet i.n height; (b) Recreational vehicle parking areas within side and rear yards shall be limited to 5 percent of the iota: Sot area or 500 square feet, whichever is greater, unless constructed pursuant to an approved Minor Dev_Lopment Review; (r,7 Recreational vehicles may also 6e parked within public view in authorized corking areas within the front yard, or corner side yard abutting a strent, for temporary periods of tine not to exceed 24 hours. 4. Parking area maintenance. A11 parking areas within public view from the street, public ri ght rot-way, or adjacent properties shall be surfaced with a permanent paving material. Such areas sha 11 be maintained in good usable condi t.ion, f. ee n' por, ho lea and broken sections to prevent the accumulation of mud, Rust, and weeds, and shall he kept free of debris, 9irr, and outer loose ma terials• 5. violation of any pr nvision of this subsection shall h~ pun ishablc as an infraction. Y~ ' q SI CI TZ COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. RV PARI(SNG s STORAGE January 15, 1992 Page 3 SECTION 3: The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of comoetent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves this Municipal Code Amendment. SECTION 5: The Mayoz shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its pasea ge at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Hull t' a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. -t;_ SZ. ~,~e OPTION 2 ORDINANCE No. t.yg3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADbING SECTION 17.08.070-E TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF RECREATIONAL VEH i^_LE PAA%ING AND STORAGE WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. A. Recitals. (i) On May 16, 1990, the City Council reviewed the current Recreational `: eh is le regulations, and, as a result this review and public testimony, referred the matter to the City's Public Safety Commission and the Planning Commi ssicn for review and recommendation. (ii) The Pub 11c Safety Commission held public meetings on the issue on June 12, August 7, and De rember 4, 1990, and recommended that the existing Ordinance be retained. (iii) The Planning Commission held public hearings on the issue on ,Tune 27, July 25, September 26, 1990, and May 22, 1991, and recommended that the existing ordinance be retained, with minor modifications. (iv) On .Tune 19, and again on October 16, 1991, and January 15, 1992, the City Council held duly advertised public hearings, reviewed recommendations made by the Planning and Public Safety Commissions, and considered public testimony. These hearings were concluded prior to the adoption of this Ordinance. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance. THE CITY COUNCZL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Ordinance, are true and correct. SECTION 2: Subsection 17.08.070-E, to cead as follows, is hereby added to the Munir. ipal Code: E. Recreational Vehicle Patkinq and Storage. The parking and storage of recreational veh is lea on residential properties, in all residential districts, sha 11 be subject rn the provisions of this Section. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0. RV PARKING & STORAGE January 15, 1992 Pa qe 2 Recreational vehicles defined. For the purpose of this Section, "Recreational Vehicle" shall mean a motor home, *_ravel trailer, mounted camper, nr a boat on a trailer, provided that such vehicles are not commercial vehicles nr used for commercial purposes- 2. Recreational vehicle parking shall only be permitted within an enclosed garage, carport, or a similar structure, or if outdoors, in an authorized off-street paved parking area. All other parking or storage shall be prohibited. 7- Authorized pa rY-ing areas. Authorized outdoor parking areas shall be limited to the locations and conditions described below: (a) Recreational vehicles may be parked or stored in the side or rear yard areas, provided that such areas are screened from view from the street, public right-of- way, and adjacent properties by a Legally constructed fence, wall, or equivalent screening material at least Eive (5) feet in height; (b) Fe creational vehicle parking areas within side and rear yards shall be limited to 5 percent of the total lot area or 500 square feet, whichever is greater, unless constructed pursuant to an approved Minor Development Review; (c) Recreational vehicles may also be parked within public view in authorized parking areas within the front yard, or corner aide yard abutting a street, for temporary periods of time not to exceed 48 hours, except se noted Sn paragraph (d) belor. fd) TS~e liaite eetabli shed in paragraph (c) may be waived for a epeciflc property when all of the Following conditions cen be deaonetrated: cwrrent owner or resident. hat ttsided on said property since prior to Dece~Dar 31, 1991= and ~. Current owner or resident hm owned a Recreational Vehicle since prior to December 31, 1991, chile residing on the property; and 3. Property in question cannot reasonably accc~dete recreational vehicle storage in the aide or rear yard; and 5~ ~.2y CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. RV PARAING s STORAGE .Tanua ry 15, 1992 Page 3 4. Recreational veRicle map only be parked or stored on a paved surface located betreen the drivevap sad the neazeat aide property line; and 5. Property in question is NOT located rithin the Planned Covuniti ea of Carya, Terra vista, or victoria. 4. Faz king area maintenance. A11 parking areas within public view from the street, public right-of-way, or adjacent properties shall be surfaced with a pezmanent paving material. Such areas shall be maintained in good usable condition, free of potholes and broken sections tc prevent the accumulation of mud, dust, and weeds, and shall be kept free of debris, dirt, and other loose materials. 5. Violation of any provision of this subsection shall be punishable as an infraction. SECTION 3: The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of Chia Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, oz by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and wards of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTi0h 4: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves this Municipal Code Amendment. SECTION 5: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Deily Eu lLe tin, a newspaper of general circa Lotion pub Li shed in the City of Ontario, California, end circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Ca li Eornia. ,, M 1 •Z SS OPTION 3 ORDINANCE L10. ~~ 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIh OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION 17.08.070-E TO THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF RECREATIONAL VF,N ICLE PARKING AND STORAGE WITHIN F£SI DENTIAL DISTRICTS. A. Recitals. (i) On May 16, 1990, the City Council reviewed the cv went Recreational Vehicle regulations, and, as a result this review and public testimony, referred the matter to the City's Public Safety Commission and the Planning C,Omm~SSion for review and rec onmrendation. (ii) The Public Safety Commission held public meetings on the issue on June 12, August 7, and December 4, 1990, and recommended that the existing Ordinance be retained. (iii) The Planning Commission held public hearings on the issue on June 27, July 25, September 26, 1990, and May 22, 1991, and recommended that the existing ordinance be retained, with minor modifications. (iv) On June 19, and again on October 16, 1991, and January 15, 1992, the City Council held duly advertised public hearings, reviewed recommendations me de by the Planning and Public Safety Commissions, and considered public testimony. These hearings were concluded prior to the adop ti.,n of this Ordinance. (v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. H. Or di nonce. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION is That all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Cr dinance, are true and correct. SECTION 2: Eubsect ion 17.08.070-E, to read as follows, is hereby added to the Municipal Code: E. Recreational Vehicle Parking and Storage. The parking and storage of recreational vehicles on residential properties, in all residential distr LCta, shall be subject to the provisions of this Section. 1 gI'r y .~ 2 5l~ CITY COUttCIi ORDINANCE N0~ RV PA RKTNG 6 STORAGE January 15, 1992 Page 2 Recreational vehicles defined. For the purpose of this Section, "Recreational Vehicle" shall mean a motor home, [ravel trailer, mounted camper, or a boat on a trailer, provided that such vehicles are not commercial vehicles or used for commercial Purposes. 2. Recreational vehicle parking shall only be permitted within an enclosed garage, carport, or a similar structure, or if outdoors, in an authorized off-street paved parking area. All other parking or storage shall be prohibited. 3. Authorized parking areas. Authorized outdoor parking areas shall be limited to the locations and conditions described below: (a) Recreational vehic lee may be parked or stored in the side or rear yard areas, provided that such areas are screened from view from the street, public right-of- way, and adjacent properties by a legally constructed fence, wall, or equivalent screening material at least five (5) fees in height; (b) Recreational vehicle parking areas within Bide and rear yards shall be limited to 5 percent of the total lot area or 500 square feet, whichever is greater, unless constructed pursuant to an approved Minor Development Review; (c) Ae creational vehic lea may also be parked within public view in authorized parking areas within the front yard, or corner side yard abutting a street, Eor temporary periods of time not to exceed de hours, except ae noted in paragraph (d) below. (d) Time limits eatab lashed in paragraph (c) may be waived for a specific property when all of the Eo 11ow1ng conditions can be demonstrated: 1. torrent owner or resident has resided on said property since prior to Aeguat 7, 1988; and 2• .urrent owner or resident has owned a Recreational Vehlc le since prior to #uguet 7, 1988, while residing on the property; and Property Sn queaticn cannot reasonably accoimnodate recreational vehicle storage in the side or rear yard; and S ~ . ,~' 3 CITY CO[tNCIL ORDINANCE NO. RV PA REING 6 STORAGE January 15, 1992 Page 3 4. Recreational vehicle may only be parked or stored on a paved surface 1o rated between the driveway and the nearest side pr oyerty line; and 5. Property in question is NOT located within t1~e Planned Communities of Caryn, Terra Vista, or Victoria. 4. Parking area maintenance. A11 parking areas within Public view from the street, public right-of-way, or adjacent properties shall De surface^ with a permanent paving material. Such areas shall be maintained in good usable condition, free of potholes and broken sections to prevent the accumulation of mud, dust, and weeds, and shall be kept free of debris, dirt, and other loose ma[erials• 5. Violation o£ any provia ion of this subsection shall be punishable as an infraction. SECTION 3: The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, pa ragtaphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance sha 11 remain in full force and effect. SECTION 4: The City Council of the City of Fancho Cucamonga hereby approves this Municipal Code Amendment. SECTION 5: The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. S8 .~,3~ ~_ -- CIT}' OF RANCHU Cl'('AMCINGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO FROM: SUBIECI': Ianuary 15, 1992 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager rr Debbie Adams, CMC, City Clerk AIJT4.t~/-tip' CONSIDERATION OF UPDATRJG TES CITY'S CONFLCf OF INTEREST IroDE FOR DESIGNATED CITY PERSONNEL PURSUANT TO TFtE PROVISIONS OF TFiE POLITICAL REFORM ACI' OF 1974, CALIFORNIA GOVERNtvtENT CODE SECDON 81000, Eq' SEQ. The City Council approve Resolution No. 80-049C which is amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code for designated City personnel. R ack pround• The amended Resolution, which is attached for your approval, is a requirement of The Political Reform Act of 1974, Cali(omia Government Code Section BI000, et seq. This Resolution was previously updated in November, 1989. It is now before you in order to once again include changes to various personnel job classification titles and job responsibilities and to designate the appropriate disclosure categories for all job classification titles. It is a requirement that the Conflict of Interest Code be amended through a public hearing, and that all affected personnel 6e informed of the amended Resolution which is attached. This has been accomplished through the City Clerk's office. If you have any questions regarding the approval of this Resolution, please feel free [o contact mc. /dja Attached RESOLI7PION No. ao-oa9c A RESOU71'ZON OF THE CITY OJIR4CII, OF Tf~ CTTY OF RANCHO CUCAADN(.A, CALIFORNIA, AMENDIIJG TEiE CTTY'S NNF7.ICP OF WIFRfSi' 07DE fOR DESIC,F+NI'EI) CITY PERSONNE[. A. Recitals. ~~1177 (i) 'this City Council, try its Resolution No. 80-0498, adopted November 15, 1989, enacted the Model Conflict of Im°rest Cale pranulgated by the California Fair. Political Practices Commission (2 California Code of Rc~,gulations, Section 18730). (ii) Since adoption of, the City's Conflict of Interest Code, changes and alterations have been made with respect to the duties and zesponsibilities of various City employees, including changes in titles an3 class descriptions as well as the addition of ne+i positions to the City staff. (iii) The City c~ncil desires to amercl the City's Conflict of Interest Resolution in order to provide appropriate reporti~ pursuant to the California Political Reform Act of 1974 (California Goverrmpnt Code, Section 81000, et, seq.). (iv) Pursuant to the provisions of California Govenvnent Code section 87311, a duly noticed public hearing was concluded prior to the adoption of this Resolution. e. Resolution. NOW, THf~2EEDRE, the City Council of the City of Rancho CucalmJrxla does hereby find, determine and resolve as folla.:s: 1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution. 2. Appendix A of Resolution No. 80-049B hereby is amended to read, in woLds and figures, as set forth in the amercied Appendix A attache] hereto and by this reference inwrporated herein as though fully set forth. 3. In all other respects, all provisions of Resolution No. 80-049B shall remain in full force and effect. 4. 7fie City Clerk shall. certify to the adoption of this Resolution. l0~ Resolution No. 80-0490 Page 3 APPEJDIX A* Designated Fh~lovees Disclosure Categories Deputy City Manager 1 arcl 2 Pchninistrative Services Director 1 arc] 2 Fi~noe Officer 1 Senior Acmunt Technician 1 Building Official 1 and 2 Caimunity Services Director 1 and 2 City FYigineer 1 and 2 City Planner 1 and 2 Conmmiity Development DireLtor 1 and 2 Rerortls Manager (City Clerk) 1 and 2 Plan (hec]c Coordinator 2 Deputy Building Official 2 Senior Redevelopnent Agency Arulyst 1 arcJ 2 Park Planning/DevelopRprt St,T~erintendent 1 and 2 Recreation Superintendent 2 Deputy City Etgineer 1 and 2 Traffic Fhgineer 1 arc? 2 Senior Civil F7KJineer 1 and 2 Public Works F]igineer 1 and 2 Public Works Maintenance Manager 2 Deputy City Planner 1 and 2 Principal Planner 1 arcl 2 senior Planner 1 and 2 Purchasing Pgent 2 Redevelopinlit Analyst 1 and 2 Parks/,--'-~~•pe Maintenance Superintendent 2 Street/Storm Drain Maintenance Superintendent 2 Park and Recreation Comrtission 1 Historical Preservation Commission 1 Consultants ** NC/TE: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Treasurer arc? Planning Conunissior~rs are required to sutmit disclosure statements pursuant to State law (California Government Cale, Section 87200, et seq.), not this Code. ** With respect to consultants, the City Manager shall determine in writi~ i.f a particular consultant performs a range of duties requiring discJ.o- sure hereunder. 7tais detErntination shall include a description of the coru^ultant's duties and a statement of the extent of disclosure require- ments. A copy of this determination shall be filed with the City Clerk and a copy forwardal to the City Cavlcil.. tP C1'1'Y UN' RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 15, 1992 TO Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Diane O'Neal, Management Anayst II SUBJECT: REQUEST FORACONTINUATION OF ADOPTION A8939 FINAL REPORT An advenised public hearing was scheduled for the City Council's January 15, 1992 City Council meeting. The purpose of the advedised public hearing was to consider adoption of the City's AB 939 Final RepoA. The County of San Bernardino, Solid Waste Management Department, contacted the City to notity us that the County of San eemardino's Task Force was not able to submit their written, final comments to the Ciry due fo holiday schedules of the Task Force. It will be necessary to receive the Task Force's comments prior to the City Council considering adopting the Final Repon in order to resolve any potential deficiencies the Task Force may raise with our document. Staff has contacted the California Integrated Waste Board and advised the Board of this development. The Board asked the City to generate conespondence indicating what has transpired with the County Task Force and staN has forwarded that correspondence. It is requested this item be continued to March 4, 7992. Respectfully Submit d, Diane O'Neal J Management Analyst II ~~ ~~-~ ~---~-- CITS' OF RANCHU CI'OAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE January 15, 1992 Tt2 Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SIJBIECI': Consideration of Recolution l7rgjng the Reinstallation of the Barton Plaza Name At the direction of the City Council, the attached resolution has been prepared for the City Council's consideration. The attached resolution urges the Westinghouse Credit Corporation to reinstall the Barron Plaza name in recognition of [he already established name associated with these landmark buildings. Respectfully Submitted, //' RESOLUTION NO. 92- Q~ A RESOLL"I'fON OF THE C17'Y COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, URGING WESTINGHOUSE CREDIT CORPORATION TO REINSTALL THE NAME BARYON PLAZA WHEREAS, James Barton helped pioneer the development of the central commercial and business district of Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, for many years the name "Barton Plaza" has been linked to two landmark buildings in Rancho Cucamonga; and WHEREAS, James Barton is deserving of recognition for being a pioneer and visionary who helped shaped Rancho Cucamonga's "downtown"; and WHEREAS, it is important [hat the local history of Rancho Cucamonga be preserved through the continued identification of two landmark buildings as "Barton Plaza" and that [he contribution of James Barton be remembered. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby urges Westinghouse Credit Corporation to reinstall the name "Barton Plaza" to [he twin office towers on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of Haven Avenue so that the established identification of that center and the history behind their development no[ be lost. LI ~ - -- -- ('[TY OF' RANi'HI i CI'('A~IPNGA STAFF REPORT ,-.~'t.., ~~~ DATE: January I5, 1992 I iD: City Council and City Manager ' FROM: William Joe O'Neil, City Engineer 'I RY: Sigmund M. Dellhime, Management Analyst II SCBJECT: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute contract agreement 8CA 17110 with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the distribution of tree planting grant funds in the amount of $89,615 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and adopt the attached resolution. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute contract agreement 8CA 17110 with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the distribution of tree planting grant funds in the amount of $89,615 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and adopt the attached resolution. DACKGROLND/ANALYSIS The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection has designated the City of Rancho Cucamonga as a grant recipient of 589,615 under anew program sponsored by the federal Small Qusittess Administration. This program allocates funds to state and local agencies for the planting of trees on public (ands. Using small businesses, grant monies may only be used for planting or purchasing trees. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will use the grant funds to augment funds within the Landscape Maintenance Districts allocated for the replacement of trees which were last during Fiscal Year 1990-1991 due to freeze, disease, and damage. Grant funds must be matched by a City contribution of at least 50% of the total grant amount, of which 20% must be in cash, for administrative charges. For the City's grant, this is $17,923. The remainder of the City's contribution in kind will be in the form of the value of care and maintenance of the trees for the first 3 years after being planted. Respectfully Submitted, William J. O'Neil; City Engineer WJO:SMD:pt Enclosures RESOLUTION NO. L~~ - t%,~7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCII, OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR ANA CfIY CLERK TO EXECUTE CONTRACT AGREEMENT 8CA 17110 WCI'H THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION REGARDING THE DISTRB3U"I'[ON OF TREE PLAN"I'ING GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF 589,615 WHEREAS, the California Department of Forestry and Ftre Protection was designated by the Governor's Office to prepaze a grant application for funds from the Federal Small Business Administration for the planting of trees by Small Businesses; and WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has become a participant in the California Department of Forestry and Fite Protection's grant application for assistance in this new program; and WHEREAS, The Federal Small Business Administration has awarded the State of California and its participating Cities and Agencies a grant; and WHEREAS, The City of Rancho Cucamonga desires to use this grant N order to replace trees lost to extraordinary weather conditions, disease, and damage: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCII. OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAL~ORMA, HEREBY RESOLVES that the Mayor and Ciry Clerk shall be authorized to execute said contract agreement 8CA 17110 with the California Depamment of Forestry and Fite Protection for the distribution of said grant funds. 'L"11I SiAZE 0{ CA IIECRNIA-iXE RESWgC45 AGENLI' PETE WIL90N Go.~ DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION v o 90. Ru],e - iACRAh~FNIp CA 9,b, b60 ~~~ (916) 653-942p R34 January 2, 1992 Mr. Sigmund M. Dellhime ~'~~~ _ City of Rancho Cucamonga ~~~ !fit P. 0. Box 807 ~ Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 ,,, ~~ --.~ Dear Mr. DellhiIDe: Enclosed is the Small Business Administration (SSA) tree planting grant program contract. Please sign the contract and return in the enclosed envelope. Upon receipt, the contract will be signed by the Department and an executed copy will be sent to you for your records. I want to call special attention to item 5 Term. Please be advised this contract becomes effective on the date expenditure authority is granted by the California Department of Finance. However, it is anticipated that you will be preparing contracts and secu-ing bids and other activities where ,yIl kind costs only will be ~curred from the contract execution date until the contract 'f fective date. We anticipate the contract effective date wil_ be near February 15, 1992. Also enclosed is a draft resolution which can be modified, but must be completed in some form and returned with the signed contract. This resolutions by your governing body is to grant author_I,y for the your designee to enter into a contract with the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. Also enclosed is a memo from SBA to remind us that small businesses are to plant the trees. Item 18 of the contract requires that you provide a lobby- ing activities disclosure statement. Please return this state- ment with the signed contract. if you have any questions, please call me or Jonathan Rea at the above telephone number. Surely, Don C. B ghart Staff ief Forest Improvement m1 corESav~iron n wnE usE-iE® uuromu ogsvE ~Eq aaEasa ~~~~, ~~~ ~~9-y~s3 • --J r `-~.dr 4Utv~'~'`~J~"`~~e~~ ~HP .~.c>vrtct-~--1--~r~ct - ._ _ I .._ e - - _- -- ----~~e~tL~ ~ l ~-l- , r -- • A ._. .... ~1h... -.- Q 5 /'t-~. sue. 5 - co_9 ~r_c~ _ -- ~l ~~: --- - _~w r..---- - -- ---- _. ,. v.~.s e G -e ~ f- erg. ~ . _~F~cns_ L_ V~ /~ ~~-- - --- - ~~*-FAT ~~ I _ _ __ -- - - ._ lp , ..._~uSe-_ 11.~.1.Ue._~5..._S.~~o-.QQ~.__ - -~--- - -- - ----- ~_ ~ay U~1 C_~~f ~ l~~ G /~~', -- -~-- - 1'-'~.- ---- --- ----~"C. ^---~ _ i ~~ C G. ~ ~ ~ -.!1_C2~__ +' G ins i 1~~, ~ , ~ ~ -1~.; ( ~ ~ c - - I,~.U c SC l ~(~ ,i ~ -~ - - ---- Ti'c' -~r~.~cc ~1/-c ---fLhC1v~ ~U-C.~y~G $~y.~~---L6C~CL_d Yom. -- -- - ------ C l~ _Lc~rcl ~ 7411 ._ _ -.. - ._ _._ ...-- --- - s-~ ~-- ---. _.-------- . -~ ~---- ...o - - -- ----.._ . _. . ~.- u - -~ ---_- . ~r ~ i A ...._ _. .__.._-..._.--_-. ___. . -_._ .. --~__- _ .... as:a 6ella vista Rd. Alta Loma. Ca. 917~i1 January I5, 1992 Gear City council: In a .iourn a', am class S toot:., the instructor told us that one letter written to are organisation by one person represented 3riu like minded writer=. I do hope so. This is written in resp pnse t^ the article in the Gaily Bulletin. .January 15. 199, "RVs cou'.d end up parked pn R.C. ballot". I agree with the person who stated that to place this issue on the ballot is copout, but I disagree with e::emptinq anyone from obeying the present ordinance. On our street. a private road. there are twp RVs parked perman e~tl y. I consider it a ma.tor hazard 6ec ause there are small children who play pn the street where they are parked. Also, at times, I wonder haw a fire trod; could get dawn the street if other vehicles were par4: ed opposite of where the RVs are parl::ed. No one wants to rssY,~ confrontation with a neighbor without bas b,inq from the city. F'l ease he firm in vour eff ort5 to maF:e all of the streets in Rancho Cucamonga--pu6l is and private roads-- safe and attractive for all neighborhoods. RVs are unsightly and unsafe parked on our streets. ThanV:. you for vour attention to this 'Jery truly yours, .lp Ann Eroed:er -- - - - ~- CITY OF RANC'IiU Cl'('AMDtiGA STAFF REPORT ,-jC`y~t ~, ~` ,~ ~ DATE: January 15, 199? i TO: City Council and City Manager FROM: William Joe O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Sigmund M. Dellhime, Management Analyst [[ SUBJECT: Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute contract agreement 8CA 17110 with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the distribution of tree planting grant funds in the amount of $89.615 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and adopt the attached resolution. RECOMMENllATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute contract agreement RCA 17110 with the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the distribution of tree planting grant funds in the amount of $89,615 to the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and adopt the attached resolution. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The California Department of Forestry and Pire Protection has designated the City of Rancho Cucamonga as a grant recipient of 589,615 under anew program sponsored by the federal Small Business Administration. This program allocates funds to state and Incal agencies for the planting of trees on public lands. Using small businesses, grnnl monies may only be used for planting or purchasing trees. The City of Rancho Cucamonga will use the grant funde to augment funds within the Landscape Maintenance Districts allocated for the replacement of trees which were lost during Fiscal 1'car 1990-1991 due to freeze, disease, and damage. Grant funds must be matched by a City contribution of at Icast 50"la of the total gran[ amount, of which ?07, must be in cash, for administralivc charges. For the City's grant, this is $17,923. The remainder of the City's contribution in kind will be in the form of [he value of care and maintenance of the trees for the first 3 years after being planted. Respectfully Submitted, William J. ONei#, City Engineer WJO:SYID:pt Enclosures RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAbfONGA, CALIFORNIA, AU'INORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE CONTRACT' AGREEMENT 8CA 17110 WITH THE CALIFO&YIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION REGARDING TEfE DISTRIBUTION OF TREE PLANTING GRANT FUNDS 1N THE AMOUNT OF 589,615 WHEREAS, the Califomia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection was designated by the Govemoi s Office to prepare a grant application for funds from the Federal Small Business Administration for the planting of trees by Small Businesses; and WFIERE,4S, the City of Rancho Cucamonga has become a participant in the Califomia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection's grant application for assistance in this new program; and WHEREAS, The Federal Small Business Administration has awarded the State of Califomia and its participadng Cities and Agencies a grant; and WHEREAS, The City of Rancho Cucamonga desires to use this grant in order to replace trees lost to extraordinary weather conditions, disease, and damage: NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF T[-IE CITY OF RANCHO CUC/iMONGA, CALIFORNIA, FIEREBY RESOLVES that the Mayor and City Clerk shall be authorized to execute said contract agreement SCA 17110 with the California Department of Forestry and Pire Protection Cor the disvibution of said grant funds. --' - CITY OF RANCHO CCCAMONGA MEMORANDUM Date: To: From: By Subject: January 15, 1992 ~tG~,tint. ~~~~~ ~~9 .. ,. t~. ~~~ i Z s ra-= ~ Jack lam, City Manager Wm. Joe O'Neil, City Engineet~ Sigmund M. Dellhime, Mana ~ ent Analyst II --~«~ Supplemental Information for Walk-on Agenda Item BACKGROUND In May 1991 the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection announced its intention to submit a grant application to the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) for funds for the planting of trees pursuant to Public Law 101-515. The State offered to allow local governments and other agencies to apply with them as asub-grantee. On July 7, 1991 the Engineering Division submitted Its appiicatfon for ^d89,615 to the State. In August, the City was informed that its application received and processed along with 28 other successful applicants from throughout the State. In an effort to bolster the City's chances for receiving the full grant amount requested, Mayor Stout solicited the support of Congressman Jerry Lewis. Congressman Lewis in turn contacted the Administrator of the SBA on behalf of the City. On October 8, 1991 the City was informed that the grant had been approved by the SBA and that a contract for the City's review and approval would be forthcoming. Due to difficulties at the State level the City did not receive the contract untll January 10. 1992. In the contract transmittal letter the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection noted that the anticipated contract effective date would be near February 15, 1992. In order to meet the State's February 15th contract effective date it is necessary for the City Council to adopt a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute the contract at the Council's earliest possible convenience. It is also desirable to expedite the contract's execuUOn since winter and early spring aze the optimal times for tree planting and because it will be necessary for the Engineering Division to solicit bids from small businesses for the actual tree installations. Should you have any questions please contact Sigmund Dellhime at extension 2302. JO:smd _ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONUA MEMORANDUM DATE: January 15, 1992 ;; TO Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manag/e~r FRIXv1: Debbie Adams, City Clerk ~-~.t~ SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF MINUTES -CONSENT CALENDAR REM D1 In the transcript prepared for CFD 91-1 which is a part of the December 4, 1991 minutes, the following corrections should be noted as you vote for the approval of samo: 1 . Paqe 23 -Line 21 -Comments by Mr Gutierrez The word "active" should be changed to "ACTIVE" 2. Paae 24 -Line 13 -Comments trr MAVOr Stout The word 'assuade' should be changed to 'assuage" 3. Paae 28 -Line 11 The name Mr. "Feliz" should be changed to "Felix" 4. Pape d2 -Line 23 The street name "Bakery' Boulevard should be changed to 'Day Creek" 5. Pace 43 - Lina 4 The store name Home "Depo" should be changed to'Depot" 6. Paae 49 -Line 5 The word "goint' should be changed to "going' /dja crrr ur' xANCHV CUCAMONG.~ ~„- MEMORANDUM -- ~f - DATE: January 10, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, A1CP, City Manager FROM: Debbie Ad :ms, City Clerk f~' ~ SUBJECT: ATTACHED'IRANSCRLPT The attached transcript is for the public hearing regarding CFD 91-1 which is referred to as Exhibit "A" in the December 4, 1991 minutes, which are on the Consent Calendar for approval for the January 15, 1992 meeting. After the minutes have been approved, the transcript will be filed as part of the approved minutes for the December 4, 1991 meeting. Attached CERTIFIED ®COURT REPORTERS p,,nm Ih~,nn Nelm an ORIGINAL CITY COUNCIL RANCHO CUGIMONGA, CALIFORNIA PUBLIC HRARZNG FORMATION OP COMAUNITY PACZLITISS DISTRICT NO. 91-1 (VICTORIA COFMUNITY) Date and Time: Place: Reporter: ~, ~ ~ \\ Wednesday, December 4, 1991. Civic Centez, Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Johanna Nangual-Ledeema, C.S.R. Certificate No. 6951 APPEARANCES CITY OF RANCHO CIICAMONGA CITY COIINCiL DENNIS L. STOUT, MAYOR WILLIAM J. ALEXANDER, CGUNCILMEMBER CHARLES BUQUET, CGUNCILMEMBER DIANE WILLIAMS, CGUNCILMEMBER PAMELA J. WRIGHT, CGUNCILMEMBER JACK LAM, CITY MANAGER JAMES L. MARKNAN, CITY ATTORNEY DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK 2 t 2 3 4 5 f, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 lA 15 16 17 1? 19 20 22 23 r~ 25 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI FC RNIA ++t NAYOR STOUT: Item 4, Co rs ideration of Resolutions Relating to the Formation of the Mello-Roos Community r'acilities District 91-1. This item was previously continued from the November 20, 1991, meeting. There's a resolution which is 91-376. I understand that -- MR. LAM: There's also an additional resolution in }'our packet which was pointed out by supplemental information given to you and this, Linda Daniels will give that report. Ms. DANIELS: Yes, Mayor and Members of the City Cour.c it -- MAYOR STOUT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Before we go ahead with that, Mr. Markman? MR. NARKMAN: Before you actually start taking in information on this, Mr. Mayor, I want to point out this is a maCter of some importance and for that reason, there is sitting r.o the left of Brad at the table a certified shorthand reporter. We will have .~ verbatim transcript of this particula z' hearing and proceeding made available which means twc things: First of all, anybody thaC is going to give testimony, we would request, we have a reporter here 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 ;4 i5 16 17 19 L° 2U 2i 22 23 7 ~1 25 who has to keep track of a very, nufierous people comparatively speaking so that they speak clearly and rzmember that sounds other than words or gestures are not recordable, so [hey aren't going to ultimately have a;. impact. Keep the reporter in consideration. Don't speak at the same time. The other Ching I Chink we need to do is since we are trying to track this specifically is keep track of ail the documentation and for that reason, I'm going to try to keep track of any written materials which might be presented by way of exhibit numbers. And the first, one I would submit, Mr. Mayor, would be the S[aff Report which consists of pages lOB t!i rough 151 on your agenda packet and that report should be referred to as Exhibit 1. I have another, one other document, maybe Linda can identify more, the second document I have is a one page FAX transmittal to Mr. Lam dated 12/4/91 from M.r. Joe DeOrio (phonetic) which has been presen T.ed to the Council received this date. I would ask that that be considered and marked Exhibit 2. Linda, are there other supplemen[al written materials that I have not identified? MS. DANIELS: Yes. We have received a letter from Miss Anita Kidd dated December 2, 1991, requesting a _. __ __ _ __ - 4._ 1 2 3 a 5 5 7 8 9 i0 11 12 13 14 i5 15 17 18 19 21 22 23 ~~ 25 continuance and also from Miss Sharon Hurchett. MR. MARKMAN: Well, stop. Do you have one from Anita Kidd? MS. DANIELS: Anita Kidd -- MR. MARKMAN: That's a letter dated today? MS, DANIELS: December 2. MR. MARKMAN: December 2. How many pages? MS. DANIELS: One page. MR. MARKMAN: Okay, that should be Number 3 which will be the letter from Mrs. Kidd requesting a continuance and that has been made available to the City Council? MS. DANIELS: Yes. MR. MARKMAN: And the next one? MS. DANIELS: Is a letter dated November 27 and that has been addressed to the Mayor and has been made available to the City Council. That is two pages 1org and it is from Sharon Hurchett. MR. MARKMAN: Sharon Hurchett. That would be Number 4. For the purposes of keeping track, is there another resolution or is that in the packet? MR. LAM: Hoth resolutions are in the packet -- MR. MARKMAN: -- were in the original staff -- MR. LAM: Originally in the staff report and those are Resolutions 91-376 and Resolution 91-383. C 1 2 3 4 S 5 7 8 9 1C 11 12 13 '.4 15 15 l~ 18 19 G1 22 23 ii 25 MR. MARKMAN: Fine. Then we~have identified so far Exhibits through 4- If anybody wanting to give testimony make a presentation tcnight has an exhibit, we will ask it be identified, handed to the City Clerk and we'll give it a number. MS. DANIELS: And I'd 1:ke to clarify. The letter from Anita Kidd was handed to us this evening. Zt is addressed to the Mayor and Members of the City Council, but we have not been able to give you copies of it. i jumped ahead of your question when you asked if they have copies. It's addressed to them, but :hey do not have a copy. MR. MARKMAN: Okay. Well, if that's the case, we should read it into the record, have the City Clerk read it into the record after the staff presentation. And the other letter, Number 4, they do have copies of that or -- MS. DANIELS: Sharon Bruchette's letter was distributed to the City Council. N,R. MARKMAN: So after the staff presentation, we'll ask [he City Clerk to read Exhibit 3 into the record. MAYOR STOUT: All righ[. You may proceed. MS. DANZELS: Yes. M.a yor and members of the City 6 1 2 3 4 E 7 2 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 :4 2 .i Council, before you tonighC is a proposal for the I formation of a Community Facilities' District. In the summer of 1991, we received a request from property owners in the eastern portion of [he city to form a community facilities' district for the purpose of providing infrastructure improvements as well as potential funding for a future park facility located in the planned commu ri ty of Victoria. On page 143 of the Staff Report, the boundaries of the CFD have been identified and I'll review those for the record. They're generally, the CFD is gererally bounded on the north by Highland Avenue and is west of the utility corridor going south to Baseline Road. it encompasses on Baseline Road the undeveloped property east of the utility corridor and west of the developed multi-families' recreational vehicle and storage development. It encompasses along Day Creek Boulevard going south [o Foothill boulevard and on south of Foothill boulevard, it goes on Day Creek and wraps into Pioneer Way to Rochester Avenue. The purpose of the CFD as I indicated is two ford. a's to provide infrastructure improvements which will generally include street work, curb, gutter, sidewalks, streeCS, utilities which includes gas, sewer, water lines as well as some landscaping. That would be 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1C it ~2 13 i4 15 15 17 lA 19 20 21 22 zi 29 25 what we call the Series A issue and'is approximately $45 million of the $55 million authorized amount by the Council. The second series known as Series 9 is approximately $10 million and that would be used as a futur= funding source for the construction of the Lakes Park within the Village of the Lakes. The eastern portior, of town has development plan in the imminent future: the regional shopping center, a fire station and o[her residential and commercial properties. Consistent with the Council policy of providing infrastructure improvements in a comprehensive fashion, the CFD has been identified and the improvem errts have been organized in such a way that the total development of what's an[icipated will be do re at once to avoid piecemeal development and infrastructure and then avoiding interruptions in service to the circulation system as individual properties do develop in the future. Under the Series A, I'm sorry, I, the improveme r,ts that are proposed are consistent with the gene r.al plan, the redevelopment plan and the victoria Community Plau, those that are provided under the Series A. The boundaries of Che CFD do include vacant, 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 14 IS i6 17 18 19 ZO 21 22 23 2 25 commercial, industrial and residential land. It's important to note that all [he land within the C>:D is va rant at [iris time. The engineer's report has been prepared by A.A. Webb and Associates, the City's assessment engineer, and it addresses both the proposed Series A and Series B issues. It includes the financing an3 the distribution of the fair share, the tax and methodology and how it's applied tc each individual property. What I would like to emphasize on the Series A portion is that each development or each property is Haying only far its fair sure of the infrastructure. A property owner is not bearing the burden of an adjacent property owner's improvement. They are paying for what is rightfull}' required on that project for their linear frontage on the street that [hey hold land. Withi r. Series A, there are fifteen zones cf benefit. Those fifteen zones and the associated tax rates are identified in the engineer's report and there's been a refinement ofdrafts leading up to this final report presented for you tonight. The tax rates within the report includes some assumptions that if, that could cause the eventual tax tc be reduced. Some of the those assumptions are based nn the structure of the tax or the bond issue itself. We'vF 1 2 3 4 5 7 9 e 10 it 12 13 i4 15 to 17 iA i? 20 2i e7. 2i 24 ":5 wiCh that agreement. Also included within the tax rate and methodology is the Council's policy of not to exceed 1.8 percent of t'.:e tax rate along with all other taxes on properties and the market rate of single family homes. All residentially zone3 land that cculd be intended for single family ownership has been calculated so Chat this tax along with the property tax and all other taxes and assessments known and is estimated in the futur=_ will not exceed the 1.B percent market value tax ratio. Zn the Series H, there is one zone and that is the residential and commercial land for the Victoria Village itself. The developer is required and as part of the Series H issuance to pay off the tax associated with the residential properties for Series B prior tc occupancy of the home. This is to insure that the homeowner, [he future homeowner of those residential units will not pay for any of the construction of the Lakes' Park iCSelf. That i.s a requirement of the Victoria Planned Community that the developer provide the park and that [hat cost no[ be passed on or not be borne by the residence and that has };esn included as part of the structure of the CPD. There are three registered voters within the CFD boundaries. This means that an election by the property owners will occur. A two-thirds majority vote 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 F 9 10 11 12 13 ~4 15 15 17 18 19 21 22 23 .'.~ 25 will be needed in order for the CFD election to be successful. The Council will, after the election, certify the results and if a two-thirds vote is achieved, then it can yo on to further stages of CFD activity meaning issuance of bonds. The request for action tonight is tc adopt the two attached resolutions which will allow for the formation of Che CFD to go forward. It's important to not=_ that this action if in the affirmative will not be the last time that the CFD will be before the City Council. There are at least two o[her actions, again the certification of the election as well as r_he issuance of bonds which the City Council will have the opportunity to review this matter. In addition, a developer agreement between the City and the proponents of eke CFD will also be needed to insure that all costs associated with t.hs CFD will not be paid or that are associated with the required improvements that are not paid for by the CFD will be borne by the proponents of the CFD. One instance of where this would be necessary is by :aw, r_he Mello-Roos law only allows for up to five percent of tF,e CFD funds to he used for utilities. So 95 percent cr so, there is a porCion of utilities Chat will not be possible for funding under the CFD. That will ne_d i2 1 2 3 4 S F 7 S 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 "~6 1~ 18 15 7.; 21 22 23 24 25 to be paid for by the devel~~•er or by Che propoaen is of this CFD. The Council will be considering the developer agreement at the same time or it's anticipated at the same time as the election results are certified. The City has hcsted several meetings with the property owners to review drafts of the engineer's report as well as the final engineer's report which has been included in the packet. In these meetings, the ir,f ormation has been reviewed and has continued to be refined so that [he tax rate has been reduced from what was originally anticipated in most cases. We do have two letters of protest which are included ir. [he packet. Those are from Mrs. Eda Ellena and aiso from Miss Anita Kidd representing Mr. Ozzy Pierotti, one of the properly owners within the proposed district boundary, and that's included in the Staff Report that Mr. Markman enCered in as Exhibit 1. MR. MARKMAN: I also believe there's a letter from a ].aw firm on behalf of the Pierotti family which should be -- MS. DANIELS: ThaC's Miss Anita Kidd representing Ozzy Pierotti. We do, as indicated also, we do have three letters requesting continuance for the hearing t.ouight and 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .4 .5 16 i7 lA 19 ~0 21 4G 23 4 25 again, should the Council take action tonight, staff will commence the adoption of the two attached resolutions which also includes the preparation of a filing of a negative declaration for the CFD. Staff in the CFD consulting team including bound courc it and the assessment engineer are available for any questions you might have. Before concluding this Staff Report, I would like to rsad the one title that was omitted from the agenda itself, but is included in the packet. Thar is a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Establishing Community Facilities, District Number 51-1 (Victoria Community) Authorized in the Levy of a Special Tax within Community Facilities District 91-1 (Victoria Community) in Calling an Election. That concludes my report. MR. MARKMAN: I would ask the City Clerk at this time, Mr. Mayor, to read Exhibit 3 into the record since the Council does not have copies of i.t. THE CITY CLERK: "Dear Mayor Stout and Members of the City Council, my name is Anita Kidd and my family owia land in the proposed Me11o-Roos Community Faciliti?s' District 91-1. On November 26, 1991, a final draft of the plans were received which unfortunately gives property i4 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 2i 22 23 4 25 owners very little time to review the plans before the proposed City Council meeting on December 4, 1991. Please be made aware that there are substantial tax consequences which will affect not only my family, but all involved property cwners and, therefore, it is respectfully requested that the City Council meeting be postponed for at least two weeks. This would give the affected property owners necessary time to review the final plans. The delay in receipt of the plans was not the result of property owner conduct, but rathez occasioned by factors within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. As such, a continuance would be in the best interest and fairness; therefore, the equities of the situation should compel a continuance. Thank you for your kind attention hereto. Very truly yours, by Anita M. Kidd.~~ MAYOR STOUT: One thing further before we continue. Has a copy of the official engineer's report been marked as an exhibit to be included in the record? 'SHE CITY CLERK: That's included in the Wage numbers that Mr. Markman read off. MAYOR STOUT: :.11 might. Of the City Clerk then, I would like to ingC;re as to a few matters of business. Is there an Affidavit of Publication of [he Notice of the Public Hear i.~g? 15 2 3 4 7 A 9 10 11 12 13 14 i~ 16 17 18 19 ZO 21 22 ?.3 2:. 25 THE CITY CLERK: Yes. MAYCR STOUT: Is there an Affidavit of Mailing of the NoCice of the Public Hearing? THE CITY CLERK: Yes. MAYOR STOUT: The Certificate of the Registrar of Voters certifying that there were Less than twelve registered voters registered to vote in the oroposed community facilities' district on each of the ninety days proceeding the date of this hearing? THE CITY CLERK: Yes. MAYOR STOUT: We've already indicated the written protests. All right, at this time before I open the public hearing, I would inquire of the City Council, there has been a request for a continuance. What is the pleasure of the City Council? COUNCILMEMBER ALEXANDER: I'm prepared to go now. MAYOR STOUT: Chuck, prepared to go forward? COUNCILMEMHER BUQUET: Yes. COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS: I didn't hear Biil. 2'm sorry? What did -- go forward? CCUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Yes. CCUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS: I want to go forward. MAYOR STOUT: Pam? COUNCIL MEMBER WRIGHT; Right. 16 1 2 3 4 5 7 a 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '?4 2S MAYOR STOUT: Allright. Then it's unanimous. MR, NARKMAN: Mr. Mayor -- MAYOR STOUT: Yes. MR. MARKMAN: Let's keep track of the exhibits. I'd ask that the Affidavit of Publication, which I don't think is in the packet referred to by th=_ City Clerk would be Exhibit 5, Affidavit of Posting would be Exhibit 5 and the Certificate of the Registrar of Voters would be Exhibit 7- MS. DANIELS: The certificate is within the packet. MR. MARKMAN: The Certificate of the Registrar? I just want to be sure we don't -- MS. DANIELS: I believe it's page 112. MR. MARKNAN: But the affidavits are not? MS. DANIELS: Tha['s correct. MAYOR STOUT: They're certified documents so they should be marked as separate exhibits. MR. MARKMAN: We11, if we have, it's okay as long as we have a copy and the City Clerk has the originals, so 5, ~'xhibit 5 will be the Affidavit of Publication. Exhibit 6 would be the Affidavit of Posting. We don't have ar, Exhibit 7 yet because it's already part of Exhibit ]. . MAYOR STOUT: I will now open the public hearing to receive public testimony. In order to structure the 17 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 'e0 21 z2 23 24 25 public nearing, we will conduct it in the following manner: I would first ask to hear from all rhos? persons wishing to testify against any of the following: 1, the zstablishment of the District: 2, the boundaries of the District: 3, the public facilities to be financed by the District; 4, the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to be levied within the District; 5, the issuance of not to exceed $55 million in bonds secured by the special tax to pay all or a portion of the public facilities and; 6, any other matters set forth ir, either resolution 91.277 or 91-279. Those wishing to speak against any of those items, this would be the appropriate time. Please come Forward to the podium, state your name for [he record and if you would indicate your interest with respect tc whether you're a property owner or any other interests so that the record is clear as to what you're speaking, excuse me, speaki rg about. MS. BURCHETT: My name is Sharon Burchett. I'm an attorney with~MacLach.l ar., Burford and Arias and I'm here on beh a.lf of Nabisco, one of the minority property owners. S'm not familiar with your procedures and so don't know if this issue is moot, but I am unable to speak for or against formation of the District because I have no!: had an opportunity to r=view the information of the 19 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 i3 14 15 16 17 ld 19 2C 21 22 23 24 25 final plaas that were submitted to all the affected property owners on November 26. The final plans were promised on the 20th. We di3 not receive them until the 25th. CO L'NCiLMEMBER BUQUET: Sharon, could you pull the microphone up just a little bit sr i['ll be easier to hzar you? Thanks. MS. BURCHETT: I attended a meeting of all the affected property owners yesterday and voiced my concern. The draft of the plans contained a significant error inasmuch as they designated our property as commercial instead of high density residential. Our engineers indicated that the infrastructure that was proposed was in adequate to accommodate the high density residential use that is permitted. The City Engineer and the engineer for the developer indicated they would correct that on the final plans. These plans were not made available to us until the 26th. My client's located back East. We have a local engineering firm that was unable to review them because they only had three working days to do so bef or=. this hearing. This project has very significant tax consequences to Nabisco. I think that we need to have an i adequate opportunity to review all the information before 2 we can meaningfully speak in favor of or against this 3 District. 4 A[ the affected property owners' meeting 5 yesterday, I voiced my concern and it was unanimous. 6 There was not a sin le 4 person there including all, any of 7 the developers or an r= Y _presentatives from the City that 8 voiced opposition to a twe week continuance to permit us 9 an opportunity to review all of the information relating 1C to this CFD. '-i Further, there was a very sign if icar.t table 12 of the cause sharing analysis that was omitted from the 13 final plans that were submitted to us. They promised to 14 FAX that to us [oda y, indicat_d that it was a mistake that 15 that table was omitted. I still haven't seen it. 16 Ms. Anita Kidd showed me a Staff Report that 17 was apparently mailed on the 27th. As of 3:00 o'clock 1B this afternoon when I left my office, I had not received 19 that either. 20 Given the significance of this project, the 21 lack of opposition to a continuance by anyone including 22 :he developers, I respectfully request you reconsider our 23 request for a two week continuance so that we can really 24 have a full, fair and adequate hearing on [his project. 25 Thank you. 20 1 2 3 4 S c 7 8 9 10 ii 12 13 14 i5 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR STOUT: Thank you. Your ob;ection has been noted. All right, unless I hear from anyone else wishing to speak against the formation of the District or [he six points that I mentioned, we will move on tc those speaking in favor. Ts there anyone here to speak in favor of tt;e District? MS. KIDD: I'd like to speak against the District. MAYOR STOUT: Please come forward. State your name for the record. MS. KIDD: My name's Anita Kidd. My family, the Pierott is, own about thirty acres within the proposed CFD. Are you not going to rule on, agai a, or. t2;e request for a continuance? If you are going to continue, then I will obviously hold my speech until this maCter is continued. MAYOR STOUT: Unless I hear any sympathy from the rest of the Council for that request, it's my understanding we're continuing with th=_ public hearing tonight. MS. KIDD: Okay. As stated, my folks own thirty acres of land within the proposed CFD. They have owned this land for approximately sixteen years and have paid ^. he taxes and have done their civil duty with regard to 2i 2 3 4 c 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 i4 i5 15 17 15 19 20 21 22 23 24 ^.5 that land. My dad bought that land as a retirement nest egg so-to-speak and he currently pays approximately $10,000 a year in taxes. The proposed CFD will increase those taxes by $315,000 a year. This is undeveloped land. This is land that is not producing an}' incom=. This is lard that no one is offering to buy and given the economic state of both the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the State of California as weii as our nation, we all know Chat real estate, the real estate market stinks. I just don't see how this could be a fair deal. There is supposedly this, our assessment is according to our fair share. If the mall goes through, the mall will be getting rove rues immediately. When the taxes are expected to be paid, the mall will be in place. So the people owning the mall land will be able to pay these taxes. We won't. We don't have prospective developers. My father can't afford to develop the land. And so in essenc=_, it'll be a taking of our land. If we ca r.'t pay the taxes, you guys will take the land. I must also point out that since there's, the vote will be based on acreage, land owner acreage, the big guys be ~ Lyon's, e[ cetera, the ones that will 6e building the mall own 7S percent of the land leaving the Li 2 3 4 5 7 6 5 lp 11 12 13 14 15 1E 17 18 15 21 22 23 ?4 25 small property owners with only 25. Hy the numbers alone, you can see thaC a vote is really a farce. You can put this matter up to a public vote, but we've already lose because private land owners o rly account for 25 percent. i would like to plead wieh the City Council and the Mayor that the CED is not at all equitable. _T think you need to t. hink about those sma li property owners. I realize that the mall is of great benefit to everyone. I think Chat's wonderful, but we just can't handle the assessments and I think other property owners can't either and I appreciate your time. N,AYOR STOUT: Thank you very much. MR. GUTIERREZ: Excuse me. My name's Rex Gutierrez and I have a hoarse voice, but I need Co at least let you know bePOre leaving that the issue T'm talking about is not necessarily, it's not directly connected to what they mentioned, but it does have to do with $10 million of this bond that you're talking about for the Lakes' project. I live in Victoria Groves sod Z am no[ representing the active group tonight as I did previously. Z'm speaking on my own, but I will [ell you that a continuance i.s the least you could do. There's a ioC of people that I talked to and we need time to organize. In Victoria, pecple Ghat are simply suE£ering ~? 1 economic hardships at this Cime of Che year and at this 2 time of the economy, a bond issue's in itself in my 3 opinion ridiculous for a city like Rancho Cucamonga to be 4 consideri rg at this time and in [he economy that we're in, in the predicamene of many states and localities find 6 themselves in, buC primarily, a lot of us in Victoria are 7 I opposed tc the proceedings to develop the Lakes and if a B I two week continuance would simply give time to at least 9 rethinY. that or at least give us time to organize, then 10 I'm all for a continuance. 11 Thank you. 12 MAYOR STOUT: Mr. Gutierrez, just one comment just 13 so that maybe this will assuade your words a little bit. 14 They're nor talking about building those lakes at all for 15 three years. 15 MR. GtPf IERREZ: I know, but I just -- 17 MAYOR STOUT: The bond we're talking about here i= i8 not going to be paid back by anyone that lives in the 19 existing Victoria -- 20 MR. GUTIERREZ: I realize t.har_. I realize Cha[ 21 that's part of [he Me11o-Roos and that semethiny that, 2Z j~,at be r_z use I didn't know whether .it would make a 2? difference in case I waneed to get the benefit. of the <4 doubt, get up and at least say if it has any bearing at 25 all to, for the continuance, [hat there are people that. 14 2 3 9 5 c' 7 8 9 10 12 13 '_4 15 ~5 17 "t8 19 20 21 22 23 24 ZS are simply opposed to at least part'of this bond issue. MAYOR STCUT: The point i was trying to mak=, I understand what you're saying, is you're goi rg to have three years to mobilize or organise as many people as you wa t: t . MR. GUTIERREZ: That's great. I just thought that because there's $10 million of the 5, that seems to involve the Lakes' construction, if we're going to debate whether the Lakes are ever going to be constructed, then I thought it would have a bearing on whether the amount is going to be 55. I just thought just in case it did have a bearing, I thougY.t I'd get up before it was too late. MAYOR STOUT: I appreciate that. MR. GUTIERREZ: Shank you. MAYOR "POUT: Thank you. MR. GRAHAM: Mr. Mayor, Councilmembers, my name is ,; ehn Graham. I represent Eda Ellena. I, too, am surprised that this is continuing based upon the fact Chat the majority, in fact all of the land owners thought that a continuance was worthwhile from the point of facts they were Ares=_nted at the meeting, but disregarding that. I n'=ed `~~ echo the sentiment of f.he prior speakers that regarding taking this plan forward and having a land owner, vacant land owner with vineyards there, Eda Ellena, a r,d assessing her the, last schedule I saw was somewhere .5 2 3 4 5 7 6 9 i0 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 4 25 ir. excess of $600,000 her share and~it amounted to over $100,000 a year with no income from the property and right now, who knows when it's going to sell. I hope that you consider those problems faced by the undeveloped land owners when you consider going forward with this. MAYOR STOUT: Thank you, Mr. Graham. MS. BURCHETT: Again, I apologize. I don't know if this is a breach of your protocol or whatever. I wanted to inquire if I could whether there is any chance that you would hold the public hearing open to the December 18 meeting to perm i[ us an opportunity to address you at that time taking into consideration what has been said here tonight as well. MAYOR STOUT: I will ask the Council to discuss that option at the conclusion of the testimony. MS. BURCHETT: A11 right. May I inquire of you also, Mayor Stout? Do I have, will [he Council permit me time to make a phone call to try to get my engine°r here to speak to the Council tonight? 2 reai.ty am taken aback that this was not continued because I was led to believe at the meeting yesterday by Linda Daniels that giver. the fact there was a unanimous agreement between everyone, that the meeting -- MAYOR STOUT: Counsel, excuse me. MS. AURCHETT: I'm going on and on I knew about 26 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .4 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 ;} 25 this and I'm just very taken aback by this. MAYOR STOUT: I'm sure you've been in court before where parties have decided that they wanted to continue matters, but the judicial body making the decision has decided otherwise. MS. HURCHETT: We11, that has happened on occasion. MAYOR STOUT: I know. That's happened tonight. MS. HURCHETT: I'm getting that impression. Thank you very much. b~YOR STOUT: Thank you. COUNCILMEMHER BUQUET: I'm just curious. Hew many times has this been continued? MAYOR STOUT: Twice. All right. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: When was the first time we heard it? N~YOR STOUT: The time we set the hearings back when we first originally set it. COUNCIL MEMBER WRIGHT: Yeah, but I was wondering about how long ago that was? MS. DANIELS: It was originally intended for November 6. It was continued to November 20 and then agai^ to December 4, tonight. COUNCIL MEMBER WRIGHT: And didn't we actually do some sort of hearing on it about a year ago, about, at least part of the proposal because I remember -- 27 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 8 9 1G 11 i2 13 :4 15 15 17 18 19 2~ 2i 22 23 2~ 25 MAYOR STOUT: That's the Notice of Intent Hearing. MS. DAMSELS: In September and Auqust I believe. It was either the last meeting in August or one of the first meetings ir. September, I don't recall which, but yes, you nave had a prior discussion on it. MAYOR STCUT: Okay. At this time, testimony in opposition is closed. i will now open the public hearing to receive public testimony in favor. Doss anyone care to address the Council at this time? MR. FELIZ: Mayor Stout, for the record, my name is Daniel Felix. I'm employed by the Lyon Company, managing general partner of the partnership that is proposing the regional shopping center. The partnership technical name is HFA. It stands for Hahr. Foothill Associates. The series of meetings during which we have, as a proponent for this Community Facilities District, the series of meetings [hat we have held to inform or to Y;e1p inform all of the affected property owners that have been hosted by the City has been pretty ccmp rehensive and we thi r,k rather well attended. There have been disaar-cements. There have been questions, good questions. We have, I think, responded to all of the questions. It is, should be obvious tonight and would i:a ve been obvious to anyone atr_ending those informational 2A 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ]. 7 18 13 20 2i 22 23 4 25 meetings that not all of the answers were to the likings of the questionnaire. We attempted to answer them factually, comprehensively and in a fashion that we took as our basic precept far this CFD, that basic precept being fairness to the small property owner, to the small property owner affected. We also took into consideration the reed for the CFD. We think the need is overriding. We think the fairness aspect of it, when all of the property owners understand all of the issues without the rhetoric, without the inflammatory statements, we think that when they`re considered in their entirety, as an example, mention is made about the enormous increase in the taxable dollars affected for each given property. Tb.e re is an option on the part of the property owner. that if he wishes not to receive payment, but instead dedicate his land toward the improveme:rt, that he can reduce his payments or reduce his payments towards the debr service on the Mello-Roos bonds or he can receive the cash. it is the option of the property owner to do that. if he op t,s, if he or she opts to receiv=_ cash payment, presumably that person can bank that cash payment and make and apply that toward the initial payments of the Communities Facility District allocation that that :: 9 1 2 3 4 C c 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 ,~ 17 lA 19 2C 21 2L 23 24 25 property owner has. We think the City or, in the alternative, i° that prcperty owner wishes to reduce his payments, that by the way, don't start for two, approximately [wo calendar years after the bonds are issued, if the property owner wishes to reduce those payments, he or she car. do sc by opting to dedicate the land as public improvement. And in all cases, correct me if I'm wrong, Linda, in all cases, all of the affected property owners have land to dedicate. Or there is land to be dedicated? MS. DANIELS: I'm not sure in all cases. MR. FELIX: I'll amend that, in most cases; is that correct? MS. DANIELS: In most cases, yes. MR. FELIX: There is land to be dedicated, therefore, there is mcney to be received by the land owner out of the proceeds of [he bond issue or he or she can opt to instead dedicate that land and reduce the payments on the bond issuance. We think the City is at a turning point. We t.hir;k that it is gratuitous for the greater co¢muuity that three projects, three large projects come on the horizon a t'. this time that can organize together to create all of the infrastructure that in the end is going to add value 3 r, 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 i. 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2fi 21 22 23 24 25 to all of the properties being affected. That added value may be realized by development or by sale or by a combinatior. of the two. That is a property owner's prerogative. There is no, there is no doubt that doing all of this work at one time will achieve economy as a scale and will certainly simplify the life for any of the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga who are traversing the area. we thi rk it is a well founded request that we're making. We think we answered the questions in a factual way. We think that Che benefits accrued to the individual property owners, to the projects at hand and to the greater community of Rancho Cucamonga. I would be r=_ady to answer questions or respond to any or present any elaboration that you wish. I'm available. MAYOR STOUT: Any questions of the proponent at this time? COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Just for clarification, would it be a correct statement to say that the Community Facilities' District is there Eor the purpose of building [he infrastructure that would be necessary ultimately to develop an3 improve those lands throughout those areas? MR. FELIX: That's correct. These improvements would at one time, at some poiu t. in time, these improvements will have to be built for any of these 31 1 2 4 5 5 7 8 3 10 11 12 13 14 15 1G 17 :5 19 21 22 23 :4 25 properties to be developed and I'm glad you bring that up because at that point in time, should the CFD net :Hove forward, at that point in time, that property will be responsible not just for his improvements, not just for his infrastructure, but he or she will have to Cie in that . of ra structure to something. You cannot just build street lights, install stye=_t lights and not connect it to power sources. You cannot build a portion of a drainage facility without attaching it to something to drain into. You cannot build one half of a turn lane necessary for that project. The City is going to require these projects to build out these improvements and when that property is developed, no matter which of those properties it is, it's going to require more development than would ordinarily b? attributable to that oropercy. In other words, this is the opportunity for the smaller property to take advantage cf a larger comprehensive plan to get their improvements built and raise the value of their property. CC JNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: So when you were talking atrna. aided value and economy of scale, you were talking about the benef.i is to those small property owners as well as to the larger developers who are what someons referred to as making up that other 75 percent that -- _ _ _.. - 32 1 2 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ^.4 25 MR. FELIX: That's absolutely correct. CO UNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: This is a window of opportunity for all [he property owners including people who own ten or twenty or thirty acres? M,R. FELZX: That's correct. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: rive acres? MR. FELIX: And having used the fair share allocation, having used t..*.e precept of fairness, wP think that, well, we know that we have bent over backwards. The larger projects have be rt over backwards to insure that the smaller property owners are getting, I'll call it a fair share without fear, without fear of being contradicted by any allocation. And your own independent engineer has allocated these costs out so that they are, precept of fairness is observed. COUNCILMEMBF.R WRIGHT: You, I understand economy of scale. That's real clear. Can you expand a little bit on added value, how that's gcing to benefit [he small property owner? MR. FELIX: Yes. One of the property owners mentioned difficui[y in sell irg the property that he or sh= owns at the present tine. In this environment or in any environment, whether it's, whether we are in the roaring '8GS or whether we're in the tightened '90s, any buyer or developer of a property looks at the mystery 33 i 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 i4 15 16 17 lA 19 20 21 22 23 <"4 25 involved with the developme n*_ of that property. We call it the mystery, the things that you need to do in order to get it entitled, in order to get it built, leased up, sold, whatever you're doing with it. You need to understand what infrastructure needs to be built for it. We tail it off sites, the off site improvements. Any buyer of a property coming to look at a properry sees what has to be done, knowing the demands of the City, the demands of the infrastructure that are required for those properties and they're overwhelmed by those improvements. They see that unless something like the CFD is in place and working, that there is, that [he economies of scale and the value to that property are affected by the lack of that infrastructure. The fact tk:at that 3eveloper [hen has to come in and do, not just the infrastructure necessary for his own particular development, but very likely infrastructure beyond his project. There are properties here that are not even served by roadway at this time that those roadways have to be built. Those sewer lines have to be installed. Those storm drains have to be installed. Power lines have to be buried. Street lights have to be installed. It is just an enormous task to develop infrastructure for a community. This is what the CED 34 1 2 3 S 5 7 6 9 17 li 12 13 14 15 15 i7 19 19 21 22 23 2~ 25 does. It raises the value of those properties overnight. Yes, they must pay [hair fair sure of that improvement, but that is what's called improving your property. COUNCILMEMBER WRIGHT: Okay, thank you. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: I just have a couple of quick questions, Mr. Mayor. Mr. Felix, yeu made comment on a couple of occasions regarding dedication of right away to reduce the amcunt of the repayment and there's several people that have been talking about these astronomical amounts at least within their perspectivesas far as astronomical amounts on thirty acres parcels and things like this. Do we have a handle on what the dollar equ ival ei:t is on the dedication in lieu of the participation? Linda or Mr. Felix? MS. DANIELS: Yes. The assessment engineer has gone through and has provided examples for. the different property owners so if they chose to dedicate the property, how their tax rates would be reduced on a percentage basis and if you would like that information, Sharon, Sheryl, could provide that Co you, but that has been provided and made awa r.e to the property owners. In some cases, it's 50 to 53 percent. I don't know the exact numbers. COUNCILMEMeER BUQUET: I was just trying just for clarif i. ration during this portion of the meeting, I know 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 5 to it 12 13 14 15 16 17 13 :9 20 21 ?2 23 24 25 we're all sitting here tryi rg to talk about trying to get an idea to Some of the ranges of impact that would have or. the overall cost that has been projected. M5. DANIELS: Again, on Che Ellena property, if I recall correctly, i[ would be reduced by approximately 53 percent Of the current tax identified in the report, but I believe on the Pierot[i property, it's approximately 50, 51 percent. COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Okay. And that would be dedication of right-ot-way that would be necessary to put the infrastructure improvements in which in essence would be zequixed to be dedicated in order to be able to develop the site and improved in addition to thaf.7 M5. DANIELS: Yes. COIINCILMEMBER BUQUET: Okay. MAYOR STCUT: Also, there's a large cash payment made to them to pay for [hat land should they then choose [o do that. So they would have a large -- COUNCILMEMPER BUQUET: Z know the significant cost c onsideration'in the gra rd scale of the cost calculations for the bond issue have to do with the right-of.-way <; cquasition cost. 5o it's a pay me now or pay me later basically is what you're saying. MS. DANIELS: Something, jusC for the ..^,ouncil's infczmation, the CFD provides the unique opportunity of a 36 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 A 9 1C 11 12 13 14 ,~ 16 17 18 19 e0 21 22 23 7.4 25 choice to [he property owner ratherthan if they were to develop on their own and be required to dedicate, they do have the choic_ of b=_ing paid for the land, but then they are also paying over a long term the debt associated with that payment. MR. FELIX: I would like to point out another aspect tY.at you reminded me, that if the CFD, for example, if the CFD were not to move forward and none of these three major projects were to proceed at this time and at a later time, one of the smaller properties came forward to be developed, under this plan, they get reimbursed for the land they're dedicating. When they become a proponent, when that property in that instance would b=come the proponent for a project, they would come in For a building permit and the processing of permits to build their improvement, to improve their property. They would not get reimbursed for their land. They would be forced to dedicate their land for zero dollars. So this is, ? don't know how many of the property owners understand. This is a very difficult r_onc=at for some people to grasp. We think it's an important concept because i£ this CFD were not to move forward and they subsequenr.ly came in to develop tt~~cir 1 and, they would not. be getting the benefit. of having 37 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 lr, 11 12 13 i4 15 lh 17 la 19 20 21 22 i3 24 LS their land bought under eminent domdin. They would be required to dedicate that land for their improvements. OOUNCILMEMHER BUQUET: Triat's why I want_d clarification on that because it appears to me that may be of be ref it with this type of an approach. And just one last thing with the Council's indulgence. There was comments made by individuals that have spoken with respect to unanimous feelings for a continuance. T know this matter has been continued twice. There was preliminary discussion in August and September and I also believe that there was a brief discussion approximately one year ago with the Council with respect to upcoming potential activit;~ in this area, although at that time, it was not firm as to what direction it was goi rg, but basically summed up is that we've known at some poi rt ir. time, we were going to get a fish or cut bait situation with this area in respect to the regional mail and surrounding properties. Could you comment just briefly in respect to what, the rommenr_ made that you, if you're representing the bin interest there, tha r_ you are in favor of a :: 7r.t ~:a;ance and if there was a continuance, what, what harm or benefit would actually bv_ derived by doing hat? MR. FELT%: Yes. A discussion was held yesterday in the affected homeowners' me=ring about apparenr,ly the )8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 19 15 i5 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ?,S final draft of the engineering report not being delivered timely. I received previ that the final I believe that received was a had received. was not aware at that time that they had pus additions of the engineering repcrc and engineering report that they received was, the final engineering report that they first copy of an engineering report they They had received, Z am informed, they had received previous addition to that engineering report gad what may have happened is that in, not, what may have happened is that they didn't focus on the precept, the concepts of the previous edition to the engineering reports that they received. There were no sunstantial changes [Y.at I'm aware of in the final engineering report except refinements that actually benefited, I'm told, the smaller property owners. So the final report that they received, correct me if I'm wrong, Linda, is that essentially correct? MS. DANI F.LS: Yes. MR. FELIX: The final report that the property owns r.s who received the report r believe on the, i believe the repert was available on the 23rd, but they did not actually receive it until [he 26th? MS. DANIELS: The 25th. rn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 i6 i7 16 19 20 Lei 22 23 7~i 25 MP.. FELIX: 25th? MS. DANIELS: People began receiving them on the 25th. MR. FELIX: That final report was a, held ref iaements in it tha[ actually benefited the smaller properly ewne rs. I am, I indicated in the meeting yesterday that I would not, that I would not object to a continuance. I indicated that as a matter of fairness, chat everyone should have full information. As I'm I +.nf ormed now, everyone had full information with the receipt of the previous editions of the report, then with the final edition of the report as they received then on the 25th or 26th. I, tonight, I'm really delude by whatever your decision is. You're obviously continuing with the meeting. I'm prepared to continue to testify and proceed with the process. Another important point is that this is not the last tim=_ you will consider this. This, by r_ontinuir.g it, the way I look at it, you are merely enabling the pro r_e s's to continue. You're not, you are not blocking anyone's further, including your own, you're not blocking anyone further's objection to this process. You're =~~iabiing it to continue just as you have in the previous 40 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1: 12 13 14 .5 15 17 lR 19 2v 21 22 23 24 25 mzetings that you've had. As we proceed further, you may learn you wart to stop the process. That's zntirely, of course, your rights or if people want to change their mind about objecting to it as they learn more about the process, that's also their right. We expect that they will as they lean. more about it. We think it's a win, wir., win ~wt1at10n. MS. RIDD: Mayor, may I make some rebuttal poinCS? MAYOR STOUT: Excuse me. Excuse me. Excuse me, i'll give you the opportunity in jusC a minute. Did you have anything else, Mr. Felix? MR. FELIX: No, except I'm available for questions. Thank you. MAYOR STOUT: All right. Zs these anyone else wishiay to speak in favor of the District? MR. LUQUE: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, Members of the Council and staff. My name is Gary Luque. This evening I represent bath khe William Lyon Company and Foothill Associates, the other two proponents for this District. I just want to go on record that we are in favor of this District and if you so wish, we would support your efforts to continue this or not to continu a_ this and proceed this evening. Cur pcsit ion in the meeting yesterday was 41 1 2 i 4 5 C 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 '. 5 1Fi 17 19 19 ai 22 23 :7 25 that we would hoe object to the other land owners that had requested a continuance. We didn't want to interfere with their efforts. So if they chose to do so, we were not gei rg to stand in their way, but we certainly would also lika to see [his process move forward. We've been waiting long enough and if you choose to de so, we will be interested to proceed with the District. I would just like to point out a couple of things. First of all on the engineer's report itself, I won't belabor the point. Mr. Felix I believe summarized things very well, but in the Resolution of Intention that was adopted by you in August, ceilings were established as Go what the maximum amount could be allocated to each parcel. So there has not been any adjustment which would increase Chat amount for the individual land owners. So I just wanted to make sure that was understood. One other point I would like to clarify is that this is not all hypothetical as to what's going to be happening out in this region. There are prcj ec[s that are being planned and have already been submitted to the City and approved by the City, the Planning Commission. Again, basically, the District runs from below Focth ill going up Bakery Boulevard all the way up to Hig}:1and and Mr. Felix represents HFA which is the regional mall, Victoria Gardens going in here, but I would 4,'. 2 3 4 5 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 19 19 20 22 23 24 25 like to point out that Victoria Cou ityard is a power center which is proposed for Fcothill an3 Day Creek Boulevard, the southwestern corner. We have a K-Mart and a Home Depo going in there that has been processed through the Planning Commission, and agr_ements are being made with those anchor tenants. So that is something that is planned to be prcceed immediately. We need this infrastructure in order to do so. In addition to the mall, we also have a large residential area that we have already started planning on and once this is under way, we will be submitting tentative maps. we have a master tentative map that was approved in June for this area. We have the parcels already established and we will be proc=eding with the planning of those individual parcels. A gentleman brought up the B issue for the lakes, 25 acre lake park right in the middle of the residential area and I believe the Mayor I think stated things quite well, but I just wanted to emphasize again that rhi.s bond issue is being borne by the developer, Foothill Associates and the William Lyon Company. No homeowner will be incurring any of these bond obligations, either prospective new homeowners in 43 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2'. 25 this area or existing homeowners within Victoria. And this was an ability to get the Lakes built by the developer and we will pay off the obligations before any homeowner will 6e moving into the area and have to assume the allocation on that parcel. MR. NARKMAN: N,r. Mayor, for the record, since we have a map being referred to -- MAYOR STOUT: T.hat's right. MR. MARKMAN: -- I would like that to be left with the City Clerk and marked Exhibit 7 and the record should reflect that the previous speaker was referring to that map making indications of development activity in the area. MR. LUQUE: Do you have any ques ticns? MAYOR STOUT: Any questions? Thank you. MR. LUQUE: Thank you. MAYOR STOUT: Are there any other proponents that would wish to address the Council at this time? A11 right, ~ believe you have rebuttal remarks? Again, please restate your name fcr the record. MS. KIDD: Hi. My name's Anita Kidd. Again my family, the Pierott.is, own land within the proposed CFD. I have several short points to bring out. One is that yesterday at the property owners' meeting, the prope r.ty 44 1 2 3 4 E 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 1.9 Li 2: 22 21 24 25 owners relied on the statements from. both the City Cou.^.cil and the CFD propone its that today's meeting would be uostponed. MAYOR STOUT: Excuse me. Let me correct you. I don't relieve anyone from the City Council was present. MS. KIDD: I mean not City Council, excuse me, the redevelopment staff. MAYOR STOUT: Ail right. M5. KIDD: We relied on their statements obviously to cur detriment because other property owners did not have time to seek appropriate counsel or engi reering reports and I think that's very unfair. ~, When you're speaking of the CFD proponents, their experts in this area. They can look at that Staff Report over the Thanksgiving weekend and digest it fully and know exactly where they stand because they're the ones propagating this thing. When you're dealing with lay people, I think it's a lot for us to get ready in a very short amount of time. I got Chat thing in my office on the 27th, right ref.cre Thanksgiving. I had to cook. It was very, I did::'t have time to actually read the thing. The other thing I'd like to say is that the other two delays in these hearings were not the resul[ of ~ the email property owners. It was within the City Council 2 3 4 6 7 a 9 1C i1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2i 22 23 ~q 25 or within the staff. We did not ask for that to be delayed. It was not on our behalf that it was delayed. So really, this was our first opportunity to speak and in that, we just received the report as stated on the 26th or 27th. I really do feel this is unfair. The third issue is that Mr. Felix sai3 that we had the chance to dedicate our property and thereby receiving a "tax credit or benefit". That would mean, and they said that my dad's property would be, the taxes would be decreased by 50 percent. That means my dad would have to pay about 120,000 a year for thirty years in taxes on undeveloped land. To me that, whether it's one million or five million, what's the difference: It's still a lot of money. It's still a lot of money for undeveloped land. So thank you very much for decreasing our taxes by 50 percent. It doesn't matter. It's still a taking of our land in essence. It's undeveloped land. It's not producing any income. There's are no developers kicking down our doors. In fact, at one of the property owners' mee;:i ngs, someone from the Lyon Company had indicated that they may be interested. My dad made a trip down from Canada and had placed several calls in with Mr. Potter who never even had the decency to reYUrn our call with regard 45 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 9 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 12 i9 20 2i 22 23 C,4 25 to perhaps nego[ia[ing a deal or perhaps sell irg our land. So I'm thinking that the big guys have us in a real nice situation where they know that we have these taxes that will be starting in about two years, forcing us to sell to them at an incra 3ibly cheap price or obviously give up our land. And as I said, that constitutes a taking and I think that should be considered. And another very interesting point is that not one of you on the City Council is a member of the CFD, proposed CFD. You're not property owners. Neither is anyone in the redevelopment part of the city. There's none of you here that are affected. So you're voting on this and you're judging this and you're not one of these people that are going to have to pay these taxes. MAXOR STOUT: Just to make a point about that, we by law could not because that would be a conflict of interest. CO UNCILMEMBER BUQUET: We would go to jail for that. MS. KIDD: Granted, granted, but am I making my poi r.t clear? You're not the ones that are going to have to cough up this additional tax. MAYOR STOUT: Can I ask yeu a question? M5. KIDD: Sure. MA&OR STOUT: Just to clarify a point for the 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 19 S9 20 2i 22 23 2-0 2C record since we're maki rg a factua]~record here. Did you ever receive any of the draft copies of the engineer's report? M5. KIDD: Xes. I was at the meeCings, most of [hem, and I did receive the copies. Xou're right, MAYOR STOUT: All right. MS. KIDD= But those copies were drafts and we understood them Co be drafts. We did not, we were told [hat we would get a final copy. We didn't know what this final copy would be. We're not the ones doing it. We're not trie ones writing it. We don't know whaC it would be so finally when it comes on the 27th, great, but again, we had no foresight into what it would entail. Thirdly, at a prior property owner meeting, we asked or someone had mentioned to Linda Dariels whether what hapoens if the mall doesn't go through? Are we stili assessed these Caxes? Let me remind you, there's no gua ranee [hat this mall will go through. We'll still er.d t:p paying these taxes. No mall, no pole. You know, there's no pole so that you could say, well, your dad's land is in a very high density area so there's a lot of _~c;pi~~. You'll sell it fpr a lot of money. All this is 5o speculative, but it still will be assessed those Caxes nn a diea m. I mean you have r,o 7uarantee that that mall will be there. I hope it will. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _QC 2 3 a S 5 7 8 9 SC 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 LG 2; 2~ 2i "4 LG I none economic times will allow itto be there, but there's no guarantee for us and yet the taxes will go through. Anyway, that's all I nave to say. NAYCR STOUT: Just as a, just as a point, I know this doesn't, it's not goint to make you feel any better, but just as a point, you've indicated that Che people involved in this mall and so forth own a large portion of the land and are going to pay a large portion of the assessments. MS. KIDD: Seventy-five percent, right. They do own -- MAYOR STOUT: You understan3, of course, that they're not going to commit themself to paying 75 percent of a 55 millior. debt and Chen not build the mall to pay off Che bonds with. MS. KIDD: Granted, bu[ then again -- MAYOR STOUT: This is one of the few things that will actually assure that that mall will get built. MS. KIDD: As I said before, when the mall is done, the taxes will start being assessed. In other words, tt:e taxes will commence basically when the mail's done. The mai~ will be there in place so the people that own 75 percent will be having immediate income. Those of us that are undeveloped will not. As I told you, we do not have people banging down our doors to develop it. Thar.'s a 40 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 9 9 i0 11 12 1? 14 15 16 17 18 19 LC 21 22 23 '4 25 reality MAYOR STOUT: All right. Thank you. MS. KIDD: Thank you. MAYOR STOUT: Is there anyone else? Any concluding comments? All right, the public hearing is closed. MR. MARKMAN: Mr. Mayor, since the hearing is closed, would you order Exhibits 1 through 7 as identified into the record please? NAYOR STOUT: Ye9, so ordered. Do any of the City Council members at [his time have any questions of the City staff or consultants? All right. There being no further discussion indicated, is it the desire of the City Council that this be conC inued or that we proceed with action on Resolutions 91-1, excuse me, the two resolutions that are submitted? Is [here a motion then to adopt the two resolutions as submitted? Do you need separate votes on them? MR. NrARKMAN: I think, for the record, we should and I think we should identify the resolutions by the r. ~,.imbers. Linda has the numbers if no one else does. MAYOR STOUT: Will the City Clerk read the numbers of the two resolutions starting with the first one. THE CITY CLERK: 91-376 and 91-383. 50 i 1 2 3 4 5 7 S 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 17 18 19 21 LG 23 25 25 MAYOR STOUT: 376 and 303? ' Is there a motion to adopt 91-376? COUNCILMEMBER ALEXANDER: So moved. MAYOR STOUT: Moved by Buquet? COUNCILMEMBER ALEXANDER: Alexander. MAYOR STOUT: Moved by Alexander. Is there a second? COUNCILMEMBER BUQUET: Second. MAYOR STOUT: Secend by Euau et. Indicate your votes please. THE CITY CLERK: Motion carried unanimously, five, zerc. MAYOR STOUT: Is there a moticn to adopt Resolution 91-383? COUNCILMEMBER ALEXANDER: So moved. MAYOR STOUT; Moved 5y Alexander. Is Chere a second? COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS: Second. MAYOR STOUT: Second by Williams. Indicate your votes please. THE CITY CLERK: Motion carried unanimously, five, .._`O. MAYOR STOUT: All right. That concludes Item 4. (END OE PROCEEDINGS.) 51 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE Certified Shorthand Reporter and/or Notary Public of the State of California, with principal office in the County of Orange, do hereby certify that the proceeding was written by me in Stenotypy and transcribed into typewriting and that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of my shorthand notes thereof. Dated: ~E~ 2r~ 199 /.HES L vARX MAN V'M BEi ONE CI VIr CEN LEP CIPCLE P O BOI ~C9 JPEW V Aq CZVNS M1I' a P..PU ~ YPN90~ . BiEA. LA LI FOPVIP 926231059 E<<P Er x M1 ~I)iAI 9900901 ~ ~ _ 'ELEPRO Na v AP-~9 ..E 5_E9 ~4'YER90M1 .... w ..'AM v L.a._v 111 91'] i00 iX.LL BONLEVAgO vnv5 4 G SLO JGP NP n1r V c~ iE 2J0 ~ ' _ . . aPV Ei4 ~ 51.. n .., ,. PPV _~~O C-..PM ON~n~:AiI CPV n19B 0~2 )u29 ~O ' ~ January HE EL E~ ' ~~ 301-02'e 9, 1992 h iEP..+ aLEA ~E gE~EP 'O Erea MEMORANDUM TO: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga 'C 4~ FROM: Andrew V. Arczy nski, Assistant City Attorney RE: GTE California, Etc., v. State of California, Etc., et al. Sacramento Supe rior Court No. 52 43 30 This correspondence will serve as our report to the City Council with respect to the above-referenced matter. As you know, the County is to be served with tax refund lawsuits and is presumed to act on behalf of the cities for which it collected taxes. The City of Rancho Cucamonga may, pursuant to California Revenue and Taxation Code Section 5148, "Opt out" of the litigation insofar as representation by the County Counsel's Office. Stated otherwise, the City has the choice, under the California Revenue and Taxation Code, of defending itself in the litigation as opposed to .having the matter defended by the County Counsel's Office or Attorney General's Office on the City's behalf. our analysis indicates that the City's relatively low level of involvement in the matter wo~.ild militate against the City retaining independent counsel to defend the matter. Accordingly, we recommend that the City Council at .its next meeting, by minute action, direct your office to correspond with the County Counsel's office evidencing the City's intent to continue the representation by the County Counsel's of f.ice in the above-referenced matter, not later than January 18, 1992. ~(u~~ ~hc3u~al.~u O(wnemv [~ Jl<n~ .5~,~ O9sr~iona(~re~in+nla..~ 4 Memorandum to: Debra Adams January 8, 1992 Page Two Please note that, in accordance with the provisions of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, representation of the City's interests by the County will require that the City pay its pro rata share of the costs and expenses of litigation, including attorney's fees. It appears that the City's exposure to such expenses would be negligible as compared to having independent counsel represent the City. For all of the foregoing reasons, we recommend the City Council permit the Ccunty Counsel's Office to defend the matter on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Please provide the City Council a copy of this memorandum for its next City Council meeting in order that it may take a position on the matter. AVA:clf C\131\MADAMS\RC 15E.1 cc: Jeffrey King (w/Ends.) 11 2 3, 4 6 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 2B Ted R. Gropman, Esq. (State Bar No. 93936) LAW OFFICES OF TED R. GROPMAN 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-0433 Attorney for BERNARDS BROS. INC. RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY In Re the Matter of BERNARDS BROS. INC. -and- SAVALA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. -and- CHINO ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTORS, INC. FINDINGB AND C0NCLUSZ0N8 Having duly heard, read and considered all the evidence and arguments presented by Bernards Bros. Inc, ("Bernards Bros."), Savala Construction Co., Inc. ("Savala Construction") and chino Engineering Constructors, lnc. ("Chino Engineering") at the January 3, 1992 hearing in the above-referenced matter in which Bernards Bros. requested consent to suhstitute Chino Engineering in place of Savala Construction as the site utilities subcontractor for the Rancho Cucamonga spar. is Complex/Animal Care Facility construction project in Rancho Cucamonga, California ("Project"), the following findings and conclusions have been -1- 1 2 3 4 5'', 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 reached: Findings of Fact 1. On October 24, 1991, ("Bid Day") Bernards Bros. was one of several competing general contractors who submitted sealed prime contract bids for the Project to the awarding authority, the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City"). 2. Bernards Br. os. listed Savala Construction on its bid form as its site utilities subcontractor for the Project and in doing so believed that Savala Construction's bid was the lowest site utilities bid received by Bernards Bros. on Bid Day. 3. On October 24, 1991, Shirley Bros. Construction was declared to be the successful low-bidding prime contractor for the Project. 4. Subsequent to Bid Day, Shirley Bros. Construction withdraw its bid on the Project and on or about November 7, 1991, the City notified Bernards Bros, that it had, by Shirley Bros. Construction's withdrawal, become the successful prime contractor for the Project. 5. On or about November 17, 1991, Bernards Bros. discovered that it had mistakenly listed Savala Construction on its bid form, and that the lowest bidding site utilities subcontractor to Bernards Bros. on Bid Day was, in fact, Chino Engineering. -2- 1`~ I 2~ 6. The site utilities work ("Site work") for the Project I 3 ~~ consisted of (i) storm drains, (ii) sewers and (iii) the site i 41 water system. Although Chino Engineering's bid, which was in the 5 sum of $818,899.55, consisted of all three elements of the Site 6i Work; the bid of Savala Construction, which was in the sum of 7i $798,oD0. G0, did not. Rather, Savala construction's bid failed to 8I rnclude the site water system part of the Site Work. 9~ 10 ~ 7• On November 19, 1991, Bernards Bros. mailed (by 111 certified Fiail) and faxed to the city a letter in which it sought, 12 Pursuant to Public Contract Code §§g107(a)(5) and 4107.5, relief 13 from its mistake in listing Savala Construction in lieu of Chino 14 Engineering as its 8it:e Work subcontractor. Copies of the 15I November 19, 1991 letter were mailed (by Certified Mail) and faxed 16. to Savala Construction and Chino Engineering. 17 18I 8• On November 27, 1991, Bernards Bros. submitted to the lyl City the affidavit of Steve Rosenfield in support of its request 20~fO1' relief in mistakenly listing Savala Construction as the Site 211 Work subcontractor. 22 2g ' 9. On Ncvember 27, 1991, Chino Engineering submitted to the 24 . City the affidavit of Paul Anderstrom in support of Bernards 25 Bros. request to substitute Chino Engineering in place of Savala 261 construction as the Site Work subcontractor. I 27 $8 10. On December 4, 1991, Bernards Bros, faxed and hand -3 i 11 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111 12 13 14 15 16 17~ 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 delivered to Savala Construction a December 4, 1991 Standard Form Subcontract (^SUbcontract") for the Site Work which included all three of the above-enumerated components of the Site Work. The Subcontract price was in the sum of $798,000.00, the same amount that Savala Construction quoted to Bernards Bros. on Sid Day. 11. on December 4, 1991, Bernards Bros. mailed (by Certified Mail) and faxed to the City a letter in which it sought relief under Public Contract Code §41o7(a)(1) for Savala Construction's anticipated unwillingness to sign the Subcontract. Copies of the December 4, 1991 letter were mailed (by Certified Mail) and faxed to Savala Construction and Chino Engineering. 12. On or about December E, 1991, Savala Construction modified the Subcontract by deleting the site water system from the scope of the Subcontract; and then signed and forwarded the modified Subcontract to Bernards Bros. 13. On December 9, 1991, Bernards Bros, mailed (by Certified Mail) and faxed to the City a letter in which it notified the City , of Savala's modification to the Subcontract; and in which Bernards Bros. renewed its request for relief under Public Contract Code §4107 (a)(1). Copies of the December 9, 1991 letter were mailed (by Certified Mail) and faxed to Savala Construction and Chino F,ngineering. ! 14. On December 12, 1991, Bernards Bros. mailed (by Certified Mail) and faxed to the City a letter in which it -4- l~ requested a public hearing on its request to substitute. Chino 2~ Engineering in place of Savala Construction as the Site Work 3~ subcontractor. Copies of the December 12, 1991 letter were mailed 4 (by Certified Mail) and faxed to Savala Construction and Chino 5 ' Engineering. 6 7 conclusions 8 yi A. Bernards Bros, listed Savala Construction as its 10 Proposed Site Work subcontractor for the Project as a result of 11 inadvertent clerical error. i 12 13 B. Savala Construction was not the low-bidding I, 14 subcontractor to Bernards Bros. fcr the Site Work; rather, Chino 15I Engineering was the low-bidding Site Work subcontractor to ' 161 Bernards Bros. 17 18 C• Bernards Bros. substantially complied with the time 191 requirements found in Public Contract Code §4107.5 for seeking 20 relief for its inadvertent clerical error in listing Savala 21 Construction as the Site Work subcontractor for the Project. 22 23 D. Savala Construction wrongfully refused to sign, without 24 modif ication, Bernards Bros. December 4, 1991 Subcontract in the 25 sum of $798,000.00 for the Site Work. 28 27 E. Bernards Bros. did not attempt to bid shop or bid peddle I 28 with respect tc tt:e Site Work for the Project. _5_ i 1, 2 F. Bernards Bros, is entitled, pursuant to both Public 3~ Contract Code §4107 (a)(1) and Public Contract Code §4107(a)(5), to i 4 substitute Chino Engineering as its Site Work subcontractor, in 5 place of Savala Construction. 6~ 7 DATED: January _, 1992 8 9 ~ JAMES L. M,ARICMAN, Hearing Officer 10 11 200:35F F6.: 12 ~ 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~ 22 23 i 24 25 26 27 28 -6- 1 • 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1C 11i 12 13 • 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 211 22 23 24 251 26 ,~ 27 28 Ted R. Gropman, Esq. (State Bar No. 93936) LAW OFFICES OF TED R. GROPMAN 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 785-0433 Attorney for BERNARDS BROS. TNC. RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY In Re the Matter of BERNARDS BROS. INC. -and- SAVAhA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. -and- CHINO ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTORS, INC. BERNARD3 SROB. INC.~B REQDEBT FOR 80B8TITDTION PURBIIANT TO PUBLIC CONTRACT CODE SECTIONS X107 {t)(1) AND X107 (a)(5) Date: 7anUdry 3, 1992 Time: 9:00 a. m. Place: Plaza Room One Civic center Circle Brea, California I. INTRODUCTION Bernards Bros. Inc. ("Bernards Bros.~~), the prime contractor for construction of the Rancho Cucamonga sports Complex/Animal Care Facility, respectfully requests permission pursuant to Public contract Code Sections 4107 (a)(1) and 4107(a)(5) to substitute Chino Er,gin Bering Constructors, Inc. (~~Chino Engineering~~) in place of the listed site utilities subcontractor, Savala construction Co., Inc. (~~Savala construction"). -1- i l ~ i The request for relief is based upon (1) Savala • g Construction's failure to sign and return Bernards Bros.' site 3 utilities subcontract agreement, and (2) Bernards Bros.' 4 inadvertent error in listing Savala Construction for the site 5 utilities work. 6 7 As noted below, Savala construction's bid is approximately g $200,000.00 higher than the low bid of Chiro Engineering and if g relief is not granted, then Chino Engineering would effectivel}• be 10 denie3 the protection of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair 11 Practices Act (Public Contract Code §§4100 et sec .). Furthermore, 18 Savala Construction -- as the high bidder -- would be unfairly 13 rewarded to the detriment of not only Chino Engineering, but also 14 Bernards Bros., who would sustain a substantial monetary loss if S f 15 orced to contract with Savala Construction. The law vigilantly 18 protects against such injustices. 17 18 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 19 20 On October 24, 1991, the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City^) 21 opened sealed bids from competing prime contractors for its Rancho 22 Cucamonga Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility construction project 23 ("Project^). The successful low bidder was Shirley Bros. Inc. 24 Bernards Bros., as the unsuccessful second-low bidder, set aside 25 its bid documents and immediately concentrated on other work. 28 However, approximately two weeks later, on November 7, 1991, 27 6ernards Bros. was formally notified that Shirley Bros.' low bid 28 had been withdrawn and that Bernards Bros., by default, had become -2- i l~; the low bidder. • 2 3 Upon being notified of Shirley Bros.' withdrawal, Bernards Bros be an to retrieve its hid docu e ts and in the rocess of 4 , . g p m n 5 reviewing those documents discovered that it had inadvertently g listed Savala Construction far site utilities work. upon this y discovery, Bernards Bros. promptly contacted Savala Construction g to explain the error and attempted to amicably resolve the g mistake. when the matter could not be resolved, Bernards Bros., l0 1 by way of its November 19, 1991 letter to Tarry L. Smith of the 11 City, formally sought relief from its clerical error in listing lg Savala Construction in lieu of Chino Engineering. 13 14 The nature of Bernards Bros.' mistake is as follows: The • i i i i " " 15 s te ut l t es portion of the Project includes three discrete 18 components of work: (i) storm drains, (2) sewers, and (3) site 17 water system. Although the bid of Chino Engineering properly lg included all three components of the site utilities work, the 19 erroneous bid of Savala Construction did not. In his November 27, $0 1991 Affidavit, Steve Rosenfield, the Bernards Bras. employee 81 responsible for coordinating the incoming bids from site utilities 82 subcontractors, explained the problem that occurred on bid date as 83 follows: 24 25 "During the late morning and early afternoon hours 2g [on bid date, October 24, 19917 the bid amounts began to 3 27 be submitted by the various [site utilities) 28 subcontractors for whom I had fliers. I was able to _;_ • 1i 2 31. i 4~ 51 61 7 8I 9 10 11 lz 13 14 15 16~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 28 27 28 list their bid amount next to their names and begin to see what the value of the work was. This value was important to the [Bernards Bros.] Chief Estimator since he would use my best subcontractor numbers prior to the bid closing in order to close out his estimate . ^When I received Chino Engineering's faxed bid amount I listed it on my spreadsheet and noted that Chino's bid was the low bid. I then gave that bid amount to the Chief Estimator and stated that it came from Chino Engineering. I observed the Chie£ Estimator writ inq in Chino's bid amount and name. Z remember Chino Engineering calling me shortly thereafter and asking how his price looked. I told Chino that his price was looking good and that we had him listed.' ^AS the bids continued to come in 2 would enter the bid amount next to the Subcontractor's name At approximately five minutes to two o'clock someone brought a fax into my office from Savala. The first Ching Z looked for was the bid amount which was some $20,000 lower than Chino. With less than a minute to review the scope of work since I did not previously have a flier from Savala, I quickly scanned their bid . Since Savala's bid amount was very close to Chino's bid amount and the bid appeared to be complete, I ran down the hall to the Chief Estimator's office and announced a ~ Paul Anderstrom of Chino Engineering, in his November 27, 1991 Affidavit, at paragraph 3, states that he called Mr. Rosenfield at 1:55 p.m. -- just 5 minutes bef are the bids were opened by the City -- and was told by Mr. Rosenfield that his bid was low. _q_ 1 i~ ' new site utility amount with Savala as the low complete • bidd 2 er. . 3 ~ "I have subsequently discovered that Savala~s bid ¢ was not the low bid because it did not include the site 5 water system as Chinos did. In reality Savala~s bid is 6 approximately $200,000 more than Chinos bid. 7 B Notwithstanding Savala Constructions failure to properly g include the site water system in its October 24, 1991 bid, 10 Bernards Bros., on December 4, 1991, gave Savala Construction the 11 opportunity to serve as the site utilities subcontractor on the lg Project when it mailed its Standard Form Subcontract agreement 13 ("Subcontract") to Savala Construction in the precise amount of • 14 Savala Constructions bid amount. The Subcontract price included, 15 however, as it should, all the site utilities work shown on the 16 Project plans and specifications -- i. e., (1) storm drains, (2) lg sewers, an (3) the site water system. 18 lg Savala Construction has refused to sign and return the 20 Subcontract mailed to it by Bernards Bros. on December 4, 1991. 21 Instead, Savala only signed the Subcontract after first improperly 22 deleting the water system portion of the site utilities work. 23 This it may not do, for it constitutes a deliberate and gq unjustified attempt to deny the true low-bidding site utilities gg subcontractor -- Chino Engineering -- from enjoying the protection 26 afforded to low-bidding subcontractors by the Subletting and 2y Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. (Public Contract Code S$4100 gg et sea.) Furthermore, it would also unfairly reward the iah -6- 4 i 11 bidder -- 5avala Construction -- to the detriment of both Chino 2 Engineering an Bernard5 Bros., who would be required to sustain a 3I Si2o0,o0.00 loss if forced by the City to contract with the higher- y bidding site utilities subcontractor. 5 6 III. 9AVALA sCCNBTRUCTION FAILED TO eION 7 AND RETURN BERNARD9 EROS SUBCONTRACT 8 g The purpose of the Subcontracting Fair Practices Act is to 10 protect the public from the practice of bid shopping and bid 11 Peddling after the award of a prime contract. Southern California 12 Acoustics Co v C V HoldeY Sne (1969) 71 Ca1.2d 719. The Act, 13 however, was not created to unjustly enrich subcontractors at the 14 expense of prime contractors for clerical errors made in their 15 bid; nor was it designed to deny work to the legitimate low 16 bidding subcontractor. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 28 27 28 To protect the interests of prime contractors, as well as legitimate low bidding subcontractors, the Legislature has enacted Publie Contract Code §4107, which provides a mechanism for relieving prime contractors, in proper instances, from having to use "listed~~ subcontractors on public works of improvement. For example, subpart (a)(1) of §4107 allows a prime contractor to substitute a listed subcontractor when the listed subcontractor fails to sign and return a written subcontract: (a) the awarding authority, or its duly authorized officer, may consent to the substitution of -6- • 1 2 3i 4 5 g ~ i i another person as a subcontractor in any of the following situations: ^(1) When the subcontractor listed in the bid after having had a reasonable opportunity to do so fails ~ or refuses to execute a written contract, when that written contract, based upon the general term y conditions nlans and snecif icatior+s for the nroiect g involved or the terms of that subcontractor's written 9 bid, is presented to the subcontractor by the prime 10 contractor.^ (Emphasis added.) 11 12 As noted above, on December 4, 1991, Bernards Hros. mailed to 13 5avala Construction its written Subcontract agreement for the site 14 utilities work which conformed to the "general terms, conditions, • l d ifi ti ^ 15 ans an spec ca ons for the [P]roject . Public Contract Code P 16 §4107(a)(1). In other words, the Subcontract required Savala 1~ Construction, as the listed "site utilities" subcontractor, to 18 Perform the site utilities work for its bid price. By wrongfully 19 refusing to sign and return the Subcontract as prepared by 20 Bernards Bros., and in impermissibly attempting to delete a 21 critical portion of the site utilities operations -- the site 28 water system work -- 5avala Construction's acts constituted a 23 refusal under §4107(a)(1) to sign a contract which was "based upon 24 the general terms, conditions, plans and specifications for the 25 project involved". 26 29 Accordingly, Bernards Bros. is entitled to replace Savala 28 Construction with Chino Engineering as the site utilities -~- i~ ~I 1~1 subcontractor for the Project. • 2i g IV. HERNARDS BROB. COMMITTED INADVERTENT q CLERICAL ERROR IN LISTING SAVALA CONSTRUCTION g AS THE SITE UTILITIES SUBCONTRACTOR FOR THE PROJECT 6 7 1. In General. g Ar. alternative basis for relief to Bernards Bros. lies in g subpart (a)(5) of Public Contract Code §4107: 10 11 (a) the awarding authority, or its duly authorized 12 officer, may consent to the substitution of 13 another person as a subcontractor in any of the lq following situations: • " Wh t t 5 th t t d t th i lg en emons ra o e ( ) e pr me con rac or es 16 awarding authority, or its duly authorized officer, 17 subject to the Further provisions set forth in Section 1H 4107.5, that the name of the subcontractor was listed as lg the result of an inadvertent clerical error." 20 21 2. The Time Limits of 64107.5 Do Not Aooly. 82 Under normal circumstances, When seeking relief under 23 §4107(a)(5) a prime contractor is subject to certain time 24 limitations with respect to its request for relief. In pertinent 25 part, §4107.5 states that notice of the error is to be given gg within two working days of bid date: 27 28 "The prime contractor as a condition to assert a claim -8- I ~I l ~' of inadvertent clerical error in the listing of a • ~ ~ subcontractor shall within two working days after the I g ; time of the prime bid opening by the awarding authority 4 i give written notice to the awarding authority .^ g i (Emphasis added.) 6 7 Thus, the provisions of Section 4107.5, by their express g terms, only apply to these common situations where the low bidder g on bid date is the ultimately successful contractor to whom the 10 contract is awarded. Bernards Bros. was not the low bidder on bid 11 date and it was not until weeks later it first learned that, by 18 virtue of Shirley eros.~ withdrawal from the field, it had become 13 the successful bidder. 14 • lg The 2 day hair-trigger time limitation of Section 4107.5 may 16 make some sense when the low bidder on bid date (e.g., Shirley 17 Bros.) fails to timely seek relief from a clerical error in its lg bid. That is because of the high degree of attention and focus ly that contractors devote to the project on bid date. Upon the 20 unsealing of competing bids and the announcement of the results, 21 the successful low bidders energies and attention are directed 82 entirely to the project and the information contained in the 23 successful bid. Within that context, the Legislature has S4 legitimately demanded a prompt request for relief from the low gg bidder within 2 working days of bid date. 28 27 On the infrequent occasion where the successful low bid is H8 withdrawn weeks after bid date, and a Formerly Unsuccessful bidder -9- l I I I I i is now thrust into the position of successful bidder a wholly . 2 different field of dynamics is at play. 3 4 As noted above, Bernards Bros. was not the successful bidder 5 on bid date, but only assumed that position weeks later after 8 Shirley Bros.' low bid had been withdrawn. When, on November 7, ~ 1991, Bernards Hros. learned of its new position, its attention 8 and energies were not focused with the same degree of intensity y and dedication that would have existed on bid date. Rather, 10 ~ Bernards Hros. had by then redirected its efforts and attentions 11 to other projects. As of November 7, it first had to gather 12 itself, "dust off^ its dormant hid, and reorient itself to the new 13 role of successful bidder. It was during this "re-entry" period 14 that Bernards Bros. discovered its clerical error and then, when • it 15 was unable to amicably resolve the dispute directly with Savala 16 Construction, formally requested relief from the City within eight 17 working days (as opposed to the two working days specified in 18 Section 4107.5) of the date it learned it was the new successful ly' bidder. 20 21 3. Even if Section 4107 5 Aoolies the City Mav H2 Nevertheless Waive the Immaterial Delav in Seekinc 83 Relief. 24 25 Even if Bernards Bros. is deemed to be bound 6y the 28 Provisions of Section 4107.5, and was therefore required to submit 27 its request for relief within 2 working days after being notified 28 of its ultimately successful bid, the City may nevertheless -10- l ii i ii exercise its discretion to waive Bernard Bros. immaterial • g irregularity in giving the notice withir. 8 working days. 3 i ~ q It has repeatedly been held that a public entity may waive 5 immaterial irregularities in a contractors bid. See, for 6 example, Diablo Beacon Printino & Publishing Co (1964) 229 Cal. 7 App. 2d 505; Acret, Attor nevus Guide to California Construction 8 Contracts and Disputes (2d Ed. 1990) Section 4.17; 47 Ops. Cal. 9 Atty. Gen. 129 (1966); 20 McOUillin. Law of Municipal Corporations 10 (3d Ed. 1981) Section 29.68. 11 12 Similarly, where a party fails to give notice within a 13 Prescribed period of time, general principles of law provide that 14 such failure will not deprive the party to a right of relief l 15 un ess the other party can show that he or she was prejudiced by 16 the delay. Abrams v. American Fidelity & Casualty Co , 32 Cal. 2d 17 233; Moe v. Transamerica Title Insur nce Co , 21 Cal. App. 3d 289. 18 lg Here, the delay in giving notice to the City and Savala 20 Construction was minor and insignificant. Instead of giving 21 notice within 2 working days, Bernards Bros. gave notice within 8 22 working days. And that formal notice would have been given even 23 sooner to the City, but for Bernards Bros. salutary effort to 24 remedy the problem, in the first instance, directly with Savala 25 Construction. Furthermore, Savala Construction has not shown how ~ 28 I the slight delay in notice has been prejudicial. Indeed, no 27 prejudice can be shown because none has been suffered. 28 -11- ~ li ~~ 4. Bernards Bros. is Not Required to File an "Affidavit" • 2 1 Within Working Davs. 3 ~ i y ~ Savala Construction, in a November 22, 1941 letter from its 5 attorney, Mark Stapke, has contended that Bernards Bros. was also g obliged to file an "affidavit" within 8 [workingl days of "the ~ prime bid opening", and cites subpart (b) of Section 4107.5 as g support. The contention, and citation, are in error. It is y subpart (a) that contains the 8-day requirement. However, subpart 10 (a) only applies when (1) the prime contractor, (2) the intended 11 subcontractor, and (3) the listed subcontractor all agree to the 12 prime contractor's request for substitution. Because Savala 13 Construction protests Bernards Bros.' request, subpart (a) is 14 inapplicable. Rather, subpart (b) -- which does not contain the • B-d i 15 ay requ rement -- governs. Subpart (b) simply requires that 16 the awarding authority grant the request for substitution if the ly erroneously listed subcontractor "does not submit within six lg working days written objection to the prime contractor's ly claim of inadvertent clerical error". 20 81 Because Bernards Bros. has given written notice of its 82 request for substitution, and because Savala Construction has 23 formally objected in writing within d working days thereafter, the 24 City must, pursuant to the last paragraph of section 4107.5, 25 conduct a full hearing on the matter: 28 27 "If the listed subcontractor has submitted 28 to the awarding authority and to the prime contractor -12- • i 1 2 3 g i written objection to the prime contractor's claim of inadvertent clerical error, the awarding authority shall investigate the claims of the parties and hold a public hearinc as orovided in Section 4107 to determine the 5 validity of those claims." (Emphasis added.) 6 7 As demonstrated above, it was through inadvertent clerical B error that Steve Rosenfield of Bernards Bros. erroneously listed 9 Savala Construction as the low bidding site utilities 10 ~ subcontractor; when that designation properly belonged to Chino 11 Engineering. The error, however, was caused p1i Savala 12 Construction who (1) waited until the last possible minute submit 15 its bid to Bernards Bros., and (2) then apparently improperly 14 failed to include the critical water systems part of the site utiliti k i it i 15 es wor n s b d price. Savala Construction should not 16 now profit from the mistakes occasioned by its own acts, to the 17 detriment of Bernards Bros. and the true low bidder, Chino 1B Engineering. 19 gp D. WNCLDBION 21 82 For all the foregoing reasons, Bernards Bros. respectfully 23 requests that the city consent to its proposed substitution of 24 Chino Engineering Constructors, Inc. in place of Savala 25 Construction co., Inc. as the site utilities subcontractor on the 2B Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/Animal care Facility construction ,~ 27 28 -13- 1~ • 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 • 14 15 16 19 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 29 28 project in Rancho Cucamonga, California. DATED: December 3~ , 1991 LAW OFFICES OF TED R. GROPMAN By: ex ~~~_ Ted R. Gr ~pman Attorney for BERNARDS HROS. INC. 20~135P~.9At -14- TABLE OF CONTENTS BERNARDS BROS> EXHIBITS INTRODCiCED D 1RINh HEARIN . OF .iAN iARY ~. 1992 EXHIBIT # A. November 19, ]991 letter from Eemartls Bros. to Ciro B. November 25, 1991 letter from Gropman to Ciry C. November 27, 1991 affidavit of Steve Rosenfield and accompanying November 27, 1991 letter from Bemards 8ms. to City D. November 27, 1991 Affidavit of Paul Anderstrom E. December 4, 1991 Bernards Bros. Standard Form Subcontract and accompanying December 4, 1991 letter from Bernards Bros. to Savala F. December 4, 1991 letter from Bemards Bros. to City G. December 6, 1991 letter of Transmittal fmm Savala to Bemards Bros., and enclosed modified Suhcontmc[ H. December 9, 1991 letter from Bemards Bros. to Savala I. December 9, 1991 letter from Bemards Bros. to City J. December 12, 1991 let[er from Bemattis Bros, to City K. Bemards Bros.' Subcontractors List Hr EXHIBIT A ~~ Bernards Bros. Constru~ m November 19,1991 Mr. Tarry L Smith, Superintendent Park Planning & Dn'eltryment The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Canter Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility Bernards Bros. lob No. 964 Subcontractor listing Dear Tarry: • Pursuant to the provisions of Public Construction Code sections 4107 (a) (5) and 4107.5, Bernazds Bros. Inc. fiereby requests relief from its inadve'lent clerical error in listing Savala Construction Co. for the "site utilities" work on the above referenced pro}ect Bernards Bros. lne. actually intended to list C`tino Engineering Construnors Inc. for that work R'e are sending copies o(this notice as required by Section 4107.510 both Sxvxla Construction Co. and Cltino Engineering Constructors. BL-RNARDS BROS. CONSTRUCTION i~leff yG~Bemards ce President ]GB:Inv a: Sa~~ala Construction Co. Inc. Certified f~P996 643 316 Chino Engineering CAn5fil1Ct0r5Inc. Certified OP 996 643 317 Cia Fax and Certified Mall to all Certified Mail !'P754 306 092 EtC I'~e•^>~ee' San re.~a~JO Ca~':; ~a Y.3<0 ~E'~E136i u.%E ;E'6~Eg6'Sdt PFY (E'E; 3E'~9[JE L¢ 33700] • r~•^ _~ o ... . .. ya • • r` ~q .nr s> (~..dr I •r '.• .. .... rr; .. x lWby .s -B . p~~aarrd~ •~ f ) 4 ~ _ lMav¢[pyy ~7Atl RaPPtl agrPP 'B ~mntaB 31vD w+ j `~'7 teee•wapa enure! W '[pit ;f .. f wga+q ~ ~: ^ ' '~KOCOJ ^ r /t/C ^ ~ ~,A (~ 9~51a t eda/~ s mWNwwv t :pF Pataawlr apoay 'e (aLerp taA37 (afgp mu3l AwMaD pauwaay ^ -Z 'csa:ppv a aaa s ppa pue veP~pa kNP woyw. of wswi5 ^ ' l p a ".W~.OF m[stWwad rlRgaw ar¢saMNas EUm°near l[laa!N Rw!VpPa )p/lyl[vG[WYa Prr¢ Y9P¢ vq uTT6+l p [o lv ~~ap aer nu p w .sme i pam I p uo[ a ar l prey sryl luawrd 111x. uyl lvaweua4l na~v~jl LTiw wnz yl'noA Oi ppwnmr~wag op w mnpy •aprz asranav pyl vo aaed5 ..Ol NH013tl., ayi m fmrppe of lrld VU1111 ggdwea puv 'ppesp ue eaalNx puowppa uayM Z pw F awol! emidwp •9 Pua E l ~ ~N30N35 7 _._~-..~......_.....,.__ ~ ___ .._ .... ~.__._...._. f LdF3D3tl NtlOl3tl DI ~+~z'otn'cn• ~ ~~n//~ 1ry6861 '+dZb"L/L8E W1Oi Sd 1 ~O` ~'l . ""' O,Csenr~$ to atep '[ ~6dt,~ - x ~~ Q Welly - mn eu6!S '9 Fp!pd+q ` ~ X A9N01 Karppb sp 1 p 'S '03tl3A113O 31t0 ywf4rnr /"~ /~ emppe se Mmtutlrc mnpp [AeMlt O i8a a"u'~,^I:u ^ a¢w .tue¢~ ~ /LC% f~ ows iT Boo p p+ylpa7 ' pem.al ~ 9a,eue•y °~e•3~''P'S~~ j NO[ ~~ :aaln,ag Ip adAl ~~ y~~~ 9r£ s,~ ~ 966 d 4 nN aPVy '9 m PassarDpb apWy 'g I/Fioywrr~l 1a8mgxvrrJl N IaD peDiusvtl n 'Z '[zmppe t eassmppe Pue a1bD'pmenllpp woyra 1 moyg I-. 'i n 'pasanpar Islmmras Ieupu~pDe r¢l sbrxoy yoay> pue emsoe pnsoop a e lane are 6aoinras 6drrnol 11 ul eaar euonrppe roi rangaTy~' 13 1e6 p aV• ' pur or pdrx[4ap vouad ayi to aweu ayl nol apmm~me~l r3~eCer mnlar ayl oA Ol Peumlw Emay wwi pre: siyi ma wd pin• syp qp or aml~ei 'apes avanar aN u ecetl5 ..Ol M1'tlf113tl.. ew u! vserPpe angA uy swan a)aldwq Pua 'pensap em wa!nms leuorilppe ueym L Pue t aweu vzeldwop a3DN34 y~ • SENDER: Gempiee items t and ] woes edd'niornl services are devmd, and complete items 3 antl <. Prrt your address in tM "RETURN TD" Space n tP raver a Ilpm bemp rezumee to you Tlm RNmreCyI~WBI prWMe sN¢. Fslwe ip do ibu wi0 prevent fiis cud VOU the niTG pr f lle~ m n de liveroamena ~ _ ~ tM Oerg of delrverv Fpr Itatl~~\{Ie IVIIVWIr)p aErVlCes qlC eve118E1e. One VC if tgehnegerTq {eei n c~6c oylesl7 ddnional semcelsi repuested 1. C Sflow to wM1Om dellvered.gate. nd ttldrtteee's eddret[. Z. G Reetritted Delivery lrsr(e`1+larprl - lFsna dvrEr) 3. Article gddres sad [o: -^[ ,. __ 4. Article Number T ~- 'e~ ~ P7sS~.soL o92. n _ . is _. / l+ e (~ /~ y °/,( J _ vpe of Service: a Peviaar.a C In[Vrep ~~-Q. J Y O J / I ~cen~Led ~ R ~ . um fl ecelyt ^ Eeprees Meil ^ rpr MarcA ndrse ~ Y"'°- ~'~"AU 9 j9 aw.vs pelaln .gnamr. pt apdrea3 yµ or spent antl BATF DE4VEPED. 5 SlBneture -Addressee B Addressee's Address IONL Y~I/ T X rrpua'.ord and frr~ 6. SlBnetur Bent ~~ES d X ~i~ - Hav7z ~ . _ ~. Dtt very ; / /~ oZ/ " ~ BER _ K,. 11. I i 11/19/81 17:07 $818 Jel 9208 BE lrrrrrarlss:rwrs rs: AQICI TS' R rarer srlrtrrxaa TR~SSMIBS I05 OR Tl R% S0. 91;2 COS~'ECTID3 TEL COSEC Post-It' brantl tax transmittal memo 7871 rorprpn . TM rwm ~ tA. ~1t~'~~: ce. avA vno~er 365 i . rr, t . 17145971295 .. TIO\ ID CEC ST;.RT TIf~ 11/18 17:06 rsnce TII~ 91'01 P.1GE5 1 RESI'LT OK I3%19.91 1i: 08 $818 381 9208 gi - slstAlirrrrf ii t. rr: ecrn'm• i itiittTrtrtttri` TRASSMi5510\' OR ra/Ra sD. s1;3 COS~'E CTI05 TEL COSSECSIO\' ID ST4R f'p3i-0t'prdnd ld%hanamlYd mam075T1 YotPplar Te Q.S: uC.a,(~t irvm `d-/L~G• p ~J Depl. FMnU ~y ]i149576499 T T1 KE 1119 17:08 L SAGE 7I ME 00'46 PAGES 1 RESCLT OK 11 /19 ~e1 1d: 59 $618 698 4909 ___ DER\';RDS EST. ixAfxRl tiarJawttfl8llrYrFrt rxw ACTii'1'1~' REPORT rrr rrwr:alra rraraaaaeArw•xarn TRA~SM155105 OK TX. R[ S0. 4880 C0~'SECTI05 TEL ll145525597 CO,SSF.CTIOA ID START TIME 11/19 16:58 I SiGE TIME 00'43 PAGES 1 RESCLT OR x'001 EXHIBIT B a~ ._.-~_-i9?? ig: SO FR7~y SED R. i~OPMaN. F59, '0 BEiv~a+DS P, 02 _ .n crnc~s cr • TED R. GROPMA.\ IC~i CC~'..0~ C4Cn C~.S^ LO? A`'CELEa fAt:FO R~:A POOb> . a. +~..c-a~ ...z x -a s~. ce Nove„yer 25, 1941 418_Facsimile and Certified Meil Mr. Tarry L. Smith lark Planning & Developr,.ent City of Rancho Cucamonga SD50o civic center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Aa: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility Mr. Tarry: I am writing on behalf of my client, Ssrnards Bros. Znc. ("Bernards^), and in response to a November 22, 1991 letter to you from attorney Mark R. Stapke on behalf of his client, Savala • Construction Company ("Savala"). Savala•s protest of Bernards• request for relief under Publio Contract code Section 4107 (aj (5) must, after a full hearing on the matter, be denied for the following reasons. Introduction On October 24, 1991, the City Of RanchD Cucamonga ("City^) opened sealed bids from competing prime contractors for its Rancho Cu camorga Sports Complex/Anima] Care Facility construction protect (^Project^). The successful low bidder was Shirley Bros. Bernards, as the unsuccessful second-low bidder, set aside its bid documents and in~ediately concentrated on other work. However, approximately two weeks later, on November 7, 1991, aernerds was formally notified that Shirley Bros.• low bid had been withdrawn and that Bernards, by default, had become the low bidder. Cpon being notified of Shirley Bros.• withdrawal, D=r~ards began to retrieve its bid documents and in the process o£ rev.iowing these documents discovered that it had inadvertently listed Savala for site utilities work. L'pon this discovery, Ba:rr.a rds promptly contacted Savala to explain the error and attempted to amicably resolve the mistake. WT.en the matter could not be resolved, Bernards, by way of its November 19, 1991 letter to you, sought relief from its cl er~i cal error in listing Savala in lieu of Chino Engineering Constructors, Inc. Ccntrary to the irs inuations in Mur. Stapke•s Ncvea,ber 22, vc~~-ae-:~ei iF:~i Fva~M -e~ P. moPra~ti, esc, y~.y:,.~s -.-' w c« tes cr TED R. GRO P^1A:r' • Mr. Tarry L Smith Fovembet 25, 1991 Yage 2 1991 letter to you, Bernards~ bona fide request for relief frog its clerical error is not an attempt to "bid shop^. Indeed, had *:r. Stapke taken the time to investigate Hernards~ background he would have learned of 6errards~ well-earned reputation for honor, integrity and dedicated service in the area of public works of improvement. Mr. Stapke correctly identifies the purpose of the Subcontracting Fair practices Act was to protect the public from the practice of bid shopping and bid peddling after the award of a prime cort rect. This Act, however, was not created to unjustly enrich subcontractors at the expense of prime contractors for clerical errors made in their bid, as well as to deny work to the legitimate low bidding subcontractor. T~reliness of 7evuest 1. 721gSSF'e Limits of Section 4107 5 Do Not AoD ly. A prime contractor on a public work of improvement may substitute a subcontractor listed on the prima contractors • original bid 1f the ^subcontract or was listed as the result of an inadvertent Clerical error.^ Public Contract Coder Section 4107 (a)(5). Savala contends that Bernards~ request for relief must be denied because it was not made within the time limits prescribed by Section 4107.5 of the ~i.blic Contract Code. In pertinent part, section 4107.5 provides that: "The prime contractor as a condition precedent to assert a claim of inadvertent error in the listing of a subcontractor shall within two working day after the prime bi d._ooen Ujq by the ,awarding a t ority give written notice to the awarding authority .^ (£mphasis added.) Thus, the provisions of Section 4107.5, by their express terns, only apply to those common situations where the low bidder gp_bid mate is the ultimately successful contractor to whom the contract is awarded. Berra rds was ILo~ the low bidder on bid date and it was not until weeks later it first learned that, by virtue of Shirley 3ros.~ withdra»al from the field, it had become the successful bidder. The 2 day hair-trigger time limitation of Section 4107.5 may rake scv:e sense when the low bidder on bid date (e.g., Shirley Bros.) fails to timely seek relief from a clerical error in its bid, That is because of the high degree of attention and focus that contractors devoto to the pzo~ect on pad dat e. Upon the ~.^s ealinq of cospetinq bids and the announcement of the results, ._~-~5-:??: SE~31 FR7; 'ED R. Ga;1FMgN~ ESG. ?0 "nER^:a4~^S %. 3n _ r, ornees ve i ED R. GR07T1AV • Mr. ^arry L Smith November 25, 1991 Page 3 the successful low bidder's enereies and attention are directed entirely to the project and tY.e information contained in the successful bid. within that context, the Legislature has legitimately der anded a prompt request for relief from t..*.e low bidder within 2 working days of bid date. On the infrequent occasion where the successful low bid is withdrawn weeks after bid date, and a formerly ynsuccessful bidder is ,,^.ow thrust into the position o£ successful bidder a wholly different field o£ dynamics is at play. As noted above, Bernards was not the successful bidder on bid date, but only assumed that position weeks later after Shirley Bros.' low bid had been withdrawn. A'hen, on Nover..ber 7, 1991, Bernards '_earned of its new position, its attention and energies were not focused with the same degree of intensity and dedication that would have existed on bid date. Rather, Bernards had by then redirected its efforts and attentions to other • projects. As of November 7, it first had Lo gather itself, •dust off• its dormant bid, and reorient itself to the new role of successful bidder. It was during this •re-entry• period that Bernards discovered its clerical error and then, when it was arable to amicably resolve the dispute directly with Savala, formally requested relief from the City within eight working days (as opposed to the two xorking days specified in Section 4107.5) of the date it learned it was the new successful bidder. Even if Section aio7.5 ADOlies the City May Nevertheless W'a ive the Immaterial Delay in__ Semi na elief. F.ven if Bernards is deemed to be bound by the provisions of Section 4107.5, and was therefore required to submit its request for relief ~.+ithin 2 xorking days after being notified of its ult i,aately successful bid, the City r.,ay nevertheless exercise its discretion to naive Bernards' im..a terial irregv larity in giving the notice within 8 working days, it. has repeatedly been held that a public entity say r;aive '';,,-~atarial 'rregularities in a contractor's bid. See, for example, Piab19 Beacon Printi a S_PUblishina Co. (1964) 229 Cal. App. 2d 505; Acret, Attorrey_s_GUiae to California C~t~uction contracts agd_Disoutes (2d Ed. 1990) Section 4.17; 47 Ops, Cal. Atty. Gen. 129 (1966); 10 _N_c0ui11~ Law of N.vnicip3, Coxyorat i_o^5 (7d Ed. 1981) Section 29.68, Similarly, where a party fails to give notice within a prescribed period of time, general principles of law provide that ^+0"•;-~` :9?3 :e: 32 FB7M- 'ED R. GR7aMRN• EEO. '0 '_ RI+a~DS F.3~ ( _ w O~IiC E3 O• TED R. GROPM.4\ • Y.r. Tarry L Smith November 25, 1991 Fage 4 such failure will not deprive the party to a right of relief un_ess the other party can show that he or she was prejudiced by the delay. Abrams v. A_+ier'Can Fidelity 6 Casualty Co 32 Cal. 2d 233; Noe v Trarsaaerica T'tl 'ns ranee Co., 21 Cal. App. 3d 289. Here, t..*.e delay in giving notice to the City and Savala was minor and insignificant. Instead of giving notice within 2 working days, Bernards gave notice within 8 working days. And that formal notice would have been given even sooner to the City, but for Berrards~ salutary effort to rer„edy the problem, in the first instance, directly with Savala. Furthermore, Savala has r.ot shown how the slight delay in notice has been prejudicial. indeed, no prejudice can be shown because none has been suffered, 3. Bernards is Not Rewired o File an afr'gavit 1vi~hin 8 Wosking Days. • Attorney Stapke~s November 22 .letter additionally contends that Bernards wzs @lso obliged to file an "affidavit^ within 8 ;working] days of "the pri r„e bid openings, and cites subpart (b) of Section 4107,5 as support. The contention, and citation, are in error. It is subpart (g) that contains the 8-day requirement. However, subpart (a) only applies when (1) the prime contractor, (2) t..*,e intended subcontractor, and (3) the listed subcontractor a~ agree to the prime contractor's request for substitution. Because Savala pretests Bernards request, subpart (a) is inapplicable. Rather, subpart (b) -- which does pg~ contain the 8-day requirement -- governs. Subpart (b) si Q,ply requires that the awarding authority gra~rt the request for substitution if the erroneously listed subcontractor sdoes not submit within siX working days written objection to the prime contractors claim o! inadvertent clerical errors. 9ecause Berne rds has given wz itten notice of its request for substitution, and because Savala has formally objected in writing within 6 working days thereafter, the city must, pursuant to the last paragrzph of Section 4107.5, condact a full hearing on the natter: sif t};e listed subcontractor has submitted to the awarding authority and to the price contractor written objecticn to the prime contractor's claim of inadvertent clerical error, the awarding authority rhall investigate the claims of the parties and hold a oablic hearinrs ac .. ..:.te.e 1., e_,..._~ .. .,_ h'~V-25-:991 16~3e FR7fy. 'ED R. GROPnRN~ E50. TO &°R!JaRCS P.06 ( / ~nw or rr<es or TED R. GROp~11..^7 • Mr. Tarry L Smith November 25, 1991 Page 5 conclusion Bernards has, under the circulrstances, exercised due diligence in prcmptly and timely providing the City and Sava la with notice of its request for relief, and becduse Savala has timely protested that request, the parties are entitled to a full public hearing of the pertinent evidence. Bernards respectfully requests such a hearing so that it may present evidence in support of its claim of ar. inadvertent clerical error in listing Savala in the bid form. Scin~cerely, \ ~JJ_. Ted R. Gropman TRG;ab + cc: Bernards Bros. Inc. Attn: Jeffrey G. 8ernarde Mark R. Stapke, Esq. (Via Facsimile and Certified Mail) chino Engineering Const., Inc. (Via Facsimile and Certified Mail) lO WO^1. a.b _'?ql F 06 EXHIBIT C a~ ' Beinards Bros. Constru~' on November 27, ]991 Mr. Tarry L. Smith, Superintendent Pak Planning & Development The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Ci~~c Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9] 729 Re: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility Beinards Bros. lob No. 964 Subcontractor listing Dear Tarry: Attached is Steve Rosenfield's affidavit regarding ow substitution request • for Savala Constriction. Please contact usif you have any questions. yours, CONSTRUC77ON ~~ D. E~closwe as noted \'ia Fax and Certified Mai] No. P 754 ?06 093 (7i4) 987-6;99 • 11'~-27 "'91 33:52 '8818 J61 E20B BER?jRCS BR05. ~ 001 uxessa san s>usaaasssa tatx ass ACTri ITI' REPORT tix isu tuasassunavsssasasax iR~S'SyI55I05 OR TF; R3 S'0. 9400 COS?ECTI05 TEL 1i149R76499 COCSECTIO~ ID ST.U2T T79E 11!27 1J:50 CgAGE TI lIE o2'OJ PAGES ~ RESL'L7 OR • _p-°m m b _E T. wpm ~- D: o c O S .~ i O ~U- m D ~ _ 9 S ~ r ~ raga ~~ L- ~ ~lil w ` a a ~ ro ~ ti rn ~ ~ O rs° a N O O In u " I N v6i U ~ fA (/~ J t V TJ T C 3 V ~z 1 t r F W ~ L 8 t~ 6 c ~~ _. E ~ a S u ` ~ & 1 E c= c~ ~ ~ F g cL a £ E '~' ' .~ a 2 c 3 r_` G C y G Lg61 sent DOHS w~6d 9d AFFIDAVIT OF STEVE ROSENFIELD IN SUPPORT OF THE REOGES_T ~ BERNA.RDS BRO CONSTRUCTION TO SL`B57ITUTE CHINO ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTORS FOR SAVALA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY I, Steve Rosenfield, declare: On October 24, 1991, I was assigned to coordi rate the site Utility and Plumbing 9ids for the P,ancho Cucamonga Sports Complex. Duri nq the corning of the bid date Z assembled a spreadsheet to assist with the compilation of the site utility and plumbing bids. N.y spreadsheet initially listed the names of Site Utility and PIUmbing subcontractors for whom we had received fliers either by mail or 6y Fax. In addition to the subcontractors nar,•es, I also listed the scope of work that i anticipated would fall under my responsibility for this bid by providing a col umm for the various work activities (i.e. storm drains, gas, water, alternate bid items, etc.). I would be able to review each subcontractor's scope and check-off fn the appropriate column the work being bid by any one subcontractor. Although I did not have any bid amounts to list at this time, I was at least able to compare scope of work between subcontractors. During the late morning and early afternoon hours the bid amounts began to be submitted by the various subcontractors for whom I had fliers. I was able to list their bid amounts next to their names and begin to see what the value of the work was. This value was important to the Chief Estimator since he would use my best subcontractor numbers prior to the bid closing in order to close out his estimate and get a feeling for the total value of the project. Any new fliers that were received were reviewed at that time and the subcontractor's nave listed on my spreadsheet, Fhen I received Chino Engineering's faxed bid amount I listed it on my spreadsheet and noted that Chino's bid was the low Did. 1 then gave that bid amount to the Chief Estimator and stated that it ca a•e from Chino Engineering. I observed the Chief Estimator writing in Chino's bid av,ount and name. I remember Chino Engineering calling me shortly thereafter and asking haw his price looked. I told Chino that his price was C J looking good and that we had him listed. As the bids continued to come in I would enter the bid amount next to the Subcontractor's name, verify the amount with Chino Engineering to see if the amount was less or equal to Chino's amount, and then put the bid form in my file. At approximately five minutes to two o'clock someone brought a fax into my office from Savala. The first thing I looked for was the bid amount which was some $20,000 lower than Chino. with less than a minute to review the scope of work since I did not previously have a flier from Savala, Z quickly scanned their bid which I remember as being two or three pages with listings of quantity take-offs and corresponding bid amounts. Since Savala's bid amount was very close to Chino's bid amount and the bid appeared to be complete, I ran down the hall to the Chief Estimator's office and announced a new site utility amount with Savala as the Iow complete bidder. It appeared that this revision was one of the last made to our proposal before the Chief Estimator closed the bid out. I have subsequently discovered that Savala's bid was not the • low bid because it did not include the site water system as Chino's did. Zn reality Savala's bid is approximately $200,000 more than chino's bid. I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the state of California, that tnh~e foregoing is tru(`e and correct. Executed this c~7 day of /V J1 e....{H/ 1991, atJ~~f,^~-c~, California. Steve Rosenfield ~~~~ ~~ GENERAL ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO Al State o} Onlnis tn.2~day of ~~'e//f.(YY 19~,belore me, County of~~~~SS. ~~~,c , L ~(nnQ~ti , the untlersigne d Notary Public, personally appearetl / ~ S' VC- ~itJ ~~ ersonally known to me h i f ^ b ~[ O~fiCL1L •••,. ~+v.p.L ~0 proved to me on t e as s o satis!ac~y evitle nce to De the person whose rame(/~ subscribedto the ~r~ ~n within inSlNm M,Bntl eCknowledged that execNetl it. MOB+~ti, N, WITNE5~4m officjpl se}~ a~y's SigndP'ire NRIONAI N0'ARY ASSOGAiiD4 ~ 3]OR Venlun B4d ~ p0 By X615 ~ wugbM Mph U 9~ O6N635 • EXHIBIT D • .~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 .s 16 i7 .8 i9 zu 21 22 zs 24 "<5 eti 27 28 APPZDAVIT (DBCi.AIlATION) OF PAIIL A1IDERSTROM IN SCPPORT OP BERP7ARDS EROS CONSTRIICTION TO SIISSTSTIITE C8IN0 EN •rNEERING CONSTRIICTCR5 POR SAPALA C0+1S"'RII IOtT COMPA2.'Y 'i ., Panl Anderstrom, having de care an3 say: 1. I am the general ^.anacer Of C?:.'..^.O i:':gineer_na Conatructcrs, T_nc., a California corcoratior. duly licensed by the State of Calif or~ia as a contractor to perform the work which ir; the subject of this dspute. ~. he _°acts stated Y.e re are of ny own pErsonal knowledge and I could testify competently to each of the .titters stared herzi n. 2. The b'_d opening sate was Goober <4, 1991, at 2;UU p.m. This project '_s co:rrfor.:y known as t.`.e Ra r. c.`.o CuczTOrga Sports Complex!Ar:imal Care ?a c'_lity. 3. We prepared a writtEn bid estixato is accarCance with t..*.e re gaireaents cP the bid document9 for the water, sewer ahd storm dram portions of the work. A tr-ae an3 cczrect cocy of our bid proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "1" and in~ornorate3 herein by this ref erznce !it has been edited to not reflect our unit pY1CE e). Ey 2:00 p.m. oP Gctober 24, 1991, our ccr,.pany had subaitted Ex`.ibit "i" hereto to t1:e fo_lowing ceneral contractors: easel P.".e:ps Coat Co„ Shirley Eros. .nc., Ealdi Eros. Constrs., ~~ and`>e rra rds crc9. k7 er. we SpcY.e wiCh Steve RosEnf e:d o_` Eer^ards Eros at app roxi a~ately i:55 p.a. prior to the bid cpenina, Steve c:d us t.*.at cur corpany was t'te icw bidder for that portion of tY,e work. it is cur understanding that ir. the reTair.ing few minutes pr~oz 'o bid ep er.ing Savala Consiru ction Co., sabmitl'Ed a part'ai 1 • = .~.id to 3e rnarde Pres w::i ch d''-d not include all of the work a encir..pa6sed within Chino Engi.^.eeri rg Coastrv ccore~ bi3. ~ 4. Oa or about Soveaber 6, 1991, we acted _n the Dodce 4 Coast racticn Yews "Green Sheet^ LY.at 3e wards 3rca had been awarde3 s c.*.e concracc and that cY.e site util it ces work was iig,ed for Savala 6 I Corsi r, Co. ~ 5. luring the third week of !:over.~er, Mr. A^.[Y.gay Fetch, e i president of wino sngineerinc Ccrstfuc-ors, Inc „ Cad a telephone i 9 conversation with Scott Shald, pzo;ect r..anacer for t}:is pm;ect Per to I 3er..ard Gros. In that conversation, Nx. Feic:: was irforned that the =I II scope of wgrk pYesenteq by Savala CCn9ir. Co., W36 1e66 t.*.3n the '12 ' scope of work presented by C..*,i rc Erc ineering Ccnst:uctora. A'hen is comparing the two bids C.".ino Engineering Cors t!v etoze was • ''-4 _espors ive to the bid proposal. Berrazde 3ros had erred in listing '-5 ~ Savala as the low b'_dder. 16 6. Chino 'engineering Cerstructors, inc., is an experienced '-~ pablic works curt rector. Its principals and >_Ypl ogees have decades '~ -8 I cf experience in Cr.e con6truct_on and installation cf this specific l9 t re cf work. `O It is a re6ponsible contractor with a reputation for excellent 21 work and timely perfcr:rance, As ti;e lew bidder for the water, 22 sewer ar,d =term drain porticos of the work, Chino 'nnaineering a1 Coast n~ctors, 2nc., should be awarded the contract not Savala, The 24 p~roose of t'.:e Subiett'_ng and Subcontracting Fair Fractices Act ie `5 to preser/e `din and coa.petitive b:dd_ng practices by ew•arding lb co-,t races to the lowest, responscbie, responsive bidder. Our Z' company was such a bidder with respect to three Fortions of the 'B work. "0 4*-nit Savala to do t.`.e work would cause an extreme p--~ 2 ~. • 1 i..^.justice to occur to cur co^pany. Our quoted prices were lower nn ! both the 6`_CTm drain and szwer porticne of the work t.:':an 6zva13's 3 qt: station. Specifically, ocr bid was $74,442,55 so-:pare3 to 4 Savala's bid o£ $i3D,OCC.00 for s=_wer improvements; our coxpaay's '3 b.C :or the storm Crain was $469,2v^ti.25 against 6avdia'6 b-d O. 6 $650,COC.GG for such work. Savala did not bi3 t'.:e water 7 iaprcvemeat porticna cf the contract. At the time of the bid 8 scbmissi sr., Ctino tg ire erirg Ccnstructsre, ;rs., quoted a price sf 9 $9,000,0 to Bernards Bros., for the work related Co the a_ni:al 10 shelter. Saval a'6 price for the sa_roe work was $13,GC0.00. 11 I Our company also bid the other portions or the project irc Judi rg 12 ~ the water ort_on for ~G7 990.15 p $" pins the water alter::a to for 13 ~ $48,471.00 an3 stracturea on the orading plan in the s•.:.m of • 14 ~ $15,79D.G0. it is clear C.".ino Sngineerinq Constrv ctcrs, Inc., is 15 i the lowest bidder for the s~ub',ect storm drain and sewer portiors 16 aa3 has a .r,ore complete bid which must be accepted. we ..".ave the =~ resources to do the work a:d 'are ready, willing and able to perfom 18 ~ it. 19 ? 9eclare ~,_rder peraity of perj•ary under the '_aws of tY.e State zo of Cai iforria [hat the forecoing is trae and correct and that this 21 i deciaratioa was exec:;ted on Fcven~ber 27, 1991, at Chino, California 22 23 i 24 ?aul~Ander=from --- 25 26 :7 28 3 .J'd .~__~~.SSEi G1 .'.I `. '.-3;d 'yh3'-+'. IdC 7d _7:Ei ,__,-..r'~ON u S0'd 80?6i9£Bi6I O1 'jvl 67~31d Ada3~1 '~ WClId 0?:@i i66i-L2-~1~N loiz3;s1 s:as am :'ox s;sae, 1c~.r~, slca+; aR.,I., .a;.: ~.+.'rix a ' r~O,i ECT & J05X: SFL~RTS GG".¢1~1 , R.~\0„y0 0.'0,10 Yxxitiiisiiitiii ~:'L' CF LL:.ISG: SD,'23,'S1 C,:p"SAC?'Cf.=.L 91~ __-==--_v2> SB'8.d99.9S q;(TF: M: 4LL 3iii~i.TS +te+iii:r :ijiii BIIl Env' S ~_?'•lE: Gi;:;O ?'~Gi:'F~72I~G :OVS:AtiCi'Ca2S RiRY-9.'S a~:7RSS: iZ3A1 p~3I\O-~t0\A RD a3I~'O~G ~~ See=att ac!nc~t ""+1 for standard teras and conditions. fiixi!lizsF+txiixxt+i+i22ipiilsl+i!!t tiij lsitktsittti Ir;s oe waFS t~tr QL'A~T11Y iiif iiititi'iitYtiiiilitititi. iiiitiit! tilt SiiStYi YtlYi 1 8" l'Cp L£ 2~^u26.000 - 2 o" Pv LF 612.000 - o J 3" ': ~. LF 2"_0.000 3 C/0 ~i~ 21 EA 11.000 ;tl\}?O:.E S'ID 18 FA 9.000 1 - 14i G:FiZ ll' iD" &1 ?.000 8 :.T;LIN SCP?CFtT ___ G1 2.000 ___ ____ ___________ 9 _____________________________________ _ vf~ s aa~D-Iaw s:'~ zs a zs Fa I.ooo to -- ------------------ il ------ ------------------------------ Cic ~:.L1~ ---------- ~5 :.coo ---- --- ------- iz ------ -------------------------- 3J cL*~75 :.%.?;4:5 Lt;'4L l.t 200.000 ~. TC??.I. U:AGOES' p i v-=-- 573.332,5, - '~ .,~__..~a;e ; 7~i _ era: -.,-a, '_ ,.:a~ ._._, ;s~~_„~_,oi~ 10/2+/Ol 9:.3 SID FY)a S1hF.n~ KA'-Ii .r 5-.'vFJI Ana:\, ,:LT 4t: _'? ~•T.AiECi & ~fP.;: SHCY,"S ^<','131L~:, °„L\C',0 CiG:'.Ip __________ xxtxt.ittsi»i[r Aa'.'E OF Lr7I'TI`;G: 10/2+/91 CC\Tw;Ci I'OTa1. EID ==----------: 5818,833.35 fri.'GTE iD: ?J.L HI.^,U;.R$ t*tasainii resat BiIX1FR'S W1E: CHI::O E~CI\"f~I~G CASTEI:C,^~~.5 E ID~3t'S .1JARM =SS: 16231 CiI~O-{7R0ti4 PD CHINO „^.1 S:c -ttzc!iw.nt Y7 !cr standard testis a~ conLitiors. if aittttiiilil;i Yixtf nflffitiitiii[it tan tiff ASia Gait tTt`:S OF KQRi( L\IT C.t;A~T17Y i;tii;l ikfflitiitf x;;lf txax;ftn xti tai ttai taitifal itii 2 8" C.tL.~sS LF 33't .000 10" (14.diC LF 3,0+6.OUV HCT T~^5 F.A 10.000 5 10" G/V Z ;" 3`P,1SS EA 6.UVV 6 8" G/V E.1 --- 2.CVV- 7 F" G/V F.L 4.000 I'c FIFE 7iY1;ILa~TS E1 13.000 I' ,' sT~ s. W. LF sa.oco ---------------------------------------------------------- 13 '_" G>L St'C S fiP l~-BLlC) Fa 3.000 30 :' C.1L ScC S F3 (I?R) Et 6.000 .0 +" S'^ STEEL S~'C H ~'~?R (IRR) LF I~OOU ___________________________________________________________ .1 .~ .r FOC ,:J 3 E+ ...,,,,. L0'd E02E 14i;E t8t O1 ':"+I 57-Bld ~nH3M '_ Id_ed ;ZiO[ iSET-L -r sir: ~ ~ 10/21/91 3:23 3 HID FCR SIS'.ui, 4:?.T71, S.~$••t 1R;I\, .~1,T KATL4 PRO.IECT 4 JOB.".: SPORTS C=1,IPI.£\, RL~CIO C'G4.p a}xxs}#itaa+}ati D,tTC Cf fEi'; I\G: 10/:}; 91 CO\114LCI TOTAL HID =___=__=_=_> 2818,899.93 .~L'~E :~: .1I.L Hi L`CF'S tw##atst #iliiai! HILp~R'S 1A.SE: CHI\0 ~GI~ERI\G CC~STRI;'C^C!LS BIDDER'S ;..TM,R.£SS: 1F331 Cyl\O-CC'RG'.U RD 6II~O,CA Sre attac'ment 111 for standard terms and conditions. iiiititttii if tats Riiii lti q i#iilatla }t ittt tii}wi Rit tl ITLI'F OF ktiQS L1IT GL'A~T1TT Y}}}ai iiaiRaaiif ia}jaiai iaai}iti i}a}}i iii} atiiiiiii iil 2H R.'.7E ;y2 tij °," '^.@ SF 1,ioU.UUU 20 ~' RLf.DGTE ~; flI E1 1.000 31 '" R&'.OCaTE ~: SVC FA 2.000 32 :.8.~TMti\ OC SVC E1 1.000 33 RL\fO\'E FI1L^ }1YD G ___1_000_. 33 PP,FSSIRE R=Si:CI\G STATIOY E1 1.000 38 11OD:FIFD FikE Y.I:i~A\'f 5.1 ________ ______ __ _ _ __ _ __ 2.000 __________. __ _____ _ __ _ ,~ ___________.Y _ _ 3~' STD ST~7. :F 665.000 .>8 3" G/1' Fd 1.C00 35 2" G~LLC R'C 'S FU8.000 33 2 li=" G11,I~ LF 3F .ODU 35 _' 3,~^ .,. ..COO 30 4•' D,G ... ..~~'~ 7 ,^CC a.~^..~ s ,J ...~~. ao'e eazEtse:er Di ..i scs;~ ,~.~•~, wr~j ,~.~• ,=_st-~--nrna ,SV/24i Ol 0:33 ~ \ $iD FOR Sclt'F.R, tti 4".':1t. S;'OP:A D.o.~l~r ,t1.T N'4':"L'R PR0.TFC'.' 3 .ICfd: SF'CR'.S C;.'fS'2.^_;. P.:.`;~i0 C.CL'rf0 '_ _-'__- DAIE u5 LT i~G: 1V/21/31 W~`1R.\'; 1' '.C~T.,LL 51D =__________-> tl1iJUtH'] \.i:r::: :"1iI~L' L'vl\7,ly,IKt '",..1\.'S2R1:C/LR5 $I~DeR's w~tss: 163;1 ctt~o-",RCU Rn cl.~o,c; See as achmmt .1 for sYarrdarL terc5 and cordit: ors. •??t;iR}fi ti t)iitf itlitttTxxlitlTttxif tttf iR++tYttfixi I'!=\L OF KGid( L]17 (Y:A~TI1'1' }i tiifH RfiYi>iq tF sTYiTitiiR!}i Afiii }R}i if >iaiis+wti i}3 1 1/." PVC V 840.000 :0 50 S1}:•1f5f ~i~i.: u'pi.L C'y1LCa I(Ei Fa 1.000 :.1 1, Z' C4L1' SL'C IF 1{.000 5: 3.. a.... o... '° la. ________________________________________y _________-____~_~ 1TXI.U. C:tla(LMIY A 1 U" QCP i~UOD .. ~i-. ~VV 0 4:" .:Q 1{OCD LF 9id.UVU 3 36" RCP 1I50D LF {1{,000 30" RCP 1', SOD LF 81{,UUU ^_~•' RC? =0000 L° 1,65:. VUU v ld" r,.~ ^c^~~o tF 3,lw.uun 1^.~~5 ]'~] Via.-'r-S frr 1 ~r~11~) _ 8 _ _ .. _ y _ ____________ ____ _ - _ .. •rxsrstesxexrxei ~818~833.95 4)i rxr RRtti tFti• g _____, ~~O:~000.i: sa•a ams;aetFr ci ',~~; sra;: ~~a5,~ '_ .a=ra ..:et ,e=.t-:.z_~~~a ' ( ~ 10/23/91 9:93 DID I'cSi S%I.IIt, Y.p7'ER, S7'Df. IYUi\~ .1i.T N~a:^:{: I~R.L"ECT S: „OBE: SPOR75 C.^.~Q'LE(. Et~;~:D C'GAC Dair CB I..^: II~G: _________-_ IC/2;i `~1 (L:•'.?::C: l~7..il. DID = :n:~7fE ib: ,1LI. BID..^I?tS BIDDIII'S `~a.0:: :}i'.`;0 ~;GI';FIlti\G CO~S'14:;CTJTS 6IDDII2'S aDAt~SS: 1BC31 C;I `:0-CJit0~,1 BD CHI~O,G See a;tac`cne-: C/ {nr s:a~~ard teres and condi ti a~S. StitRtllfft2i to H Rttittlattit ttta llfi tali P1tf 11 ttt Yf ITE\LS (1F NAZI( ~ L1iIT u7[:A\TITY f2iitiiYJttiitYt i; if Y23axif f2f if if lilt' lift ixi 2ff itJtti 9 ~.5. '., S7D 509 L•. 1^_.000 10 ;1iS1O7.:: ".. ~ G -.._ 11.000 :'a~37C: "D" Fa 6.000 1: _ GTCI B.LSI`i :I E1 11.000 SS ' U7CI1 II,:S I:: ~3 ____ _____ ___ ____'_ ~ ___ _______________ ____ '_ 6_000 _ _____ 13 .. - -- ---- - -- ---------- ---------- ------ -------- - 17 ----- ------ -- - .. _' :' DI D-73 G2 G 21.000 nn z:x~~e °>::cc s1-L~:~aD ~' 2.000 sz C/c CCLi_:}2 2-D393 fA 2.000 .S 9" Sit C5'. LF 32.000 ^_c 3° sac 35 I.F 19. coo ,e ".LZ se ~r•~; uer::i. SH7 lu) ~~ s_..::o ,0 ei:aa vst asaftxis SBIE,E90.95 42tYtYYitYf 2ixff -..~~ e-.~..~...e.et ni •--r yr,Bii ~.~., .-, r, °°. ;I .e qe_. -.n.. . .~ ~ ~ 10/23/31 9:33 6 R711 FOR SFIIFR. N,1^.'Q:. S:CR; I]LtI`:, !1: I'::7'~1 PItA„TC: & JCS%: CF(;R'"S G"'.~LEti. Aa`Ai0 C'G.`a kk{RRRRlRRR#ttff W1'E OF Lk'i'I'I\G: 10/23/91 CCU-[IitC; 1J1'.tl BIA =___________> :819.599.96 ~~ :O: .:I.I. BIL'L`g1S xxafxxxR#zR{xR:z B:rcrJ1's ~,s: ar.:o e:ct~~:::c ~s'llu:cl~s 3:CLISt S .~DDRLSS: __ 19331 CNIW-CLRO~A RD ^II~O,Ga See atta~Ssant 1!1 for st atMard tares aid Condit; c:~s. ##tR{kfftR4 tfRRR{kffffRRRtf {xfttti#RRt iRt! ###ltRtRRRfR #{YRR#ita ttRRt##at#{#t###k{Rt###RRff ff fttf Rf fR#ff#ffft 30 e" ~ 3; --------- ---- LF 19aooo ------------------------------------ ---- - 31 :" 6" Cj0 Fa ~ 1.000 32 LI7!:CSC, PE 'flt~'1al ~U1V LF 390.000 TdfAL G2ICARY 1 3. -_===>~56~,3~66:SS 1 8" P1'C C-9CC LF 2,300.000 2 B" PVC C-900 LF 720.000 3 s" G47'x..' VALtE ------------------ Ta 3.OtJ0 ------------------------------------------ J E" G"E ~;,LtT L3 ..000 3 2" 1: R SvC E,t J.000 0 J" GJ'"'~ ~'.tL~E G ^^.ODO i~DT'.U. G:.Laol.Y 3 1 _.~, ------------------- 2 JS "B" u25:1: T:v I'AC: L: P' Ct :.000 .... ..000 =v=c=_ve.==z =____. 4J 8,J71.00 't'd 5¢?c19LQIPi O1 ';1y1 57~~3Id :dJ7B '~ ~ 2Z:DT ' 4~-»_nrna l0i'3Ii 71 9:33 ( / 3ID ..... S~• ., :t~ATG:, S:,,iL`.1 ,.., ,;LT Np'fi? :R,^.: L:'I' $ J09",: 5?t~FtTS CC.4'~lrn;, ?.i\'C30 C'C~`.1C D~Te cr I~'rr::~: 1c; 24; 9I co~-raacr ':v:.aL B:D =__°_-____-_, ~-07'L T0: ,a! L III `E7tS B: DD~t'S tia\IE: CyIVO ~1G7\'tJT2I\G x~~S:RI:CTJRS _ _ . B: DD'_R'S a.::YtESS: 16531 CiI`:0-CJRO\a R^ QII\'J,G See attachment xl for standard tars ar,d ca:wit ics. tRixx4xxxlxxT.;fAxitxtxkxYRl4xxx FExxxx~Ya fittfi Vaxxxttxxxxx - ITI`..S OF ~{u"~.,fC L:;:T ".~L'x\?I1Y axaifisxiFt RtiaFafR#t#aaatlFtxxt txSF*xfi ttt• ttakYtfitxfi## y ~nVC ~+~~ ~-~ L~ u.iiV i] - 5 -- L~~Desl~~e,;;x r,r<ar.] ea - 1.090 TC'fAI. CaT.a~.Y2Y Fttttsaxxxaxssxfi 3818,899.93 t%SF#fiaxtfifiFF#fix Bid Total =-_ °_____=> 5518,899.9 "- r,:^~ I of B199.R. OJTI~ I°.IJ:S GTI,'T F,:\ OiI\,; DI9 .^J.`~JI.IO`:S :.^, t....W.. C; C11S0 Lti~I:":LIIUSU C^,`;Sa;laTJ1;5 ; IG3;1 ailu~-OCdr"^::A ]tou: ClISO, C:LIF 91110 114-59'-0929 ?74-507-S:DS B19 AGL~'CS' CITY l>f' RA\'1f0 Cl'G14~,^.,t ,]OD \.•:,ft; SibIITS C.bf['LIA Did to ,LLL DIfYJIILS At:n FSTIILIIC& 7\ ^L`.P:~ Bid hate 0:1' 247H 1.91 Eid Time 2 l?d Proposal made on SI(T'ID Plans .~..~~. "P""r~~apasal Cood for 10 SAYS Payable for work cooplet ed by the 30th of the month dne on the'SOth of tht fo]]ox~i:~ month 1 Retertfon Uae 35 dz`•s after rompl et ion of cork by Oar Craaa Prices .or each .^ataiory are L,mp S.m Insurance is S 1 million sir~le limit Any appreciab]e chance In contract scopt Mil] necessi tats nn adltstment fn bid prices • . Late Pay:aents eccrae Interet! at :% per month ~T'd E02Et9CBtBT O1 'Jtil 5T13;d ;.tlh3r '] ~u ~. LZ iCt ~;-L2-f~01J ~ r cKl±o r+a1,~1vG B1D CO`:~171W5 AafnaDS'f «1 PAGE ; g .Fif DD~i :i;l~! i]<.??'T=:ISL :J\f';t. C^i Jli] ....• JG^y \i:~ S1L: tS Ctxly~l Cri idfcl lldtb' .\ lnc]Uded- %ItCladl`S(1nC:ldeS , :i .,/1 Prey - ?: .tll Fermi to All Tesl ir,);, campactior,. ccGC: e!e y'lirdcrc, el~. • X laspect ion ~~ S'drVC). X Ccst of Corutruction Ko:or X _poil Remova] Gff Trench 1 :ral'Cic li...tt vl X ~6'~ CUtt llly 1 ..,/C P,_moral 7 A/C TcV:alCnfnt :"t em? ac X Pat chits ;!Wti.ol es X faire 5tanltoles to Grade/Patching, Included X Ralse Kaler t'alve Gus to G; ede X Install Mater falve Cans at time of Installation only X ?.tst Control • .. X ;oxfc tiaSie R~CVal SPECIAL \OlIFS Gr edir>: total !s fw' str~~c tv:~e shown on the prodir>Q ' that do ncr t~pea: on the storm drain and are connected T; enc'. Drains around t:e softball fields are included ~- .?Ur Dtd covers We civil It swings, sewer, netts, storm drain and a potion of the (<radf rt¢ plans „ata~or~ Totals Totals -':-r sewer total' =' pl- 674,;;2.55 ,~:? N'ater total «2 507, 990.IJ Storm Drein z3 54EB,:06.^.5 water Alternate k3 4;B,S"1.00 ~~ Gadlny SIrUC: ~S 7:5,700.00 '~!no -i neerfnE Constructors, Inc. anthor>,y J P2. cD - President I - - -- rt. F,..F. .Frei n, ..., -_ .~ ~ ~ ~ ,a -- ^.i -.--..fit Si'd '1tl1O1 • 1 PROOF OF SERVIC& 3Y PEiSONAL .7ELiVERY 2 3 I, the undersigned, certify as follows: Z am over the age of 18 years, employeO in the County uL San fierrnrdino, ~tatc of 4 California, and not a party to the above entitled cacse. ='i}' business address is 16341 Cniro-Corona Road, Chino, Califotaia 5~ I91710. On NovemheZ 27, 1991, Z ae:ved a true copy !copies) of the fol'owing doc'uaent: 6 APPInAVIT (DECLARATION) O! PA4L al7DSRSTROM Ri .SpPPORT OP 7 BfiANARDS BROS. CONSTRDCTION TO SIISSTZTOTS C$INO BNGINSSRINO CONSTRSiCTORS P0R SAVALA CONSTR9CTION COMPANY 8 the original of which is affixed hereto, on the person (persons} 9 hereinafter mentioned by personally delivering the same to the following person at the following address: SO iazry L. Smith, Superintendent 11 Park Planning 6 DevelopmenC The~City of Rancho Cucamonga 12 1O5OD Civic Center nrive Rancho Cucamonga, Cnlifornia 13 • Or, in his/her absence from said office, by leaving the above 14 described pages with his/neZ clerk or with the pex~aun in chance of his/her office; or, if no person was present in the office, by 15 leaving the above-described papers between the hours of 9:C0 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in a ecnspicu oue place in the office. 16 Executed at Chino, California, on the date hereinabove set 17 forth in this Certificate. 18 I certify under penalty of perjuzy under the laws of tY.e Scats of Califon is that the foregoing ie true and wrrece. i9 20 _27• 21 /5obby Samc a 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 __.~.. nr ~ _--- ~ ~~ - .. ~,~- ..ai ... , _ EXHIBIT E d8 ., ~ EFrra.tcis Gtos. Cmisit~.ott December 4, ]991 cult. John Lydoff Savala COnstrVCtloO Co, ] 6102 East CnnstrUCbOn Cude Irvine, CA 92714 Re: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/Animal Care Fariliry Bemards Bros. Job No. 964 Site URlities Subcontract Dear Mr. Lydoff: Please (nd the enclosed standard subcontract No. 7083 for the site utilities N•ork on the above referenced project • This subwntrad is issued for the site utilities workxope consisting of the cater distribution, storm sewer system, and sanitary sews system and is in the total amount of 5798,000. We respetlfully request ifs unaltered execution and return to our office by December 6, 199]. Please contact us if you have any questions. Very truly yours, B RVA 1S B O5. CONSTRUC71ON S ]n !Shari Manager SDS:Imr Encloswe as noted Via Fax and Hand Delivery ce: Mr. Tarry Smith, The City of Rancho Cucamonga i. = rr Bernards Broom. Construction 6rD Ilex Street San Fernantlo. Ca 913a0~3e98 tars) 3559593 tat B! B9B~t 521 Lic 30200) FA% ~ Ia t al 3619208 7p Savala Construction Co. 16402 East Construetlon Circle In~ine, CA 92714 d~ u ~ r~. ©~ ~ ~C~~~3aa~0~gd o.*E 12/4/91 +oe r.o 964 ~r. n^cv Mr. John L doff aE Rancho Cucamon a Snorts Com lex/ imal Ca e F ~t N'E APE 5'cNDING VDU ~ Attactletl C L'nder separate cover via Hand Delivery the following items: ^ Snoc drawings ^ Prints ^ Plans ^ Samples ^ Specillcatiom C Cocy of letter G Change order ^ ~oiEE c e.rE NO Of SCN~cripN l 12/4/91 7083 Standard Subcontract Agreement 1 12 4 91 Bernards Bros. Letter to Savala Construction Co. Re: Site Utilif lea Subcontract THESE ARE TFAN SHITTED as cneckeC Oelow~ ^ For app•eval (] ADDrnvetl as submitted ^ Resubmit copies /or approval ^ For your use ^ ADOreved as ncled ^ Submitco0ies for dsinbutien ^ As requested ^ Returned for corrections ^ Return corrected prints ^ Fonev~ew and comment ~ For Your execution and return by 12/6/91 _ ^ FOR fi105 DUE ___ 19_ ^ PRINTS PETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US DATE RFCEIVED:_rZ _y_ __________________________________ GOFV TO SIGNED' Srntt -._Chald. Pry t anaeer $F 12e ~afv ~ em •_ A .+t Ml ~~Nil~CI.LY ~ DA Ill ~NVLV4l44 (i~ bubconssas No. ~'"; TNIS AGREEMENT, made and enremd inro at P"r.. t.~dn C.+] i•'nr~:.r -this belt _ day of :}ec erbrr 19 yl, by and between ^~'!:': rdn +' F.creinafter tailed CONTRACTOR, wi[h principil ofEcear-_"_~_=_-r"~+:c, ;;, :_:<:___~~ Cn 91 J4f.1 •ytd saps in Co[ts[rue c'ion ie, l:,e., .b4G: E:~:; ' tru__, :eels , hereinafter called SUHCONTRACI'OR. ~irvme CA 92714 (714) 651-0C Z! RECITALS On o[ abou[ the 14th day of 'sot'o'~bua' __, 1`)_'~-., CONTRACgOR entered into a prime wntras with rs,.. r,.... ..: a.__s._ .,.... _..__.. ,..s......: ___ he¢inaf[er tilled OWNER, whose address is lUJUU C:v.c ~ J[., ,;,c~ , ('uc:'- ,:a. i.n it itti m perform the following canstmsian arork: E1p•':'t `. Co,r":^~-I=:1...:'_ C.+.rc~~~i ~...._ , 4'ai::'AE:JS 'S ".is5. e0n~!:D. 'dCri Said work u ro be performed in accordance with the prime contract and the plans and specifications. Said plans and specifiation have been pcegrttl by or on behalf of_:4iI 1_r._l_pl Yll.t ~tSf F'• .:' "~+~s. ;..:;.. vey~ -; .-., ,-. ARCHITECT. EYUL:C3Er,: :: .. ...:.fvi C.:cs,/C<:ci`cap:mr i,rr. .;reee:, :rc. SECTION 1 -ENTIRE CONTRACT SUBCONTRACTOR ctttifies and agrtts that he is fully familiar with all of the terms, conditions and obliga[ions of the Contract Docsments, az hereinafter defined, the I«ation of the job site, and the conditions under which [he work is to 6e performed, and that he enters inro this Agreement based upon his invemigation of all of such matters and is in no way relying upon any opinion or rcpre~ sensation of CONTRACTOR. h is agreed that this Agreement represents the rncire agreement. h is further agreed that the Contras D«um<nts ate incorpo[ated in thu Agreement by this reference, with the same force and eRect as if the same we[e set forth at length herein, and chat SUBCONTRACTOR and his subcontrasors will be and are bound by any and all of sail Contract Documents inso~ far az [hey [late in any pact or in any way, ducrly or Indirectly to the work covered by this Agreement. SUBCON7RACTOR agrtts ro be bound m CONTRACTOR in the same manner and to the same exent as CONTRACOR is bound m OWNER under the untns Documrnes, ro the extent of the work provided far in this Agrermenq and that where, in the Contract Documents reticence s made to CONTRACTOR and the work or specification ths:c<in pertains m SUBCONTRACTOR'S trade. tta(t, or q~pe of work then such work or specification shall be interpreted to apply to SUBCONTRACTOR insmad of CONTRACTOR. The phrase "Contract Documents' is defined ro mean and include: ,_ .b[s:d In At eacia:aeue "ei' her<eo dneod 6ovemiszt : 1, 1991, p:.,,ca i ti: -~u;'; iC' ; . , ~'h.ci, tore aq i:6 ag ral }>urC of t::l r: agrr v: u~::[. SECTION ]-SCOPE SLIBCONTAACTOR agrees m furnish nil labor, serv rtes, materials, installation, cartage, hoisting. supplies, insurance, equipment. uatfolding, toul> and other lacihcics of erery kind and dessiptinn required fog [he prom t anJ eth<ienr execution of the work de~ scribed herein and to perform the work necessary or incidental m complete__> °" + ~ l.L3_ _- __ ._ ______ - for the project in suss accorJance with the Comma Documents and a> mare particularly, though not exclusively, specified in: . r'LC:L.bA'L ill:, SEC:'!U'.l~): 0:713 - s.; ter Jl"ra•ut v. v. :.: 6r.nr ('i..711 ~ Stns-'. L ».tqr f. •-l'..; . a, . U:7?: - ..., iL:rv S+v+~r L~:;tan, ,s~+J .pn 1:c.:b lv mr. t:a:.., of ll:::a Tic'.:':': a!, '..~ah: Ili:'„!, '.o.+ C,,: ~., }., ... "ECTION 3-CONTRACT PRICE `~ '""""' dONTRACTOR agrees m pay SUBCONTRACTOR for the strict performance of his work, the sum ob _'!_~_~1^pwhJ :,I't:,.}'-i'.it,u~C 'fsll;!'SA:+.1 JUL,.i~...f. _________ ~" ( ,: , subjes m additions and deductions (or changes in the work az may be agreed upon, and m make payment in accordance with the payment Schedulq Section d. Page 1 of 7 GEN' AL SUBCONTRACT PROVI.frDNS .n.ILnllum..rv w. al eeemum Mrt~ I enure rL+.mrmlaenwovnA L INO[MNR1-All Work r•mrnl F. rnu Apxrmn: Jonr n rM uv nprcpmnF Oe .le: mpmr .il nl rem as +l. nrm +rA+ll k+r rM rr.4 n tL'M(1\TPA(lfrP nJU[nrrlY nil:M11.V .n;ll. rr,n r:rpnr +II •nr4 .non r , Fr G rmm.mB .nJ role ulrurvTRnfmM1 h: ~~.~ Inrm .n,l . raraiXOi 6' tl+rm. IuM1Jry.lar. J.magc Wpm narrJm n.N. rvJpr p !rr ul mt Jnrn nr GJ 'Ont• pruprnv.nJm3e Jdn a1+Jn re.l rev 51'K.05TAA0 ,M Im Jam e.p[nY ntludm a1I^AV mlrrne rrm 1 R',5 +II[F •+1 v'Irr rrrr nmrr.n ~ rnaNi rc~ ••I wl. Arr o; rn+,. .nenl ore eiai.~ ~~ir.pnm. i.~r J.m wdr. n+blr nrmr er wJr•mmu +nunv Ff+rcmn of .rev rrnuvnun nr rr..emmr. rUNTRACTUM1`M1[r Jumu rnNn n e rn C. WNDINO 0! LYKOMRIROR-funua AArcmr a Aa r prim pvrM hn CUATMCTUR. n + L+IVr nJ AI ekm.l,r mrym rMlnr rM~l k n mN M1vm Irro a ~, nrN Nr for uminmq m fUVItACTfIRU CUNTMCt baMr unlnr mpm~lu prorrJN Arrern of rn tM r~ t \TRA(TIIR nr.u,lrna <I ~0 w-nn rM a rnn ]CMU6'TRA(.TOP rF+..~ rl n reu.l ~n.l m.l finHu` Perlnrm Pnm rn Snu.m n.l Mn.'n (1NTRACTr1R +nJ +n+l: k m+ R rh+u pr +ne Crrmrum on wn a grvme Ir+~Mll lre SUE(ONTAACTORS r uFedule mM1nr ro fp1TRAC. rv mn m.rcn,..ml m . wn +Cmv+l +a urIN+M^rhr n pin .ml Jn :li .nMr obi rn 'nnlr, m.n,r n.rn rM ~;`. and tir mrr nnmm~.nr .r.n rn•r r Prrr rnlltJ nrth prwnn' n rrne.nA nl mMr mMrmrun..n and n Sul, all mmm rrynVnnna rM umelY +nJ anlnll a^nJUn el rM •od nl [UBCOiTMCTUP en M pNmrw SmuW SURI'ONi11AGTllP k deLRJ m IFe pmreaunr.n m r.wplmon nt rN Work FI rh rar, naFlttr m Jrl+un n111N'tiSP, rJ AR( IIII iCT, m nl f t1NTPAf TOR. •m +M1i~ul! PUB[oXTP ACTnP h hlry<.I . c lar m m.l FI rnp [USTXACT m h L.nrMJ Fv OW VIP ru <ir\'TPARI~rP, nr M rum.ur rnl In rne•rt mna mm4v lnr wFUF SI'll(q\iPAI TURn raFb .nM me nrFmnl+ rlrr nrtm :. h, uvlrr• ralFi• n me ~ r r tl%IXIINiPAITr P[r rFe +rln' ur Av rr+IN~ 'fRAfi iP ~rFr rM r Mrnn .I r~ `M I rpp rrnr n:4 roan Fe r enJa.l rM1r ml<r rrJn rFn SIIW 09TR.V lpR~n.r IN. Fu: albn+ n+Mll k m.Je rM fVATAAf IIiR wrrnm r M1m nnv mAn~ ~l rvn nrrl aMn x r rr+Mr rrM~. me m rrCn nhmn nJnlu +~rJ Vr~brh .nl 91o TRAt\TIRAITOP Im rvrM1nr`rvnpleunot I'r'rmr .Wort. rpe a +r UV'NFft Nn alai r prr aJJrrr n+l trml'rn r Jair r Irr '+MrFrr rlre IurnnArn nl r r+l h IIF:iXAt`TIi0. J[Inr FY .nl~tr ~uknr' OWNI PF•JI M+ ul h`~rne /UNTPA(IIiP, mJ ru,lr rrAe mpln :I Fe IIAe r.l >I'IM IrFi0.Ar TIIP pn~ e I Fnw • rM1x +nil rn ur Fnr .IM1+r IIiCTPA[TrP nhrn r~'JJnr Fn Imm O+P N(P n rn1YID.M1 J.. r, tl'Nf:11NTF A(11t0. ~M1+'~ Fr r mIN +nul lnrlr ttre n.r.F` +n nl l'r 111\tPAli(1Pr lm rIR'NIPr r+Fle+mleen+Il nl rAtn rrNrr [Fer nrd frirli r•qur r1ATPA('1(1P rn rl+i r11IX\IP F.r neA Jf:+Vr an.lr rpur~rdlY p nJ IFe me a mn`rd t ~\TPN(TUR r, Ivvnu~a + r +Prn rV!'NFP rMII mnliler5l'Bl rl]'LPA TIIP t~,nr e+rmn lnr drmPn r1uTR ACT(1P nr LrCMANOLS IN TNl WORK-Sl'PCUNTb11 TOP Fere4v +p¢v m mite my rnrl rll rFm IurmrA rFe ntlr +nA prior me nr4 rAr IONTM1A( TnR m mmrue, wnnam nulirlnnmrrFn Anremmr. ar + row.. rev +.IErnnn m. m reJUnmr SVBCIINIRA(TOR Atli pve n c nl rarm rchenlr rn +nY `^rF br ~Ardr LONTRA~TIJRnrF+ll M J[emN m h+u rMn.lnlnnl +nvM1tlnm rAnelnrmmal m SIIB II rAC A;MUNTRAfTOR rn rukuwwa A<nnrnn oe rMnee m rFe iMl IIifl rFtll M I .blv 1anM <r woad m rb apme r.l inner rtdo. PVMON porn rnoml Nn rpm +Ircr mr.lmr+rrr.n rn m Jrvunnm Irnm rnu Apreemmr m mr pl~m ror rpr'finennRrrAOle er molt m rM m er Annn pm•rJe.l r. Af' rt y r 1 .r m vn M,nd 'rem nr A rno Aam < R red nnrMrnOi^JF.R mr IUNTRACTIIR MII M unJV rnv nbLPUO rmrJl rM rurep ormmur al mY wrF rFmP L OAMA013 CAUfLD RY OhATf-SMnld tIIIX OM1'TRAfTOP ddrurr rn rM ~AII MIjuF4ln~~nyr+nJr+I IMrr red J~m¢onR ~llmime l~~uAnrJ Jam~ao ~i ~+im Iq I t1N1'XAf Tf1M1 r mulnhrml SUBCP\'iM1Af TUX rMll inn M nrnie undo rnn IunenpM1 rl wrF AeNUIr M urnol M1nrn4rr, brrlnnu. mr A 4..1 .n rnFn rtnnnr ~. ninR rAi.A, Pmevrr, rw' al rmmNruelr M' SUN.ONYMRUR w I umn ieJrmnr(v +nl r.v fUNTMf. ail _, . .r. ~scs'1roa~1 4 - PAYMENT, SCNE~.LE :~~ , CONTRACTOR ogees to pay SU'RCONTIUCTOR in monthly payments of Yo ~ o of labor and materials which have bern placed in position and for which paymene hat been made by OWNER m CONTRACTOR. The remaining ~ =_~ shall 6e ttnmed by CONTRACTOR until he rtteives final payment from OWNER, but not less than thirty-Eve days after the en[ire work reyuued by the prime conttan hss been fully mmpitted in conformity with the Conuaet 1Jacumencs and has been delivered ' and accepted by OWNER, ARCHITECT, and CONTRACTOR. Subject m the prm~isinns of the next sentence, the rmined pettenrage shall be paid SURCONTRACTOR promptly after CONTRACTOR receives his final payment from OWNER. SUBCONTRACTOR agrees m furnish, if and whrn reguixcd by CONTRACTOR, payroll affidavits, rtteiprs, vouchers, cekases of claims fox laboq material and suFsontracrors performing work or furnishing maretia]s under this Agteemenq all in form satisfactory ro CONTRACTOR, and it is agecd that no payment hereunder shall be madq exmpt et CONTRACTOR'S option, until and unless such payroll affidavits, receipts, vouchers or relnses, or any or all of them, have been furnished. Any payment made hereunder prior to completion and acceptance of the work, ss referred m above, shall not be construed as evidence of acceptance of any parr of SUBCONTAACTUR'S work. SECTION S-GENERAL SUBCONTRACT PROVISIONS General Subcantratt Provisions on back of Pages I and Z ate m integral pare of this Agttm<nc SECTION 6-SPECIAL PROVISIONS ~. ua.~_: i'o!•d 1^ '_bc)mo::r "9" burets d,: c.e .e•c<^;u.r L, 1P91, p: p,u I c: i. ;;h:ch ioer r. ea 1^Le JY.: ), p,:YCr[oi Cn l: :Its: wAUa C. Contractors are required by lac ro 6e licensed and regulated by the Confncton' Stall License Beard. Any quetfiona concerning a conhacror may be referred ro the registrar of the board whore addrcu ir. Contractors' SHfe License Board- 1010 "N" Street, Sacramento, California 95814. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: The parties hereto have ezmted this Agreement for themselves, their heirs, execurors, successors, administrators, anJ assignees on dle day and year first above written. SUBCONTRACT'OA W.'fA,.it Cv :::yIGC';'f t,,, CD, hlC. AY----.. ~. __ _._ _ Name Tidc ~ Corp,rarion ~ Putnenhip ~ Proprietorship (Seal) Controcror's State License No. _ CONTRACTOR By_______.,__- Name Title Contractor's State License No ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ Pao z or a M.I p sn DuR n<rmrMm i rRl .m Ir W roll rnpae nrmn <n. wrMrNwi u ~mrr~ rM prerrd(J rn rM rAMll. am. dull b NII rn TRACT PROS /IONS Y. 15fI4NMMT Oi CONTRACT- tf' W f r\YRAf TI1P .F.:I rvx. "nh.rvr nwren mnu IftSNTM1ACTfSR.mim, ymly, ror rvbin <nr rcnxnmlun nl rM.ak Trig m<IMiy Rn orR nnrlrr IM .Inb orr Plml rArr ^Mrcde~lo rnJrAnCiubu RMrt. uMn, ro mr wrywuwn. rndrrdud, p^r a or PrmeMrP. U~ INOff[NONT CONTRIETOR-RI'INUSTRnfTU0. n m rnJ<ttnAmr mn <e rod Jyll,n Mr nu mn rn.I Vpenu.and vrAnunnun«m A<fnnrnn Pru• dnplr ~rM r114vi, luln, urdrnwrrv. <rJ reMlnwnt nl all Aavemmt Mdrn Mrrn ruuWrmm am rA<"orl, oburn tll nnnurr Mrmw anJ I¢rnur tFenlrrr, pp .l. mmW Mu«ri rn uln n<n, u¢ r prmnxn[ «<n. mJ <II INenl <rrd rrye rcu «Jwbn<e <W mmnbuuum L.r 9xrJ Rruurv <ml L'nemppvmmr "baA ne emgq MFn~t4N UrWee mMr one r MNrm EU&:1'rVTM1ACTORE v bL'BCU\TFACSOR, ulnn a nR Or rvM<nuenrllm nrd Ln, oln. aercmy TIIntTrIR 'un rF+l'[v ro r' n[ uu^1 (ON~ rho wr nr vll of IM In Rorn' OFF r n M1vr yen /ul IIN.N Y. Anv <n m wnna..n nl!\I\'TM[ it R •Ard 5VB(OryiRnf TOR mr M <Lrm for M1n o.n Inlwe m prlmm Juli y drtmN .u.M Ft SURCON TRACTOR unirn M rA.ll mrnq~ fO\TAACTOR nl Mr rnrenunn m mnr nrh <xrvu .pArn «n dql <Irn rM arvnmve m mT arF m nr mmnnm El'tl( oNYRACTW 1651 v<nI rRXr rt mrRAe brr rn nurr rAr promwm nl C.blomu Oul CNr Snem prmr C(SNTRACTfSR. W. /rTTORN[T•E HCS-In rAe avmr eSMr CO\TFACTOA m SI:RfOMFAC nO~rn «r nl nrevrn.r rhr nrFer rarrt nr a[ain.r rrye wren'nl rvrFp urm urA anf Jnpur rer ann unJtnnn Aermnenn rMnprtylRM~h Mnnh«nwrMr wn MII M r !N rn rn a Irmm rM mMl rn rn I wruble rmoum, rrbrA IA.G~M dmrmrnrd Fy rM mun .nJ mr!udeJr rAe IudR' n;'. Ord rr,u., Rm/.AHTAITION _ In rFr nenr rlre fr,mr mmn.r mnurm v p•nrn..n lnr obrn rMll ~y m eAnrur inR Mr"<m (nYTRACTOR aml OW.ViR. rM rolln.m[ rlmrn prr rrl rFu Apmnenr. Fur nm mbem r li,_• m Irme mr nn .nrenv vNll <rn Mr en fU\iAACTUR <M A(10. roR ra¢<m pruap+rz rrr ur,l nbnuunn "Fm. _.._ ..••_~•••.••••••- rryonrcJ .nd w Fr bound br rlr. Y. INDIMNITY [l1Ul! RL SAi[TY-FfNr UFTRA(lUR rF.n .r rm.v w.u .drltl My. ..= 1`x.. r'I rM lrl\'iPA!'RIP r mNv nrk <II ne r~n ImF.m ludme lrri .r nCennr n.blr I[r ..hrlrn Mrr r rn ~rxrn. mvprnmrrl nRnv~ rn ire,^rr, rn r. r <n[Mlan tRnCT(IM1nmul~rnR llnm 1vl ~& 111 CAArt TI1P I ~u~h ^mav Vn rn`urnd l.Y CON IorrF rn rFn p.u,rnpA r hrlwe rrr Llnl: M m«n<pu «r 1 1Ae rnm {L.'M 11\'iRAI u11P Inlr mCly nrrF x rr[d bl' n~mr< Nt.Fnr. n nrur ,NA rbr ri~'A;~r.r 1rn'r:eiir:bn~nn ~.Imm~~. ~r nl ;,A mdrrrrr. N re..e, in r.r. r.r le:hgna `sam N mr . e al of nI wrc. eixiarMr h4rrrermFnMrrlrx rlu ulmrnruuv.n wl nr ml m rxAm rM peuW rrnrxN m mr mm aiurwn v nrJn f iIyTRA[TOA m.v r uIM Jnnmaa m u Ae rrphn m.l rr Nrb irn.rAed Arm under the r m of rhn Euymrrnn, rntludrnn', Irur rxr Irmrrr.l rn, rA< nAM1rr .nJ remNr[r prnvrdNVrn P.n. RupM1 11. 0.nwr« FY bmrn.rur IND[MNITY CLA03[ TOR (OVAL [M.LOYMRNT OROATONOIRf YlOl4N)N{ E^W (1\lAA1 T11P .Fall r Fi. r" rCr r rnl~rr rrye p .I tmmml r n e ri m nr u m nenr pmrmmrl ry'Irun nl rM rn,A'iRAY iI R~aml rn _+.Llrnrm_ F.II r pb .nA .ll ......r .....e..........__ _ _ aJ r.l 'r nr~rlrJ<n '~Frr rnll<r .el~ lerlnl r Kll Mi I "r<A EU&n(INTIIA(t)R rW4 Ao<anl cnrrzr« full nSNwxM1Arn Irn rompLmrcnMre unAn br rruP ru +y nn. Plinrn. mnnulmm .nd uMnnro. n,n ni F rnpen n irrrJPhrrtnlnnuhk Im [n rhn Prmur. a rF.ll dnarll rnme m.l «pvnJ m. delen,l nr.ler rlnm hone, nxnal nr ~.rrl .vrranr. n rnv Ter m r.l rA. rr mnl N'1{r nNTA<AfTnflrv Clnr rvlrll[mlmmwM~ n r mplb nFUJIn r• "AerARr mh n e~mm rM<xJ m a r. nrnFUr,~ 1`al n mnr r nr <hnher rvA r r o01 e `AA1 TIPi rnLUmin u~la'nrm.~mrnd^~rnAmN.rlS brmtru tONTAAf TOA .OMnATM1.TUA rAJl rrndrmnrrr and Irnhl ryum:en rn\'TP AI T(lA Inrm and rA<rnrl Ay the rul.RnM~.n .rnl eJlr Fr.nnnlrrtrminarrnnrlnl rlnl<w~n.~ nJrf rl.VTAAr T(1M 5 elr ;br.p rAV errr rxm r n Jnm uJr, rudrrm (finr nn drn^~rp r n r<rc~•n m n. b'n iu MP xla d.rm. ~n1ublhry IM b«in rn~ rn r prnRrp apem r ~m eA fur m n r enJ n r A • ~p~ m nR rn mY rlFn ~ppflub4 rwirr rtuS Om Y homwr 1 6y Lt1KTM1ACTr) nulrmR Nam )IIPl O,A1RAf iUR A hrlurc m IuiM1ll rrye mremnn ur forth m rM RrpnpF In rM nem 51'M ONTRAf lr IA Ldr m mmpl5' nlh <m nl r& rtmemeuwned iiV Ln, nr my mJ.mmr rvdn m r.rcnl r mnl le me rVM1U nl ieJenl Cnnuur [nmMrmre 1'nnel Rr.rn Urrrmmenr rl Llne rr . r mlur rNeuh vru m IrcLL •Rnp nr mI rrvrr m b. n mAV INr n.+mnnbN br ke ..Immnmrxm <M r m enlo r nl mY Hlr I n~ nrhrn rrye Mnrrl RriAOI r u.M1 D•• IuJ mJn .. rl (I MfPAr PnAm en Jrr e.r rM n<AU wA mmN n nm.rd a ~im mtrr mr .ri ~n 5 I r i dms~hul nn Irm 1 I IM rrlAn r d r e,i r Prnr i,IrA ~nA l' r.rr.rF II, aP,[,,,r e F un r ror .7J GEP~'RAL SUBCON N rD 50 NTRACTOR W np d )A q u~ of lug w4~m~rkwnw up m ptl or br SUXONTRACT(5F rNll tr m COVTRACTOA EUBCOYTAAG rc Jurrnf <11 r Mn ELrM1CON~ reprreeYrrr< 4u11 L <uJgrurd u 1 rA< "url Prmr ro <mrmruemmr OI.'TRACTOR .b EUNANTAAC. N mI MMRe nl upmrnunre EU0. •M rM «pm<nurr« n m k )FTRAfTOA lur mrcml rMO hbor ' 'A rr bYwrN 4lr.Ri.w. w T<.W S.Rbura, 01.°W , tle Cgdl{ACTOR a pp Y i n~:7<rm; ;;;a';a~drunnr al rM,« f.(INTIIACT(5R mn 4dullr M w. rR Nrmpid M ouch ol~vrF oJU .M unrJrruo I Lrpum 1n rM rb«rve m pmmpll rtWlve rM urrrdrfrnrvl ou .M pen«. pnn rryvnr nl a brndmR.M firul Jrrcrmr MI bFRe R<Lnom Rwrd TOP 5 pMne .nJ rAe CV\TRAG Jr'TRACT(5R f prmru. rr rnrll y rM Iolb.mR Dyrr romr«nn • • C Attachment "A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page 1 of 10 PROJECT: SpoAS Complex and Animal Care Facility 8400 Rochester Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA OWNER: The City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ARCHITECTS: Sports Complex GRILLIAS.PIRC.ROSIER.ALVES PLANNERS.ARCHITECTS.ENGINE ERS 4940 Irvine Boulevard Suite 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Animal Care Facility WoIH/Lang/ChristopherArchitecis,lnc. 10470 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 DRAT"INGS• PART A -SPORTS COMPLEX SHE ET NO. a-~T1<11F LATEST DATE'REVISION I.1 TITLE SHEET, FARTA 8 B T7.1 TITLE SHEET T7.2 ABEREVIATIONS, GENERAL NOTES 6 SHEET INDEX 71.3 SYIJ,BOL S,LEGENDSBN'ALL TYPES C1 TITLE SHEET C2 CEIdOLITION PLAN C3 DETAIL SHEET C4 DETAIL SHEET C5 WALL PROFILES C6 WALL PROFILES C7 SOUTH 113 GF.ADING PLAN C8 61IDDLE t/3 GRADING PLAN C9 NORTH 7/3 GP.ADING PV,.'J80FF-SITE GRADING C9A NORTH 713 GOADING PLAN 8 OFF-SITE GRADING (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.9) C70 PLANTER DETAILS C11 EFOSIGN CONTROL PLAN C12 COORDINATE SHEET Ct3 SOUTH 1/3 DIIJ~ENSION PLAN C14 I:dDDLE 1~ DI!EENSION PLAN C14A DIDDLE 1/3 DIIJ~ENSION PLAN (BID ALTERNATIVE N0. 18) C75 NORTH I/3 DiN,ENSION PLAN C1SA NORTH 1/3 DR4ENSION PLAN (BID ALTEFNATIVE N0.9) C16 O'J•SITE SIGNI':G AND STRIPING Sit 6/91 9118191 Si18/91 9/78'91 9!78/91 9118/91 9118/91 9!78191 9118; 91 5/18191 9/t 8/91 917 8191 9i t Bl91 9%18191 9!18191 9118;9/ 9!78/91 Sit B/91 9I7 B/91 9118/91 9/1 B/91 917 8/91 9i 18191 ~ ~ ' ' Attachment A' Drawings, Specifcations and Amendments SpoAS ComplexlAnimal Cave Facility • November 21, 1991 Page 2 0110 SHEET NO. 9$TT711.E LATEST DATE'REVISION C17 TITLE SHEET 9118/91 C18 INDEX SHEET 9/tb/91 G19 ARROW STORM DRAIN 9/78/91 C20 LINE A-SOUTH PORTION 9/18/91 C21 LINE A-NORTH PORTION 9/78;91 C22 LINE B 9!18/91 C23 LINECBJ 9/16;91 C24 DETAIL SHEET/LINE'8' PLAN 8 PROFILE 9!78191 C25 LATERAL PROFILES 9/18191 C26 LATERAL PROFILES 9/76'91 ' C27 TITLE SHEET 911&/91 C28 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN SOUTH PORTION 9/18191 C29 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN N,iDDLE PORTION 5/16'91 C30 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN NORTH PORTION 9/18/91 C31 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN WEST PORTION 9118/91 C32 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN MIDDLE PORTION 9118/91 C33 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN EAST PORTION 5118191 C34 ROCHESTER AVE. SIGNING5TRIPINGSTREET LIGHT NORTH PORTION 9/78:91 C35 ROCHESTER AVE. ROUTE SIGNING5TRIPINGSTREET LIGHT SOUTH PORTION 9!78/91 • C36 ARROW ROUTE SIGNING5TRIPINGSTREET LIGHT WEST PORTION ARROW ROUTE SIGMNGSTRIPINGSTREET LIGHT EAST PORTION 9118!91 9/76191 C37 TITLE SHEET 9/16/91 C37A TITLE BHEET (BID ALTEFNATIVE N0.7A) 9lt 6;91 C38 SOUTH PORTION 9/16191 C38A SOUTH PORTION (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.7A) 9178/91 C39 MIDDLE PORTION 5178'91 C35A MIDDLE PORTION (91D ALTEFNATIVE N0.7A) 9116'91 C40 NORTH PORTION 5!16'91 C~OA NORTH PORTION (BID ALTERNATIVE NO, 7A) 9118/91 Ce CAA RECIAII.'EDW'ATER DETAIL SHEET (BID AL7 ERNATIVE N0.7A) 9;16191 C41 TITLE SHEET 9118:91 Cat SOUTH PORTION 9/18;91 C43 MIDDLE PORTION 9178,'91 C44 NORTH PORTION 5/78191 TR7 TITLE SHEET, NOTES 8 DETAILS 9/1b151 TR2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL P(AN ROCHESTER AVE.B DAV GREEK BLVD.UACK BEN^N DR. 9/78;91 TR3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE. 8 ARROW ROUTE 9116/91 TR4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE, 8 STADIUM PI',VJY. 9118191 A3.1 GENERAL STAOIUId PLAN 9!16/91 A3.tA GENERAL STADIUTA PLAN W/.ALTEFNATIVE 5178191 A3.2 LEFT FIE LD CONCOURSE PLAN 9118'91 A3.2A LEF-f FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN WI. AITERt.ATIVE 9/76/91 A3.3 CENTER CONCOURSE PLAN 9/16791 A3.4 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN 9lt 8191 A3.4A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN WI. ALTEFNATIVE 9116791 A3.8 CEN'TEF I,!E2ZANINE PLAN 5/76'91 A3.6 LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN 9176191 A3 EA LEFT FIELD GP,ANDSTAND PLAN WL ALTERNATIVE 9178191 ' ' ~ " Attachment A Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports ComplexJAnimal Care Facility tJovember 21, 1991 • Page 3 of 10 SHEET NO. 9$TT71LE LATEST DATE'REVISION A3.7 CENTER GRANDSTAND6PRESSBOX 9!78'91 A3.8 FIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN 9/18/91 A3.8A RIGHT F1ElD GRANDSTAND PLAN Wl. ALTERNATIVE 5//8191 A3.9 CENTER ROOF 8 PENTHOUSE PLAN, PENTHOUSE ROOF PLAN 9/18191 A3.10 MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURE PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78r91 A3.11 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/78;91 A3.11A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN Wl. ALTERNATNE 9/18191 A3.12 CENTER CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/78'91 A3.12A CENTER CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN Wl. ALTERNATIVE Sit 8/91 ' A3.13 R!GHi FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9178/91 A3.13A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE RERECTED CEILING PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118;91 A3.t4 CENTER MEZZANINE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/78191 A3.14A CEMER MEZZANINE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9J18l91 A3.15 CENTER GP.ANDSTAND6 PRESS BOX REFLECT.CEILING 9!78!91 A3,15A CENTER GRANDSTANDSPRESS BOX REFLECT. CEILING W/. ALTERNATNE 9178/91 A3.16 MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES ROOF 8 REFLECTED CEILING FLANS 9178/91 A3.17 ENLARGED RESTROOM PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A3.18 ENLARGED RESTROOM PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/7&91 • A3.19 ENLARGED FOOD CONCESSIONS PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78/51 A320 ENLARGED STAIR PLANS 6 SECTIONS 9!18191 A3.21 ENLARGED STAIR PLAN58 SECTIONS 9/16;91 A4.1 ELEVATIONSdEFT GRANDSTAND W/. ALTERNATIVE 9!18191 A4.2 ELEVATIONS-CENTER GRANDSTAND 9/18!91 A4.3 ELEYATIONS•CENTER GRANDSTAND 9/18151 A4 3a CONCOURSE EXTERIOR WALUFENCE ELEV. 9118191 A4 3aA CONCOURSE EXTERIOR WALUFENCE ELEV. W/.ALTERNATIVE 9118'91 A4.4 ELEVATIONS-RIGHT GRANDSTAND W/.ALTERNATIVE 9178151 A4.5 ELEVATIONS~IdISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES W/.ALTERNATIVE 9;78191 A4.6 ELEVATIONS~MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES 9178/91 A4.7 BUILDING SECTIONS W/. ALTER!dATIVE 9118151 A4.8 BUILDING SECTIONS W/.ALT. 9/78/91 A8.1 1NALL SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118!91 A5.2 WALL SECTIONS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9it8r91 A5.3 WALL SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118191 A6.1 CONCOURSE ELEVATIONS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/78191 A6.2 INTERIOR ELEVATION(RESTROOMS'SHOWER) W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/1 Bl9) A6.3 INTEFICR ELEVATION (RESTROOIAS'SHCIVEP.) W/. ALTEFNATIVE 9116/91 A8.4 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS, RESTROOMS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9,'18151 A7.1 FINISH SCHEDULES 9118;51 A7.1A FINISH SCHEDULES W/.ALTEFNATIVE 5/18791 A7.2 FINISH SCHEDULES 9;18/97 A72A FINISH SCHEDULES WI~ALTERNATIVE 9178191 A7 3 DOOR SCHEDULE W/. ALTERNATIVE 9178191 A7.4 DOOR 8 WIND0IN TYPES, DOOR SCHEDULE NOTES 8 AB3REVIATIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78191 A7 5 INTERIOR FINISH DETAILS W/. ALTEFNATIVE 9/78191 A 8.1 DOOR DETAILS Wl. ALTERNATIVE 5i 18191 AB 2 DOOR DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118'91 A8 3 VJPJD01'J DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 ~~ ' " At:achment A Drzwings, Specifications and Amendments Sports CompiexlAnimal Care Facility November 21, 1991 • Page 4 0110 SHEET NO. 9$TfI1LE I ATFST DAT E'R EVISION A8.4 WINDOW DETAILS 9!18191 A8.5 CEILING DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.6 STAIR AND RAMP DETAILS 9/78191 AB.7 INTERIOR DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78/91 A8.8 SEISMIC/EXPANSION JOINT DETAILS 9It 8/91 A8.9 ROOF DETAILS 9/18191 A6.9A ROOF DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9!18/91 A8.70 EXTERIOR DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9!18!91 A8.11 EXTERIOR DETAILS 9/t8/91 A8.12 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.13 SITE/BUILDING SIGNAGE W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18'91 A8.14 BASEBALL STADIUM SCOREBOARD W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.15 SOFTBALL SCOREBOARD Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A5.16 SOCCER SCOREBOARD W/.ALT. 9/18191 51.1 GENERAL NOTE56TYP. DETAILS 9/18191 52.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9!18191 52.2 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9!78191 52.3 LEFT d RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE SLAB PLANS 9/18/91 S2.4 LEFT 5 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND FRA!11NG PLANS 9/78191 S2.5 LEFT b RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9118191 52.6 LEFT 8 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/78/91 53.1 CENTER CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9/18/91 53.2 CEMER MEZZANINE FRAMING PLAN 9/78191 • 53.3 CENTER GRANDSTAND 8 PRESSBOX FRAA!ING PLAN 9/16/91 S3.4 CENTER ROOF FRAMING PLAN d PENTHOUSE ROOF FRAL"ING PLAN 9/18/91 53.5 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING ELEVATIONS 9!15191 S3.6 CENTER GRANDSTAND FFAMING ELEVATIONS 9!70/91 54.1 CENTER CONCOURSE SLAB PLAN 9/18191 S4.2 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING PLANS 9/18/91 54.3 CENTER GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9115:91 54.4 CENTER GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/78/91 55.1 BUILDING ~ A. PLANS & ELEVATIONS 9/78/91 55.2 MISC. BL DGS. PLANS, ELEVATIONS 6 SECTIONS 9/78;91 55.3 RESTROOM BLDG. B DEF. 9!15/91 S5.4 IJISC. BLDG. PLANS, ELEVATIGNS AND DETAILS 9/tb/91 SS.S MISCELLANEOUS BLDS. PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND DETAILS 9!16191 56.1 DETAILS 9118191 56.2 DETAILS 9/18/91 56.3 DETAILS 9178/91 56.4 DETAILS 9/t 5/91 56.5 FRAMPJG SECTIONS 9/18191 56.6 CETAILS 9178/91 S6.7 DETAILS 9/18/91 56.8 DETAILS 9115/91 56.9 DETAILS 9/78191 P7.1 GENERAL NOTES, LEGENDS, SGHEDULESB DETAILS 9/75,'91 P2.1 GAS DISTRt9UT10N PLAN 9/75/91 P2.1A GAS DISTRIBUTION PLAN 9!18/91 P3.1 P3,1A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/91 9!18191 P3.2 CENTER CONCOURSE 916;91 P3.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE 9178/91 ' ~ " " At!achment A Drawings, Specifications and Amendments SpoAS Complex/Animal Care Facility • November 27, 1991 Page 5 of 10 SHEET NO. 9-EtiTT1RE LATEST DATE/REVISION P3,3A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN 9/18!91 P3.4 CENTER MEZZANINE PLAN 9/78'91 P3.5 LEFT FIELD GRANbSTAND 9/16191 P3.SA LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND 9/18/91 P3.6 CENTER GRANDSTAND 8 PRESSBOX 9/10191 P3.7 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND 9118;91 P3.7A RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND 9!10/91 F3.8 CENTER ROOF & PENTHOUSE -PENTHOUSE ROOF 9118/91 P3.9 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS 9/18!91 P3.9A ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS 9118/91 P3,10 MAINTENANCE YARD PLAN, RESTROOId BUILDING PLAN 8 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS 9118!91 P3.11 ENLARGED PARTAL PLANS 9/16;91 P5.1 DETAILS 9/18!91 FP1.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/18/91 FP1.2 CENTER CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/10/91 FP7.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/78/91 FP1A MEZZANINE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9118/91 FP1.8 CEMER GRANDSTAND CANOPYd PRES5BOX FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9!18!91 FP1.6 PENTHOUSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9118'91 • M7.1 EQU;PIJENT SCHEDULE,GENERAL NOTES LEGEND AND SYA!BOLS 9/18191 Id1,tA EQUPMENT SCHEDULE, GENERAL NOTES LEGEND AND SYMBOLS 9!18/91 M1.2 EQUIFIdENT SCHEDULE 5!18!91 ML2A EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE 9/18/91 M3.1 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEFT FIELDCONGOURSE 9118/91 M3.1A MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18191 M3 2 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER CONCOURSE 5/18+91 M3.3 M1!ECHAMCAI FLOOR PLAN FOR PoGHT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/-.8.91 M3.3A MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR RIGHT FIELD GONCO'JRSE 9/18/91 M3.4 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER MEZZANINE ~ 9118/91 A!3.4A MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER MEZZANINE 9/18!91 M3.8 IJ•ECHAMCAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTRAL GRANDSTAND & PRESS BOX 4/18'91 M3,SA MECHANCAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTRAL GRANDSTAND & PRESS BOX 9itB/91 M3.6 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR PENTHOUSE 9n8/91 M3.7 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR MAINTENANCE YARD 9118/91 A!4.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLEDBHEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9/76'91 M4.1A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLEDBHEATING HOT VIA7ER PI?LNG 9/18+91 L!4.2 CENTER GONGOL'RSE-CHILLED 8 HEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9118%91 A!4.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLEDB HEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9118/91 M4.3A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLEDBHEATING HO7 N'ATER PIPING 9/18/91 A!4.4 1.!EZZAN~NE FLOOR-CHILLED& HOT WATER PIPING ~ 9/18+91 A!4 5 CEMRAI GRANDSTAND FLOOR~CHILLEDB HOT WATER PIPNG 9!18/91 M4.6 MECHANCAL SECTIONS 9/t 0/91 A!6.1 f,!ECHANICAL DETAILS 9118+91 IJ6 2 IECHANICAL DETAILS 9/18+91 IJ E.1 CONTROL DIAGRAMS 9116+91 M E.1A CONTROL DIAGRAMS 9/1b'91 • • Attachment "A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports ComptexlAnimal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page 6 of 10 SHEET N0. 9$l-Tf1lE I AT T DAT xR VISION E7.1 LEGEND, FIXTURE SCHEDULE 8 DETAILS E1.tA LEGEND, FIXTURE SCHEDULE 8 DETAILS E1.2 BASEBALL FIELD -FLOODLIGHTING 8 MISC. DETAILS E1.2A BASEBALL FIELD-FLOODLIGHTING 8 MISC. DETAILS E2.1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-LIGHTING E2.1 A PLAYING FIELD d AREA LIGHTING E 2.2 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-LIGHTING E2.3 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-LIGHTING E 2.4 ELECTRICAL SRE PLAN-POWERBMISC- E2.5 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-POWER6MISC. E 2.5A SITE POWER 8 MISC. DISTRIBUTION E2.6 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-POWERBMISC. E2,7 AREA LIGHTING DETAILS E2,7A AREA LIGHTING DETAILS E 2.8 ELECTRICAL CONTPOL DIAGRAMS E2.9 PLAYING FIELDS LIGHTING DETAILS E2,9A FIELD LTG POLE DETAIL E3.1 EASEBALL FIELD-POWER DISTRIBUTION6Fl OODLIGHTING E 3.7A BASEBALL FIELD•POWER DISTRIBUTION&FLOODLIGHTING E3.2 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE- POWER 6 LTG PLANS E3.2A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE • POWER b LTG PLANS E3.3 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE•SIGNALBMISC. PLANS E3.3A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE-SIGNALBMISC. PLANS E3.4 CENTER CONCOURSE POWER PLAN E3.5 CENTER CONCOURSE LIGHTING PLAN E 3.5A CENTER CONCOURSE LIGHTING PLAN E3,6 CENTER CONCOURSE SIGNAl6MISC,PLANS E3.7 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE • POWER 6 LTG PLANS E3.7A RWHT FIELD CONCOURSE-POWERBLTG PLANS E3.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE-SIGNALBMISC. PLANS E3.EA RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE-SIGNAlB MISC. PLANS E3.9 MFZ7ANINE POWER 6 LIGHTING PLANS E3.10 MFSZANV:E SIGNAL H MISC. PLANS E3.11 UFPER FLOOR -PRESS BOX - POV:ER 8 LTG. PLANS E3.12 UPPER FLOOR- PRESS BOX-SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E3.13 MISC. BLDG.-ELECTRICAL PLANS E3.13A L115C. BLDG.-ELECTRICAL PLANS E4.1 ONE LINE DIAGRAId AND DETAILS E4.tA UMITLED E5.1 UNTITLED E6.1 PANEL SCHEDULES E62 FANEI SCHEDULES E63 FANEL SCHEDULES E6.4 PANEL SCHEDULES E6.4A FANEL SCHEDULES L1 COVER SHEET L7A COVER SHEET L1a CONSTRUCTION LEGEND AND NOTES Ltaa CONSTRUCTION LEGEND AND NOTES L2 CONSTRUCTION PLAN L2A CONSTRUCTION PLAN L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN L3A CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9118!91 9!18/91 9118'91 9itb191 9118;91 9!17/91 9118!51 9/18x91 9118x91 9!16191 9/17!91 9118191 9!18191 9/17/91 9/78191 9/16'91 9/17191 9118191 9/18191 9116;91 9118191 9116x91 9/18!91 9/18x91 9; 7 8'91 9/18x91 9/18x91 9/18/91 5x18/91 9!18x91 9118x91 9i 16x51 9x1 6'91 9116/91 9i t 8/91 9176x91 9118x97 5178/91 9118x99 5118/97 5/78x91 9118/91 5/76x51 9;78'91 9/76/91 9!18x91 9/18/91 9!76x91 9x78191 9n8x97 9/78x97 5x18;97 9/18x97 ' r " " httachment A Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 • Page 7 0110 SHEET NO 9$TTIDP LATEST DATElREVISION L4 CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/78/91 L4q CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/t 8'91 LS CONSTRUCTION PLAN (20-SCALE PLAZA AREA) 9/78/91 LSA CONSTRUCTION PLAN (20-SCALE PLAZA AREA) 9!16'91 L6 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/78191 L6A CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18191 L7 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18/91 LTA CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18/91 L8 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (MASONRY) 9/16;91 L9 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (FENCING) 9/t 8;91 L10 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (FENCING) 9/18/91 • L71 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (SRE FURNISHINGS) 9118/91 L1 to CONSTRUCTION DEFAILS (SITE FURNISHINGS) 9/18/91 L 12 IRRIGATION PLAN 9/18;91 L72A IRRIGATION PLAN 9(18'91 L13 IRRIGATION PLAN 9/78'91 L73A IRRIGATION PLAN 9178!91 L 14 IRRIGATION PLAN 9/78/91 L15A RECLAIMED WATER NOTES 9/18/91 L16 IRRIGATION DETAILS 9/78f91 L16q RECLAIMED WATER fltRRIGATION DETAILS 9i1B191 L17 IRRIGATION DETAILS 9/18197 L18 IRRIGATDN HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS S/78/91 L19 TREE, VINE 3 GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9118/91 L19A TREE, VINEd GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9;18!97 L20 TREE, VINEd GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/78/91 L20A TREE, VINE E GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9118/91 L21 TREE, VINE6GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9It8/91 L 21A TREE, VINEBGROUNDGOVER PLAN 9/16/91 L22 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9It 8/91 Le2A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9.16.'91 L23 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9it8;91 L 23A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9118'91 L24 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18/91 L24A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/16/91 L25 PLANTING LEGEND AND DRAINAGE DETAILS 9118;91 L26A PLANTING LEGEND AND DRAINAGE DETAILS 9178191 L26 PLANTING DETAILS AND NOTES 9!76/91 L27 STRUCTURAL DETAILS AND NOTES 9178/91 K1 FOOD SEFVIGE EQUIPIJ,ENi PLANBSCHEDULE S/t 8/91 K2 FOOD SERVICE EQUIFMENT BASEB REFFIGEFATIO'J PLAN 9!78/91 K3 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT PLAN MECHANICAL PLAN 9/76191 K4 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN 9it8!91 KS FOOD SER\9CE EQUIPIJ,ENT PLAN 9176/91 K6 FOOD SERVICE EQUIFMENT 6ASE8 REFRIGERATION PLAN 5i18l9t K7 FOOD SERVICE EQUFMENT MECHAN9CAL PLAN 9/78/91 KB FOOD SERVICE EQUIFMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN 9178/91 KD 1 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS S/18/91 KD2 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9A8/91 KD3 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9;78/91 KD 0 FOOD SERVICE EOUIFL'ENT DETAILS 9it6'9/ ( AtlacAment'A' Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Compt2x/Animal Care Facif+ty November 21, 1991 Page B of 1 D DRAWINGS: PART B - ANIMAL,~ARE FACILITY SHEET NO, c~znln c LATEST DATEIR VI 1 T-1 TITLE SHEET O.1 GROSS SECTtONSMOTES C-2 GRADING PLAN A-1 SITE PLAN A-2 PLA7A PLAN A-3 CODE ANALYSIS A-4 FLOOR PLAN A-S EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-6 BUILDING SECTIONS A-> EXTERIOR ELEVATION ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS 8: TYP. TOILET FIXTURE/EOUtPNENF A-8 ENLARGED LOBBY COUNTER, KENNELS, FLOOR TILE PATTERN & DETAILS A-9 INTERIDR ELEVATIONS A-10 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-11 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-12 INTERIOR EIEVATION$ A-13 INTERIOR ELEVATIDNS A-14 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-t5 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-16 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A-17 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN A-18 ROOF PLAN A-19 DOOR 8 WINDOW SCHEDULES A-20 bETAILS A-21 DETAILS A-22 DETAILS A-23 CETAILS A~24 DETAILS A-28 DETAILS K•1 FLOOR PLAN 8 SCHEDULE K•2 EQUIPNENT DETAILS S-1 GENERAL NOTES AND TYP. DETAILS 5-2 TYPICAL DETAILS S~3 TYPICAL DETA43 S~4 FOUNDATION PLAN 58 ROOF FRAIdiNG PLAN fr6 SECTIONS S-7 SECTIONS S-8 ELEVATIONS S~9 DETAILS S•10 DETAILS S-11 DETAILS M~1 SCHEDULE, NOTES, DETAILS AND CONTROLS td•2 tt~ECHAMCAL FLOOR PLAN 9!18191 9117191 9117!91 9!18/91 9118191 9118191 9/18191 9/1 SNt 9118191 9118%91 9118191 9119191 9!18!91 9(18/91 9118;91 9118191 9!t 8/91 9118/91 9!18/91 9119191 911819/ 9118191 9118191 9/18191 9118/91 9118!91 9118191 41/8191 9118191 5118191 9l1819Y 9118/91 5116191 911 Bi91 9118/91 9118191 °-!18/91 4/18191 9/18191 9i 18191 9118191 9118191 Sit 8191 ' \ Attachment "A" Drawings, SpeciScations and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility • November 21, 1991 Page 9 011 D $HFFT NO E7fF1-ml F IATFFT DATE/R P-1 PLUN.SING LEGEND, SCHEDUIES, NOTESB DETAILS 9/18/91 P-2 PLUMBING SITE PLANd DETAILS 9/78/91 P•3 PLU6781NG FLODR PLAN 9/18/91 P•4 PLUMBING ROOF PLAN 9/18/91 E-1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 8 SYMBOL LIST 9!18'91 E-2 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM, DETAILS 6 SPECS 9/18;91 E-3 ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PLAN d FIXTURE SCHEDULE 9/78191 E-4 ELECTRICAL POWER PLANBPANEL SCHEDULES 9/78;91 E-8 ROOF PLAN 9/78;97 L 1 COVER SHEET 5/17!91 L 2 IRRIGATION PLAN AND LEGENDS 9/17/91 L 3 IRRIGATION DETAILS 9/17/91 L 4 RECLAIIJED N'ATER NOTES 9/17/91 L 5 PLANTING PLAN 9!17/91 L6 PLANTING DETAILSAND NOTES 5/17/97 SPECIFICATIONS: Volume 1 013- 'BIDDING DOCUMEMS,COMRACT FOFMS AND GENERAL REOUIREIdENTS' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PART A -SPORTS COIdPLEX AND • PART B- ANIMAL CARE FACILITY, CITY OF PANCHO CUCAIdONGA, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. Da'e of Issue: SEPTEMBER 18, 7991 FzrtAFrepared by: GRILLIAS.PIRC.RCSIER.ALVES 4940 frvine Blvd. SuBe 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Fart BFrepared by: W'oYf4angrGhrislopher, ArchY,egs 10420 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 97730 Volume 2of 3- 'SPECIFICATIONS (DIVISIONS2THROUGH I6)' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PARTA-SPORTS COMPL EX, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHO CUCAIdONGA, CALIFORNIA. Ca'e of Issue: SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 F24AFrepa'ed by: GRILUAS.PIRC.ROSIER,ALVES 4940 Irrhe Blvd. SuAe 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Volume 3 01 3 - -SPECIFICATIONS (DIVISIONS 2 THfiOUGH 16)' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PART B- ANIN,AL CARE FACILITY, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIAONGA, RANCHO CUCAIdONGA, CALIFORNIA. C21e of !55ue; SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 Fzn B Frepa•ed by: Wohf rLang~Christopher, Archdects 10420 Foothill Blvd. Ranc!w Cucamonga, CA 97730 ' ~ ~ Attachment "A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care facility • November 21, 1991 Page 10 of 10 AMENDMENTS ADDENDUM NO. 1AB, dated October t5, 1991 coM.aining 21 pages and 35 attachments. ADDENDUM NO. 2, dated October 17, 1991, wntainirp 2 pages and 5 attachments. ADDENDUM NO. 3, dated October 23, 1991, containing 1 page. "' EMoI Attachment A"' • r <. SECTION 6 -SPECIAL PAOVISI OtS • ATTACiiMENT 'B' Subcontract Nm. 7 ~ 8 3 Page ] of 2 The provisions of this Attachment 'B' are in addition to zll other terms and conditions of this suDcontra et, and shall not serve to ]imit or reduce their effect. 1. Subcontractor shall keep competent and sufficient cape rvision satisfactory to the Contractor on the cork at all times in which Work is or should be in progress, in accordance with the Contractor's progress schedule. 2. FroVide name, address and emergency tel ephore number of respon siDle company official. Phone No. 3. Subcontractor shall main Galn cork in a neat, clean, and orderly condition at all tices and shall remove EeDri s, rabbi sh, and excess materials resulting from work under this agreement as St occurs. Subcontractor's failure to comply wf 11 De construed as authorization for the Contractor to provide e'_eaning services at Subcontractor's expanse. • 4. Subcontractor shall Earns sh all samples, shop drawings, schedules, snd Cescrip- tive li tern tare Sn zccordance with the specifications within aaple time to allow for checking, and to prevent any de''-zy due to lack of approval. All submittals requiring apyrovai shall De certified by Subcontractor's authorized representative as meeting the plans and spe cificaticns, or any and sll variances shall be clearly defined at the time of submission. Within two (2) weeks of the Subcontract date, Subcontractor shall submit to the Cont raet or a complete schedule of all samp]es, shop drauings and other subm~i tta is which will require approval, sheaving anticipated soDmittal date and required ]cad time after approval for ordering, fzbrlca Lion and del h•e r'Y of all mz to ria 1. Subcoatra et or shall promptly report to Contractor any deviation from this schedule antl when requested by Contractor, shall furnish eonfirmzt ion of scbeduletl de]SVerle s. 5. Subcontractor shall deliver to the Contractor five (5) xorkS rg days prior to the last vork i.^.g day of the month, invoices for current con th's vcrk. Invoices shall be acc ozpa nled Dy P.el eases and Waivers of Lien. FAILUAE TD CON,PLY KAY HESin.T IN OMISSi oN OF FA 1Y.yNT Ai QUEST TO TFIE Ck^3EA FOA SAID PEAIOD. 6. Subcontractor agrees to furnish a Material Safety Dzte St,eet (NSDS) for each ha ze rd ors substar,ce to be usetl at the jobsite in the performance of Subcon- tractor's work. Subcontractor shall deliver the NSDS to Contract or's superin- tendent PnI OA to bringing any hazardous substance onto the jobsite. 7, Subcontractor shall fur nl sh all temporary fs ci]St1e5 required for hfs own work. Such tezpcra ry faei]ities shall De loczted .:here directed by the Con Lra et cr's Fr oje ct Su pe ri me otlent. Si 113 Aev. 12/89 ,• ( ~ SECTION 6 - SPECIAL FFOYi5I0N8 ATTA CriN,ENT 'E' 7 0 8 3 • Eubc ontra ct No. Fa ge 2 of 2 6. Su DC Ontra ct or shall oDtzin and pay for all permits and licenses required for his c~..•n work, znd De responsible for securing from aay authority having jurisdiction over it, in s, ections sod approval of his work as required Dy the job schedule. 9. Within ten (10) dzys Subcontractor shall provide the Contractor With a certificate cf Worker's Cozpensation Insurance. Ni th in ten (70) days SuDc o..^.tractor shall provide Conir clot cith a certifl ea to of Cozprehensive CFne rzl Liz Di lity (ir,cl^ding A.ut oioDile) insurance xith policy l imi LS of not 1ESS than $500,000 as to each person and ¢1,ODO,ODO as to each occur rE.;ce for bodi'_y injury snd personal injury liability, and SDDO,DDO property dajage ISaDility for Fsch occurrence, or for not less than Q1,000,000 • it on a ecr~Din ed sSngle ]i¢it De sis. The ir, sorar,ee cr pol lc ies shall contain the folI ora ng provisions: (I) A naming of the 0.-ner, Architect, and Contractor, Sts directors, officers, snd emp7 oye es, as sddi tS onal insureds Dy use of Stsndard Ir•sursnce SF twice Office Fcrm GL2009 or Sts equivalent. (I I) A sepz rz to prevision that the ir,surznce zf forded to the additional Srsured is pri: ary insurance antl that any other insurance ma iota iced Dy the additional in shreds is excess and not contri Dut ing insurance with the ir•s urance so provided by the Subcontractor. • (]]I) Coverage for the fo]icuing, which mast be on sn OCCL'r'.1tiNCE basis: (a) Premises znd Operations Liabi lSty (b) ConLractuel ISsbi ]i ty insurl ng the obligz Liens assumed by the Subcontractor in this su5contra et. (e) Cozpleted Operations znd Products Liability (d) Bread Fcrm Property Damage Liability (e) Liability Fh1ch Subcontrs clot zay incur as a result of the opera tl ohs, acts, or omissions of its suteentra et ors. (f) Aut ozoDi le 1fabSlity, including caned, non-ouaed, snd Aired a ut oyobiles. (g) XCU Ccv F rage for Ex p]osion, Collapse, and L'oderground Faza rds. 10. S accntr zctor ac'rn ow'1Fdges that Contractor has entered into N•a stet !abet Agree- rerts, U.r e.:gh Con trz ct cr's mezbE rship in the U.G. C, and 9.I,A. cow Fring work at Contractor's jobsi Les with the toll owing labor unions: Carpenters; Cemsnt N.z sons; Lzb<rers; ?e ~•s to rs; Operating Engineers and Sren Wcrke rs. Sabecntrs eter 2grFEa that pz rzgrzph tF•o, ]ices cr~e tkro~.:gh eix of CEne ral S uDccr.tract Frev; sicr.s J is hFreby replzced by the forego:..^,g. SFtt3 F.ev. t2 /69 • Attachment "C" Special Provisions Alternatives December 4, 1991 Subcontract No.7083 Page 1 of 3 1) The following Alternative-Bid Items, described in Section 01100 -Alternatives and Separate Prices, are not included in the precading Base Bid Lump Sum Amounts and are to be incorporated into the work of the Contract only upon specific acceptance of the Agency. Days in parentheses are calendar days from Notice to Proceed during which Agency may accept respective Alternatives. A. Alternatives Relative to Part A -Sports Complex Anernative M7 - MRChen Equipmem (90 Days) AnematNe N2 - Scoreboar65 (720 Days) S -a a a Anemative N3 -Precast Concrete Cap at Perineter Masonry Wan (fi0 Days) Add S O Anernative N4 - Stadium Sealing at Softball and Soccer Frelds (120 Days) • nm s o AnematNe NS -Tree Grates (30 Days) AnernatNe N6 -Stadium Seating wnh Cup Holders (Right and leh GrandstarMs) (240 Days) Anemative N7A -Reclaimed Water Mains (30 Days) Apernative N7B -Reclaimed Water Ingatbn System (60 Days) Anernative #8 • Cemem Plaster Solfn Under Seating Structure (Grandstand Concourse) (270 Days) $ 4 s o Anernative M9 -Outdoor Cafe Area, Concession Stand, Butler Canopy, Picnic Area, Tot Lot, BoAartl Lighting and 8arbeque GriO (90 Days) rod_ a o Anernative N10- Imerbcking Pavere (a0 Days) Pdd 5 O • • Attachment "C" • Special Provisions Alternatives December 4, 1991 Subcontract No.J~ Page 2 of 3 Akemative Nt 1 -Thirty-six inch Boz Trees (120 Days) Adf Alternative N12 -Twenty-four inch Box Trees (120 Gays) Pttl Alternative Nt3 - Frvegalbn Shrubs (780 Days) Add_ AkernatNe N14 -Hybrid Bermuda Sad at Stadium Freld (180 Days) Ad<1 Alternative N15 - Restroom Building (90 Days) Akkf Altemative N76 -Site Signage (120 Days) Add Alternative N17 -Lockers grid BenCheS (270 Days) Add Alternative N18 -Grandstand Flagpole (270 Days) Add Alternative N19 - Conida Ceiling BaMles (180 Days) Add Alternative N20 - Flnish Carpentry and Casewkxk (270 Days) Add Attemative N21 -Metal Facia (120 Days) Pdq__ Alternative N22 -Glazed CMU, Vinyl Wall Covering, aM Cast Stone Molding (120 Days) Add Alternative N23 -Solid Polymer-plastic Toilet Partltions (270 Days) $ -0- S O a a $ 4 a a E o- $_ ~ $ 6 a m s o _ a a _ $ Q Attachment'C" • Special Provisions Alternatives December 4, 1991 Subcontract No.~Q$~ Page 3 of 3 Akemalive 824 -Plaza Benches (60 Days) Akerrtative 825 - MetaGne Feb LigMirg Fxlure (60 Days) Attemative 826 -Stadium Coru:ourse Ligtrt FiMlae (270 Days) a a $ b Add S O TOTAL, ALTERNATIVE BID AMOUNTS, PART A - SPOR75 COMPLEX DOLLARS 1+ -0- B. Alternatives Relative to Part B -Animal Care Faclliry Akernative 87B -Reclaimed Water Imigatbn System (60 Days) ~ S o TOTAL, ALTERNATIVE BID AMOUNTS, PART B- ANIMAL CARE FACILITY DOLLARS S_ 4 2) Subcontractor agrees to comply with all Labor and Prevailing Wage requirements of the Prime Contract as called forth but not limited to, Section 00010 and 00800 of the Project Manual. ' 'End of Attachment "C" ' ' ' ~ ~ Attachment "D" Special Provisions December 4, 1991 Subcontract No.79@~ Page 1 of t A) As described in Attachment "E" hereW, pages 1 and 2 of 2, which forms an integral part of this agreement. B) As described in Attachment "C"hereto dated December 4, 1991, pages I through 3 of 3, which forms an integral pan of Nis agreement. C) Subcontractorexcludes the cost of the following: 1) Permits. 2) Fees. 3) Engineering. 4) Survey. 5) Haulaway. 6) Bond Costs. '>) Demolition. 8) Removals. 9) Abandonments. ]0) Soils testing vests. 11) Construction water costs. • 12) Wafer control. 13) Erosion control. 14) Perforated drain pipe. 15) Trench drains. Ili) Asphalt resurfacing. l'7) Site drainage work indicated on Grading Plans which is not identified in the Storm Drain Improvement Plans. D) Subcontractor agrees to leave excess utility spoils adjacent to site utility trenchside. ~ Subcontractor's contract sum is based on utilizing native material for pipe bedding and backfilling. ' " • End of Atachment "D" * " EXHIBIT F ?I 6euiatos bros. Constru~.on ~1 December 4, 1991 !.1r. Tarry 4 Smith, Superintendent Pazk Planning 8 Deveiopment The Cipp~ of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Rancho Cucamonga Sports ComplextAnimal Care Facility Bernazds Bros. lob No. 964 Szvala Construction Dear Mr. Smith: Please find the enclosed letter to Savalz Construction dated December 4, 1991. Based on our past wnverutions with Savala Construction, w,e anticipate that they will not be willing to enter into an agreement with us for the denoted site utility workscope for the amount of their proposal total of 5798,000. We therefore seek relief pursuant to Public Construction Cede Section 4107(a)(]) and hereby request that we not be obligated to utilize Savala Constroction for the site utilities work on the project and replace them with Chino Fsgineering. Please contact us if you have any questions. Pery truly yours, RNA S B S. CONSTRUCTION S tdDLS a1 jeer h1an SDS:imr Endesure as noted \'ia Fax and Certified Mail No. P 754 306095 (714)957-6399 cc: Savala Conswction (Via Fax and Certified Mail No. P 754 306096) Chino Construction (Firs) Class'tfail) 1204..91 14:33 $BIB 961 9208 BERGRD9 BROS. x'003 satssars n as a ersxast to a as st• ,4CTi1'I73' REPORT xst tti if:fx iitxl9ttltiittiitrtt TR.4\SH/55IOS DA TE/RE 50• 9335 CO}:eECTIOS 7E1 171496%6499 COSSEC7IOti 1D ST.1R7 TIME 12/01 14:32 C5.1GE T111E O1' 11 P4CE5 2 RESCLT OA 001 ~ 12 04/91 U:J2 $818 361 9208 BERSiRDS BROS. ttttitRtttEif ittt ltftfi#tt• nR ACTI t']71' REPORT •ss ttttitRtEititlit P tttttf bR TRi~SAISSIO\' OA TE~RE ~0. 9534 COS~'F.CTI OS 7F.L 11143326597 CO\'>'F.CTIOS ID START TINE ]2/04 14:30 lSiGE TIRE O1'4J P4GE5 2 RE Si 6T OA lar„~; aat~... E~;~3 u`~vi'- d, €,.:.~a~;~l SBIOEii: Complete rcems T ma 2 wMy addnronpl aerv¢as are tlesrretl. aeq we+piece kerns 9 eM 4. liRa+aa pamesa m the "RETURN TD" Spex tfre seperse sMe. Failure m ad LM1rs w~ll prere~t iry,s wrd i ~.1Te+eturar wal ~~m ~ Of roe ufM1e rrwrre ei the delrveretlmaM ' TVl arwr:s e:e M a eA6mrl a[w k) T ~ po mazxer o r 'a ' ' T ~ `~ a aaarpsa. z. a R :~rE ad °i II, ary 3. 1sEdNAeE fb - i ~ ~ 4. Arvck yNsnber .'Stmct~'~Co.Inc ~ P 754 306 046 . ,'3bdD2F ~CDnst~ac Lion Circle ,7 M 92714 ~ ~ Troe or Service ^ Raoin<r.a ^ msarxl ~ - c ~+w ,' ' a i J. ~c.roE:d ^ coo P c R i ~~ }~k ',• ~ a< L um lce Vt far MercaanEis< ' :~ .ro e ar aeeressee n . oeuvEREn. S. Spn o-Addy dress (O,YLYiJ X ww~ X S' nptura - pent r ::: ~ \ I ~ ~ 7. Cd[e of 9el' y. e3NA vs T r A .us cep.t is yvmea r m iS NRN gECEIPT ~a Z when emitienel xrvrces ale desired, antl complete items ' SpeLO On tt1P rtVerSP eidP. LeilU:e 10 dL th:SSwm plevPnt this [dra Se~~ew~~ av~eP rn~me name nr~tne p~s~n eel^ver[am ane w'my sr rm<ee are avaeam p + a T~ e po master els :eis~ mR~lsred e, antl atltlressee's eeerev. 2 C Pestriaetl Uelrvery Iryn t&rv Niavrl A. Amde Number qt; P 75G 306 095 ;ucamoaga T, o! of Scrv¢e hive ~' Rea~mer<d C'. mit~ee r. v, aox our 8 clr;e,atl ^ coD Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91729 ~. F,.press Mail [1 Rerurn Rece ; ~ _ mr Mer<ne-.~sc Am,rvs oe;a~n .,pnne:e or .aemas.. JOB 964 p' agem antl OPTE DELIVERED. 5. Sipna:ure -Addressee d 4dmesseo s Atltl ess (OA'LY e/ x , t .ra.Pn~~~ai X s~R~ar - .enr ~ ~~ DEC - 6 t991 ~ oar ootrvery -- ~ ~~ SS SERNARDS BROS. IMC. ~PS form 3611, Apr 1989 Pscvo wasaar-ers DUMESTIC,yETURN gFCEIPT AI EXHIBIT G ~~ avala ~ I,~ __ GOEN E=,AL CE.ON E~R NG e~Ay"Rn'SCQVV ~', • Fc LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL To MR. SCOT7 SHALD BERNARDS BROS. 1NC. 61D ILEX STREET SHN FERNANDO, CA. 91340 ATTENTION cATE DECEMBER 6, 1991 YOUF GRGER NUMBER JC6 NUMBER P O. NO. _ _. suBJECT P.4NCH0 CUCAMONGA SPORTS COMPLEX/ANIMAL CARE FACILITY GENTLEMEN'. WE AFE $EN CING YOU G REREWITM G UNDER SEPARATE DOVER G PRINTS ^ PLANS ^ MATERIAL LIST OAS BUIL75 ^ DOPY OF LETTER G $USMITTAL ^ DETAILS ^ SPEG7FIGATIONS O SHOP DRAWINGS ^ SETS TYPE GESCFIPTICN 2 SUBCONTRACT ND. 7083 THESE ARE TFANSMI1iE0 AS CMECN ED BELOW AEOVE rtEMS $F+IPpE^ VIA. G fOR APPROVAL ^APPROVED AS $U6MITTED CFAX ^ FOR F!NAL APPROVAL ^ APPROVED AS NOTED ^ FIRST CLA65 G fOR CONSTRUCTION CFE iURNEO FCR CORRECTIONS GUPS C fOR fAEPICATIOtJ G RE-SUBMIT CCPIES FCR APPRCVAI C NE%T DAY CE! IVERV C FCR YCUR '.NF GR!dATION ONLY G SUEMIT COPIES FCP DISTFIBUTION p OTHER C FCR RECORD OR DISFIBUTIGN G RETURN CCRRFC'•ED PP,INTS .,~ VERY TRULY URS, ~~' ~-// COPIES TO ~,~(~ JTAL PPGES INCLUDIN4 GCVER SHEET IF ENC:.GSUPES A E NCT PS NOTED KWDIY NOTIfV US AT GLACE • • 1, ~ ~ ~" ' ~ RECEIY. !~ ~~"FItTLc~IY~ ~ 1IIl'IIi ~U~tt71l~x c`Ir# DEC _ G Snbtonuatt No 70g~EP'IA(r0.. R FCw. EEMFNT, made and entered into at San Fernando. California the 4th day oI ' 19 91 by :nd between- Be rnards Bros. InC. called COSI'RACTOR, wish p: incirral oR~ce ar_ 610 Ilex Street. San Fernan_doi CA 91340 and :onstruct ion Co. Inc.. 1b402 East Corstructlon Circle. hrreinaher ca-ed $L'BCOSTRACTOR :A 92714 (714) 651-0221 RECITALS On nr about nc~ 14th ]9 91 , COSTRACTOR er.;e:ed inm a prime corvatr with hereinafrcr celled OIXS\"ER, whose address is-10500 Civic Ce a Dr R oho C a g_a~ CA 91729 ro perform the following mnsrrutt(on work: Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility 8400 Rochester Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California BERNARDS BROS. JOS N0. 964 Said work is ro Fz ar(ormcd in accordance with the p: ime contract and the pans and specifita~ions. Said plans and sperificasiors haee been piep-.; rd by or on behalf of_CRTT AC pTRC RDCTFR Ai iFC pi 41.TF,g~Ap Ci.T TFCTC ,.ARCHITECT. ENGINEERS and Wolff ilang/Christopher Architects, Inc. SECTION 1 -ENTIRE CONTRACT $CBCO\TRACTOR crrifies and agrees that hr is fully lamiliar with cell n( the arms, condir.'rns and obligations n( the Conuaa Drsc;,ments, az herc inafter dehncd, the location o/ the job sire, and the conditions under which the work is to 6e per (armed, arsd that he rntrrs inro this Agreement based upon his imesrigarion of cell e( such manors and is in noway relying upon an}' opiniovs o; repre~ sensations of CO\TRACTOA. Ir is agreed that this Agreement represuns the more ag: ermem h is lu:;hcr agreed chat the Connaee Documents are incwporarcd in ;his Agreement by this re!<renrq with the same (once and eAea u i/ nc~ same weer se forth ar length hcreiq and shat SGBCO\TRACTOR and his subconvanors will be and ate bond by anp and all o(said Comncr Dmmenrs iasn~ far u ;hey rc:ace in an7 part or in any way, d'uerly or mdirecdy ro the work cos reed by this Agrecmem SCBCOSTRICTOR agrees :o Bc bound so COSTRACTOR in the same raennr. and ro the same extent as CO\TRACTOR is bound ro OktiiCER under the Conuxs Uxurrents, ro the cxrcm of the work pro. ided Ior in this Agree,-rent, and ;hat where, in the Conrncr Documents reference is made :o COT3RACTOR and she work or sprcifica;ion th<rein ~crrains ro SCBCO\TRACTOA'S trede, craft. or rrpe of work then such work or spcohcarion shall be inrerprcrcd m apply ro $L'BCSSTR ACTOR ins~ead of COSTRACTOR The phrase "Conuatt Documents" is defined ro mean and include; As listed in Attachment "A" hereco dated November 21, 149L, pages 1 th-. ough 10 of 30, which forms an integral part of this agreemenC. SECTION 2-SCOP: $LBCOKTR ACTOR agars w fir: mph all !a`tt r, .eon Ices, marcnals. innalstion, owner, hoisting supplies, insurance, egcipment. scatTold ing. ~a+ia and o:arr (acih;ie, of e. try kind and description required sot the prompt and e(ficiem execu~ion of the work de. strihcd herein and to per(rar,, :hew>; k'nccessan'or in<idenalmrmm~!Pr~ STTF umn rmrro_ nor hid ~f for nc~ prryea in s:ricr ar~orda,^.ce wish the Con:race Documents and u more par; i. ula; lyt shnuch nos extlusiv y, spttified in: Sp F,C1 FICAIION SECTI OS ($); 02713 - F'ater DSSt ribu tion Sys Cem, 02711 -Storm. Sewage System, 02722 -Sanitary Sewer System, and applicable por[1nr.s SECTION 3-CONTRACT PRICgf 02221 -Trenching, Backfilling, and Compacting far Otilities* COKTRAC70R agrees to pay SL'BCOCTRACTOR for the ruin pcdnunance nl his work, the sum of: t~,SEY);.'i. HIi~RCP~+''ItiF?'4~ja}iTS1iQU5d$ll_n0>~ARC __._ ____~__-____I~_728 09.094._), ~iwbjrn to additions and drducnons for changes in the work as may be agree) upon, and m r. ake papmrnr in accordance e~ith the payment Schedule, Section 4. *For work not included in bid, price will be determined pursuant to Section E of the Gereral Conditions (time and materials) a o 2 .::.; ~e~dPMPIR NCI-SI'RCONTRIACTOR DuII '1 ~rd'repr Y Lymrtbtrleieuu anJ A'+lor I• brim "•vlmup ae'U!STRACSOR P<vi RAL SUBCONTRACT PRO\~ 10N5 ! •: 'r{m Nl yrnrun 4m I dfNU br rml ISIRCU`•TIACNRa rn R•aR. Meer. i d mplgau FLSIx1LSrlrry rr..•'i•~tTnunu rArllb Artn u•min[•mmNnrcIY SI SVRCONTRACTV0.a •dwn y..k •oa uNn rhu Ar: nrJr;M,n r rr^rnir V\iRAQUR ~bn,iL'1KU]. ~PACIDPcvaJa pupnpM1 B(or raAn . d..n .. rM : t 4M[tAC IND[MNITY- A:!r.~ \ .r•.r er.' br rF • Ae•nmr^ rhn M " F A fiw T0. tCT P M1 ~ pr n uh.nn nle r 'r.A tl\P1 TVP ~ ' :M re:iuA ie m L.y n Im .Fr .Jrn ..h:• .anr T~'0.~,~or ~mber~a rLYmv dml ~~fe °n~rr•? ~.I rr4 wary v Fn~ Cn\TP 1CTr P ~ rllr~ r, er am.rn. n. nu ..rr •A Mr Irc\m .1m^m^• - ;' b• reax.n nl •m Jrbburren nr Ie,Tmn •Ar Ff TR 1Tf Plhu a'\LP ~ r mFO1 rA, Ixr- n • rndr ~. 'rb.r N^ rh.b h - rnn nn LHIr VTFnn aP •y+' . h u .nJer • A.: -. n:.. COVTP. Rf P ~: I r ri ' xiJr ut VATRACI P F v,l`r,r.YiC4 .~hw •Fn < Lurcr,r r r r ~brc COSTPACTOP •r (~CICTPALTOR Rerunr ~~` C. tONDIN4 OP (YtCONTRACfOR-fnn.urrreCl~lY\TRACTOPrrb:lylrl arc A F'n~~FI~W~'TR: ROP.n .Rhn mJ Rln .:&n. 'Pufib Per*,^n ~F'~rbn ureE Fm +v niga'rwrl',': ~~Grn (~~r.\':P1CT P• r.n ~n u.l '.4 o~Druy re COyTt.1CTOR CO]:PACTOR mi I Nv rM [Nmvw. h.nLr~n:nr vMr•rv prt+~dN Aer[:n v: n rhv Cerrrnn Lbamrnrt D. TIM[-Tm n:Aa nxnn nl Rr,lr~rtmenr I:. r: i:.M ~~^PR.^u VT4nC. ra~ry mE r.rJ- .r`e pre r•r:M. flt v~NrM :~Ir,:A ~ttmn vP,n r Hr•~Fril a r rA.r nrA orl.a r.hon 'rJ the Cu.'TRnCTf R I la. ^ r~ vnM r v CV\T0.Af iOkrr~ha: b •.n Nr„ r•rM^ •nnn rk ..haul pramerhe+vtr le ~M1e uAU T e nrJe •hrth an r .. p': mrD n ~ ma •^he--ume ?rt ordeal rn'nEmr Doe Aerr~^+A o SL'BCO.\iP 1(TO1. nn •`rC r ur at'MO [TPACT'rP F deb n n rhr rov " ~n"CUVTF t(r AePrtrM a. r,r a:~ ~I (r4\[P r i.Pl lil: k(T'nr 1uN, r..b v.' q MoATFr1CT'P h :Ana:... n la. mpnal. n r: In r COATF niT n. h r = Fl [.G fK t~'.TRCA<R~P rt lnp r r F I, ~A+,v lM1 TF1Cf P _ F \ ?1 R k l ( 1N'\TP1fl(FF d J n ( ITP 1 rh r ' me ~1a r u \I F \ I ; F 1• r v. a .: a .Aa( cTF .1 aAmr I1 \. ~F C F fi(P ~ 1' ' r \ \IP p \TP41' R '* ~ I' n L.rr \'FP rn a. r.+ •.rh dr'.v !l WO]TF Kn`R. 'Mr nl M JJ r ~. T0. f P O uP I J v \ A r F Il P U IP 1„ 4 J R f \lF 1CinP F rl a. .el t\.IP .M1IA n~r le •lH0\F1CTtR m. -: L.Ga• ay •FUrn v "\TF of TOP (CNAN4131M1TNIwORR-`l MC]iPNTUp A.F. rp rr ma4 rr an! ' alrv ' n:.l. rM 'ul. mL M' rM nA rib: <O]TFAC .OP vn vt.: rvu Rrv arr p:r.e •urk Ae n m! pm ur rr Ar~~r ~4PCr1\TF 1f ;OR ha `Ape nrx e.. •' mRF rrr\'TP 4riUR, m4 rr orrJrrF<ipA ,y_ \ F A i p I '~ M1 T 1 VU LCPA NC \TPrACLUP 1 -~ p ' TA f ' Al rr I.r ~ \7P i ; C' ^.ul . A•^V rlx ~ •14 V:.p: rd •',~!' fiat' ~ ,N erM1VrIC: I.i I y r r rFl •rh+ d:~l lNfn\TAA(TP0.wr(O?1PA SOR r,r4 lmv h M1 Pl W (\'~AROR ffrll p:1r r+ D r.nm i nnf rn ml . Rmmm~ r nN wnhm vn rdrp r!re furM1 •DrY r RrlnnnN or•al'B i(~\iFn<TU0. •hglMfmnrl rr~M1nrr ndrmrd nF rN:m rMNtnr II rM .I PCO\TP ACTtIR m Inr r mFmmunn, Lnrnron er Ar:<' Ae D:l •`.rA rir:r rAe xnR nl rhr r•DIY rl rFr nRnrr rl rrMr lrrder. Sl'dCU'( iF Af Tr1P aFAI N I:r a I~rr rha [ f rhne dr. r IrD'n ahn A[re ' Ihr - r.. m,.~, .~+,Vrcr^^rarfrrr r'~e rt: ne .^r 4+LF rm ~r p M gib. r•Aemnen• and r.4rD00'\f0. n~.rrCn':TRACTOR rM~: h runJarr ~rnY In rwxll rht mrrrP or rareea Dl nl •u;h rMn{e 1~ DRM14t[ CRUSIO R DY116-<h.,lA 0.'N OVTPA(SOP de6v' :n rhr el ^,. w4 :M F, u.erp Jeln r rAe pram ^rr'e: •r r1 M me~l MRI .l~',eirrrr Ir. d al In drt! :vd,+ M1D duNrda., ur,"°~nJ vl (n TvNAfTOR r e rr ul rMrml iVM(~~TRACIDRv h II r h L.,n •r[rr.e:.pn rr r~rl.:n..; kr,.x.'n'.r.r. < "Unless the delay Ss not t'•y ~~1•auyf~o4'Lhe.Subco .e1M p t ^t,nTR nr .M rn ((\P1(T(R l AM1I ~ FW ~Id Nndmae fCTIO\1 A r• yr lr fi F F' CO\ R1(TC RII I IJ F nd vrlm Dn r t J 3 I fiNO rn .bendmrc F P' I 1:,' IP.~tI\TR Ir ^n hnrto 11 •p m p r• M A n M to Plnnr for rM W.mr rben unrvd rlr aFen "'Ir, •'.Nrn ,rl urA. rune u.rt rAen due.nLa lnp •hr' 4pn ner ml~rJ r^aL BCL TRACTOR 'rr • I. TIFMIH TIDN DI R4R1[ lNT I h rh pnrrn awmn n mm mrN p:rc n ,LM( \TN 1CT(1P A ' M em N! mll plmtm for rM rl ql r2 FI • M p o uu ul rFr pr a Mrnn Nr bnF unleu CO\ TPACTGA rrr'I rnma NJr rona n. Rnuuon or d.m.m m mnum of rvR wr AF LRCV4lRRCT(1P rMl bem rMmuxM1 pmpe~en of or d.msin v vJ r rtn •N u qu oble undtr .I of ~~P M1ewrmna vL rM1J nw nCU'vTA nCTOP wmde.nl ' -, 00 \FF I rvrl JJ w.l mmPev'ue a dun rM nmr of 41nre a C n'un, J r .R~ M1ulh' M Mr 1 r~e l.rlurt el (OA iFAt Tn0. la CrDVrvr< •nY r^rb r:•rm r mr OY\,[R rNll revµnlrrk SIRCOV TF ACTOR ro mY Anv. loe NAlwrol wmpenunon m drwpe • CO\TRAC TO ]on rrp:mdrnp rk pmeL:eF Rn{n `R COKTRACIOR rrN do .Snlure < brl APrttmenr Ir. rlrr van DI tt mxaDW •Dhwl (•uN. SL'B C(+\~i P ACTOR rMl: h munN rr plmnr enll' a lelloo' f^.r ^I rAe .erl emrlS rornp:nM m mnlo::niq unb rM+AFrmnenr, Clm TF actor a by ' ' in excess N, R{CDUR31 tY COMRAC OR 1 M r Iur SL'KVI+TRAIIVM1 N mY m _ D ..., wpr. _ n _ tuber Di ~h~.•~.i r~rr~or - ~ yvN 4-PAYMENT SCNFDr ,ACTOR ogees to pay StiBCONTRACIOR in monthly payments of 90 ' !'£ of labor vnd materials which have placed in position and (or which payment hu been made by DOi'NER to CONTRACTOR. The remaining _}.4 c shall be retained by CONTRACTOR until hr votive finil papmcnt from OlY'NER, but nor less than thvry-fire days a&et thr entve • work r<quved by the prime conc:act haz been fully completed in conformity with she Contrac[ Documents and haz been delivered and accepted by ONNEA, ARCHITECT, and CONTRACTOR. Su bjece to the previsions of the next sentence, the retained perrrntage shat be paid SL73CONTAACIOR promptly after CONTRACTOR receive his final payment from OR'NER. gUBCONTRACTOR agrees ro fu: nish, i( and wben required by CONTRACTOR, payroll affidavits, receipts, vouchers, rclrue of claims (or labor, mu<rial and suF,conr. actors performing work or furnishing materials under [his Aglrrmen[, all in (arm satisfactory to GONTAAGTDR, and i; is agreed that no paymen[ hereunder shall be made, ezccpt at CONTRACTOR'$ optioq until and unless such payroll a6tda'iq mceipss, vouchers M releases, nr any or all of them, have bttn furnished. Any payment made hereunder prior ro completion wd acceptance of the work, u referred to above, shall not b< eonswed az evidence of ac<eprance of any part of $LBCONTRACTOR'S work, SECTION S-GENERAL SUBCONTRACT PROVISIONS Gmeil Subcontratt Provisiom on back of Pages 1 and 2 arc an inrngni pan of chi5 Agreement SECTION 6-SPECIAL PROVISIONS F i a ~ '°AS described in Attachment "D" hereto dated December 4, 1991, page 1 of 1, which fogs ~,;jan integral part of this agreement. (: s L • Contractors are required by law to be licensed and regulated by the Contracton' State License Board. Any questions concerning a contractor may be referred to the registrar of the board whose address it: Contractors State License Board- 1010 "N" Stree/, Sacramento, California 95814. IN WITNESS WHEREOF: The par; ies hereto hoar executed this Agreement (o: themselves, their heirs, execvrors, successors, admin isuators, and assignees nn the dap and year first above written. SUBCONTRACTOR SAVALA ONS UCIION CO. INC. a `~.',~t ...,.~ =- ?~. Arne '• ~ ' Title Corparetion t^ Parmership ^ Propnetaship ' (Seal) s. / Con:a..tor's State Licetne No J~~ 9a ~ _ CONTRACTOR BER.NARDS BROS. INC. Name Title Jeffrey G. 8ernards, Vice President Contractor's Snte Licenu No- 302007 ' 11 t\ . Pope 1 of 1 . :r..r•, G~ERAL SUBCON' • the Fmyy r i oPe gxAr T riumrrelttM mLArmn k tF m~enerunn rovawn Nm )w r~aL prtf^rwN vtln di(r\Mmw UR d .MRT DI bu .u4urrrawn rrrF nP J. YqR RIIRTN)Nf-lmPbFV wr cal )rMr M SI:RCOFTRACTOR ilull k RmN rode: wntrnrm .brA ue urrr'.FmOwro CCI\'TPACTUR Sl'BCO\TRAC. TUR .MC keel rzp.+mnurt n Fr pF n JulmP JI n .Fm R'HCON~ ILARORS d m P+^Arm, .M +A n~r<sec nve NII b .urMrurd m rel:nem [ITCOT?AARUP r I pF.rn n. Iv w i Pnor m romnremmem f Ow .wL..UECO\iTnR(M rM9 mrrly CMTAAODA vM SUMO`:TRnL TOP 5 rePrewnnuv n rr k, red rn rM nmr of m, rNr of npravnrnne SL'B C[)\TRSC?OA +NI' n y' p\ ~AROA .fie M n NPrewnuu.e rr to Ee F rn.Ad Momm Mm. rorSI CCU]TFAfTUP µn,.ied.p rbr COVTAA(TOP Mr enrcrcd mm h1,r • rL rr Ar. r ~ r ~ b C.:ttnm i. Cmwer Mrmm. L A y .. inFro .t PIMnv men. W Te R r frtA p~ m. L ...r^, oF. ,frr.mmr. 6~ i ~( " ~a.y ~ h,4v r[mmmr. rr IuuA rpnr it r: nCrw:Ji rTn:v.4. derv LlrrR Tn b 41wu pl.r.iY a In •v.rim, (Ft CCNTRACIpI{ v MrrRY •cF. r!: of n, N:m+.re mN.rmm el rMre srRronTAAfron m wmlp dr M1 rAe rr•m .nd Cm+. mr alPUrd r[ mr R of a:4 <S.mr2 M n(A nl male raln .nJ leer nol prWµumWrdmomryrm~nyrkdwbMUe dare orb ro grcmRll II++ •.v rr rr rr, rnurcr S:nLrnt red fala [r~mrl • rrv>n-r rv ur:q A5'BCOVTAnCTOR IvnMr Cr^^ rN r,~m rlur M 'll firN .W rpunr ; rl Arr uM rv nJ rMr~ S:cnrrrarJM1 prrlvrminF MArr a •rr4 n! rM r1R ru ND.. ISM 1r'var ..MM1nN rSr.r r.oFwrem r; rN lnrrWm perm ^IUndrrrJrrnn .r.~rhr u R n Arrr n C: r.1rd wrrA n>nr m Arm H'K~'STPnRnR .r;l mdemmp and Frid Anmlar CO\'iR rCTOR Iran mt .wr,rr .rR fi.>drn. Imr e.m.fe rr .r.er rvtFmerrn. ten npnb. RmoF lee" qm+4n .m r,rM. .Mm m k rn red ~. rAe (t ~TAACTiiP ar nrr Le a10.H 0<TRnCT0R5 Lrlnr m /JAI'ck r m (r•rA rn r. p.r rpM1 i II C r'In r IrrcneJ r rTr r r FuAern Cr n. ap ny AnmOrew 4rvery.rM>rr o!RNn-lrra, Ard Aer crNN krr 9'rrnl Arr Aer R 4YOYT A(SIOXSrRrIITT-((1\'T0.ACif1R rA.I: m:aFl:fA irinrrpl nu l^nn . d Ine4 •here.Mn A'B('OFTFnCTOP rNl: Li om .nd rMll M sara'T mym uAle lar rM a unp oI Mr mL rnJ Ivr ¢y Imr er 6rt rrbr r ySN in wm4 on rhr mre A, mn r 4:IVe ^I SL'BC4)\'TRnCTOR ro : wl ~e Iran Fn mA+rrrcrt:l Q'bEVCIEnCTUA rA:d nr:nw pramrr ro m.r nna M1nn t dr: . fAr,' tvlr rr R:le(r rARnn nl AnuA a L MORNMmSNV - hm Pn N rlre •ert Annn Jn.nkJ Ml;rrkrvnuvd r ' mrtmae ap rfir Oavrn M:menv rn rM vu rruna, •rrln.n:pe rul mea.mr.: m.rmm nn w.'F,:,amhm ,A..; I. N r!v 4:r rl err w, n.; Lrm, .m .II a m rnr .oL Aewm ier.:..xt .bf. k Lm+!ret rn .r..Ctr arr.nuun o. /r[rleirr~r rM prnpr rot evR-vmv. nu.rrrn of rFe •r:4 anJ sA~'I b nn end rM Mrol,fiee rnprni.r lwrdr. b.e>r rv:A mnrtnlr a mrl h n.^.eull CrmdN rn Ar M IROYIf10N FOR IMAICiION-[L B(nYTP RCTVP .AaB I:mnA rr (Oti. TRACTOP end n rrpr, ~ e rr n h: aRaun mne nb r rnu a Irn ;;4rm~,p~' ~;(Pi.r~.Ae;~r rrrJ.r in' nrr - qiw :r' ~ Nrxrr^rr ., °r. -r..r.: ,r RcBrfnv r4RnCTOR rM h~M1 CI \i FA(TO0. I nr nl rprrgrrortM1nnrA ~• Aren a undr rho Af^ m Fr rn rM of frr n. ~, r .hr. Ib lrrt'. nl r':A ^:rC r v:A d -) 4 ~rmr r h (TTT`A(TOR. f tm[ r1 Ciartr Lr'rr r~L.rf:r,T ^I C:r N MwT[RlnvfrFllRMIf N[O RrT OTMIRf-Irv 'rM~ rrlr rIF riuTn ,.Ae: nrN~r r .Fr;; Fe r!.e' nf~F,ln el!: KO\TFnCTOPn rrr!rer pne nNn lr. rnL r: rrrll Ae. .u rA it ~if r>' rrlmr .i n nM ,`re ~LvRr Eue rev I'B[I iR1CT(R ;Ar f h ISL'B' CMTFACYJA and drhv a rir A[rur O. IROIICTION OF WORR. al Nei\TR~n(TI IA rA<;; r!n ~.~~'. .nurr rn. trm .:E"n`:: :i oi`i: rn:ii+`c'?nA: rrar~. r.h~: ~~ti~,+i~~rr;itr. _ SI'BCUv.'iRARUA pol 4;. a I,.r vAb+ .rrR~ oIL rn ~CS. q +._l ^ r rnl rPr~Y.rnr rM n. rrer,arr ~n rh rL' nrf truer t`F) Arm or [Au rFenrr, em [.a' PirrD+rr rrrrr. ., can ~, P YH DP CONTRACYDRy PDURN[NT- In rM rvem tl'PCO\TP V inR still C~J '.~ xCOSTRAROR! rAe +FC rr Fver<OVTPACTOR r L A r~ r Rer r r, r~~ Ar~ n Tur~ r m.~ - •r + :t'H. C'•'. CU\TPACia 1 d i '.q I 0 t ~' cU\~TF {<iUP A Jm f~ Irnu ."rPl nn rFr.x r. r.,F «.nmmr,.. .nM a:H \iP.R TOA Or l', Q [LIIN.DP-OuneL rAe rru:v+,I.r.rr:u..,,m tI PCMiP n(Tr~fl rFrll r<mr•e ~~ "~' ....r +.. n.,..r..~..~4er.. r ..... ............r.r...~~.1 ..V...w~ r.f ~r.,iwr<rnm iv mr~Cm rr ro •nrfiar r v~rrrrFN iv rSL'KO.\'TR{ROR end LrdunN, ndu unJer.AeolAm R GOAAANTL4-Fl Yai rATlr rl inPrcFUrranrm r'I n .cab and ur4mrmAip rna y r'., r: le a Rm r cad r rrhe wnpa mn 1 ; ON. 'M1A(TOR'rnl r.rdrtll • rn.u .v,u FrJ d Ivurt rmC ttr.r rnnrllyd • II M4MT3- FL B(p\'iP A(TOA rArll m nR~+n .Ai~F nlpmM mNr Wrm c0 • nF o r qrt vl rAe prlrrmsrra[ el rr nnr~..e:r~rrl ..nPml .nMn rr rod[*,uL rn2 rlw rF v, rIInRAN, TOR mq mrvr rn delrndrn/ ar [drumq TRACT PRq-'$IONS T. W14NM[N. CONTPACT ~-Al'lK fr \'TPnCT(IP rA.il un..r: M1. u: •rnrr w I C03TrtACTOR. mtn, eangrc roe nSM.m Wnivn er pr: vl rb ter' our W Ig rFn ARrnmmr nrr nr'.<n .m p)'mmn M:euneer rv aM:. CUSTRA TOA rye urrln rr male( rAe •Mk rr pn el rAN AArnmmr .N Aif rrFArr M' emn. m mr m:ynrron,:nb.dv.I, or prrrneNrrp V INDV[NO[XT CONTRACTOP-SCB(bpTpnCTOA n m Me n .nd.N11,rtFlr welt FO.uv npnv. and nrAmr memv mrM Ca r. r` ~I) .rth JI L.r, ruin. orL:run[n, cart r<N:.rgnv of all Fmr;nint bdrn u:iWrnrrn o•ee :b •orL, uMrn all mnup Cr;mr r ynd I,rnvr rAerCar, Cae . rnul.rt.rrri carer. uln run, rrw urn prur.rrnFlu.n .na yll (edrul .nd .u n .M <o ::rkm r I r S.'.r. F[.:^o .^d L'n r.b A n !morupn. Son m mkt r..n nc r C.d m SI'BCO\TPACTOF rm>, wMA Ire G u Ln (r mne r w!wtu 'r a toed L.r m:n p:. ' SLMrr rnAOT.Pr M+rpu.~rA' -~,, n.' r•:r ro CO' TPA(TUP F r 1 .. vl Ar /rreM one rd.Ler.r a Nv `Fern (u:Fll[d.rl ' Y, Anr mr.. nlfo\TTt( OP .Ar.n a('BCnCT'nCTVP b p. n"rr°a`, her"ow„ arlrrr r^ Rnmv. .m:: it dnmee ...M F4msrecD> ' TRAR~R ~r4o Ae rFramr ~rCn\'TRnRnP O: Arn r..w~r A u rAm da ry rM 'u nl• rA• n [: bCOSTPALTOr ~h~ FF' M' r..e.r :Fr Crr .rtm c~ pO:.v.nu O. I W Sm IH<.pn C08:RAROP rr W ATTpN[Y'3 H!5-In rN nee enM ((r\YPnROP .e 4'K(ISTRA! ?OPm rr (vn.Fn-..r:Ae,Ar.C ern-n rN w:r rl rv<Ap ruM1. ..'.•tt :r.. rm nJ^~ n~M;rt .:Ae')R.ml~u pm o rAn ~~A I' k e ~ • r n'Te •M<A NII brde:e.m nN Fr lrb:..r r 2 umbdd rn rM Ndr mmr rn Inrt sort , Irilv'r ~[l'N I`iplfrA(Ip r) rmlr+ I-M \TR Tra br . Lr A~wa r ' M1onn< r Mrx,n.l~. "r.L I'rrFln rAe ~Pl plr TF1 rN ern eve LSF,r (., (• M~FJI. 1 r u v n r, viJ Any SI' rrpn r NOl - rtn ie r. w n..• rFAl itq',r._r.~ d9 T IND[MNHT <uvsP ;lv:r1 .nrr Terra. Ar Fr. rlmnj r Ln ebe ~^~+ r F Pn,.IA,~r.ri. .nl r • • CJ Attachment "A^ Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page t of TO PROJECT: Sports Complex and Animal Care Facility 8400 Rochester Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA OWNER: The City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ARCHITECTS: Sports Complex GRILLIAS.PIRC.ROSIER.ALVES PLANNERS.ARCHITECTS.ENGINEERS 4940 Irvine Boulevard Suite 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Animal Care Facility Woltt/Lang/ChristopherArchiteds,lnc. 10470 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 DRAWINGS: PART A -SPORTS COMPLEX RHi<ET NO. 9-EETI7rlE L4T ~T DAT 'R VI ION I.1 TITLE SHEET, PARTA88 9/18;91 T1.1 TITLE SHEET 9/18;91 71.2 A99REVIATIONS, GENERAL NOTESBSHEET INDEX 9118/91 T7.3 SYI190LS,LEGENDSB WALL TYPES 9/18(91 C1 TITLE SHEET 9/18/91 C2 DEMOLITION PLAN 9178/91 C3 DETAIL SHEET 9118191 C4 DETAIL SHEET 9/18/91 CS WALL PROFILES 9118/91 C6 WALL PROFILES 9/78191 C7 SOUTH 1/3 GRADING PLAN 9118191 CB MIDDLE 1f3 GRADING PLAN 9/78/91 C9 NORTH 1/3 GRADING PLAN 8 OFFSITE GRADING 9110;91 C9A NORTH 1/3 GRADING PLAN60FF-SITE GRADING (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.9) 9/18!91 C70 PLANT ER DETAILS 9/18/91 C11 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 9/18191 C12 COORDINATE SHEET 9/18/91 C13 SOUTH 113 DIIl ENSION PLAN 9i 18191 C74 MIDDLE 1/3 DIMENSION PLAN 9/18!91 C74A MIDDLE I/3 DIMENSION PLAN (BID ALTERNATIVE N0. 18) 9/18;91 C18 NORTH 1l3 DIMENSION PLAN 9118!91 C18A NORTH 1/3 DIMENSION PLAN (BID ALTERNATIVE NO.9) 9/18/91 C16 ON~SITE SIGNING AND STRIPING 9118191 ' \ Attachment "A' Drawings, Specifications and Amendment Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 • Page 2 of 1 D SHEET NO. 9-g=771!1 F LATEST DATElREVISION C77 TITLE SHEET 9/18/91 C78 INDEX SHEET 9118/91 G19 ARROW STORM CRAIN 9/78/91 C20 LINE A-SOUTH PORTION 9118!91 C21 LINEA-NORTH PORTION 9/18;91 C22 LINEB 9/78191 C23 LINE C E J 9118/91 C24 DETAIL SHEET/LINE'B' PIAN & PROFILE 9!18191 C25 LATERAL PROFILES 9!18/91 C26 LATERAL PROFILES 9/18/91 C27 TITLE SHEET 9(18191 C28 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN SOUTH PORTION 9/18/91 C29 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN MIDDLE PORTION 9/18/91 C30 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN NOR1H PORTION 9/18(91 C31 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN WEST PORTION 9!18/91 C32 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN MIDDLE PORTION 9/18/91 C33 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN EAST PORTION 9/78/91 C34 ROCHESTER AVE. SIGNINGSTRIPINGSTREET LIGHT NORTH PORTION 9118191 C35 ROCHESTER AVE. ROUTE SIGNINGSTRIPING/STREET LIGHT SOUTH PORTION 9/1 B/91 ARROW ROUTE SIGNINC,/STRIPINGSTREET LIGHT K'EST PORTION 9/t 8/91 • C36 ARROW ROUTE SIGNINGSTRIPING5TREETL1GHT EAST PORTION 9/18/91 C37 TITLE SHEET 9/78/91 C37A TITLE SHEET (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.7A) 9!18/91 C38 SOUTH PORTION 9/18;91 038A SOUTH PORTION (BID ALTERNATIVE N0. 7A) 9/18/91 C39 MIDDLE PORTION 9118/91 G39A MIDDLE PORTION (BID ALTERNATIVE NO. 7A) 9118/91 C40 NORTH PORTION 9!18;91 C40A NORTH PORTION (BID ALTERNATIVE N0. 7A) 9118/91 C40AA RECIAIMED WATER DETAIL SHEET (BID ALTERNATIVE NO.7A) 9118/91 C41 TITLE SHEET 9/78/91 C42 SOUTH PORTION 9118!91 C43 MIDDLE PORTION 9118,'91 C44 NORTH PORTION 9/18/91 TR1 TITLE SHEET, NOTES 8 DETAILS 9!18!91 TR2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE. 8 DAV CREEK BLVDIJACK BENNV DR. 9118/91 TR3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE. d ARROW ROUTE 9/18/91 TR4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE. 8 STADIUM PKVrN. 9/18/91 A3.1 GENERAL STADIUId PLAN 9/18/91 A3.1 A GENERAL STADIUtd PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 A3.2 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN 9118/91 A3 2A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18!91 A3.3 CENTER CONCOURSE PLAN 9118!91 A3.4 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN 9/18/91 A3,4A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.5 CENTER IAFI7ANINE PLAN 9/18/91 A3.6 LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN 9178!91 A3.6A LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/51 Attachment "A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendmems Sports Complex/Animai Care Facility November 21, 1991 • Page 3 of 10 SHEET NO 9$ITiiLE LATEST DATExREVISION A3.7 CENTER GRANDSTAND 8 PRESSBOX 9!18/91 A3.6 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN 9/18/91 A3.BA RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/1 B/91 A3.9 CENTER ROOF 8 PENTHOUSE PLAN, PENTHOUSE ROOF PLAN 9/18/91 A3.10 MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURE PLANS W/, ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A3.11 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/91 A3.11 A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN W/. A! TERNATIVE 9/18x91 A3.12 CENTER CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9118/91 A3.12A CENTER CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9!18/91 A3.13 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PIAN 9/18/91 A3.13A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 A3.14 CENTER MEZ7ANINE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9!18/91 A3.14A CENTER MEZZANWE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/91 A3.15 CENTER GRANDSTAND6 PRESS BOX REFLECT.CEILING 9/78/91 A3.15A CENTER GRANDSTAND 8 PRESS BOX REFLECT. CEILING W/. ALTERNATNE 9/18/91 A3.16 MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES ROOFB REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 9!18/91 A3.17 ENLARGED RESTROOM PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.18 ENLARGED RESTROOM PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 . A3.19 ENLARGED FOOD CONCESSIONS PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.20 ENLARGED STAIR PLANSSSECTIONS 9/18/91 A3.21 ENLARGED STAIR PLANSd SECTIONS 9118/91 A4,1 ELEVATIONS-LEFT GRANDSTAND W!. ALTERNATIVE 9/18!91 A4.2 ELEVATIONS-CENTER GRANDSTAND 9178/91 A4.3 ELEVATIONS-CENTER GRANDSTAND 9118/91 A4.3a CONCOURSE EXTERIOR WALUFENCE ELEV. 9;18;91 A4 3aA CONCOURSE EXTERIOR WAWFENCE ELEV, Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 A4.4 ELEVATION&RIGHT GRANDSTAND W/.ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 A4,5 ELEVATIONS-MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES W/.ALTERNATIVE 9i 18/91 A4,6 ELEVATIONS-MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES 9118/91 A4.7 BUII DING SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 Ad.B 6UILDING SECTIONS W/. ALT. 9/18/91 A5.1 WALL SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A5 2 WALL SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9(18/91 A5.3 WALL SECTIONS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9x18/91 A 6.1 CONCOURSE ELEVATIONS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A62 INTERIOR ELEVATION (RE$TROOM$'SHOWER) W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A6 3 INTERIOR ELEVATION (RESTROOMS~SHOWER) W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18!91 A8.4 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS, RE$TROOM$ Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 A7.1 FIN~SH SCHE DULES 9;18191 A7.1A FINISH SCHEDULES W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 A7.2 FINISH SCHE DULES 9/18/91 A7.2A FINISH SCHEDULES Wl. ALTERNATIVE ~ 9!18,'91 A7 3 DOOR SCHEDULE W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18x91 A7.4 DOOR B WINDOW TYPES, DOOR SCHEDULE NOTES 8 ABBREVIATIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 , A7.5 INTERIOR FINISH DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118191 ~ A8.1 DOOR DETAILS Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9!18/91 A8 2 DOOR DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 AB 3 VJIIJDOW DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 //` Attachment"A" Drawings, Speciftcations and Amendmerns Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 • Page 4 of 10 SHEET NO 9fFTTmF LATEST DATE/REVISION A8.4 WINDOW DETAILS 5!18191 A8.8 CEILING DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9!18/91 A8.6 STAIR AND RAMP DETAILS 9/18181 A8.7 INTERIOR DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9!18/91 A8.8 SEI8MIC/EXPANSIDN JOIM DETAILS 9!18!91 A8.9 ROOF DETAILS 9118'91 A 8.9A ROOF DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.10 EXTERIOR DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118191 A8.11 EXTERIOR DETAILS 9/16!97 A8.12 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/10/91 A8.73 SITE~BUILDING SIGNAGE W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.14 BASEBALL STADIUM SCOREBOARD W!. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/97 A8.16 SOFTBALL SCOREBOARD W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118/99 A8.16 SOCCER SCOREBOARD W/. ALT. 9/18!99 51.1 GENERAL NOTES 3 TYP. DETAILS 9!18/91 52.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9!18/91 S2.2 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9178/99 82.3 LEFT 8 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE SLAB PLANS 9/18/99 52.4 LEFTS RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND FRAMING PLANS 9/18/91 52.5 LEFTS RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 52.6 LEFTBRIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9!78/91 53.1 CENTER CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9/18/91 S32 CENTER MEZZANINE FRAMING PLAN 9/18/91 • 53,3 CENTER GRANDSTAND 8 PRESSBOX FRAMING PLAN 9118197 53.4 CENTER ROOF FRAMING PLAN 8 PENTHOUSE ROOF FRAL7ING PLAN 9178/91 53.5 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING ELEVATIONS 9Ii 8/97 53.6 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING ELEVATIONS 9116/91 54.1 CENTER CONCOURSE SLAB PLAN 9/10/91 S4 2 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING PLANS 9/18/91 54,3 CENTER GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9118191 54.4 CENTER GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/18!91 55.1 BUILDING ~ A. PLANS 8 ELEVATIONS 9/18191 55.2 MISC. BIDGS. PLANS, ELEVATIONS 8 SECTIONS 9/18/91 55,3 RESTROOM BLDG. & DET. 9/18191 S5.4 MISC. BLDG. PLANS, ELEVATIONS ANU DETAILS 9!18/91 55.5 MISCELLANEOUS BLDS. PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND DETAILS 9!18/91 S6.1 DETAILS 9/18/91 56,2 DETAILS 9/18/91 S6 3 DETAILS 9/18/91 56.4 DETAILS 9/18/81 S66 FRAh1 LNG SECTIONS 5/18/91 56,6 DETAILS 5178/91 S6.7 DETAILS 9/18;99 S68 DETAILS 9i 18199 S6 9 DETAILS 9/18/91 P1.1 GENERAL NOTES, LEGENDS, SCHEDULES 8 DETAILS 9118/99 P2.1 GAS DISTRBUTION PLAN 5118/87 P 2.tA GAS DISTRBUTION PLAN 9!18/81 P3 1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9110/99 r "' . P3.1A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9118/91 P3 2 CENTER CONCOURSE 9/18/81 P3.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/16/95 • Attachment "A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendme is Sports Complex'Animal Care Facility November 2l, 1991 Page 5 oT 10 SHEET NO. 9-gfflllE I ATEST DATE/REVISION P3.3A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN P3.4 CENTER MEZZANINE PLAN P3.5 LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND P3.SA LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND P3.6 CENTER GRANDSTAND 8 PRESSBOX P3.7 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND P3.7A RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND P3.8 CENTER ROOF 8 PENTHOUSE- PENTHOUSE ROOF P3.9 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS P3.9A ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS P3.70 MAINTENANCE YARD PLAN,RESTAOOM BUILDING PLAN 8 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS P3.11 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS P5.1 DETAILS FP1.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN FP1.2 CENTER CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN FP1.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN FP1.4 MEZZANINE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN FP1.5 CENTER GRANDSTAND CANOPVB PRESSBOX FIRE PROTECTION PLAN FP1.6 PENTHOUSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN M1.1 EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE, GENERAL NOTES LEGEND ANC SYMBOLS M1.tA EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE, GENERAL NOTES LEGEND AND SYMBOLS M1.2 EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE M1.2A EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE M3.1 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE M3.tA MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE M3 2 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER CONCOURSE M3.3 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE M3 3A MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE M3.4 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER MEZZANINE ' M3.4A MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER MEZZANINE M3.5 fdECHANiCAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTRAL GRANDSTAND 8 PRESS BOX M3.SA MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTRAL GRANDSTAND 8 PRESS BOX M3.6 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR PENTHDUSE M3.7 h".ECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR MAINTENANCE YARD M4.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLED 8 HEATING HOT WATER PIPING N.4.tA LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLEDBHEATING HOT WATER PIPING M4.2 CENTER CONCOURSE-CHILLED 8 HEATING HOT \NATER PIPING Id4,3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLED 8 HEATING HOT WATER PIPING A!4.3A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLEDB HEATING HOT WATER PIPING h14.4 1,tF77_gNINE FLOOR-CHILLED 8 HOT WATER PIPING M4,5 CENTRAL GRANDSTAND FLOOR~CHILLEDB HOT WATER PIPING h14 6 MECHANICAL SECTIONS M 6.1 MECHANICAL DETAILS M 6.2 MECHANICAL DETAILS ME.1 CONTROL DIAGRAMS 14E.1A CONTROL DIAGRAMS 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18!91 9/18!91 9/18/91 9!18/91 9!18/91 9/18/91 9118/91 9/18/91 9178/91 9118!91 9/18!91 9/78/91 9/78/97 9/18/91 9/18/91 9!18/91 9178191 9!78/91 9/18/91 9118/91 9!18/91 9!10191 9/18/91 9i 18/91 9/18/91 9!18191 9118/91 9!t 8/91 9118/91 9/18/97 9178/91 9118/91 917 8191 9118/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9178/91 9118/91 9/18/91 9,'78/91 9/78/91 9118/91 9/1 8/91 • • Ariachment "A' Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports CompleX/Animal Care Facility November 21,1991 Page 6 of 10 SHEET NO. ~T1T4E LATF ST nA7E!R EVICInN E T.1 LEGEND, FIXTURE SCHEDULE 8 DETAILS E 7.1A LEGEND, FIXTURE SCHEDULE 8 DETAILS E1.2 BASEBALL FIELD -FLOODLIGHTING 8 MISC. DETAILS E 1.2A BASEBALL FIELD-FLOODLIGHTINGB MISC. DETAILS E2.1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-LIGHTING E2.1A PLAYING FIELDS AREA LIGHTING E2.2 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-LIGHTING E2.3 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-LIGHTING E2.4 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN -POWER 8 MISC. E2.5 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-POWER 8 MISC. E 2.5A SITE POWER 8 MISC. DISTAIBl1TION E2.6 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN -POWER 8 MISC. E2.7 AREA LIGHTING DETAILS E 2.7A AREA LIGHTING DETAILS E2.8 ELECTRICAL CONTROL DIAGRAMS E2.9 PLAYING FIELDS LIGHTING DETAILS E2.9A FIELD LTG POLE DETAIL E3.1 BASEBALL FIELD-POWER DISTRIBUTIONS FLOODLIGHTING E3.1A BASEBALL FIELD-POWER DISTRIBUTIONS FLOODLIGHTING E3.2 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE- POWER 8 LTG PLANS E32A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE-POK'ERB LTG PLANS E3.3 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE-SIGNALS MISC. PLANS E3.3A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE-SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E 3.4 CENTER CONCOURSE POW ER PLAN E3.5 CENTER CONCOURSE LIGHTING PLAN E 3.SA CENTER CONCOURSE LIGHTING PLAN E3.6 CENTER CONCOURSE SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E3.7 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE-POWERS LTG PLANS E3.7A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE-POWERS LTG PLANS E3.8 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE -SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E3.8A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE -SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E3.9 MFZZANINE POWER 8 LIGHTING PLANS E3.10 MEZZANINE SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E3.11 UPPER FLOOR-PRESS BOX-POWERS LTG. PLANS E3J2 UPPER FLOOR- PRESS 80X- SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E3.13 MISC. BLDG.-ELECTRICAL PLANS E3.73A MISC. BLDG-ELECTRICAL PLANS E4.1 ONE LINE DIAGRAM AND DETAILS E4.tA UNTITLED E5.1 UNTITLED E6.1 PANEL SCHEDULES E6.2 PANEL SCHEDULES E 6.3 PANEL SCHEDULES E 6.4 FANEL SCHEDULES E6.4A PANEL SCHEDULES L1 COVER SHEET L1A COVER SHEET Ua CONSTRUCTION LEGEND AND NOTES L 1aa CONSTR UCTION LEGEND AND NOTES L2 CONSTR UCTION PLAN L2A CONSTRUCTION PLAN L3 GONSTR UCTION PLAN L3A CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/18191 9/18/91 9/18/99 9/76!91 9/78/99 9117/91 9/78/99 9!78'91 9/78/91 9178/99 9/17/99 9178199 9/18/91 9!17/99 9/18/99 9118/91 9117/91 9/18/99 9!18/99 9/76199 9!18191 9/18/99 9/78/91 9/18/99 9/18;91 9/78/91 9/19/91 9/18/97 9178/99 9/18/91 9116/91 9i18/9S 9/78/97 9/78191 9/78/99 9/16/99 9/78/99 9/18/91 9/18/99 9118/99 9/98/91 9/18191 9178/9'1 9/16/91 9/18/91 9/18/97 9/18/91 9/18!91 9/16199 9!18/91 9116,'91 9/10191 9/18/91 Atiachmenl'A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Comp)ex/Animal Care facility • November 21, 1991 Page 7 of 10 SHEET NO. 9$IIIILE I ATEST DATE9REVISION L4 CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/18/91 L4A CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/18/91 LS CONSTRUCTION PLAN (20-SCALE PLAZA AREA) 9/18+91 LSA CONSTRUCTION PLAN (20-SCALE PLAZA AREA) 9!18!99 L6 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18/99 L6A CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9118!91 L7 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18/91 L7A CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18/91 L8 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (MASONRY) 9/18/91 l9 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (FENCING) 9/18;99 L10 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (FENCING) 9/18/99 L11 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (SffE FURNISHINGS) 9/18/99 L71A CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (SITE FURNISHINGS) 9/18/99 L 12 IRRIGATION PLAN 9/18199 L12A IRRIGATION PLAN 9118199 L 13 IRRIGATION PLAN 9118/91 L13A IRRIGATION PLAN 9!18/91 L14 IRRIGATION PLAN 9118/91 LISA RECLAIMED WATER NOTES 9/18!91 L 16 IRRIGATION DEFAILS 9/18/91 L16A RECLAIId ED WATER flIRRIGATION DETAILS 9/18191 L17 IRRIGATION DETAILS 9/16!91 L18 IRRIGATION HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS 9118/91 . L19 TREE, VINE & GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 L19A TREE, VINE 8 GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18191 L20 TREE, VINEBGROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18191 L20A TREE, VINE&GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 L21 TREE, VINEBGROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18!91 L21A TREE, VINEBGROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/10/91 L22 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9118/99 L22A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18!99 L23 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9118/91 L23A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9118/91 L24 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18!91 L24A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18/91 L26 PLANTING LEGEND AND DRAINAGE DETAILS 9/18191 L26A PLANTING LEGEND AND DRAINAGE DETAILS 9/18198 L26 PLANTING DETAILS AND NOTES 9!18199 L27 STRUCTURAL DETAILS AND NOTES 9118/99 K1 FOOD SERVICE EOUIRMENT PLAN & 6CHEDULE 9/18!91 K2 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT BASE & REFRIGERATION FLAN 9/18/91 K3 FppD SERVICE EQUIPMENT PLAN MECHANICAL PLAN 9/18!99 K4 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN 9/18/99 KS FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT PLAN 9/18/99 K6 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT BASEBREFRIGERATION PLAN 9ii8l99 H7 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT MECHANICAL PLAN 9118191 KB FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN 9!18:95 KD 1 FOOC SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9118/91 KD 2 FWD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/18'91 KD3 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/16/99 K04 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/18/99 - Attachment "A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 • Page 8 of 10 DRAWING S• PART B -ANIMAL CARE FACILITY SH~~T NO. c-ra=rim F _ LATEST DATE~REVISON T-1 TITLE SHEET 9/16!91 C-1 CROSS SECTIONS/NOTES 9177!91 C-2 GRADING PINJ 4!17/91 A•1 SITE PLAN 9!18191 A-2 PLAZA PLAN 9/18/91 A-3 CODE ANALYSIS 9!18/91 A-4 FLOOR PLAN 9!18!91 A-5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18!91 A-6 BUILDING SECTIONS 4/18!81 A-7 EXTERIOR ELEVATION ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS 8 TYP. TOILET FIXTURE/EQUIPMENi 9/18191 A-B ENLARGED LOB6Y COUNTER, KENNELS, FLOOR TILE PATTERN 6 DETAILS 9!16/91 A-9 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9118!91 A-10 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A-11 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9!18!91 A-12 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4/16!91 A-13 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4/18!81 A-t4 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18!41 • A-18 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 4!18!91 A-76 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A-17 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18!41 A-18 ROOF PLAN 9!18141 A-14 DOOR 8 WINDOW SCHEDULES 9/18,'91 A-20 DETAILS 9!16!91 A-21 DETAILS 4/18!81 A-22 DETAILS 9/16/91 A-23 DETAILS 9118/91 A-24 DETAILS 9/18!91 A~28 DETAILS 4!78!41 K-1 FLOOR PLAN 8 SCHEDULE 9/18/91 K-2 EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/18191 S-1 GENERAL NOTES AND TYP. DETAILS 9/18/91 S-2 TYPICAL DETAILS 9/18!91 5.3 TYPICAL DETAILS 9!18191 S-4 FOUNDATION PLAN 9/78/91 S-8 ROOF FRAIdING PLAN 9!18/91 S~6 SECTIONS 4/78!91 S-7 SECTIONS 9118191 S•8 ELEVATIONS 9118!91 S~9 DETAILS 9/18!91 5-10 DETAILS 9!18!91 S-it DETAILS 9/76181 M-1 SCHEDULE, NOTES, DETAILS AND CONTROLS 9!78191 M-2 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN 9116!91 ' ` A»achment"A" ~' Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complelc'Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 • Page 9 of 10 gHE ET NO ,9-E£llIIlE f ATFST DATFrRE VISION P-1 PLUMBING LEGEND, SCHEDULES, NOTES 8 DETAILS 9/18/91 P-2 PLUMBING SITE PLAN 8 DETAILS 911 8/91 P-3 PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN 9118!91 P-4 PLUMBING ROOF PLAN 9118191 E-1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 8 SYMBOL LIST 9/18/91 E-2 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM, DETAILS 8 SPECS 9/18!91 E-3 ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PLAN 8 FIXTURE SCHEDULE 9/18/91 E-d ELECTRICAL POWER PLAN 8 PANEL SCHEDULES 9/18191 E-6 ROOF PLAN 9118!91 L 1 COVER SHEET 9/17/91 L 2 IRRIGATION PLAN AND LEGENDS 9/17!91 L 3 IRRIGATION DETAILS 9/17/91 L 4 RECLAIMED WATER NOTES 9/17!91 L 5 PLANTING PLAN 9117(91 L 6 PLANTING DETAILS AND NOTES 9/17/91 SP ECIFICATIONS: Volume 1 of 3 • 'BIDDING DOCUMENTS, COMRACT FORMS AND GENERAL REQUIREMENTS' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PARTA•SPORTS COMPLEXAND • PART B- ANIMAL CARE FACILITY, CITY OF RANCHO GUCAMONGA, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. Date of Issue: SEPTEMBER 16, 1991 Part A Prepared by: GRILLIAS.PIRC.ROSIER.ALVES 4940 Irvine Blvd. Suite 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Part R Prepared by: WoYf/LangrCMislopher, Archreds 10420 Foothill Blvd. Fancho Cucamonga, CA 97730 Volume 2 0l 3 - 'SPECIFICATIONS (DIVISIONS 2 THROUGH 16)" FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PART A -SPORTS COMPLEX, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, bate of Issue: SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 FarlAPrepared by: GRILLIAS.PIRC.ROSIER.ALVES 4940 Irvine Blvd. SuOe 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Volume 3 of 3 • 'SPECIFICATIONS (DIVISION52THIi0UGH 16)' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PART B- ANIMAL CARE FACILITY, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. Dzte of Issue: SEPTEMBER 19, 1991 Fart B Prepared by: WoNlrLang~Chrislopher, Architects 10420 Foolhitl Blvd Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Atlachment'A' Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Comp!ex/Animal Care Facility • November 21, 1991 Page 10 of 10 AMENDMENTS ADDENDUM NO. tAB, dated October 15, 1991 containing 21 pages and 35 attachments. ADDENDUM NO. 2, dated October 17, 1991, containing 2 pages and 5 attachments. ADDENDUM NO. 3, dated October 23, 1991, containing 1 page. "' Erd of Attachment A"' • ~ ~ SECTION 6 -SPECIAL PROVISIONS Subcontract No. 7 ~ $ 3 Fags 1 of 2 The provisions of Lhis Atta chcent 'B' are in addition to all other terms and conditions of Lhis subcontract, and shall not serve to limit or reduce their effect. 1. Subcontractor shall keep competent and sufficient supervision satisfactory to the Contractor on the work zt all times in which work is or should De in progress, in accordance with the Contractor's progress schedule. 2. Provitle name, address and emergency telephone number of respons iDle company official. Name RICHARD ALARCON Address Phone No. 714-261-9935 3. Subcontractor shall ma in to ir. work in a neat, clean, and orderly condition at all tices and shall remove debris, rubbish, and excess materials resulting from work ' under this agreement as St occurs. Subcontractor's failure to co¢~ply will be construed as authorization for the Contractor to provlde cleaning services at Subcontractor's expense. • y. Subcontractor shall furnish all saapies, shop drzwings, schedules, and descrip- tive literzture in accordance with the specifications within ample lice to allow for check Sng, and to prevent any delay due to lack of approval. All submittals requiring approval shall be certified by Subcontractor's authorized representative as meeting the plans and specifications, or any and all variances shall be clearly defined at the time of submission. Within two (2) weeks of the Subcontract date, Subcontractor shall submit to the Contractor a complete schedule of all samples, shop drawings and other submittals which will require approval, showing anticipated su Dmit tal date and required lead time after zppreval for ordering, fzbri cation and delivery of all material. SuDcon tract or shall promptly report to Contractor any devia tlon from this schedule and when requested by Contractor, shall furnish confirmation of scheduled deliveries. 5. Subcontractor shall deliver to the Contractor five (5) working days prior to the last working day of the month, invoices for current month's work. Invoices shall be accompanied by P.e leases and Waivers of Lien. FAILURE TO CON3LY MAY RESULT IN OMISSION OF PAYMENT REQU-cST TO THE O'rv'NEA FOR SAID PERIOD. 6. Subcontractor agrees to furnf sh a Material Safety Data Sheet (NSDS) for each hazardous suDS Lance to be used at the jobsite in the performance oT SuDCOn- tractcr's work. Sobcontra ct or shall deliver the NSDS to Contractor's superin- tendent PRIOR to bringing any hazardous substance onto the Sobsite. 7, Subcontractor shall furnish all temporary facilities required for his own work. Such temporary facilities shall be located where directed by the Contractor's Protect Superintendent. SF113 Rev. 12 /B9 ., ~ r SECTION 6 - SPECIAL PA OVISIONS ATTA CcILNT `B` Subcontract No. 7 ~ 8 3 Pafie 2 of 2 B. Subcontractor shall obtain and pay for all permits and licenses required for his ea:n work, and De responsible for securing from any zuth on ty hzv ing juri stliction ever it, in epe ct ions and approval of his work as required by the job schedule. 9. Within Len (10) days Subcontractor shall provide the Contrs ctor with a certificate of Wcrke is Compensation Irsur znce. Within ten (10) tlays Subcontractor shall provide Contractor with a certificate of Compr else,,^s ive General LisDi lity (Snclu ding Automobile) in sor znce with policy limits of not less than E500,000 as to each person and X1,000,000 as to each occurrence for botlily injury and personal injury 1SaDility, antl SSDD,DDD property damage liability for each occurrence, or for not less than $7,000,000 if on a coabir,ed single limit Dasi s. The insurance or policies shall contain the following provisions: (I) A nzming of the Owner, Architect, antl Co: tract or, its directors, officers, and empl cyees, as additional insureds by use of Standard In sarance Service Office Form GL2009 or its equivalent. (I T) A separate provision that the insurance afforded to the adds tional insured Ss primary insurance snd that any ether insurance ma in to fined Dy the add Stional insureds is excess and not contributing insurance with the insurance so provided Dy the Subcontractor. • (III) Coverage for the following, which must De on an OCCL'A RENCE basis: (a) Premises and Operations Liability (b) Cortractu al liability insuring the oDl igatiors assumed by the Subcontractor in this subcontract. (o) Completed Operations and Protlucts Liability (d) Broatl Form Property Damzge Liability (e) Liability which Subcontractor may .near as a result of the operations, acts, or omissions of its subcontractors. (f) Automobile liability, including evened, non-evened, and hired automobiles. (g) ALU Cove rzge for Explosion, Collapse, and Underground Naza rds. 70. Sabc ontractor acknowledges that Contractor has entered Sn to haster Labor Agree- ments, through Contractor's memDe rsh ip in th_ U,0.C. snd A.I. A, covering work at Contractor's jobsites with the following labor unions: Carpenters; Cement has era; LaD orers; Teamsters; Operating Engineers snd Iron Workers, Subcontractor agrees that paragraph two, lines one through six of General Subcontract Pr ov iSions J is hereby replaced by the foregoing. SFtt3 Aev. 72 /B9 Attachment"C" Special Provisions Alternatives • December 4, 1991 Subcontract No.7083 Page 1 of 3 1) The folbwing Alternative-Bid Items, described in Section 01100 - ARematives and Separate Prices, are not included in the preceding Base Bid Lump Sum Amoums and are to be incorporated into the work of the Contrail ony upon specific acceptance of the Agency. Days in parentheses are calendar days from Notice to Proceed during which Agency may accept respective Alternatives. A. Alternatives Relative to Part A -Sports Complex Anernative Nt • YCndten EQuipment (90 Days) Add E O Anemat'rve M2 • Scgeboads (120 Days) Add E a Anemative N3 -Precast Conrxete Cap al Peringer Masarry Wak (60 Days) Am __ _ a ~ Akernativa N4 - Stadlxn Seazing al Srr~l erxd Soccer Fxitls (120 Days) • Am a a Anernazive NS • Tree Grates (30 Days) Anernative N8 - S[adium Seating with Cup Holders (Right an0 Lett Grandstands) (240 Days) Anemative N7A - Reclaimed Water Mains (30 Days) AAernative x78 - Reclalned Water Inipa+ion System (ii0 Days) Anernative MB -camera Plaster soffit Under Seating structure (GrardstaM Concourse) (270 Days) S ~ E a E_ o E o E b Anernativa N9.Outdoes Cafe Area, Cgvxssion Stand, Bullet Canopy, Picnic Area, Td Lq, Bokard L'gMirp and Barbeque Grill (90 Days) Ad1 s a Anernative M10 - Inlerlockirq Pavers (80 Days) Adt E ~ AriachmeM'C" Special Provisions Akernatives • December 4, 1991 Subcontract No.ZQ~!' Page 2 of 3 AternazHe M7 Y - Thely-six ircb Box Trees (120 Days) AnemMive X12 -Twenty-tart irxdl Box Trees (~ 20 Days) Alternative X13 - Five•galbn Scrubs (190 Days) Anemative N14 -Hybrid Bermuda Sod at S[adiun Feb (180 Days) s a Add S 4 Attemative X15 • Restroom Building (90 Days) Add s a anernative Nis - SAe signage (1 zo Days) Atterrytive N17 • Lockers and Benches (270 Days) Add E O Atternaiive X78 • Grarxistand Flagpce (270 Days) aeL s a AAernative X19 -Corridor Ceiling Banles (180 Days) AAernatfve X20 -Finish Carpentry arxf Casexak (270 Days) Pdcl E ~ AMemative X21 -Metal Facia (120 Days) Akt1 ~ E -0~ AAemative X72 - GLued CMU, Vinyl Wall Covering, and Cast Stone Molding (t 20 Days) nm s a Anernative X23 -Slid Polyrner-plastic Toilet Pannions (270 Days) Adz s a C Attachment'C" Special Provisions Alternatives • December 4, 1991 Subcontract No.7083 Page 3 of 3 Akemative x24 -Plaza Benches (60 Days) Alternative x25 - Metatine Field Lighting Falwe (60 Days) Alternative x26 -Stadium Concouse Light Fodue (270 Days) 5 a TOTAL, ALTERNATIVE BID AMOUNTS, PART A -SPORTS COMPLEX DOLLARS S a B. Alternatives Relative to Part B -Animal Care Facility AkernaUve x78 -Reckoned Water Irrigation System (60 Days) • TOTAL, ALTERNATIVE BID AMOUNTS, PART B- ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 2) Subcontractor agrees to comply with all Labor and Prevailing Wage requirements of the Prime Contract as called forth but not limited to, Section 00010 and 00800 of the Project Manual. ' ' 'End of Attachment "C" ' ' ' 7 C • Attachment'D" Special Provisions Decembef 4, 1991 Subcontract No.7083 Page 1 of 1 A) As described in Atachment "B" hereto, pages 1 and 2 of 2, which forms an integral part of this agreement B) As described in Attachment "C" hereto dated December 4, 1991, pages 1 through 3 of 3, which forms an integral part of this agreement. C) Subcontractor excludes the cost of the following: 1) Permits. 2) Fees. 3) Engineering. 4) Survey. 5) Haulaway. 6) Bond Costs. 7) Ilemohtion. S) Remosals. 9) Abandonments. ] O) Soils testing costs 11) ConsWction water costs. 12) Wateroontrol. • 13) Fiosion control. 14) Perforated drain pipe. 15) Trench drains. 16) Aspha]I resurfaring. I'1) Site drainage work indicated on Grading Plans which is not identified in the Storm Rain Improvement Plans. D) Subcontrctor agrees to leave excess utility spoils adjacent to site ufiiity trenchside. E) Subcontractor's contract sum is based on utilizing native material for pipe bedding and back-filling. F) All of the above as it pertains to the work of Savala Constr. Co., as set forth in its bid dated October 24, 1991, and only to the extent of Savala Constr. Co.'s work. ~~ •' • End of Attachment "D" •' EXHIBIT H 5s lJ :. cons~rtc~ ton 77 77 December 9, 1991 Mr. Leonard Savala Savala Construction Co. 16402 East Construction Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Re; Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/Anima] Care Facility Bemards Bros. Job No. 964 Subcontract No. 7D83 Dear Leonard: • t1'e are returning your copy of Subcontract A'o. 7083, unexecuted, and your insurance certificates. The modicicaNons you made are unacceptable to us. We do not have an agreement. Please call us if you have any quesNolu. cerely, ER.'QA DS B OS. CONSTRUC71ON 1 n D. Sh d ojed bfanager SDS:Imr Enclosures as noted ]2 fIR 91 r-___- i Via Fax (letter onl}•) and First Class Mail !7741552-8597 16_57 $g78 361 9208 BER\iRDS BR45. ttNlttttHitRttlHtlt{Rttf tts ACTT TITI' REPORT xtt utrttattt ttttartt•tatratu 7Ra\9NI5510\' OH T1 RX \0. 8600 D\'.'EC7101 iEL fdnni EXHIBIT I y~ Berna~ds Bros. Constr( lion 't December 9, 1991 Mr. Tany L Smith, Superintendent Park Planning & Development The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 CSvic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Rancho Cucamonga Sports ComplexJAnimal Care Facility Hemazds Bros. Job No. 964 Site Utilities Dear Mr. Smith: N'e have received back the subcontract we issued b Savala Construction for the • site utilities xs orkscope. As noted in our letter to you of December 4, 199], they have modified the site utilities subcontract language so as to exclude the water dis[n~bution cope from the base subcontract amount of 5798,000. The value of this component of work is in excess of 5200,000. N'e therefore request relief pwsuant to the provisions identified in ow letter to you of Dezember 4, 1991. Ylease conuct us i1' you have any questions V rv irul fours, BER.'~rA DS BItOS.CO.\'STRUCTION s ~tt~ ~~L ject hTanager S S:lnv Via Fax and First Class A9ai1 714.987.6499 a: Sava]a Construction 714.552-8597 a~ , Chino Engineering Conswctars 114.597.1295 ESC i.e~ 5'ree~ Sep Fe•nbeoo. Ga''a~x S15np (e•a, 5iE 4E:3 (E'6, E?E'Sr~ F.~ ;E tE' y2pc L¢ GJ1G^) ~~ ~ .>inoiot t6,st ~~4S81e ]81~ 9208 ~~ ~~ BEA\ARDS BROS. ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~001 •arrts ussusn •faus ossss ss• .ACTII']T'1' REPORT fss tf ff tr Ytf aff ff isffvfttfft 7R{C 59155105 OR TI/RE 50. 9660 CO\T'EC77 OS TEL 11145528699 CO\?FQIOS ID 5T{RS 71tlE 12/09 ]6:58 CSAGE TI!!E 0]'21 P1GE5 2 RE SC LT OR 12%09,'91 16:6b $818 961 9208 BERS,{RD5 BROS. X001 ssts rfffxsf sf sssf •xses rs•f• fy ACTIt'IT5' REPORT tff a rtta srxssxsu»»:n•ssafs TR8~5N165I05 OR Tl~RE S0, 9661 CO\SECT]OS TEL 171d59 11295 COSFECTI OS ID CEC START TINE ]2 09 16:55 I5{GE TINE 00'58 PAGES 1 RE SC LT OK ]2. 091 91 15:41 $618 b96 4909 BER\'{ROS EST. tx nrss:cx naxsf rrattxsu fs xaf AC71 I'I Tl' REPURT ss! f SiARi H tt ff xf fli tirf HLlit TRA~S9I55IOS OR TS SRI S0. 5105 COS)EC71 D\ TEL 171 d9b 76488 C 0~'~EC710S ID ST.eRT TIRE 12/09 15:10 USAGE 7INE 00'J! PAGES 1 RESI'LT DR 0'001 EXHIBIT J ~~ ~~Berjyard¢ Bros. Consteu~'on December 12,1991 Dlr. Tarry L Smith, Superintendent Pazk Penning & Development The Cittyy of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Ciric Center Ihive Rzncho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Rancho Cucamonga Spore Complex/Animal Care Facility Bemards Bros. Iob No. 964 Savala Constmction Co. Dear Mr. Smith: Savala Construction Co, has failed to accept and sigp the Standard Form Subcontraq that we recently mailed to it. Rather, Savala has modified the • Subconoact by deleting the water portion of the site utilities work Please allow this letter to serve as our request for a public hearing on our request for a substitution of Savala Construction C'o, as our listed site utilities subcontractor, in favor of Chino Engineering Constructors inc., based upon (l) Savala Conswctlon Co.'s failure to sign and return our Subcontract, and (2) our inadvertent error in listing Sava]a Construction Co. in our formal bid m the City. Piease con!act us if you have any questions. CONSTRUCTION Via Pax 714.987.6499 & Certified Mail No. P 754 306 099 a: Savza Construction (Via Fan 714.552.5597 & ' Certified Dlail No. P 754 306 ]00) Chino Construction (Via Fax 714.597.1295 b First Class Mail) 6~0 ~e 5^eet 52'~F=•na~~tlo Ca'+o~~~e 9'~3en ,6'6; 3'.`96x5 iE'E, E9E~'E2t ic,X iE'e 3:'9<CB l¢572JDr "12/12/81 15:03 $B1B 361 8208 BER~'.4RD5 HRO S. ~ 00 12/]9:91 09:48 $818 361 8208 BER~'.4RD5 BRD$. 3no ieaaaasn nrasaessaetarsaxt ssr .4CTIPITI' REPORT au airaatss n•u ssasi»aerresr TR.4.~'SMISSIO\' OR 7X/RE \'0. 8601 CO\'\T'CTIO\ TEL 11148878499 CO\SECTIO\ ID START TIME 12/13 08:47 C54GE TIME 00'38 PAGES 1 RF_SL'LT OK 12 X12.91 15:17 $818 361 9208 BERG.{RDS BROS. 00 aeasrxu reaessaaasaaa r. sssr sas .4CT ll'I T1' REPORT •si sesr n seaaaarasaaa urr: a ar I 7R4\StlIS5301 OK TX RS \'0. 8788 CO~SECT IO\ TEL ]T145871295 C0~]ECT10~ 1D CEC START TIKE. 12/12 Iu:1B I S4GE T1ME 01']8 P.4 GE5 1 - RESL LT OK taitri a i riitt as lttatiiaf ass MULTI 7R4.~5.4CT10\ REPORT sae •rsaaasssarasisn arxaastas toa n roar TX~RX \0. 9i86 ISCOMPLETE 7S/Rd ~ TR.~\SACTI05 OR 17145526587 171498Sfi499 ERROR 11145971285 • • a ~ ' 38 ~~a° [??9Mro Hems t mtl 3 wMn vOdlLonel yrvices ~r~,ddreMq tM "pEfDflN TD' $pipe h ere rlesimtl, and complete ilanu t rt on t e rweree I ~ tre4olrotvriMNyou. Tile ret ea I wll ravb¢ ~ Fw rone vec itle. Tailors ro do tNS will tNe lvme olt prevent t5is urd~ Ison tleliwrcd a M m m •q urvixs a t, L]~Slotvlo e,tlomadGtwlrrvivesl!e~seed ~ peetrn,ner r ees ' rawl~ive, edd ... ~~ svs. Z. p cMnrimO Ue1mN 3. iltOVle 11dd¢pyd tp: I ff°^r dsersvl _ :" '~~~T+[ry 7.. Sei[h, Sup u ~ 1. Articb Nssnsber P 754 306 099 ' ta„>.a S 6 Develttp~ ~1'he Cit Tyoue of Setrra: ~ y of Rancho Cucamosigt~. ^ b.,,r.e u pepi¢n^d ( 1050D Civic Centet Drive ( ~ `~ce"d1pd l7 coD ' " 7 ! P.O. Boa 807 ~' ~„ ~`r. ^ Eepec. M,6 ^ p.mm q,cN br ModynEi.¢ "" Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 i q'Wer•om.ie ep,,,m„m.en,e,w, .•+.. ' S. Sipn,ture - gddressee or ,pmt ,M DgTE DnIVEAED. X 6, gOOreueeb qGd vss (ONLY iJ 1fQ1eAed °"d7 Widl 6. Sipnc[ure went t X G/) Ilj 7. Dne slivery ~GU-°. ~ ! Pa fam 3811. Apr. 1969 . ~, .ue.cgo. eeu¢seau . DOMESTIC gETDgN gECEIPf :. .ed el services are deein u e;d¢. q,6~,e m ae t de urns nemepl no US 61e eyeld ^ Ivuretl O coo Peru n q cw for Merc~mi a2 ar,ddl„e,e . Pc .ue.c oD tMp.ms,ss . ~ mow w whom deE..mee, ee(e, ana ,ac. ,e see rEn.u rM.prl 3. Article Atltlressed so: Mr. Leonard Savala ~ Savala Construction Co. 16402 East Construction Circle (--.-..T~~.,,q ( Irvine, CA 92714 'NLS ~:i",~ ~ ' - .4tr ~'./ ' Ci 4 y 5. Sipn v _ gddre e ~x ~ & atur¢ _ pent x `~ 7. Dete o1 Deliv I ~ Form 381 q Iggq EXHIBIT K god 11 .u 51 EY~aO A ,~vre,cre nn •. ni ... n~.n~n .- ~.,VRQAS ~~~~~~ • SECTION Otl)(ll • 51JBCOLTRACIORS to mmpliaacz with the proYis ions of the PubOc Contnn Cade $c.,.lon uro, Ore aodenigned bidder berewi~D sea foM Nc name and lcradon of the p6~ o! Easiness of each sut+nntnnos who will perform Work or Ubor or render senior to lht gcn[ral CennanOr 111 of ab0al the cOr3tTL[1nn D( ILe WOfk nr improvtrranl N an amoum N excess o(ooe~h¢Vt~eer, id t5e li nion 1 she wsrk whkh ti besdoaetb W or tea thous+nd doturs (SID,000), whichever is ~ Po wch wbmntractor as follows. P; ovide scpantely idestifirA Ihts for Pan A - $pons Complex and Pan B - Animal Cate F+cillry. Subcontnttors who Witl wrork o" both Daru shall M ide"n5c-0 on each list Pbcc of BmNw Dcscriptlou o! Wort end (Addreas A Phone) Pcresht (`yr) of Toul Bfd Subcoatnnor'a Name S ltc Demo, Parthwcrk Rgr9tyV 5` `JiM 51 -E3 u IrrlxacSon, Landscape ~~~ ,~ '~I5q~.7~'6 P.th. Flelda Vp~ y Gr+-res-r i ASya (41Ip)334-2357 51te coot rece C L ~ Co.~ c . , ~... ._._ ~ I eA9 _2'12,3 A.C• Paving (r _~V, _~y,.,(P.eln foreleg St¢¢1 '-` G'ACp.>1Mtta7o Clio 371 -b3oT Structural Prec set Concrete I ]•zGp s.1 11 • tv Arch. Precast Concrete 29q - t..i4.z3 B-R-+nKa ai.•r.ctsJ'~w 7~-¢E.}NO ., .Dory - 5[ruc rural 6 Y.is: Steel F1n1ah Carpentry Wr}tTr~~ Rr~ka-stoR. T ~ 1- 14 0 _ ~ ~ s. p ~2r_n „145• Ent, Sturef rent 6 '.:lnd ewe C4 ~`fi q~TOwl ~~0~a.a~aa'wa 2~~ +.--.~01 Lath/Plaster/Fl reproof /le;z.'nll Ps int log d t;s11<ever fog Gra ~T'ctZ~i.l- McWt ~ - ~v~ ~ ~ - - .a1 ~i[s 334'~~I Flum6ing M~YP.aWD 1"'zy~?_ ,F~(a~ ~I ~~I.-.~~21 S1te Utlltrles Ls.rn.s m. ~4 L a' C n,surt dt3 l.tt.rt~n~y ctNa~~ o oP _ El etc ri cal____, "10 l O Subrnnuanon Pan A. Sporu CnmplcuPan B ~ Animal Grc Facility (8303.1 Ciy of IL nchcs CLamonga t'olume 1 0l 3 Rancho Cucamonga, Gtlbrnfa u, z. ~Yi r-~ n .... ,,.. •o ..~,.,. ....~~.,. • SECf7CN 0^J03 ~ SL'HCO:."IR/.CiOAS in coa•pliaos wish Ne pro~siom of the Public Gsnvatt Cod< Settioo 4100, Uc undc rsigned bidder 6e rewi;6 sc tt forth U,e name and for uon of ~Ee p'ars of business of e:eE submcrn not wbo wti {K rform work or Dbor or render uni¢ ro the genml contractor in or about tEc mm wruoe o1 the work or w,pros<menr in an amDUm In cecea of ooe•h+lt o! one peram (1R5[) of the general anntnnor's mul bid of len tEOUSand doll+n (S I0,0]~), wNcEevet is greater, and the ponion of she wbtk which will he dace by rich submntnnor as foUews. Preside sepanml} ideomficd tiro (or Pan A • Stuns Comple+aed Pan B Anem+l Grc Fa ciL'ry. Submnvagon who will work oa boW pare SEaC be idcudfird on cash W4 Fva of EusL~w Dcsaiptsop of Work and Submntraaar'a Name (Address 4 Pbone) Pcrreot (%) of Toul Bid `~9(-7 549 98acher ;eating Sc.,T N,=_~ca Qaz.~sV -~ opo _ caaa G ti •~Cx-~s-wit Y6r4cws-A. l}S'1~"~77~+t"l c. ~?'a rr~!~1. ~R-k/saE ~14.514•'iEoy_eaP St~aVt<.G ALLOa..a {~vr~sloe "7(fr~S-58'14 l=r~,,,4f,~~ . 5r1~_ ~-rg"•Fvt.a_~aaro.J"1j44t-o1s~IG,u~-~-s~,..n,r.! CtiD GF DOCL^.~\T Pert A ~ Sporss Comb I<CTan E • Ar.i~al Cas< Fa Miry SuGconcannis Ciq of R+nc'EO CLra mange OiiQ) 1 Ren<ho Cl~a mong+, C~Idornu Polumc I of ) THORPE AND THORPE SAVALA CONSTRUCTION CO. AND BERNARD BROS. CONSTRUCTION EXHIBIT BINDER CpinE C.nE e.voO CHUC¢ L g µ O F F I C E 5 'N cP•J OPE SS =°~la~w'"W"E5 THORPE AND THORPE, • POGER C. GLEE 4xE sao o•[5.-v n_:Cn: ~-q~p„ LCSp OFF EdOM1191] aL Li50N M rvOLOORRq NGEL E S. CR 99~J.09J] nvo Ke:aNE qcg eCCa x. L[55LEV ONE BUNKER NIL L, EiGNTH FLO OR "ELEC O^6R 601 WEST FIFTH STREET I]ul sea ]oso BBUCEH V~g ANEV SOS ANGELE S.CAUFORNIA 9001-?09a -" L'pF N„ W gLEnSF. PEi ER 10 1 EW J HERO (21J1680-99<0 ~ (8186]8-0600 OVq RUE NO S1 aN LEVH SPynE R, Sin PxQ ROBE RTJ SJ.Z9 p.'.H 5 SlIN 50T ~Np4VJi aGE mvNG incq>e• 82109.201 p~N ~ENi W 'v:I+q E• HERGER'1 O,N EP Rp' ROBE Ri n POGE95.JP ~~N aL]G pnVS January 2, 1992 Mr. James Markman General Counsel Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California Re: Savala Construction/ Bernards Brothers Rancho Cucamonga Snorts Complex/ Animal Care Facilit~R • Dear Mr. Markman: Bernards Brothers' ("Bernards") request to substitute another site utilities contractor for Savala Constr. Co. ("Savala") is improper and should be rejected. In this letter, we will briefly outline the background of this controversy, and highlight the reasons why this substitution request should be denied, referencing the exhibits offered with this letter. First of all, we should remember that as a rule substitutions are barred in public jobs; only limited, narrow exceptions to this rule exist. Bernards must prove that its request fits within the narrow confines of one of these exceptions, and then that it followed the steps required to perfect its claim to this extraordinary remedy. Bernards c h ins relief on two bases: 1) Public Contract Code Section 4107 (a)(1), which allows substitution where a listed subcontractor unreasonably refuses to sign a subcontract, and 2) Public Contract Code Section 4107 (a)(5), which permits substitution in cases of inadvertent clerical error where the general contractor has noticed its intent to substitute within two days of prime bid opening. t7e ithar provision applies to this dispute. First, .Savala Mr. James Markman January 2, 1992 • Page 2 did not refuse to sign a subcontract; in fact, on December 6, 1991, it did so and returned the executed subcontract to Bernards. Bernards' draft contract included work which was not included within Savala's lump sum bid; the fact that the agreement was corrected to conform to the bid should not and does not provide Bernards the right to substitute. Notably, Savala did not refuse to perform the extra work requested; rather, it agreed to do so pursuant to Bernards' extra work procedure. Second, as to its claim of clerical error, Bernards did not act within the time required by law, which deprives it of the right to substitute on this basis. Rather than act promptly, as the law requires, Bernards waited until after it had locked in the job by signing the prime contract to raise its claim of clerical error; this delay renders PC 41D7.5(a)(5) relief unavailable. The evidence that follows reveals the following sequence of events: 10-24-91 - Savala bid submitted. 11-06-91 - Bernards awarded contract. • 11-18-91 - Bernards signs prime contract. 11-18-91 - Bernards requests cut in bid price; request refused. 11-19-91 - Bernards notifies Savala and agency that it intends to substitute a non-minority contractor, for Savala on basis of "inadvertent clerical error". 11-22-91 - Savala files Yormal objection, with supporting affidavits, with agency. 12-04-91 - Apparently abandoning "clerical error" claim, Bernards forwards proposed subcontract tc Savala, adding water distribution system not included in Savala bid in bid price; on same day Bernards advises agency that it does not expect Savala to sign contract and requests substitution pursuant to PC 4107 (a)(1). 12-Oe-91 - Savala corrects subcontract to conform to bid and executes it; agrees to do water distribution system pursuant to price determined pursuant to Sect,i on E oP ,e neral Conditions of subcontract. Mr. James Markman January 2, 1992 • Paqe 3 12-12-91 - Bernards renews substitution request claiming Bavala refused to sign a subcontract and inadvertent clerical error. As extensively discussed in our prior correspondence (included herein as Exhibits 5, 6, 13, and 18) a primary purpose of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act is to "protect the public and subcontractors from the evils attendant upon the practice of bid shopping and bid peddling subsequent to the award of the prime contract for a public facility". Southern Cal. Acoustics Co. v. C.V. Holder Inc., (1969) 71 Cal. 2d 719, 726-27. Here, it was only after Bernards was awarded the job, the prime contract locked in, and Bernards demand to Savala to cut its bid price refused that a claim of "clerical error" emerged. It is thus improper, as well as technically late, and should be rejected. In your correspondence, you requested a submission of proposed findings for use in the event the request is rejected, as it should be; our proposals are listed below: After notice and public hearing on the request of Bernards • Brothers Construction Company ("Bernards") to substitute Chino Engineering constructors for Savala constr. Co., Inc. as site utilities subcontractor to Bernards for construction of the Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility for the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the Board finds as follows: 1) Bernards failed to request suhstitution of Chino Engineering Constructors for Savala Constr. Co. within two days cf the prime bid opening on 1a-24-91; 2) Bernards failed to request substitution of Chino Engineering Constructors for Savala Constr. Co. within two days of its award of the project on November 6, 1991; 3) Bernards request to su 6stitute pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4107(a)(5), first made by correspondence dated November 19, 1991, is thus untimely pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4107.5, and is denied. 4) Savala Constr. Co, signed a subcontract agreement for the work described above on November 6, 1991, and returned same to Bernards on that date. 5) Bernards request to substitute pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 4107(a)(1), providing relief in the event a listed subcontractor refuses to execute a subcontract, is thus without me r. it, and is denied. Mr. James Markman January 2, 1992 Page a Savala Constr. Co. stands ready to supply to the Hearing OFf icer and the Board any further information it may require in the disposition of this matter. Very truly yours, Mark R. Stapke THORPE AND THORPE MRS:gv • EXHIBIT # DESCRIPTION 1 Correspondence from Rick Gomez to the Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment Agency, dated November 6, 1991; Letter dated November 12, 1991 from Tarry Smith to Jeff Bernards, formally advising of award of contract 2 Letter from Savala Constmction Co. to Scott Shald, dated November 18, 1991 3 Letter from Bernards Bros. Construction to Tarry L. Smith, dated November 19, 1491 4 Letter from Bernards Bros. Constmction to John Lydoff, dated November 19, 1991 5 Letter from Thorpe and Thorpe to Jeffrey Bernards, dated November 20, 1991 6 Letter from Thorpe and Thorpe to Tarry L. Smith, dated November 20, 1991 7 Letter from Thorpe and Thorpe to Tarry L. Smith, dated November 25, 1991 8 Affidavit of Leonard Savala, dated November 25, 1991 Exhibits included: A) Savala Construction Company's Bid, dated October 24, 1991 B) Dodge Construction News "Greensheet", dated November 6, 1991, listing Savala Constmction Co. as site utilities subcontractor 9 Affidavit of John Lydoff, dated November 25, 1991 Exhibits included: A) Savala Construction Company's Bid dated October 24, 1991 10 Letter from Savala Construction to Bemards Bros., dated December 4, 1991 11 Letter from Bemards Bros. to John Lydoff, dated December 4,1991 12 Letter from Bemards Bros. to Tarry L. Smith, dated December 4, 1991 13 Let[er from Thorpe and Thorpe [o Tarry L. Smith, dated December 4, 1991 14 Letter from Savala Constmction Co. to Bemards Bros., dated December 5, 1991 ] 5 Letter from Bemards Bros. Construction to Leonard Savala, dated December 6, 1991 16 Letter of Transmittal sheet from Savala Constmction Co. to Mr. Scott Shald, dated December 6, 1991 17 Letter from Savala Construction Co. [o Bemards Bros. Constmction, dated December 6, 1991 18 Letter from Thorpe and Thorpe to Tarry L. Smith, dated December 9, 1991 19 Affidavit of Leonard Savala, dated December 10, 1991 Exhibits included: A) Letter from Bemards Bros. Construction to Tarry L. Smith, dated December 4, 1991 B) Letter from Bemards Bros. Construction to John Lydoff, dated December 4, 1991 C) Draft subcontract agreement with transmittal, dated December 4, 1991 D) Executed Standard Form Subcontract, dated December 6, 1991 20 Letter from Savala Construction Co. Inc. to Bemards Bros. Inc., dated December 12, 1991 21 Letter from Bemard Bros. Constmction to Tarry L. Smith, dated December 12, 1991 7 22 Letter from Hensel Phelps Constmction Co. to Savala Constmction Co., dated January 2, 1992 23 Transmit of Confirmation Report 24 Page 1 of Savala Bid Sheet ~~ EXHIBIT I s • CITY QF RANCHO C:CC:Ah10NGA--- - RLDI?VELOPMF.NT AGENCY sTAF~ ~~~oxZ, bATE: November G, 1941 TO: Chairmen and Member:: of the Redevelopment Agency FROM: Rick Gomez, Director of Community and Park Development BY: Tarry L. Smith, Superintendent o! community and Perk Dwelopmant 5[iBJEC'D; AWARD AND E%F.Cl1TE CO;4TRACT FOR THE SPORTS COMPLEX AND ANIMAL SHELTER PROJECT $IIC_DMMENDA'f r_O11 That the Radovelopment Agency award and r.xecute the Sport• Complex and Animal Shelter Construction project contract to Bernardo Urother^ Construction, in the amount of $16,740,000 plus contingency. LjACRGA0011plANALYBI9 on October 2a, 1941, the bid opening was held £or the 6porte Complex and Animal Shelter construction project. Shirley Brothers of Pasadena wa• the apparent low bidder. During staff reeeareh, Shirley Brother was found to be non-rasponeive due to several procedural errors and with udvic• lrom tho City~s attorney, was declared a npn-YeepOnaiVe bid. The next lowest bidder is Bernardo Urothera with a bid oL $16,740,000. Th1^ is the base bid total for both the sports comp lax and the animal shelter. StaLL ie rocommendinq that the contract be awarded to Bernardo Arothcr• of San Fernando. Ao you will recall the oporta complex project will cover 42 acres and include threes (1) eoftbell fields, two (2) soccer fields, one ninety foot baseball hold, one Minor "A'~ league stadium and an animal sholter of 12,14b oquaro feat. Thv recreation tleld• are echoduled to be Completed by 6eptember, 1992, with the stadium and animal shelter opening in February of 1997. Tha City 19 hopeful of getting a Minor League team in the stadium ae well as using It f0Y •peciel •vent• such as eoneerts, etato end national tournaments and appropriets local events as they develop. i-~ submitted, Director/ot Community and Park Development ,. ~, ~ November 12, 1991 Cortlfied Mail: P-504-584-1<^0 .7 sff Hernarda Hernerde Brothers Construction a1o Ilex 3trset San Fsrnend o, California 97740 Dear Mr. HOrnarde; Wn are plaassd to inform you that on Novembor 6, 1991 thn City Council oL Rancho Cucamonga officially awarded the Sporte Complex, Animal Shelter contract to Aernerde Hrothsrs Construction Company. Three copioa of the agreement, which haw bscn forwarded to you, must bs signed end raturnsd with all required bonds and inauren_u • materiels within of teen (15) days from rsesipt of this notice. Aa this ie a time restricted projeet, Ws wou 10 epprnc Sate a sooner response timn if pcesible. You era hereby notitisd to proceed within fifteen (15) days from thf date of thie letter or earlier pending approval of your bond^ and insurance, we are also requesting any submittals on product approval at trite time ao as not to hold up the beginning of construction for s lock of approved product list. 'The City of Rancho Cucamonga is looking torward to working with you and putting togothsr s timely and succoasful project that our community Can ba proud of. It you should have any qusstionc, pisses feel tree to call ma et (714) 989-1851, •xt. 2170. Sihesrsly, CDMMlIN1TY~ANyD~}.P~ARK DEVEIAPMCNT /~~/ """ _ Tarry L. Smith 5uperintendsnt of Perk Planning and Dfvelopmsnt TLd/ko NOVOr Oen nisi Slrut ,~ COUn(, I~mQTOfN Diu nO Klltcm~ h10YOr Olrylp'n Wd!,OmJ A!eecntlw y: • _~t`i CO~nUTAmber FO m5101 WPp ni .ccv Lan. A!CR. City Mnnoyol ^ Cuunclme~nc;pl CI'~~~!ns J Buyaet ~~ ~ EXHIBIT 2 . ~~ ,1 I.~ 1 i ~~A.p',. ~. 11 ~V~l~ . CONSTRUCTION GO, INC. GENERAL ENGINE'nRING .:OVCh:1SEK 18, 1991 h!r. .icntt Shald Pc:'nards Dxothz xa Con .Cruc ti nn (,iU Zlez 5[rect San Fexna::do, CA 9:340-3»58 Dva,- Nr. Shald: Ycr ovr telephone convex sa Cion CF.is morning wine ni Ltg the Kancho Cucamonga Sport Complex. Please Forward a sub-COn [t'a ct agreer..ent, per ou: proposal, in order chat the s[orm drain plpc can Le ordered. Should you have any qucs [ions, please Feel free Co contact me Sincerely, • ~ r, ,~% John Lyde FE Es[Smator ., :,aa EXHIBIT 3 13 Bernards Bros, Construction • • 77 X77 Novembcr19,1941 Mr. Tarry L Snli~h, Superintendent Park Plamfiftg & Developmeot The Gty of Rancho Lycamooga 105W Civic Ccntu Drive Rancho CummonSa CA 91729 Re: Rancbo Cucamonga Sp~orts Complcx/Animal Care Facility Bernaz'ds IIros. Job No. 964 $ubcontr~aor listin¢ Ikaz Tarry: Pursuant w the provisions of Public Construction Code secdons 4107 (a) (~ and 41075, 13ernazds BrOt. Inc. hereby requests relief from its inadvertent clerical error in listing Savala Coostructiw Co. for the "site utilities" work on the above mfers~nced protect Banazds Bros. Ina actually intwded to Gst Chino F~rgineering Constructors Inc for tom work We are seodinQ copier 0f this noticC as requ'ued byy Secpon 41075 w both Savalz Construction Co. and Chino F.n~neering Consductots BERNARI7S BROS. CONS'T'RUCTION //Je / v G. Berna~ ds ~,Ya L~lcsident 7GB:1mr m Savala Construction Co. Inc. Clueo Fnpneaing Constructors Inc. certified B?996 643 3.6 Certifi.¢d BF 99G 643 317 Cia Fart and Gcrcifiad Mail to 011 Cartifad !fail BP754 306 092 EXHIBIT 4 ~~ Bern ards-Bros:.. ::Construcfiop :_`. .- _ .... . ,..: -. ..- .:--,. . ':-1Vovomberl•9e-1991=..::'.. _. --. _.. , Mr:7ohn Lydaff ~ .. .- - ~ - - -. .. -- _- ._ .. ' ~ Savata Consuvction Co. Inc. ... ~ - - ~ ~ ~ .... - ~ -' . . ' 164U1 East Canscuctioe Cucle - ~ -- .. Irvine, CA 92~I4 . Re: ' 'Rancho Cucamonga Sports Camplex/Animal CareFadliry ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ - 7ob No. 964 ~ ~ ~ - •- Subwntraciori'a;^~ I7car7ohn: .. _ - - ~ ~ Thauk you for your lntrer of November 18; 1991. ~Uufortunately, Your ., _ ___ confirmhig letter is in error. .. .. li i d d e a ng ay, we ma st As discussed with you and I~narJ Savala yester error and you are not tho low bidder. _ .. ~ ~ .., Please contact us if you have any'questiuns. ,~ ~ ~ .-, - .--,_ -~ CONSTRUCStON, . Via Fax and Fns[ Class Mail (714) 65t-0221 EXHIBIT 5 ~~ -a~.uE EV OO ~n u'o[ L q W U F G I c E 5 ;" q lv"_aw"`] THORPE AND THORPE '„rv OM GEE yp ,'.~•~oRE99 9C^a EP L. GLiEFNE .v>n-..[as-=~: o : ~c :aas[ss=~~ c»ca.- O 9~OR:icE 60;~`pa] . ~ -c c~a 'CWER VOELE 9. C.50.U~1-09a} .09a ' • .iCE Y. u:9iRN EY Euew ONE BLVKER MILL EIG HTN FLOOR '¢'.FCC VEER ya -*~Ew~.ERO 60; wE5T FIFTH BTgEET +~s LauvE \. mal epa•WO 4:q q LOS ANGELE S, CALIFORNIn 9CC],~ 5'AetE 2096 eCEEav SU [Z 9[c+ (01 J1660~99a0 ~ (e ]B)5]B~C 666 s So w p• En 9E aEe ER •a ..oR LE Mo ]cF wnV:r Rv " onnE . ~CEV' W :M..RO- [aB[c•: >^3ER'~ oCLER S^.R ....\.'.>G Jn viS November 20, 1991 Mr. Jeffrey Bernards 9ERNARDS BROS. CONSTRUCTloN 510 Ilex Street San Fernando, California 91340 Re: Savala constr. Co. bid on Rancho Cucamcnga sports Complex/Animal Care Facility Dear Mr. Bernards: We are in receipt of your letter of November 19, 1991. Your attempt to substitute another subcontractor for Savala Constr. • Co- ('Savala"), which was listed in the Bernards Bros. bid of October 24, 1991, is improper and untimely. More important, from the facts known to us, it appears that 9ernards Bros. made no "inadvertent clerical error" in listing our client. We know that the Bernards Bros. bid was accepted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 6, 1991 and that our client was listed as its site utilities subcontractor. In the week of November 6, 1991, Jerry of your office advised Mr. John Lydoff that "you have the job if we get it", suggesting that Bernards intended at the time of bidding, and afterwards, to use our client in the work of improvement. Under these facts, we believe that your claim of "inadvertent" clerical error must fail. You must know that, in order to prevent bid shopping and bid peddling, the Legislature has imposed stringent requirements on the substitution of listed subcontractors in public works jobs. See Southern California Acoustics Co. v. C.t'. Holder. Inc. (1969) 71 C.2d 719, 727. one of the most important of those requirements is that the general contractor diligently review his bid list within two days after the prime bid opening, and act within that time to set the record straight with the public entity and the affected subcontractors if a listing error is claimed. Here, you are not even close to compliance with the statutory requirements; not only does this lack of compliance Mr. Jeffrey G. Bernards November 20, 1991 Page 2 • render Public Contract Code Section 4107.5 relief unavailable to you, it will subject Bernards to liability for our client's profit in the ur.l ikely event that you Frevaii before the City in your request to substitute. See Coast Pu:ln Associates v Steohen Tvler Corn. (1976) 62 Ca1.Anp•7d 421, 423-27. Our client bid the work in good faith, was listed as your subcontractor at the listed orice, and assisted, through its competitive price and fine reputation in the trade, in Bernards Bros. securing the job We believe it quite unfair for you to now tell Savala that it must drop its price by over $200,000, on a $798,000 bid, in order to get the work. Obviously, our client must now file the necessary objection with the City, notwithstanding your late and unsupported attempt to substitute; we hope you will reconsider your position and allow our client to proceed with the work you and it apparently intended when your bid was accepted. Mr. Savala remains available to discuss this matter at your convenience. Obviously, he would like to resolve your diffe*. ences and go ahead with what should be a great job for the City of Rancho Cucamonga; he only asks that you work with him to achieve this result. • Very truly yours, Mark R. Sta{SAe THORPE ANO THORPE MRS:gv EXHIBIT 6 ,, -'~Ea v'E EV OC C-ocx l A 'N O F F I C E S . V 3EE uc,~, rG IC^. PE59 - "°°""""EE THORPB AND THORPE .^.O E'+q +: EVxE .a°a r=+ °r rc a° ear r. -c~°o°. cra °~S ~~E°'C£acx +f a WE9 ~ ""' ~ •- ~ lOS nrv E'.E S. L°30C"+.:9 `] 9a. [s.: av9'onE" ',sE rE'.v ONE BANKER NILI, EIGHTH FLOOR 'E.FCCeiER --F.w, aEao 801 WEET FIFTH STREET Pli seo~.x0 •:'. RC~~Sw'.:PE LOS AN 6ELE S.CALIF OR M1IA 900]1-20"J6 - o,]ge _'v (21 ])690~99C0 ~ (9~8~5]R-0669 cb :Fw Av ar _aV,`' 'vE - -AS,. R. November 22, 1991 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND PERSONAL SERVICE Mr. Tarry L. Smith. Superintendent Park Planning & Development The city of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California Re: objection to Bernards Bros. Request to Substitute Chino Enq ineering Constructors for Savala Constr. Co. • Oear Mr. Smith: Savala Construction Company, a minority contractor in business since 1951, which has specialized in site utility work since 1965, formally objects to Bernards Bros. November 19, 1991 request to the City pursuant to Public Contract Code sections 4107(a)(5) and 4107.5 to substitute Chino Engineering Cen=_tructors for Savala Construction Company. The request is it proper and untimely, and should be denied. wh=_n the Legislature enacted the Subletti rg and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act of 1963, one its primary purposes was to "protect the public and subcontractors from the evils attendant upon the practice of bid shopping and bid paddling subsequent to the award of the prime contract for a public facility." Southern Cal• Acoustics Co. v. C.V. Rolder x~ Inc. (1969) 71 Ca1.2d 719 726-27. The statutory scheme enacted to orovide this protection requires immediate, diligent review by the prime contractor after bid opening to determine whether the subcontractors listed in the bid were in fact those that were int.n nded; if the prime does not act within two days of the hid opening, substitution is not available. Here, for reasons not entirely clear, Bernards BVCS. has requested relief to substitute twenty six days after the prime bid opening, and approximately two weeks after it was awarded t~ joh. This unexplained delay, in and of itself, renders the Mr. Tarry L. Smith. Superintendent November 22, 1991 Page 2 C~ remedy provided by Public Contract Code Section 4107 unavailable. A.s the request is untimely on its face, it would appear summary rejection is appropriate, with no public hearing required. Moreover, it appears that Bernards Bros, has failed to file any affidavits, evidence, or other factual material in support of its request. Absent such evidence the request should be denied. Public Contract Code Section 410',.5 (b) requires that the prime contractor seeking substitution must file, Within eight davs of tie prime bid ooeninc, any evidence or affidavit supporting the substitution request. Here, the request itself was not filed until long after this deadline, and to our knowledge no evidence whatsoever has been submitted to date supporting the request. In the interest of time, the evidence of Savala Constr. Co. in support of this formal objection will be submitted under separate cover. In the event the City of Rancho Cucamonga does r.ot summarily reject the request, as it should, please provide notice of the public hearing on the request to this office. Very truly yours, • 'Ly 2 <~~ Ptar c1 R. Stap THORPE AN ORPE MRS:gv cc: Chino Engineering Constructors (Via Fax and Certified Mail) Bernards Bros. Construction (Via Fax and Certified Mail) lj PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL • 21!1! I, the undersigned, certify as follows: I an over the age 3~., ~'~ of 18 years, employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of 4,~~~ California, and not a party to the above entitled cause. My 5, busir.e ss address is 601 West. Fifth Street, Eighth Floor, Los 6'. Angeles; California 90071-2094. On .November 22. 1991, I served a '. I true copy (copies) of the S'; Objection to Bernards Bros. Request to Substitute Chino .' ' Engineering Constructors for Savala Constr. Co. 9'' the original of which is affixed hereto, on the person (persons) l 0'. hereinafter mentioned by depositing the same in the United States 11! mail at Los Angeles, California, in a sealed envelope (envelopes) 121 ~,'~ with first class postage thereon fully prepaid, addressed 13 (respectively) as follows: SEE ATTACHED EER7ICE LIST 14'I • ' I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of 15 ~ '. I ' ' collection and prccessing correspondence for mailing. under that 16 ! ', practice, it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on 17 ~~ the same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, 18 1.1' California in the ordinary course of business. 191 '! Executed at Los Angeles, California, on the date hereinabove 1 2 0 ~ ~I Set forth in this Certificate. 21!I I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 22 State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. 2 3 / /, ' ~ ^~ X~,f ci ru0., ~ 1O l 24q SONIA SALGAD 25, 261,1 ~ '! ~7 28.1 1 2 3 4 5 6 ii 81 9' 10'' 11' 12 13 • 14 151: 16", ll'1 18'', 19 '' 2 O I', 21' 22 23 24 '. 251 7,5p 2 7 I, 2E Mr. Tarry L. Smith. Superintendent Park Planning & Development The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91129 EXHIBIT 7 d~ it ERwE 6n DO CnVCK L q ty O F F I C E S EGWARO V, OOWNE! ;'°nARD°GEE THORPE AND THORPE Ov ERC GIIENRE a^DORF as ' •n 4LOWER •ann r9 af.~or -, a aO9i O[[.~E BOII i~a I3 • ERVCE X 4e 0iR NEV c..... rc e. efa o•... coeco c.~wf .D9 ^NGELE S.CA pDplldF l3 LE F, YEw ONE BUNKeR HILL, EIGXTn FLOOR TE. ECOeIER ~rEw: oERG 601 WEST FIF TH STREET n al ea4J0lO S'^N LEL X. 9XVUE R. siA RrtE LOS ANGELE S. CALIF ORNIA 900pt-2096 vCBF9i:4UL39^Cn (21J)680~9910 ~ (9i6)516~0666 LE^9E Rf FEP iO G4 9REN~AN J ~ryCRRE Ol'a iiLE NO, YG •rOnaE' IINCEY• W.iryORG E• F,9PER'JaO4 E^NA• RCBERi n. nOCE49.:R C ON 4L0 G.0^V~4 November 25, 1991 VIA PERSONAL SggVl~ Mr. Tarry L. Smith, Superintendent Park Planning & Development The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California Re: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/ Animal Care Facility objection of Savala Constr. Co. to Request tc Substitute of Bernards Bros. -- Affidavits of Leonard Savala and John Lvdoff in Suooort of Obiection • Dear Mr. Smith: Submitted herewith are the affidavits of Leonard Savala and John Lvdoff in support of the objection of Savala Constr. Co. to Bernards Bras. request to substitute Chino Engineering Constructors for Savala Constr. Co. as site utility subcontractor for the Rancho Cucamonga sports Complex/Animal care facility project. These affidavits follow the formal objection of Savala Constr. Co., messengered to your office on November 22, 1991. Very//truly yours, ~' ~~C~~~ r/ Mark R. S e/ THORPE AND THORPE MRS:gv Enclosures cc: Chino Engineering Constructors (Via Fax and Certified Mail) Bernards Bros. Construction (Via Fax and Certified Mail) EXHIBIT 8 -)7 a 1' ~ AFFIDAVIT OF LEONARD SAVAiA IN OPPOSITION 2 TO REOL'EST OF BERNARDS BROS CONSTRUCTION TO 3' SUBSTITUTE CHINO ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTORS FOR 4.~;. SAVALA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 5 6 I, Leonard Savala, having been placed under oath, declare: 7 81 1. I am the President of Savala Constr. Co., a California 9` corporation in good standing. My firm has conducted business as a 10 licensed California contractor since :.951, and has specialized in 111'', site utility work since 1965. It is designated as a Disadvantaged 12.' Business Enterprise ("DBE") by CalTrans, and we are proud of our 13 ccmmitment to community service and affirmative action. We have 14~,'~ actively participated in the Association of General contractors of • 15~ ~' C lif i , . a orn a; I served as state chairman of the Underground b 16, Utilities Divlslon in. 1987, and have served on the AGC Long Range 17 Planning Committee since 1987. l am aware of the facts stated 18 herein of my own personal knowledge. 19'1 20. 2. My firm submitted a written bid to Bernards Bros. on or 211 about October 24, 1991. A true and cozrect copy of our bid is 22 '. attached as Exhibit "A" hereto and is incorporated by reference 23 herein. z4' 25. ,. On or about November 6, 1991, I observed in the November 261, 6, 1991 edition of the Dodge Construction News "Greensheet" that 27~, our firm was listed as Bernards Bros. site utilities 28. subcontractor. A true and co r. rect copy of the pertinent section of that publication is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and • 2~~ incorporated by reference herein. 7 4. 4. John Lydoff is the individual within my firm responsible S for preparation of our bid on this project. During the week of 6 November 6, 1991 Mr. Lydoff told me that Jerry Higgins of Bernards 7' Bros., had said to him that Bernards Bros. was now in a position 8 to get this job due to the withdrawal of Shirley Bros., and was 5 told "we listed ycu -- if we get the job, you get the job." This l0 conversation occurred in the week of November 6, 1991, well after 11 ~, the prime bid opening on October 24, 1991. 12II~, 13~~~, 5. On or about November 18, 1991, Z had a conversation with 14 `~ Scott Schald, project manager for this job for Bernards Bros. He 000 diff b t bid d t 2 5 15 erence e ween our an here was a $ 2 , told me that 16, that of Chino Engineering Constructors ("Chino"). He stated that 17 Bernards Bros. had misread our scope of work letter, and that he 18' was going to substitute Chino if we did not lower our price. I 19" told Mr. Schald I would speak with him the following day. 20„ 21 ~I, 6. On November 19, 1991, I spoke with Mr. Schald again. He 22 repeated that he intended to substitute Chino for our firm if we 23'x', did not lower our price. I asked him why, if he really had made a 24' ais `_ake, he didn't withdraw as Shirley Bros. had. He said 25~ Bernards Bros. wanted the job, and closed the conversation by 26~'~~~ again asking if s'e would lower our price. I stated that we had 27, bid the job competitively, and desired to do the work at the price 28'x,' that we. had bid. l~ii 7. Later that evening, I received a call from Seff Bernards, • 2'.! who again asked me if we would lower the price we had bid. Be 3', told me that his attorney had told him that there would not be a 4i problem substituting Chino for our firm if we did not agree to 5 meet Chino's price. I again repeated that I desired to do the 6'~~ work for the price we had bid, and concluded our conversation. I 7'I then received a facsimile from Mr, Bernards at 5:44 p.m., which 8', ~I was a copy of the November 19, 1991 letter advising Mr. Smith of 9'~ Bernards' desire to substitute Chino for our firm. 10 il~ e. Prior to November 18, 1991, my firm did not receive any 12 ~''~~ notice, formal or informal, that Bernards Bros. believed it had 13, erred in listing our firm in its bid. To the contrary, all • 14,1 information received suggested that Bernards Bros., had intended 15~'~ t.o use us all along, up to November 18, 1991. 16'° 17! I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the 18", State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. Y9'~' '~L/,, •1 20~'~!, Executed this ~' day of 1VO~, 1991, at n 211 ~'. _~~V~NZ.1 California. /~ 23 ~~ EO D SAVALA 24 7.5 ', 2 61;! 27'! 2 B' i SUB EXHIBIT A al _'C~ e L'/ ~.,i ns~+ 7^(L, e) Indoa lO v Cen•1 r,nler CA 1210 809- ~gt 4 (PFB ..~ 1 1: nT 3 _, .a~ ' ~ --~- ... ,.. - , ,DODGE CONSTRUCTION NEWS -.Ga~ENSAe II BUILDING SECTION CONTENTS PROJECT NE~YS ~ ' JI1 o s n GC"Pra Ccf,'tcls I C'CR ,',5 ' OTHER FEATURES 8:5 b'CS P.=cu I nc~ dl^,q e'd]ers ~,`J'rn I Ferm adrG Crg^: hews P,a^5 ^9 F!3 i 61'ng sGAh`a, i's','na B0'lleCn eoar9 (?'.psred GE Mcn?ays) BIQ RESULTS. ' ~, fI00.000-f+5900G . LOCNER AND /NOW[q ROOM R[NDD• E-n'' o CA N9r;uie Co) 1030 Tomp'o Slre•4 R{VIf ION{ UNOtRWAT•OWM[R. ANiICIPATt{ TO R[LlAfl MEW fID '- DAT[ MID DtC[MBIfl . ' 0490' - P:e93enl Ve e' Perri 6 Recreifen Obl K I LOCL•m,n t W 5 E DvrrJEr St Cemu'u10 G 6J010 ('u:5.482n 03C) A: d,reU - G' o I'or ird C'Srk 0001 In'nI CV '. ^, rv'nn CA 9215d f]N-12]U69c) "(:'JGPTCn Ga-i.'a/P,IP TrYnCi-D'aa--iJCd Servl<elRiy9ablfV.r.e-.F9n c ~nGl Alco•r• ' ' R veri:Ce uw pew5i.l Slndlum.paTane9 bl3mnme~'LUo-imre9o'aa:`c^..me-:': ke: . bCGn3~Cell'nG <ov-Pab':'r,pemepcper t:e'd • S:.C I I'.1 M •e`a,n ' t .9m rJn fe, :•; ' ~ 6 Da e3' P:LC e'Gna e 8 ca alY I'OmaG 01d pai LphUryB '1 P YwpoE lance -w a:or. a'/oe D3ewnr'mprm'omen4.2.1253 Sq tt :cr. u3i'an il•rda (A:1 i9) : CcdueF.n9d1 CO an I( i.plc biJCC I/BS'1 ar'._iJe:re w'.1 rp(,"-21)5 ~•0 11 Bltlp A M9'nl9nence BICy B uCSroa urk;nG au ..fbeerm •4 Mee AInIcAI. /[euelunl YY ' ASChIINI , Low ^Iddm (A) BunerCa Broe Ado FN(1 (B18r'361•P299) ' 610 I!ex 6va16•n Farnentlo CA D13a0 (014 "' 698-1521j Fax: (8tBA9d-a9M)S76,Ta0,000 '' (B) MOnLPI PiII'pi Ccnal Co Ia15 Ceapue pr Selo 1Ce Irvine Cq 82]15 (114BGD0111) ~`/ F•r. (]11 d62U2t BI 146,980,000 ' ' (CI Mo;leh Coro CPI Tnn3 Pro;3 13>t 5 Le Idane Colton D2324 PO Box 80000 SSn 1 '; , Bnnerdnp CA 92112 (]i4B]]•2f00) Fax: ' ptd-025-I>80)tt ],551,000 ~BI-146506]0 ~ ~ ~ 11x06191 :IM191 •' " S]J.OJC-peCGi En+.9N IT[Mr ROOF REPAIR I(fl •1-01-tOA) ' RSmpM CA (Sao Db99 Col Jema Duke3 , School llDf AR[IN AND VMD[R Rf VIE W~ • q[f ULTf POtfIDLf IT XOVEMIIR ' ' zi-BID OCTOf1q 31 ' Owrn - Pengne Un'llid ScCpd DNVicI Joyce •• (pIg63131)• )2G NInv1 St FYrtlpne G 9Y.1W Mcnbcl - R9'pn Alen 8 Pi Man 520 N Nan .o ~.nMCO,l u91NBJin ]Cf (]14b1]A31B) sm. An.Gan94p . ,'NNIIai1WU, FJOCVkU, A - Dmn C ONrrore 1200 N CY Ownu . nen<rm CA D280F O14 100346 Co;e Kor;I'a 8 AaI9LI -IAna 4CAN Pllm (~ PI•na t•n Dlgo 11. Su C Coila Mpi CA ' Aro•Y.n1 Lew Bld6an A)COV3 Ored• 1 •~TOlel (Al Blricker RpoIInO P EiconCidd G02025 (6 r rccmareitrocmi •nd ~(BIJPWNarax ROpln9 Sen ONga CA 021N (fi incear 3rd lPCkrt foam ~ IC) BN9n1 CrQ9n,LIK'n: O.r3I 'v3^I::ICf LGIEV• •UF.. 'Delon G920X(6t0~ lrG CnrpeCnG•pe:nnnQ- c (0) CPmmmd RCOI:nO 11/0691 a '• ~:PmmeCl AVO Sarlee e^ver9 c.. / ~^' L 1-''_ !, '.:' ) AENT N.E i 58 AT 11 ^: ner'm9Ln{InQ 9'093:' d C'aLLC I xc9 C.;vrr :'.LVV rc 9'. -153 0?J I G u-. ra .,~ • 3 'r ~-.~ _ I1T ArINE% EN 1] nT 0 I :1 '''Z 3: fe G:C fqO. pOC^I EZrm ID tlZ2n4{blo- puENTE MNU AUTO pL1L (LDT 92) (f) Wllllim P C `y cl ".: ,e'ry :.4 IE9.^,un Ll wuntA Cernw ~ h9ea'on RO f,9 0 r. Az ~'.+ A,e 19021 LOW e1DOf N!•AW AqD -Offl^L^ ((3) Del, 9.y11 WITHIN ONe MONTN•DID OCTOt1R B9r^Ud+gt 32 (H) NOY',eCk F nr3r - Lml N;'!m nn Chaerolt 15432 Eat ~ Cen Cn9oC ar. wn Annie C,ry Bf',rC93:ry CA 81)44 - l1J APR ROOK Ar,; n'leOl ~ we3ton Wrn".Altl 5500 5 CCaI 02111 (613 '^,w9v •201 L9QonJ fioech CA 9 2 65 1 111 /• W) CaNO'ley l n3ihdcr,) - Dllva 8360 e'df: L:E A'CI"E'.: - L.rd •a'cn'i'aC'Vr0 ]1J1 )SJI) n '.ny n,n^~. o ;,+ Ap CCd;O h'Op CA ' (Kl Rf:6 ^va, tiZr.d 'J'bCb.2A:4) .SM1 268 p3 rel !,^C rn3r . Ge^.bn'.'J/ f ANx'ele3 ^~~ Pan Gl Fiq 16 ril5 AllOr Pr14w eY 6JIlo 325 Inlne GA (L) Clnncy C~ 92]IB;114gW.6C 10) 0X21(619. E'!cna'+r, 01 6'r,'rOnl- NS'scn Alr Cond'q 2]2 (Aq Ccmrnerc C'+A.e nGS',y CA Opd3181 C.3CO+J8001 . Ouvn Dr 5: Y;'nc4 CS'. r-BIr3•r . E9wer 6156 Pp Bax 248) 91JJ7 Inrna ::c CA B: ^'<5161T]45~200t) (N)Maue6 (:..,I E^i'roor CG^. Fnpl•inminp 6 WrIG4Y IA'dlarE PJ ,.. .., eWnl')'A.0.906dC1) •Mdsu'9ia cnl on In Inc e-ctzd Plane In MonHny P•rk (300),' Poomaf•n BSrnardlnO (rV Low Biddne ' (A) ve Cc 0 s 6 Tr arc C'e B, O6 1F 1B d3 2 e ( (DI e.'.rON E'm:nc 1..0v ^'.z rn• Crc n n9G Nenevry Pve CA 9:. 4~^-09.5;5262]0 9`-52J 524 3 (son c:.aP cpi r ION DC•A WAR[ IN 00 DAVY• Io NOVEMB[Rt c CO.nry Pwcn C :~9rd Ave L"pG PI1 .63n~3:L 21 On 6 MPz~er 6i 6 S eo N mp Plan r Dor A•d 66) 295 GB401f15,ID2 (e) J F~'a CpfellyCl'kYf IrO tG)5 Pr. tan Room Ln Sa A Ben Dlepo C0. B2C)3 9C 22)q Fex'(519a20.91321 id5.2r gllc•POw 4]9 e (C ~ 3006]) ASanOelo B2~10(B1G3B- CA j rA Bbd ~ (813299-4]14)540,]Bi . < O1 Ra4~9h Ave EI • IPC'm190 crar9ad tle'a 10) Pt-$J6302 6 'Ica Inc 9335 ~ 20)1 (019-$G2- fl/GE91 - P T IT Palm DeunG CO NO JEFFERf ON N C A 11 ADO91{I Sadclelol 1134 W Lm MGe'a CA ('NO0{9'n Le Cc: CA 82029 (61D~]I]• 11815 100[R4 AWARO IN {9 LOW 17 Snu1n 16tre9l SIn 4 11-026]JC0) C+.rer . Ln 0.^pe'm Ur'~' eC $e": 9 M'mpcr GOrpo Pd MV'. 601E 1511 51 Lca An0a,1 D.280-3534) (213•)42.7815) moor San D'~90J CA ;],ondol Pry Pf3ald mael.rp w ' Nwecy, Cclocn 26, 1991 •r e 6989 Plo $9n D:O90 c e'e^.^.m dnYa r.cn'F'nnnn: Su CA 92198 (619~29Y lavh CCer w'u p•0eb'•anndm Pbn3 en {CAN Fllm 13910!! l 6cu:'~ 6vmme Yh Y P16nI In MPn4vey PA]k p CA 92262 P14.i G4. ~ - ROem ' ~ Low Ylddn• )OM1Ye E Color CA ' n.vco Genorn'I C: ^rric'. 5 (A; n+ (6t9.SIY3303) n, Hcr^ r0 Ylny rc e`m n• G el Hoc' n Co 0229 ' 9 E-241CG)rnr '114.59Ln11, G 91911 (019-0GS- (m, p G J FO:'^ i t.:" :24511 ,)A 9'J9C P 14.592 %IL91 fG2.. eror130• Inc IJS]5 •,rm:rde c`~n rGPd de'.i 3064 (OIPn6U9C9.:i 91-SC951/ 2 I" ror . O\VNEN NOVEMBER 2B AT 0 Iu5 TO 9~d J5-TBCO)Fex: {61Di7BJC56j - --- PM(PSTI ~ ~• . 91-$Gg9d6,.$^;~.,,,. r 1!IC551f ~. - -'.,M Uf Veppa NJ8903](]C2£d9~2+S1J . ~ . c.: '_!I,ar Y3;us Lap Je^r qos (In V ~)M S`oet ;nn ~V 8 d 2 ¢ t, y x.:Jp,, n9~ E Glos. art A'.0 Lc; Vey3a ~•'J 91 ~• 192d 2]3 ;:% ~' 510 a NV (7 IJ$-dSJ e O 01 ' ' L-~'~'•;'['.1:9.p291) '„ v Cerrr • , . SPORTS Co MPLEX ArvD pNIMAt Cqq[ Mecr nnlcgl En B nwr Cu :r•rn Auoca Inc 33]3 E, F!em~npe Rd file 1CC Un Vogav !TJ 'cer o `:cv -COr q r a C ~ FACILITY . IA) SPORTS COMPL[X ^ 03e21 pg2'36Y1G11) . ; .. :n n Ae'`ipb;/-'•5 a oche day wTp.o. lDl ANIMAL CARI FACILITY CIvJ EOg~r.•Or . awcnlvr 6a^. 0 Avscoe '3 W :., o Rancflp Cucart Orge CA (San EarnA.d~nO CO) prppk• Su C N Len ': ep3a fN 9..03b (]02- ' C vca ':n q'ob Ce Arcx RC_~o SRm_nan:rtAVS' w2.5362) LOW BIDO[gtAWNfq MAT gWARO Eecvm by Mpcnn' a.E p^eo! ,.. Va rr< , __ _ IC3P: 5% E'e `^ -~ i iIT-BID /OrtbREPO RTINO tupf (dOC2.n 2~E 20) So. • de ol:bn•^e~k'ng ID; r r NAMED BV LOW DIDD[R ~ nJOraVlc"pn.•a^p cab'rgl•sa:!ece c^u -S" :p; 1 11 P].31 ~I (.Y.rxI. C.Y nI P.enC!'A CVCbYOrga TO:'I ST{h CIxkIJnCInO."J^, Balna 3rd'OfC.r Z'C3.'~arq 0'GO Cv:c Cores Cr Ranc^~J C.camargn e: r4'alod llcra CA 81770 (114.99&1651) Plam On tCAN illm (1810 5 218 4 0) 2 N it <5 '.!'c • S2` G:0 McMlept - G~;rSa P'r: RJS'er A`.Sa 1Bd0 irv ^S ~ Low ¢Itltlva on OC . - YEM: MEATINDry ENTILATINOlA1R BOUevord 6u'Ie 2Cd lsvlne CA ]2114 (114 (iJ$c~:;:'xesl Cason RreSLnr.dcEaco 9;12 CoNO SYSTEMS MAINTF.NAHCE T ' ]30.pT30; Archl:ecl • WOI'I Lanp 6 Chr'~tlopFa Pe'a01 Scl.lh v'T'oy: nw Lna Vegcc N'J BSf OJ pCt- 21t5r-C) S-,]>7~3 - ; . < ~._^ t^ro 0.:) J:' oa r;ca; .rr D105 TO OWNLR PECEMOEP q AT Z PM ' Urara lPrOj Mgt} 1^,.•110 FwLMq R'nd Y:l j ru (2j PateGc":p Ccr~ vc:'pn fi50 fiautS ^c: Om (PST} Den Tower RencM GvicemonGe CA 91130.. High woy Hardvacn h'V S]CIS (102-:55- ',::0 cl CA Doc?'1v:p^I Of Parks 6 ' (714.BBI~C9C9) La-dec•v^p A•chlleel ~ R J M Caf'Qn O'oun I^e C41T)Et 54765 (q Durarp0 Ccns'.a.!bn 32E1 k'eL Meatl 4A _ :ne ~ ~°<t ?'JO CI] To.r n ~ San C ago CA 921'3 (c 19- {• ' ' '^ 2)255 Lnv RernOlae $Ia 24q M¢sbn WjO CA Lea vagea NV 891C2 (]U-BI 1.02441 ' , ~ ~ ~" 02E91 (]td-502.7515)Fax: (714562~rA 27) ' 5 59,930 • ;. ..._.. 'n. L; O+. r.cr '' Slrucl. n ~ Engineer . Johnepn d Nlo4on 4310 ~ • InGC.!as c°ar0ed da',o , - ,, Frvr Ovrgo Rh pmlda DAP2901 O1639b5122) Bf-5216:04 1!r0S91 :.:91Cb Pe^CCrd 1C:b Pay....y nnnn 3 ° k.cnn^oel Englneo.Fi Mdnwa Inc 2041W La Pe'ma Ava SN 2C0 Aneha'm CA 02601 ...• ' '- 5 ptn.521-07C0)FEx~p14.52]-424)i V n4b91 5'.61 G.'C^•CcdsCS-a'a• 9r- 4;ILJ 1 Nic1l31 E+<'•ICd ErO~noe1•R WRAEaOO Inc 316017]1 - WORK ACTIVITY C¢NTEq (LIED Sl Rnronlde CA 02501 (T14-7e7-1860) OPPORTUNITY CINT[RI Civ.l Englnnr - Owblah Dueva 6 Aaooc:a(ea Las Vapu NV ;C'ark Col Catoy Bbd 1:n C9' f:9 JCD ~f20.COq Inc 8331 Ulics Ave fulls 150 RanC^0 LOW ^10OlRt-POtIUII CONTRACT ITEmr FABRICATION ANO INSTALL OF CUwmorpa CA 01130 (T14•BBIJJ08j Pas AWARD WITNIN [A WltKf-/ID sT AINLE SS sTECL [NCLOSDgR '(1'. 6.841.1528)'• .. - NOV[Mt[R a F•c-:crn C4 t$on Cem:.•tl rq CO) 1E166 Cn:•^~o~ (A) Slrclrl IMO: Bu'f0lnps 1 • Stmlaa Above : Owner • OpporlunlN NIaOa Mla'aol Hvmed I1n r^mv n^atl tlntla ] -Tote. 9c'aan ieal 4epC0 - SRa ~ CM1Uge) TO E Coolago W Vago NJ 80101 p ID4 TO OW rvcp OEC Ta ATaPM P/T ~ WerN Oemolillon ioundelipna SavOed '(]C2lbt-8A0) 0..ra• ~ Cn'~'a^ s Irs,3.1a Ipr VJOmgn 6ha10n FOPIInpa • 6leb•BenmOnt Slabro4Onda -... Are^11aC1 • JMA ]SON Millar b Anpe Eleva Franc" lCds Svc As;p tEYSE Ch no-C0rOn0 ~ ulltlln Fnma $Irvc{urol Steel • Bulltl:ng ~ a ~ r '-/IICNrtla On (In Charge) 4284 S MerylOnd Fd F-J r,,~o/a B1723;]ta.531.1111)', ~'i P r W~ n r ? I q~ae ~ ~n T 7 ~~ f A . CJC3 f2 M ar y 40me /C'sablvd Wtenna . ftar~fl COnu¢IO ROa Pla^ FlODr SUP POq ~ j 6ell•Suppgtlin0 • ROOI COmIrVClIOn MelAl ( a l cC;uref E^ a ME , Paf A m Y '~ utlg4 AuI (In Charge) 1001 ganehp 01 resa E "aa Per, C pe;'en RaOUI s0 s a I Nov 1 d of 1_ AM .Peep, a ( ' . , aek • $felr Byabm Malal • BuLdinga i • 'S ~ mrlu AbwO Onds 1 • To: at $Puua Faat t 13 ' WeGea M/69t O0 p02.3055300} gEnkal Fsgmam .Noma EnGn TOm Hartle dn CM'go)2T06E DOnrtlnn Rd SD 200 Lea ~' I Z1Oe atlm~.1•n .^v•"s~,a ln;,,o.,;Jn w ., to I^e I^ebl~: Jn f weal^p bho laane-{ ' :~ 1,100 •FPUndadau $preEd FOOlinga-SWb• . efamant Sb D•On•Oreda - BUlidrnp Frema ^- ~ ^~ YeouNV 03121 (Tg2~]0E•0218) ~41 En lnaor • Mpn10 6 ManO Mork Hedge (In va chart CreY vh9:a.Thry n1ua: v C n 6]511 n PC.]af'J:.^.n pl a Vnlld tl'IV.(a ~~ Md • ROOT CPNWCIIPn MSW OaeN • Root ~~' •gcpnalrg CllOn WOOd ',Framing (A) Eal i g CCherBe) 1701 Waal C^arlaalon Boulevard Sulb 420 Lea Va U NV 89101 (102d0LL L~orsa or cRer p~cwro Idon PJlJeI:Dn•B d ' ~ ~ ^ ! MgVEpui P'. Well Cem ptubr on CMU •: .. ' i Wn N •f d D Ral ~ d ' p ~ BOgS)- '. ^a L'^or:a ra ra .).. c.. r.r .v n T ~ ~ ' n owa Um num ~ arla aaa o up - Exf aelPr Coon Golllna Ex10tlOr DO01• ElaclrfW Oy MacMnicef E09!naar 6BCb1 InIO' B ^Idm a 1 • S:alas AbOVO Ornda 1 :,/ oareav'pu SecOOnat OverhPed • 8001 MaNael Maui g y plena in sEn Oornardlno (1 •AvdO PI•n Roofing-ROOT SuPpal Flagpoba•locknv-br• • Toltl $PVaks Fael 32,000 SIU WErN Room , ven.wdl6mc<oBOugrty Llo•Wau SmccO' Plen:on.Ei:a Warty Landacen'rp •$ICC• - =''~prged :31a ^ • Wndovn /UeminVm • P3016PppDR akYllp^;a BaaemMl 51ab•a~-Grade - Bulfd!np Frema ' 534 1 - 11/gb01 r ^533 • Pa^alona Oypavm leoer0 • Parclgru P;ulel Cw.cmla 0loek - Rxr $YpPan MAlal Jc 61a • . I^ndor Goon $loel•laee • In1erlOr ObOn ROOt Comlrucllon Matol Exl MtllEOVlp: ' Woed - Inteda DOma Hollow Mtlol • Floor ' ~ .' Wndowa Gleaa BIOC4 - Ea+ada Coaa Pm. uP "191 E15 M.C ~f'00 P» •FN'fhing TAa'Fl0a Fln4hlnp RUAlanl-Floor' •Rool Malarial $~np:e-Ply MamBnno-Pool ITEMr vENTILATINO DECICIENCICf FlNSMng CarpR'n • Inl WII Flnlfa Olwtl ~'~ ~ ~ Support $Mylp^la - $POCIaI CrtlmcfOn Scn a<lol Cnilru Cllcn 51 n and Scm nln • S CORRECT (ICI rv60Ti ip1 800661 '• ~ car Ills • Ina WEII OINI Wall GOVaYAga • Inl ~ p p a p ' ^ C qJ CA (San C ego CeJ Malay BVIiOrn9 W°II ilniah Pelnl Gelllag Flnlahln0 '. ~ ~ .:on Loekon GqP^ICa. $PoCW CruWC s:n l-~^ Sufpended pa114rbPlaNOr•Cen'np FWahNg ItCCZ-18•EWI OIDS TO OwN[R DECEMDLq 1T AT t ACOUaICaI • EPUipmant anabeP/aoeear ~ Plano On t0lN illm (Ii1q/1ttA0) PM (PETI acpnhpafda • EPVIPmeN Foop 9arvfca • ~ Low Nldap On OC ° - J CC '•a.y Pv'V~c Wa'ks Cgnle~ Novi ,FUmlahing Medlvm CEaln - $Pe Clal = (A1 Drwa Inc dEBO fiovlh Polnrb Avenue 1700 = :~^G 291 J2^_ S'ecl a.d HvCOr ) 1 '~ Cntlrves!on Flappoba - 6Padei Cneweslon 6~pn End GrePMee $plClaf Cna]vuCOPn a Vet}a• NV B9IDJ (T@•]DS•e IOCI Fu ~ lIC2.19+E1221 St,e1o000 ) .C eGo GA 02176 ;913~4531BC .. .n a' ~ . LYCNOR • Ve NCaI Tanspprmllon Passenger l6} Radslon COnal S1ova In Chp 2]18 Wa:•nrn 4 , Owner o !run P:•n Is3vp 1220 ~ { son ayn' n'a_ ENVeton - Firq ProtadlOn Foe germ [delve- 'Ave S:e 1A Lea Vopm NV 03102 pC2J31- ~ ; . ~ ' : Hrr $+~ ~ C ;O CA 62172 (0191531, l n L l'] ' ~' Gen +yvlom • F4a ProU<llon $pYV,klar $Yilgm -AUC ~ -- 2011) FaN: (7Cb78LC102) b1,631,0N IG7 Ka•xelsxlS ASSx PO Cox 81000 LU Vap3f , 2 nv. aJe p :ar <a i rtl v' , ; • ~ C, cr ' , ~ ~~ 4']0147 •Slda wan ODaned A Dubllcry load In ,~ ' NV 82180 (702~B11-ID70i Fax: P32.011- 052 08111 f1 G5B 1 .]'„ Per'. p. ^d 'LC"s Pslmane Eand b ' :• ~ ~ T^-0ammarhlea RcanvCSpp Clvi< Canal Or , Panaw Cur~ngnpa CAYle•bld meaenq vru , . (07 MB^in H.enla DONt Co 1900 Wularr M. .11 ] I 1I;C1A1 s'~-~ 10N•lOAM-Saba Mmad py bw bidder- Lea VSgu NV 89101 (702~706~5251) Fex. . - Slle Oamc/FarthworN-Rpmwsen-Simi' 111d,9D2 n4} h b C ~ IrOptlIOO LEndSCe PE 6 Alh FISIOaNtlby ~ a . N d e aA G b dau ' 1~1E'.•I USAJO~f10C 0:0 Cnu-Santa Me-Sile Canuab/C LCoru. DI~.VtE 043/ 11JON91 ~ ' rtEMI MOON LqR gOOit pVAIR 14 Aaual-AFPrvInpIBaN WO:em-'NNOUI- ~;•, r , •~.. ¢uIL01N0 s)l(B)¢NP) RSInlorcln0 Slaol/RaOSr Fnq.$anb F+ , dee• 71 7191 RS ° ^ e,;O CA (Snn Omgo Col RJ C9ncvEa 6Pfinga-$Iruelufel PnCal Cancnla•AIG^' ~ " , ITtMf M[4:NANID AL AND ^L[CTRICAt •m Fo: d ry df7 A111 Pd 3 To OWId¢R OcCEMO[R St AT O hse0el ConcrEU/Jecon-6a0remaneo- Masonry/Bratlon•Pmaro-~Slrvclwal6 Mtao DfNDVATION vHAft 1 TM1OU Band Ofks CA (Vanlun Co) Wavally IPSTI ~ SIee VLe• 4 DENeI-ASUea-FINah. $Cnpol-AdvY Etlvaellon (. -•n ~ :-ct al f, Orroulor. ^~ De novan > Poc 690 n's Pd San DVgO CA CupamryJW hllehaed•RlvElalda--Al Enl Erou'rM1AN9ndwn/SPOady OlnM-0nn•da LOW ^IDD/Ra.f URN/ MbFIC LOW W:r~(N:r:~E4E-65c0)73p0 ~ Hl'la-LatnJPlfaArJF/eproo!/Drywel'IClln1 -ONgLB AWARD NOYtM[/A fa. ¢ID NOVEMEERI J E'•^:a'eN-++'Dld wSxln'J., hscheddOd lpl ( :e'-:urd bgG'nnnp alD Pm Ggdn-9an Rafnardlna-•••Palnling • WUlcevedng/Saundnet McMplln lnc• Ownb•Cona;o valNy un:n+d 8enoal O'+ncv a Reatl 00 .. "r9°am f.`wrer n nv.u Iola P+d Dora toox Pgm+m Oontl Rven•OO~flumClnp~MeK/erd•AI1Ne--Stye 114tles/taval •IMra--L(NACJghaldO^ y0a galaRJ-C~ealr pall nallve Uenllnp• Eael Jena Oabbla 2aroa 14 ThW+A^d OEka CA 0000 (90}4gY107U Dpn nanl•Bma Can. W:n rg~rea'mq 72877 ~ ,..521 ill0&Ut' RpRONParnyre~e,i AANNrM1'+B71aoMf {¢at e 1v1+DA olap• VanIV• BWlwala Wagp jb744J70o) i ICI ^i C' SUB F,XHIBIT B .:.i4 l ~1Vctlct 1~/,' coNS rnuc ~ IoN co we GENERAL ENGIN Lc HINC • n LJ .+.++ ROJ~CT Pa"'C v0 L::CA'~C IlGA Su9PT5 C^MP-ix ~'~ /-~ Fn GE i rF .2 ~~t.,,a..~.+ .'„D G'1"~'1';M5 10.24-9i -rv, r°S~Ri" .n,~, ?'R ?LAN CRAWiiiuS ~C-!7 7~HROLliN C-G"6 S. RM'Zi ~~'S!ETi .'Y?+1VNuVE'^E'J' r'L n'RS: 1. 48" RCP 1500D 2. 42' RCP 14COD 3. 36" RC? 1)5G0 4. 3C" RCP 1750C 5. 24" RCP 20COD 6. 18" RCP 2GDOD 7. Trans. Str. 2D 235 8. AU Manhole De t. 8 9. 35 "B" City Std. 509 10. Manhole "A" City Std. 510 11. Manhale "8" City Std. 511 12. CB pl City Std 502 13. CB N3 City Std 504 1a. Remove Inlet, Extend Lat b C8 15. LD Ca Se "B" City Std 518 16, CB Case "C" City Std 518 17, DI Caltrans Std 073 G2 2u, Remove Bulkhead 22. Concrete Collar 2 D393 23. Alhambra Cover $ Frame A1264B 25. 8" PVC SDR35 26, 4" PVC SDR35 27. JS Det Sheet 10 28. Encasement 29. Pipe Ccnn. to Manhole 30. 6" Dta, PVC SDR35 31. 6" Dta Cleanout -° ._ ~T - ._ __ 672 LF 918 LF 414 LF 815 LF 1657 LF 3122 LF 1 EA 6 EA 11 EA 8 EA 7 EA 10 EA 9 EA 2 EA 10 EA 9 EA 30 EA 2 EA 3 EA 3 EA 32.16 LF 19,34 LF 3 EA 52 LF 2 EA 190 LF 1 EA ~. ,} -. ^~ ~I~ ;. `~1MAL SHELTER PART "8" - S1URM UNAIN PER GAAOIN6 PLAN C-1 8 C-2: 7.V-VRemove P ug ~ ____-~~ - --1~-fA--~-- il, IB" RCv 20000 14 LF 12. C8 'N=4',V=4.88 R.C. Std 502 1 EA 13. LD R.G. Std 516 64 SF i7. Alh. A470 RCIP 4 Lf 18. Brooks 24"x24" CB 2 EA 19. 6" CIP 87 LF '64i2 FA57 CON57gUCTION C7FOLE / IRVINE, Cni,IPORNIA 9?714 / (%lA; 651•l'221 h, % cowsmucnoN co Lvc. ~~~~~•• GCNERAL ENG~NECkING • ;,gC,icCT kABCI!0 CUCF:dCNGA SPOB .nrti. P;ii F. 2 G'r 2 XtX+X CJ?"LE% .'EN CESC^•,'~i:C!i QTY SE':CER i°PRCVE^^EN'?S i'ER ?LAri$ CG1, C42, C43 8 G7a ; 1. J" VCF Sewer 2'.07 ~~F 2. E" `JCP Sewer 552 ~f 3. 4" VCP Sewcr 250 Lf 4. Cieanout 11 EA 5. Manhole Std 18 9 EA 6. 6" Lateral 7S LF 7. Manhole Over Extst 10" 2 EA H. Underground Support 2 EA 9. Hackflow Valve 8 Manhole i EA 10. 8" VCP Stub 1 EA 11. Concrete Cotlar 1 EA 12. 2" PVC SDR35 D.F. Drain 195 LF 13. 4" PVC SDR35 D.F. Drain 265 LF E%CLUSICN5/STIPULATIONS: lJ' ~ G. r~+,. - U, C C~~. /.,-_% 7~'...,..' ~ "> NO PERM ITS, FEES, ENG L"JEERING, SURVEY, HAULAWA Y, BOND C05T5, DEMOLITION, RE!40VAL5, ABANDONMENTS, SDILS,TESTING COSTS, CONSTRUCTION WATER COSTS, WATER CON 7ROl. EROSION CONTP.OL, PER` DRAtN PIPE, TRENCH DRAINS, ASPHALT RESURFACING. E%CE55 SPOIL LEFT TRENCHSIDE )!E CARRY TtJO MILLION LIAGILIiY INSURANCE, IF AODITj ONAL REQL'I RED, COST 9Y C'NCRS '.0 DRAINAGE WORK ON GRADING PLANS ~Uu"TE RASED ON !aAT]VE MATERIAL SUITAHLE fOR PIPE BEDDING AND HACKFILI LNION CONTRACTOR 30ND RATE 1.5X ,:CHN LYCOFF 1601 CAST CCNSTRI;c:T,ON CIR CLF IRVIN G, G,t I,IFOR NIA 9.774 ! •1 ;CI (ip1-0121 1'~,~ PROOF OF SERVICE HY PERSONAL DELIVERY 2~~, i, the undersigned, certify as follows : I am over the age 7~~, of 18 years, employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of '~ California, and not a party to the above entitled cause. My 5~. business address is 350 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, 5,, California 9001?. On November 25, 1991, I served a true copy 7' (copies) of the BI AFPIDAOIT OF LEONARD BAOALA IN OPPOSITION TO REQDEST OP HERNARDS HROB. CONBTRDCTZON TO BQBSTITDTE CRZNO ENGINEERING 9' CO N9 TRUCTORH FOR BAVALA CONeTRDCTZON COHPANY 10 ~, the original of which is affixed hereto, on the person (persons) lli hereinafter mentioned by personally delivering the same to the 12 ~~ following person at the following address: i I 13 '. SEE ATTACHED BERVICE LIST • i4 ~~I Or, in his/her absence from said o£f ice, by leaving the above 15, described papers with his/her clerk cr with the person in charge 15 of his/her office; or, if no person was present in the office, by 17' leaving the above-described papers between the hours of 9:00 a.m. 18 and 5:00 p.m. in a conspicuous place in the office. 19~~ Executed at Los Angeles, California, on the date hereinabove 20~'~, set forth in this Certificate. 21 I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 22 ', State of California that the foregoing~'s ,trued ~o~ ect. d , ~. 24 ~~. ylr--_. ._~~ ~ ~ 25' ~ ~ ~dl+kA, /~K01-+h'kl ze, 27' za1 Nwr 1 nNeY2lpr eaAllri/)srYae• ~ fobtYeq aHV[H Ila sal axtn ' GIIIpMe RsrtM 3, sref b S b. • 1TR Your nsrya srM stlllhas on the rweru of MN farm w IsN: tHlt vse can rettim RJe M tc You. i. ~ Addreaaee's Addreu . • Attxh. rho Corm taM hoot of the meAWecs. or on she back d space tloes not Wrmit. 1. ] Reattrttetl delivery • Write "Renrn Race~pt ReWea[sd " on the mailpiece next w Covult postmaster for In. Ib¢ ert¢IB number. Artmb Number 4e A ~: ~y 3. Artmle Atltlreesad to: i . ~e s~ tructi~ C r- ng Chino Engineer ons 4b. Servln Type 16341 Chino Corona Rd. gsphnrW ~ meurea ~: .5 ~, Chino, CA 91710 i 'x artnip ^ coo ~ ~ ~ D , it L Eaprl~Mai ~ Return Receipt for M narb'N ~;~ ~ ~~ p i ]. Oea al ONivery ' 8. Addrus i • Atldreu IOnIY d rsRUeated 5 IAd reueel sod M is psidl i nature IABantl a cn.m . ~ . oc:ober t99o •ue aeo ~s-a/++r DOMESTIC RETURN RECEIVE ~~.~~e wiil,, r l.~ SERVICE LZET 2~I~Mr. Tarry L. Smith, Superintendent Park Planning & Develcpment 3'~''The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive 4p Rancho Cucamonga, California 6!i 6''.i ~9 7~ a'II , , 9 le,~ 111 lz~ 13II I 14', ' • i 15, 16,~~~ 17I lE~ 19'~ ~ i 20I, 21 22'~I 23';I 24'll 25ij 26i~ 27' 281f EXHIBIT 9 ~~ 1~.~ AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN LYDOFF IN OPPOSITION TO 2~:, REQUEST OF BERNARDS BROS. CONSTRUCTION TO 7', ~ SUBSTITUTE CHINO ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTORS 4 ~'~ FOR SAVALA CONS'PRL'CT ION COMPANY 5 E I, John Lydoff, having been placed under oath, declare: 7 8 i. I am a professional estimator employed by Savala Constr. 9 Co. I ~.: 3s the employee within our firm primarily responsible for 10 the bid by Savala constr. co. to Bernards eres. construction to 11 perform site utilities at the Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/ 12 ~~. Animal Care Facility. i3 14 2. On September 2G, 1991, San of Bernards Bros. transmitted • 15' ecif icatiors for our use uestin a set of lans and s re a bid or p p , q g . 16 site utilities for the project. 17 18 3. On Octcber 24, 1991, I telecopied a proposal to Bernards 19. sros. for site utility work on the project. A true and correct 20, copy of that proposal is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and 21' incorporated by reference herein. I could not reach anyone at 22' Bernards Bros. the following day to find out if our bid had heen 7.3 accepted; I later found out from Mario Velasco, a pipe saleman for ' 24' Ameron Pipe on November 6, 1991 that we had been listed as the J.5 site utility subcontractor by Bernards Bros. 25. 27 4. After my firm's bid for the work was submitted to 28 Bernards Bros, on October 24, 1991, we were reyuested by 3ernards 1' Bros. to submit a subcontract bid to perform work at March Air • 2 Force Base. In the course of discussing that job with Jerry 3 Higgins, an estimator with 9ernards, in the week of November 6, 4' 1991, I inquire3 as to the status of the Rancho Cucamonga job. He 5~ stated to me "we listed you -- if we get the job, you get the 6' iob-" 7 8 5. I did not heard further from Bernards Bros. until the 9 Horning of `IOVember 16, 1991, when I was told by Scott Scha id that 10 Bernards Bros. intended to substitute chi r,o Engineering 11 ~' Constructors ("chino"j for our £irm. He stated that they had made 12 d, a mistake, and understood that this was a problem they would have 13 to deal with. l4 d Savala that he was Le na d f h 15, ear rom o r 6. Later that day, I 16~~ asked by Scott 5chald to lower our price for the work. I feel 17 that we had bid the job responsibly, at a fair price, and should 18,, be allowed to do the work at the price we bid. 19 20' I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the 21 ~ State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct. 22 23 Executed this z- ~~~ day o£ f%.~~_ ~ ~J~;c k~, 1991, at 2a .~l , californi.a. .% ~ /l'~ 25 ~ .C JOHN '1 DOFF / ~~ 26' ~ 27 .~ 2fi SUB EXHIBIT A ~3 ~ CiVcYltl / ~ ~ ! "; ccNs rrucnoN co Nc, ,~ ~~~• ,vi / '~~~~•~•"'/ :iEVERnL EiJ GINCEHING ~ ~ ~ // ~ ~ «...+ PAGE 1 CF 'p .<.......w =RCJ=C1 R4yC N0 C~CAMCVGA SPCRTS C:`M P-ER RID L,." !"'~'~E 10-24-91 TE' C:SIR I~'TIOV' • F' P .R PLAN CRAW; IIGS C-~~7 1HPOUGH C-26 S. R.1 u. .N :MVROVEMEir'i rr"'L rM1'S: 1 48" RCP 1500D 2. 42' RCP 14000 3. 3fi" RCP 775GD 4. 3D" RCP 1760D S, 24" ACP 2000D 6. 18" RCP 2000D 1, Trans. St r. 2D 235 8. AD Manhole De t. 8 9, JS "B" City Std. 509 10. Manhole "A" City Std. 510 11. Manhole "B" City Std. 511 12. CB kl City Std 502 13. CB A3 City Std 504 i4. Remove Inlet, Extend Lat 8 CB I5. LD Case "D" City Std 518 i6. CB Case "C" City Std 518 11. DI Caltrans Std D73 G2 Zu, Remove Bulkhead 22. Concrete Coilar 2 C393 Z3. Alhambra Lover 6 Frame A1260.B 75. 8" PVL SDR35 26. 4" PVC SDR35 27, JS Det Sheet 10 28. Encasement 29. Pipe Conn. to Manhole 3D. 6" Dta. PVC SDR35 3'. 6" Dia Cleanout _,, 672 LF 916 LP 414 LF 815 LF 1657 LF 3122 LF 1 EA 6 EA 11 EA B EA 7 EA 10 EA 9 EA 2 EA 10 EA 9 EA 37 EA 2 EA 3 EA 3 EA 32.16 LF 19.34 LF 3 EA 52 LF 2 EA 190 LF 1 EA .r r _ _. -I;'' ;,"IMAL SHELTER PAHI "B'' - S1URM_ DRAIN PER GRAD_I_NG PLAN C-1 8 C-2: 1. -~ Remeve P ug ~ ~ 1-~E~-- 11. i8" RCP 2000D 74 LF 12. CB 'd=4',V=4,88 R.L. Std 502 1 EA 13. LD R.C. Std 518 64 SF 17. Ath. A470 RCIP 4 LF I8. Brooks 24"x24" CB 2 EA 79. 6" LIP 87 LF '~GEi2 FA 5'f CONSTRU CrION CIRCLE / IRVRJ E, C~L~nCR NIA 42714 / ('!14) 6$1.0221 ' ~~~!~'~~;; aval~ ,,;;~/ coNSTzucTloN co INC. - CiCN E(1AL ENG.^.ICNING w44.eF ~A,I F. Z of 2 kn ~4+ :r- NA';Ch'IO CUCA'aONGA SPCR'S CCNP;.EX rE_.. • l,J" ~ G. _-~~~ _c-cGa;:•-.~n Irv -.- S[4i'cR !•'PRC'J EME N"S F'ER fLA NS Cal, Cat, Ca3 8 C4A T fJ" VC' Sewer 2101 ~F 2. 6'~ VCP Sewer 562 '.F 3 4" VCP Sewer 250 LF 4. Cleanout 11 F.A 5. Manhole Std .B 9 EA 6. 6" Lateral %5 LF 1. Ma nhote Over Exist 10" 2 EA R. Cndergraund Support 2 EA 9. Backflow Valve & Manhole 1 EA 10. 8" VCP Stuh 1 EA 11. Concrete Collar 1 EA 12. 2" PVC SOR35 D.F. Drain 195 LF 13. 4" PVC SCR35 D.F. Drain 265 LF /~- ~ i.~ E%CLUSICNS/57IPL'LAT IONS: NO PERMITS, FEES, ENGINEERING, SURVEY, MAULAWAY, BOND COSTS, DEMOLITION, R Eh1CVAL5, ASANCONMENTS, SOILS TESTING LOSTS, CONSTRUCTION WATER COSTS, 'WATER CONTROL, EROSION GONTROL, PERF DRAIN PIPE, TRENCH DRAINS, ASPHALT kESURFAC]NG. E%CESS SPOIL LEFT TRENCNSiDE 'dE CARRY TWO MILLION LIABILITY INSUHANC E, IF ADCI Tj ONAL REQ'JIREO, COST BY OT PCRS '.D DRAINAGE WORK ON GRADING PLANS QJCTE BASED ON NATI'JE MATERIAL SUITAHLE FOR PIPE BEDOIM,G AND BACKFILL UNION CGNTRACTOR DONO RATE 1.SX .;G NN LYCOFF :S ~JZ AST CO N'STR L;CTION CIR GLF IR Vll~ie. CALIFOR NIA 9. ]+,q i (/+, 4~6.ry I~Ud2? 1~' PROOF OF SERVICE BY PERSONAL DELIVERY • 7 l l I th . i , e undersigned, certify as follows: I am over the age 3, I of 18 years, employed in the County of Las Angeles, State of 4~ California, and not a party to the above entitled cause. My 5~ 1 E business address is 350 S. Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, 6 , ~ California 90017. On November 25, 1991, I served a true copy 7 ' (copies) of the 8' AFFIDAVIT OF JOAN LYDOPP IN OPPOSITION TO REQDEeT OF BERNARDB ~ HROe. CONSTRUCTION TO eDBBTITOTE CHINO ENGZNEERZNG 9 CONBTROCTORH FOR SAVALA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 10,'' the original of which is affixed hereto, on the persor, (persons) 11'x: hereinafter mentioned by personally delivering the same to the 12~,, following person at the following address: 13~~~ SEE ATTACHED eERVZCE LIST • 14,11 Or, in his/her absence from said office, by leaving the above 151 described papers with his/her clerk or with the person in charge 16' of his/her office; or, if no person was present in the office, by 17" ~ leaving the above-described papers between the hours of 9:00 a.m. 18 and 5:00 p.m. in a conspicuous place in the office. 19''' Executed at Les Angeles, California, on the date hereinabove 20~ set forth i.n this Certificate. ~ 21~. ~ I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 22 State of California that the foregoing is true end cor ect. ! ~~ 23 _, ~ ~_. _ r- -_- za ~ i n0i.~f.i F1}~oa4±kl 25' 26'~I 27i 28. 1 ~1~ SERVICE LIST 2.! Mr. Tarry L Smith, Superintendent • ~.I Park Planning & Development 3,,1 The City of Rancho Cucamonga ~~ 10500 Civic Center Drive 4~~, Rancho Cucamonga, California S 6~ 7,' 8'~ gi 1G'~ il, 12~ 13. • 14,' 15.,, 16 I' 17' 18'' 19.'~ 20' 7.1I, 7.21 23,j 24! 25i~ 2411 27~~ 2811 EXHIBIT 16 ya avala CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. GENERAL ENGINEERING Cecercber 4, 1391 Bernards Bros. Corstructicn ciG Ilex Street San Ferna r.do, Ca ii fo rnia 91x40 Attention: Mr, Scett D. Shald Revere nce: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Conplex 12-4-91 - 14:30 Fax Transmittal Dear Scott We have not as yet received our subcontract as stated in your most recent fax. Far your use and information we are again faxing you our Guo to dated 10-24-91, which very clearly speaks for itself. • Our si to utilities oac kage includes both sewer and storm drain. We ar=_ looking forward to working with you on this project. Sincerely, ~~,-~, ~ Leonard Savala, President LS:c cc: Mr. Tarry Smith, City of Rancho Cucamonga Mr. Mark Stapke 16Ju2 EAST CONSTRUCTION CIRCLE / iF.'v IN E, CALIFORNIA 92754 Q14) 651-0221 EXHIBIT 11 sa Ee:;,~~ds Gtos. Cottstwctiou • Ue4:en~:ber 4, 1991 ?.ir. John LydoH Savala Conswction Co. ] (v302 Fast Con swchon Circle Jrvine, CA 92714 Re: Rancho Cucamonga SportsComplex/Animal Care Facility Bcrnards Bros. Iob ho. 964 Site Utilities Subcontmd Dear Mr. LydoH: • Please 5nd the enclosed standard subcontract No. 7083 for the site utilities work on the above referenced project. This subcontract is issued for the site utilities workscope ecnsisting of the water distribution, storm sewer system, and sanitary sewer system and is in the total amountof $798,000. We respectfully inquest its unaltered exceudon and return to our office by December 6,1991. Please contact us if you have any questions. Very truly yours, B RNA S B OS. CONSTRUCTION I' 5 n .Shat Man er SD~:Inu Enclosure as noted Via Fax and Hand Delivery a: Mr. Tarry Smith, The C1ry of Rancho Cucamonga EXHIBIT 12 sa Geinatds bros. Consttuctio~ ]7eccmbcr 4, 1991 Mr. Tarry L Smith, Superintendent Park Planning Nt Development The City of Rancho Cucamonga i 0500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucatnenga, CA 91724 Re; Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility Bernazds Bms. Job No. 964 Savala Constriction Dwr hfr. Smith: Please find the enclosed letter to Savala Construction datrd Decerober 4. J991 • Rased on our past conversations with Savala ConsWCtion, we anticipate that they will not be wilting to enter into an agrament with us for the denoted site utility workscope for fhe amount of their proposal total of $798,000. We therefore seek relietpursuant to Pubhc ConsWCtion Code Section 4107(a)(1) and hereby request that we not be obligated to utilize Savala Construction for the site utilities work on the project and replace them with Chino Engineering. Please contact ~s if you have any questions. Very Wly yours, .RN S B S. CONSTRl1CtlON / I ~, S tt~ll. S al JJat Mana SDS:Intr l.nClOSUre a5 ^oted Via Fax and Certified Mail No. P 754 306095 1714)987-6499 u: Savala CoosWCtion (Via Fax and C.,ertified Mail No. P 754306096) Chino Construction (First Class Mail) EXHIBIT 13 ~~ • •+EC•uF FU'JC CM'~CN E^_w lnpe pewNEs B'~cr.An um FE AOGE9 : 6lIENRE vC •OB nN .:CE r u ~ Erv :BEE ~Ew '~•Ex, cEpO z ~n N'. E+' ^ z .. sE pr G 5'.p+E ^'09E e'. z'..E01C •' •EJ4 •rv09eE -ep E' . ~¢~' x _eoE. rEa3Fa'. ^vE.F E' oceE R. ~ upuEaz .a ~JU..~ .a ,. n': 5 L A W O F F I C E S THORPE AND THORPE w.' .~G .c ca ESa •e.v'.[v. e yc :.c =a c~=t ar. : ava e . o °O B'^vi~CE 00a "9,] . . , _ . s n :es auG ESE S.Cn autumn ONE BUNNEa MILL, EIGHTH FLOOR 'E'_ECCe'Ep 60t wE5T FIFTH STaEET t•n aeo.B^.za LOS ANOELE S. CP LiF O~NiA 906]~~2.^.9a '- (21J)680~GAa0 ~ (01915]0-0608 E e^EpEa'o e 0'.JR e.',E nC azlD9.ao1 December 4, 1991 VIA EXPRESS MAIL Tarry L. Smith, Superintendent Park Planning & Development City of Ranchc Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Savala Construction Co./ Bernards Bros. Construction Rancho Cucamonga Snorts Comalex/Animal care Facility • E:J Dear Mr. Smith: We are writing on behalf of our client, Savala Construction Co. {"Savala") in reply to Attorney Ted Gropman's letter to you cf November 25, 1991. For reasons set forth below, as well as in our previous letters of November 22, and November 25, 1991, Bernard Bros. Inc. ("Bernards") has violated both the letter and the spirit of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (the "Act"). Therefore, Bernards' request to substitute chino Engineering Constructors in place of Savala is improper and untimely and should be denied. The law in California is very clear on the subject: Under no circumstances may a prime contractor who has been awarded a public contract substitute one subcontractor in place of another after having been awarded the contract without complying with the Act. The purpose for the Act is two-fo ld. First, the Act serves to protect subcontractors who bid in good faith on a public contract from coercion by a prime contractor. Second, and more importantly, if prime contractors were permitted to substitute cheaper and potentially less qualified subcontractors, the lower quality of work attributable the "cost cutting" short cuts could Tarry L. Smith, Superintendent • December 4, 1991 Page 2 potentially endanger the safety of the public. (See 12 Biel California Real Estate Law and Practice, Government Contracts, § 434.76, at p, 434-59; see also, Southern California Acoustics co y. C. V. Holder. Inc (1965) 71 Ca1.2d 719, 726, n. 7.) Therefore, public policy compels a very strict interpretation of the Act, Since it is evident that 9ernards failed to comply with the Act, its claim should be summarily denied. The specific contentions made by Mr. Gropman in his November 25, 1991 letter are addressed in order: Section 4107.5 Of The Act Aoolies To Bernards. Bernards' argument that the clear language of Section 4107.5 does not apply to this case lacks the support of a single reported California decision, and would, if accepted, carve a gaping hole in the strong protections afforded subcontractors and the public by the Act. It is clear from the face of the statute that a prime contractor has two days to give notice of a clerical error. Bernards cites no authority whatsoever in support of its contention that its status here excuses it from the requirements • of section 4107.5. The public policy concerns discussed above apply equally whether the prime contractor originally won the bid, or was awarded the bid through the withdrawal of another contractor. The Act exists to prevent bid shopping and applies in all situations where a prime contractor seeks to substitute a subcontractor after being awarded the contract. Bernards' Failure To Comply With The Act Failur Was Not An "Immaterial Irreau larity", Bernards' second contention is that its intention to substitute another subcontractor in place of Savala is an immaterial irregularity which can be casually dismissed by the City. The work of the site utilities subcontractor was significant enough to require listing in the bid; thus, its identity, work history, and reputation in the trade would not appear to be "immaterial" to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. It is clear that Bernards seeks to create new law through resort to this argument; the reason is that it cannot cite relevant decisions, code provisions, or proclamations of the intent of the legislature in support of its position, and thus is forced to resort to the creativity of its counsel to support its request to substitute. Tarry L. Smith, Superinter:dent December 4, 1991 Page 3 Without even attempting to distinguish the cases cited by Savala, which deal with the law and facts pertinent to the case at bar, Bernards cites authorities not even remotely associated with a request to substitute subcontractors under the Act. For example, in Diablo Beacon Pr~ntine & Publishinc Co (1964) 229 Ca 1.App. 2d 505, cited by Bernards, the court held that failure to state the circulatior, figures for a newspaper in its bid was immaterial and permitted the successful bidder to retain a public contract to publish legal notices. Unlike the present case, the irregularity in the bid in Diablo Beacon Print~nc & Publishi~nc co. did not afford one bidder an advantage over another and did not affect the contract price. Similarly, Abrams v American Fidelity & Casualty Co (1948) 32 Ca1.2d 233 and Moe v. Transamerica Title Insurance Co (1971) 21 Ca1.App.3d 289, both cited by Bernards are inapplicable here. Both of these cases dealt with notice of loss provisions in insurance policies. As demonstrated in the affidavits of Leonard Savala and John Lydoff, Savala Construction Co, will be prejudiced if Bernards is permitted to substitute another subcontractor in its place where Savala submitted a bid in good • faith and is ready, willing and able to do the work. 3. Bernards Failed To File Affidavits Or Anv Other Evidence In Suonort Of Its Substitution Request As Required By Section 4107.Sfb1. Section 4107.5 provides in pertinent part: "The awarding authority shall, after a public hearing is provided in Section 4107 and in the absence of compelling reasons to the contrary, consen± to the substitution of the intended subcontractor: . (b) If affidavits are filed by both the prime contractor and the intended subcontractor within the specified time ." The "specified time" referred to under subsection (b) refers to subsection (a) which requires that the affidavits be filed within eight working days from the time of the prime bid opening. Therefore, Bernards' interpretation of the statute is incorrect and its failure to file timely affidavits or evidence supporting the substitution request should defeat its request for further consideration by the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Tarry L. Smith, Superintendent • December 4, 1991 Page 4 Based on the foregoing, Savala Construction Co. respectfully submits that the City of Ranchc Cucamonga summarily reject Bernards~ request for substitution. In the alternate, Savala requests that the City provide notice of the public hearing on the request to this office. Very truly your/s~~~~ Mark R. apk THORPE AND THORPE MRS:gv cc: Mr. Leonard Savala Chino Engineering Constructors Bernards Bros. construction e EXHIBIT 14 a9 av~.la CONSTRl/CTION CO. INC. ~"'~ GENERAL ENGINEERING Ce cer: ber S, 1991 3ernards Bras. Construction 6i0 Ilex Street San Fernando, California 913aU Attention: Mr. Scott 0. Shald Refe rerce: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex Subcontract Dear Scott: Floase send us a copy of our hid quote that covers ail th,e • items that you have 175 Led on the subcontract you submitted to us for our review. //Siuoe rely, VI~~ Leona rC Sav ala, President LS:c cu ;tr. Mar4 Stapke Mr. Tarry Smith, City of Rancho Cuca monya EXHIBIT 15 ~i ~(,ic Bros. Construction • December 6, 1991 Mr. Leonarl Savala 5avala Construction Co. 1Gt42 East Construction Cirde Irvinr., CA 92714 Re: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/Animal Care Fadliry Pemards Bros. Job No. 964 • Site Utilities Sulxontract DeaYlzonard: In response to your letter of December 5, 1991, we suspect the quot2'~on you are seeking to review is the same as that which you sent us on December 4, 1991. Sincerely, BE tiAR B .CONSTRUCTION Sc ~! Sh~d Project My~g SD S:l,nr Enctosurc as noted Via Fax 2nd First Class Mail (714) &i3~3Y 65'2 - b'S 9'Y EXHIBIT 16 ~3 ., ` ctVCIIQ " ~ (!iNE-AL Gv1GiNci4ii lid~i L~~'r ~~ O~ ~'~:~NSMO s w.~L To f4R. SCUM ( SiIALD BERP;: RCS EROS. IraC. 610 ILE% 6TREt't SA"~ fER>!k!;00, CA. 91340 DA*_ ...DFCEP!leR 6, 1991 Y.^.Uil DFD[q NI: f:.I1FH _, _ Ica NunwcR _. _.. P o r:0 _. ,, c.ccT ('.ANCHO^CUCAMO_IGA SP011'IS CU''9VL[X/AN IM:9L CARE FACILIIV GCV1 Lk'.!=:;. WE AHF SE^i DING vOU b HEREWITH O UNDER SEPARnI h CU'/ER ^ .RIN'.". U PLANS ^ MATCAUI. LIST U A5 Bi:ILTG C 001+'/ CF ! E'Ti^ C iUtll.u fTnL OCEt'AIL9 OSPECIFIOA71GN:i ^SIICP DRAWINGS G ~ r- - I TVyF- ~ DESCRIPTION _ 2 ~ ' ~ SUBCONTRACT N0. 7083 ~ 1 __ I __ I _ _ p,',r TAVG:!IT i EI: A:i CHFCK ED EEIOIV AOOVC ITi!AS S"•PVhD VIA ~~_.; , I J,;,,. yAL p gPPROVED AS SUBMITTED C FAX _._.~ - i:r•J,;LnP-h;:VPL ^APPrIOVE]nS NOTED CFIRSi CLASS ..C V?.7.^.I,)\;TIOV CRETURNCD POR CDRREC TiCNS CUPS -- .. '~ '~: L': CATICh C RE-SU B.'.11T_.-COPES FCR AP~AOV A1. O NEXS CnY CELI`lE~ ~ :'~'i C'^:~1'ivF~=PV.AT10V GhLY OSI,tlrAll COPES FCR OISTRISVTION CCTHER__.-___ ,, , _.;,r O UII J'.3'. i.IUU;:;,v C RETUR.v CORRECT EO FRINTS /I ~ - .. _~ (,~ ~-~~~,~ rU-c~~,Y T~,~-~hRS. .~ ,~-.- ,I ,'.\^'.r•. In::.: vr..rvC rovCS SHCE _"_____ Ir EvrLD.utaEE a'`[ Ngf~n7NDrC HIrvD1.° NCCJ'~ v:: a' CYC= EXHIBIT 17 Fs avala CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. GENERAL ENGINEERING December 6, 1991 Mr. Scott D. Shald Be rnards Bros. Construction 610 Ilex Street San Perna ndo, Ca. 91340 Reference: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex Dear Scott: In reference to your fax dated December 6, 1991, received at 10;08 AM, does thfs mean that this is the only quote you received from Savala Construction Co. for the Rancho Cuca- monga Sports Complex? • Thank you for your patience. Sincerely, ,~~~~~ Leonard Savala, President LS:c EXHIBIT 18 ~~ VHVF ~GE tO~''aE1] pOliO El~G! E 5 ~Oy 1ryO iE~EG°f~E~M° a , ~.IpRYE ~„~,.~ W P=`D 'C I`~,~~.pO Jp iEPTO .C p~MP'Y"~PH~.t $tP gO~'/PBp9• v~Qlt ENO. Mxf E~xESJON 1~NE gpNWE g9~p~l F~e,815~e.06 g21p9.8~1 t~ °~ Pa+ os h,EOEp 99 ix r- ~,t~PN r4N' _ xiWW J,OEPpt -TINE N.IxJ i EMt0.li lf•t=t1CN ~OBEO Sly 1NOPft OPl~xOPM J'°pfE' _ Bpf °iN NOPVE• NNGENiW ? 9l y co""QyEN ~,w 19 N °Pa PaT~+. o' Es emb6T 9 i ~°xPfO o ~gC .1 1 ndent V gu4eY t e notion . 4ERSCN L Smi peel ca onga tos constY ° sy ~ c° s 9 M aYK Plan of R eat Y a1 f°Ynia c IHetnatd °• 21 n h°c Cn°amOVala Cu SttUCtioa s o4 vsc of 9e in4 s ~YOS. 6. R Re • F o Atf lda L te4~ ps Bn9i lti s Oeoem red Y • Smith • the eXe t° t e 5t1 u as gltt i °nlent an g ti n o ld he • e DeaY MAtt d it oP 4°s 1 Daly Co ~ t tfa ~o ft a~~O~t it t q CsCl Ute sh In tb SUbt d ~e to se qot A5 s~ 9r thu5 0 ~ el Ye4~est of oat ~ga9e a and da gtYnG °t°Y co• r nd theL i tit dat s~ vala cOhes aY aPplyG hls i a e0.`~ite onU the Y ~ e o4 e Seal, ~l ted • not se gh°° upl a e Sa a a cOnstt • yo JYe . - - te~eo ?the ci £fic s as Well a ~ety ~t~s~~~"{,lY aV nOr ly thys ~ .T~ R• ~ a~otyYE time' 2K0 yE ~~ 1 . tag • 9p5nt6B 6ncl • EXHIBIT 19 ~9 • AFFIDAVIT OF LEON a sAVALA I, Leonard Savala, declare: 1. On Wednesday, December 4, 1991 at approximately 2:3o p.m. I received two documents from Mr. Scott Schald of Bernards Bros. Construction ("eerna rds"). ~ The first letter I received was a copy of a letter to Mr. Tarry Smith, Superintendent of the Park Planning S Development for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, advising of Bernards' request to substitute Chino Engineering Constructors for Savala Constr. Co. as site utilities subcontractor. A true and correct copy of this letter is attached as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by reference herein. 2. The letter stated that Bernards anticipated that Savala • Contr. Co. would refuse to sign a subcontract with Bernards, that relief to substitute under Public Contract Code section 4107 (a)(1) was thus available, and formally requested such relief. 3. The second letter I received, curiously aftrr the letter to Mr. Smith, was a transmittal from Mr. Schald which transmitted a proposed subcontract agreement. True and correct copies of the transmittal letter and proposed contract are attached as Exhibits "B" and "C" respectively, and are incorporated by reference herein. 4. On Friday, December 6, 1991, I signed a site utilities subcontract between Savala Constr. Co. and Bernards. The executed original was hand delivered to the Bernards office at 61o Ilex Street in San Fernando prior to the close of business. A true and correct copy of this executed subcontract is attached ' hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated by reference herein. • 5. Accordingly, as Savala Constr. Co. has not refused to sign a subcontract with Bernards, but in fact has signed a contract, Bernards' request for relief to substitute is improper and should be rejected. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. //~~ DATED: I~/O--7L LF~p D SAVALA • SUB EXHIBIT A ~s ueinatds bros. Construction • Dccembcr4, 199] Mr. Tarry L Stnitb, Superintendent Pazk Planning Rc Development 'I7u Ciry of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Cents Ikive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91719 Re; Rancho Cucamonga Spores Complca/Atdmal Care Farifiry Bemazds Btos. Jub No. 964 Savala Conftrucdon Deaz Mr. Smith: Please find the enclosed letter to Savala Constncdon dated December 4,1991. • Aased on our past wnversations with Savala Conswcdon, we anticipate that they will not be w0ling to enter into an agrerment with us for the denoted site utility workscopc for the amount of thcu proposal total of 5798,000. We thezeforc seek relief pursuant to Public Construction Code Section 4107(a)(1) and hereby request That we not be obligated In udlue Savala Construction far the site uhhhes work on [he project and replace Nem aith Chino Bngineering. Please contact us If you have any questions. Very truly yours, .RN S B S. CUNSfkUC11ON 1. S t S al Mans SD :Itnr I'ntlosurc as noted via Fax and C'atifiod Mail No. P 754 306093 (714)987-6499 a: Savala Coostruaion (Via Ftu and Certified Mail No. P 754306096) Chino (:onstruction (First Class Mail) SUB EXHIBIT B 7~ Bernards Bros. Construe m • December 4,1991 Mr. John Lydoff Savala Construction Co. 16102 Fast Construction Circle Irvine, CA 92714 Re: Rancho CucamongaSpottsComple7t/AnimalCareFacility Bernards Bros. Job No. 961 Site Utilities Subcontract Dear Mr. Lydoff: Pleax find the enclosed standard wbcontract No. 7083 for the site utilities work on the above referenced project. This subcontract is issued for the site utilities warkscope consisting of the water distribution, storm sewer system, and Sanitary xwtr system and is in the total amount of 5798,000. We respectfully nxltrest its unaltered execution and return to our office by December 6,1991. Pleax wntact us if you have any questions. Very truly)jJjyours, B~RNARpS Bl}OS. CONSTRUCTION Sdptt p Shalki M er SDS;Imr Fitclosure as noted Via Fu and Hand betivery ' cc: Mr. Tarry Smith,'[he City of Rancho Cucamonga [J 6101pp~ StreN San FrrrnarWO. CablaMa 9104D tB10) 9659578 X810) 090~tS21 FpX (BIB) 901 9108 Li< 9C2007 SUB EXHIBIT C ~~ Bernards Bros. Constru-'ion • TO: ALL SliBCONTRACT0R5 We have enclosed cvo (2) copies of our subcontract agreement for your signature. PLEASE READ, SICK, AND RETCR.7 BOTA COPSES L'pon receipt, ve viii execute your copy and return by mall. IN ADDITION: 1. Please provide name and emergency nigh[ telephone number of responaibie company oFficfal. (Refer to Aet achmenc "B", Paragraph 2) 2. Please provide a Grelficace of Corkers Compensatlan; Comprehensive General LSaDllity; and Automobile Insurance. Certiflca[es must reflecc all the require- ments of the eubcontzact. (Refer to A[[achmanC "B", Paragraph 9) 3. A copy of our "Subcontractor Invoice and Relnase" form is enclosed for your Snformation. This form is mandatory for all billings. A further oupply will be sent to you ac the time va return your fully executed aubconcract. 4. DO NOT AE`fOVE ANY ATTACHIfENTS. Attachmenia form an integral part of Cha aubcantzact and moat be intact in order to be signed and returned. Thank you for your cooperation. HERNAADS BROS. CONSTRUCTION SF114 (Rev. ll/87) B1011e, Blue San FFernanao, Caldorma 9r7a0 ~91e~365~9:rJ 19+8~999~r 521 Lm 2020L1 HER\'ARDS BROS. CO~~STRCCTIO~ SLBCOhTRACFOR C.ti'OICE A\'D RELEASE •W. REQ' TST PAl'`•ft\-I' FOR WOR'i PetZF02\f'cD D:.RnG :nc PEniOD E\TiLtiG AT 1 f~ J TOTAL A.tifOL~T ~ CO~L~LETED TO DATE i % I S VALUE i '~ Or. Iral Sc`xocaaa ~ i C,. I ~ i 2 oo NO; r acl,ruea 7 J a! hn< oa ban , areu~nrau on. y H9 G cNeae mee r you m4cea.•+c~ S 6~ 7~ gl 9 I 10 I 11 i 12 L^vv:cc L'o. DATE B.B.C. ioL 10. Ik7 AOT ltR.' TE LY ~ iEuS SPACE Pe:.cnagc Appvd. C.O.'S Appsd. Hold chak unit Beaten (or hold RCgL•[SI RIfaSLS (iCa---- Corect & ResuSait PAYa4"~'S AEQt.'ESrS Sl'B~^"~ ON A`fY O; riE2 F4AA( wTy BE SHE FOLLOwp.C~ NOM1'H. ~..u: Ya:_e o(R'ork Cemp:ra: to Date 5 Lest Remwio¢ of 96 S S:L Toul S Less P; r:icus Approved Requests S Aa,o~~:.t o(,.s Rr ~~aesl S C'poa receipt *.y :.`.e uaders:g^-ed o! a cluck 4oa He:rards Bros. ConsavNoa is ttse sun o(S payab:e a the alx~ve caned r;Lcoa:ac:or and when ~.e check hu Men propvly uderxd acd has been paid by the Lack upon whicL it is dawn, C.is dxa „eat s`all'xcoac e[Rctive to re'~.ease pm taato any mecbaeic's Tien, stop notice or Lond right the unCasigneC has oc ~~,c above rc.'e; ecced projen to the (oiiowiag <zte:.L T},isrc;eax caversaprogreis payment (or labor,services, equipceat or material (umis`<d to @e above «!erenced project through the period eodiny dare referenced above only and does not covtt any reeotion or isms barmshed after said date. Before any rrnipicet of tltis daumeot « Iia on iL said pate/ should verity evidence of pay rent to ~.e .^.derslgaed. Thx person sigcing ttis release on bdw(of the about named subconcaeWr waranu and «preuau W have the full legal a'. tior:y to act far and o0 LeYa!f of fhe subco~^actor a Ne terry above. By - cer,ow sF~a+~ ac. sine Title BF.R.tiARDS BROS. COtiSTACCPION SCBC0ITRACTOR L~'VOICE Ahb RELEASE •wE REQUEST PAYtiR\'f FOR w'ORK PERFOR.i~ DL'RLtiG ~ PERIOD Evi)G\G AT (:JS Rae,ed A1vrj s_xa'cac:or: i TO?AL A.A1OL'•r-i' CO!.fPLETED TO DATE % S ~ALLE i Or.::al Scbcoo~ct < O ~cr 1 ~ 2 W SOT W~wnau ~ Pn M.e ooi bae utvN brau on, al 09 C d+ap rndv yow mtcamr,a S 6 7 8~ 9 10 11 l2 PAYMER REQIrFSS SLE.~4, ;.D ON ANY OIFffJt FO0.N w'dl. 9E TFtF PO(LO'1/n:G MONiH. Ted Va:ue o(Work Comple;al m Dim S Itss Remraica of % S SuS Toul S Less Previous Approved RequeaU $ A.:.ouri of :his Request S L'poa :a<ipt by ~",e •~orlmigeed of a cheek kom Buea+ds Bms. r;nnsw<tim in the sum of S payable :o the above tamed sexontra<tor and when n",e check has been properly <ndorxd and has 6eea paid by the 6asdc upon which it is drawn, phis documem shall lxcome <ffectiva to release pro Canto any mechanic's lien, crop oodce or hoed right d+e undasigaed has eo the above rdc:enced project ro the following urea. This release wvcn a progrtss payment (or labor, services, equipmcm or mamdal fur_sh<d to d:e above refreeced project though the period coding dam re(<rcnced above only and does not cover any retention or items FW wished afmr said due. Before aey «cipier¢ c! Chu document «lies oo it, slid party should verify aideece of paymens to ~.e un.;arsign<d. Th<persoe signing Uils release on belulf o(Ne above named subcontraemr wartanet aM rtpres<eu to have the full Icgat u~,c,-.,y to act far acd on behalf of ~A< svhcoavactor m the remit above. By (or,aiw W„wit) Eavoice S'o. B.B.C. lob `.'o, DO KOT WRrTE Cti TTZS SPACE Peua:age Appvd. C.O.'s Appvd. Hold check uent Reason (or hold Rsyuest rclcases (ram Cortect & R.-submit LFJtt Rev 5/BE ~~~i.~~r~ ~~orztt ~~ib~r..tr~ct Scbcontcar No 7C83 • THIS AGREEMENT, male and entered into at~ San Fernando, California ,,:!;s 4Ch_ d.v ,- December l9 91, by and b<:w cca Be rnards Bros. Inc. _ -^~::nsl:<: -~::e.i CONTRACTOR, with pr:ncL^•.i aF„e r 610 ilex BtreeciSan Fe rnandoi CA 91340 ,~.; ~$a_aala Cons true ticn Cn. Inc.. 161+02 East Construction Circ le il;,.;.a;nv.';er ci,ec c~°_CO\T7ACTGA I cvir,e CA 92714 O14) 651-0221 RECITALS (h o: nb~:~.: ~!:e_1=th ,(,., of Sovember _, i9 91 , CO\~TR ACTOR r;:::c± :n,. _ -.c c~ru;: a.~r. She CLC;of Rancho Cucamon¢a P.edeveloomenC A¢encv _ carc..a':e: a'dai O\t'NER, a~:-,osr a'_J; ess s 10500 Civic Center Dr.. Rancho Cucaco~ay C;1, 91729 _- :n perhom :he fcana'mg wnr:u::;:n work: Sports Comn lex/Animal Care Facility 8400 Rochester Avenue Rancho Cucaaonga, California BEZYARDS BROS. JOB N0. 964 3rd w,>;k is ro be prformed :n arordance with the prime com;a<r and the plans and speafntions Said plans amd sett:rcz:^cs F.:ae been p:cpa: ed by err on be^.aii ot_f.R Tii AC RiRf' ROC iFR.Ai VFS_ pLAFaiFAC ARfAT'pFl'Ts ,.{RCHITECT ENGINEERS and Wolf£/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc. SECTION 1 --ENTIRE CONTRACT 6CBCONTA.{CTOR certifies and agrees thu he u (ally 0miliar with all of the corms. conditions and obligations of the Centnu; Dccamems, a herema(:er defined, the location of the joh s;;e, and the condrttons under which the work is m be performed, and thn he corers inm thts Agreem. ene based upon hrs nrvesngation of all of such movers and is in no way rc!ymg upon any opinions or-.<prc scn:arons of CONTRACTOR. h is agreed thn this Agre<menr represcnu the enure agreement I: is func~r agreed char tie Ccnrraa Decaments ue mcorponted in this Agreemrnt by this reference, wrth th< same force and erTect as if the same were sa forth a length heron, and that SUFCONTRACTOR and his sabconnaaors will be and are bound by any and all of said Can;n¢ Duumens inse~ fu az they rei+m in anv pa:; oc in any way, dvecay err ~ndirealp ro the work covered by this Agreement. gUBCONTRACTOR agrtts to be bound ro CONTRACTOR m the same ramner and m she same extent as CONTRACTOR is bound to OIX/NER under the Contract Docummts, ro the extent of the work provided for in shin Agreemenq and ;hoc where, in the Cones: Dasmcnts reference is made to CONTRACTOR and the work or specification therein perrams to SUBCONTRACTOR 5 code, cnfr, or rv~pe of anrk then such work or specfication shall be inmrpretrd ro apply ro SL'BCQNTRACTOR insmad of CONTRACTOR The phrase "Cemna Dace mend' is defined ro mean and indudr. As listed in Ac tachmenc "A" hereto dated Novemher 21, 1991, pages 1 through 10 of l0, which forms an incegral par[ of this agreeaent. SECTION 2-SLOP: 51'PCONTR ACTOR agrees tp furnish all !abt r, sett' ices, ma¢ru ls, insmlluian, anage, hoisting, supplies, insurance. equipment. «a3~; id.n ¢. s+is and ocher fauimn of every kind and ducnption regmred for the prompt and <!fiucnt execanon of the work de- sc::Sed h;:em and to perform the work necessary or incsdennl ro complete SrrF ItTTS TPTFC _ L;r :he pmlect in setter ac;orda~ce with the Convaa Docummn and as mare particularly, though not exclusively, speci5ed in: 5?EC IFICATION SECTION(S): 02713 - Wacer Dls[ribut loo System, C2721 -Storm Sewage System, 02722 -Sanitary Sewer Sye[em, and applicable pore ions SECTION 3 -CONTRACT PRICgf 02221 - Tr¢nching, Backfilling, and Compacting far Otilicies CONTRACTOR agrees ro pay SL'BCONIAACTOR fo[ the stria performance of his work, the sum oF. CY~}il`ypo cn v,vFrv_Frrsrm munt!cavn CO[7.ARS t~ 798.000.01__7, subsea to addnions and deductions far changes m the work ss may be agreed upon, and ro make payment in accordance with the Paymmr Schedule, Section 4. Pape I of 2 GEN 'ALSUBCON eNSURANC(; iI RCC~TRAC ')P ,n o r n Fete •oa p;oRw~c.n of„~,;, m. ptttin.inr,rv n' ll~ IRALTORr Gror `JLIICV \TPACTOP S` mr P J r R ~.. P S SL&(\ Rler C ATR.4 UR SL'f0 TP 1C1l RSr„ nJ _ S R e t L[ !R LINDI IiY 1 Ar. e I T-X 1 9 1 i t NLV^. :gip ~, I ..a..r n .. ..nrr ,. .r p i=~mo ^I na ..me 1.. `rr ~ J(~~' r.r re.e,. .. .n rM1n ,. r>a ~ S x.r i' \TP P \ 9 ~ ' I r F • LI \ 1 A l ~;' r((\TP 1lxT A J^iPAt• P r .r • Cl('A nr rm f e.rr r. n e CV \'R 1CiUR r ..,. >L'P [ )IDNDINL Or ]UKOMTRACTDr _1..,, n v m~,n M n n rJ rF,r er 'rP r('. r.Ar un~~l..cr"tlCU\TRA(Tr1A .Ir .I,\IPnCTUR LV.\ IRIA (TUR~MAI Pn me pmm~.m on u r D-Trulnn-T~a NDrmwn e'I nn Jr .- r Ir .Aawh AK1,CTR1 CT rR5 rn ne,;m :o ~o~rea Tali sr'r n •a~' .,.err, art 9rnnC. i~~w.i m. n.„ r, ~ JM.~ b: r:n~rr rme .~a m. m; .'lM lr\^RA (TUA`aMll :n ~iFnr r`p rn~l. nGU,rJ bIR {~, `r n Cnrrm . u ell rFCD + rM JY rl .n ^el rn,nu .aHea ~,.1J~.~r~~M".ari~~ ::ern: rl",r,"nrr ~nin,r mrTa rub^nr aM r,I IMn •uTTPA(TR nmrnr rrM ,t r r nrµrr a <UnY11.1rRilj 0^ n nl,p ve r' rr l',ee[p^re .L~e meAn nla'v .Meal An ruu M1 r I II nr irJ nine Grmm~rnrtrM ~mi,nl~„rner rvhnn ~r :^~jv~^nt..rd rlr.u :< • ~ prlxmme me nmr'r Sml YNern rwnu a me .~rC ur $VpL(1]tRARUI `an rM Drv. ar slw^J sl nr VVTRACYnR k erorN in mr :n,. .r .nit „mrlnron ,rl me nrY F, , f q• rr., rr ..r Jr.ru r rn r.U \I R ,. .r Rl III Il Cirnr n (ll\l'A,1f, TIIR ~-Ai-rri •L llr,.liP l[Tlm k.e. J..i it rrcu,rN pr `\TRAIT r, I~p II`X i .1 •n y 111 a V Arrr clip V 'rq , r b,l w m br ~IP> e'nwrr~nl RntCTJ^` r r~riM _ )L DIJ!~l iP,rl IImR rF+~. ,nAer~, Jnl h,r rTR•• rr ~P • TWe m~n•J mJ . ~ q'AJ .,r\.,\'r T.,rPr ~`~m r, ~xn nr r.rrR~arrnf errmrr~Mr (14\lR Y}' ~ ~iA rTr'P ~` .,rnr.,n eon r v ~ • r,r 1'. -tone rAe R ~ r~ixr:ri6e 'r. '; ^;~ F grim r.>., yl p. r, •TPt P'P .^rl. <aem n mr ne ~~~ ... .r •rr l.tlr ATR1 T1R prm edlnrnnmre oar r`JTX II irP Fr Ir n I ~ •IP~u .n r SL tlCUb iR ACTI `R X.II'k INN .' ~•. rr+ mRrrui.n .+ .N h CU. TR.Lf.T IRnmm ' -. an n.r rn,umn.nrt er,\r rn pi Mrnn mmennl rlur, 9 ~~ 'X. n~Ran. J , u,n OW'J[I1 br rmh Jtln• m.l u r rAm m.l Cm.\TRACTDR •. ueti rl `.i r^`rn,d n c,nr rr:L KUhTMCTUR m nr P.rm I r m r ..i •TP rTOR ..r L CNRULIp IN iNI wORN-{LKOiTR.1CTOR error prmmmaie.n, anJ - marFn Amm~m4 rm rM ~urY re~C~NTIIACTUR m rr-A, ~e rnrrJ Mrnn, and pn n O rAr Nm( sC'KUNTIIA(irlR rnJ rpnrfiunerrrran,m r rMnu Mwnlmm n amhn e'rl, .'erns PSI KUNTIIACTOR mhe mr rnmw .iPai^Pr^ Nan werM rnuen nrJer elmeCONTIIRCTUR rnJ n pa. Jan a eu[n m Je b rF< SLKONTR.1f TuA ^..e- '.l.Fnn.rrrrnA Or(V.\'iPACTDM1. anJ. rmm~mr rAni iA^Ir ~r 1R ,r`Rrm ae`rrynnrnr lnr.nr w, rc~ .. aloe rMunrll rnr f[IN nr.\Tpr1m r Imm UW][R sL,tlCJ]TAACIOR MII wem,r ' [OR . n Srm vmNwl n nr ormar are rn,,,Mr....ma .,.,.Lr.,,........n .;m6L' I n mlr mr .m,n rrrinrmN w sL'e -V~Il~rne SLBCDNTRACTUP .o • weaervronJ dnunm wrNnn rn rM cre Rem rnr uaw W rot r.orY nr rnf npenu el YrAfr u+dm. SL dCO\' TP^ \T^-R rp.J Se lue.^ a rmM nttnu r^erml rnn Irnm.An A^mmmr or In rJ.Nariran i nr rl. ~ nFerAfr maJr i nr n Jeer Mrtn r i:N na rel~' I n rnu^e prl` n n rn • hod 'r~rn i ^'^PM1mn ro nn Irnrb wr r ~ rr U4' EP n vrCO\TPn.1C.TOR nrii M unJtr rme m or rvrmn of mr nm dmq I OY4ALE5 4UEE0 RT D(LATE-SMuv 'L'OrObTRACTIM eeOwr ,n rAe ^rnwr ,v r'.,rv,.nr( ar mr .,in. tempt a nb. m ne pumf ramrnr .nrY, M .J `~,ar e' nr mJ'I'i rr ur [n PJ,nr a nfJ>Jrmeen ru e' r ma dml Ulrr.A TA 1C IIrR mai x M i unJm `,r P,rrupndm AJrur+St u.uJ br nrJn L,u nr G,d .rhv rn.r TRACT PROV IONS Grnem rN mnrmi m 3UKVNTPAQOR. mn;[:nm[ .nan n. M umr rMN M p•pn m rr/mp rmmNUren Sr >LpCp\TA\r ir;0. ~. CV]TA~UOR TU^ . J ULLt [R Sa„ TUA; MII xr0{Irn rn ;mn r0\TP 1r - J 1 IyJ be J M h F ~1T9 RLT P V\ n J I of l' iR Cl PAA' J dl F' I pr ur M ' LN \TR.(T IR R .~ r;A lie' \ IR LI <) iR C l.R: W •~\ M1 CtUR f ('U P.( CR F A[C A. ' rr,r x J k u to ^. Je:: r`\rns(mn u SAS F°J ' 1. .. n n'. Ji r ^ or \i9 CT IP n K ,R{ TaU0. \T0., Cl P J CYI:Vfl (LbR .Ar L~r ' J r . G J `I ,R,IC `r1R w Sl, pfU\T0.e TF Y `N d r ~+'rtt-r rN n n< VR qr .n „ LKV\Tftk aR n: 1 w M A N RICOVRip IV CONTRACTOR 1 F F SCKU\T¢ C GR o f I p S n i R N41, 1 N n1.R CU\TR CTOR$ T I re A r miser rlmm mJ 1 boF I Grcmrr rn ern ~vnRaMYrteu rn[.urY rw(rn Sl~ rAa;nmenr ar'm nn h!~ ante f:n~e: \admn Ap m of plmtnn q„rN m G mrde ro mr HnIrA rM atl~ue Or,-r.r .rr rnr prpnn.wnrnnl pen+rrr' Ant tr Mnmr Lloeryn e: rrrrr ae la.,r' ~ -, F J al rota Lmnrl SuMmrrur Ira.trua M ;r, w per rumel m arMn.u ar a re Gtrlorm lull :nt rM YII tl rM 4mmmn ben n r Nn CU\TRnCT11R .r A.o%oq Iur pr YG lem n[nr i b.,,n Nu(rKrn:~arpn:rinvpro.r :nrfmnapwrMrM~'rw~ eWr rMrnlmlr rue k.omr nw SL KU]TAACTUR unJn rFu Aeuentn, ar WNTT.ACTOR nyr, a A,r won r SL'KONTRACTUR 5 nuM n prurN mNn rM .µ mL m roar nr. (~I\TR~CTIJR rbp Mre rb Front n men uLVn rN wesun nl the worm ' m~•or nnwr.rn. for mf w,rrva nl rnnpmin. rM.µ rnrlrAJ •M.r mrr Avm m I nl mwnul.. MIN .M ypem<n M sLKONTIIACTOA. W m ' nY W Fer Rrrm ar Rrµn sr nnr.A A[ •orY rM p1gJr M migr Ir rFxrlq In A mmrnno.n ul RL'Kn9TMCTUA 5 ruM ro RuW .YA rM.on. u.J ^4bCO.VTRACTUR rNll qN G mrrrlN G krWq gmrw mJn rTa ue n 1 M[ Y umprolen bl W\'TRACTOR n Mr Nw rmnur r rmple.y 1mrMa Ar Mr nmr. rl rM unRM Mlrn[ N M Ymw.w n 4 prd vnJv `Fn A.rrtmeN v.Mr rM npmrCr NyunN M CONTIACTUA u Lmr6nr[ SCl~ 1 O]TRACTOR S ruY w.b rrmr Mru M prJ ti CONTRACTOR a sLKOF~ TRACTOR. ppn rl run tpnu atoll nrM n .GW yrlYrYq rM S{,'bCO'w. TRnCTVA rMll Irrmph pt m CUNTIIACTOA rM riprrr bi rMn wm nwnu rv u.n unprrJ WLntt 11re <aRnu MtrrN q rn M lav rmrgr Yhr,l m: ..re I v~romna Vim. MJ ~~ dun.n4rumlrrNnbr CONTRACTURr b mono nl Sl b f U\TMCTIIR 5 Jrpulr. ton Y mrM1up M ISrF C I gnMy rtq Inrr p•oM nr rM ..I n u.F nlenut .nJ CUNTRACTOR rMll Nn. Irm u u v Tn Yn l rq~rr.ryn rt4enrnivrannm I. n rlarluM ro r re<nw.m<t, n `;i~d meier riiuree rl Rnurpn •nlMwlne,m..mirrgmm~<... • ICU\Tn \tTi1R C IR u nu NJIn. rM.n rn nn A[rnmmr Y •nF1wIJ, m w utwm W wbR9rreulr d kwnN nrAevt. r rme •nn.e prep ImT plmmr umin slCTl(1NAro wrA nlmrumrYx rnnn l m CO\TR LCTUR Imm Im, iMIYJmt rem. W Y e Im. m l~Jw,r er r u r..w .. rr.r. .. _.._ mrnn ( rM« k rM ,m,e...m,....r ~ n.vr.: ~rN.~ R crwnu u w rMn Ju aM ammR SECTION 4-PAYMENT SCHE~'ILE ' CONTRACTOR agrees ro pay SL.'HCO...RACTOR in monthly payments of 9C ^; of labor and materas which. bn~c 'Deco p:a;cd in position and (or which payment has Seen made Sy OIX'NER to CONTRACTOR. TF.e rerawing 10__-• shall Se :r coed by CONTRACTOR tmnl he receives final payment f:Dm OW\'EA, but nor less titan :hmry.fs'e days af;cc the em.::e • cork :egw:ed 6y the prime contact has been folly complead in conformity with the Conr.aq Documrnrs and has been dc:vr. ed and accepted 6y OWNER, ARCHITECT, and CONTRACTOR. Se Sleet ro;he prorsiens of the ne%c sentence. :he revnd pe::eeuge • s`.ail be pa:d S!,'DCONTR.4CTOR promptly after COSTR.ICTOR :ccnves Ss noel co}'mr..t @om O4r'NER. $L'BCONTA.dCTOR :: ees :o furnsh. if and when regwred by CONTRACTOR. payroll atSdavis, rrups. souc'hers, releases of civms !er 66or, ^..:er.a; and wbcc rc,aeors perform mg work or (uroishing mamr;.9s under cols .ogre: mene a:! m fe;m saa6enry :o CONTRACTOR, an.i : '.t ag: eed :`a[ no pr:mrn[ hermndec shall Se made. except at CO\' TRACTORS ep::on, emit and unless s,;ch pay:eil ,f^".2r; s. :ece:nts, so_chca or :creases, nr any or ail of :hem, ha-:e been fu: coshed Any pv'ment made he: e'-nder p::or ro conpie:ion anu .. cepnnce of ;te work. az rc(erred to above, shall not be cons¢ucd az ea'idrnce or ac:cotans eF any par. of SCBCONTR.{CTOR'S a`UIK. SECTION 5-GENERAL SUBCONTRACT PROVISIONS `=`~' ^ Ocar.:! Subcontract Pro.'tsmns on beck eF Pages 1 and 2 are an inmgra parr ai chit .4ereemene ~'".~<2 t%4. SECTION 6-SPECIAL PROVISIONS As described in Accachmene "D" hereeo daced December 4, 1991, page L of 1, which ior~s an lneegral part of chis agreement. • r Confnsfon are required 6y 4sr fo b~ licensed and ngulated by fha Confnafon' Sfah licasna Beard. Any questions concerning a <oMracfor may b~ nfarnd fo fha registrar of fha board whmo addn» it: Conira<tori Stah Li<enn Board- 1010 "N" Sfnaf, Sacnmaefo, California 9SB14. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. 'ITe Partin herno have executed chis Agreement for themselvn, their heirs, e%maors, successors, adman isvuon, and assignor on she day and y<u first shove wn¢en. SCBCONTRACTOR SAVALA CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. CONTRACTOR EERNARDS BROS. INC. Name Title Gsrpondon ^ Putnership ~ Proprietorship (Seal) Convacroi s State I3cersu No Name Title Jeffrey G. Bernards, Vice President <untncmr's Sra¢ Licrnse No 302007 -aya 7 of 2 GENERAL SUBCOtR ' 4Fmiovepim <tlrnefi~~u~veer <J no Y`r5L .[RACSORa .nY el reu W m~)lblV\TR ACTV0. w Pr vlrirn mkan wren inn 'Nxn;or nu Peron. N undn rMr ALrw nr a Wrd IRMR REL.T ONf-Lmplnymmr ulmuMr ny 5L'BCII\TRn[.TOR rAbl M ' 'IlrRm•'rllr A`vnr '^^rra ^r nCV\TMCTnR BCO.\TRAL ev <1 re Jv n<•u <n SL RCn n iPACT RS rtPrvnwre rMln MAav Mrnd • rIF LwU 'TRnCTOR Mp A [ rL pr+r nmm a mr r 5 BCOM1TR tC VR rMln rl'nC0\TRACTOR •AO SLBr ONTRAC TCP p y n r of my vM'.e JI vVrtu ..r Sv.R f. ,0..l G0. rly Crl\TR SCTOR •Fe n nprnennv r % •. nlf^]lRnr Tl>Rr+r1m rrnu CU`.TP y(TIRF 'nM rRr l<Yw Af l+r+rvmrr f~* ['un ,`enn LMrfry ` . e L armf n ...re.rrp -.i e..me, rn.l T ymnr. In .. r M CONilACTOR carry < r •. •S.r r. mnen r ...... -. \ P R ., of E .(rye M \ RSCT R ~, P fln <r`EVn ~ A/R[ i,Lil R n'v r \,. n norm b iR ) I\bTRAf ( •I~e M1 b(V. R ~C (1RLBll, ', P.(il R) "rn<e v,b ,aY • nn a tuft m m Jr r pTPr prr! ei R r •^ SnMO 'R )CiUR .vnnr ,rn ~M M1,M rM vl .M m ~.b~n - urL rrl rN n am5'~ R rR ', M fl TR SCiUR'I~a ,n rv'v .J J. nrn r kLin ~eJ h ne U?.TR¢T R re v )L Ul( ]TM<.TURS p ace ru a nrmn, rn.r p,;.ce.pnl Ir uro~o I J ..Mm ~„ • r rrporr rr on'r. C.:unn, r r nrrrnr..rrR,ver ~ r arrr.!reJ net M I M arpu~..r nn,A,rtt r i pggN m erM v e al NAVre of SL'BCOVTR.ICTORr ro M1n<II mnd nom.m Jmi r mu~enrrlr m P~m W<nlmmr of nnnA~lbmrrrr urye l WORRMRNLNIT-f•rrv p•n ul Me .oN Mrnn Jrrrr:IN MII M nnund m n rard+n<e •un IM1e ,:mnq Oovmr r n rM mo wu m, .erlmm.rle. W rvM1rfruh lundnm r;er .arl Rfrrrvn d xnW rRtlI1M lu n NrN m mpb anu•nunrl rlu Irlrirlrre rM pregr .nd .•prJrr,au+ urran el rM .arL !W Mr:l M ne. rM rM Ent of Mn. r rmn.e Rner, w.M nN~ munnp a mN %nvmrlr pre•rIN rn rM • fanrtut Nrumrnn ro M ernenrx TRACTORfraJ nlOmnlen•'CurOmple lx~r n~nRU~ min for 11 IurnrrR ra CVN, r iM n ar ro r rM rMq a .nn ~ernvnmrA.Irre~ -:. m•. M rn ruvne nlver errv. errrrnr m•nulrervn er Henn m LLRCI)N. rrr rPrPnn,r: er mrn.nr~.n N r and mmurnprt m nun Jnnn ar mn ee :MUnN 0y' ~. pLN Jn•'.~n or ...mmr m m.rn N grpnrtr<n v MRTIRIf LL IVRNILMIO ET OTNIR3-In tee nenr mmm nrmn Mbr vrner - of )L MIS\nIRACTI.R r, rru. enree l`t . Frer;N r ~.-.a.:rui .nn m.nu: J.rnuer tome. nJve.~un yr pLOCO`.TMf TUR dCIMaru ' ~ ~ CJ\TRACTV:R rod Jrav.'N :rnm menin.,ur under rRrr . ~ 0 0.ROT(p10H OI wORR-)C Rfn\TR n(TUR MII S r rru ice w . ' to Remndrr an. r. me IvJ re nebrrrn ~~ TRACTURrrur per mem mRf MITECT UM ]EII <nJ CI pnn a r.vn prernnun n n nr n I~nr U1VA4 TUM1 rM inner mMenr r a rSl N.upiRACTUR •. h i.en la r L ' f nr ryvipmrnr rrul mrrrrnn un rM pR~rrre r..urN 0. :en o: Pn•r R Uf10A COXTRICTOR'f IpVIRMIMT-In rM nenr NW?TR 4TUR5 ?o~er,r n rrtib Mrluu mr Wrennm er: n r•~n :rnm nrmn Tvrrn o)vnnc~:R.n.mn .a rr~p nnenn~ mr,.M.n..l Mr. n ; ;Non .mp car m<oiJ~f n'.~°.atirw~:~r of n:d°~o i rt pra •i rn r ne"a n rro< nr inn im:rnd Dram aamu Jmlundrt m~ilp~e~M m.r,ryd RURCUBTTACTOR W R 4UnRANi11-SI BCUNTR SCTPR punrnrm rll m rM •admMrRlp J repir +nd nPnv. •nd mnM ruurlwwn W CON. TPAGTUR. mr rnd rr nr+ wle can yed JrlNme ar mgogrry mm11N u qll u~unmrn IM U4'NEII mJrCOYTRACTOR rprmr InerLp, bn ar dwrrM <nruR 'r u l mmm~mn durrnA r Nrral of one rnr Irmm rmmMmm~ rM NtfP.nf M •'• .orY m.aN By rR M1prrm<vpnrnn II. M.nN, Me pTrrM p Wp. l :J n<m el on<r Br rM Comm Oavmrnn. $I GCO\'TRACTOR JrJI M Mun< J+rrnp rM Ivr[rr PrrN VnpJIrrN 3 INO(MNIIIC1110X IROM p.LiENT RIONT$-SLBCU\T.TACTOR rR<II rn m i and Iv v W VTRA(TUR nvmra. uun r rn rbrm u or cacao, r ,ndr. ueon Jr rnlnn^emmr er wum tour ~Mre inn M mw r4rm CON TR.ICTUR Or rr n I I u n n • rR er rr frrr vl rM wlrolm<Mf b tort nemlur M wmrd eArpnm~ mNr ~M or nN~mul~rM EN m nu RIII nwnN nrWdmE n .Aan W\TRACNR inn mwr n drlrNmE P Mrvuwp ur rvrA Nw nn er urwn :ACT PROVISIONS f AS51GNMlNI ONif.CT-+1 tl( ta;' i • F . yr o e <^\TP, rpR e T^JR, ml e1 ar Wrrr JreWrtn n•pn [. r.Tr..l ... ,.r.- e.. V INO(ILMpINT CONTAAVCTOA` .1 tltrt'\'P ~ + P -.ury R ~ e f 0~ _ e9t P1C R~. 'Pr' i P M1 nr a .... - ....r.. v •.. «. .. .. 'P rl '.P. Rfrr\'P rfT~• TPAITfR. •FLP SCT~P ~ .3f (n •rl'nr ra a o-- .. AT, X 5<r OR ATroRNn's rus_:,, nr r. \TPe- \;P r~ TuR - prrnnrre '.C nrat vA :r., [. r r rJ ru R ARLriRATION nr. MrJ _r 4 f' TA5 L'P .v ..: Ir f f' R5 "P pl.p roM1rn^cnlR n. xr. r: 1. , n<r.SPCNIT[<Tpu n~~• rnJ Jre •Id r•b n\<TPpCTr IRnm A Bfv~\TR SfTORmn J mJ dnr eve e f.+nm^r ^r. I ! R ~ ~. er.rni C(1 TRnI TN1R : bunC a Avl\fll Sv~a. re, m+r..J rtr rent n..r n. pa.'~.prrr rn uiv T IMpEMNITY CL1U{f RL SNITT-N 110.1`TA SfTnR r -~K rrM e.rr • v nl iAAITUR vv LI mr f~n mylRrrnairP'me'NFl~I_Mw ir4br(wNnA l)aJ nook .? r ^MnvR !•nJIrIIN u11:ArnJrr •uRrMA ra%en •i•M pmmvll. r,rN ny me r m .MVM1 r,Im u,Jn )L O(uVrP SCT IRr eu IullrrnP nnl.rl a r fv m rR.rrPrnr ~M rnal d 'uhnn un ^PM1mur n'r< r e m. Inlur I>L INIINTRAroTnRP rr.r ter real rG V~'R~tfir)R•). r^'^Ny >LM OATMI TnR •.nnl inJrmnrn rm• n.nd enminA~OJptR 1(Tr `R ~~nr m^rre•~mrx .ar~ ;n.ler' R^r rx n.Aie ~ ttr •a'n TR11^URmnvlnn rr<•r)L'&O]rpR~rM1n v-n •~.,n r~%I :nfn IarrA. Fn WrarrapM1 m A(TI IRrS !u.v.r rn Iv. „ me rorenr n C mmr Mri al LNr.~~STAAROR 1/.. mPr. a r eJ T 4irlur a of •n pM m.l Fr rM prnr r.P'I •.r mJ I(q •51A~• eir u r M1Jr neMe .nd e n 'Jm^er^M PnW ~p,pNm n .rrJn~^(~~\TRA(Ainll rmr~rr; $uPrrn~r r vJrnv. QUr M1r• nreJ rrn ,eelrrrnnJ nim n. vv vl ru ii fr fR 11•Rtt eyCn aJmmmnr it rnP INOIMMITT CLIYl110R IOYRL IMYIOTM(MT pEMRIUNITII{ VIplRT10Nf Sl Ktl\tRAt TUR mnl n nn .,. Cenu, r n rM e< me a (ertvmn Wbun it rM (np TRnA(TnA r ~ ~ mP.• . rTRr.i~M~n~rPrlme:~:~n:n n m . .,~i:u ~ •, Av IOW r, J ''nrrN $r r C~un erne r.'^ en r~.l .le (~.. r~R ~ r n. l l l' IRe f ldm . rfur E r'n~rr n rFn a rOU ~ ^1 r mpl : em Prue.n Irtm'Jre faenr ~. P'rn a• .r r,Pe,rerr rnlerr or JN~.rrrrn^r.n mrTOpnm <.,J . • .ndr rmrrrJmm rnr n rmJ II plr Pirr ~~ ne ~ r ~:nnh e.rr eon a Ana re: Plm .r.J a .p".r rvrs.~ ~ r':r , SLB(ONLRACTOR tlYll one <nJ nnnM lullttnprruerlmrlur mma,...e e.e M ~~po^u~tlie r r ~~ ~ +~orJ~ vr. , vn pu, rtr v Ir el ree~lula nl )LNIV\TR ACTII~r rrnnrlmm rnr curt in nr rnJ whnnrluwu rru ,mpir r r, ~M1nnrfr ~w plrrrnrr rnuln Irom urnr ur prune un rn nmrrnrrmdor .nemer ,avA non v .+e ir.;u ~ o ur~~Tn ~rt~~i R, m Iwr of pwnnr.r P,.•q,'.,r a•r"r.: .r (rnTRV rJUm. rn wJ,rmrnn f :eon. nor i o foJ errrm rred punv •MVR n r w ~n mrN n0. ur V\TMCTI~R S Iviwr M Ivu„ me .~ rm.r:n ssr a.m n rm. q rM mnr SUh U\TR Of LUR ladr roc : rnnen fE0 a wJ.T n.lfr •uJ n veJ ~` ruf.a ~'rlrvre•u U n<I Cump~u a rLnnN v n UrWnmmr of Llur '.eJrn r r el lr. v n blr mpmeObrlur :M wm.nnrnunn leJ l enlno Mr nrwl rnr F!(I 'r ~ rni, me Pn~•I •xv.n •,\ r urAr nr nuJ rtlV CR.SCTVR m rna rmNdrn prmrdN R•m unJa rM re N .n IM nlMr rM rrmr i n prnriJN nr pr,r^ rvnpR Ir"n^~^rrur a S: r.errrv Ue Attachmeni'A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 • Page t of 10 PROJECT: Sports Complex and Animal Care Facility 8400 Rochester Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA OWNE R: The City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ARCHI TECTS: Sports Complex GRILLIAS.PIRC.RDSIER.ALVES PLANNERS.ARCH ITECTS. ENGINEERS 4940 Irvine Boulevard Suite 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Animal Care Feciilty WaltULang/ChrislapherArchitects,lnc. 10470 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 • DRAWI AHEET N NGS: PART A -SORTS COMPLEX O. SHEEI'RILE InT ~T DAT rREVlci 1.1 TITLE SHEET, PART A 8 B 9/18/91 T1.1 TITLE SHEET 9/18/91 T1.2 ABBREVIATIONS. GENERAL NOTES 8 SHEET INDEX 9/78/91 T7.3 SYMBOLS, LEGENDS 8 WALL TYPES 9118/97 C1 TITLE SHEET 9/78/91 C2 DEMOLITION PLAN 9118/91 C3 DETAIL SHEET 9/18/91 C4 DETAIL SHEET 9/18/91 CS WALL PROFILES 9/18/91 C6 WALL PROFILES 9!18/91 C7 SOUTH 1r3 GRADING PLAN 9/18/91 C8 MIDDLE 7/3 GRADING PLAN 9/18/91 C9 NORTH 113 GRADING PLAN80FFSITE GRADING 9/18/91 C9A NORTH I(d GRADING PLAN60FFSRE GRADING (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.9) 9/18/91 C10 PLANTER DETAILS 9/18/91 C11 EROSION CONTROL PLAN 9/18/91 C12 COORDINATE SHEET 9/18/91 C73 SOUTH 1/3 DIMENSION PLAN 9/18/91 C74 MIDDLE 113 DIMENSION PLAN 9/18/97 C14A MIDOLEII3DIMENSIONPLAN(BIDALTERNATIVEN0.18) 9I1B/91 Cis NORTH 113 DIMENSION PLAN 9/18/91 C15A NORTH 113 DIMENSION PLAN (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.9) 9/78/91 C16 ON~SITE SIGNING AND STRIPING 9/18/91 • • n ~J Attachment 'A" DraNings, Specifications and Amendn,-.its Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 2l, 1991 Page 2 of 10 SHEET NO s-~mF LATEST DATE/RFVicinu C17 TITLE SHEET C78 INDEX SHEET C79 ARROW STORM GRAIN C20 LINE A-SOUTH PORTION C21 LINE A • NORTH PORTION C22 LINE 8 C23 LINECdJ C24 DETAIL SHEETA-INE'8' PLAN 8 PROFILE C25 LATERAL PROFILES C26 LATERAL PROFILES C27 TITLE SHEET C28 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN SOUTH PORTION C29 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN MIDDLE PORTION C30 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN NORTH PORTION C31 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN WEST PORTION C32 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN MIDDLE PORTION C33 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN EAST PORTION C34 ROCHESTER AVE. SIGNING/STRIPING/STREET UGHi NORTH PORTION C35 ROCHESTER AVE. ROUTE SIGNING/STRIPING/STREET LIGHT SOUTH PORTKN4 ARROW ROUTE SIGNINGISTRIPINGBTREET LIGHT WEST PORTION C36 ARROW ROUTE SKiNINGSTRIPINGSTREET LIGHT EAST PORTION C37 TITLE SNEET C37A TITLE SHEET (BIG ALTERNATIVE N0.7A) C38 SOUTH PORTION C38A SOUTH PORTION (81D ALTERNATVE NO.7A) C39 MIDDLE PORTION C39A MIDDLE PORTION (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.7A) C40 NORTH PORTION CdOA NORTH PORTION (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.7A) C40AA RECLAIMED WATER DETAIL SHEET (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.7A) C41 TITLE SHEET C42 SOUTH PORTION C43 MIDDLE PORTION C44 NORTH PORTION TR7 TITLE SHEET, NOTES d DETAILS TR2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE. 8 OAY CREEK BLVDJJACK KENNY DR. TR3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE. 8 ARROW ROUTE TR4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE. B STADIUM PKWY. A3.1 GENERAL STADIUM PLAN A3.1 A GENERAL STADIUM PLAN W/. ALTERNATNE A3.2 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN A3.2A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN W/.ALTERNATIVE A3.3 CENTER CONCOURSE PLAN A3.4 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN A3.4A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN W!. ALTERNATIVE A3.5 CENTER MEZZANINE PLAN A3.6 LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN A3.6A LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 9118191 9/18191 9/18/91 9!18!91 9/1 B/91 9/18191 9/18/91 9/18!91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9118191 9/1 B/91 9/18%97 9/18/91 9/18/97 9118/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18!91 9/19/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18!91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18191 9/18/97 9/18191 9/18/91 9118191 9/78/91 9/18/91 9!18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9!18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18191 9!18/91 9/1Bl91 9/18/91 9/18191 9/18191 Attachment "A" Dra.angs, Specifications and Amendm-.,ts Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page 3 0110 • SHEET NO, 9+?~ F LATEST DAT /R VI ION A3.7 CENTER GRANDSTAND 8 PRESSBOX 9/78/91 A3.8 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN 9/18/91 A3,BA RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.9 CENTER ROOF b PENTHOUSE PLAN, PENTHOUSE ROOF PLAN 9/18191 A3.10 MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURE PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78;91 A3.11 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/97 A3.7 7 A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN W/. ALTERNATNE 9/18/91 A3.12 CENTER CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/97 A3.72A CENTER CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN W/. ALTERNATNE 9118191 A3.13 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/91 A3.73A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A3.14 CENTER MEZZANINE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/91 A3.14A CENTER MF72ANINE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/97 A3.15 CENTER GRANDSTAND 8 PRESS BOX REFLECT. CEILING 9/18/91 A3.i5A CENTER GRANDSTANDS PRESS BOX REFLECT. CEILING W/. ALTERNATNE 9/78191 A3.7 6 MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES ROOF S REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 9!18/91 A3.17 ENLARGED RESTROOM PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78!91 A3.18 ENLARGED RESTROOM PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78/91 A3.19 ENLARGED FOOD CONCESSIONS PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 • A3.20 A3 21 ENLARGED STAIR PLANS 8 SECTIONS ENLARGED STAIR PLANS d SECTIONS 9/18/91 9/78/91 A4.1 ELEVATIONS•LEFT GRANDSTAND W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A4.2 ELEVATIONS-CENTER GRANDSTAND 9118191 A4.3 ELEVATIONS-CENTER GRANDSTAND 9/i 8/91 Aa 3a CONCOURSE EXTERIOR WALUFENCE ELEV. 9/78191 A4 3aA CONCOURSE EXTERIOR WAILlFENCE ELEV. Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A4,4 ELEVATIONS•RIGHTCRANDSTAND W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A4.5 ELEVATIONS-MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A4.6 ELEVATIONS-MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES 9/18/97 A4.7 BUILDING SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/76!91 A4.8 BUILDING SECTIONS W/. ALT. 9/18191 A5.1 WAIL SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A5.2 WALL SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78/91 A5.3 WALL SECTIONS Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A6.1 CONCOURSE ELEVATIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78/91 A 6.2 INTERIOR ELEVATION (RESTROOM&SHOWER) Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9/16191 A6,3 INTERIOR ELEVATION (RESTR0OMS/SHOWER) W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/78/97 A6.4 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS, RESTROOMS Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A7.1 FINISH SCHEDULES 9/78/91 A7.1A FINISH SCHEDULES WI. ALTERNATIVE 9/16/91 A7.2 FINISH SCHEDULES 9/16!91 A7.2A FINISH SCHEDULES W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 A7.3 DOOR SCHEDULE W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/16/91 A7.4 DOOR 6 WINDOW TYPES, DOOR SCHEDULE NOTES 8 ABBREVIATIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A7.5 INTERIOR FINISH DETAILS Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.1 DOOR DETAILS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A8.2 DOOR DETAILS W!. ALTERNATIVE 9118191 A8.3 WINDOW DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9178191 Attachment "A" D, wings, Specifications and Amend, nts Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21,.1991 Page 4 of 10 • SHEET NO. ,9_E~Ti1LE LATEST DATE;R EVISION A8.4 WINDOW DETAILS 9/1 8/91 A8.5 CEILING DETAILS W/.ALTERNATIVE g/1 B/g1 A8.6 STAIR AND RAMP DETAILS g/18!91 AB.7 INTERIOR DETAILS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/ig/gt A8.8 SEISMIC%EXPANSION JOINT DETAILS 9/16/91 A8.9 ROOF DETAILS 9/18/91 A8.5A ROOF DETAILS W/, ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.10 EXTERIOR DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78/97 A8.11 EXTERIOR DETAILS 9/1 Brg1 A8.12 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78/91 A8.13 SITE'/BUILDING SIGNAGE W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/i B/31 A8.14 BASEBALL STADIUM SCOREBOARD W/. ALTERNATIVE 9;18/91 AB.75 SOFTBALL SCOREBOARD W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.16 SOCCER SCOREBOARD Wl. ALT. 9/18/91 51.1 GENERAL NOTES6TYP. DETAILS 9/18/91 52.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9/18/91 S2.2 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9/18/91 52.3 LEFT 6 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE SLAB PLANS 9/18/91 52.4 LEFT 6 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND FRAMING PLANS 9/18/91 52.5 LEFTB PoGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 52.6 LEFT 6 RIGHT FIELD GFJWDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/18!91 S3.1 CENTER CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9/18/91 53.2 CENTER MEZZANINE FRAMING PLAN 9/78/91 53.3 CENTER GRAN0.STAN0 8 PRESSBOX FRAMING PLAN 9/18/91 S3.4 CENTER ROOF FRAMING PLAN 6 PENTHOUSE ROOF FRAMING PLAN 9/18/91 • 53.5 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING ELEVATIONS 9/t 8191 53.6 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING ELEVATIONS 9!18/91 54.1 CENTER CONCOURSE SLAB PLAN 9/78/91 54.2 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING PLANS 9/18/91 54.3 CENTER GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 54.4 CENTER GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/78/91 55.1 BUILDING ~ A. PLANS 8 ELEVATIONS ~ 9/78/91 55.2 MISC. BLDGS. PLANS, ELEVATIONS IL SECTIONS 9118/91 55.3 RESTROOM BLDG.If DET. 9/18/91 55.4 MISC. BLDG. PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS 9/18!91 55.5 MISCELLANEOUS GLOS. PLANS, ELEVATIONS, ANO DETAILS 9/78/91 56.1 DETAILS 9/18/91 56.2 DETAILS 9/18/91 56.3 DETAILS 9/18/91 56.4 DETAILS 9/18/91 56.5 FRAMING SECTIONS 9/18/91 56.6 DETAILS 9/18x91 56.7 DETAILS 9/18/91 S6.8 DETAILS 9/1 B/91 56.9 DETAILS 9/18/91 P7.1 GENERAL NOTES, LEGENDS, SCHEDULES IL DETAILS ~ 9/18/91 P2.1 GAS DISTRIBUTION PLAN 9/18/91 P2 1A GAS DISTRIBUTION PLAN 9118/91 P3.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/91 P3.1A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9118/91 P3.2 CENTER CONCOURSE 9118/91 P3.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18!91 Attachment "A" D~_.rings, Specifications and Amendl..nts Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page 5 of 10 • SHEET N0. 3-~li1LE I gTEST OA7E,~REVIg10N P3.3A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN 9;18/91 P3.4 CENTER MEZZANINE PLAN 9!78!91 P3.5 LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND 9/78191 P3.5A LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND 9/18/91 P3.6 CENTER GRANDSTAND&PRESSBOX 9/78/91 P3.7 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND 9/18/91 P3.7A RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND 9/18/91 P3.9 CENTER ROOFS PENTHOUSE- PENTHOUSE ROOF 9/i 8/91 P3.9 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS 9119/91 P3.9A ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS 9/78/97 P3.10 MAINTENANCE YARD PLAN, RESTROOM BUILDING PLAN 8 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS 9/18/97 P3.11 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS 9/18191 P5.1 DETAILS 9/18/91 FP7.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/18/91 FP1.2 CENTER CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/18/91 FP1.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/19/91 FP7.4 MEZZANINE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9A 8/91 FP7.5 CENTER GRANDSTAND CANOPVd PRESSBOX FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/19/91 FP7.6 PENTHOUSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9118/91 M1.1 EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE,GENERAL NOTES LEGEND AND SYMBOLS 9/18197 M1.1A EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE,GENERAL NOTES LEGEND AND SYMBOLS 9/18/91 • M1.2 EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE 9/18/91 M1.2A EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE 9/18/91 M3.1 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/78/97 M3.1A MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/91 M3.2 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER CONCOURSE 9/78/91 M3.3 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/91 M3,3A MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/97 M3.4 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER MEZZANINE 9/18/91 M3.4A MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER MEZZANINE 9/18/91 M3.5 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTRAL GRANDSTAND 6 PRESS BOX 9/18/91 M3.SA MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTRALGRANOSTAND b PRESS BOX 9118/91 M3.6 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR PENTHOUSE 9!18/91 M3.7 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR MAINTENANCE YARD 9/18/91 M4.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLEDBHEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9/78/91 M4.1A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLEDBHEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9/18/91 M4.2 CENTER CONCOURSECHILLED bHEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9118/91 M4,3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLED6 HEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9/18/97 M4.3A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLED 8 HEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9/19/91 M4.4 MEZZANINE FLOOR•CHILLEDdHOT WATER PIPING 9/19/91 M4.5 CENTRAL GRANDSTAND FLOOR•CHILLED 6 HOT WATER PIPING 9/18!91 M4.6 MECHANICAL SECTIONS 9/18/91 M6,1 MECHANICAL DETAILS 9/18/91 M8.2 MECHANICAL DETAILS 9118/91 M E.1 CONTROL DIAGRAMS 9118/91 ME.1A CONTROL DIAGRAMS 9/18/91 I 1 ~J • C~ Ariachment'A" G._~vings, Specifications and Amend~..,nts Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 2l, 1991 Page 6 of 1 D SHEET NO 9-ffrTRI,E LATEST DAT iR VICION E1.1 LEGEND, FIXTURE SCHEDULE 6 DETAILS E1.tA LEGEND, FIXTURE SCHEDULE 8 DETAILS E7.2 BASEBALL FIELD -FLOODLIGHTING 8 MISC. DETAILS E1.2A BASEBALL FIELD -FLOODLIGHTING 8 MISC. DETAILS E2.1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN • LIGHTING E2.1A PLAYI;JG FIELD6 AREA LIGHTING E2.2 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN -LIGHTING E2.3 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-LIGHTING E2.4 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-POWERBMISC. E2.5 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-POWERd MISC. E2.SA SITE POWER 8 MISC. DISTRIBUTION E2.6 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN -POWER 8 MI5C. E2.7 AREA LIGHTING DETAILS E2.7A AREA LIGHTING DETAILS E2.8 ELECTRICAL CONTROL DIAGRAMS E2.9 PLANING FIELDS LIGHTING DETAILS E2.9A FIELD LTG POLE DETAIL E3.1 BASEBALL FIELD- POWER DISTRIBUTION 6 FLOODLIGHTING E3.1A BASEBALL FIELD-POWER DISTRIBUTIONBFLOODLIGHTING E3.2 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE • POWER 8 LTG PLANS E3.2A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE -POWER 8 LTG PUNS E3.3 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE-SIGNALd MISC. PLANS E3.3A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE•SIGNALB MISC. PLANS E3.4 CENTER CONCOURSE POWER PLAN E3.8 CENTER CONCOURSE LIGHTING PLAN E3.8A CENTER CONCOURSE LIGHTING PLAN E3.6 CENTER CONCOURSE SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E3.7 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE • POWER 6 LT6 PLANS E3.7A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE -POWER 6 LTG PLANS E3.8 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE • SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E3.8A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE • SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E3.9 MEZZANINE POWER 6 LIGHTING PLANS E3.70 MEZZANINE SIGNAL6 MISC. PLANS E3.71 UPPER FLOOR • PRESS BOX • POWER 8 LTG. PLANS E3.12 UPPER FLOOR -PRESS BOX • SIGNAL 8 MISC. PLANS E3.13 MISC. BLDG.-ELECTRICAL PLANS E3.13A MISC. BLDG. • ELECTRICAL PLANS E4.1 ONE LINE DIAGRAM AND DETAILS E4.1A UNTITLED E5.1 UNTITLED E8.7 PANEL SCHEDULES E8.2 PANEL SCHEDULES E8.3 PANEL SCHEDULES E8.4 PANEL SCHEDULES E8.4A PANEL SCHEDULES L1 COVER SHEET L1A COVER SHEET Lta CONSTRUCTION LEGEND AND NOTES Ltaa CONSTRUCTION LEGEND AND NOTES L2 CONSTRl1CTIONPLAN L2A CONSTRUCTION PLAN L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN L3A CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/18/91 9118/97 9/78/97 9/18/91 9118191 9/77/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18; 91 917 B/91 9/17/91 9/18/91 9/18197 9/17/91 9/18/91 9/78/91 9/17/91 9/18/91 9/78/91 9/78/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9118/91 9/78!91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9118/91 9118/91 9!18/91 9178191 9118/91 9/18191 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9118/91 9/18/97 9/18/91 9/18/91 9!18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9!18/91 9i 18/91 9/18!91 9178191 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18191 9118191 Attachment'A" • G,..v/ings, Specifications and Amena~..ents Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page 7 of 10 • SHEET NO. 9$fTRJ.E f ATEST DATE/REVISION L4 CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/78/97 L4A CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/18/91 LS CONSTRUCTION PLAN (20-SCALE PLAZA AREA) 9!78/91 LSA CONSTRUCTION PLAN (20-SCALE PLAZA AREA) 9!18/97 L6 CONSTRUC710N DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18/91 L6A CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18/91 L7 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18/91 L7A CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9118/91 LB CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (MASONRY) 9!78/91 L9 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (FENCING) 9/18/91 L10 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (FENCING) 9/18/91 L71 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (SITE FURNISHINGS) 9/78/91 L71 A CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (SfTE FURNISHINGS) 9/18/91 L12 IRRIGATION PLAN 9/18/91 L72A IRRIGATION PLAN 9/18/97 L13 IRRIGATION PLA14 9/78!91 L73A IRRIGATION PIAN 9/18/91 L74 IRRIGATION PLAN 9/18/91 L16A RECLAIMED WATER NOTES 9/18/91 Lt 6 IRRIGATION DETAILS 9/78/91 L16A RECLAIMED WATER 81RRIGATION DETAILS 9/16/91 L17 IRRIGATION DETAILS 9!18/91 L78 IRRIGATION HYDRAULIC CALCIMTK>NS 9178/91 L79 TREE, VINEBGROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 L19A TREE, VINE 6 GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 • L20 TREE, VINE 6 GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 L20A TREE, VINEBGROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 L21 TREE, VINE 8 GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/16/91 L21 A TREE, VINE 6 GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 L22 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9118/91 L22A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN ~ 9/16/91 L23 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18/91 L23A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18/91 L20 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18/91 L24A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/78/91 L28 PLANTING LEGEND AND DRAINAGE DETAILS 9/18!91 L26A PLANTING LEGEND AND DRAINAGE DETAILS 9/18/91 L26 PLANTING DETAILS AND NOTES 9!18/91 L27 STRUCTURAL DETAILS ANO NOTES 9/iB/9t Ki FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT PLAN d SCHEDULE 9/18/91 K2 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT BASE 8 REFRIGERATION PLAN 9/18/91 K3 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT PLAN MECHANICAL PLAN 9/18/91 K4 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN 9/18/91 KS FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT PLAN 9/18/91 K6 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT BASE d REFRIGERATION PLAN 9/78/91 K7 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT MECHANICAL PLAN 9/18/91 K8 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN 9118!97 KD 1 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/18191 KD 2 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9!18191 KD 3 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9116/91 KD 4 f00D SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/16/91 Anachment "A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendn~~nts Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page 8 oT 10 • ORAWING S• PART E L R s -ANIMA CA E FACILITY SHEET NO. 9-FFT7RIF LATECT DAT ~R VISION T-1 TITLE SHEET 9/18/91 C-1 CROSS SECTIONS/NOTES 9/17/97 C-2 GRADING PLAN 9/17/91 A-1 SITE PLAN 9/18/91 A-2 PLAZA PLAN 9/18/91 A-3 CODE ANALYSIS 9/78/91 A-d FLOOR PLAN 9/18/91 A-5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A-6 BUILDING SECTIONS 9/18/91 A-7 EXTERIOR ELEVATION ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS 6 TYP. TOILET FIXTURE/EOUIPMENi 9/78/91 A-8 ENLARGED LOBBY COUNTER, KENNELS, FLOOR TILE PATTERN b DETAILS 9/18/91 A-9 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A-10 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/78/91 A-11 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A-12 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18191 A-13 INTERIOR ELEVATONS 9/18/91 A-14 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A•78 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A-16 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 • A-t7 REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/91 A•18 ROOF PLAN 9/16/91 A•19 DOOR 6 WINDOW SCHEDULES 9/18/91 A-20 DETAILS 9/78/97 A•21 DETAILS ~ 9/16/91 A-22 DETAILS 9/78/91 A•23 DETAILS 9/16/91 A•24 DETAILS 9!18/91 A-25 DETAILS 9/18/91 K-1 FLOOR PLAN d SCHEDULE 9/18/91 K-2 EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/18/91 S-1 GENERAL NOTES ANDTYP.OETAILS 9/18/91 S-2 TYPICAL DETA0.S 9/78/91 S-3 TYPICAL DETAILS 9/18/91 S-4 FOUNDATION PLAN 9/16/91 S-5 ROOF FRAMING PLAN 9!18/91 S-6 SECTIONS 9/18/91 S•7 SECTIONS 9/18/91 S•6 ELEVATIONS 9/t 8/87 S-9 DETAILS ~ 9/18!91 5.70 DETAILS 9/78/91 5-11 DETAILS 9n8/91 M-1 SCHEDULE, NOTES, DETAILS ANO CONTROLS 9/18/91 M•2 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN 9!18/91 Ariachment'A' ' D,,.Nings, Specifications and Amentl,..anis SpoAs Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, •1991 Page 9 of 10 . nHEET NO. S$lllllE LATEST DATE/REVISION P-1 PLUMBING LEGEND, SCHEDULES, NOTES 8 DETAILS 9178/91 P-2 PLUMBING SITE PLAN 8 DETAILS 9/18/91 P•3 PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN 9/78/91 P-4 PLUMBING ROOF PLAN 9/18/97 E-1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 8 SYMBOL LIST 9/18/91 E-2 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM, DETAIL58 SPECS 9/78/91 E-3 ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PLANB FIXTURE SCHEDULE 9!18/97 E-4 ELECTRICAL POWER PLAN b PANEL SCHEDULES 9/18/91 E-6 ROOF PLAN 9/18/91 L 1 COVER SHEET 9/17!91 L 2 IRRIGATION PLAN AND LEGENDS 9/17191 L 3 IRRIGATION DETAILS 9/17191 L 4 RECLAIMED WATER NOTES 9/17/91 L 5 PLANTING PLAN 9!17/91 L B PLANTING DETAILS AND NOTES 9/17191 SPECIFICATIONS. Volume t o1 3 • 'BIDDING DOCUMENTS, CONTRACT FORMS AND GENERAL REOUIREMENTS^ FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PARTA-SPORTSCOMPLE%AND PART 8• ANIMAL CARE FACILITY, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, • RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. Oate of Issue: SEPTEMBER 18, 1997 Pan A Prepared by: GRILLIAS.PIRC.ROSIER.ALVES 4940 Irvine Blvd. Suite 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Part S Prepared by: WoBf/LanyChdstopher, Arch4ege 10420 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cuwmonya, CA 91730 Volume 2 of 3 - 'SPECIFICATIONS (DIVISIONS2THROUGH i6)' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PART A -SPORTS COMPLEX, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. Date of Isws: SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 Pan A Prepared by: GRILLIAS.PIRC,ROSIER.ALVES 4940 Irvine Blvd. Suite 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Volume 3 01 3 • 'SPECIFICATIONS (DIVISIONS 2 THROUGH 16)' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PART B• ANIMAL CARE FACILITY, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. Dale of Issue: SEPTEMBER 78,1997 Pan 8 Prepared by: WotllQanyChristopher, Arehheda 10420 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucananpa, CA 91730 Attachment'A' Dr_,aings, Specifications and Amendr, .,1ts Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page 10 of 10 • AMENDMENTS ADDENDUM N0. 1A8, dated October 75, 7991 containing 21 pages and 35 attachments. ADDENDUM NO. 2, dated October 17, 1991, containing 2 pages and 5 atachments. ADDENDUM N0. 3, dated OcYOber 23, 1991, containing 1 page. • • • End of Anachment A' • SECTION 6 - SPECIAL pROVISI O,NS A2TA C'r. WNT 'B~ • $l:DCO^tract No. 7 0 C. 3 Page t of 2 :he ^r cv isic rs of this Attachxe nt B' are ir. addition f.o all ether to rxs ant .~nditicns of this 3ubc or,tract, and shall not se ^ve to 1_'xit or reduce their effect. S u~ocontraN or sh al. keep compe `e,^,t ant =u ffic ie nt s~~pe rvis'on satisfactory to tF.e Centractor on the work at ali times in which work is or shcu ld to :.. progress, in accords.^.ce with th? Contractor's Gr ogress schedule. c. Provide ..^,axe, address and eme rye acy te'_eph one number of responsible coopary official. Names Address 3. Subcontractor sh ail maintain cork Sn a neat, clean, and orderly condition at sll times ar,d shall remove deb ris, rubbish, antl excess mate rSals resulting from cork unC er this agreement as St occurs. Subcontractor's failure to comply will be construed as authorization for the Contractor to provide cleaning services at Subcontractor's expense. 4. Subcontractor shall furnish all samples, shop drawings, schetlules, and descrip- • five literature in accordance with the specs flea Lions within ample time to allcu for checking, and to prevent any delay tlue to lack of approval. All submittals requiring approval shall be certified Dy Subcontractor's authorized rep resents tlue as meeting the plans antl sped tications, or any and all variances shall be clearly defined at the time of submission. Within two (2) weeks of the SuDcontraet date, Subcontractor shall su Dm it to the contractor a complete schedule of all samples, shop drawings and other submi[ta'_s which will require approval, sn owing antSeiDa Led submittal date and required lead time after approval for ordering, fabrics Lion and delivery of all material. Subcontractor shall promptly report to Contractor any deviation from this schedule and when requested by Contractor, shall furnish confirmation of scheduled del iverles. 5. Su CC Or,tractor shall deliver to the Contractor five (5) corking days prior w the :ast work Sng day of the month, invoices for current month's work. Invoices shall be accomDa nied by Releases and Waivers of Lien. FAILUAE 20 COt•1PLY MAY RES JLT IN OMISSION OF PAYMENT REQUEST TO T!~ OWNEfl fOP SAID PERIOD. 6. Subcontractor agrees to turns sh a Material Safety Data Sheet (hiSD1) for each hazardous substance to be used at the ~oDSite in the performance of Subcon- tractor's work. Subcontractor shall deliver the MSAS to Contractor's superin- tendent PAIOR to bringing any hazardous suDStance onto tha ,Jobslte. 7. Su Dc ontract or shall furnish all temporary facilities required for his own work. Such temporary facilities shall be located where directed by the Contractor's Pr o,je ct Superintendent. SFlij Aev. 12/89 SECTION 6 - SPECIAL FRONTS ZGNS ATTA Cr.M:.NT 'B' Subcontract So. 7 0 8 3 • Page 2 of 2 8. S~~be cntract or shall obtain ar.d pay for all permits and lit ernes requ.red for ha c'.n work, a..^.d be respcnsiD:e for securing ..^rom any autb on ty tev'_;g _., ever it, is spe etions and apprcv a'_ cf his ~; ork as required by the ;; ch sc F.ed ge, ?. 'di tF. in ten (10) days Subcontractor s; all provide the Contractor ~. ith a __, ._. ica to of Norke is Compe.^sation Z,^surarc e. kitnin ten (tG) days Subcontractor s".all provide Contractor :: _,.h a c_. __.._a to cf Comprehensive General Liability (in cl~di::g Autcmchile) i-,nuts^ce .ith`p _:cy Emits of rot :ens Lhar. $500,000 as to each person and $1,OGO,C00 as to e=_c'c cc r~rrence far bodily injury and personal injury liability, a.^.d $5G"v,0.^,0 property damage liability For each occurrence, or for not less L".an $1,OC J,:GO if or. a co¢b ir.ed single limit bads. The in surarce or policies shail contain the to llcwing provisions: (I) A naming of the OH7:er, Architect, and Contractor, its directors, officers, and employees, as additional insureds by use of SLar,Ca rd Insurance Service OTfice Form GL2009 or its equivalent. (II) A separate provision that the insurance of forded to the additional insured Ss primary insurance and Lhat any other insurance maintained by the additional insureds is excess and not contriDUtirg Insurance with the insurance so provided Dy the Subcontractor. • (IZI) Coverage for the following, which must De on an OCCURRENCE Das is: (a) Premises and Cper ations Liability (D) Contractual liability insuring the obligations assu ¢ed Sy the S uDc ontractor in this suDC Ontract: (c) Completed Operations and Products Liability (d) Broad Form Property Damage Liability (e) Liability which Subcontractor may incur as a result of the operations, acts, or omissions of its subcontractors. (f) Automobile liability, including owned, non-owned, and hired a ut omobSles. (g) %CU Coverage for Ezpl onion, Collapse, and Underground Hazards. to. SoDC Ontrac for acknowledges that Contractor has entered into Master LaDOr Agree- ments, through Contractor's membe rsh Sp in Che U.G.C. and B.I. A, covering work at Contractor's jobsltes wl th the following labor unions: Carpenters; Cement Masons; Laborers; Teamsters; Operating Engineers and Iron 'porker s. Subcontractor agrees that paragraph two, linen one through six of General Subcontract Provisions J is hereby replaced by the foregoing. SFt t3 Rev. 12/89 Attachment "C" Special Provisions Alternatives December 4, 1991 • Subcontract No.7QQ,~ Page 1 of 3 1) The following Atternative•Bid Items, described in Section 01100 -Alternatives and Separate Prices, are not included in the preceding Base Bid Lump Sum Amounts and are to be incorporated into the work of the Contract only upon specific acceptance of the Agency. Days in parentheses are calendar days from Notice to Proceed during which Agency may accept respective Alternatives. A. Alternatives Relative to Part A -Sports Complex Ahernadve N1 -Kitchen EQUipmem (90 Days) S n Attemative M2 • Scoreboards (120 Days) s a Allemative N3 • Precast Corxsete Cap ar Perimeter MasoRy WaY (60 Days) Atternativa Nd - Staditm Seatirq az Soltbap aro Soccer Relds (t 20 Days) ~ _ S b . AttemazNe NS • Tree Grates (30 Days) AhernaWe N6 • Stadium Seating with Cup Hailers (Rigfx and Lary GrarMStantia)(240 Oat's) s o Attemazive N7A - Redaimen'Nater ivich_ t30 Gays( S b Ahernatlve N78 • ReClaYned Wazer Irtgazion System (60 Days) a a Ahernazive N8 • Cement Plaster Sofrrt UiWer Seazirg Structure (Grarxlstand Concourse) (270 Days) Atternativa N9 - Orsdoa Cafe Area, Concessbn Stand, Buffet Canopy, Picnic Area, Tot Lot, SoNerd Lighting and earoea,e Grill (90 Days) Ahernative N10 • Imerlogcing Pavers (60 Oat's) Attachment "C" Special Provisions Alternatives December 4, 1991 • Subcontract No.7083 Page 2 of 3 Alternatve Nt 1 -Thirty-six inch Box Trees (720 Days) AA7 S b Alternative N72 -Twenty-four inch Box Trees (720 Oat's) Am 5 a Alternative N13 - Fvegallon Shrubs (780 Days) Am a o Attema[ive N14 -Hybrid Bermuda Sad at Stadium Field (180 Days) Am S o Alternative N15 - Restroam Building (90 Days) Am S O Altenative N76 • She Sgnage (720 Days) . Ahemative N17 • Lockers and Benches (270 Days) PtY1 S A Alternative N7e -Grandstand Flagpole (270 Days) Add 8 t} Alternative M19 • Corridor Ceiling Satllea (180 Oat's) Aai a a Altenative Ne0 - Finish carpentry and Casework (Z70 Days) ~ S a ArtematF,e N21 - Mefel Fade (120 Oat's) nos S t>. AherrratNe MZ2 • Glazed CMU, Virryl Wall Covering, and Cast Stone MoNing (120 Days) Add § a Alternative N23 -Sold Polymerylastk Toilet PanMlons (270 Days) Attachment "C" Special Provisions _ Alternatives December 4, 1991 • Subcontract No.7083 Page 3 of 3 Attemative N24 -Plaza Benches (60 Gays) S 4 Alternative N25 - Metaline Fleld Lighting Fxture (6G Days) S O AtlematNe #26 -Stadium Concourse Light FiMWe (270 Days) 5 a TOTAL, ALTERNATIVE BID AMOUNTS, PART A -SPORTS COMPLEX ^O I nRC S a B. Alternatlvea Ralatly~ to Part B • Anlm~l Can Faelllty Alternatve N7E - Reclaimed Water Irrigation System (fi0 Days) a d • 70TAL, ALTERNATIVE BID AMOUNTS, PART B- ANIMAL CARE FACILITY 2) Subcontractor agrees to comply with all Labor and Prevailing Wage requirements of the Prime Contract as called forth but not limded to, Section 00010 and 00800 of the Project Manual. ' ' 'End of Attachment "C' ' ' ' Attachmerit "D" • Special Provisions December 4, 1991 Subcontract No.7~( Q~ Page 1 of 1 A) As described al Attachment "B" hereto, pages t and 2 of 2, which forms an integral part of this agreement. 81 As described in Attachment "C" hereto dated December 4, i991, pages 1 through 3 of 3, which forms an integral part of this agreement. C) Subcontnctorezcludesrhecost of the following: I) Permits. 2) Fees. 3) Engineering. 4) Survey. 5) Haulaway. 6) Bond Costs. "n Demolition. 8) Removals. 9) Abandonmrnts. 10) Soils testing costs. 11) Construction water cosu. 12) Wazerconbnl. • 13) Erosion control. 14) Perforated drain pipe. IS) Trench drains, 16) Asphalt resurfacing. 1~ Site drainage work indicated on Grading Plans which is not identified in the Storm Drain Improvement Plans. D) Subcontractor agrees m leave excess utility spoils adjacent to site utility ttenchside. E) Subcontractor s contract sum is based on utiliang Dative material for pipe txdding and backfilling. "' End of Attachment "D" • •' r~ SUB EXHIBIT D goo . ~'L~,.:Wt.-_ 11 ~l. 1'lY ~,diT~L'IIi~Zlr~tZ Subconsract IQo 7083 _ THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered ineo u_ San Fernando. California this 4th day. of ecemhez 19 91 by and between Bernards Bros. Inc. einafrcr called CONTRACTOR, With principal o:6ce ar_ 610 Ilex S[ree t~ San Fe rnando iCA 91340 ,and avala Construction Co. Inc.. 16402 Eas[ Construction Ciro1J_hcceinaftcr called SUBCONTRACTOR. Irvine C:1 92714 (714) 651-0221 RECITALS Jn or abo;u die 14th day of November _ 19 91 ,CONTRACTOR cnmrcJ into a rime contract with mt.., r:... _c o___t_ ...._______ __ F hercina(rcr alied OWNER, whose address is 10500 Civic Center Dr.. Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729 ro perform she follon•ing mass:union work: Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility 8400 Rochester Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, California BERNAR-S BROS. .108 N0. 964 Said work is so be performed in accordance with the prime contract and the plant and specifications. Said plans and specifintions haee been p: cpareJ by or on behalf of_GR Tti AS_PI RC_ROC TFA _At.PFS_ Pr.A NTiFRC_ARCNTTFCTS ',ARCHITECT. ENGINEERS and Wolff/Lang/Christopher Architects, Inc. SECTION 1 -ENTIRE CONTRACT SUBCONTRACTOR eeaifiez anJ agrees that he is fully familiar wish all of the terms, conditions and obliguiens of dse Contact Documents, as hercira(mr defined, the location of the job site, and the conditions under which die work is to be performed, and that he enmrs inro this Acrccment based upon his investigation of all of simh manors and is in no way relying upon any opinions ar repre~ scnasions Af CONTRACTOR. I[ is agreed that this Agreement represents the entire agreement. h it further agreed rho the Contrut Documents are incorporated in this Agreement by this ufaence, wilt the same force anJ etTect as if the same were set Eorth nt length herein, and thu SUBCONTRACTOR and his subconvactorz will be anJ are baunJ by any anJ all of sail Cantrxc Doeumenm inso~ (ar as shey reluc in any pus or in any way, d'vttay of indirectly [o the work covered by this Agreemene. SUBCONTRACTOR agrees to be bounJ ro CONTRACTOR in the vmr ntanncr and to dm same cxtens as CONTRACTOR is bounJ to OWNER under the Convatt D~xumrna, m the exmnc of the work provided for in this Agrecmen4 and dui where, in the Conttacc Documents re(erenee is made m CONTRACTOR and the work nr specification tharein pcmins ro SUBCONTRACTOR'S trade, en(q or type of work then jjjj~~ss~~ch work ar spenficuion shall be intetpresed to apply to $UBCONTR ACTOR instead of CONTRACTOR. Th< phase "Convatt ~memi' is JefineJ to mean and include: As listed in Attachment "A" hereto dated November 2l, 1991, pages 1 through 10 of 10, which forms an ineegral part of this agreement. SECTION 2-SLOP: SUBCONTRACTOR agrees ro (umirh all .'abr r, sets ices, ssamria ls, instalLtion, tango, hoisting, supplies, insurance, equipment. snffulJ ing, tou6 maJ other faciluics of every kinJ and Description required for the prompt and elhcient execution f the work do sorbed herein and co pe~form;he mark accessary or incidennl to complete STTF tITTLISiFC •-Der bid 0~_ Savala Lanstr. Co. dated October 24. 1991 entitled "Rancho Cucamon a r lox". far die project in strict accordmce wish the Convatt Documents and u more particularly, though not exclusive y, specified in: SPECIFICATION SECTION(S): 02713 -Water Distribution System*-02721 - Seorm Sewage System, 02722 -Sanitary Sewer System, and applicable portions SECTION 3 -CONTRACT PRIC~f 02221 -Trenching, Backf filling, and Compacting for UCSlities* VTAACTOR agrees to pay SUBCONTRACTOR Far she stria performance n( his work, the sum o[: N,_$ItVt1RFD NIN TY-FI •NT THO 1CAyD -0 LARg (s 798.000.00 ), subject ro additions and deductions for changrs in the work ss may he agreed upon, and ro make payment in accordmce wish the Payment Schedule, Section 4. *Fr;r work not included in bid, price will be determined pursuant to Section E of the General Conditfons (time and materials) a ti 2 A. INSVPANC[-ll tr(r\'T?r i(14 rAailvr.N r:rnrrrvrrfn rcry.r.rr,n Pere r.\\ r Ic r L:r ,Jr,r.,HV vl,l rcl„ rLr: I~ I I. `'1 I0. Pr.vc )L II( .lN it ll'% ~ 11 1 rr I t' 1 `~ I. L r ( \IRA( Cl\ Cl r I i e cLY[P L Lt A - - ~ i'i I ',H [ n,u L . .,, `L(r, p r ar. a.. nr a i. Sle r \IN l .. r,n r ... ., .L.... Nr n,:rP .., v r,u ..I• \IA r Ir u;vN•r• ..P r,uT '1 Pic c0. "r.. „oIV i. H;r.-..:.. ~;u ..n C. DOYD(NG O! SUBCONi9nCi O9 -(n.,...~~.m'..,rl rv[ r+r,urr„n r.! rn,l v CCU.V Pnf.Tf,0. rFtll. d r Vu r,r(ur\:N a.intir ra.r .It ' I r ~ i ~ ~ - I \l T u li a L\ R. L R r p n,nm ,1 I .; .' u D imE-l r w .`: i. .-r I: r, .xr ..rP ¢TnP1 „b :,r,rn r, LUATNAr T1;X1 p'r:'r.r rahev'r uF~urw!(I,aTRAi 4~~ ToN. „ ::r;;. n. tort P r " \l'PALTPBr • +JU • Ina • rcJ F (,rn r ~Unu r r I n r.VJr~. n p~N ~v rJ rtJC'v.IvnFn Ininf r r~I rn ,rn F,r [c,f r r~nnl. •rrn rlir .,,1 ' pY r Vr Dv'I r(F ec?r rrr4 t r ~; M rH nn rrn rM1e ~ rl anJ .. rLU. Nnr TLP~ rr1Y ~~rle - r!r CU\TR,lr lrlar m'nn ,n mr~ rl, rn.. rl ~( re l'r. ~r 1r.r ~M1r rnn.\.: alln r:nrrv rnJ~or, erl ranJU.r or rM1r •r.e\ or r5L11C V.\I RALiVXr~un ~rf4 N^e'r."[ ,r.,\TP i(.irtP ~I.e .le of .n rM1e r. [ r.r .r i< r r`,c rl. -r \Id 1 P I Ili ( f\IRi L ri Ibr I, \ N 1 \lAil1 li, rr r rru.r.:'.r ••r..r .::,n u.u I r., .'v r rr ll llr \lH.ir ll:fl ~r In r l nmv.n. >l lv •Ix \rn~T: llr urh u] ~rx~:~~~~,n'~ nrn,l n\!df Fn v P'I: ~1 • v.r.,. r„r.r,:. r~rnar 114•\I•ft .:, rTr.1H •M1n rba R~ I. li I P I * rnl^r~l/ L nl6 irl d`,- vI N.:. \T V r~ P nr lUr l\V hv.in ~nl rnr ,n , ~.{airiln'rr .:\1P.,r I~rrP ~r rI4 r.IN Fr n,l r: Jmm ,,\'fi yin 'r)q ~ e,PV[ \\IN r-,r erfLlfl.O\iPAr(Tl1R r,..,.r r.v:m .r JVm..et r.: !\IP it i~rRrn [ vCN.N4F11N TN[ WO9C - H PCtI\Tfl 1l T: rP !r'elr anrn ro rtar .er vn.l J Rrlcrn rle n 1.(I\if ALTr:R m P' mlr - aL Df~l\TPR I~~~R r!r ro'rcl 1 Sl IXr.\'9 \( TOP, r 1F P col .{' .I.t ACT IRmr rPV h n en n .r rv rrrJ , I t)liX 1t r)N rs L L[H1- LIK r0. l! R n' II arl r.re (O\TP A' T. IN - J M1 I yr ^ TM. T R 1\\IRI R I K ~ r' "V• ~,LI( \Tfl IL R A I J/ R n nJrr ' uv (T h hr- P h al t ,d,r L1N \T 1; ( \ P TU Arq .. I 5' e ( r\r.~,„1-10.6 sc Kavin~=~°+ \ luv I:r .m n< ' J JM1'^l. ,net„ \ \IN MIJ rr J.e r) 1 \TPi flft r14 ,\IYSt r„n o~ I' I rf F I 1 ..IUI rT rler n/rlrr AR' .. J( 1' RA( [J, t \TPACI R Jarr 1 talc .ob' I n nenJ r ono r'<-:mrcr~o C `\T0.ALT,Rnw 5LCi 0\TRnCTUR ue ~rne u r vo tlv -... LOLC]iRAC`URnnn me .ei M1nnn rmvbrcon rnnr4nubu[ M R[CCVPSf RT CONTPACLOR~In me e•enr rbar SL'BCV\TRACi Cr. n vnr r:' b IpreR•r L' r.,. e<, rrra.`s~n t, r.r ce,. N. ~nn W\TRACTUfl S(e vnroN+r. r-..err m-r N M1m rn Iv -d - - ~ -re •N M1 rmnenu u m torn du<.nJ o~rnR tl r'hr.J J J SL BLU\TM1ACTOR I, TIRMINAT OH OI /rLgE1M[NT In rM n<nr rn<M m<(annur'r <'mrnarN ,r. •rn r rt nn)LBL(ISiRACTOfl mv'Ihmur.N m.r re pnmmr lar rn< TPALTtl0. rrr ~II ~nerNn iNJnreral ~~mprn~ fmn elrJrm ns en ~nnwnr cl<ru n~N •Irnb event. SL W.nDI PA<TUR rnrll G enrnlM ro nrF pr.Mrrran cl rlren~r'Jn~,.r:l .rmhnnrren ar JvmvRV x.vr r rtt<rrN n r ,r v6i<unJrr r:l of R,rrn:n. n<Nrn;nm,mra mdl rm.:rr coninAROn m ma<+m v'~ m ~'+n++~nUR'\'I R lot mOr NA,euna mmpnuurrn or rLmvm rn rM amt el TF A(nTI1P blot[ romp.nran..nJ rr rr rpcr:IrNllr atrrtJ r41 Ine lulurr JI CC.\ TPACTUP ro rnorl rr lot rdJ~l on.mr rr 114'.\f0. rh.ll m. rLN(J\ •Y<nm omimwrnor d•mgn .rr nmrr CU\TRAL er Ir'.: maF<bn rnttn nrJer pl rh CVi\iP iCTOR anJ a Ccl , ~ M1 I ~ F LWU\iPR"R lit L'iN r I 4\I'R~.It IP It i(l0. n,l bm\ pr~'~ y3 Aer l.- n .r.r1\Unr rnr r N1 rrrttml ~ ~ P I rr ~ •:L4 rv r dm l ,I 11 [,]rRiIT P'arUa F,il LR ~ ~~~ ~~~ ;L U111p\121r; nN<p':I n• nn m or lun o-a o rnr •mL lq <Mb ~ nor ,Rmu nnnn,. r, )n ryu,Pr, r'.,n+ 'r ttr!VrmaJ ar SLB ( Tfl' l piR.U inR rhu Fe,mrrr:~bre rFrn hoe: rnu m.nnnn .~ II rnn fi CLn]TP ACT00. .. mYr,muvn r rnrnrc m rlre r Nrrr me ,mrt nl :n< •rnrY rr rFi tr[<vt JI alber m.n. Sl v'CCS ACSL6 J I b<lublr Inr rye nrtme rbrrm ^n r nvuen` n _ .r Irnm !,r Au r rlr< <har ~1 a .n'r ~h:~ nme+mmanJ - cnOV'r\(0 n ter'\TRAr iI'p rnel NJUnJO rnr . nrrPnun ro nn:q rb< rurtp Jr cl rn ru.n aNnee f OAMALIS CAUStD tT DilAT1"SMrrIA ,I'UI l1\TRA(TI,R Aeiau:r rn me n m n„.,:n . rrm. rJ<rn m~, nr •iYACtpRrrrnJtl:,um,l Ln[m •<~xlJn: Iq:r:F reJ:-:ve<Ir .N ruV ~brrr.,l SL lvr \TN M.ir10. r wr M IrrFle unJer orn Iw,n la r:rMurreJ b. rr r ' `Ool(ess the delay is notr~£he~•4au5`t~lofrthe Subcontrac -is clause does not aDPIY to changes approved by I t' [ rna l !e rh or ana mate the Contrac ~ 0n1iI'.e o<m of TPACTOR nvAenl me rbWiv~e m w•mev mlr n'elle~ni rro omplnN r~(.'n, .. ~Nh rA~r Afrmnem. rlur o n P f Cb I M I n J J r' e n p J J n w rnn err nl pRTANI nm 6ercn N m~ h m. m tlr m o I Irrn. rurml UG\E0. for m1 NJmm~N rwnRnu'.mn or rnr. or nrl'rcnunm:p Trwn. a brm9 rdrirmvem rn nv=..m burl. IrcrNlrvt of rAe mn,r.r .n mnr~r,m <nR ~nmb Ilr< arrects the worx. excess of $5,000.00 SEC-1ON 4-PAYAIENT SCNIiDULE 'CONTRACTOR agrees to pay $URCONTRACTOR in monthly payments of 90 cg of labor and materials whidt hart been plattd in position and (or which prymenr has been made by O\V NPR ro CONTRACTOR. The mmeining _10_r~ shall be stained by CONTRACTOR until he receives final prymcnt from O\C'NER, but nor Icss titan rhirry-fire days after she emire ~wnrk required by rise prime eonrnet has 6ecn fully completed in eon(ormiry with dtx Convarr Documents and has been ddivemd anJ ncceptni by O\G'NER, ARCHITECT, and CONTAACl'OR. $u bjca sn the pnn'isions of the near sentence, the renincd percentage hall 6e p.uJ sCDCONTRACTOR promptly afmc CONTRACTOR receives his final payment from O\GNGR. SUBCONTRACTOR ~:ces to furnish, if and when mgmred 6y CONTRACTOR, payroll afiiJavits, receipts, vouchers, releases of claims for tabor, material nd subconvacrors performing work nr furnishing marcrials under this Agreemenq all in form satisfattory m CONTRACTOR, and it is agreed that no payment hereunder shall 6< made,except a CONTRACTOR'S option, until anJ unless such payroll atCdavits, receiprs, vouchers or rdenses, nr any or all of them, have been furnished. Any payment made hereunder prior ro completion and acceptance of the work, as referral to above, shall nor 6e construed as evidence of acceptance of any pars of SUHCON7RACTOR'S work. SECTION S-GENERAL SUBCONTRACT PROVISIONS Gcnenl subconrna Provisions on back of Pages I and 2 are an integvl pan of this Agreement SECTION 6-SPECIAL PROVISIONS As described in Attachmene "D" Fsereto dated December 4, 1991, page 1 of 1, which forms an integral part of this agreement. ,, • Re ~~.: ~-. Contractors are required by lase fo be licensed and regulated by the Contracrori State License Board. Any questions concerning a confraclor may be referred fo the registrar a4 the board whose address is: Contractori State License Board-1020 "N" Sfreef, Sacramento, California 95814, IN WITNESS WHEREOF; The panics hereto have executed this Agreement far rhemsekes, their heirs, execwtors, succeswrs, adminisnnors, and assignees on the dry and ymr first above wriven. SL'HCONTRACTOR SAVALA ONS UCTION CO. INC. Hy '_~ ?4S, Name ~ Title Corperarion ^ Putnership ^ Proprietorship (seal) /~7 /r~rU Convacroi s irate License No CONTRACTOR , BERNARDS HROS. INC. Name Title Jeffrey G. Hernards, Vice President Convacror's Stare License No 302007 _ Page 2 012 f RaF FI fbt\i9 (TOR wIa 'of 1:: I I I I r A eCa Y~ .rv ra .r IADOq qlt TIO f I ! I r F I b('rt\TPA(T fP ,I.II 1•[ \'P((I 11'11(11\TPAf. i RAJ I I • I I n SLllll\ lAA(i R r J M1 - Ihru POn rrn rn ' 11 \t'.1 l I h ~. 1 1 ~ 1 Sll(U\(PA(f 0. I ( \T CT IR 51'9 'T ~P r 4 I 1 I 41 1N l ( \IR 1LT br IM1 .b rl rM loLe.gbSe (,r,;',` ( I I bmrt r u LberR, oC.;.e~. 1 ',•,,, I .: ._, ,.,Rr h,., rn[covrftn. cn RRmm I I , II'a J r I hFe ,Ne M1- \ ~ P ~r r i" 1, $ R~ SCI \TP Ar' T P r, r: 4 1 1 \-i \' P o i i le Y`• L N ~\ f Tf P , n C Cr { rn,n[r^nl 1r f (11( P ( ,~ P r4 I ,lur M1e nl anJ r 1 M1' M1' nl r 1< ( r 51,:X1\ xir R n I, .i 1 m nfUpr0.LLi0P Inn - nJ,. .M1 tl, rnre 4 • ~~,eJ • x.uT R r m C.r(\iPACTVRSL 'rl irlr «J'i M1 ° n r r. , s.n mr •.. 1,:,•,•:, r„ r v . r .: r• : L'ra P>r~ rrmanl I R ur4ur Also4nsunm-rtl\Tx.a mx .n.n r,rrF.rJ, r„n, ya,..r lnr. . e N.eN .nor"rm sl.u1 wTP v mR , r.r ...J m.~: A[ . oir nser,~ Yreo- mr me I m rn .rJ Nr ,F'ia,r ,[ a nn q.PN . rre r m laxur r,i scoco\in°A~TnRrO , Rrlorm A,I .orkrro trt~:Y 5L'Ulli\TPACTUP MII nntr,e rruJrnrr w rlralr .hurl M1 .I ro an,l Jrrv.N rlrr I rr n Rrrnr ,lr[rrrnr nl nnirA lurrrrn l WOR~RM NSNII~I.en I'• V'! lu[, r4 Fne n^I n.r„kJ rA,l^lt ea :rcl rn ,uFx iale,T r,J,x,meln' nrl Fr r unJ. n~4e, n.l !en irl n nJ L nJL ,nJ all lu a rFer: nel r• u:`v,l rFa ~: M w nn6rJrln y amnuuu rn r r m1 a mn: M mJ mr !n rl rn~n 'nv ,ur6 mvrrrNlr rr mrY M ral'r[N.y rra.WrJ I r6r Camnrt Uxu~rc~lra Fe nrM:. ne •, r e- ~IROYNIONr10R INr511CT10N-ii'I11,1\iR Af TIrRr Ir.ll Iurnr,F rn ftl\ [ T(IP r J it nrle 1..'Ir i ,II r • Inr miwrrn[ m e:rlr iRAf mrrX r~l,~ lu\TR Ar 1llIR+a rrr n m SCIN.u IF V arr aerfJf lu:l r n' rTn . rrn ~r~o r .rk nrF rXr ~:. IAe a ~ ul m •Cr^[„ba ^r .lrr r<nr CR\tPrACT(IP ^induJrn[ H IL[PIALS IVPNr3N(DmRTrOTNEPS-Cl r~rya rrky ..I.~rrl rn :,Irr iT. I J F Fr'1 rlall 4e x em m F' I r \T, T'l ,J anJ F. e'ev ^n rhrrvlr I .Ur.r n rtm r.rJ LI I\f1A Y P 114e6,r.mn ~e umumWSCDr L(pfdV P 1 r0 A D IROT(CTI NOr WOPR 111 \iR TIP F i ranl rro. « M1 •n 'F AP111111(i. M\IR nJ IFA P fLC{O\ :R0..UP , r nrL nJ I e.• r rre! q.1r it I(1, n ra ,rrArr rr,Ce'rr ~I INT rA( I^'IP 1 [ `,r rr Ja :e orfY rn r:rr mare .., .n . ,rre ,rurr F, AXrr Jr Arl a flrrl, tm q rUSF~~Oi COVTq ACTOR SIQUIIMINT~`In trs nmr V'BCOSTP I(TnA ,null Ll \I F ( i f C C11\T91(TUR Rv i F h rl,B.y I ( \TP. TV[ 6 Affir I .. t l ' G C ~ b LB U\ P.1CTU0.1N r9 0 CLr[ArvU 1 ,LBCrlliR l(ir Rr6xl ~.. ~1 (.r\ rlA( IR, a ~F al M1 1 M1 A 5(;R l •~ nmr J n[ nrC1 of J, 1~1 C11VR1(TJPI ~Re ,nernp I I .,J 1: 'er 1 A, GV APINif(-4 Ltt ]tP Ar rrJ a r o rr r ar rti, r, TR AC TOx, rt/m! tll ma, a P 14x}5-5C B(U]'TA ICTOA x1.Mromnr.ry ml,Ymh ~m ~e [R ar •~rF a r pan of rAr Rxal P AnrunJn.rnl M1rry.n[ •AnA r T Af54NM[Ni Cr CONTPAC '1 \, T,' r r .. (U`.'Fn(iu ' .,I A naY h +le ~Ir I T, Cr, lRol lr~ Ro rN alo .. h:r A,l V D[I! O! T CON P CTCR I I( \':l l(' 0. , F F I i s I 1, ' h I I J J 1 I ).. I h 4, 1 I J r 1 I : }, L F h ' 1 J t Uf \ P 1 T!` \ I4 S 1 :f 0.; nT IP ~ „, T4l(TI,R F 1 :n Ir F n v '~ olll\' A„ ,. 4 : V JCII\ l1(i P. ,I b( \rR((Trr0.~- TRACTOftwrxFvr6a:. r,reL (LNiPnCT(IP NW J.~^~u ., ¢J Lh~b(b], r L : r, a rAr rmh, m C•• r. V r ACj(+N Ir" :: C _iRAC:OR uee :. C.. 5a..n W ITTOFNFY'f r[{S I F F ,'TP1 T P 4LB((1\TP 1' TUP F r -Yn~F` h 5Jir ~e Jre+ N ~ r rr ` ~' A RO,Y41T1 N I M1 I i 4 ,. CI\TRrA(T P r CP Jbe nr. r F 1 „h. ,4 <avn ' II + F II r \1FA i R v, 5LB Anon Jn r r I, aJ.,~x J 5 r "~' ' or Ax C111iI1T I uh A U\10. n!41\TP\CTI'R LC I\iRA(T(P "4t r'Ir Tr[,n, el rnJ rm nrJ bl a A rr en o Ar ' n Ir.: n rAf+F ~a .n P A P r A E ~a IM1 Fveoa, 1a4J1 1 : rye' In r.:. 'l llfl \ R (Tl R M1 I ! F t C 1,'TP TIP * r [n rrn C'.'\iAAll R F., u\IRb rr, ^nn rn[ r .. rr...,s r r . .... ........ ... eRr- s. a,rr. ;~ r~ri,,,"ice m .°ti;r,`rrom ~ii~rTx.e~r r,n[;rd .i'cai\iz,er. ^ Nr~ uPnr :,J a;n. ,r,,. , hrr r G' a , J m IN h r! e n Yr. INDLMNITY CIRVlE P'[ S1r(iY-$I'll(II\'TR r r h[ b. rq V.Jrr nl rtr ( 1 1fTUP ,M1tll. N rr n r ,I~n • n r ~ I \TPAm TI P. rn,l r. mrll ~•irlr rll `, l'm; +,m, .rr r~i mh a~,r .n re.rrrr^~, Nm,l rr rM1rh n r 1~rAr~ rn l'N91M Irli^ ~. Lir~frnlelrr^rA r,l l')'r r r6rrv.~S Ur al 'irx ..6'111 Jlr vl nr Lu ~rW IrMFm nd ~rll n^Lr hrn,l Fe[ran n.n~nr'e M[+m'Trlir4 ru muL e nJ r' f^ [ .b. ,Im a ,.rJ A,n SUIt \TP 1CTUR x^ II roll arn~rnel I,^ 1•.v r m r n.lee k r nn iM1n[Pm rn.l rM1.ll Jrrt ukn ~ •, ar[ [ 1 Nn nl r e mt e f1ra+ r1 mrr ^•I rr Ar en.I rarJ ne mN m~rFll lnr Irn ~~1l a,N UVrp lrri(IPC +, AY nl 5l'VU \TP 1fTOP 51n Ir,. Iml'h Ilxr ]TpA llfl ,'nl mn[. n .,I ..\nnru ear rant, , I,Ir. I.n h.Lm Jrm .n"6nI.I 16,r n,\rrTR.11~i1~R I,JR a IrrJrr r m• .,aloe 6ea anJ Irorfer nrY r,'I,:r TP FI ^r(IR ONn :Irr: ,,L lPrll\IMAr.i11P r)r~llr^uri [rr krr au Jfl, 1,,1'r Ir.r mr,rn i•re .• u~,f.l rlnryaro, r,rr , In 'N; IR I1\TPAR 0. r eJ h ne4r rldw rlF FeU6 .III. Rn. (a rrln FJ, II<I erF1 h 5a r' ;I Ia nrrM1e r'er nlr.ly, rJ n r r ( \TAA h N J el6rr . 6 I I 1 '. b 1I Fe r.n rlvw remrJrn r~n..N nlP u. nrrrrr I Pn .r e Y (rn ra.r IMOrMNITT CLAUSE rOP [DUAL EMILOTMLNT 01MPTUNITI[f VIOIAiIDNS ,1111 t`\I P.Ir TI1R, r6r, r,rn errlen .n mrr6.IlN rr rrlir r rli\l'PA(t )P~arJ rr r,rllr. rrl ,ur~Va mn :uJrnr[ 'rrF mr ftGUrre^`r, ur.. a.Nh'r a ? r Arrr II L J 5 f >n Ln E e I f J•P ~F r he v. I r a F. r F r m r r a O' I G I I 1 ' ,~P r 11.. vl .. I rr ,.' ~,=1,r,~ 1 J r . a 6 J I rl C I ,1h r4 h err 6 r, 1 CC b F .+rh A U1 tl\Tx TaP rM' b,r an N lull re r n I l a 1 rbr IJr m^Wr 'e Fv rOrF 4 h r: M1IIJ \ «r anJ••e Vn rn r a r I r nl) rt r1p.n., rr. ~'IV J a . F~ ¢ A, II 6 I M1I sL 9C l1\i0.1 T Rrr ~ mlr^r<' . m l a CI1,r r. be AN rv[A ,r Ym ~a:aFer,rl~ I r~Aur r C•, enl a n^r,, •6rrlel urlr n n orlrNrr TP.1r T1`R it 6, Ir SLIr n]~ 5LW Vi\IR,\I I R h rr I 61' f I,\iPAlril A r Ion Ln Im nJuJie i ,ol r Al 6nmlrn Ll \iH VT P I r[ nnl 6t u,Rnr rll, ul rr.r I ^ n:pnl„ 1. a ~ ~ r,~ra il1Pe<Ir~ rtp ~r.Lm rfVVAAf ^ Rrx [ IM1r+GOr r+[Rm1t n~aFle or mm~,f^ aler r aPl,a D,^0 for Aurln r RrYirl~'OaFlemrvrre-^Lmm.'rkreray nd bviu\iPnCmB nrrlrom Y5LI1CUpTP AtiUP SrLaun w IulRll rAC rnrenwn m Ia16 rn r6n vn.rnrn In tlN nmr )l M N\iR ACTf)fl brh rJ nmr Y ~' F mY nl rA[ a4:«r,mrionri f E(1 la., a and ruJ:mmr irnln nr a.arJ rW[ !1 IA[~rlgi~e I federll LnarVrr t,rmrliaMr rl'nrrrJ 5rarn Ile,aN n r I Ll.~r. rr anY •rrl:er r[rl[nl, ~Ir,re rnl la. nr n nrl er b..lY retl•,nrr61( Iol r6e a.ImrmlrNrMn aoJl •IIr11a.a .rrM1rn me Rrr:r1 R,ri rJ rn ,urlr llrr lhJ[ m.l[rr Irn\fP.ir TUPm 6o Jrr,nr. n.e [rAV r:dn,rvl mmrrye rrNFn r'rJ rM1~m ` rr nrr n ..I ~M1n :M1I"w our w,l,rn;, Ow mX Lmrr<J an fm r e, frn.irlrrlr~n rrrr[rar Pna N,b, 4nrnrrer. .r6n ou,r.'. rrr„ mrp]T0.ACi lRmdo ,o fUVTR.IC a, r, d 6,h. anJ 6rnanner Ae .^r •R~ J M1 rR b' A[ A irN m SLBCCNI'RACTOR d • Attachment "A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 2l, 1991 Page 1 of 10 PROJECT: Sports Complex and Animal Care Facility 8400 Rochester Avenue Rancho Cucamonga, CA OWNER: The City of Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ARCHITECTS: Sports Complex GRILLIAS.PIRC.ROSIER.ALVES PLANNERS.ARCHITECTS.ENGINEERS 4940 Irvine Boulevard Suite 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Animal Care Faculty Woltt/Lang/ChrislopherArchitects,inc. 10470 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 DRAWINGS: PAR T A -SPORTS COMPLEX SHEET NO. SH~ffRLE AT CT DATFlR VISION 1.1 TITLE SHEET, PART A & B T1.1 TITLE SHEET T1.2 ABBREVIATIONS,GENERAL NOTESBSHEETINDEX T7.3 SYMBOLS, LEGENDS 8 WALL TYPES Ci TITLE SHEET C2 DEMOLITION PLAN C3 DETAIL SHEET C4 DETAIL SHEET CS WALL PROFILES C6 WALL PROFILES C7 SOUTH 1/3 GRADING PLAN C8 MIDDLE tl3 GRADING PLAN C9 NORTH 113 GRADING PLAN 80FF•SITE GRADING C9A NORTH 1/3 GRADING PLAN & OFF-SITE GRADING (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.9) C10 PLANTER DETAILS C11 EROSION CONTROL PLAN C12 COORDINATE SHEET C13 SOUTH 113 DIMENSION PLAN C14 MIDDLE 1/3 DIMENSION PLAN C14A MIDDLE 1/3 DIMENSION PLAN (BID ALTERNATIVE NO. 15) C15 NORTH 1/3 DIMENSION PLAN C15A NORTH 1/3 DIMENSION PLAN (BID ALTERNATIVE N0. 9) C16 ON-SITE SIGNING AND STRIPING 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/~ 8/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18!91 9/18/91 9(18!91 9.18/91 9/18191 9/18!91 9/18191 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9118/91 9118191 9/18!91 9/18/91 9/18/91 9/18/91 1141C l H Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 2l, 1991 Page 2 of 1 D • SHEET NO. q-IFFTfiIIF LATEST DATE/R EVISION C77 TITLE SHEET 9/7 g/g7 C78 INDEX SHEET o/18/91 C19 ARROW STORM DRAIN g/7g/g1 C20 LINE A~SOUTH PORTION g/1 g/g7 C21 LINE A-NORTH PORI!JN 9ryg/g1 C22 LINER 9/18/91 C23 LINECBJ 9/7 8197 C24 DETAIL SHEET/LINE'8" PLAN 8 PROFILE 9118/91 C26 LATERAL PROFLES 9178/91 C26 LATERAL PROFILES 9/18/91 C27 TITLE SHEET 9!18/91 C28 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN SOUTH PORTION 9/18/91 C29 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN MIDDLE PORTION 9!18/91 C30 ROCHESTER AVENUE STREET PLAN NORTH PORTION 9/18/91 C31 ARR0IN ROUTE STREET PLAN WEST PORTION 9/18/91 C32 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN MIGCLE PORTION 9/18/91 C33 ARROW ROUTE STREET PLAN EAST PORTION 9/18/91 C34 ROCHESTER AVE. SIGNINGSTRIPING/STREET LIGHT NORTH PORTION 9/18!91 C35 ROCHESTER AVE. ROUTESIGNINGSTRIPING/STREET LIGHT SOUTH PORTION 9/1 B/91 ARROW ROUTE SIGNINCaBTRiPING/STREET LIGHT WEST PORTION 9/18/91 C36 ARROW ROUTE SIGNING/STRIPINGSTREET LIGHT EAST PORTION 9118/91 • C37 C37A TITLE SHEET TITLE SHEET (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.7A) 9/18/91 9/18/91 C38 SOUTH PORTION 9/18/91 C38A SOUTH PORTION (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.7A) 9!18/91 C39 MIDDLE PORTION 9/18!91 C39A MIDDLE PORTION (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.7A) 9/18/91 C40 NORTH PORTION 9/18!91 C40A NORTH PORTION (BID ALTERNATIVE N0.7A) 9/18191 C40AA RECLAIMED WATER DETAIL SHEET (BID ALTERNATIVE NO. 7A) 9/18!91 C41 TITLE SHEET 9178/91 C42 SOUTH PORTION 9/78!91 C43 MIDDLE PORTION 9/18191 C44 NORTH PORTION 9118/91 TR1 TITLE SHEET, NOTES 8 DETAILS 9Ii 8/91 TR2 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE.B DAY CREEK BLVDJJACK KENNY DR. 9/18/91 TR3 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE. 8 ARROW ROUTE 9/18/91 TR4 TRAFFIC SIGNAL PLAN ROCHESTER AVE. & STADIUM PKWY. 9/78/91 A3.1 GENERAL STADIUM PLAN 9178/91 A3.1 A GENERAL STADIUM PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.2 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN 9/18191 A3.2A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN W/.ALTERNATIVE ~ 9/78191 A3.3 CENTER CONCOURSE PLAN 9/18191 A3.4 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN 9/18!91 A3.4A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.6 A3.6 CENTER MEZZANINE PLAN LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN 9/78/91 9118/91 A3.6A LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN W/,ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 /1 Drawings, Specitications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page 3 of 10 • SHEET NO. 9$TiiiLE LATEST DATE/REVISION A3.7 CENTER GRANDSTAND & PRESSBOX 9/18!91 A3.8 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN 9118!91 A3.8A RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18!91 A3.9 CENTER ROOF & PENTHOUSE PLAN, PENTHOUSE ROOF PLAN 9/18/91 A3.10 MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURE PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.11 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/91 A3.11A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.12 CENTER CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/91 A3.12A CENTER CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.13 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/91 A3.13A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.14 CENTER MEZZANINE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/91 A3.14A CEMER MEZZANINE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 9/18/91 A3.15 CENTER GRANDSTAND 6 PRESS BOX REFLECT. CEILING 9/18/91 A3.15A CENTER GRANDSTAND & PRESS BOX REFLECT. CEILING W/. ALTERNATNE 9/18/91 A3.16 MISCELLANEOUS'STRUCTURES ROOF & REFLECTED CEILING PLANS 9/18/91 A3.17 ENLARGED RESTROOM PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.18 ENLARGED gESTROOM PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.19 ENLARGED FOOD CONCESSIONS PLANS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A3.20 ENLARGED STAIR PLANS 8 SECTIONS 9/18/91 . A3.21 ENLARGED STAIR PLANS d SECTIONS 9/18191 A4.1 ELEVATIONS•LEFTCRANDSTAND W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A4.2 ELEVATIONS-CENTER GRANDSTAND 9/18/91 A4.3 ELEVATIONS-CENTER GRANDSTAND 9/18/91 A4.3a CONCOURSE EXTERIOR WALL/FENCE ELEV. 9/18/91 A4.3aA CONCOURSE EXTERIOR WALL/FENCE ELEV. W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A4.4 ELEVATIONS-RIGHT GRANDSTAND W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A4.5 ELEVATIONS-MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A4.6 ELEVATIONS•MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES 9/18/91 A4.7 BUILDING SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18!91 A4,8 6UILDING SECTIONS W/. ALT. 9/18/91 A5.1 WALL SECTIONS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A5.2 WALL SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9118/91 A5.3 WALL SECTIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A 6.1 CONCOURSE ELEVATIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A6.2 INTERIOR ELEVATION (RESTROOMSISHOWER) W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/16!91 A6.3 INTERIOR ELEVATION (RESTROOMS/SHOWER) W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A 6.4 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS, RESTROOMS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A 7.1 FINISH SCHEDULES 9/18191 A7.1 A FINISH SCHEDULES Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 A7.2 FINISH SCHEDULES 9/16/91 A7.2A FINISH SCHEDULES Wl. ALTERNATIVE 9/10!91 A7,3 DOOR SCHEDULE W/.ALTERNATIVE 9!18191 A7.4 DOOR 8 WINDOW TYPES, DOOR SCHEDULE NOTES 8 ABBREVIATIONS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78191 A7.5 INTERIOR FINISH DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/78!91 A8.1 DOOR DETAILS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.2 DOOR DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9!18191 A8,3 WINDOW DETAILS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/18191 ~. lent~r Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 ' Page 4 of 10 • SHEET NO. SHEETrm.E LAT T DATER VI ION A8.4 WINDOW DETAILS 9/18/91 A8.6 CEILING DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE g/7g/gi A6.6 STAIR AND RAMP DETAILS 9/18/91 A8.7 INTERIOR DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE g/ig/gi A8.8 SEISMIC/EXPANSION JOINT DETAILS 9/1g/g1 A8.9 ROOF DETAILS 9/18191 A8.9A ROOF DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.10 EXTERIOR DETAILS W/.ALTERNATIVE 9/19/91 A8.11 EXTERIOR DETAILS g/1g/gi A8.12 MISCELLANEOUS DETAILS W/. ALTERNATIVE glib/91 A8.13 SITE/BUILDING SIGNAGE W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.14 BASEBALL STADIUM SCOREBOARD W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/18/91 A8.16 SOFTBALL SCOREBOARD W/. ALTERNATIVE 9/ig/gi A8.16 SOCCER SCOREBOARD W/. ALT. 9/18/91 S1.1 GENERAL NOTESBTYP.DETAILS 9/i 8/91 52.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9/18/91 S2.2 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9/18!91 52.3 LEFT & RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE SLAB PLANS 9/18/91 52.4 LEFTB RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND FRAMING PLANS 9/18/91 52.5 LEFT 8 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 52.6 LEFT 8 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 53.1 CENTER CONCOURSE FOUNDATION PLAN 9!18/91 53.2 CENTER MEZZANINE FRAMING PLAN 9/18/91 53.3 CENTER GRANDSTAND 8 PRESSBOX FRAMING PLAN 9/18/91 • 53.4 CENTER ROOF FRAMING PLAN 8 PENTHOUSE ROOF FRAMING PLAN 9/18/91 53.5 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 53.6 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING ELEVATIONS 9/18!91 54.1 CENTER CONCOURSE SLAB PLAN 9/18/97 54.2 CENTER GRANDSTAND FRAMING PLANS 9/18/91 54,3 CENTER GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 S4.4 CENTER GRANDSTAND WALL ELEVATIONS 9/18191 55.1 BUILDING -A. PLANS 8 ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 55,2 MISC. BLDGS. PLANS, ELEVATIONS 8 SECTIONS 9/19/91 55.3 RESTROOM BLDG. B DET. ~ 9/18/91 55.4 MISC. BLDG. PLANS, ELEVATIONS AND DETAILS 9/18/91 55.5 MISCELLANEOUS BLDS. PLANS, ELEVATIONS, AND DETAILS 9/18/91 56.1 DETAILS 9/18/91 56.2 DETAILS 9/18/91 56.3 DETAILS 9/18/91 S 6.4 DETAILS 9/18191 56.5 FRAMING SECTIONS 9/18/91 56,6 DETAILS 9118/91 56.7 DETAILS 9/18/91 56.8 DETAILS ~ 9!18/91 56.9 DETAILS 9/18/91 P1.1 GENERAL NOTES, LEGENDS, SCHEDULES & DETAILS ~ 9/18/91 P2.1 GAS DISTRIBUTION PLAN 9/18/91 P2.1A GAS DISTRIBUTION PLAN 9/18/91 P3.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/91 P3.1A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/91 • P3.2 CENTER CONCOURSE 9/18/91 P3.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/91 Attachment "A" - Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 2l, 1991 Page 5 of 10' • SHEET NO. 9~ITfIIE LATEST DATE/R EVISION P3.3A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE PLAN 9/18!91 P3.4 CENTER MEZZANINE PLAN gryg/91 P3.8 LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND g/1 8/97 P3.6A LEFT FIELD GRANDSTAND 9/18/91 P3.6 CENTER GRANDSTAND 8 PRESSBOX 9/19/91 P3.7 RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND g/ig/g1 P3.7A RIGHT FIELD GRANDSTAND 9/18/91 P3.8 CENTER ROOF 8 PENTHOUSE -PENTHOUSE ROOF 9/18/91 P3.9 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS g/1g/g1 P3.9A ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS g/19/91 P3.10 MAINTENANCE YARD PLAN, RESTROOM BUILDING PLAN 8 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS 9/19/97 P3.11 ENLARGED PARTIAL PLANS 9/18/91 P6.1 DETAILS 9/18/91 FP7.1 LEFT FIELD r,,ON000RSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/18/91 FPi.2 CEI.TER CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/19/91 FP7.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/18/91 FP1.4 ',1EZZANINE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/18/91 FP1.6 CENTER GRANDSTAND CANOPY&PRESSBOX FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9118/91 FP1.6 PENTHOUSE FIRE PROTECTION PLAN 9/78/91 M1.1 EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE, GENERAL NOTES LEGEND AND SYMBOLS 9!18/91 • M1.1A M1.2 EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE,GENERAL NOTES LEGEND AND SYMBOLS EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE 9/18/91 9/78/91 Fd1.2A EQUIPMENT SCHEDULE 9118/91 M3.1 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9!18/91 h93.tA MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/91 M3.2 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER CONCOURSE 9/18/97 M3.3 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/91 M3.3A MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE 9/18/91 M3.4 ' MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER MEZZANINE 9/18/91 M3.4A MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTER MEZZANINE 9/18!91 M3.6 ~ MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTRAL GRANDSTAND & PRESS BOX 9/18/91 M3.SA MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR CENTRAL GRANDSTAND 8 PRESS 80X 9/i6/S1 M3.6 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR PENTHOUSE 9/18!91 M3.7 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN FOR MAINTENANCE YARD 9/18/91 M4.1 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLED S HEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9/18/91 M 4.1A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLED 8 HEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9/18/91 M4.2 CENTER CONCOURSE-CHILLED 8 HEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9!16/91 M4.3 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLEDBHEATlNG HOT WATER PIPING 9/18/97 M4.3A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE CHILLED 8 HEATING HOT WATER PIPING 9/18/91 M4.4 MEZZANINE FLOOR-CHILLED & HOT WATER PIPING 9/18/91 M4.6 CENTRAL GRANDSTAND FLOOR•CHILLED 8 HOT WATER PIPING 9/18/91 M4.6 MECHANICAL SECTIONS - 9/18/91 M6.1 MECHANICAL DETAILS 9/78/91 td 6.2 MECHANICAL DETAILS 9/18/91 M E.1 CONTROL DIAGRAMS 8/18/91 ME.1A CONTROL DIAGRAMS 9/18/91 AYachment "A" Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility - November 2l, 1991 Page 6 of 10 • SHEET NO ~TiiILE LATEST DATE/REVISION E1.1 LEGEND, FIXTURE SCHEDULER DETAILS g/78;97 E7.1A LEGEND, FIXTURE SCHEDULEBDETAILS 9/78/91 E7.2 BASEBALL FIELD -FLOODLIGHTING 8 MISC. DETAILS gry g/97 E7.2A BASEBALL FIELD- FLOODLIGHTING 8 MISC. DETAILS 9/18/91 E2.1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-LIGHTING gryB/g7 E 2.1A PLAYING FIELOSAREA LIGHTING 9/17/97 E2.2 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-LIGHTING 9/1 B/91 E2.3 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-LIGHTING 9/78/91 E2.4 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-POWERBMISC. 9/18191 E2.5 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN-POWERBMISC. 9178/91 E 2.SA SITE POWERBMISC. DISTRIBUTION 9/17191 E2.6 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN • POWER 8 MISC. 9/18!91 E2.7 AREA LIGHTING DETAILS 9!18/91 E2.7A AREA LIGHTING DETAILS 9/17/91 E 2.8 ELECTRICAL CONTROL DIAGRAMS 9/78191 E2.9 PLAYING FIELDS LIGHTING DETAILS 9/18/91 E 2.9A FIELD LTG POLE DETAIL 9/17/91 E3.1 BASEBALL FIELD -POWER DISTRIBUTION 8 FLOODLIGHTING 9/18/91 E3.1A BASEBALL FIELD.POWER DISTRIBUTIONBFLOODLIGHTING 9/18/91 E3.2 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE • POWER 8 LTG PLANS 9/18/91 E3.2A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE-POWER 8 LTG PLANS 9/18/91 E3.3 LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE•SIGNALBMISC. PLANS 9118/91 E3.3A LEFT FIELD CONCOURSE-SIGNALBMISC. PLANS 9/78/91 E3.4 CENTER CONCOURSE POWER PLAN 9/18/91 E3.5 CENTER CONCOURSE LIGHTING PLAN 9118/97 • E3.5A CENTER CONCOURSE LIGHTING PLAN 9/78/91 E3.6 CENTER CONCOURSE SIGNALBMISC.PLANS 9/18/91 E3.7 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE • POWER 8 LTG PLANS 9/78/91 E3.7A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE-POWERS LTG PLANS 9/18/91 E 3.8 RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE-SIGNALBMISC. PLANS 9/18/91 E3.8A RIGHT FIELD CONCOURSE-SIGNALS MISC. PLANS 9/78/91 E 3.9 MEZZANINE POWER 8 LIGHTING PLANS 9/18/91 E3.10 MEZZANINE SIGNALS MISC. PLANS ~ 9/18/91 E3.11 UPPER FLOOR- PRESS BOX- POWER 8 LTG. PLANS 9/18/97 E3.12 UPPER FLOOR-PRESS BOX-SIGNALS MISC. PLANS ~ 9/18/97 E3.13 MISC. BLDG. -ELECTRICAL PLANS 9/18/91 E3.13A MISC. BLDG.-ELECTRICAL PLANS 9/18/91 E4.1 ONE LINE DIAGRAM AND DETAILS 9/18/91 E4.1A UNTITLED 9/18/91 E5.1 UNTITLED 9/18/91 E6.1 PANEL SCHEDULES 9/18/97 E 6.2 PANEL SCHEDULES 9/78/91 E6.3 PANEL SCHEDULES 9/18/91 E 6.4 PANEL SCHEDULES 9/18/91 E6.4A PANEL SCHEDULES ~ 9/78/91 L7 COVER SHEET 9/18/91 L7A COVER SHEET 9/18/91 L1a CONSTRUCTION LEGEND AND NOTES 9/18/91 L1aa CONSTRUCTION LEGEND AND NOTES 9/78/91 L2 CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/18/91 L2A CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/18/91 ® L3 CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/18/91 L3A CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/18!97 / /1 Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 2l, 1991 Page 7 of ~ D . SHEET NO. 9$TfRIP LATEST DATE/REVISION L4 CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/18/91 L4A CONSTRUCTION PLAN 9/19/97 l5 CONSTRUCTION PLAN (20-SCALE PLAZA AREA) 9/18/91 LSA CONSTRUCTION PLAN (20-SCALE PLAZA AREA) 9/18/91 L6 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18/91 L6A CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9118/91 L7 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/78191 L7A CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (CONCRETE) 9/18/91 LS CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (MASONRY) 9/18/91 L9 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (FENCING) 9/18/91 L70 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (FENCING) 9/1 8/91 L 11 CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (SITE FURNISHINGS) 9/18/91 L11A CONSTRUCTION DETAILS (SRE FURNISHINGS) 9/18/91 L12 IRRIGATION PLAN 9/18/91 L72A IRRIGATION PLAN 9!18/91 L73 IRRIGATION PLAN 9/18/91 L73A IRRIGATION PLAN 9/18/91 L14 IRRIGATION PLAN 9/18191 L76A RECLAIMED WATER NOTES 9/18/91 Lt 6 IRRIGATION DETAILS 911 8/91 L76A RECLAIMED WATER SIRRIGATION DETAILS 9118/91 L17 IRRIGATION DETAILS 9/18/91 L18 IRRIGATION HYDRAULIC CALCULATIONS 9/78/91 L79 TREE, VINE 8 GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9!18/91 • L19A L20 TREE, VINEBGROUNDCO`JER PLAN TREE, VINE & GROUNOCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 9/18/97 L20A TREE, VINE 8 GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 L21 TREE, VINE B GROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 L21A TREE, VINESGROUNDCOVER PLAN 9/18/91 L22 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18!91 L22A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9!18/91 L23 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9!18!97 L23A SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18!91 L24 SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18/91 . L24A " SHRUB PLANTING PLAN 9/18/91 L25 PLANTING LEGEND AND DRAINAGE DETAILS 9/18/91 L26A PLANTING LEGEND AND DRAINAGE DETAILS 9!18191 L26 PLANTING DETAILS AND NOTES 9118191 L27 STRUCTURAL DETAILS AND NOTES 9/18/91 K1 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT PLAN 8 SCHEDULE 9/18/91 K2 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT BASE & REFRIGERATION PLAN 9!18/91 K3 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT PLAN MECHANICAL PLAN 9/1 B/91 K4 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN 9/18/91 KS FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT PLAN 9/18/97 K6 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT BASE 8 REFRIGERATION ALAN 9/18197 K7 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT MECHANICAL PLAN 9/18/91 K8 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT ELECTRICAL PLAN _ 9/18/91 KD 1 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/78/91 KD 2 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9118/91 KD 3 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/18!91 KD 4 FOOD SERVICE EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/78/91 ,1 Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 2l, 1991 Page 6 of 10 • DRAWINGS: PART 8 -ANIMAL CARE FACILITY SHEET NO. 9-IEEfT11lF LATEST DATE/REVISION T-1 TITLE SHEET gryg/gi C-1 CROSS SECTIONS/NOTES 9/77/97 G2 GRADING PLAN 9/77/97 A-7 SITE PLAN 9/18/91 A-2 PLAZA PLAN 9/18/91 A3 COOE ANALYSIS 9/18/97 A-4 FLOOR PLAN 9/18/91 A-5 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18!91 A-6 BUILDING SECTIONS 9/78/91 A-7 EXTERIOR ELEVATION ENLARGED FLOOR PLANS 8 TYP. TOILET FIXTURE/EOUIPMEN7 9!18/91 A-8 ENLARGED LOBBY COUNTER, KENNELS, FLOOR TILE PATTERN & DETAILS 9!18/91 A-9 INTERIOq ELEVATIONS 9!18/91 A-10 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A-17 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A•12 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A-13 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A-74 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/91 A-15 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18/97 A-16 INTERIOR ELEVATIONS 9/18191 • A-17 REFLECTED CEILING PIAN 9/18/97 A-15 ROOF PLAN 9/18/97 A-19 DOOR 8 WINDOW SCHEDULES 9/18/91 A-20 DETAILS 9/18/91 A-21 DETAILS 9/18/91 A-22 DETAILS ~ 9/18/91 A-23 DETAILS 9/18!91 A-24 DETAILS ~ 9/18/91 A-25 DETAILS 9/18/91 K-1 PLOOR PLAN 8 SCHEDULE 9/18/91 K-2 EQUIPMENT DETAILS 9/18/91 S-1 GENERAL NOTES AND TYP. DETAILS 9/18/91 S-2 TYPICAL DETAILS 9/18/91 S-3 TYPICAL DETAILS 9!18/91 S-4 FOUNDATION PLAN 9/18191 S-5 ROOF FRAMING PLAN 9/18!91 S-6 SECTIONS 9/18/91 S•7 SECTIONS 9/78/91 S-8 ELEVATIONS 9/15191 S-9 DETAILS 9/18/91 5-10 DETAILS - 9!18!91 5.71 DETAILS 9/18!91 M-1 SCHEDULE, NOTES, DETAILS AND CONTROLS 9/18/91 M~2 MECHANICAL FLOOR PLAN 9/18/91 ~ , i1 - Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page 9 of 10 SHEET NO Sfr.E~RE IATFST DAT /R VISION • P-1 PLUM8ING LEGEND, SCHEDULES, NOTES 8 DETAILS 9/18/91 P-2 PLUMBING SITE PLAN & DETAILS 9/18/91 P-3 PLUMBING FLOOR PLAN 9/18/91 P-4 PLUMBING ROOF PLAN 9/18191 E-1 ELECTRICAL SITE PLAN 8 SYMBOL LIST 9/18/91 E-2 SINGLE LINE DIAGRAM, DETAILS & SPECS 9/18/91 E-3 ELECTRICAL LIGHTING PLAN & FIXTURE SCHEDULE 9/18/91 E-4 ELECTRICAL POWER PLAN 8 PANEL SCHEDULES 9118/91 E-6 ROOF PLAN 9118/91 L 1 COVER SHEET 9/17/91 L 2 IRRIGATION PLAN AND LEGENDS 9/17!91 L 3 IRRIGATION DETAILB 9/17191 L 4 RECLAIMED WATER NOTES 9!17/91 L 5 PLANTING PLAN 9!17191 L 6 PLANTING DETAILS AND NOTES 9/17!91 SPECIFIC ATIONS; - Volume 1 of 3 • 'BIDDING DOCUMENTS, CONTRACT FORMS AND GENERAL REOVIREMENTS"FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PART A -SPORTS COMPLEX AND PART B-ANIMAL CARE FACILITY, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. Date of Issue: SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 PaM1APreparedby: GRILLIAS.PIRC.ROSIER.ALVES 4940 Irvine Blvd. Suite 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Part 8 Prepared by: WoHI/Lang/Christopher, Arch4egs 10420 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Volume 2 of 3 • "SPECIFICATIONS (DIVISIONS2THROUGH I6)' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PART A -SPORTS COMPLEX, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. Date of Issue: SEPTEMBER 18, 1991 Part A Prepared by: GRILLIAS.PIRC.ROSIER.ALVES 4940 Irvine Blvd. Suite 204 Irvine, CA 92720 Volume 3 of 3 - 'SPECIFICATIONS (DIVISIONS 2 THFiOUGH 16)' FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF: PART B• ANIMAL CARE FACILITY, CIT(OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. Date of Issue: SEPTEMBER f8, 1991 Part B Prepared by: Wolll/LanryChristopher, ArchAeds 10420 Foothill Blvd. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Drawings, Specifications and Amendments Sports Cornplex/Animal Care Facility November 21, 1991 Page 10 of 10 • AMENDMENTS ADDENDUM NO. tAB, dated October 1S, 1991 containing 21 pages and 35 attachments. ADDENDUM NO. 2, dated October 17, 1991, containing 2 pages and 5 attachments. ADDENDUM NO. 3, dated October 23, 1991, containing 1 page. "' Erd of Attachmerrt A' " C 1 • SECTION 6 - SPECIAL PROVISIONS ATTACHMENT 'B' Subcontract No. 7 ©3 3 Page 1 of 2 The provisions of this Attachment '8' are in addition to all other terms and conditions of this subcontract, and shall not serve to limit or reduce their effect, 1. Subcontractor shall keep competent antl sufficient supervision satisfactory to the Contractor on the work at all times in which work is or should be in pregress, in accordance with the Contractor's progress schedule. 2. Provide name, address and emergency telephone number of responsible company official. RICHARD RLARCON Name Address x Phone No. 714-261-9935 3. Subcontractor shall maintain work in a neat, clean, and orderly condition at all times and shall remove deDri s, rubbish, and excess materials resulting from work under Lhis agreement as it occurs. Subcontractor's (allure to comply will De construed as authorization for the Contractor to provide cleaning services at Subcontract or's expense. 4. Subcontractor shall furnish all samples, shop drawings, schedules, and descrip- • five literature in accordance with Lhe specifications with ir. ample Lime Lo allow for checking, and to prevent any delay due to lack of approval. All submittals requiring approval shall be certified by Subcontractor's authorized representative as meeting Lhe plans and specifications, or any antl all variances shall De clearly defined at the time of suDmiss ion. Within two (2) weeks cC the Subcontract date, Subcontractor shall submit to the Contractor a complete schedule of all samples, shop drawings and other submittals which will require approval, showing anticipated submittal date and required lead tlme after approval for ordering, fabrication and delivery of all material. Subcontractor shall promptly report to Contractor any deviation Cr om this senedu le and when requested by Contractor, shall furnish confirmation of scheduled deliveries. 5, Subcontractor shall deliver to the Contractor five (5) working days prior to Lhe last working day of the month, invoices for current month's work. Invoices shall De accompanied by Releases and Naivers of Lien. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY RESULT IN OMISSION OF PAYMENT REpUEST TO THE OWNER FOR SAID PERIOD. 6. Subcontractor agrees to furnish a Material Safety Data Sheet (NSDS) for each hazardous substance to De used at the 3obsite in the Derformance of Subcon- tractor's work. Subcontractor shall deliver Che MSDS to Contractor's superin- tendent PRIOR to bringing any hazardous substance onto the ~obsite. 7. Subcontractor shall furnish all temporary facilities required for his own work. Such temporary facilities shall be located where directed by the Contractor's P ro,ie et Superintendent. SF 713 Rev. t2/89 SECTION 6 -SPECIAL PROVISIONS ATTACHMENT 'H' - Subcontract No. '1 0 $ $ Page 2 of 2 • 8. Subcontractor shall obtain and pay for all permits and licenses required for his c~.m work, and De responsible for securing from any authority having jurisdictior. over it, inspections and approval of his work as required by the jot schedule. 9. Within ten (10) days Subcontractor shall provide the Contractor with a certificate of Worker's Compensation Insurance. Within ier. (10) days Subcontractor shall provide Contractor with a certificate of Comprehensive General Liability (including Automobile) insurance with policy limits of not less than $500,000 as to each person and $1,000,000 as to each occurrence £or bodily injury and personal injury liability, and $500,000 property damage liability for each occurrence, or for not less than $1,000,000 if on a combined single limit basis. The insurance or policies shall contain the following provisions: (Z) A naming of the Owner, Architect, and Contractor, its directors, officers, and eapl oyees, as additional insureds by use of Standard Insurance Service Office Form GL2009 Or its equivalent. (II) A separate provision that the insurance afforded to the additional insured is primary insurance and that any other insurance maintained by the additional insureds is excess and not contributing insurance with the insurance so provided by the Subcontractor. • (III) Coverage for the following, which must be on an OCCUARENCE Dasis: (a) Premises and Operations Liability (b) Contractual liability insuring the oD ligatlons assumed Dy the Subcontractor in this subcontract. (c) Completed Operations and Products Liability (d) Broad Form Property Damage 'Liability (e) Liability which Subcontractor may incur as a result of the operations, acts, or omissions of Sts subcontractors. (f) Automobile liability, including owned, non-owned, and hired automobiles. (g) XCU Coverage for Explosion, Collapse, antl Underground Hazards. 10. Subcontractor acknowledges that Contractor has entered into Master Labor Agree- ments, through Contractor's membership in the 0.C, C. and B.I.A. covering work at Contractor's jobsites with the following labor unions: Carpenters; Cement Masons; Laborers; Teamsters; Operating Engineers and Iron Workers. Subcontractor agrees that paragraph two, lines one through six of General Subcontract Provisions J Ss hereby replaced by the foregoing. SF113 Rev. 12/89 Attachment "C" Special Provisions Alternatives December 4, 1991 • Subcontract No.7083 Page 1 of 3 1) The following Alternative-Bid Items, described in Section 01100 -Alternatives and Separate Prices, are not included in the preceding Base Bid Lump Sum Amounts and are to be incorporated into the work of the Contract only upon specific acceptance of the Agency. Days in parentheses are calendar days from Notice to Proceed during which Agency may accept respective Alternatives. A. Alternatives Relative to Part A -Sports Complex Alternative N7 -Kitchen Equipmem (90 Days) S ~ Alternative N2 -Scoreboards (120 Days) Pdd 7 Aflemative k3 -Precast Concrete Cap at Perimeter Masorxy WaA (60 Days) Ahernative N4 -Stadium Seating ar 3oltball and Soccer Felds (120 Days) • Add s o Ahernative N5 -Tree Grates (30 Days) Adi_ a ~ Alternative N6 -Stadium Seating whh Cup Holders (Right and Leh Grandstands) (240 Days) Adi Ahernative N7A - Recaimed Water Mains (30 Days) Pdd Ahernative N78 -Reclaimed Water irrigation System (60 Days) Alternative NB - Cemem Plaster Sohit Under Seating Structure (Grandstand Concourse) (270 Days) s o Ahernative N9. Outdoor Cate Area, Concessicn Stand. Bullet Canopy, Pknic Area, TM Lot, Sohard Lighting and 8arbeque Grili (90 Days) Add S O Ahernative N10 • Imerbcking Pavers (80 Days) nni S a Attachment "C" ' Special Provisions Alternatives December 4, 1991 • Subcontract No.7083 Page 2 of 3 Ahernative p11 -Thirty-six inch Box Trees (120 Days) Alternative N12 -Twenty-four inch Box Trees (120 Days) Alternative N13 - Flvegallon Shrubs (180 Days) Alternative X74 -Hybrid Bermuda Sad at Stadium Fleb (180 Days) Alternative N18 - Raztroom Building (90 Days) Ahemative N76 -She Signage (120 Days) $ .(} $ ~ • Ahernative N17 -Lockers and Benches (270 Days) Add S 4 Alternative N18 - GrarWStand Flagpole (270 Days) Add a ¢. Ahernative N19 - Corida Ceiling Baffles (180 Days) Actl a ~• Ahernative N20 - Flnish Carpentry and Cazework (270 Days) Am a m AltematNe N21 -Metal Facia (120 Days) Add E ~ Ahernative N22 • Glazed CMU, Vinyl Wall Covering, and Cast Stone Molding (120 Days) Alternative M23 • Solid Potymer-plastic Toilet Parthions (270 DdyS) Attachment "C" Special Provisions • Alternatives December 4, 1991 • Subcontract No.7083 Page 3 of 3 Attemative N24 -Plaza Benches (60 Days) Alternative X25 - Metaline Fek1 L'ghting Fixture (60 Days) AttematNe X26 - Statlium Concourse Light FrAUre (270 Days) 5 a TOTAL, ALTERNATIVE BID AMOUNTS, PART A -SPORTS COMPLEX nOLLARS S +~ B. Alternativea Relative to Part B • Animal Cara Faclliry Atternativa N78 - Reclametl Water Irrigatbn System (BO Days) Am S ¢ • TOTAL, ALTERNATIVE BID AMOUNTS, PART B• ANIMAL CARE FACILITY DOLLARS S ~ 2) Subcontractor agrees to comply with all Labor and Prevailing Wage requirements of the Prime Contract as called forth but not limited to, Section 00010 and 00800 of the Project Manual. "' End of Attachment "C" "' • Attachment "D" • Special Provisions December 4, 1991 Subcontract No.7083 Page 1 of t A) As described in Attachment "B" hereto, pages 1 and 2 of 2, which forms an integral part of this agreement. B) As described in Attachment "C" hereto dated December 4, 1991, pages 1 through 3 of 3, which forms an integral part of this agreement. C) Subcontractor excludes the cos[ of the following: 1) Permits. 2) Fees. 3) Engineering. 4) Survey. 5) Haulaway. 6) Bond Costs. ~ Demolition. ' 8) Removals. 9) Abandonments. 10) Soils testing vests. l 1) Construction water costs. . 12) Warerconbrol. 13) Elusion control. 14) Perforated drain pipe. 15) Trench drains. 16) Asphalt resurfacing. 1 ~ Site drainage work indicated on Grading Plans which is not identified in the Storm Drain Impravemrnt Plans. D) Subwnhactor agrees to leave excess utility spoils adjacent to site utility trerrchside. ~ Subcontractor's contract sum is based on utiliring oaGve material for pipe bedding and backfilling, F) All of the above as it pertains to the work of Savala Constr. Co., a<. set forth in its bid dated October 24, 1991, and only to the extent of Savala Constr. Co.'s work. • • • End of Attachmrnt "D" " • PROOF OF SERVICE BY PERSONAL DELIVERY • I, the undersigned, certify as follows: I am over the age of 18 years, employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of californ ia, and not a party to the above entitled cause. My business address is 16401 E. Construction Circle, Irvine, California 92714. On December ~, 1991, L served a true copy (copies) oP the AFPZDAVIT OF LEONARD BAVALA the original of which is affixed hereto, on the person (persons) hereinafter mentioned by personally delivering the same to the following person at the following address: Mr. Tarry L. Smith, Superintendent Park Planning S Development The City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive • Rancho Cucamonga, California Or, in his/her absence from said office, by leaving the above described papers with his/her clerk or with the person in charge of his/her office; or, if no person was present in the office, by leaving the above-described papers between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. in a conspicuous place in the office. Executed at /?-/a-9i California, on the date hereinabove set forth in this Certificate. I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws o£ the State of California that the forego n is a and co rec . CAROL GRIFFI t EXHIBIT 20 ~aa i .. ~va~a CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. l ~ GENERAL ENGINEERING December 12, 1991 Mr. Scott Sha ld Bernards Bros. Inc. 610 Ilex Street San Fernando, Ca. 91340 Reference: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex Dear Scott; 1 have reviewed your two letters dated December 9, 1991 and it appears Bernards 8ro s, is now refusing to execute a sewer and storm drain site utilities subcontract with Savala Construction Company. be rna rds Dros. did use our bid on this project and Bernards Bros, did list us as their subcontractor on the contract bid documents. ^~ Most reputable general contractors check their bid spread and work sheets inm~ediately after a fob has Deen bid. !n a job such as this one, with many alternates, the first three or four bidders normally do not know who is low for some time after the bid is announced by the agency. • Mistakes are sometimes made by the low bidders. Sf it becomes apparent that the low bidder in fact did make an error, the agency generally tells the second bidder that he (night be awarded the job. Sometimes the second bidder will also claim a mistake or error in their bid and the job will then go to the "third" bidder. It would secnl to me that any legitimate general contractor would immed- iately check the numbers in his bid ff he or she was told by the ayeuy that the first bidder did, in fact, make an error and wanted to be relieved of the joD. Re rrla rds Bros. was apparently awarded the job on November 6, 1991, received a contract for the project, reviewed it and signed it. After apparently yetting their bonds and insurance forms together Dernards Oros. returned the documents to the City on November 18, 1991. The jab bid on October 24, 1991 and the executed contract docunents were returned on November 18, 1991. If an error hatl been made there was ample trine for Bernards Bros. to examine their bid quantities and suh- contractors before returning a Signed contract to the City. If Dernards Dros. did claim an error, as they are now, the job should have gone to the third bidder, which is not uncommon. Bernards Bros. did not notify $avala Construction about a supposed error until after they had returned their executed contract to the City, Why 71 Your attempt to substitute our firm far another violates the law and is a good example of ~ the leyislature of the Staff ~ form a enacted rules and regulations to prevent bid shopping, bid peddling and chiseling by the general contractor. 16402 EAST CONSTRUCTION CIRCLE / IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714 j)14 ;5N • Mr. Scott 5hald Bernards Bros., Inc. Re: Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex 12/12/91 Our• firm has been doing business in southern California since 1951 and has specialized in underground work since 1965. We have 5ucces sfully Constructed many jobs similar to the work proposed here and many more that were more complex. We are highly qualified to do this project and currently hold Caltrans MBE certification. The subcontract you delivered to us in the late afternoon of December q, 1991 was signed and delivered back to you on December 6, 1991, in the afternoon, together with our insurance certificates per your instructions. You saw fit to insert all of cur stipulations as stated in our quote to you dated October 24, 1991 in the subcontract we Signed. If the stipu- lations were acceptable and typed into the Subcontract by Bernards Bros. then the rest of the quote was also deemed acceptable. Your excuse that we modified the subcontract is misleadf ng. We said only that our bfd price must stand. Bernards Bros, must have known that the subcontract included work that was not set forth in our bid submitted on October 24, 1991, Our clarifications of the subcontract did not ex- clude the extra work you wanted, but merely esta Dlished a procedure to • determine its price. Bernards Bros. automatic rejection of the executed subcontract suggests that you never intended to use our firm. When you gave us the sub- contract you were hoping we would never sign it - but you were wrong. Your letter dated December 4, 1991 to the City verifies your doubt that we would sign. Having accepted our bfd and reporting us to the City as your subcont rector and waiting to claim an error after you made sure your signed contract was in the City's hands is not proper under the rules and laws in the State of California: We request that you reconsider your position and allow us to proceed to do the work that we bid in good faith. Very truly yours, tS:c cc: Mr. Tarry Smith City Rancho Cucamonga SAVA A CONSTRUC ON CO., INC. 1 eonard Saveta, President a EXHIBIT 21 ias Bernards Bros. Const..ction .. llecember ]2,1991 Mr. Tarry L Smith, Superintendent Park Planning & Development The Cityy of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Cl'vic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 PosMlt"Oran f xtransmittal memo )9Tt torppn. /r'f-~1:. 7'iQ t~l~l- from o. - /Fr [ A wot. Mt ~~ 1 Re: Rancho Cucamonga Sports iamplex/Animal Care Facility Hernuds Hros. Job No. 964 Savala ConsWCtion Co. Dear Mr. Sniltlt: Savala Construction Co. has failed [o accept and sign Ne Standard Form Subcontract that we recently mailed to it. Ratha, Savala ltas modified fhe Subcontrct by deleting Ne watuportion of the site utilities work Please allow this letter to serve as otv request for a public hearing on our request for a substitution of Savala ConsWMion Co. es our listed site uNieeS subcontractor, in favor of Chino Fltginxring Constrvcmrs 1nc., based upon (1) Savala Construction Co.'s failure to siggn and return our Subcontract, and (2) our inadvcrten: error in ]isdng Savala (:onstruction Co. in our formal bid to the City, Please contact us it' you have any questions. CONSTRUCTION Via Fax 714,987.6199 & Certified Mail No. P 7S4 306099 cc: Savflla Construction (Via Pax 714.552.ti597 S Certified Mail No. P 754 306 ]00) Chioo Conmuetion (Via Fax 714597,1295 $ First Class Malt) Cfo IiM S~:rq cer~ rer:¢~~o. Cn,d~,rna g131o I9i9) 365~LSr3 (8'.9) 935'9Pt rAX (610( 3Eh~e0a lw ?Oe,'gt7 EXHIBIT 22 ~~~ • ~~ CphSfely- f~IpS 1'-~0. Bpe CHlpni,K~UFpAN1 ~q (1Iy165? ph~ q pj7~ S;: tc ~O~STgrR-'„Y.:G~y1 1R (r/GJ 852.p218 rqk Ianuery 2, 7992 ,Snyein I X402 E "~natructipn Irvine, Cq 9271 gcunn Ci2 cc. Ocn4urnun: ender S~p4like (u , Nice (~kc sc ngav'Qc onst'°c(ion °Plku(unit • The i 4 (n y°nscl taarry 1n >ec to exnnss of work hntY, coo~retio nhclps Cn~ 6nit;o~~ f qtr °~~rcciatin to y corninnrcrl~2trWUte4fooursu~~e1ssxewe1eel~nicru n4ingPerfonuendt~nthe r'Irnnrc ' nd ~m ThankYnu a rn~r'uli. ~ Wrll ccn" 4' coq 'Qcr Jrro;48 vs( es7irng(4s thro xc u ugh c V• CrY lru/y Bain for your conlnritnre ~nnd(RM(inn Cn ~Uliun !IL•'ryy.; yours' nl mnenYfnrnur 1 G~ PIIC(.pg Cp •'' ~_ u ~~ ~'U. Ulkrali ~lndho/m : xil' ~ ns MnnAl•Cr ~~ Srr'n'fl~gi~ n'~Jti. _ ti'6'nr^uu nn 4211, q~-~ EXHIBIT 23 iaxq x ~ ~~? ?tea A "` 0~ Z H N Q N Z d U H F Z Q ~E F- 0. W z 0 ~w V O ~.. ~' M ~~ o z-. rnom QU N t0 V W 016 N Of a) J O N W Q r O L 2 Y rn.,~ u• a OW¢O.rO N.O O .+N 02d L O W 2 M L N M . y.. o i0? E y+. c -. in E ,., ~. wcwm mo 0 om~ m•-.ao v n~~o~-zap • • '~ 1 EXHIBIT 24 Id9 A LICt. _ AI., ~„ CALTRANS CERTIFIED MBE =84H627 ;`::~ elVd~d 1 CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. /// GENERAL ENGINEERING ...., r, Irr-_ '-, . a~lja ~~f~'I ~ ~ (,/) / /~ / .~.i~~ /t ***** PAGE 1 OF' **x**+*.+* PROJECT RANCHO CUCAMONGA SPORTS COMPLEX BID DATE/TIME 10-24-91 IT Ei1 CESCRIPTION QTY UNIT TOTAL PER PLAID DRAWINGS C-11 THROUGH C-26 STORM ORA IN IMPROVEMENT PLANS: 1. 48" RCP 1500D 672 Lf 2. 42" RCP 14000 918 LF 3. 36" RCP 17500 414 LF 4. 30" RCP 17500 815 LF 5 24" RLP 2000D 1557 LF fi. 18" RCP 20000 3122 LF 7. Trans. Str. 2D 235 1 EA 8. AD Manhole Det. 8 6 EA 9. JS "B" City Std. 509 11 EA 10. Manhole "A" City Std. 510 8 EA 11. Manhole "8" City Std. 511 7 EA ~ 2y 12. CB dl City Std 502 10 EA ,y! Of 13. CB N3 City Std 504 9 EA 14. Remove Inlet, Extend Lat & CB 2 EA 9 /-3-p/ 15. LD Case "8" City Std 518 10 EA 16. CB Case "C" City Std 518 9 EA 17. D[ Caltrans Std D73 G2 30 EA 20. Remove Bulkhead 2 EA 22. Concrete Collar 2 D393 3 EA 23. Alhambra Cover b Frame A12548 3 EA~ 25. 8" PVC SOR35 32.16 LF 26. 4" PVC SDR35 19.34 LF " 27. JS Det Sheet 10 3 EA 28. Encasement 52 LF 29. Pipe Conn. to Manhole 2 EA 30. 6" Dia. PVC SOR35 190 LF _ ' 31 6" Dia Cleanout 1 . - EA ~'~ ' ~~1-~ - ' . _ _> i ANIMAL SHELTER PART "8" - STORM GRAIN PER GRADING PLAN C-1 & C-2: 7. Remove Plug 1 EA 11, 18" RCP 2000D 74 LF 12. CB W=4',V=4.88 R.L, Std 502 1 EA 13. LD R.C. Std 518 64 SF 17. Alh. A470 RL[P 4 LF 18. Brooks 24"x24" CB 2 EA 19. 6" CIP 87 LF 16402 EAST CONSTRUCTION CIRCLE i I%VINE, CALIFORNIA 9271d i (714)651-0221 r'~•, r. •~ . :~~, q'~ "J~'J oNS r ., , _i ~ va1~ ~. c'FNER RU ENG NE° ENG. P,nCu E` 8'C uA', STOR(y CORq ~v AWIPIGS C_]7 2. 93" MPPOVENEldT ~~RODGH 3, 92" RCP 75000 PCA,YS; C'25 4 36,. 7400 5 3p„ RCp /7S0 D F 24„ RCp lVSU U ..,, ~d 'g PAGE ~ _ .-._ +»~~ 78 ~~ R pP 2p00D 8 Tra 2p0 6V2 (F 9) 8 ( , ns 0D 9, AD Ma' Str. 2D 70. JS „ ~ho7e 235 Det 8 77 M B Cr F 474 LF 875 LF 765j t enh . 7<• Manbo le „Ay Std. 509 ~ CF S72p CF 7qJ CQ 3l C~ ty SZ i ty Sttl • 570 67 Eq d ] 5 Ci 7) 502 ty S l5. Remoy e Inlet td 504 16• CO C l fA 8 EA a 20,~ D~Ca se „~, C yx std (at 8 (t rt 5) C ]0 EA 8 rans y Std 2p Remo 8 23~ COncre Balkh Std OV3 57g G2 ea e g EA 2 fA d te C°7 25. Alha mbr lar 26 8" p a C0~ 2 U3 er 7 10 EA 9 EA 2~ S,~~e{~ ~ ~~ 8 Fra e, A125q B z0 ~~ Z9, fncae Sheet 3p, Pi~ ement l0 3 F.q B 3l. ~,;'De~a °PVC S Manhol 92 g451FF e a'IIMq a Cleaq°~R35 V (Sl/fC 5J fA 2 CF . T l ]. Rem°~ R PART ~, ~ R ~ ' 8 ST ? ' lg0 fA 7 ~ 3 CP ORM ORAL C a p~OD 4' N fq ' p fR G g P'C Std .8 l'g' A~ R RAD!YG P ~~'- , 7 S A47 79 fi r ~ ps 24'kZ~ ~ td 502 LA Vol CEF N C l B C'2: I CB 7 EA E 4 5F 4 CF 2 fA ,~, 3 ~~ ~~~ j LF .cr~~, .,ICIFr~ /. ,. ~.. _~~ ~~~„Ne, cauF .a, ~Rr;,A S2;; ~, ~ r, • SS Ln~-• ~•~y D / '~'P/ ®CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS ORIGINAL -- __ IN RE THE MATTER OP BERNAADS BROS., INC., and SA~tALA CON5TROCTION CO., IRC., and CHINO ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTORS, INC. TRANSCRIPT OF PROC$$DIN63 Data and Timm: Friday, Sanuary 3, 1992, 10:15 a.m. Place: Plaza Room Onm Civic Cantmr Circle Hrea, California Reporter: Sharon A. Seffena i ~. r~~. ~..,, ~~,~ ri ,_-,,) i"I , ~ ;;v.~) pui i'I i~ iti-~~~9i9 ~~Mii"?u-\Lnuf \i I',1\ -I ii ~Sn-~I~ri 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 z3 za zs APPEARANCES FOR BERNARDS BROS., INC.: LAW OFFICES OF TED R. GROPMAN 8Y: TED R. GROPMAN Attorney at Law 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3100 Los Angeles, California 90067 FOR SAVALA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.: THORPE b THORPE BY: MARK R. STAPKE Attorney at Law One Bunker Hill, Eighth Floor 601 West Fifth Street Los Angeles, California 90071-2094 FOR CHINO ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTORS, INC.: C. KERRY FZELD$ LAW OFFICE BY: C. KERRY FIELDS 8141 East Kaiser Blvd., Suite 215 Anaheim, California 92808 THE HEARING OFFICER: JAMES L. MARKMAN MARKMAN, ARCZYNSKI, HANSON 6 KING One civic Center Circle Brea, California 92622-1059 ALSO PRESENT: Jeffrey Bernards Rick Gomez Leonard Savala Paul B. Anderstrom John Lydoff Greg Peterson Tony Peich John Hakel • f z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 INDEX WITNESS FOR BERNARDS BROS.: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS JEFFREY BERNARDS 18 25 38 40 42 43 TONY PEICH 43 44 WITNESSES FOR SAVALA CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.: JOHN LYDOFF 49 59 LEONARD SAVALA 84 93 JOHN HAKEL 100 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Let's go on the record in this proceeding. My name is Jim Markman. I am the City Attorney for the City of Rancho Cucamonga and General Counsel for the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency which is the awarding authority. In this proceeding on my left is Rick Gomez, who is a community development director of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and essentially the department head that runs the redevelopment agency you are observing. This is a proceeding that has been requested by Rernards Hros., Inc., which is the prime contractor that has been awarded what we refer to as the Sports Park/Animal Shelter construction job which Was awarded by the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency. The purpose of this bearing is to make a determination in a process of resolving a dispute as to whether Chino Engineering ought to be allowed by the redevelopment agency to be substituted as a subcontractor in lieu of lava la Construction Co. on what has been referred to as the site utilities portion of this construction job. We are proceeding under the provisions of the California Public Contracts Code, Section 4107 and Section 4107.5, and this is the hearing to make any and all factual determinations -- actually, that is not exactly correct -- to take the evidence and the 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 arguments of counsel at this level. Under the procedure adopted by the redevelopment agency, Z will then be making a proposed set of findings and decision, will present it to the city council for decision by resolution, and that will occur at the next redevelopment agency/city council meeting which will be on the 15th of January at 7:00 p.m. in the Rancho Cucamonga City Council chambers. I have told counsel for both parties that they will have an opportunity to make one final argument to the city council directly. When I provide my proposed decision, I will provide it to counsel, fax it and mail it at the same time it goes in the agenda packets for the city council, so you will then know what you have to argue about with the city council. My partner previously asked that exhibits be copied and supplied. They have been. I have two sets of documents which I will refer to for ease of reference as the red binder and the black binder. I don't know if they agreed on this before, but it worked very well. I take it, Mr. Gropman, and, Mr. Stapke, that you are both stipulating that the contents of these binders with your exhibits which you both looked at may be entered into the record here. MR. STAPKE: Yes. {Je have one technical objection 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 on the affidavit, Exhibit D. Maybe you have a signed copy of the affidavit. We don't have a signed copy. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Evidently, we don't have a full stipulation. There is some issue about -- MR. STAPKE: Actually, Exhibit D. NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Exhibit D in the red folder? MR. GROPMAN: If I may address that, sir, Exhibit D in Bernards Bros.' exhibit notebook, which is the red notebook, as to the affidavit of Paul Anderstrom of Chino Engineering Constructors, Inc., all we have in our possession is an unsigned copy. We believe the original signed copy was mailed to Mr. Smith at the City, so the City does have in its possession the signed original. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Let's go off the record because if that's true, I have it. (Discussion off the record.) HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: We have straightened out Exhibit D in what I call the red notebook, so we have a stipulation by both counsel that all of the contents of the notebooks, both black and red, may be entered into evidence? MR. GROPMAN: I did point out to Mr. Stapke before the hearing began that I questioned the relevance of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Exhibit 22 in the black book which is a copy of a January 2, 1992, letter from Hensel Phelps Construction Co. to Savala. Ir. summary, the letter says that Hensel believes that Savala is a good contractor. We are not disputing that, but we donut know the relevance to this proceeding of that particular letter. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Well, as you both know, we are not bound by the technical rules of evidence, and I have to go through this and make proposed findings, and then counsel will, too, so we will just let that sort of thing go to the weight unless somebody thinks there is something prejudicial about something. If those are either -- almost a stipulation or those are the total objections, I am going to identify these materials and order them into evidence here. The first set of materials have been submitted by Mr. Gropman on behalf of Bernards Bros. He has submitted actually three documents. The first document is Bernards Bros. Request for Substitution, which is essentially a legal brief, blue-backed, consisting of 14 pages, and a copy of that is also in the red folder. He has also submitted a proposed set of findings and conclusions consisting of six pages, and he has submitted a red folder which has, in addition to another copy of the legal brief I referred to, a number 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S of exhibits, A through K, and I am going to identify them. This may take awhile, but I think it is important. Exhibit A is a November 19, 1991, letter addressed to Tarry Smith, Rancho Cucamonga. Exhibit B is a November 25, 1991, letter. This one is from -- by the way, the first one, Exhibit A, was signed by Jeffrey Bernards. The second one is a letter from Mr. Gropman to Mr. Smith dated November 25, 1991. Exhibit C is the November 27, 1991, affidavit of Steve Rosenfield supportive of Bernards Bros.' request transmitted by a November 27, 1991, letter to Mr. Tarry Smith signed by Scott Shald, Project Manager. Exhibit D is the affidavit of Paul Anderstrom that was just discussed who is evidently -- he identifies himself as the General Manager of Chino Engineering. The original of this was sent directly to the City. We do have a signed copy in the City's file signed under penalty of perjury. Exhibit E is a December 4, 1991, Bernards Bros. form of subcontract which appears to have been transmitted to Sava la with a letter of transmittal dated December 4, 1991. There is a page that indicates it was received on that date by Savala, and I note that the first page cf the standard form subcontract at the bottom references site utilities 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 .24 25 work related to this Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency job. The next exhibit which is F is a December 4, 1991, letter from Bernards Bros. to the City to Tarry Smith. G is a letter of transmittal from Savala to Bernards Bros. attached to which is the same subcontract, the bottom of page 1 having been modified and initialed on behalf of Savala all in relation, by the way, to the scope of work that is referred to as site utility work. H is a December 9, 1991, letter £rom Bernards Bros. to Savala. Exhibit I is a December 9, 1991, letter from Bernard Bros. to Tarry smith at Rancho Cucamonga. Exhibit T is a December 12, 1991, letter to Tarry Smith from Bernards Bros., and K is identified as Bernards Bros.' Subcontractors List which means the subcontractors list that was submitted with the bid on I~ this job originally, and that is in evidence. All of these exhibits are in the red folders. I have got two of them. I don't see any reason to have the court reporter burdened with them unless counsel does. I just want a transcript from her. On to the written submittals on behalf of Savala, I have a black folder. The first document is a letter addressed to me, which I believe is really in the 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 form of legal argument, although it does contain factual findings and has proposed factual findings and legal conclusions, a summary legal brief, if you will. Following that, our number of exhibits are 22 exhibits. There is an index of those exhibits. I will try Lo run through and quickly identify them. Exhibit 1 is the November 6, 1991, Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency Staff Report to the Redevelopment Agency relating to awarding the contract to Bernards. Exhibit 2 is a November 18, 1991, letter addressed to Scott Shald from Savala signed by John Lydoff. Exhibit 3 is a November 19, 1991, letter from Bernard6 to Tarry Smith. By the way, some of these exhibits are the same that both counsel has submitted. Exhibit 4 is a November 19, 1991, letter to John Lydoff at Savala signed by Scott Shald of Bernards Bros. Exhibit 5 is a letter addressed to Jeffrey Bernards from the law office Thorpe S Thorpe signed by Mr. Stapke. Exhibit 6 is a letter to Tarry Smith dated November 22, 1991, from the law office of Thorpe & Thorpe also signed by Mr. Stapke. Exhibit 7 is a letter to Tarry Smith dated November 25, 1991, from Mr. Stapke of Thorpe & Thorpe. ExhibiC 8 is an affidavit of Leonard Savala opposing the requested substitution which is at issue 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here having attached to it subexhibits A and B. Exhibit A appears to be something -- a bid result notice in the green sheet. Although the sheet is cut off, it looks like it is the green sheet and a second notice on low bidders. Exhibit B, I believe, is identified in the affidavit as the bid sheet that was submitted by Savala to Bernards at the date of the bid opening. Exhibit 9 is an affidavit of John Lydoff opposing the substitution request, also having attached to it is an exhibit, and that exhibit is the same bid sheet that was submitted from Savala to Bernards Bros. according to the affidavit. Exhibit 10 is a letter to Bernards Bros. from Leonard Savala dated December 4, 1991. Exhibit it is a letter to John Lydoff from Bernards Bros. dated December 4, 1991. Exhibit 12 is a letter dated December 4, 1991, to Tarry Smith from Scott shald at Bernards Bros. Exhibit 13 is a letter addressed to Tarry smith from the law offices of Thorpe & Thorpe signed by Mr. stapke dated December 4, 1991. Exhibit 14, is a letter dated December 5, to Bernards Bros. Construction signed by Leonard Savala. Exhibit 15 is a letter dated December 6, 1991, addressed to Mr. Savala signed by Scott shald on behalf of Dernards Bros. Exhibit 16 is a sheet entitled "Letter of Transmittal" from Savala with 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Subcontract No. 7083 indicating two sets of that are being transmitted, and that's it. Exhibit 17 is a letter dated December 6, 1991, addressed to Scott Shald of Bernards Bros. signed by Leonard Savala. Exhibit 18 is a letter dated December 9, 1991, from Mr. Stapke directed to Tarry Smith. Exhibit 19 is an affidavit of Leonard Savala with subexhibits attached. Exhibit A is a December 4, 1991, letter to Tatty Smith from Scott Shald. Exhibit 8 is a letter dated December 4, 1991, addressed to John Lydoff executed by Scott Shald. Exhibit C is a -- appears to be Bernards Bros.' transmittal of the subcontract that it submitted apparently to Savala for what it described as the site utility work. This is not the one that was modified and initialed by Savala and sent back. Exhibit D is the subcontract on the same £orm that was modified on page 1 and initialed and sent back. Exhibit 20 is a December 12, 1991, letter from Leonard Savala to Scott Shald at Bernards Bros. Exhibit 21 is a December 12, 1991, letter addressed to Tarry Smith from Scott Shald of Bernards Bros. The final exhibit is 22, a letter addressed to Savala Construction dated January 2, 1992, signed by Wayne Linhom, Operations Manager, at Hensel Phelps 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Construction Co. MR. GROPMAN: If I might, I would like to make one comment of clarification on the reading of exhibits introduced by Savala. Exhibit 1 was correctly identified as a November 6, 1991, staff report, but attached to that staff report is a November 12, 1991, letter from Rancho Cucamonga to Jeff Bernards of Bernards Bros. Construction apparently enclosing the prime contract to be signed for this project. I think the only omission was in identifying the November 12 letter. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Thank you, Counsel. That is correct. That~s my mistake. Exhibit 1 to the Savala submittal does have two documents, cne dated November 6 which was the staff report and a letter dated November 12 directed to Jeff Bernards from Tarry Smith. With that, we will consider all that i submitted. I did have an opportunity to read it while we were waiting for the arrival of the court reporter. This is an evidentiary hearing. This code provides for the reception of testimony with the right to examine and cross-examine, so that~s really the reason why we are here and I am conducting this instead of having you just come before the city council in the incipiency. As my partner indicated in his lettec to the 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 attorneys, Bernards Bros. is making a request for substitution and stating their grounds, so they appear to have some form of burden of proof. Mr. Gropman, we can proceed with some kind of opening statement, although I want to tell you both, of course, I have read all of your letters, your legal briefs, and all of this and have absorbed these materials, some of which I have seen as long as twa months ago anyway, so how do you wish to proceed? MR. GROPMAN: Just with a very brief opening statement, and then I would like to ask Mr. Jeff Bernards to testify. As you noted, Mr. Markman, many of the materials have previously been submitted to the City, and the evidence is largely undisputed. There was a mistake -- in fact, two mistakes that has led to this hearing today. The first mistake I would submit was that of Savala Construction in failing to include in its written bid to Bernards Bros. all of the site utilities work for this project. The second mistake was in Bernards Hros. not noting the omission of the site water system from the Savala bid and in lisiinq Savala as the proposed site utilities subcontractor for this project. It was not until after Bernards Bros. had been declared by default the low prime contractor of this job that it discovered 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lu 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 zo zl 22 27 24 25 the error. The bid date for this project was October 24, and Shirley Hros. Construction was declared on bid date to be the low prime contractor. About two weeks later, either through the withdrawal process or sume rejection process, Shirley Bros, was removed as the low prime contractor for this project, and Bernards Bros. was announced as the new low prime contractor for the project. St was after that date that Bernards Bros. discovered its error in listing Savala. Upon learning of the error, it promptly tried to remedy the problem with Savala but Was unable to do so, so on November 19 a formal request for relief was sent to the City by Bernards Bros., and thereafter, there was an attempt to resolve the problem with Savala by actually sending to Savala a Bernards Bros.' standard form subcontract dated December 4, 1991, which permitted Savala to perform the site utilities work for Savala's bid price of $798,000. There was no attempt to reduce the bid price. The significance, though, of the December 4 subcontract was that it would require Savala to perform all of the site utilities work for its bid price of $798,000 including the site water work. Savala subsequently refused to sign the subcontract as prepared 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 24 25 by Bernards Bros. and instead modified it by deleting the site water work, then signed the modified subcontract and sent it back to Bernards Bros., so there are two grounds on which we proceed: Number one, Bernards Bros.' inadvertent mistake in listing Savala, and then Savala's wrongful refusal to perform the work for the bid price of $798,000. Those are the facts, but I think we should also focus on what I think is the true theme of this hearing, and that is to allow the true, legitimate low-bidding site utilities subcontractor, Chino Engineering, to actually perform the work for their low price. Chino's bid did properly include the site water work, and Chino's price of $818,000 for all of the site utilities work makes it the low-bidding site utilities subcontractor. It's the purpose of the Subletting b Subcontracting Fair Practices Act to protect the legitimate low-bidding subcontractor which is Chino, and for Chino's benefit and the benefit of Bernards Bros. who made an inadvertent clerical error, we are requesting that Chino be permitted to perform the work for its bid price, and with that, I would like to ask Mr. Bernards to be sworn. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Well, I am going to ask Mr. Stapke if he wants to make an opening statement 16 i~ :. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 himself now, or whether you want to defer until your time to present evidence. MR. STAPKE: I would just like to respond briefly to a couple of points that you are going to hear from our case when we get going. First, as to the question of whether or not Savala made a mistake in not including the water distribution system, that simply will not be the evidence. The evidence will be that the exclusion of the water distribution system was a conscious decision by Savala. It was communicated, in fact, to Bernards Bros., and as is frequently on jobs like this where the site utilities water portion goes to the plumber -- in this case, I think under the circumstances the plumber, McKean (phonetic), was listed, and I think '~ the bid contemplated they would do that portion of the job. Second, the question of the legitimate low bidder, I think the "legitimate listed bidder" is the language of the code, and I think the legitimate listed bidder is Savala Construction Company. The question is whether or not to enact the extraordinary remedy of substitution, and I think under the circumstances the evidence will show Bernards Bros. cannot come within the terms of the statute. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Mr. Gropman, do you want 17 x 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 11 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 to proceed with Mr. Bernard. (Witness sworn.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. Mr. Bernards, what is your position at Bernards Bros., Inc.? A. I am vice president. Q. And how long have you been with Bernards Bros., Inc.? ' A. Since 1975. i Q. Now, what is your position with respect to the project which is the subject of this hearing? What 'are your responsibilities for the Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex project? A. I have overall administrative responsibility of the project. Q. On October 24 did Bernards Bros. submit a sealed bid to the City of Rancho Cucamonga for this project? A. Yes. Q. On October 24 were the sealed bids of Bernards and other competing general contractors unsealed by the City? A. Yes. Q• was Bernards Bros. the low general contractor on October 24? 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No. Q. Who was declared to be the low prime contractor? A. Shirley Bros. Construction. Q. At some later date did you learn that Shirley Bros. had either withdrawn its bid or otherwise been removed from the competition for this project? A. Yes. Q. Now, I would like you to take a look at 5avala Exhibit 1, the second page of that exhibit. Would you identify that? A. It is a letter from Tarry Smith of the City of Rancho Cucamonga addressed to me dated November 12, 1991, basically informing us that the city council had officially awarded the Sports Complex to us. Q. Was the November 12 letter which is part of Exhibit 1 of Savala's exhibits the formal notice to Bernards Bros. from the City of Rancho Cucamonga that Bernards Bros. had been declared the new low bidder for the project? A. Yes. Q. Do you know what date that letter arrived at Bernards Bros.' offices? A. It arrived on November 13. A. Was it accompanied with prime contracts to 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 z1 22 23 24 25 be signed and returned by Bernards Bro5.? A. Yes, I believe it was. Q. Did Bernards Bros. in fact sign and return those prime contracts? A. Yes. Q. Do you know on what date? A. I believe the contracts were signed and returned on November 16. 4• Now, after Bernards learned that it was going to be the successful prime contractor for this project, did Bernards Bros. learn that it had committed an error in listing Savala as the site utilities contractor? A. Yes. Q. what was the nature of that error? A. We had inadvertently listed a subcontractor whose bid for the site utility work was not complete. Q. In what manner was the bid not complete? A. It did not include the site wateY. Q. Did Bernards receive other subcontractor bids on bid date October 24 which were complete? A. Yes. 4. Did Bernards Bros. receive a complete bid from Chino Engineering? A. Yes. 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1a 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4- Do you recall the price of Chino Engineering's bid? A. It was $818,000 plus some change, but to the nearest thousand, that was the bid price. 4• Do you recall the price of Savala's bid? A. Without the site water their bid was $798,000. Q. So the price submitted by Savala on bid date was $798,000? A. That's correct, yes. 4• Was there an effort by Bernards Bros. to alert Savala of Bernards Bros.' error in listing Savala as the site utilities contractor? A. Yes. 4. Did you, in fact, have a discussion with Mr. Leonard Sa~~a la of Savala Construction about that matter? A• Yes. 4. Do you recall the date of that conversation? A. I don't recall specifically. It may have been like the 18th or 19th. 4. Durinq that conversation With Mr. 5avala did you ask Savala to lower its $798,000 bid price? A. No. 4. Did you make any offers to Savala to resolve 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the error that Bernards Hros. committed in listing Savala? A. Yes. Q. What did you offer? A. I offered to compensate him for his time in the bid preparation and the effort that he had put into the preparation of the bid. 4• And what response, if any, did Mr. Savala make to that offer? A. Essentially, no. Q. Now, subsequent to the conversation with Mr. Savala, did you cause to be sent to Savala a standard form subcontract on Bernards Bros. format for the site utilities work? A. Yes. Q. Was that, in fact, sent to Savala Construction on or about December 4? A. Yes. Q. And is that standard form subcontract Exhibit E to Bernards Bros. exhibits? A. Yes, it is. 4. And Exhibit E has along with it a cover letter from Scott Shald of Bernards Bros. to John Lydoff of Savala dated December 4, 1991? A. Yes. 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And another part of Exhibit E is a Bernards Bros. letter of transmittal dated December 4, 1991, from Bernards Bros. to Savala? A. Yes. Q. Did Savala sign and return the Exhibit E subcontract in the form in which it was sent to Savala? A. No. Q. Did Savala modify and return the modified subcontract to Bernards Bros.? A. Yes. Q. Is the modified subcontract part of Exhibit G to Bernards Bros.' exhibits? A. Yes. Q. And what was the nature of the modification in Exhibit G? A. Deleted the site water. Q. Now, if Bernards Bros. were compelled to enter into the Exhibit G modified subcontract with Savala, what would be the monetary loss to Bernards Bros.? A. We would sustain a cost overrun in excess of $200,000. Q. Now, would you identify Exhibit K? A. Exhibit K is a copy of the subcontractors list that we submitted with our bid on October 24. 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 zo 21 22 21 24 25 4• And that lists Savala as the site utilities contzactor? A. Yes. Q. Now, do you know what price Savala -- what price Bernards Bros. used in its prime contract bid to the City on October 24? A. Yes. 4• What was that price? A. $798,000. Q. So Bernards Bros. used the $798,000 bid price of Savala in preparing and submitting its prime contract bid to the City? A. Yes. Q. Now, in this hearing, Bernards Bros. is asking for the opportunity to replace Savala with Chino Engineering; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. If Bernards Bros. is entitled to contract with Chino Engineering for the site utilities work on this project, what will be the subcontract price for Chino Engineering? A. It would be their bid amount of $818,000. Q. Now, if Bernards Bros. is given the relief that it is requesting which is the opportunity to contract with Chino for $818,000, what will be the 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 17 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 monetary loss to Bernards Bros. in that event? A. We will Sustain a cost overrun of approximately $20,000. 4. Bernards Bros. is not asking the City for relief from that monetary loss is it? A. No. 4. Bernards Bros, expects to absorb that $20,000 loss on its own? A. Yes. MR. GROPMAN: Nothing further. Thank you. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Mr. Stapke. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. STAPK E: 4. Mr. Bernards, you testified a little while ago that you didn~t ask for a lowering of the bid price by Savala when you talked to Mr. Savala. Is that true? A. That~s true. 4. But you did ask him to do additional work, didn~t you? A. Yes. 4. And that was the site water? A. Yes. 4. And you represented that as having a value of some $212,000? A. Yes. 25 1 z 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And you wanted that amount included within the Savala lump sum bid price of $798,000? A. I explained to him the mistake that we had made in inadvertently listing Savala and the fact that the bid had not been complete and that we had seen it as a complete bid, and i offered him the opportunity to do it for that price. Q. Scott Shald in your office, he is the project manager? A. Yes. Q. And he made the same request to Leonard sa vala to your knowledge? A. I wasn't present. I know that Scott Shald talked to Mr. Savala, but I wasn't present during the conversation with him. Q. You thought you made your request on the 18th or 19th of November. A. Yes. Q. Now, Mr. Gropman indicated that the formal notification came from Mr. Smith by letter of November 12. You knew you had been awarded the job earlier than that, didn't you? A. We knew that city council had voted on it earlier than that, but we had not been formally notified of it. 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 1? 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. In fact, you were listed in the green sheet on November 6 as being the successful bidder, weren't you? A. I personally did not see that, but we have been listed in the green sheets on things that were erroneous before. Q. But it was right in this case? A. Yes, it ended up being right. q. That was the green sheet dated November 11 -- excuse me, November 6. You indicated previously that the contract you sent over to Mr. Savala didn't ask for any lowering of the bid price. Did the contract you sent over include work not included in Sava la's scope of work bid? A. Yes. Q. Is that the common custom and practice of Bernards Bros.? A. We explained to Mr. Savala What the situation was, that we had inadvertently named them, and we offered them the contract to do the site utilities work For which we named it for. q, But as a matter of custom and practice, do you normally ask a subcontractor to do more work than it bid to do for the same price? A. No. " ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. When you received that subcontract back from Leonard Sava la, was the site water excluded from the scope of work? A. For the amount of the subcontract, yes. Q. Now, just to be clear, Savala did agree to do the site water in that agreement, did he not? A. On a time and materials basis in addition to the subcontract amount. Q. Pursuant to the extra work provisions in your contract? A. Yes. Q. And when you received that you read it and refused to execute it? A. Yes. Q. And, in fact, sent it back to him? A. Yes. Q. Now, I noted in Mr. Rosenf ield's declaration ~, that was submitted by your attorney that he was in charge of collecting the estimates for the site utilities and plumbing. Do you know why that was? A. So that he could shake out the scope of I work. Q. But ha was -- those were twa related portions of the work? A. Yes, 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 R• And he also obtained a bid from McKean for the plumbing? A. Yes. Q. And McKean included a price for the water distribution system, didn't he? A. I think McKean -- I didn't tabulate the bids personally, but I do believe that McKean gave us several alternative prices besides basic plumbing. 4. And one of them included the water distribution? A. Z believe that's true. Q. And McKean was listed as your plumbing subcontractor? A. Yes. Q. And the bid sheet that you submitted to the City just had Savala listed? It didn't have Chino listed on it; is that correct? A. Correct. 4• Did Bernards Bros. review its proposed list of subcontractors within two days of the prime bid opening? A. No, we did not. Q. Did Bernards Bros. review its proposed list of subcontractors and their scope of work within two days of the award of the contract, November 6? 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GROPMAN: Objection. The award of the contract Was not November 6. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: My understanding, Counsel, is the action of the city council which officially awards was November 6, although the staff has to execute that direction, if you will, by contacting the contractor, mailing the contract, but as we refer to award of contract, it is the action of the city council, and I believe that~s the correct date. THE WITNESS: I donut know that anyone in our company specifically reviewed the listing of subcontractors. I know that the process of turning over the job from estimating to project management began shortly after we became aware that we would be awarded the contract. BY MR. STAPKE: Q. Well, tae bid received from Bavala was a written bid before Bernards listed Savala as the site utilities subcontractor; correct? A. Yes. 4. And its the written bid identified -- if Z could have you take a look at one of the exhibit books -- MR. GROPMAN: Which exhibit? MR. STAPKE: Exhibit A to the declaration of -- to the affidavit of Leonard Savala, in the black book, 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 la 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 '25 Item 8, Exhibit A. THE WITNESS: That appears to be the Dodge -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: No, I don't think that is it. It is Exhibit -- in the black book, it is Exhibit B-B. THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe that's the bid. BY MR. STAPKE: Q. Now, in your experience, Mr. Bernards, on occasion, is the plumber obligated to perform the water distribution system work on a job such as this? MR. GROPMAN: Objection. It's vague to me. Under what circumstances would the plumber be obligated? On this project? On another project? If the plumber specified that work in the bid, would that question arise? It's vague. It's -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I'd sustain that with the request you ask that question more specific to these specs if you could. BY MR. STAPKE: Q. On a job with specifications such as this, in your experience, does the site utilities portion of the work include only storm sewer and sanitary sewer and not water distribution? A. I believe on this job the site utilities work did include the water distribution. It was very clearly specified in the site section of the 71 i x S ,, ~.~, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lD 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2D 21 22 2J 24 25 specification. a. As a matter of custom and practice in your experience on jobs such as this? R. I don't understand the question. Q. We will get at it another way. Mr. Bernards, prior to November 18, 1991, did Bernards Bros. give Savala construction Company or the City of Rancho Cucamonga notice that it made an error in its review of the subcontractor's scope of work? A. Again, I don't remember the exact date, but assuming that was the date that we first talked to Leonard savala, no. Q. Just one final question, Mr. Bernards. As I someone who has overall administrative responsibility for this project, i would just like to direct your attention to Exhibit K. Now, in Mr. Rosenf field's declaration he indicates that Chino Pipeline was originally listed and then Savala, and then that name was crossed out, and savala was listed. do you know why that doesn't appear on Exhibit K? A. Yes. Q. Why? A. Because Exhibit K is a copy of the form that was turned into the C1ty of Rancho Cucamonga, and what ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 ?5 Mr. Rosenfield saw was the bid sheet in our own office. These bids are due like -- I think in this case it was 2:00 in the afternoon. We typically have a bid runner stationed where the bid turns in, and we are performing the bid tabulation and preparation in our main office, so the estimator will sit down and prepare his tabulation and have his list of subcontractors that's read over the telephone then to the bid runner. I think in Mr. Rosenfield's declaration he was responding to what he saw in the office, in the chief estimator's office. Q. Does Mr. Rosenfield still work for you? A. Yes. Q. Where is he today? A. He is probably in the office. He is available. MR. STAPKE: Nothing further. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN; May I ask some questions before you redirect? I Are you aware personally, Mr. 6ernards, of anyone in your office who had any discussions with either savala or any representative of 5avala as to what was meant by site utilities work on this job? THE WITNESS: Does that question pertain to prior to the bid or after the bid? 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 it 12 13 1.4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Prior to the bid. THE WITNESS: I am not aware of any conversation. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: How do you usually solicit bids from subcontractors -- let me ask you this question: When you solicit a bid from a subcontractor, aren't your people specific as to what portions of the job that sub is going to perform? THE WITNESS: Not necessarily, no. In fact, many of the bids that we receive on bid day are from subcontractors whose bid we did not solicit. I don't know for a fact whether we solicited Savala's or not. We may have, but we may not have. NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So the only protection against the situation we find ourselves in is to be careful at looking at what the scope is when you have a bottom line? THE WITNESS: Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So when you fill out Exhibit K and it says "site utilities work," we are not really sure what that means except as it relates to what your subcontractor bid to you unless there is a specific definition in the contract? THE WITNESS: I think you are probably right. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: In this case, McKean is listed in Exhibit K, your Exhibit K, as the plumbing 34 i 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subcontractor? THE WITNESS: Yes. NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: And is it a fact to your knowledge that McKean at some time during the process offered a bid for this site water work? THE WITNESS: Yes, I believe they did. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Was that modified, to your knowledge, so that when you made your final bid you assumed Savala was going to do the site water work and took and deducted from McKean's bid the amount they had in for site water work? THE WITNESS: No. Let me clarify something in the process. McKean gave us a bid for the plumbing work as it was specified in the plumbing section of the specification. They also gave us alternate bid prices for other portions of the work including the site water, I believe the site storm drain and even the site sewer water. The -- I lost my train of thought here. You asked me a question, and I -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So you didn't have to recalculate what McKean was bidding, take out part of their scope of work, and insert essentially a different figure into your bid when you bid on the plumbing work? The plumbing work never included the site water work -- is that what you are telling us -- in McKean's bid? 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 THE WITNESS: Z don't believe MoKean's base bid included the Site water work, no. How it Was tabulated in the office -- Steve Rosenfield tabulated those bids. In talking to Steve and in reading his affidavit, what happened was he was for the site utilities work including the site water. He was carrying Chino Engineering's bid price of $818,000. He got Savala's bid very late, close to bid time, the time that our bid had to be called to the bid runner. He looked at it quickly. It didn't exclude the site water. Tha bid prices were close. He felt it was the same scope that Chino had, and he said T have got a new price and a new subcontractor for the site utilities. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: In your view, was there something improper about Savala submitting the bid they submitted for the scope of work they submitted? I will start out with the word "improper." THE WITNESS: Improper, probably not. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Was there something unusual about a subcontractor like Savala bidding that scope of work and -- per at least counsel's opening argument -- assuming the plumber would do the site water work? Was that unusual? THE WITNESS: Not necr_ssarily, but I -- in my experience in dealing with these things, if someone is 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 bidding the site utility work, typically they will exclude the site utilities they are not doing. It will be part of their exclusions. If they are only including certain of the site utilities, they will have an exclusion. I mean, exclusions in bids are very, very common, and if they don't have a portion of the work, they will exclude it. I believe that's what Mr. Rosenfield did, was quickly looked at the bid, saw pages of listings of what was included but looked mainly at the exclusions and saw that it wasn't excluded. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: You are aware of some very technical and difficult legal restraints on asking for substitutions? THE WITNESS: Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: When you make an error in your bid, a clerical error which oftentimes is an error in calculation, math, is it your practice to try to correct that error or ask for a correction within two days of the bid opening even if you are not the apparent low bidder or the awarded contractor? THE WITNESS: Not necessarily if we are not the apparent low bidder. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Do you sometimes do it even if you are not the low bidder? THE WITNESS: Sometimes we do. 37 d #~, :. ,~ ;. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 S 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 zl 22 23 24 25 HEARING OFFICER MRRRMAN: Why is that? THE WITNESS: If it's obvious ko us that the low '~, bidder has made a mistake -- say he is substantially low, 20 percent below our bid, and we have reason to believe that maybe we will 6e awarded the contract, then we will carefully review our bid and look for any kind of a clerical error and notify the agency if we have made a clerical error. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: At least you have some feeling that you better take that step within the two days stated in Section 410'7.5? THE WITNESS: Yes. Z mean, to answer your question directly, Yes• In this case we didn't have a reason to believe that Shirley Bros. was significantly low or that there would be a problem with their bid. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Okay, that's all I have. Mr. Gropma n. REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. Please take a look at Bernards Bros. Exhibit G which is the December 4, 1991, standard form subcontract and look at the first page of that standard form subcontract. You testified earlier that Savala modified your standard form subcontract by refusing to perform the site water work within the $798,000 price; is that 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 correct? A. Yes. 4. That was not the only modification made by Savala to your standard form subcontract was it? A. No. 4. Please take a look at the back page of page 1 of the exhibit which is entitled °General Subcontract Provisions." Did Savala also make revisions or modifications to the standard terms and conditions or general provisions of your standard form subcontract? A. Yes. 4. Which paragraphs of your general subcontract provisions did Savala modified on or about December 6, 1991? A. Paragraph D entitled "Time" and E which is entitled "Changes in the Work." 4. Did Savala try to modify those terms by inserting astericks and then explanatory language at the bottom of the page? A. Yes. 4. Were those changes unacceptable to Bernards Bros. as well? A. Yes. MR. GROPMAN: Not.h ing further. 39 1 2 3 4 5 E 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. STAPKE: Q. Mr. Bernards, did you ask or in any way attempt to advise Savala Construction that the changes that counsel just referenced that weren't on the front page of the contract were unacceptable to Bernards? A. I personally didn't, and I don't know whether Scott did or did not. Q. Just referencing your firm's letter which I am sure you would have seen -- well, actually let's take a look at a couple of them so the record is clear. I want to direct your attention to Exhibit A of Exhibit 19. That's the second affidavit to Leonard Savala previously submitted to the agency. A. okay. Q. Now, did you see that letter at about the time it was prepared? A. Yes. Q. Did you talk to Mr. Shald about the fact you expected Savala Construction not to sign the contract that you had given to them? A. Scott Shald and Z had had discussions that, yes, Savala would probably not enter into the subcontract. Q. So it was, in essence, your plan to send 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 them a contract that you didn't think they would ever sign? A. Yes. q. Then just directing your attention to Exhibit B -- excuse me, Exhibit 21 in the black book, you saw that letter before it went to the agency or at about the time it went to the agency? A. Yes. O. The only complaint that is referenced in here is that it deleted the water portion of the site utilities work, correct? A. Correct. Q. There weren't any other letters of complaint, right? MR. GROPMAN: I should say that the document speaks for itself, and it does list another basis for seeking relief which is the inadvertent error in listing 5avala construction. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: For the record, it doesn't talk about the proposed modifications to the subcontract. MR. STAPKE: Nothing further. MR. GROPMAN: If I may, Z hate to continue any further, but I do have a few more questions of Mr. Bernards. 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. You were asked by the hearing officer whether or not you felt that Savala's bid was improper in failing to include the site water system, and you gave your answer. Is it customary in the construction industry for a contractor when he is going to exclude a normal portion of its trade, its work, to notify the general contractor of the exclusion either by way of a telephone conversation warning or by expressly excluding that within the written bid document? A. Yes. 4• Did Savala, to your knowledge -- and :. refer to Savala Construction -- telephone in any forewarning to Bernards Bros, that Savala's bid would be excluding tha site water work? A. Not to my knowledge, no. 4. Did the actual bid faxed to Bernards Bros. at approximately five minutes before bid closing expressly forewarn Bernards Bros. that Savala's bid would be excluding the site water work? A. No. 4. Do you feel that is inappropriate? A. Yes. Z believe I said Z felt that it should exclude it if they are bidding that portion of the work. 42 e 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GROPMAN: Thank you. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Mr. Stapke. RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. STAPKE: O. How many bids in total did you get for a storm sewer and storm drain? A. I don't know offhand. 4. Would you resort to the spreadsheet of the bids to refresh your recollection? A. Yes. Q• Did you bring one today? A. No, MR. STAPKE: Nothing further. MR. GROPMAN: I have no further witnesses. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: It's 11:15. Are you ready to -- MR. STAPKE: Just give me five minutes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Okay, let's go off the record for five minutes and take a recess. (Recess.) NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I think there is another short witness from Bernard Bros. MR. GROPMAN: I would like to call Mr. Tony Peich of chino Engineering. (Witness sworn.) DIRECT EXAMINATION 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 la 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. What is your position with Chino Engineering? A. I am the president. Q. I take it you have authority to bind Chino Engineering to contracts. A. Yes. Q. Is Chino Engineering ready, willing and able to sign a subcontract with Bernards Bros., Inc., for the Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex project for the site utilities work for the sum of $818,000? A. Yes. Q. And would that subcontract include the storm drain, sewer and site water system for the project? A. Yes. MR. GROPMAN: Nothing further. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. STA PKE: O. Mr. Peich, there has been an affidavit submitted to the agency, the hearing officer, by Paul Anderstrom. A. Yes. 4. He talks about some conversations you had with Mr. Bernards. I just want to ask you a question since Mr. Anderstrom isn~t here. Could you turn to page 2 of Exhibit D in the red book? A. Okay. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. I am directing your attention to paragraphs 4 and 5 within the declaration of Mr. Anderstrom in the red book. It's actually page 2 of his affidavit. Can you see that? A. Yes. Q. Have you read it? A. Yes. Q. On or about November 6, 1991, Chino noted that Savala Construction was listed as the successful site utility sub? A. Yes. Q. Did you wait for two weeks to bring that to Mr. Bernards' attention? A. I don't understand. Q. In here it says that on November 6 you saw on the green sheet that you guys were not listed and Savala was. Then in paragraph 5 it says, "During the third week of November Mr. Anthony Peich had a conversation With Scott Shald." Did you have any conversations between November 6 and the third week in November? A. I need to clarify something if I could. The green sheet is dated November 6. Sometimes I don't see it for two or three days afterwards if I am out in the field. They just pile up on my desk, so after I looked 45 5 6 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2a 21 22 23 24 25 at it, I called to talk to the head estimator, which I believe his name was Jerry Higgins, and I asked him -- I didn't understand how in the 25 years that I have been in this business -- Leonard and I have competed on many projects, and Leonard has never beaten me, especially in my backyard, on a project that I not only bid the first time around but have known about and have been waiting for the project since the first initial bid about a year and a half or almost two years ago. Q. So when it came to your attention that you weren't listed, you called up Jerry Higgins? A. Yes. Q• That would have been within a couple days after it was published in the green sheet? A. Yes. Q• And when you talked to Mr. Higgins, you told him what you just told us? P.. Yes. Q. And what did Mr. Higgins say? A• He excused himself for a few minutes and went and got the file and then brought it out and looked at it and said that there appeared to be a problem and that I should call -- give him a day or two days and call him back and talk to Scott Shald, which I did, and Scott informed me that there did appear to be a problem, 46 1 2 7 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 16 15 ]6 17 18 19 zo 21 22 23 24 25 and Z asked him what was going to be done, and he said he didn't know. Then it was just a short period after that, a day or so, that I got a copy of the fax, and it was -- I believe it was a copy of a letter sent either to Savala or sent to Mr. Tarry Smith. Q. That's to the best of your recollection right now? A. Yes. Q. The award date was the 6th. You got the green sheet a couple of days later. That's when the conversation with Mr. Higgins took place? A. Yes. Q. And your conversation with Mr. Shald took place just a couple of days after that? A. Yes. He said to wait a day and a half or two days. I figured I would give him the two days, so I waited a couple of days and called him. Q. Do you know why Bernards Waited until after they had executed the prime contract with the agency before they sent the letter you just referred to on November 19? MR. GRGPMAN: Calls for speculation. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Sustained. I don't know how he could know what Mr. Higgins -- BY MR. STAPKE: Q. Did Mr. Higgins and Mr. Shald 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 tell you they were going to wait until they got the prime contract signed before they were going to give notice of their intent to substitute you in and Savala out? A. No, no one made a statement to me like that. MR. STAPKE: No further questions. HEARING OFFICER MP.RKMAN: i have a question. I think it is probably clear in the record, but your bid for $818,oo0 for the site utility work which is all three segments that you have described, you are sure that your company made that bid to Bernards prior to the original bid opening? THE WITNESS: Not only to Bernards but to all the other bidders also. In fact, Hensel Phelps listed me as the site utilities contractor. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: After Bernards -- after November 6, 1991, in any conVersdtion with a representative of Bernards Bros., did they ask you to reduce your price at all? THE WITNESS: No. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So they were discussing your doing the work at the price you had bid prior to the opening? THE WITNESS: That~s correct. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: That~s all I have. 48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STAPKE: Nothing further. MR. GROPMAN: Nothing else. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Any other witnesses, Mr. Gropman? MR. GROPMAN: None. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Mr. Stapke. MR. STAPKE: Ovr first witness is John Lydoff, the estimator in charge of this bid for Sava la Construction Company. (Witness sworn.) DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. STAPKE: Q. Mr. Lydoff, would you introduce yourself? A. My name is John Lydoff, and I am an estimator for Savala Construction Company. Q. And you are the estimator that prepared the bid for the Sports Complex that we have been referring to, the site utilities work? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Lydoff, I would like to direct your attention to an affidavit. It's marked as Exhibit 9 in the black book in front of you. Have you had a chance to review that declaration? A. Yea. 49 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. You received a set of plans and specs for the Sports Complex job from Bernards on September 20, 1991, or thereabouts? A. Yes. Q. And then you proceeded to prepare a bid for portions of the work? A. Yes. Q. And a true and correct copy of the bid that you prepared is attached as Exhibit A to the declaration of the affidavit of John Lydoff? A. Yes. Q. Now, Mr. Lydoff, during the course of the testimony here today -- you have probably saw Mr. Rosenf ie ld's declaration -- there was some reference to receiving a bid on or about five minutes before the close of the bid at 2:00 on the lath. Do you remember seeing that in Mr. Rosenfield's declaration? A. Yes. Q. When you sent a bid -- sent the bid, Exhibit A, to Bernards, how d.id you do it? A. I faxed the quote to him. Q. You faxed it on a fax machine? A. On a fax machine. Q. And is it the practice of Sava la Construction Company when a bid such as this is faxed to 50 pia act' Y e fo Yt Y epo S1 c°t£lYnatiot 1 attach a tal o~t~ PStDlt a pld ti°L~ °VY ittalt a tea teVeY 1 faoY do°Jmettat0 Yev1eW daY -tY ats~ltted Yg9 toe the pacXe oppoYtJt et the tl~e °£ n e t atsmlttHa a y°J nYr'S to deteYmlt e tot to repo pav 3 otf lYRatlo ttje pld' iplt that Will pe oU.Y fax ° sett n exn St a 6 teat Y°~ Yes Znls is ° 5° toW• et tnisn 'I A• ApKE: Will d set ge ST 1 opt 6 M4~ FaYxed~ gas ° t 27~ 9 Yev 1°~slY °Y deY 4 MA4NNpN• of Exnipl SO p 20 It OFFICE Spout Y 5 11 No. NEARStyO Hp'N• No• Let Re to tni 12 ME. ORp4 S~ApuE: a o °p~ection N eet 1, gY NR, A4NNAg: 1 nave s 14 LY do1t 'J OF~SCEE M be ~lYSt ve at s is a 5 MY NEARING 1'• its t 1 do na it9 tnl of 1 C°tt5e Welly put Assam EYOg. 16 exnipit~ GROQ~r,AN' t It 5aY9~ ectiot' 9eYtaY ds o x of ° 'I MR' Wna opt t° e ci that lls S °at YeaY°`ltdatlotaa pld ~axenat the tits t° snoWn~ t t 2 19 It s°tl°ti a Yep°Yt ° ev idet°e 15 puY?° pCtopeY n 20 op ot~'iYmatlo tilsie is tacGVY ate• Y s gY°s~ oO0 it the 91 21 date e y5 eYta We 1• i piJ acnit d t° N Would 22 fax ~ 4axe nice y the Was s W JY .~ 23 sometnit~ 13.06 no 24 1991 a -, ,.. ...' 26 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Correct. Q. Does that comport with your recollection of what happened? A. Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: May I have a copy of that in the record? MR. STAPKE: Yes. I wanted to submit it with the four copies that you asked for. I can mark it. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I really only need one now as long as counsel has one. BY MR. STAPKE: A11 right. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Counsel has marked as Exhibit 23 a one-page document entitled "Transmit confirmation Report," which has been described in testimony. I am going to initial this and put today's date on it and enter it into evidence as exhibit 23 of Savala. BY MR. STAPKE: Q. At or about the time you faxed the quote over to Bernards, Mr. Lydoff, do you believe you had a conversation with an estimator at Bernards about the quote? A. Yes. Q. And what do you believe happened? A. The estimator had called me because they wanted my numbers for the quote. xe was asking for the 53 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 la 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 zs afternoon. That may not be true if, in fact, the clock on the fax machine was inaccurate, so I have a foundational objection. I don't know whether they test their clock periodically or whether that truly does reflect the time that the document was faxed to Berna rds Bros. or not. If that's an issue in this case, then I do have a foundational objection to Exhibit 23. It would be similiar, let's say, in a drunk-driving case. If -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I Understand your objection. I am going to overrule the objection and allow you to cross-examine which may or may not have an impact on the weight of this or how probative this document really is as to the time of the transmittal or, for that matter, when it was looked at on your end, which I also don't have any evidence of whether there are gaps there. I have no idea. I am getting an idea of what goes on in the last hours of these bids, but I haven't witnessed it. BY MR. STAPKE: Q. Mr. Lydoff, what is Exhibit 27? A. This is the confirmation that Z faxed that quote at that time to Bernards Bros. q. And the time we have is 13:08, and that's about 1:Oa in the afternoon then? sz 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1J 18 19 20 2 ], 22 23 24 25 numbers. The fax had already gone out to him, and I made reference to my faxed proposal. I went through item by item giving him the numbers for -- there are four numbers on the document, and what I gave him was the storm drain cost for the section on C-17 through C-26 at the price of $650,000. I went on to give him the price for the animal shelter storm drain, Part B, of $13,000, and I gave him the sewer price at $130,000, and I gave him a total of $798,000. 0. You said something that I didn't understand a minute ago. You said you got a call from someone at Bernards, and they wanted to know the price. The prices are on there. When were the handwritten prices on Exhibit A to your declaration which is Exhibit 9 put on that document? A. Well, these were on prior to me giving the prices out. I just had them down on this sheet, and I had given them to -- I had given the same price to Hensel Phelps prior. Q. When that document was faxed to Bernards Bros., the prices weren't on there? A. They weren't on there, no. R. 5o than you had a conversation with somebody. Do you remember his name? A. Charlie. 54 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And did -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Excuse me, Counsel. When you faxed that document at 1:08, it did not have prices on it? THE WITNESS: No, these did not have prices on it. These were penciled in. Everything but these penciled prices. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I am looking at your exhibit that you are referring to, and the only figures that I have on what I am looking at on these two pages are the handwritten ones. THE WITNESS: That's correct. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So is it your testimony that what you faxed didn't have prices on it? THE WITNESS: That's correct. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: It was just a sheet of paper with -- ~, THE WITNESS: It was this identical sheet without the numbers on it. NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So there were no numbers. So, what you faxed, what you described, did it have a bottom-line bid figure on it? THE WITNESS: Well, what I tried to do is I faxed out sheets prior that did not have the figures on it because I had -- one of the girls in the office was 55 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 lz 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 double checking all my figures, so -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: What was the purpose in faxing a sheet that didn't have figures on it? THE WITNESS: To let people know what our scope of work was to review the scope and to know what we were bidding on. NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So there was a qap in time between the time you faxed the document and the time when Bernards would have known what the figures were not only for each subport ion but for all of the work? THE WITNESS: Correct. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Thank you. BY MR. STAPKE: Q. Durinq the course of your conversation with Charlie, did you discuss the fact that your scope didn't include the water? A. Yes, water or the gas. Q. And did Charlie tell you that disqualified you as the site utilities contractor on this job for Bernards? A. No. Q. And that conversation occurred when in the overall -- A. That conversation was -- it was about 15 or 20 minutes after this was faxed that he called me. 56 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. so that would have been about 1:20, 1:30, something like that? A. Yes. Q. Now, Mr. Peich brought up Mr. Jerry ~ Higgins. Do you know Mr. Jerry Higgins? A. i don't know him. I have talked to him on the phone. Q. Between the date that the bid was submitted on 10/24 and within a couple of weeks, did you have a conversation with Mr. Higgins? A. Yes. He called me requesting a bid on March Air Force Base. Q. Another bid? A. Yes. Q. Did the Rancho Cucamonga job come up? A. Yes, it did. At that time, I had asked him how it was -- well, he said that they may get the job. It looked as if they were going to get that job, and I asked how we were doing with them, and he said, "We listed you." I said, "Well, it doesn't get any better than that." You know, I thought that was great. I was really happy about it. Then we just -- at that time, he had made mention that it would be good for us to work together, or Z said, "Its going to be great working with you." We just exchanged congratulations basically. 57 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 i7 18 19 zo 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Tn your declaration, you pin that date in the week of November 6. Is that your best recollection? A. Yes. Q. Between the date you had that conversation with Mr. Higgins and November 18, did you have any other conversations with anybody at Bernards? A. None at all. q. When is the next conversation you had With anyone at Bernards about the Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex? A. It was the 18th. ~~i Q. What occurred then? A. That's when Scott Shald called, and he mentioned ih at he had a problem and that we weren't low on the job. At that time, i didn't know how to answer him or what to say because I was basically -- I was upset really. Q, Had you received any notice, formal or informal, prior to November l8 that there was some error made at Bernards? A. None whatsoever. Q. Thereafter, communications occurred between Mr. 8avala and Bernards? A. That's correct. Q. Now, in your experience, Mr. Lydoff, is re 1 z 7 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 lb 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 there -- is the exclusion of the water distribution system in a job such as this of the site utilities subcontractor improper? A. No. Q. Why is that? A. Jobs are broken up all the time. Most general contractors are glad to get prices on anything, any parts of it. Q. You submitted the same bid to Hensel Phelps? A. Correct. MR. STAPKE: Nothing further. CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. NoW, Mr. Lydoff, you ~ testified that you spoke with Jerry Higgins a few weeks after the October 24 bid date about the March Air Force project, and during that conversation, you were told by Mr. Higgins that Savala had been listed for the Rancho Cucamonga project, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And that's contained in your November 25 declaration which is Exhibit 9 to the Savala exhibit book, correct, paragraph a specifically? MR. STAPKE: He is pointing to the affidavit. BY MR. GROPMAN: Let me ask the question again if I can. First of all, do you have Exhibit 9 in front of 59 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 you which is your November 25 declaration? A. Yes. 4• And paragraph 4 which is on pages 1 and 2 of that affidavit, or declazation, is consistent with your testimony a few moments ago, is it not, to the effect that you had a conversation with Mr. Higgins of Bernards Bros. about the March Air Force project during which Mr. Higgins told you that Savala had been listed as Bernards Bros.' site utilities contractor for the Rancho Cucamonga project, correct? A. That's correct. Q. And you also testified just a few moments i ago that on about November 18 you spoke with Scott Shald I about Bernards Bros.' mistake in listing Savala as the site utilities contractor for this Rancho Cucamonga project, correct? A. That's correct. Q. That's consistent with paragraph 5 of your affidavit, correct? A. Yes. Q. Now, you also testified a few moments ago about some conversation with someone who you believed is named Charlie over at Bernards Bros., correct? A. I believe that was the name of the person that I spoke to. 60 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Now, going back to Exhibit 9 which is your November 25 affidavit, there is no reference to any such conversation with someone at Bernards Bros. named Charlie is there? MR. STAPKE: The document speaks for itself. THE WITNESS: No. BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. In fact, there is no reference in your November 25 affidavit with respect to any conversation with anybody at Bernards Bros. relative to an exclusion of the water work from your bid; is that correct? A. I never included the water. Q. I understand that, but that conversation that you testified to a few moments ago with someone at Bernards Bros. in which you claimed you expressly informed that person that the water was not included in the bid, that testimony is not in any way reflected in your November 25 affidavit is it? A. I donut understand the question. Q• Let me ask you about your testimony a few moments ago. You believe that you spoke with someone named Charlie at Bernards Bros. on bid date, October 24, correct? A. Correct. 4. That~s not referred to anywhere in your 61 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 affidavit which is Exhibit 9? A. No. 4• You also testified a few moments ago that during the course of that conversation, Charlie at Bernards Bros. was told by you on the October 24 bid date that Sava la's bid did not include the water portion of the site utilities work; is that correct? A• That's correct. Q. That is not reflected anywhere in your November 25 affidavit is it? A. No. Q. Did anyone today tell you to offer testimony at this hearing to the effect that you told someone on bid date at Bernards Bros. that Savala's bid did not include the site water work? A. No. Q• Now, do you recall Charlie's last name? A. No, I don't. Q. Do you recall the time that you spoke to Charlie? A• About 1:15, 1:20, I believe is my best recollection. Q. Did you make notes of your telephone conversation with Charlie? A. What I had was the same proposal that you 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have there, and all I have is the person's name that I spoke to that had called me. 4. So, if I understand -- let's take a look at Exhibit 9 which is your two-page affidavit attached to which is Exhibit A, which is the Savala two-page bid on the Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex project. MR. STAPKE: You are referring to Exhibit A to his declaration? MR. GROPMAN: Yes. BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. Is it your testimony that somewhere on that bid form you wrote down Charlie's name? A. Yes. Q. Where on this bid form do you see Charlie's I name? A. Well, you can barely -- well, you can't even read it. Zt's underneath the line -- there is "Bob/ Hensel Phelps," and then under that is "Charlie." Q. Is that on the first or second page? A. It's on the first page. MR. STAPKE: Just for the record, he is indicating a line that didn't copy well in the upper right-hand corner of the document. If you want the original, that is fine with us if you want to see it. MR. GROPMAN: It would help if I could aee a 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 legible copy. MR. ~STAPKE: For purposes of the record, I will offer the original as our next in order for the record which would be Exhibit 24. MR. GROPMAN: Because I do have the original, perhaps I should ask my questions with this original in front of Mr. Markham as well so he can -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Let me at least glance at it, and foundationally speaking, Mr. Lydoff, Z am looking at offered Exhibit 24, and before I mark anything on it, that's just the first page of this bid sheet that we have been discussing, not the second one? THE WITNESS: That's right. NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Looking at the first and second one on Exhibit B, are all those notations in your handwriting? THE WITNESS: Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: At least as to Exhibit 9-A submitted by Savala -- there may be other copies of this that were in the hands of Bernard s, so they are not necessarily the same. These are all in your handwriting, and this is the original? That's your testimony? THE WITNESS: Yes. HEARING OFFZCER MARKMAN: And you wrote it in in 64 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 14 20 21 22 23 24 25 pencil? THE WITNESS: Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Do you have any objection? I mean, I want to give this to you. I have looked at it. I want to mark it. MR. GROPMAN: That's fine. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Then I am going to mark this as Exhibit 24, initial it, date it, and enter it in this record, and I am handing the exhibit now to Mr. Gropman. BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. Mr. Lydof f, while I look at the original, would you look at your copy in your exhibit book? Aqain, let's take a look at page 1 of the bid form which is Exhibit A to Exhibit 9. The uppermost handwritten entry is what? Would you read that to me? A. Bob/Hensel -- "Bob/H.P.- 1:00 p.m.~~ 4• And Bob is Bob who? A. That's Bob Higqins with Hensel Phelps. Q. And what is meant by the entry, ~~BOb/H.P. - 1:0o p.m."? A. That's when I talked to him and gave him the numbers. 0. Then there is a line drawn under that entry in your handwriting, correct? 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Correct. Q. Below that, there is printed the name "Charlie," correct? A. Correct. Q. What is meant by that entry? A. That's the person from Bernards that contacted me and asked me for the -- Q. Now, there is no reference to Bernards Bros. next to "Charlie" is there? A. No, there is not. Q. How is it that you recall that Charlie was with Bernards Bros.? A. I only gave two numbers out to anyone. Z gave all the quotes Z had -- the two quotes I had that went out had no numbers on them. One was from Hensel Phelps, Bob, which I know really well, and the other contact was from Bernards. Q. So you received a call from someone at Bernards Bros. who identified himself as Charlie? A. Yes. Q. And did Savala on bid date fax to any other prime contractor a bid for the Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex project? A. I did fax them out, but they were the ones with the numbers on them, all with numbers. 66 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 zo zi 22 23 24 25 4. Who else did you fax a bid to on bid date for this project? A. 1 have fax copies right here. As a matter of fact, this is the exact quote that went out to the remaining contractors. 'i 4. Why don't you give me their names. I A. Bernards, Shirley, Baldy, Hensel Phelps, i Wiley, Jaska and Berry. 4. What was the last name? A. Berry. 4, so on bid date, October 24, you faxed bids either with or without numbers to seven different prime contractors? A. Correct. 4. And you testified that you had a conversation with Hensel Phelps, one of those contractors on bid date, and you also testified that you had a telephone conversation on bid date with someone from Bernards Bros. Did you have a telephone conversation with anyone from Shirley Bros. on bid date about this project? A. No. 4. nid you have a telephone conversation with anyone from Baldy on bid date about this project? 67 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. No, not that I recall. Q. Did you have a telephone conversation with anyone from Wiley on bid date about this project? A. No. Q. Did you have a telephone conversation with anyone from Jaska on bid date about this project? A. No. Q. Did you have is a telephone conversation with anyone from Berry Construction on bid date about this project? A. No. Q. None of those contractors called you on bid ~ date? A. No. 4• And you didn't call any of those contractors on bid date? A. No. Q. Did you place the call to Hensel Phelps, or did Hensel Phelps call you? A. Hensel Phelps called me. Q. And it's your testimony that Bernards Bros. and Hensel Phelps were the only prime contractors on bid date who were faxed bids without monetary figures on them? A. Pardon? 68 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. Is it your testimony that Hensel Phelps and Bernards Bros. were the only prime contractors to whom Savala faxed bids which didn~t have prices on them? A. Yes. 4• What time did you fax your bid to Shirley Bros.? A. 1:24. Q. And the same question with respect to the other contracts. Lets start with Baldy. A. 1:13. Q. Wiley? A. It would have been 1:33. Q. when you say, ~~It would have been 1:33,~~ what does that mean? A. I mean, it is 1:33. Q. Did you have to interpret the fax confirming I stub? A. No. Q• The reason I ask is because you hesitated a little bit with that one, and your response was a little bit different. Jaska? A. Jaska was 1:26. Q. And Berry? A. 1:11. Q. And finally Hensel Phelps? 69 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. That was 12:53. Q. May I see those fax confirming sheets? Now, I see in handwriting in pencil names are indicated to the right of the receiver number. I assume chat's the person to whom you sent the fax. A. Yes. 4• For instance, on the one I am handing you now which says "Receiver: 8520218," I take it that is the fax number for that receiver. A. Yes. Q. And then you ultimately went back to find who that number belonged to? A. Yes. Q. On what date did you handwrite the numbers next to the names? A. I don't recall. 4. At what time did you actually receive from your secretary confirmation of the numbers that should be inserted into the bids that didn't have numbers? A. Right ai about the same time. What I was trying to do is get them faxed out. Q. You said, "Right at about the same time." I am not sure Z understand. Let's qo back a little bit. You testified that prior to faxing bids to Hensel Phelps and Bernards Bros., you didn't have a verification from 70 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 your secretary as to what the numbers should be; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. So it's your testimony that as of 1:08 p.m. you did not have that information from your secretary? A. No, I had that information. I had that information prior to 1:08. 4• Why didn't you add that information to the bid that you faxed to Bernards Bros.? A. Because I couldn't get through on the fax machine. I had another one with the numbers on it that I was trying to fax, and when the person called me from Bernards asking for the numbers, I told him, "Well, I am trying to fax it to you now," and that's when they insisted on asking for the numbers, and that's when I gave them the numbers. Q. About what time was that? A. That would have been, again, about 1:20. 4. And that's the telephone conversation with Charlie of Bernards Bros.? A. Yes. Q. Now, it's your testimony that the bids that were faxed to Shirley, Wiley, Baldy, ,7aska and Berry all had the bid prices on them at the time they Were faxed? A. correct. 71 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And how is it that you know that? A. I had the two bids -- I just know what I I did. Q. Well, do you have photocopies of the actual bids that were faxed to Shirley, Baldy, and the others? A. Well, yes. 2• Do you have a separate photocopy for each faxed bid? That is, do you have a separate copy of the bid that was faxed to Shirley which is separated from the bid that was faxed to Baldy and on and on? A. No. I just had two bids. One went to Hensel Phelps and Bernards, and the other one went out to the other contractors. q. So I take it that you did not expressly communicate by phone with the other subcontractors that water was being excluded from your bid; is that correct? Let me break it down. You never told Shirley Bros. that your bid did not include water did you? A. The quotation speaks for itself. 4. I am talking about oral communications with prime contractors on bid date. Is it true that you never told Shirley Bros. by phone that the Savala bid excluded site water work? 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. I didn't see any reason to because it wasn't included in my bid. Q. I understand your explanation, but Z want your answer. Is it true that you never expressly told Shirley Bros, by telephone on bid date that the Savala bid excluded site water work? A. No, I didn't have any conversation with Shirley. Q. Nor did you tell Baldy by phone of that exclusion; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. Nor did you tell Wiley about that exclusion by phone; is that correct? A. That's correct. Q. And the same with respect to Jaska and Berry? A. That's correct. Q. Did you tell Hensel Phelps? A. Yes. 4. Who at Hensel Phelps did you talk to? A. Z spoke to Bob Higgins. Q. You mentioned that you felt no need to tell Shirley, Baldy, Wiley and the others by phone that your bid excluded the water because the bid was self-explanatory, correct? 73 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i9 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. Correct. Q. Why did you feel the need to tell Charlie from Bernards Bros.? A. The only oeople I had any contact with about this job at all were Hensel Phelps and Bernards. Q. Why did you feel a need to tell Charlie at Bernards Bros. over the phone that the Savala bid excluded the site water if the bid was self-explanatory? A. I also talked to Steve about it because he was asking for the quote. He was asking for the proposal, and I told him that's what my bid is based on, is on my proposal. Q. Are you talking about Steve Rosenfield? A. Yes. 4. When did you speak to Steve Rosenfield about this? A. This was the day before the quote and again I believe that morning. Q. You are now telling us that the day before October 24 you had a telephone conversation with Steve Rosenfield about the scope of Savala's proposed bid? A. He asked me for the scope, and I said the scope letter will be coming to him. Q. Now, that's nowhere in your November 25 affidavit is it, a reference to that telephone 74 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 li 12 13 14 15 16 17 19 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 conversation a day before with Steve Rosenfield? MR. STAPEE: So stipulated. BY MR. GROPMAN: q. Tell me again about your conversation with Steve, A. He was just asking for the proposal. Q. And you Said? A. He will be getting it, but he will be getting it late the day of bid. Q. You didn't tell Steve in that telephone conversation that your bid would exclude the site water work did you? A. Z believe that I told him -- I told him I was having trouble -- that I was running out of time on the bid is what I told him. Q. But you didn't tell him during that conversation that the Savala bid would exclude the site water work did you? A• I don't recall. Q. On Direct Examination when answering questions by your attorney about this conversation with Charlie, I have written down your response, and I think I have accurately reflected your testimony. You believe you spoke with someone at Bernards Bros. in the estimating office after you sent the bid, and then your testimony became a little bit more firm in your 75 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ~ recollection. II What do you mean by you believe you spoke to someone in Bernards' estimating office after you sent the Lid? A. Not that I believe. I know that I did. Q. I am just trying to -- A. Maybe that's just my vocabulary. Q. So, it's not that you just believe you talked to Charlie at Bernards Bros., but you are absolutely certain of that conversation? A. I am absolutely certain of the conversation, yes. Q. Are you absolutely certain about all the elements of the conversation? For instance, you testified that you phoned in the actual numbers that were deleted from the bid. A. No, I didn't phone them in. Bernards called me and asked me for the numbers, Q. And that was the conversation with Charlie now where Charlie telephoned you and identified himself as Charlie at Bernards Bros., and Charlie asked for the numbers? A. Yss. Q. And you clearly recall giving Charlie over the phone the numbers which are now handwritten on 76 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Savala Exhibit 9-A which is the bid? A. Yes. Q. Ard do you firmly recall telling Charlie in that conversation that Savala's bid excluded the site water work? I A. Z believe we discussed the water and the gas. ~ 4• You believe you discussed it, but you don't have absolute recall that yr~u did in fact discuss it; is that correct? A. That's ccrrect. Q. So you may have, or you may not have; is that correct? A. That's correct. MR. GROPMAN: Nothing further. HEARING OFFICER MARRMAN: Mr. Lydoff, maybe you can clear a few things up. How many fax machines do you people have operating at one time in your office? THE WITNESS: One. HEARING JFFICER MARRMAN: So you might give the secretary 12 of them or 8 of them to fax at one time, and then she has to get the right phones which may be receiving something else, so there may 6e time lines or gaps between the time that one would be faxed to one prime contractor and the next one and so forth? 77 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 zo 21 22 27 24 25 THE WITNESS: Yes, there would be gaps. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Now, I understood your testimony that you essentially faxed everybody bidding this job a bid for the site utility Work excluding the water system and excluding gas; is that correct? THE WITNESS: That's correct. I did not bid water, and I did not bid the gas. ' HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: To anybody? THE WITNESS: To anybody, HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: And the figure that you orally stated to Hernards Bros. is the same figure that you faxed to these other people; is that correct? THE WITNESS: That's correct. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Now, is it true that you faxed the figures to one of these subcontractors -- one of these prime con*_ractors at 12:55? THE WITNESS: I couldn't get through on the fax machines because the job -- with a job of that size, you just can't get through on the fax machines. I tried getting through earlier, but I couldn't get through, so we just kept trying. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: What I am trying to understand is why you faxed a sheet without figures on it at 1:08 to Bernards Bros. when you knew what the figure was going to be at 12:55 because you faxed it to 78 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 73 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 someone else at 12:55. THE WITNESS: That 12:55 fax did not have a number on it. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Oh, it didn't. THE WITNESS: No. Two of them went out with no numbers, and the reason I wanted it out is so they had a chance to review the scope, or I was afraid they wouldn't even get it. That way, if I had to give them the numbers by phone, I could. If I couldn't get through on the fax, I could qet through on the phone. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Why only these two? Were these two the only two making inquiries? THE WITNESS: Those were the only two that I had discussions with. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Why did you want to make sure they understood the scope, whereas, you weren't as concerned about some other bidder on this? THE WITNESS: I didn't want them to have any doubt per any of our conversations as to what I was bidding. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So that means to me that there must have been some concern in your mind that they might have had confusion about the scope of work, those two in particular. THE WITNESS: That's why I got the scope out, so they had a chance to review it. 79 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2G HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: But you weren't as concerned that the other people you faxed this to -- THE WITNESS: I didn't have any conversations with the other people. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: But one of them might have been the low bidder. THE WITNESS: I think that the quote speaks for itself. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I am just trying to understand your thinking. On the one hand, you are saying the scope speaks for itself, as you so testified, and that's a fact, that what is on the sheet is on the sheet. THE WITNESS: Right. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: On the other hand, you testified that you wanted to make absolutely certain and were concerned that Hensel Phelps and Bernard Bros. might have been cenf used by the scope, se you wanted to fax it out early to them so they would not be confused about what the scope was. I THE WITNESS: That's true. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Who decided on this job that your company was not going to bid the site water system? THE WITNESS: I couldn't because I ran out of 80 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 2] 24 25 time. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: In other words, you were the estimator, and you didn't have time to do that portion of it? THE WITNESS: I didn't have time to prepare a bid for the site water. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: When did you start working on this bid overall, how many days before the -- THE WITNESS: I started and stopped on this because I think it was postponed for some time. There were some addendums coming out, and I had other things going. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So basically your work load in the time allowed made the determination that Savala was not going to bid the water? THE WITNESS: That's correct. NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Does Savala sometimes bid the gas on these jobs? THE WITNESS: No. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Never? THE WITNESS: No. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Does the plumber sometimes do qas and water? THE WITNG3S: Yea. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: In fact, the plumber is 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 going to do either gas or gas and water? Would that be a correct statement? THE WITNESS: Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Have you reviewed all of these documents at least in the black book? THE WITNESS: Yes. I HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Have you looked at Chino ~ Engineering's bid on this job? ' THE WITNESS: Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Can you explain to me -- you don't have to if you can't. Can you explain to me the discrepancy between Chino Engineering doing this job for $20,000 more than Savala's bid but including the water site Work? THE WITNESS: I know there were several other contractors that bid this job, and from what I have heard and what i have seen, a lot of these other prices have been in the same range that we are, and Chino was considerably lower than anyone else. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: And you agree that Chino's bid was lower than anyone else, as you put it, and was in the process prior to the bid opening? It was not something shopped for after the fact by Bernards? THE WITNESS: T don't know that. I don't know when they received any of their bids or what time. 82 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Well, on this bid of Chino's, will you concede to me -- you don't have to because you may not know -- THE WITNESS: Z don't know. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: You don't know whether or not that a bid came in? You have heard testimony that -- in fact, I asked Chino's representative if they put that bid in for this work prior to the opening. You have no reason not to believe that? THE WITNESS: No, I have no reason not to believe I that. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: You are an estimator, so you know that anyone bidding on this job would have to pay prevailing wage rates and would be burdened on this job by all of the California Labor Code provisions including Chino? THE WITNESS: Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: That's all I have. MR. STAPKE: You covered it. MR. GROPMAN: No further questions. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Lydoff. It's 12:20. We have, I understand, a couple more witnesses. MR. STAPKE: The next witness is Mr. Savala, and that's going to take a little while. If you want to 81 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 10 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 take a short recess, that would be fine. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Let's qo off the record. (Discussion off the record.) (Lunch recess.) HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Next witness by Mr. Stapke. MR. STAPKE: Savala Construction calls the next witness, Leonard Savala. (Witness sworn.) BY MR. STAPKE: Q. Mr. Savala, why don't you tell our Hearing Officer and the people here who you are and what you do. A. I am Leonard Savala of Savala Construction Company. The firm has been under that corporate name since 1951. I have been running it since 1960, '61. In '65, we started underground construction. We put in an awful lot of underground pipes for a lot of major contractors, and we do an awful lot of flood control work as the prime contractor, county sanitation, and that type of thing. We are a member of the AGC, Associated General Contractors of California. Z was the vice chair and then later on the chairman of the Underground Division there, and I was chairman of the Oranqe County Division of the Associated General Contractors. We 84 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 currently belong to the ECA, SCCA, and the AGC. We just dropped out of the BIA about four or five months ago due to economic conditions, but we have been around quite awhile. Q. Is Savala Construction recognized by Caltrans as a minority business enterprise? A. Yes, they are. Q. Has Savala Construction specialized in site utilities work since any point in time? A. Yes. Q. Since when? A. 1965. 4. Now, Mr. Savala, let me just ask you one question at the outset. Zn your first -- can you tell us what was said in your first conversation with Mr. Bernards about the Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex job? A. I talked to Jeff Bernards on the afternoon of the 19th after I had twice talked to Scott Shald I believe it is that works for him, and we discussed the ~,, project. He told me that they had made an error and that he had a price that was cheaper than ours, and it included the water, so he asked me if I would give him a letter to the effect that Lhe City let him off the hook for my part of the job so he could name another 85 a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 subcontractor. Q. I would like to direct your attention to a declaration that you prepared. Its Exhibit 8 in our book. Take a minute to review that, and I will ask you some questions about it. Now, you make reference to a conversation with Mr. Shald. What was discussed with your conversation with Mr. Shald? A. Mr. Shald had called John Lydoff, our senior estimator, in our firm on the morning of the 18th. We were in the midst of bidding a large job site, and John came into my room, in my office, and he told me that had some conversation with Scott regarding the Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex. 4. Did the subject of Savala Construction doing the site water as part of its lump sum bid come up in either the conversation you had with Mr. Bernards or Mr. Shald? A• Yes. 4. How did it come up? A. I was told by Scott on the 18th and also on the 19th that our price did not include the water, and I told him, ^Well, our quote is there, and it expressly says exactly what it says." He said that he had another contractor that included all of those items of work that 86 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 we had plus the water at a price comparable to ours or cheaper, so he wanted to know whether or not we would relinquish our end of the job and give a letter to Bernard Bros. so they could present it to the City and let us off the job. 4. Did you discuss with him the potential of Savala doing the job with water in it? A. I told him we bid the job with the sewer and the storm drain, and that at this time, which was the 18th when I was discussing it with Scott and then on the 19th again when I discussed it with Jeff Bernard s, I told him that we bid the job. We bid the job competively. We were listed, and we wanted to do the job, and we did not have water included in our project nor could I come down whatever amount the Water price was. At that time, I didn't know how much the water was going to be other than what he had told me. 4. You indicated you said you couldn't come down the amount that the water was worth. Was that subject discussed? A. Yes. 4. Who raised that question whether you could come down to compensate for the price of the water? A. Scott discussed it with me on the afternoon of the 18th and then again on the afternoon of the 19th, 87 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2] 24 25 and then I discussed it again with Jeff, and What I was told was that the -- my price would be accepted if I did the water included in my price. In other words, if I did the sewer, water and storm drain, I would do the job for $798,000. That price would be acceptable. If not, he had already consulted with his attorney. His attorney said he would have no problem removing us from the list. Q. Now, referencing the declaration, that conversation occurred on the 18th or 19th? A. On the 19th with Jeff Bernards. Q. Directing your attention now to Exhibit 1, did you get a copy of this letter? A. Yes. Q. When did you qet a copy of this letter in respect to your conversation with Mr. Bernards on the 19th? A. This letter was probably sent out an hour to 45 minutes after I had my conversation with Jeff Bernards. Q. other than with the conversation with Mr. Bernards and Mr. Shald, did you ever get any notice from Bernards Bros. Construction that they intended to substitute Savala Construction on the basis of an inadvertent clerical error? 88 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 2z 23 24 25 A. No. Q. Now, turn to Exhibit 12. Did you receive a series of letters from Bernards on December 4? A. Yes. Q. Was Exhibit 12 one of them? A. Yes. Q. The other one was Exhibit 11? A. Yes. Q. Now did you receive these letters? A. I received them on the fax machine. q. At the time you received Exhibit 11, did you have a proposed subcontract agreement from Bernards Bros.? ', A. At the time I received this, no. It hadn't qot there yet. 4• So then you prepared to forward a letter to Mr. Shald? A. Yes. Q. And that letter is Exhibit 10? A. Yes. Q. Now, the quote that you reference in this letter is the same one that Mr. Lydoff was talking about that was faxed over to Bernards? A. The quote itself. 1 heard him tearing him apart on this. I don't know whether it was the same 89 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 piece of paper, but it was the same amount. 4• Why did you feel it was necessary to send over that scope of work? A. So there wouldn't be any question about chat we bid on the job. Q. Moving you up to Exhibit 19, Exhibit C to your affidavit was the subcontract agreement that eventually made it over to Savala Construction from Bernards? A. Yes. Q. And was that agreement signed by you? A. Was the subcontract signed by me? Q. Right. A. Yes. Q. And the subcontract you signed is listed as Exhibit D in the exhibits to your declaration, Exhibit 19? A. This one is not signed. It is not initialed ~ by me. Q. You are on C. Go to D. A. Yes. Q. And that was delivered to Bernards Bros. on December 6? A. Yes. Q. Now, in your experience, Mr. Savala, on site 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 utilities jobs, the variety at issue here, does it always include a bid on the water distribution system? A. No. Q. Zn your experience, is that a variable spec on a site utilities job? A. Yes. Q. Do you think that there was anything improper about your bid because it did nut include site utilities -- did not include the water distribution system? A. No. Q. In your experience, are items such as the water distribution system at issue here performed by another subcontractor on a job such as this? A. By another? Q. Yes. A. It's always the general's option. In some cases when a subcontractor is bidding on a type of work such as this, all they will bid is the storm drain. They won't bid the sewer. In some cases, subcontractors will bid the sewer and the storm drain, and they wont bid the water. In a lot of cases, they will bid the sewer, water, storm drain, gas, underground utilities. It all depends on what they want to bid at that time. It's not uncommon -- and its very common in 91 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 7.1 22 23 24 25 today's market -- where the general will take the storm drain contractor that is the lowest. He will take the sewer contractor that is the lowest. He will take the underground utilities contractor which is the lowest. He will take the gas contractor w~~ich is the lowest, and he might end up with five subcontractors doing five different utilities, and that is not uncommon. That is very prevalent today. MR. GROPMAN: I make a motion to strike that testimony based on lack of foundation. Mr. Sa vala is not the president of a general contractor but the president of a speciality contractor, and I don't know that he has foundation to testify as to the custom and practice of general contractors in the industry in picking and choosing what portions of work they will perform. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I am going to overrule it. THE WITNESS: If I might reply -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: You don't need to reply to his objection. THE WITNESS: My license is General Engineering contractor. BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. Now, when you signed Exhibit D -- well, in your review of Exhibit C, the subcontract 92 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 agreement that was sent to you by Mr. Bernards, did you compare the scope of work set forth in that agreement to that which was included within your bid? A. Yes. Q. Did you note the addition of any work in that proposed subcontract agreement that was not in your bid? A. Yes. Q. And what was that? A. That was the -- he had site utilities down there. He also had the water distribution system. MR. STAPKE: Nothing further. CROSS E%AMINATION BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. Mr. Savala, would you take a look at Exhibit 8 which is your November 25, 1991, affidavit? In the first paragraph at line9 11 and 12, you say, ~~Savala Construction is designated as a disadvantaged business enterprise by the contract. '~ What is that? A. That is an error. It should be MBE. Q. A minority business enterprise? A. Yes. R. Now, when you first spoke to Scott Shald on November 18, 1991, you testified that Mr. Shald explained to you the nature of the mistake made by 93 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 z4 25 Bernard Bros., correct? A. Yes. Q. During that conversation Mr. Shald asked you for a letter which would effectively allow Savala to be removed from Bernard Bros.' subcontractors list; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Mr. Shald did not ask you to lower your $798,000 price did he? A. He asked me to include the water which he thought was around $200,000, $225,000. Q. So Mr. Shald asked in this November 18 conversation that Savala include the water portion of the site utilities and do that withiq the quoted price of $798,000? A. Yes. Q. But he did not ask you to reduce the actual subcontract price regardless of what would be included in it; is that correct? A. May I go over your question? Q. Sure. A. You are asking me did he ask me to reduce my price from $798,000? The answer is no. Q. He just wanted you to do what you felt was extra work -- 94 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 A. He wanted $225,000 more work. Q. No one at Bernards Bros. ever asked Savala Construction to reduce the subcontract price below $798,000 for the site utilities work? With that question, I recognize the fact that Bernards was asking that the site water work be done as well. With that qualification in mind, isn't it true that no one at Bernards Bros. ever asked Savala to reduce the subcontract price below $798,000 for this project? A. I talked to two people. one was Scott Shald, and one was Jeff Bernard. Now, Jeff knows what we talked about. He said, "can we work something out on this? Can you in fact do this water?" Now, when he was talking about that, he was talking about a reduced price of my contract. He wanted to know could I do the water for the same price as my contract price, and, if not, how much could I do the water for, and I had no idea at all. 4. Now, Savala typically includes in its site utilities bid the water work doesn't it? A. When you say "typically," do you mean more than 80 percent? Q. I mean more than 50 percent. A. I would say yes. R. And Savala would have included the site 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 water system for this project if your estimator had had enough time to compute a figure, correct? A. That's correct. Q. So it was the intention of Savala if it had the time to include within its price the site water system, correct? A. If the estimator had time. Q. Now, please take a look, if you will, at your exhibit -- please take a look at Exhibit 19-D which is the standard form subcontract dated December 4, 1991, that has been modified by you in certain locations. You are looking at the first page of Exhibit 19-D? A. Yes. Q. And those are your initials in the lower portion of page 1? A. Yes. Q. And you authorized the modifications to be made by adding astericks under Section 2 and having typed language placed at the bottom of Section 7? A. Yes. Q. Did you also authorize the changes on the second page of Exhibit 19-D, which are modifications to Bernards Bros.' general provisions? A. Yes. 96 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 zD 21 22 27 24 25 Q• Now, prior to the date that those modifications were made and this modified subcontract was sent to Bernards Bros., had you or anyone else at Savala alerted Bernard Bros. to the fact that there would be such modifications made, and, again, Z am referring now to the modifications on page 2 of Exhibit 19-D? A- Did I alert Bernards Bros.? No, I didn't really have time. I got the contract in the late afternoon on Wednesday, and they wanted it back on Friday, so we gat it back as quickly as possible. Q- But, in any event, at the time that Savala construction returned to Bernardo Bros. the modified subcontract which is Exhibit 19-D, that was the first occasion in which Savala Construction alerted Bernards Bros. to the fact of the changes on page 2 of the subcontract? A. Would you repeat that? MR. GRDPMAN: I will ask that it be read back, please. (Record read.) THE WITNESS: We returned the contract late Friday afternoon. I believe John returned it himself, got back there -- got to Bernards' office just before they closed. I don't believe he talked to anybody. 97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BY MR. GROPMAN: Q. What was that date when you talked about late Friday afternoon? That's December what? A. I got the contract on Wednesday, so if I got the contract on the 4th, it would be the 6th. 4. But, again, the answer to my question is, yes, December 6, which is when savala returned the modified subcontract, was the first occasion in which savala alerted Bernards Bros. to those changes on page 2? A. When they read the contract, yes. You missed another change on here, too. R• why don't you alert me to that one. A. It's attachment D. O. Which would be the second to the last page of Exhibit 19-D entitled "Attachment D, Special ~, Provisions°7 A. Yes. O. Have i correctly identified it? A. Yes, "Attachment D, Special Provisions, Section F." O. And these were additional modifications that savala Construction was making to Bernards Bros.' standard form subcontract? A. Yes. 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Q. And these were first submitted to Bernards Bros. on December 6th; is that correct? A. Yes. NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Excuse me. I think I even found one none of you have caught. If you look at page 1 again, Mr. Savala, the first place you have initiated this I don't think was referenced in this examination. After the words "Site lltilit ies," did you direct the rest of the language on that line and the next line to be typed in and then initial that? THE WITNESS: Yes. NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Can anyone see any other changes? MR. GROPMAN: Nothing further. Thank you. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Do you have anything further, Mr. Stapke? MR. STAPKE: Do you have any questions for Mr. Savala? NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: No, I don't have any. MR. STAPKE: Mr. John Hakel from the AGC is down here. He has a statement to offer in the nature of support for the contractor. if you are inclined to hear that, that's fine. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So that will be your last witness. 99 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. STAPKE: Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: This is not that formal of a proceeding. I have no objection. Do you want to take this testimony by way of just letting him narratively say what he has to say? MR. STAPKE: Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Any objection to that, Mr. Gropman? I will give you a chance to cross-examine him no matter how extensive it is. MR. GROPMAN: I don't know until I hear what he has to say. In terms of him presenting the witness, I have no objection to that. If the evidence is not relevant, I will certainly object and move to strike. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: He is going to evidently make a statement, which to me means he is not offering percipient testimony, so this is by way of some sort of legal argument or expert evaluation, I presume. I am going to let it come in. Again, you can cross-examine him. MR. GROPMAN: Fine. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Why don't you proceed and identify yourself -- well, let's first put him under oath. (Witness sworn.) MR. HAKEL: My name is John Hakel, Executive 100 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 24 25 Director, for the Associated General Contractors of California. The reason I am here is on request by Leonard Savala. Savala Construction is a member of the AGC. The AGC is the largest construction trade group within America. It prides itself in continuing to make the construction group a fair and descent place to which one contractor can bid, be awarded the bid, and then retain the work. Our members take great strides in giving back to the industry from which they make their own livelihoods. Fact in point is the tremendous relationship we have with the Contractors State License Board. Collectively, we continue to tackle the toughest issues as relates to license laws and its numerous regulations within the Contractors State License Law, and we have been dealing with those boards for many years. We have our own AGC/State License Law Committee who works within the scope and direction of the California State License Commission. AGC is proud to have Leonard Savala as a member and is proud also to take part within the license board and who works daily with the public contract laws, and we hope that -- it is the hope and desire of the AGC that the scope and direction faced squarely within the confines of the Contractors State License Law, and that 101 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the Subletting 6 Subcontracting Fair Practices Act so that the industry as a whole for which we stand will not be blemished by any findings of difficulty within the scope of everybody in this room.. MR. GROPMAN: If I may just briefly for the record move to strike on the grounds of lack of relevance or pertinent to this proceeding. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I will make the statement I don't think that there is any evidentiary value in the statement. I think the city council -- it's on the record. They will read it when they read the transcript. I did have one question. Mr. Hakel, is Chino Engineering a member of your organization? MR. HAKEL: Yes, they are. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So you are not urging this decision to be made either one way or the other, but only that the decision be made in accordance with state law and the facts presented? MR. NAKEL: Correct. ~~.. MR. GROPMAN: No questions then. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Are we going to have come closing argument? If you do plan it, I do have a couple of questions I would like to hear from both of you on. 102 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MR. GROPMAN: I was just going to offer a brief closing argument. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I would like to give you about ten minutes or more if you need it, and I would like some legal input on a couple of issues, some of which you have argued around, and I can only presume that the experts you are in the field that there isn't any case right on point that you can aim me at that disposes of the issue that is presented today. The two issues in question are the two-working day period in 4107.5, which you briefed it in length, and I think I understand it. If there is anything more you want to offer on it, I am particularly interested if you have a case or anything you can aim me at that would indicate that that's the kind of immaterial error that is referred to in the cases in a bid process. I have never seen a case like that that referred to a passage of a period of time. Now you know that I am very troubled by that. The other issue on that point, is this a clerical error, or are clerical errors limited to transcribing numbers, writing in wrong numbe rs7 Is it a clerical error because whoever is watching the job didn't pay attention to the scope of work? I don't know. I have read a lot of these cases for awhile, and 103 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I haven't seen one like that. Then the other one of most interest to me is the first sentence of Section 4107 (a)1 of the Public Contracts Code, which seems to me to be in the disjunctive, and what I am interested in there is because it is in the disjunctive, does it give the city council ultimate authority here to make a discretionary decision based on the equities of the situation? The way I am looking at this, frankly, is that somebody made a mistake, and that there was a preexisting bid for more work at approximately the same amount, so thg question is who really was the low bidder on what when a mistake is made like this? Because we are in the confines of the statute, that's why I come down on that one sentence, so that's really what I would be interested in seeing addressed, especially since I don't believe a California case anyway exists right on point that describes this fac `.ual situation. At least, I haven't found one. If you find one, then that makes life easier. MR. GROPMAN: Nor have I found any case that directly addresses the issues that you have raised, but if I may take a crack at addressing those issues, I would like to first, again, place the focus on the nature of this proceeding and why we are here. We are 104 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 here under the Subletting fi Subcontracting Fair Practices Act which has as its stated purpose the avoidance and prohibition against bid shopping. There has been no bid shopping in this case. Chino submitted a written bid on bid date. No one has asked Chino to reduce that bid. Bernards stands ready, willing, and able to contract with Chino for that bid price today, nor did Bernards Bros. ask Savala to drop its bid price of $798,000. They did ask Savala to withdraw from the competition because of the error by Bernards Bros., but they didn't ask them to perform the site utilities work for less than $798,000, so if we are here to see justice done under the spirit and the letter of the Subletting & Subcontract Fair Practices Act, we have to focus on whether or not there has been bid shopping or pedaling, and there has not been any. Another area of concern and focus should be the fact that Chino is the legitimate low-bidding contractor. They I believe under the spirit of the law are entitled to perform the work as the legitimate low-bidding subcontractor, and they are here ready, willing, and able to do that. There has been no bid pedaling, and the legitimate low-bidding subcontractor, Chino Engineering, is prepared to do the work for their 105 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 z2 23 24 25 bid price, and Bernards Bros. is prepared to enter into that contract. Now, to get into the specifics of the statutory requirements for being relieved for an error, we focus then on Public Contracts Code, Section 4107 (a)5, and there is a requirement within the code for a request of relief within two days of bid date. As I set forth in my earlier correspondence and in today's brief, I believe that the requirement of 4107(a)5 and 4107.5 is directed to the low bidder, prime contractor bidder, on bid date. In this case, it would be Shirley Bros. on October 24. Bernards Bros. was not the low bidder on bid date. If you take a look at the express language of the section, it is clear that they are relating to activities that occur on bid date and the prime contractor who was low on bid date. Bernards Bros. doesn't fall within the confines of that definition. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Let me ask you something. Your client testified that when your client has a reasonable suspicion that he may end up being low bidder, when he knows that there is a large discrepancy and he is second, he will make the adjustments within two days, which gives me the inclination that tte believes that at least this could 6e interpreted and it 106 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 is good practice to make these adjustments within two days even if you are not the apparent low bidder. MR. GROPMAN: I believe that it is good business practice to do that, and a prudent contractor like 9ernards will if it occurs to them do that. NEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Then what other period of time would you suggest to me wou13 run under this section? The section is silent as to any alternative period of time, It doesn't talk about the limited circumstance you are talking about, even though I realize that you can argue that we don't have a case that says that. It would seem to be a clean interpretation to me, and I Feel a court would probably hold -- being honest with you, that a court would probably hold that everybody who bids prime beware that you better make these adjustments within two days, check yourself, catch the errors, or be prepared to walk away from the job, because within those two days at least, all the subs are locked in, they know where they are, they know where they are going, whoever ends up happening to be the prime. It's an alert period of time. Zf you and I Were practicing laW, it would be like choosing the shortest possible statute of limitations to take our action in so that under no 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 circumstances could we be wrong. I have read your stuff, and I understand the argument about no prejudice, but I don't know that. I don't know that another sub isn't prejudiced because two or three weeks go by and they are locked into bids, or it doesn't look like they have a bid, and they go on and do another job, and now they have to choose between two jobs. I can see a lot of reasons in this industry for that two days applying. MR. GROPMAN: And there may be legitimate reasons why the legislature enacted a two-day requirement. The question is whether or not it applies to a prime contractor who was not the low contractor on bid date, but even if does apply to Bernards Bros. -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Well, it applies to who you wrote in. It is clear that it applies to the listed subcontractor even if the listed subcontractor didn't turn out to be the lowest bidding subcontractor. I mean, we don't know that. For all I know, your client could have a subcontractor on some portion of the work that he has a long-term relationship with, trusts, knows there won't be a bunch of change orders and problems, and they even may be higher than one, two or three other people, and he would still list that subcontractor, so I think this applies to the listed subcontractor, not 108 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 21 24 25 necessary the lowest bidding subcontractor. MR. GROPMAN: I agree the section applies to the listed subcontractors. My only question is Whether or not it applies to the prime contractor who is not low on bid date, but even if it does apply to Bernards Bros. as the second low bidder on bid date, still there are cases that deal with the concept of notice within a specific time and the failure to provide notice within that specific period of time. There are no cases which interpret the two-day requirement under the Public contracts Code. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: If it only applied to the apparent low bidder at the time of bid opening, then anytime you deviate from that circumstance, there is no time line. I mean, in theory, you could be four-fifths of the way through the contract, and suddenly you could say, oops, which might create a year or two potential bid shopping. MR. GROPMAN: I believe the legislature left a gap in the law when it enacted 4107(a)5 and 4107.5. The courts are called upon to fill gaps, and I believe without any case to support my position because none exists that a court would interpret this section to mean that when the second low bidder becomes the low bidder, they then have two days in which to submit a request for 109 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 relief. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: If you think the court would have that discretion, obviously the city council would. MR. GROPMAN: Yes. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Because the city council has to make the initial decision. MR. GROPMAN: That~s true. Now here, Bernards Bros. received official notice on December 12, and it is clear that Bernards Bros. did not within two working days of December 12 request relief, so we are still not within the two-day requirement. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: You donut think there is any way we can find you were within any two-day requirement? MR. GROPMAN: I agree that we are not assuming some two-day requirement applies. Now the question is whether or not relief by the City can be granted when it has taken more than two working days by the prime contractor to request relief under 4107(a)5 and 4107.5. There are no cases which allow or discuss whether or not the court or the awarding authority has discretion to extend the days. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: So you would argue that there is no prejudice to Savala, and you acted within 110 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 it 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 the only time -- a court of law would apply that there is no time line and that some reasonable time -- riR. GROPNAN: That's right, and there Was a reasonable request for relief in terms of the timeliness of the request. There has been no evidence in this hearing that Savala suffered any prejudice because of a I delay in seeking the requested relief. You did point II out that there are cases or there are instances where perhaps prejudice could be demonstrated. There has been no demonstration of any prejudice by Savala in this proceeding that they suffered any loss or detriment because of the lag in 8ernards Bros. seeking relief. So, it is our position that even if the two-day requirement does bind Bernards Bros. under the statute, that the awarding authority has the discretion to waive the two-day requirement and allow some later notice unless there has been some demonstration of proof -- some demonstration of prejudice by Savala which has not occurred here, so we are forced to interpret a statute that doesn't have any case law interpreting it, so we can only use arguments of common sense and fairness. Common sense and fairness requires that Ci~ino Engineering who was the legitimate low-bidding contractor be permitted to perform that work 1n the Face 111 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 i2 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 27 24 25 of Bernards Bros.' inadvertent error in listing Savala who did not submit a complete bid by excluding the water portion of the site utilities. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: They submitted a complete bid on what was in their scope, but your client's representative errored by looking at a bottom line without understanding what the scope of their bid was, correct? No one suggested in this proceeding that they were deceptive in what they submitted have they? MR. GROPMAN: i agree that they did not surreptitiously or intentionally lead Bernards Bros. down a path of ruin. I will concede that, but they were a site utilities contractor. The bid form required the identity of a site utilities contractor, so the question is: What are the site utilities? The site utilities are not just the storm drain, not just the sewer, but also the water distribution service. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: But, Counsel, I looked at the specs trying to find an easy answer to this, and I realized the specs aren't here -- they may be here. I had them here, but Mr. Gomez left. If you look at the specs, is it not true that under "Site Utilities" it talks about storm drain, sewer, water and gas? It was obvious from all the testimony that the plumbing sub was going to do some of the site utility work when you 11Z 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 e 9 10 11 12 17 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 understand that gas is in it, too. I struggled with it, too. It would have been simple -- it would have been a simpler matter if site utilities was clearly defined in the specs to include the three areas you are talking about, but they included four areas. MR. GROPMAN: I don't disagree. If you look at the specs, you will find gas as part of the site utilities work. Now, I have addressed as best Z can the two-day requirement and the ability that the awarding authority has to extend that period, particularly where there has been no evidence of prejudice or detriment to Savala in the delayed notice or request for relief by Bernard Bros., but that's not the only basis Por relief on which we are proceeding. The other one is Public Contracts Code Section 4107 (a)1 which is where a subcontractor fails to decide and then returns a subcontract issued by the general contractor. There is evidence not only of the modification by Savala to exclude the water work or the site water system, but also other modifications to the standard form of Bernards Bros. as well, and those are on page 2 primarily of the standard form subcontract, and that would be Exhibit 19-D, page 2 of that exhibit. In addition, Mr. Savala pointed ovt that there is an Attachment D to the modified subcontract which addresses 113 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 additional modifications to Bernards Bros.' standard form subcontract, so there have been multiple failures by Savala to sign and return Bernards Bros.' standard form subcontract, not only by excluding the water system portion of the site utilities but by making other substitutive modifications as well. Under 4107 (a)1, the awarding authority, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, has the right and I think the duty to allow a substitution where this type of modification and failure to sign and return Bernards Bros.' subcontract has occurred. Again, we don't have to look just at the site water exclusion. There are other modifications of a substitutive nature that Savala had made to Bernards Bros.' standard form subcontract, and that act by itself grants Bernards Bros. the right to relief under 4107 (a)1. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: What does the word "or" mean? What are the alternatives offered to the Redevelopment Agency Board? When I look at an ~'or," I always assume it is offering alternatives. Looking at this -- again, no one has presented a case that explains -- MR. 5TAPKE: There is not a case. The one caveat -- basically, that section refers to the written spec if icationa or the terms of the subcontractor's 114 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 is 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 written bid, presuming that the general specifications would be involved in the case of an oral bid, which I think would be supported by the case law. HEARZNG OFFICER MARKMAN: Okay. That is one explanation. MR. GROPMAN: Z am not sure that I accept and embrace that explanation. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I am trying to understand how much discretion my client, the city council, has in this matter where obviously there is an error, and it is a question o£ which subcontractor does the work. The real prominent interest -- obviously, bath subcontractors have an interest, but there obviously will be a much higher cost to the general because of an error. MR. GROPMAN: Yes, and speaking of the error, the error only applies to relief under 4107(ay5 which is an inadvertent clerical error. When you have an inadvertent clerical error, then you must provide notice within two working days. There is no two-working '. day time requirement for relief under 41o7(a)1. HEARING OFFICER MARKHAN: No, because that presumes there is a dispute tretween the prime and the sub over the contract, and the sub wont sign a contract that -- we don't know what the form of contract ever is 115 r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 24 25 between a prime and a sub when a government body puts something out to bid. We donut know whether it is reasonable for Mr. Savala to have made the changes on page 2 or not. We have no way of adjudicating that. We donut know if it is reasonable when an error is made for the sub to refuse to sign a contract for a whole lot more work at a price that he never intended to bid on. The easy correction -- the easy way out of this would have been a correction within 48 hours obviously, but I am just asking what this sentence medn9. MR. GROPMAN: Under either portion of that sentence, I think Bernards Bros. is entitled to relief. Under the first portion, it talks about refusal of the subcontractor to sign a contract based upon the general terms, conditions, plans and specifications for the project involved. Well, the site utilities certainly included as defined by the project plans, specifications and conditions -- certainly included the site water system, and here we have a subcontractor refusing to sign a subcohtract which contains the site water system work which is part of the, quote, "general terms, conditions, plans and specifications for the project involved." Then we move on to the other side of the word "or." Well, here you have Savala wanting more than 116 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 z2 23 2a 25 what was in its written bid from Bernards Bros. It also wants the changes on page 2 of the -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Savala wants to sign a contract to do two portions of this Work for the bid they presented, and they want you to worry about who does the site water work and for what price, whether them or somebody else. MR. GROPMAN: Savala wants more than that. That's one of the three major changes by Savala in the modified subcontract. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: The one I want to focus on is obviously the one where there is a deviation. i mean, the dichotomy is the scope of work. The other contractual modifications, arguments -- I think there is a terrible position being put on the public entity here if we have to sit and decide whether or not to substitute because of minute legalistic contractual changes in the terms of the subcontract form. I don't know Chat we would be allowefl to do that unless there was some real substance in that. I MR. GROPMAN: Any one of these provisions can lead into hundreds of thousand of dollars. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I understand. I am a lawyer, too. MR. GROPMAN: It may be a little small asterick 117 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 lz 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 with a small comment at the bottom of the page, but that can translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: When a sub bids to your client, do they automatically know they are subscribing to your clients form of subcontract no matter how onerous it may be on one side in favor of the general, or is there some negotiation possible? MR. GROPMAN: Let me point out -- and Mr. Hakel can confirm this -- Bernards Bros.• standard form subcontract uses word for word the terms of the AGC form subcontract, so it's a standard in the industry that Bernards Bros. uses. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Okay, but theoretically, you could drive a heck of an onerous bargain on the sub if you could blow him out if he didn't sign the original form as presented. MR. GROPMAN: We talked about the prudence of a contractor in a public -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Doesn't some reasonableness apply here that would in some way apply to the purpose of the sections which started off your argument? MR. GROPMAN: I think reasonableness applies to every argument in every statute in every case that we are called upon to interpret and, yes, reasonableness 118 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 should, and I hope will apply, and I am saying that the changes that have been made by Savala other than the site water deletion are major changes, and it is unreasonable to force upon Bernards Bros. Savala's late revisions to the subcontract that deal with those other -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: When you got those changes, Mr. Gropman, Seff Bernards didn~t call you and say, "Look, there are three linguistic changes here. Why don't you call up Mr. Stapke and start negotiating those or see if those are deal breakers to Mr. Savala." In other words, nothing happened because, as a matter of fact, the scope of work wasn~t going to be worked out. That's why 1 am not putting a lot of emphasis on those other changes because no one attempted to negotiate those out in view of the fact that -- Mr. Bernards testified that there was no way he was going to sign a contract for that amount of money for that scope of work. Likewise, Mr. Savala testified that there was no way he was going to do the water distribution system for that price, so here we are. Anything else, Mr. Gropman? MR. GROPMAN: NO, nothing else. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I have some good questions for Mr. Stapke also. 119 8 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Mr, Stapke, if you were representing Chino Engineering and your client had made a good faith, legitimate bid apparently somewhere on the order of 5225,000 cheaper for the same work, both perfectly reputable subcontractors, and this was just an error -- and the only reason we are really having this proceeding is because somebody didn't move on it within two days because they didn't think they were in the picture -- what do you think would be an equitable outcome under that sentence that I am talking about? Why don't you think it would be an equitable outcome to allow the substitution when the contract is presented to your client for the work that the general thought was bid on at the time they wrote Savala into that sheet and later determined wasn't what was bid on -- and I certainly don't blame Savala for any of that -- and your client doesn't sign it? Why doesn't this give the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency the equitability to suhstitute Chino's name on that sheet? MR. STAPKE: The whi t.f.. ..c •~_ _..~... .. act on this request, as far as I am concerned, is jurisdictionally determined by the time. The relationship between Chino and Berna rds, whatever it may be in the future, can accommodate whatever equitable rights Chino believes it has. 120 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 The point is that Chino, by all accounts, was not listed. The problem with the testimony that, well, we only check when we think it is important, we don't check sometimes, and we realize it is important, what that tells you here is that under the circumstances, Bernards didn't particularly care about Chino's rights under the circumstances because they didn't take the time and exercise diligence -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Should they get punished to the tune of $225,000 for that? MR. STAPKE: I think, if I am not mistaken, they were benefited by the award of the contract with a value in excess of $16 million. I would submit that's a benefit bestowed upon them by the public entity. If they wanted to withdraw on the basis of a mistake -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Had they done that, then the public would have suffered horribly. I think the next step up was something like $600,000, and we probably would have had another bid where all bids were rejected. If in fact they had withdrawn, the public pays for it. MR. STAPKE: The point is we are here today, and the request has gone forward. They signed a prime contract, so the public hasn't been damaged. Apparently, I wouldn't presume that Mr. Bernards would 121 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have the arrogance to presume that he was going to prevail without question. He understood that 'he was undertaking some risk in signing the prime contract with at least a dispute with one of his subs. I submit that he included that as a potential cost within his overall range of profit and made his determination to go ahead notwithstanding. Now, I don't think we need to talk about the time period. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Z don't Want you to spend a whole lot of time on that. I understand. I don't think there is any way that Bernards can assert that they met the technical time period involved in 4107.5 unless there is no such time period under the equity of the circumstances we have before us, and he has made that argument. I want you to tell me where I can find bid shopping in this process. I will tell you what my understanding is of it, and I have litigated two or three of those through the Court of Appeals. My understanding of bid shopping is •I have got a bid from Subcontractor A. I wrote their name in. i looked this whole thing over again, and I thought I have a tight margin, or somebody else calls me up that needs a little work, and I suddenly find out I could make an extra 122 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 margin, $100,000, maybe a lot more money, and I decide that's fine. Now that I have got someone else, I can call -- in other words, I start trying to get myself in a better position based on bids I obtained after the bid is open and the subs are declared and shop them against each other, negotiate them against each other, which from the public point of view is protected against because you are supposedly as a public entity to get a shoddier level of work if you encourage that particular practice. Here, the uncontroverted testimony is that Chino's bid was in, that no one has negotiated a lower bid, that they were lower. There was an error and that Bernards did not qo talk to another contractor or even try to negotiate Chino down, that this whole process has been generated by one of their guys looking at a bottom line without understanding the scope of work, so where is the bid shopping? MR. STAPKE: i want to cite on the point of whether it is a clerical mistake or not -- I am just reading -- it says, n8id shopping is to use the low bid already received to pressure other subcontractors to submit even lower bida.~~ What we have here is the use of the Chino 127 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 za 25 bid against a listed sub two weeks after the fact to get him to do more work for the same price, which is the same thing functionally for him in terms of pressure. It wasn't necessarily the $200,000. It was what can you do about this? The fact is Savala believed that under the law they were listed, and they had the right to do the work. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I understand that, but I don't see any conflicting testimony. Bernards Bros. said, god, we made an error. We are going to lose $200,000 to $225,000. We thought you were bidding the same thing Chino was. You didn't bid the water. I had this Chino bid all along. Can I pay you for the expense and trouble you have gone to so we can go forward with Chino, or can we talk about you doing all this work? Then the answer is that Savala asserts his contractual rights and says sign the contract the way you wrote me in, and that's led us to this point. Is that bid shopping? MR. STAPKE: I think that the -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Is that using an existing bid to get a lower bid to do the same work? I understand your argument why there may be a twist on this, but -- MR. STAPKE: Well, it's a twist. i mean, I don't 124 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 l0 li 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 think it is bid shopping frankly, but I think it is probably improper notwithstanding. I think under the circumstances the legislature made the decision for us on the question of time. The legislature made a determination to avoid this sort of impropriety, and I would hope it's successful. We would hope that policy would be encouraged by the redevelopment agency. On the issue of the disjunctive, I think that 4107(a)1 does contemplate two situations. If you qo back years and years on cases, you have oral and written bid situations, and you have confusion, and Coast Pump deals with one of them where they took an existing sub and put in a different price, and that was found by the trial court not to be a clerical error -- or not to be an inadvertent clerical error. We don't have an oral bid. We have a written bid, and under the circumstances, you can't construe the statute to do one of two things. You can't construe the statute to allow the general to impose upon the sub an increased scope of work not bid, and then allow the general in the event that the sub doesn't give into that pressure bounce them via 4107(a)1. That would not be equitable. if you look to anything, you have to look to the terms of the written bid, and under the circumstances, you have a written bid, the contract that 125 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Savala signed, the spec that Savala signed. Now, also let me just lay this out. In the event that you have a general contractor as in this case that has blown the time on the inadvertent clerical error of relief, what do they do? Well, as in this case, prepare a contract that isn't the bid that doesn't track the extra work and plan among themselves that they are going to get around that time limit of those requirements, and they are going to do it by virtue of sending the subcontractor a subcontract that doesn't track the bid at all and includes a large amount of work in addition to that which he needs to do and thereby renders the implied rule in the 4107.5 requirement invalid. You would have that virtually anytime you had that situation occur as it did in this case. HEARING OFFICER MARRMAN: Stop. Time out. 4107.5 covers a whole lot of circumstances, and usually that wouldn't have anything to do With what we are talking about now. You would be talking about subs or contractors that may for the most part -- a high percentage would be mathematical error claims or I transposition claims on line items or totaling things wrong where they are trying to get out from under what you and I would call a classic clerical error. In fact, you and I are trying to decide whether this even falls 126 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 into the clerical error category. So, the argument would be the contract -- "Site Utilities" was written on the sheet, and Savala was put down there with the uncontroverted understanding it meant all these categories of work that Chino also had bid on, and it turned out not to be the case, so couldn't they make the argument that they then offered -- if you still want to do the work, they will offer you the contract the way they understood the contract to be when they filled out that subcontractors list and then proffered it up to you, and then you decided you are just not going to sign it? I think that's obviously not the usual circumstance that 4107(a)1 would apply to either, but this isn't a usual circumstance that we can find any pigeon hole for here. MR. STAPKE: Under the circumstances, what is the first request you get? You get a request for relief from an inadvertent clerical error. The declarations are submitted and -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Just good lawyerinq all the way around in this case trying to find the right pigeon hole in a very -- MR. STAPKE: Two weeks later we get a contract that Mr. Bernards tells us that he never intended the 127 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 24 25 client to sign as a clear means of avoiding the time requirement of 4107.5. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: If that was even a clerical error as to which there would have been a time requirement. We are not even sure it was a -- we know there is an error hare, but we are not sure if it is a clerical error. MR. STAPKE: Use his words in his own letter, in his own claim. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I think it is an error as to the understanding of what the contract was for between Savala and Bernards. What it meant to Bernards is not what it meant to Savala because of an error, not an error that was Savala's fault, you know, although there was some testimony that you are supposed to red flag these things, but that's okay. That's fine, except if it was my guy, you know, I would sure hope he would see that instead of just the bottom line, but there is no testimony that anybody tried to fool anybody in this whole process. I don't think anybody has become a bad guy during this hearing. So, my question to you is if it is not an inadvertent error, none of that argument about two days applies because the section wouldn't apply, and you tell me that you have a case that might indicate that this is _ _ _ 128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not a clerical error, but it is an error in an understanding of what the contract was between these parties. Under that circumstance, can they submit to your client what they thought the contract was even if they know that your client won't sign? MR. STAPKE: No, 4107 (a)1 provides that the subcontractor after having had a reasonable opportunity to sign a subcontract fails to do so. You don't have that here. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: The contract, that's what troubles me in this whole case. The contract according to the terms of the written bid -- which I think obviously you can argue the terms of the written bid defines a scope, but I think it is also clear it wasn't understood that way by the prime. MR. STAPKE: No, indeed, but was Savala in this case given a reasonable opportunity to sign a subcontract to track the written bid? No, he wasn't because the scope of the work in the bid was simply not the same as the scope of the work in the contract, He didn't refuse to do the extra work. He just priced it according to the extra work provisions in the contract that Bernards foresaw. There is no refusal to sign a contract. There is no untowards delay. Two days later the contract was back to them, and two days later the 129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 z2 23 24 25 agency got the letter as it had when the contract was sent out to Savala to begin with giving advance notice that they had a plan to get Savala out by resort to this code. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Or to have Savala do the work -- probably might have even accepted him for $818,000. I bet they would have. In other words, I I don't think it mattered according to the testimony I heard to eernards as a matter of who could do the merits of the work, whether Chino or Savala, did the work. I think they would happily have accepted Savala and solved his problem and faced whatever consequence they would have had with Chino had Savala agreed to do the full scope even for the $818,000. I rather imagine that would have been the outcome. Your explanation of this is that the first phrase before the word "or" would apply to an oral bid, although I don't quite understand -- the second phrase would apply to a written bid because the terms of the written bid -- why can't you understand the terms of the oral bid as well as the terms of the written bid? MR. STAPKE: I think in looking at the cases over the years that there is a suspicion by the court that under circumstances such as this an oral bid is subject to misinterpretation. In the case of a written bid, you 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s 9 to 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 don't have quite the same degree of potential misinterpretation. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Do you agree -- I hate the word "concede." I don't think lawyers ever concede anything, but do yogi agree that the basis for the entry of Savala on that bid form was with the understanding they were doing the same scope of work that was submitted by Chino, that that's what Bernards understood, that there is no other reason? Why in the world would anybody do otherwise when they had a bid from Chino for the same price for a lot more work. MR. STAPKE: To respond directly, I don't know. We know the plumber had the gas. We know the plumber had bid alternatives. We don't have a spreadsheet to tell us. What we do know is Savala was listed notwithstanding Chino's apparently far superior bid, so I don't know if it is simply an inadvertent mistake frankly. I don't know that they have shown to us that the plumbing was not included within the plumber's scope of work. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Well, we have Chino's bid on the record here, and we know that it covers that other segment in the same range as your client's bid which doesn't, which all the testimony indicates is a $200,000 to $225,000 spread. 131 1 2 3 a 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 le 19 20 21 22 23 za 25 MR. STAPRE: We also know that the plumber had an alternative to do the site water. HEARING OFFICER MARRMAN: Right. Nobody showed us what the plumber did. MR. STAPRE: Right. That's not our burden to do. HEARING OFFICER MARRMAN: No, it is not. MR. STAPRE: Under the circumstances, I think that both 4107(a)1 and -- frankly, as far as I am concerned, this is primarily a -- an inadvertence case that has been transmogrified, if you will, into a 4107(a)1 failure to sign a contract claim simply to get around -- HEARING OFFICER MARRMAN: Was your client prejudiced by the fact that this didn't come to light within two days after the bid opening aside from the payment of the legal fees we are all enjoying here? MR. STAPRE: Well, and an estimator and a principal and delay of the job. As far as we are concerned, the site utilities people are going to be one of the first people in. I think certainly under the ordering of the pipe for the project, which is one of the things that got this thing going in the first place, he may well be prejudiced based on the failure to be able to competively bid the pipe. i know that the pricing on the pipe is something that they would have done a month and a half ago, nct tomorrow or next week 1Jl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 or on the 15th. Under the circumstances, I think -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Your client might have gone and committed to some other job, for example -- that could have been easily demonstrated here -- that was less profitable. Your client could have done a whole lot of things in today's business climate by reacting -- or passed up other business opportunities because of a commitment to this job that your client understood to exist. We don't have any evidence of any of that, that that happened. We don't know that Savala passed up something that they could have committed to or would have committed to otherwise which would be -- if the issue of prejudice is an issue. MR. STAPKE: Well, I think you understand our position on that. I think also we briefed the cases cited by Mr. Gropman on the issue of prejudice. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Anything you want to add to this? MR. STAPKE: I think We have covered it. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: A last word for the party with the burden of proof. MR. GROPMAN: Just briefly, Mr. Stapke cited the Coast Pump case in support of his position, but what he didn't know is that in the Coast Pump case, the general contractor admitted that he had engaged in bid 133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 17 la 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 shopping. His argument was that you could bid shop before the unsealing of bids but not afterwards, so I don't think Coast Pump is a good case to rely upon. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Can't you shop like the devil before you submit the bid? Is it before you submit the bid or before the opening of the bid? MR. GROPMAN: On page 424 of the Coast Pump case which is 62 Ca1.F 3421 the court says as follows: "Respondent," which is the general contractor, "chooses to assert that it engaged in a practice known as bid shopping." It then argues that bid shopping does not violate tha Fair Practices Act unless it occurs after the award of the prima contract." I won't read the entire page to you, but apparently the court felt that you can't bid shop at all. It's not enough to say I bid shopped, but I didn't do it before -- didn't do it after the unsealing of bids. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Doesn't your client always pound subcontractors to get the best possible price? MR. GROPMAN: On private jobs. That's typical because -- HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Not even on a public job? MR. GROPMAN: Generally, there is no opportunity 134 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 la 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 because subcontractors cleverly wait until the last minute to either fax or telephone in their bids, so subcontractors through their own practices have eliminated the ability of general contractor to bid shop on public jobs, and there was no bid shopping either before or after by Bernards Bros. Let me read that quote again because, as Mr. Bernards pointed out, I misread it. "Respondent chooses to assert that it engaged in a practice known as bid shopping. It then argues that bid shopping does not Violate the Fair Practices Act unless it Occurs after the award of the prime contract," so we are talking now about the period between the unsealing of bids and the awarding of the contract, but I donut think that Coast Pump is an authority to support Savala~s position on these issues. I harp again on the equities here and on the fairness to both Bernard Bros. and Chino who is the legitimate low-bidding subcontractor. Savala has very little prejudice. They simply don't get the job. There would be real prejudice to Savala if based upon their bid they were required and compelled to do the work for $798,000 including the site work. We are not asking you as the hearing off icar to compel that result. We are simply saying let Savala qo on its 135 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 way. Let Bernards Bros. go on its way. There was a clear misunderstanding of the mind by the two parties. We are simply asking that the awarding authority allow the legitimate low-bidding site utilities subcontractor to get the work, and that was the whole purpose and is the whole purpose of the act which brings us here today. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: There is a unilateral error here. I mean, they understood what they were bidding on. MR. GROPMAN: Savala. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Savala understood that -- I don't see where they were in error at all. I don't feel there was enough testimony to indicate that they had to call up and say, please notice we are not doing either the plumbing or the gas -- Z mean, we are not doing the gas or the site water work in this bid. MR. GROPMAN: Although, they felt it was necessary to tell that to two of the seven contractors. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: I understand, but i also understand from Mr. Bernards' testimony that they can get different bits and pieces of this bid by different subs under different circumstances on every job, and you don't know how much the plumber might do or how much the site utility guy might do. They just made an error. They thought the bid was equivalent to Chino's but just 176 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 1a 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 got a little bit under, so they wrote them in. MR. GROPMAN: And on that, I have nothing further -- nothing further to add. Thank you. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Thank you, everybody. Here is what we are going to try to do. i am going to try to get the transcript Monday or Tuesday, and the reason why I want to get this to the city council for some decision on the 15th is because grading is going on, and someone has to know who the sub -- who we think the sub is going to be anyway as fast as possible, so in order for me to do this, I am going to have to get something out towards Thursday of next week, and it will go out to the city council at the same time with the transcript. On the record, unless I get a request from either one of you, I am not going to send you new copies of your own exhibits or any exhibits that came in here, if that is okay. MR. STAPKE: That is not necessary. I would like to make arrangements to get a copy of the transcript. HEARING OFFICER MARKMAN: Okay. You can get the transcript at the same time I do, if you wish. Make your own arrangements. I will send out what I propose the city council's action to be to both counsel. I will fax and mail it the minute it goes out to the City, and 177 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 27 24 25 then on the 15th you can reargue whatever you say in there to the city council. (End of proceedings.) 1J8 REPORTER'S CHRTIPICATH I , ~~~ ~~jri2 ~ ( ~i~/~ , a -- ~i 7r Shorthand Reporter, do hereby certify that the foregoing proceeding was written by me in Stenotypy, and transcribed into typewriting and that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of my shorthand notes thereof. Dated: JAN -71992 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALI FOANIA PUBLIC HEARING Date and Time: Wetlneetlay, January 15, 1992 Place: Civic Center, Council Chambers 10500 Civic Centet Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 APPEARANCES CITY OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY DENNZS L. STOUT. CHAIRMAN WILLIAM J. ALEXANDER. AGENCYMEMBER CHARLES BUQUETr AGENCYMEMBER DIANE WILLIAMSr AGENCYMEMBEA PAMELA J. WRIGHTr AGENCYMEHEEA JACX LANr EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR JAH85 L. MARRMANr LEGAL COUNCIL DEBRA J. ADAMSr AESI STANT SECRETARY - 1 - Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 15, 1992 Tranac ript of Item D1 Bernardo Hrothere RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA •v• CHA IAMAN STOUT: Item 1, ConsideYat ion of eubBt itution of Chino Engineering for Savala Construction as a aubcortractor for Bite utility work at Rancho Cucamonga Sports Complex/Animal Care Facility and Aeaoluiion Number RA 92- 002. MR. LAM: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Markman our Agency counsel will handle this item. MA. MAREMAN: Thank you. Mr. Chairman and memhers of the Agency, you will recall that, I think at the last meeting or one meeting before that, you did adopt a resolution that eetabliehed a procedure, and the reason for establishing the procedure was to deal with a request by Bernardo Brothers which Ls your prime contractor on the Sports Complex project. eernarde have requested, based on two alleged grounds, that Chino Engineering be substituted ae a subcontractor Eor Savala Construction. So you did adopt a reaolut ion establishing a procedure wnich required my office to conduct an evidentiary hearing as required by law, to have that tzanecribed to take in exhibits, and then to supply to you a proposed set of findings of fact and dieposit ion on the request together with the entire administrator of record. All of that hoe occurred with respect to this aubetitut ion request and I have advised repreeentat ivee of both Savala and Bernardo that they would have an opportunity to, after they saw my proposed decision in the form of reeo lut ion, to address the Council and I did supply that proposed decision to Council for hoth of those parties at the same time I sent it to the City Clerk eo they've nod it for at least some few hueineea days just ae you've had it. This entire matter, and I don't think there's a whole lot of dispute on the facts, revolves around an admitted error on [be pert of one of Bernards' employees during the bid process, during probably the la et twenty minutes or forty mrnutea of the bid process. Site utility works on the Bite include several things. It Inc Ludes gee, water, sewers and storm drains. As the end of the bidding period grew near there was a bid submitted by Chino Engineering for three of those portions, no[ the gee. But the water, storm drain and sewer work. Bid - 2 - Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 15, 1992 Transcript of Item D1 Bernardo Brothers was in the amount, I believe, of $818,000.00. That was submitted for all three for that scope of work Dy Chino. After that, a Did came in from Savala in the amount of $798,000.00 which covered only the sewer and storm drain work, did not cover the water work. Tho representative of Bernardo made en error, looked at the bottom line thought that the scope of work in that bid was the came ae the scope of work in the Chino bid and wrote some eeeent Tally, caused Bavala to be written in on our bid form ae a subcontractor. Savala clearly intended what they intended and that was to only do the sewer and storm drain work for that amount, end I don't think that there's any, certainly no evidence ocher than that Bernardo' representatives thought they were getting the same scope of work, and that the water was included, same scope of work es Chino. So they wrote in Savala thinking they had a bid for all three of those items for $798,000.00. Bernardo was not the apparent low bidder. So some weeks passed and ShiYley Brothers, which was the apparent low bidder, was found to be nonreeponeive. They agreed they were nonresponsive, they withdrew. Staff recommended you award the Bernarda as the law bidder. Bernardo was awardetl the contract some days after the bitl was open and then some, or a week or eo after that, through reaeone stated in the findings of Eact that I put before you and apparent on the record, they discovered the error I just described and after trying to negotiate with Savala to solve Che problem unsucceeefully they made request for eubatitut ion for saber ituting Chino. The Redevelopment Agency Board has the unenviable task oP having to consent to each a saber itution if one ie to be made under the law. This Se to prevent what we call bid shopping. That is, contractors who write in certain subs and then after the bid ie awarded go around, find other subs that will do the work for cheaper or play one against the other, and come up with a lower price maximizing their profit. Doesn't lower the price on the prime bid and the leg ie lature feels that that causes poorer work to be dune on public projects and it's a practice to be discouraged, Having said that, there are, however, the statute ie very technical and it only allows au bet ttut lone for very specific reaeone, and in some cases within certain very apecif led time frames. Two reaeone submitted here for the saber itut ion, the alleged reaeone for the - 3 Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 15, 1992 Transcript of Item D1 Bernardo Brothers aubat itution: one, we made an inadvertent clerical error because we didn't understand the scope of the bid by Savala. We goofed and we ought to be able not to be trapped by that mistake. I have presented a resolution that although it finds that it was in error, and it was an inadvertent error, that under the statute they didn't give people notice. Bernards did not notice that defect or that error quickly enough. Statute gives them two days. Mr. Jeff eernarde testified that when he thinks he may De the low bidder he checks all hie bid documents and he makes these corrections within two days. Sometimes even if he's not the apparent ]nw Dtdder. Here, admittedly, he did not do that. He didn't do it within the two days after the bid opening. He didn't do it within two days after he Found out he was going Co be awarded the Did. Didn't do it within the two days after you ewardetl him the bid and in fact didn't do it until after he spent about a week trying to persuade Savala that they shoo ld solve the problem some otheY way. So for that reason, and Decauae of technical nature of the statute, I have suggested in this resolution that you do not consent on that ground because the time frame had passetl and this la not withstanding the fact that there was no testimony ae to how Savala was prejudice by the fact that it took longer for them to assert that, and I know that counsel for Hernards does not agree with me on that. Nevertheless that's what we have suggested. on the other hand, the second ground offered by eernarde for a subs[ trot ion was the fact that they tendered a contract to Savala which accurately represented what they thought they were doing. What contract they thought they were offering to Savala when at the time they wrote Savala Sn ae a site utility contractor. That ie they thought that for $79H,OOD.00 they were going to get the sewers, storm drain and water work. Even though that was in error, that's clearly what they thought as far as I'm concerned after hearing the testimony. They tendered that contract and the contract was not executed, It was returned chanq ed so that the water work would be performed On a time and material bee is which according to all Che teat imony means that because of this clerical error, or this error, that Bernards would be out somewhere on the order of 5200,000,00 to $225,000.00. Co inq with Savala rather than being able to sober itute chino, we struggle with this, we suggest that you consent in this _ q Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 15, 1992 Transcript of Item D1 Bernardo Brothers reeolut ion, that you consent to this eubetitution because of Savala not signing the tendered contract even though we understand it wasn't what Havala intended, it clearly was what Hernarda intended during the bid process and when they wrote Savala'e name onto our bid form. We were trying desperately here and still are to do equity in this process. We don't think this was a bid shopping situation or situ at ion intended by the legislature not to allow a eubetitution, on Che other hand it's very difficult to go either Way in this case. It •e diffieu It to suggest this to you because the statute is ambiguous it's unclear and it is very, very technical as to the process you find yourself in. So I think that orally that someone explains my thinking, you've all have the whole administrator of record. You have over 25 findings twat we suggest that can De made and a proposetl diepos it ion that in essence holds for Savala on the one hand, on one ground, Dut allows in consensus the substitution on the other ground, and I have, ae I said before, indicated to counsel for both parties th¢y woultl have an epporCUnity to speak to the Agency Board tonight, and if you want to hear from them, staff will continue to recommend you adopt Lhe raeolution ae presented, and i do see counsel for both aides in attendance, and Mr. Savala and others. CHAIRMAN BTOOT: Does anyone in the Council have any further 4u eat ions of Mr. Markman at this time? Alright, at this time I would entertain arguments from parties representing Savala, since apparently the proposed ruling ie age in et them. MR. BTARttB: Mz. chairman, members of the Agency and members of the Hoard. Hy name's Mark Stapke. T'm a lawyer with the firm of Thorpe and Thorpe. We're representing Savala Construction Company Sn this case. Mr. Harkman accurately eummar tree the course of the hearing that we had some 30 tlaye ego now. The critical issue, I think, that Hoard needs to focus on is the legislature hoe eons idered and addressed and set forth the very specific, ae counsel Lndicatee, procedure through which a general contractor ouch as Hernarda can avoid the conaeyuencee of a clerical error, Which by all accounts occurred in this tees. They, by all account e, waited until they had the prime contract signed, th!e insurance cart if lcate posted, and the Redevelopment Agency committed to ue ing them and only them before we hear any conve[eation et all shout c1erLCa1 errote 5 Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 15, 1992 Transcript of Item D1 eernards Brothers or mistake with eubcontractora. I submit io you, ladies and gentlemen, that under the circumetancee here you have a choice, and the choice will speak not only to the development of the Sports Complex but to any other public work this Agency propo sea Lo do. The choice is one of sending a message to your contractors. Thcy're going to follow the ru lee. They're going to follow the rules that the et ate and this Board set forth and they're going to follow them explicitly, and if they don't, they do so at their own peril. Here eernarde had the chance to comply with the rule e, to do what they, the legislature, said they should do, which ie to give notice of a mistake. To promptly Eind their mistake and rectify it and give you and give the other contractors on the bid liar the opportunity to deal with that problem. what they did, instead though, was to take advantage of their ee lect ion, sign Lhe contract and then, and only then, attempt to deal with what they tell ua they realized late was a clerical error, but what the legie Lature soya they cannot do, which ie to substitute a subcontractor late. You've got also a choice here between telling a contractor that they'll fallow the rules sometimes when it's a big general against a minority sub, or some other time that the general contractor might want to follow the ru lee. Here you can say to the contractor that they have to follow the ru lea. That they need not decide and choose whether or not this aubcont tact or bears their wrath, not withstanding the ru le a, and this other one tloeen't, and they will follow the procedures with that one. what we have here ie a eituetlon that implores you to deny the sober itut ion. It will have no financial impact to the public agency involved. You will get a subcontractor that's been In business since 1951, specializing in Bite utilities work since 1965, who's president Se a leader in the site utilities community. He was president of that section of the AGC for 2 years running, and an entity that hoe been in business for a very long time and doing very good work. Here Bernards says they want to use a cheaper sub, one that it found and one that would be somehow better for it. There's no ehowln9 that would be better for you. eut we know that the legislature's already se id the late attempt to eubetitute would not be in accordance with leglelature'e intent. - 6 Redevelopnent Ageney Heeting January 15, 1992 Transcript of Item D1 Bernardo Brothers At the hearing on January 3 wa heard from the people that were involved on Savala's end. There's no question we, they were there, they teat ifietl, they put themselves up for croae examination, Lhey weathered it well. on Bernardo' aide we got no employee that participated in the bidding process other than the prey ident of the contracting company. All we got from them were declarations that could not 6e croae examined, and thus we submit Yo you that the errors that were apparent on those declarations were comet king that you don't know much about. We do know though that by all accounts and by all admissions the requeai for substitution was late. Bernardo then, by their own account, of Eared, and by Mr. Bernezde' own testimony, another plan. Away Lo get around the fact that they didn't comply with the law. They didn't follow Che rules. They said well we will adtl in something that we know was not inclutletl on the scope of work we saw accepted and listed. We'll send them a contract we know they won't sign and then we'll take advantage of another provie ion of the listing law which says that if the subcontractor, after having had a reaeona6le opportunity to do eo, refuses to sign a subcontract, then that subcontractor can be substituted out. Here the subcontract that was sent did not exclude any work that wan bid on our bid. The work that was starred in asterisks on the contract that was sent was the water work not included in the scope of work, not included within the bid, not included with Mr. Bavala'e contemplaCion, and it was ea id ae Mr. Markman card, that that work would be done by Sava la the listed sub on a time and material basis. Now when I submit to you when Mr. Bernardo made the decie ion to watt to get the contract signed, to get this Agency committed to using him ae your general contractor, he accepted the rink in the event that this Agency deemed it unwilling. Deemed itself unwilling. To go against the law, to go against th0 subcontractor and liar ing law and refuse su betit cation, and that Se the risk he accepted when he undertook that course cf conduct and thaY.'s the risk Shat I a ubmit to you that he should bear today. Tn the search for equity you have to look to the purpcee of the et atute and the benefit that it derives. In this toes you have a eubcontractoz, Sava la Construction, that represents the cr6am of the Bite util it lee business in this county. That hoe proposed to be eubet ltutad out _ ~ _ Redevelopment Agency Heeting January 15, 1992 Transcript of Item D1 Bernardo Brothers late. You have a public agency that gate a new contractor. Again, in violation of the law. Who's to benef itT The only person who's going to benetlt ie Bernardo Brothers, the prime contractor because they'll be a61e to make another $200,00.00 in profit on a 16.9 million dollar joA. Bubitchia that under the circumetancee this is not the intent of the subcontractor list in9 law end not the intent of the legislature when it set forth the very explicit rules that it has. The point of section 4107, which says that a subcontractor that refuaea to sign a eubcontract, will, can be substituted. It's just that for a subcontractor who unreasonably refuaea to do what it bid to do. Here you don't have that, Here you have a subcontractor, by all account e, that has agreed and signed a contract and ie willing to qo forward on wor% that it bld io do. You don't have a situation where they're adding something. You don't have a situation where they're doing something they didn't bid to do. Tha only way you can judge whac is reasonable Se io look at what the subcontractor bid to do, whet the general contractor accepted, which was the scope of work deleting water and look to whether or not it ie reasonable for the general contractor than to add on something entirely different. Here if Savala would have bid to do a storm sewer and a sanitary sewer, and only those thing e, and Bernardo would have sent to them a contract [hat included the roofing, it would pe obvious to us, it would 6e obvioua to everyone in this roam, that would not be a reasonable opportunity to sign a eubcontract. In fact it would be a pretty patent attempt to use ihaC provision of the law for a purpose for which it was not intended. Specifically, to get around the time raga irementa of the listing law and to allow a substitution on a clerical error basic when there really isn`C a baste under the other pzov ie ion of the statute. Bubitchia that you can go a long way tonight to tell the trades that will be working for this Board, who will be working for the City, and 6e working in this county by refusing the eubst itution. You can take a step forward Eor affirmative action antl tell thle general contractor that it can't use the provisions of the few, it can't Lgnore the provisions of the law for this minority subcontractor, and follow Chem et other times, and whatever risk or whatever coat it may incur ae a result of that _ g _ Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 15, 1992 Ttan acr ipt of Item D1 Bernardo Brot here are its own reeponeibility and its own fault because of its own conduct. That's the equitable course. Thank you. CHAIRNAN STOUT: Thank you. Aepre sent at ive for Bernardo. MR. GAOPMAIi: Thank you. My name is Ted Gropman and I represent Bernardo Brothers Incorporated. The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act underatanda, and the legislator understood, that there ate instances where a general contractor inadvertently makes a mistake in filling out a bid form that Se submitted to a public authority each ae the Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency, and that is what happened here. Bernardo Brothers Incorporated, the general contractor, made an innocent error in listing Savala, aeaumtng that Savala was the law bitlding contractor. It was not for the site utilities work and Chino Engineering woe, and Lt ie based upon that innocent inadvertent clerical error that Bernardo Btothera Incorporatetl Bought the right to eubetitute Savala with Chino Engineering who was the true low bidder, end there are two vict ima if the recommentlat ion ie not followed by this Council. Number one, Bernardo Brothers will suffer $22$,000.00 lose. They won't make extra profit. They will Gake a lose of approximately 5225,000.00 because of their innocent error, and number two, you have Chino Engineering, who was the true low bidder, who will go without this job, and I submit that the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act was there to guard not just the Lnte re si of the general contractor, who hoe the right to seek sabot it ution, but also the legitimate low bidding subcontractor, who in this case was Chino Engineering, and based upon the statutory provisions, we did seek the right to eubetitute, and the hearing off leer did find, after listening to all of the evidence and the argument, that Bernartla Brothers was entitled to the substitution now being Bought and we again urge the Council to follow the recommendation. Thank you. CHAIRMAN STOUT: Thank ycu Mr, Gropman. That closes concluding arguments. Ie there any Council, excuse me, Redevelopment Agency dlecuselon7 MS. WAIGHT: Can I ask Mr. Markman a question of clarification once again, ju et to make sure I understood it correct ly7 Mr. Markman did you say that there was a two day time limit in this statute for noting errore7 9 Retlevelopment Agency Meeting January 15, 1992 Tranecripi of Item D1 Bernarde Brothers MR. MAREMAH: Yee, on one of <he, lRie ie of course, this ie been debated eo let me explain that part of the decie ion agrees with Savala•e poe it ion. There was a clerical error made and I think everybody conceded Chat. The statute prow idea that you have two days to notify the agency, in this case, and Savala, the contractor you listed. Now you intend to sober irate because there's a clerical error, and I Rave read the eases particularly submitted by Mr. SCapke, and I really think this ie a clerical error. I think the one case he cited threw a little cloud on that, but I think this ie that type aE error. Mr. Gropman argued, ae is apparent all over the record of the heating, that the two days is something this board or court could wave off. That yea, it's there for a purpose, ie [o stop bid shopping. Bid shopping is you get bid A, and after you get it you get the contract, and you go out and try to beat the price and the city or the Agency ends up with the poorer work, poorer workmanship on the job. Everybody concedes Ghat didn't t:appen here. It did not happen here. The Chino bid actuelly was received first. However, Mr. Gropman argued, and I didn't agree with him, although I admit there is some agony into this der ie ion, that the Savala witnesses did not show Mr. Savala'e company was prejudice by the passage of more time than two tlays. They never testified that he passed up another jobr that he ocderetl pipe for this job that he can't use, there was no spec if is evidence of prejudice. So Mr. Gropman argued without that prejudice why adhere to this technical two day period. Everybody admits it's an error, why not allow the aubat itut ionY What persuaded me not to agree with him was Mr. Bernarde' teat imony that if he thinks he might be the low bidder, ha checks for all thia sort of thing and all these sorts of error e, end tries to coerect them within two days. Here, because his bid and Shirley's weren't that far oEE and he didn't know Sh irley's bid was uneespons ive, he didn't bother to do i<, and so I kind of agree, obviously I more than kind of agree, I agree with Mr. Stapke in thle case that you tlon't want to send a message that if ehere'e a two day period, that our prime bidders ought to check their documents. This error was discovered when Chino dieroveted that they weren't lie<ed in the trade paper ae the low bidder and Bernarde discovered this error because Chino called them and said what - 10 - Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 15, 1992 Transcript of Item D1 Bernartle BrolRera happened, and they went back and looked and ea id whoops, the scope of work for Savala doesn't include the water and that started the process. On the other hand, the other issue ie equally tough and counsel will both concede there's no case on either point. Right squarely on poinl. 4107, Lhe first ground ie you to enter a contract and it's unsigned. There wasn't any direct legal authority offered for tha proposition that ae to what that means specifically ae to which contract ie tendered. There's no doubt that Bernardo tendered the contract that they thought they had with Savala when they Meted Savala. It's also true that that contract ie not what Savala intended, and for that reason Decau ae of the, there isn't any clear authority on which contract needs to he tendered. It says a contract in accordance with the terms and provisions of the epeciflcatione or a written bid. This bid was partially oral and partially written. TRe testimony shows tRat a blank bid sheet was faxed from Savala to Bernardo and then the actual prices were called in by telephone. There was a mieunderetanding on the scope of the work. My feeling ie that Lf you tendered the contract that you thought you had when you listed a eubcantractor, antl that's the honest error and you're not bid shopping the matter, that that provision may be applied in this instance to allow the eubetitution. I have a problem Pinding equity when there's an error, everybody admits it's an error, nobody Se wearing a 67ack hat, and one party ie going to suffer a 5225,000.00 lose or lase prof Lt. Less profit is a lose. Lose ie a lose, and tRe other party did not come in with any testimony of any specific prejudice if they're not allowed to go forward. So both of these are tough issues. IC could be I'm wrong on both of them in recommending the way I am to you, but and I thought both counsel did a lot of excellent lawyering all through this process, from the time the dispute started right up till tonight. But having listened again tonLght I et ill recommend you adapt the resolution. CHAIRMAN STOUT: Thank you. Any other queetionel MS. WRIOHT: No, thank you. - 11 - Redevelopment Agency Meeting January 15, 1992 TYaneCript of Item D3 Bernardo Drot here CHAIRMAN STOUT: Alright, there's a reeolut ion before the Redevelopment Agency which edopte the findings and recommendations of the hearing officer and City Attorney. Ie there anyone that would care to render a motion on that resolution? HR. ALEXANDER: Yea, I'll make the motion. CHAIANAN STOUT: IG •s been moved by a membeY AlexsndeY to adop[ Resolution Number AA 92-002. Ie there a eecond2 MS. WAIGHT: Second CHAIRMAN STOUT: By Wright. Indicate your votes please. ASSISTANT SECRETARY: Hot ion catr ied unanimously, five, zero. - 12 - ~, ~.r QT'1' dF ~ RA?~Q~O C,lX'ARgONGA 0 o CITY COUNCIL F ~ Z ~i~I~ v > tsn Spgcial Meeting January 25r 1992 - 9:00 s.m. c lert Helen North(Verdemo¢t Sheriff sac ilit lee A call t Orde .. Pledge of Allegiance 2. Aoll Call City Council: euquet _, Alexander _, Stout _, Nill isms _, Wright e It t D' a ion .. Team building zetreat. C. Adiour¢aa¢t MEET IN6 TO ADJOVAN TO NEDNEHOAY, JANVAAY 29, 1992, 7:00 P.M., FOA A JOINT NSETINO WSTH TSH PLANNING CWWI86LON, TO 86 HELD IN TBH RAINR CONlBNSNCS ROOM TACATSD AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, AANCHO CUCANONOA, CAYIloRNIA. I, Debra J. Adana, City CLrk of tDe City of Rmcho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, aecur-ta Copp of tDa foregoing agwda wan posted oe January 24, 1992 et 10500 Civic Center Drive, Ra¢cho Cucamooga, Calitor¢i-- ~ ~vcA,tio'~c ~ GTY OF ~ ~ RANCHO G11C'AMO~K',A ~' CITY COUNCIL Y AGE~ti'I~ 1977 Adjoucned Jo" t M t'rt City Council and Planning Commiae ion January 29, 1942 - 7:00 p.m. Rains Room (Plaza Level} 10500 Civic Center Dzive Rancho Cucamonga, California A. Call t Order ,. Pledge of Allegiance %.. Ro 11 Ca11 City Council: Buquet _, Alexander _, Stout _, Williams _, Wright Ro11 Ca 11 Planning Commise ion: Chit iea `, HcMiel ^, Melcher `, Toletoy _, Valletta S. Joist It ma f D' a=on .. City policy vie-a-vie housing mix antl houe ing quality. 2. Comm ise ion eeeponeibiity, City projects. 7. Aoute 30. r. Status of Aeg ional Mall. 5. oiacuss ion of items of mutual interest. C C mmu 1 boos fr m th publ' This is the time and pines for the general public to addree• the City Couneil end the Pleasing Commission. State law prohibits the Council and Commiesian from addressing any iatue net previously included on tDe Agenda. The Council and Commission may receive testimony mnd te! the matbr for a subsequent meeting. Comments ere to be limited to five minaret per individual. 0. Adiournment i, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamooga, Dereby certify chat a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agendm was posted on Jaauary 14, 1992, seventy-two (7Z) hours prior to tDe meeting par Oovermemt code 54953 ai 10500 Civic Cenbr Drive, Aancho Cucnmonga, California. Ufl'Y UN' itANUHU CUCAMUN(iA STAFF REPORT r; DATE: January 29, 1992 T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Nilliam J. O'Neil, City Engineer DY: Sigmund M. Dellhime, Management Analyst II SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE FILING OF AN APPLICATION FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM FOR GRANT ASSISTANCE; CERTIFY THAT THE APPLICATION NiLL MAKE ADEQUATE PROVISIONS FOR OPEMTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE PROJECT; AND APPOINT THE CITY ENGINEER TD CONDUCT ALL NEGOTIATIONS AND SUBMIT ALL DOCUMENTS NHICH AY 8E NECESSARY FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT ''~CONMEMDATION It 1s hereby recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the filing of an application for the Envlromaental Enhancement and Mitigation Program for grant assistance; certifying that the application will make adequate provisions for operation and maintenance of the protect; and appointing the City Engineer to conduct all negotiations and submit all documents which mary be necessary for the completion of the protect. BACKGROUND/ANALTSIS Proposition 111 as enacted by the voters established a f10 million annual fund (fer a period of ten years) for environmental enhancement and mitigation protects. Funding 1s to be spilt on a 60/40 basis with Southern California re~eiving the lar88er allocation. The maximum grant to any one turisdiction 15 caFeed at f500,000. ~e deadline for the submittal of grant applications is January 31, 1992. The Ci'y did not receive the application packet and guidelines from the State until a few weeks ago. Given the short filing period, staff was unable to present the attached resolution to the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting. Protects eligible far funding must demonstrate their ability to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts associated with the construction or expansion of a transportation fac'11ty (e.g., a street). The protects must also demonstrate readiness ('i.e., 1s the related transportation protect complete, under cnnstr~.~tlon, or to be shortly under construction), they must be suitable io the locale, and they must be sustalnabie. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPONI GRANT FUNDS January 29, 1992 Page 2 Staff has conducted reviews of several potential project sites and assessed their ability to meet eligibility requirements as set forth by the grant guidel toes. Based upon this review, Staff 1s recommending the construction of landscaping along the east side parkway of Rochester Avenue and the adjoining Fl ood control slope easement from Victoria Park Lane to Highland Avenue as the City's project. This 1s a project area where, without the Proposition 111 grant, landscape Improvements would not be constructed for many years to came. The project will be designed to meet landscaping requirements necessary for its annexation into Landscape Maintenance district /2, provide mitigation against wind and blow sand and provide an aesthetic screening of the Day Creek Retention Basin. Respectfully su ed, ~L~~ N1111am J. 0'Ne City Engineer NJO:SD:dlw Attachment RESOLUTION N0. ~ Z-p ~~ A RESOLUTION ~ THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM UNDER THE SECTION 164.56 OF THE STREETS ANO HIGHNAYS CODE 1989 FOR THE ROCHESTER AVENUE - RANCHO CUCAMONGA HIGH SCHOOL MITIGATION PROGRAM NHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted A8 471 (Chapter 106 of the Statutes of 1989), which provides S10 million annually for a period of 10 years for grant funds to local, state and federal agencies and nonprofit entities for protects to enhance and mitigate the environmental impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities; and NHEREAS, the Resources Agency has established the procedures and criteria for reviewing grant Droposals and 1s required to submit to the California Transportation Commission a 71st of recommended protects from which the grant recipients will be selected; and NHEREAS, sa/d procedures and criteria established 6y the Resources Agency require the aDPllcant to certify by resolution the approval of appllcatlon before submission of said appllcatlon to the State; and WHEREAS, the application contains assurances that the applicant contains assurances that the applicant must comply with; and NHEREAS, the applicant, 1f selected, will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out the envirommental enhancement and mitigation protect; NON, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, DOES HEREBY RESOLVE as follows: Section 1.Approve the filing of an application for the Environment-aT-En a~ement and Mitigation Program for grant assistance. Section 2. Certifies that said applicant will make adequate provisions o-f r o-lion and maintenance of the protect. Section 3. Appoints N1111am Joseph O'Neil, City Engineer, to conduct all negot atl-ions, execute and submit ail documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, pAyment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned protect. ~ o-i ~\ J