The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1992/08/05 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETLNGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. August 5, 1992 Civic Center Council Chambers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 asr City Councilmembers Dennis L. Stout, Mayor William J. Alexander, Councilmember Charles J. Buquet, Councilmember Diane Williams, Councilmember Pamela J. Wright, Councilmember wst Jack Iam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 989 -1851 0 City Council Agenda PAGE August 5, 1992 1 All items submitted for the City Council Agenda must be In writing. The deadline for submitting these Items is 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such Items. A. CALL TO ORDER 1. Roll Coll: Buquet_, Aiexander_.Stout_, W k ms _, and Wright B ANNOUNCEMENTS /PRESENTATIONS 1. Presentation of Proclamation to Jim Hart for his service to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 2. Presentation of Award for Excellence M Financial Reporting, G COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any Issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar Items are expected to be routine and noncontroversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any Item may be removed by a Councitmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 7/15/92 (FY 91/92), 7/15/92 (FY 1 92/93). 7/22/92 (FY 91/92), and 7/22/92 (FY 92/93); and Payroll ending 7/2/92 and 7/16/92 for the total amount of $2,960,870.35. 2. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of 13 June 30, 1992. 0 City Council Agenda PAGE August 5, 1992 2 3. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On Sole Beer & Wine Eating 17 Place for El Dorado, Adele Cardenas, Alejandro de Leon and Vella de Leon, 10734 Foothill Boulevard. 4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off Sole General for Sunrize 29 Liquor, James V. Clarke, Margo Quinn and Laurence W. Stephens, 8679 Base Line Road, 5, Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off Sole General for Sunrize 21 Liquor. Loxmi Investment Corporation, 8679 Base Line Road. 6. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off Sale General for Perry's 23 Rancho Market, Forrest L. and Lillionne Perry, 9477 Foothill Boulevard, 7. Approval to Destroy City Records and Documents which are no 25 longer required as provided under Government Code Section 34070. RESOLUTION NO. 92 -218 26 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF CITY RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 340;D 8. Approval of Appointment to fill vacancy on the Rancho 37 Cucamonga Community Foundation Board of Directors. 9. Approval to execute agreements with California Youth Soccer 38 Association (CO 92 -0451, Alta Loma Little League (CO 92 -046), Rancho Cucamonga Softball aka Miss Softball (CO 92 -047), Rancho Cucamonga Womens Soccer League (CO 92 -048) Rancho Little League (CO 92-049), Rancho Cucamonga Spirits (CO 92-050), American Youth Soccer Organization - Region 65 (CO 92- 051), Deer Canyon Little League (CO 92 -052), A.C.E. Youth Softball (CO 92 -053), and Vineyard Little League (CO 92 -054) for use of athletic fields and facilities. 10. Approval to execute Use Agreement (CO 92 -055) between the 43 City and the Etiwonda School District to conduct Recreation Classes at Windrows Elementary School. 11. Approval to execute Memorandum of Understanding (CO 92.056) 46 for Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A,R.E.) for Fiscal Year 1992/93. 0 City Council Agenda PAGE August 5, 1992 3 12. Approval to execute annual contract amendment (CO 90 -082) for 48 the CAL -ID System, 13. Approval to execute on Extension of the Agreement (CO 89 -136) 49 for the Haven Median Islands and Son Bernardino County Flood Control Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Contract with Mariposo Horticultural Enterprises, Incorporated, of South El Monte. California, in the amount of $168,845.43 to be Funded by: General Fund. 01- 4647 -6028 ($32,550.16); San Bernardino County Reimbursement Fund 08- 4647 -6028 ($42,211.08); Landscape Maintenance District 1 Fund, 40-4130-6028 (S11,170.06); Landscape Maintenance Dlsfrict 4 Fund. 43- 4130 -6028 ($21.897.28); and Landscape Maintenance District 3B Fund, 46-41306028 (S61 .016,85). 14. Approval to execute an Extension of the Agreement (CO 92 -011) 50 for the Citywide Tree Maintenance Agreement to Golden Bear Arborists, Incorporated, of Monrovia. California in the amount of S 184,130.00 to be Funded by General Fund, 01-4617.6028 ($ M=D); LMD -4, 43-4130.6028 ($3500.00); LMD 6. 45-0130 -6028 ($5,430.00); LMD -38, 46- 41306028 ($16,000.00); UvllY7, 47-41306028 (S I8A00.= and LMD-8, 48- 4130-6028 ($800.00). 15. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement 51 Security and Monumentation Cash Deposit for Tract 13753, located at the northwest corner of Kenyon Way and Belvino West, submitted by Lewis Homes of California. and Release of Previously submitted Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Monumentatlon Deposit accepted by City Council on August 21, 1991, from Perpetual Asset Management Company, Incorporated. RESOLUTION NO. 92-219 52 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT FOR TRACT NO. 13753 AND RELEASING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND MONUMENTATION DEPOSIT PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 21, 1991 0 City Council Agenda PAGE August 5, 1992 4 16. Approval to accept Improvements, Reduction of Bonds and 54 Extension of Improvement Agreement for Tract 13304, located on the northwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Mountain View Drive. Release: Faithful Performance Bond S557,95400 (Mt. View Drive) Faithful Performance Bond $421296.00 (Terra Vista Parkway) Accept: Reduced Faithful Performance Bond S 55,795.OD (Mt. View Drive) Reduced Faithful Performance Bond $ 42,130.00 (Terra Vista Parkway) RESOLUTION NO. 92.220 56 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN TRACT 13304 WHICH INCLUDE THE INTERIOR TRACT STREETS, THE LANDSCAPING, AND THE STORM DRAIN: THE REDUCTION OF THE TWO PERFORMANCE BONDS FOR THE INCOMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, TO AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 10% OF THE ORIGINAL AMOUNTS; THE APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION TO THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR A TIME PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL 17. Approval to accept Improvements. Release of Bonds and Notice 57 of Completion for DR 88-09, located on the west side of Maple Place North of Arrow Highway. Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Street) S 61D00.00 RESOLUTION NO. 92 -221 50 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 68 -09 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK PAGE 0 City Council Agenda August 5, 1992 5 18. Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice of Completion for DR 89 -21, located on the northeast comer of 59 Spruce Avenue and White Oak Avenue. Release: Faithful Performance Bond (Streets) S 30.900.0) Faithful Performance Bond (Spruce Median) $ 43p00A0 RESOLUTION NO. 92-222 60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAUFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 89 -21 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non - controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any Item can be removed for discussion. No Items Submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following Items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND 61 DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 89 -07 - SOUTHWEST DFSI N Grmua - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) for five acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of All Cuesta Drive - APN: 202 - 025-01, 04, 07, 08, 12, 13. and 14. Related Files: Tentative Tract 14208 and Tree Removal Permit 91 -40. PAGE City Council Agenda August 5, 1992 it 6 ORDINANCE NO. 499 (fist reading) 74 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA. APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT NO. 89 -07, AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM 'LM' (LOW- MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL, 4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO 'M' (MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL, 8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR FIVE ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, WEST OF ALTA CUESTA DRIVE - APN: 202 - 025-01, 04, 07, 08. 12, 13, AND 14, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF 2, CONSIDERATION TO FORM SEPARATE IMPROVEMENT ARE 77 WITHIN COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 91.1 (REM REQUESTED TO BE CONTINUED TO SEPTEMBER 2,1992) 3. CONSIDERATION TO AMEND CHAPTER 3.08 OF THE RANCHO 78 79 CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL_OODE TO ALLOW COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION ORDINANCE NO. 500 00V reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 3,08.090 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 108.090 (F) PERTAINING TO PURCHASES BY COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION 4. CONSIDERATION OF A COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE - ANN IA UPDATE 80 RESOLUTION NO. 92-223 81 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 90-049.91-194,91-194-A, 91. 194.8. AND ESTABLISHING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT PAGE City Council Agenda August 5, 1992 7 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following Items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. 1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING REGULATION 108 109 AND PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR TAXICAB SERVICE ORDINANCE NO. 501 (W reodirg) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.30 ENTITLED "TAXICAB SERVICE." THEREIN REGULATING AND PERMITTING THE OPERATION OF TAXIS 2. CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 10 F2 020 PERTAINING TO I IMITED TIME PARKING- ZONES TO 117 118 PRO\]DE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SIGNS TO DEFINE ZONES AS AN OPTION TO PAINTING CUM ORDINANCE NO. 39-0 (flint marling) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.52.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE REGARDING LIMITED TIME PARKING ON CERTAIN CITY STREETS H CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS The following Items do not legally require any public testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for public Input. I, CONSIDERATION OF SELECTION OF A REPLACEMENT FOR THE YOUTH 119 ASSISTANCE �C.� IBBCOMMLUU PAGE 0 City Council Agenda August 5, 1992 8 I. COUNCIL RUSINESS The following Items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing Items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public Input. 1. CONSIDERATION TO DESI -N6jE A VOTINc, REPRESENTATIVE AND 120 AN ALTERNATE FOR THEIZAME OF CALIFORNIA QlnE8 ANN IAt wiz 2. REVIEW OF REPORT AND R OMM NDATLONS RFGARDINC, THE DFLIVERY OF OPM NR RELATED SERACPS J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING 123 This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These Items will not be discussed at this meeting, only Identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PURI Ir This Is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any Issue not previously Included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to live minutes per individual. L. ADJOURNMENT MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS PERSONNEL MATTERS. I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on July 30, 1992, seventy -two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54953 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD] 07 -15 -92 (91192) •........ •...u.. u..... •. u .................... u.............. VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION ...........uouu.. uu.... uvu......uo • ..•.•.ou 744 GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS 14 ACTION TRAVEL AGENCY 3058 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 744 GREAT WESTERN SAYING 744 GREAT WESTERN SAVINGS 3227 BAYLESS STATIONERS 3229 C4NCIM0. 6ATHT 3364 6938 11T6 6942 243T 3227 47 6943 6128 1862 -� 3193 2807 3305 488 113 6939 6944 as 6945 6936 3532 9085 123 96 1444 4.SS 23ST 9067 137 3126 zags 3408 1234 goal 41x7 46 907 908 8th AVENUE GRAPHICS ALEMAM. DAVID LEE ALL DATA SERVICES 4NNAHEIN, CHRISTINA ASSOCIATED PLANTSCAPERS. INC. BAYLESS STATIONERS BELL L "DWELL BNWAT. NIRHIL BOPKO. CHRIS NRA7T. MORMEEN A. 6RUNICK. ALVAR E2 L BATTER5aY GSM SPORTS WEST CANOE PACIFIC CORPORATION CHEVRON L S 1, INC CHICK -S SPORTING GOODS INC CHINA GATE EXPRESS COOK, CRYSTAL CUCAMONGA CO WATER DIST DETRICK. SANDI DIVERSIFIED COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES DRAKE BEAN MORIN. INC. F.D. ENTERPRISES FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP FORD PRINTING L MAILING, INC GARCIA. AMT GONIALES, JOHN GRACE. LARRY GRIMES L WALKER GTE CALIFORNIA HAVEN PLAZA MEDICAL GROUP HAVEN VINE L LIQUOR CO. HINSON. KEITH ROSEMAN I.J. UNITED INSURANCE AGENCY IMPACT PUBLICATIONS INDUSTRIAL ASPHALT INLAND MEDIATION BOARD INLAND MEDIATION BOARD RUN DATE: 07 /t5 /92 PAGE: 1 ........... ............u......,a............• NIRR NO WARR. AMT. ............................................... N CHECK. OVERLAP EMP RD DEFERRED COMP - PRE S/31192 676186 AIR FARE TO PHOENIX 615/92 676196 <<< 67620 - 68097 Pl> CITY 6 COUNTY TAX SEMINAR.NEELY.COL 68098 <<< 66099 - 68128 >>> EMP PO DEFERRED COMP /PPE 6114192 681296 <<< 69130 - 66556 >>> IMP PO DEFERRED COMP / PPE 6/28/92 685596 (<< 68560 - 68575 >>> CREDIT MEMO SALESORO 11844787 4 68576 <(< 68577 - 69587 >>> <<< 68589 - CORRECTED •RECEIVED• CUCAGA STAMP TUITION REIMBURSEMENT CONTINUOUS TIME SHEETS 9 REFUND CLASS 13011 OCT 899403 ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OFFICE SUPPLIES 6 DUPLICATION L MICROFILM 0 REFUND CLASS 19025 RCT 4100660 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT TUITION REIMBURSEMENT BOON FEES 6 PRO CROQUET SET SWEEPER PARTS UNIT 0643 GASOLINE CHARGES BALANCE DUE OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC. 4239i9 REFUND CLASS 87010 RCT 691719 I CU FI PARTIAL REFUND CLF3130 RCT 1101473 OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC 619584 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED 0 OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC. 4 19121 7908102221 - 17540530 ENGINEERING NEWSLETTER SCOREKEEPER - PPE 7112192 0 REIMB.IQUALIFIED APP CEAT TESTING TUITION REIMBURSEMENT OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC. 0 22100 941 -8318 0 PREPLACEMENT PHYSICALS JUNE CHARGES - CATERING RCNC BUILDING COVERAGE -PPE 6/30/92 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC 0 19928 SNIPPING FEES PALO ALTO - RANCHO CUCAMONGA 0 LAMOLOQO /TENANT - JUNE 92 FAIR HCUSINf - JUVE 92 68 T41 >>> 68146 68749 66TS0 66151 66152 68753 68754 66755 66756 68757 68756 697S9 66760 66761 4BT62 66763 66764 69765 66166 68767 69165 66769 69770 617T1 681(2 68773 66716 60115 69776 46177 66718 68 T79 68180 68781 69182 68783 64784 66785 6.541.00 170.00 50.00- 6.544.00 6.600.00 2D3.44- 23.T1- 11.85 53.93 520.43 27.50 1.081.82 499.61 124.45 15.00 698.20 292.57 388.08 57.63 121.22 65.29 3.00 11.25 29.70 16.86 28.00 7.00 5.955.00 6.12 34.25 1.216.14 91.00 40.00 426.71 106.07 3.152.82 90.00 52.57 55.00 162.28 14.40 3.00 242.05 457.98 641.57 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FCR PERIOD: 07 -15-92 (91/92) RUN GATE: 01115/92 PAGE: 2 ............. VENDOR ....... ...................•........ vv...............ay.................................... NAME x ....................................•.•................................................ ITEM DESCRIPTION WARN NO .................................. ............................... PARR. ANY. i. CHECRF OVERLAP 122 INLAND VILLEY OAILI BULLEIIN STATEMENT F 00021873 0 68186 2.916.00 LD9 KAHINE• STEINER L UNGERER SERVICES - 5131192 - 6/30192 60181 1.115.00 2399 KLUSMAN, CAROL PLAY CAMP INSTRUCTOR -PPE 6130/92 68788 23.54 9088 LAWMCARE OVERPAYMENT Of BUS. LTC. 1 21634 68789 5.3E 3023 LUNT. &RENT A. A BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -PPE 6130192 68790 90.50 3525 M N 4 BUSINESS SYSTEMS 112 MAINT AGREEMENT /SF -8350 68791 258.00 16 MLAKMAN JgL2iN SR I.HANIDN.L RING SERVICES DURING JUNE 1992 68792 8.863.38 9089 MARTIN C.DOOEROVO WATER TRUCK OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LTC. # 14011 6ST93 73.95 2707 MEADOWS, MARK PEE WEE BASEBALL - PRE 6/30/92 68794 12.DD 9092 MERRICA CO %SIRUC7IOH. T.W. OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC. 0 16210 68795 61.00 2415 METER. CHARLIE PENS BASKETBALL - PRE 6130192 60796 34.50 1454 MOBIL FUEL - REPAIR ORDER 0 6293 68191 31.88 403 MOATCH COATINGS. INC. - %AUER WHITE PAINT A 68798 521.75 9064 MR. STEVE R. LINDER DEPOSIT REFUND - PERMIT 0 5296 68799 250.00 3412 MURPHY L ASSOCIATES. P_ 4 MRS - S. PRENDERGAST 68%00 224.00 875 M 8 S /LOWFI BONO SALE CFD 88 -2 68001 8.63 4492 NIELSEN. NETTIE TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 68802 2ZZ.00 232 ONYITRAYS JUNE BUS PASSES 68403 249.00 2686 OSBORN, BETH A SOFTBALL SCOREKEEPER -PPE 6/30192 66804 40.50 1826 PACTEL CELLULAR A/C#1340122, 714 287 -4953 68805 4.52 2987 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS CITATIONS FOR MONTH OF JUNE 1992 66806 496.30 1079 PHOTO MOUSE CF CALIFORNIA PHOTO PROCESSING. REPRINTS f 66607 44.81 12 _ 3521 PRESERVATTDM EMPORIUM. THE POLY. SHEET PROT, MARKING PEN SET f 64806 91.08 LLB 2954 PRINT SOURCE. THE BUS 4P0-PAUL TAILOR. RICK CORTIE 66609 43.10 5876 PROB TEST, INC. OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LTC 110180 68810 39.10 2613 9 SALES QUAKE GRIP C SUPPLIES 68811 465.28 «< 68412 - 68612 »> 251 R G R AUTOMOTIVE 1989 FRO COMM VIC NE262126 0 68813 4.196.70 2501 RODERTSMAN. ENVIRON. CONTROL DIV. SVC BY LA -CSO OFFICE PERSONNEL 4 68814 52.60 3949 RUIZ, ERNEST A. LERT EARN FEE, SECOND 12 FEE 66815 40.00 905 SAFETY KLEEM CORP A /C47- 112 - 01-63304 F 68816 104.94 2536 SALAI2, PART ANN PETTY CASH f 6091T 291.31 214 SAN BERN CO SOLID WASTE MGMENT A/C0864 -WASTE MAH45EAENT 68818 4.450.16 5472 SEABOARD TRACING CO.. INC. OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 419951 68819 75.DO S673 SIEBER L CO.. INC.. R.J. OVERPAYMENT Of BUS LIC 920314 9 66620 62.00 3276 50 CALIF EDISON 53 30 105 0621 01 000 2 W 68621 741.14 G« 68022 - 68624 »> 1432 SO CALIF EDISON--ATTN: SHEILA LUNA 54 30 116 0025 01 000 5 8 68925 2.189.43 4176 STATE BOARD OF EQUALS CATION UNDERGROUND STORAGE TKN9 FEE APR /JN 68826 283.15 319 SULLIVAN# R OVERPAYMENT BUS LTC 413713 69821 23.00 5977 SUNRISE ELECTRIC OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LTC 818939 68828 105.93 5882 TENNET. WORK CLASS REFU40 02141, ROT 9100766 60629 10.00 SA43 TRIMMER. JOMELLE CLASS REFUND 81300. ACT 1100948 6803D 30.00 1443 TURNER. ESIHER TUITION REIMS-1 /2 CAL POLY 66831 396.35 5074 VERONA SALES OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LTC 921991 68832 10.02 5975 WALTON. VAUGHN REIMS FOR POOL CHALK 60833 21.63 5884 WANG, KATHERINE CLASS REFUND 92061. BIT #99603 68434 24.00 213 IIAKIE4 KLEEM -LIME CORP BAR TOP LIO.W /M MIRAGE. GRAY COVRAL 68835 153.74 754 WELDING INDUSTRIAL L T30L SUPPL HELIUM L BALLOON REGULATOR RENTAL 69836 5.50 5678 WEST END DRAPERY SERVICE OVERPAYMENT BUS LIE 09375 68837 28.89 T74 WESTEK COPPUl Eq SERVICES. INC FIELD - LA30R - 2/12/92 68838 332.00 . .........ou..................... VENDOR MANE .. .. ............................... 122 609 2399 9080 3023 3525 76 9069 2707 9092 2415 1.5. 403 9034 3412 375 4492 232 2686 1926 2997 1079 n 3571 2994 5076 2673 INLAND VALLEY OAILY BULLETIN KAMINE, STEINER I UVGERER ALUSMAN. CARCL LAWRCARE LUNT, SAINT A. N W B BUSINESS SYSTEMS MARKMAN.ARCZINSKI.MANSON.L KING MARTIN O.000EROVO WATER TRUCK MEADOWS. MARK MERRICK CONSTRUCTION, T.Y. METER. CHARLIE MOBIL NORTON COATINGS. INC. - 9WER MR. STEVE R. LINGER MURPHY L ASSOCIATES. P. N S S /LOWRY NIELSEN. NETTIE ONNITRAMS OSBORN. BET. PACTEL CELLULAR PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS PHOTO HOUSE OF CALIFORNIA PRE SERVAFICA EMPORIUM. THE P41 NT SOURCE, THE PROS TEST. INC. 0 SALES 251 4 0 1 AUTOMOTIVE 2507 ROSERTSHAW. ENVIRON. CONTROL DIV. 3549 RUII, ERNEST R. 985 SAFETY KLEIN CORP 2536 SALAIZ. MARY ANN 214 SAN BERN CO SOLID WASTE MOMENT 5472 SEABOARD TRADING CO.. INC. 5873 SIEBER Z CO.. INC.. R.J. 3279 SO CALIF EDISON 1432 SO CALIF EDISON- -ATTN: SHEILA LUNA 4116 STATE BOARD DP EQUALIZATION 316 SULLIVAN. R 5111 SUNRISE ELECTRIC 5832 TENNEY. WORK $443 TRIMMER. JOMELLE 1443 TURNER. ESTHER 5974 VERONA SALES 5875 WALTON, VAUGHN 5884 WANG. KATHERINE 213 WRIIE. SLEEK -LIME CORP 758 WELDING INDUSTRIAL L YOGI SUPPL 5871 NEST ENO DRAPERY SERVICE 774 WESTEK COMPUTER SERVICES, INC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FCR PERI00: 07-15 -92 (91/92) RUN DATE: D7115/92 PAGE: 2 .... v........................................... .... .................................. ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. AMT. ... .. ............................00.. u............ .................................. P. STATEMENT P 0002/873 SERVICES - 5131192 - 613D/92 PLAT CAMP INSTRUCTOR -PPE 6/30192 OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC. A 21636 A BASKETBALL OFFICIAL -PPE 613019 112 MAINT AGREEMENT /SF -3350 SERVICES DURING JUNE 1992 OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC. A 14077 PEE VIE BASEBALL - PPE 6/30192 OVERPAYMENT OF SUS. LIC. A 16210 MEN$ 5ASKETSALL - PPE 6/30/92 FUEL - REPAIR ORDER 9 6293 VMITE PAINT DEPOSIT REFUND - PERMIT 0 SZ96 4 MRS - S. PRENDERGAST BOND SALE CFO 51 -2 TUITION REIMBURSEMENT JUNE 9US PISSES A SOFTBALL SCOREKEEPER-PPE 6/301 A/C11340122, 714 267 -4953 CITATIONS FOR MONTH OF JUNE 1992 PHOTO PROCESSING. REPRINTS POLY. SHEET PROT. MARRING FEW SE BUS CARO-PAUL TAYLOR. RICK CURTI OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 010160 QUAKE GRIP B SUPPLIES CMECRP OVERLAP A 66186 68787 68788 68769 2 68790 68791 68792 68193 68194 63193 69796 68797 0 60796 61799 63100 638o1 691oz 68903 92 64004 61805 60006 / 60801 T 0 61406 E 69809 69910 68811 «< 49612 1909 FRO CRNN VIC IE26Z1Z4 SVC BY LA -CSO OFFICE PERSONNEL CERT EXAM FEE, SECOND VR FEE A /C17 -172- 01-6330 -1 PETTY CASK A/CR860 -WASTE MANAGEMENT OVERPAYMENT Of BUS LIC 119951 OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 420314 53 30 105 0627 01 000 2 «< 68822 54 30 116 0025 01 000 5 UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK FEE APR /J OVERPAYMENT BUS LIC 413713 OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC $10939 CLASS REFUND 42341. RCT 8100766 CUSS REFUND 01300. SIT 4100943 TUITION REIMS -1/2 UL POLY OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 021991 REINS FOR POOL CHALK CLASS REFUND 02061. ACT 999605 BAR TOP LIG.W /M MIRAGE. GRAY COVRAL HELIUM L BALLOON REGULATOR RENTAL OVERPAYMENT BUS LIC 99375 FIELD - LA80R - 2/12/92 68812 >>> / 60013 1 6861♦ 68615 0 66316 0 68017 66616 68019 0 66820 1 69821 68024 >)> • 69925 M 68926 65627 60629 69829 69630 69931 69032 69633 6093 69935 5 66836 68637 ea e3B 2.916.00 I.II5.00 23.51 5.36 90.50 250.00 8.863.38 73.95 12.00 61.00 37.50 37.68 520.05 250.00 224.00 8.63 249.00 249.00 40.50 4.52 496.30 44.01 91.00 43.10 39.10 465.20 4.196.73 52.60 40.00 704.94 291.31 4.450.16 75.00 62.00 741.14 2.109.43 203.75 23.00 105.93 10.00 30.00 396.35 10.02 21.63 20.00 153.74 5.So 20.09 132.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 07-15 -92 (91/92) u•or....rou.... •...•...• r.• u••. u• u•....... r ..................... RUN DATE: OT /IS/92 PAGE: 3 VENDOR ...ou MINE r...vou. a uu.... o .............. ITEM DESCRIPTION ur u..... o....... ....ro............ .....uo....u•....................... us.... ......................•....ru....... WARR NO PARR. AMT. r.... ur..... .. CMECKI OVERLAP 374 WESTERN EXTERMINATOR SVC 9t61 BASELINE AD A/G6676424 -0 I 68839 213.OD 94 WOLFSM8AR6ER INC.. O.F. PLASTER NIX I 68810 1.393.00 509 XEROX CORPORATION DRY INK. 5018.5028.5034 I 68841 11053.26 Ma TOTAL 69.238.41 Ir ................... VENDOR NAME ................... 2390 AENARY_. LINO. 3564 SYCAMORE INN CITY OF RANCHO CUCAP GA LIST OF WARRANTS FCR PERIOD: 07-15 -92 (92/93) RUN DATE: 07/16/92 PAGE: I ...... x...... ...............................••...ov.................... ................................. ITEM DESCRIPTION NARR NO WARR. AMT. xxx.x.x :x a xx ...........................•...............I.. ............................... a .......•..... 9091 GALT MOUSE NCTEL 2338 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2132 26. 6575 3533 1dBB 3536 2517 2301 313T 3538 980 12 6937 280 499 2.86 3535 6041 6398 6940 3026 3534 3558 0076 69.1 294 60 1762 2523 3130 2379 2319 1258 2034 3306 3551 1391 266 9092 3552 3SS3 TK 137 1360 46C BONDED LCCK>MITMS ALPHABETR APNA C/O L.A. COUNTY DEPT. OF ASHLEY`, THERESA BACA. CATHERINE BARRETT. EDWARD BERRY. WANCA BITTNER. APT dUKONSR[. SMARIE BURKS, LUTHER C N B T A C P R S CA1HI/NV ARC /INFU USERS' GROUP CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ISSOC CALIFORNIA VISION SERVICE PLAN CANCINO, AFTMT CANIONERI, MEL` -N CCAC CHAMBER OF COMMERCE COLLEGE TNA CONE. CYR. UNIVERSITY COROURA, ALCC CORNELL, JEREMY COUNTY OF MARIN /CAL -ILA CPAS CRANEVEIGR CORPORATION DAISY WHEEL RI93ON CU. INC OELTA OKNTAL PLAN OF CALIF DENSON. JANCS DICK. OORTHY MARIE DISeEVLANO DUFFY, NARK DUFFY. PARK ELLIS. JAVA ESPOSITO, CHRISTINA FELDER. JENNIFER FIGUEROA. JOE FILMS LNCD.ICRATED ENT1;1.INYENT FOOTHILL CHAPTER ICJO GARCIA, ANTONII GARCIA, ERIC GRACE&• JOHN GREAT WESTERN SAYINGS GTE CALIFORNIA Ac RCHENROUER. KRISTIN tt CHECKY NAT RICE.PETTLNG IOO.INSURANCE <<< 68546 - WEST ENO COUNCIL DINNER DEPOSIT «< 68143, - NAT'L D.A.R.E. CDNF- )/14-19/92 MAYOR L COUNCILME EMBERS CONFERENCE «< 68)46 - MASTER KEY PLAY CAMP SUPPLIES 8 112 DAY SEMINAR 8126 M. DLIYIER R CONTRACT SVCS PPE 1112 30 MRS. PLAY CAMP INSTR. PPE T112 9 MRS. PEE WEE BASEBALL INSTR. PPE 7/12 PLAY CAMP INSTR. Ala PPE 7112 DAY CATP 43 MRS. PPE 7112 FEE NEE BASEBALL INSTR. PPE 7112 PEE NEE BASEBALL INSTR. PPE 7112 ANNUAL DUES MEMBERSHIP DUES FOR JANIE LYNCH CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 1. BLAIR ANNUAL YEMBERSMIP DUES JULY PREMIUM GROUP 10101139AR PLAY CAMP INSTR. 19.5 MRS PPE 7112 28 MRS. i Id.36 PER HOUR ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP DEBBIE ADAMS 8 MONTHLY MEMBERSHIP LUNCH R CONEI 1 RESERVATION A. BASKETBALL SCOREKEEPER PPE 7112 CONTRACT SVCS 4TH OF JULY PIE 7/12 92/93 CAL -SLA STREET LIGHT ASSMNT ANNUAL DUES COMN ISSI DNERS /6O ARp 8 OVERPAYMENT ON BID PACKET 146 LASERPRINTER CARTRIDGE JULY PREMIUM GROUP #4698 MILEAGE REIN8 RESTRM LOCKUP 711192 PLAY CAMP REGISTRATION PPE 7/12 15 ADMISSION TICKETS FOR 1122 TEEN CAMP AEC LEADER PPE 1112 CASH ACV fEEH CAMP WEEK 3 71ZO -24 2 CASSETTES FOR C.E.R.T. R PLAYSCMOCL INSTRUCTOR PPE 7112 PEE WEE BASEBALL -PPE 7112192 PEE WcE BASEBALL - PPE 7/12192 SWISS FAMILY ROBIRSO4 FILM R CLASS 1 MEMBERSHIP OYES 1992 -1993 REFUND /APPEAL FEE PEE WEE BASEBALL - PPE 7112192 PEE LEE BASEBALL - PPE 7112/92 EMP PO DEFERRED COMP -PPE 7/12/92 9,5 -5698 K CAMP CUCAMONGA OIRECTOR -PPE 7112/920 OVERLAP 68545 68}41 »> 681424 68)43 >>> 681440 6BT450 68843 »> 66844 68845 68846 68811 68818 68849 68850 68651 68852 68653 66854 68855 68856 68857 68858 68859 68860 68861 68862 68863 61864 68865 61066 6686T 68868 68669 66670 686)1 68872 68873 68811 608T5 68876 68617 6BB78 68BT9 68880 69881 69682 68093 Bads, 68885 68896 68887 1.150.00- 50.00 680.00 140.00 2.16 42.62 IDO.00 165.00 1D3.23 60.00 41.84 236.50 36.00 36.00 40.00 110.00 300.00 400.00 6.110.36 156.00 231.08 160.00 TO.00 54.00 34.50 11.00 3.000.00 220.00 15.00 161.52 16.684.00 36.10 33.00 398.50 356.00 300.00 30.00 104.69 84.00 48.00 422.00 25.00 100.00 36.00 36.00 6.556.00 170.19 836.TS CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGI LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 07 -15 -92 (92/93) ....................... .......... a........ ea...........•..............sou......•.. RUN DATE: 01/16/92 PAGFA Z VE400R ..........•. NAME .................................. ................................ ITC% UP5C41PTICN WARR NO •.............................................................. PARR. ANT. .................•... p CHECKS OVERLAP 1832 HERCHENROECER, LAURI PLAYGROUND PRUGRLM - PRE 1112192 68098 231.00 IB33 MERCHENROECE., LISA DA3 CAMP COUNSELDR - PPE T/12192 68869 244.75 3020 HESSE. JOE PEE WEE BASEBALL - PPE 1/12/92 68890 72.00 831 HOLMES, SHEILA PLAY CAMP INSTRUCTOR /PPE 7112/92 68891 280.00 3022 JOHNSON, VIYIAN PLAY CAMP INSTRUCTOR /PPE 1/12/92 68892 126.28 3SS4 KAY. SLIM PEE NEE BASEBALL - PPE T/12/92 68893 72.00 3172 KING. ANGELA PLAY CAMP AIDE - PPE 7/12/92 68894 36.00 3541 KLOSTERMAN, COUG LTN OF JULY CELE. - 14 MRS a 85.50 66895 77.00 I15 KKART STORES FILM DEVELOPMENT 66896 4.36 2296 L. A. IOC 50 CHILD ID ADULTS ADMISSIONS 68897 162.50 3540 LINGER. ROBERT ALLYSON CONCERTS L MOVIES IN THE PARK 66595 49.50 292 LOGUE, SALLY PLAY CARP INSTR - PRE 7112/92 68699 114.00 3476 LOIKO. STEPHEN 4TH OF JULT.MDVIES L PARK RESPVTNS 0 66900 360.25 3055 LOS ANGELES CHILORENS MUSEUM 53 ADMISSIONS a 15.00 EA /FIELD TRIP 68901 265.00 9083 M.M.A.S.C. 1/0 CITY OF LONG EEICH DUANE TAKER 8113-15/92 LONG BEACH 68902 110.00 2952 44ILSO9T. INC. WEEK ENDING 7/4192 69903 35.49 3559 A%ROUF2. AL FEE NEE BASEBALL - PPE 1112/92 66904 60.00 2972 MARTINEZ, ELIAS CAMP CUCAMOMGA - PPE 1/12/92 68905 242.DD 2400 MITCHAM, SARRIE JULY 474 COVERAGE - 30 MRS a 5.50 66906 165.00 516 RATCMAA, MIME 4TH OF JULY COVERAGE -15 MRS a 5.50 68907 82.50 3555 MAXWELL. ROGER PEE WEE BASEBALL - PPE 1112192 68909 48.00 2973 MC CONNELL. RYAN BAY CAMP - PPE 1112192 9 68909 313.75 2415 AEVER. CHARLIE BAY CAMP - PPE 7/12/92 I 68910 330.50 2198 MICMAEL'S CRIFTS PLAY CAMP SUPPLIES 6 66911 49.19 825 MD MY ONENY. CMAU PE F WEf 84SEa ILL - PRE 7112/52 66912 6D.00 9086 MOORE ELECTRIC INC. OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC. 0 9494 68913 SZ.50 3550 MOORE. BRENT CONTRACT SERVICES - PPE 1/32H2 a 60914 ZTT.15 3557 MUSTER. LORI PEE NEE BASEBALL - PPE 1/12/92 68915 48.00 2240 HEALEY. RICHARD A. PEE WAE BASEBALL - PRE 1112/52 68916 129.50 2916 NELSON. RO.IN DAY CAMP REC ASST. -PPE 1/12/92 669]7 327.25 3539 MICKUM. HEAINER CAMP CUCA40UGA - PPE 1112192 69930 206.25 2548 NIGRO, ANOREE' PLAY CAMP INSTRUCTOR -PPE T/12/92 69919 151.52 3042 OASIS NATERPARK, INC. 15 TICKETS a 12.95 JULY 23. 1992 68920 194.25 232 ONNITRANS JULY BUS PASSES 68921 266.50 9090 ON DUTY I SHUT OFF WRENCH /WATER OR GAS 68922 16.11 2686 DSBORN, BETH A.SOFTBALL SCOREKEEPER -PPE 7/12/92 68923 40.50 3404 PELTIER. KEVIN OFF SITE CLASSES. REC ASST PPE 712 65924 199.75 2805 PEMOERGRAPM. RONALD ADULT BASKETBALL OFFICIAL PIE Till 67925 45.00 6013 PETERSON. BRIAN 4TH OF JULY CELEBRATION 0 68926 110.25 2587 PETERSON. LILLE FILM PROCESSING SENIOR BIRTHDAYS 9 66921 61.89 3086 PINERO, ISIGAML PEE WEE BASEBALL INSTRUCTOR 6892a 94.00 342 PIP PRINTING RH OF JULY POSTERS 68929 15.09 3560 PITTEM6ER. ThOA4S PEE WEE BASEBALL INSTRUCTOR PPET /12 68930 84.00 5619 PLEASE HOLD FARKETIN6 OVERPAYMENT BUS LIC •ZZ109 68931 6.02 791 PM1 /DELTA CARE JULY PFCMIUM -GROUP 41236 6893E 882.17 5880 POCOCK CONSYRUCTIO4 PAYOFF FOR LOAN NWILBER LEIPZIGER 68933 3.00 2850 PORTER. CEHNIS ATH PREP. CELE, RECREATION PPE 7/12 68934 228.25 6S PRUOENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY SHIRTS C PANTS- OTTFN.ADAME.YNIGGF2 60935 25.06 303Z RAMLRE2. 6ECKY PL41 CAMP AID 68936 10.00 2842 RAMOS. NIGGLE LIONS CENTER REC. ASST. PPE 7112 68937 186.41 70 RANCHO CUCAMONaA CHAMBER JULY PAYMENT 68939 11000.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS POR PERIOD: 07 -15-92 (92/93) .......................... ......................................................... RUN DATE: 07/16/92 PAGE: 3 VENCOR NAME .................................. ITEM )E6CRIWTION MARR NO WARR. AMT. 46 CHECRN OVERLAP TO RANCH. CULAILVb. Ltl411Ld OESIG4 EXCEL AWAROS,COLFMAN,HENO,RR 66939 30.00 2201 REDMOND, MISS CPR INSTRUCTOR, CLASS 08001 68940 168.96 2832 RITES, ANNE SPECIAL EVENTS.PPE 2/12/92 1 68341 343.00 5412 S C M A F REGISTRATION ADULT SOFTBALL TEAMS 68942 504.00 2536 SALAIZ. MARY ANN PETTY CASs 4 68943 1.310.25 2202 SAMPLES, KELLY DAY CAMP COUNSELOR, FEE 7/3192 4 68944 240.32 25$5 SAMPLES, RYAN PLOY:RCUNO PROGRAM 68945 110.00 301 SAN dERN CO SHERIFFS JULY PAYMENT R 60946 556,158.00 3561 SCOTT. SILLY CONTRACTED STAFF ATM OF JULY 68947 55.00 535 SEMPLE, JULY SENIOR FITNESS INSTRUCTOR 68948 174.90 3542 JHAF - MALCCLM CHILDREN$ C ADULT AD. CALICO 0/5 68949 240.15 5861 SHELTER SENSE ONE YR SUBSC- SHELTER SENSE -J HART 68950 8.00 2372 SMITH, DEBBIE DAY CAMP COUNSELOR 60951 319.35 2992 SPENCER, DEBBIE DAY CAMP 0 66952 391.28 546 STANDING INSURANCE CO. JULY PREM GROUP *491390 -DI 0 68953 7T6.10 2180 STEPHENS, HOUSTON ABOUT !B OFFICIAL, PPE? /12 68954 45.00 3562 SUTTON. JAN CASH ACVANCE CLEPY'S INSI- JUL16 -24 68955 150.00 2 e89 SWANSON, BGsIlE 4TH OF JULY CELEO, PPET /IZ 66956 110.00 3409 TRIMBLE, LATRINA BLDG COVERAGE, REC ASSIT PPE7/22 66957 302.50 3321 TROUPE, RIP CONTRACT EVPL 6/29-119 -52HRS 6 8.36 60959 434.72 350 U.S. POSIMASIER PO 80A BDI -SEMI- ANNUAL PMT 68959 202.50 3114 URZSA INST NEAR DUES FOR URTSA 0 68960 250.00 URZSA MEPA OL A IR . SMITH, HULGRAY 0 6098961 80.00 S3214 1 3341 UV A. SALLY ANN JULI 410 CELE PPE 1/12 662 40.00 3556 VAN VALRENdURGY, SUSAN PLAT CAMP. INSTRUCTOR AIO,POE 1112 0 68963 96.92 3563 NMITEMAN. RYAN PEA VE6 BASEBALL INSTR PPE 7111192 68964 72.00 3310 ZAVALA, CAVE ADULT PASRETBALL OFFICIAL PPE ?/12 60965 4S.00 PM TOTAL 609.657.51 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 03 -22 -92 (91/92) RUN DATE: 07/22192 PAGE: 1 ...................... VENCOR .................................. • u • u • • u. •....... • •...... NAME uu........... • •............. a •............ •... ITEM DESCRIPTION vu.......uu.................uu.................................. u • v...... u • o WARR NO u u. •..................... NARK. AMT. u..... Fi CNECRE OVERLAP 1079 PHOTO HOUSE CF CALIFORNIA PHOTO PROCESSING. REPRINTS 4 68ODT 44.61- (« 66806 - 68819 »> 5873 SIEBER L CC., INC.. R.J. OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 120314 4 68820 62.00 - <<< 66821 - 60970 >>> 2732 ABC BONDED LOCKSMITHS REPAIR INSPECTORS DROP /OFF ODOR 0 66971 149.31 3529 ALAR GLASS REPLACE VI %OSHIELU 1991 FORD 68972 195.10 409 AMERICAN EXPRESS ACCOUNT 83763- 628320-71003 68913 15.99 6946 ARAKAKI. CAROLINE REFUND PLAYGROUND PROGRAM ME T/6 68974 15.00 6947 ARNOULT. SIGRID REFUND CLASS 0305 PCT 0186 0 68975 46.00 3227 BAYLESS STATIONERS OFFICE SUPPLIES 68976 33.52 6949 BLASCO. "ART BETH SWIM REFUND ROY BEG. RED 0346 68977 27.50 6950 BURNS. 1. YAIME REIMBURSE APPL. CERTIFICATION FEE 68978 25.00 1223 CALSENSE RETROFIT CONTRCLLER /LINE AMPLIFIER 0 68979 5.538.36 3305 CARDE PACIFIC CORPORATION SWEEPER PARTS 68980 1.640.52 68 CENTRAL CITIES SIGN SERVICE STREET NAME SIGNS 68981 302.56 6951 CLARK. DONNA REFUND PEE WEE BASEBALL 66982 24.00 6952 COLEMAN, ARM, REFUND OVER REINA DISA61LITY KOV. 66963 92.21 2692 COMPUSERVE. INCORPORATED ACCOUNT 170DD203430 1 6.964 73.99 6953 COURTNEY. STACY SWIM REFUND RCT 0148 68985 27.50 85 CUCAMONGA CO WATER 01ST 1127 CU FT A 68986 1.165.69 6954 CURRAN. MARY REFUND PLAY CAMP 9309 0 68987 50.00 6955 DELOS SANTOS• FILOMENA FOUR SWIM REFUNDS RCT 0518 66986 110.00 109 DICTAR NONE CORP REPAIR OF 70M500 I% COUNCIL 68989 97.6D 274 DIETZ TOWING VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 68990 TO.DO 6957 DIONISIO. NANCY SWIM REFUND INT. RCT NT51 68991 27.50 3464 DOC JOE'S REPAIR WATER LINE AT LIONS CENTER 68992 272.25 6423 DOOR2LL. SUE TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 68993 449.32 6950 COAST L DRYDEN GLASS CONTRACTORS OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC. 09792 68994 53.86 9118 DRIVE N SHOP OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC. A 10396 68995 53.00 523 EASTMAN. INC OFFICE SUPPLIES 0 68996 255.53 3312 ESKEMAZI. POISES TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 6899T 54.32 6959 EXECUTIVE STRATEGIES SUOSCRIPTIO9- EXECUTIVE STRATEGIES 66998 51.72 123 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 1634515705 - '6418400 6GS99 15.50 9109 FRANCO. AMMA /ALEX REFURO PEE WEE BASEBALL R 1 604 69000 29.00 9093 FRITZ. DORIS REFUND CLASS A 215D - RCT 8 99290 69001 10.00 9094 GIORDANO. PARIAMGELA REFUND CLASS 4 1200 - RCT 8 99693 69002 27.50 4082 GONZALES, CAROLE TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 69003 118.23 9113 GOODWIN. KATHLEEN SWIM REFUNDS-TRD.P /T.POLLY -R 1609 69004 82.50 9105 GREGSOY, LISA SWIM REFUND PIT - RCT 1 372 69005 ZT.50 131 GTE CALIFD RAIN 989 -1813 69006 $05.16 3510 M M C GROUP CHAFFET GARCIA HISTORICAL /REMODEL 0 69007 41860.00 9104 HAROLD. CORINNE SWIM REFUND - RCT 1 0207 69008 21.50 2462 MARTIG. AMTMEA TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 69009 557.29 9098 HAYDEN. GREGG SWIM REFUND - RCT 1 1130 69010 27.50 9114 HENRY PRODUCTS. INC. OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. LIC. 0 17205 69011 13.97 9112 MGETSER. MEGAN REFUND CLASS 0 7081 - PCT A 99633 69011 16.00 495 HYDRO -SCAPE PRODUCTS, INC IRRIGATION SUPPLIES 69013 21.61 46 INDUSTRIAL ASPHALT LAYTON ST. - RANCHO CUCAMONGA 69014 75.02 1952 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES. LTD. BLUELIME TRAIN RIDE -PORTS O'CALL 69015 418.40 9026 JULIANA CO. REFUND CUSS 0 6141 - RCT 9 100304 69016 95.00 9093 XAPADIA. ME%E %ORA SHIM REFUNDS - RCT 1 1095 69017 55.00 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 07 -22 -92 (91/92) ............... .............. v v..........0 a..................... RUN OATS: 01/22/92 PAGE: 2 VEM004 .................. MANE • ............... •... •.................................... •................... ITEM DESCRIPTION .............. u................. PARR ND .................... v •.............. •..... NARR. ANT. •.................... 4A CHECK$ OVERLAP 9108 MAST. LISA /BOBBY REFUND /PEE NEE BASEBALL 69018 24.00 2943 MAST -A -NAY SWIMWEAR. INC. SWIMSUITS /AQUATIC5 STAFF A 69019 1.399.00 1024 cOCH MATERIALS COMPANY SS-1N EMUL 69020 103.12 193 LAIRD CONSTRUCTION CO S/S BASELINE L I -15 FRWY R.C. 4 69D21 8.681.26 321 LANDSCAPE NEST JUNE 92 - END 1 F 69022 63.036.64 9096 LOPEZ. LUKE REFUND CUSS A 9044 - RCT R 99034 69023 31.50 9111 LU. JANICE REFUND CLASS A 7061 - RCT 1 99507 69024 16.00 9102 LUO. DIANNA SKIN REFUNDS - RCT 4 0637 69025 110.00 9103 MADAKAR• PRAKASM SKIN REFUND - RCT 0 0614 69026 21.50 9097 MARISETTE. ELLA REFUND CUSS 4 2161 - RCT 0 99821 69027 40.00 72 MARK CHRIS. INC. VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 69DZO 335.34 76 MARKMAN.ARCZYNSKI.MANSOM.L KING ADKINS VS R.C. - FILE 1683SKS 0 69029 13.519.00 9101 MARTINI. DIANA SKIM REFUND - RCT A 0644 69030 27.50 9107 MARTINEZ. LYRMA REFUND CLASS 9 104 - RCT 0 251 69D31 29.00 9110 MC CORD, VIVIEN DAY CAMP REFUND /PCT 4'S 9105.6.7 69032 85.00 910D MIDDLESTETTER. SALLY SKIM REFUND - RCT 4 0678 69033 27.50 4971 MONTGOMERY, DEBRA TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 69034 191.20 1918 ROYER PRODUCTS CUSTOM BLEND - EQUIPMENT RENTAL 0 69035 7.206.97 2350 MUNICIPAL SERVICES GROUP, INC. 2 -199D NAVISTAR PATCH TRUCKS /LEASE 69036 27.498.55 9119 MVATT, COMMIE C. BOND PAYOFF RFNO /APM 020159467 69037 25.00 2796 NAIAD EQUIPMENT CO. RIVC01155-LAMP. READER BULBS 69038 81.26 1437 9106 NATIONAL UNIFORM SERVICE NICKEL, JENNIFER UNIFORM SERVICES REFUND CLASS 4 104 - RCT 0 192 0 69039 69040 50.50 29.00 9117 OLMSTED. RANDAL D. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 69041 15.50 235 GWEN CLECTRIC L60M GE DISC. LAMPS 9 69042 194.41 5091 P.J. ENGINEERING OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 919754 69043 73.20 1526 PACTEL CELLULAR A/C11340131.714 281 -4957 0 69044 336.54 5885 PASCUKL. SANDY CLASS REFUND 69080. RCT 0101646 69045 25.00 1079 PHOTO MOUSE IF CALIFORNIA PY,JTO PROCESSING. REPRINTS 4 69046 47.74 65 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY INV1764993.814497.844986 69041 It.68 4055 RADSO SMACK STORES 1/[9416061223 TMEANIR /MYGROMIR 9 69046 44.01 5886 RAMBAUD. TAMMY CLASS REFUND SKI M-TAD- 9:00 -I 69049 27.50 626 RAUL'$ TIRE AND WHEELS SERVICE CALL. TIRE REPAIR 69050 A6.50 5887 RECOGNITION EQUIPMENT. INC OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 021295 69051 115.00 5889 REYNOLDS. PAMELA CLASS REFUND -SKIM P /T- 9 :50 -1 69052 21.50 5896 ROYAL CONSERV CORP. OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 022454 69053 40.00 2671 RUSSELL. TONY TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 69054 44.43 1292 S L 5 ARTS AND CRAFTS CRAFT SUPPLIES FOR PLAYGROUND 69055 63 D. 89. 1195 SEAL FURNITURE L SYSTEMS INC. 81ACKET -WALL ATTACHMENT 69056 378.13 5095 SEIDEL ELECTRIC. STEVEN OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 40385 69057 7.75 5473 SIEBER L CO.. INC.. R.J. OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 620314 69058 23.00 2934 SIERRA DIGITAL SCHEDULING SOFTWARE L LEAGUE SFTWR 69059 1.920.13 2009 SIERRA PACIFIC ELECTRICAL CONT. OVERPAYMENT OF BUS LIC 0I0721 69060 39.00 1327 SMART L FINAL SUPPLIES FOR TRAC. SUMMER SNICKBAR 4 69061 68D.56 5689 SMITH, KATE CLASS REFUND 12161 69062 40.00 3278 SO CALIF EDISON 61 30 125 3261 02 GOD 5 0 69063 492.43 317 SO CALIF EDISON CO. 43 30 030 6507 01 4 69064 367.80 <C< 69065 - 69066 >>> 1432 50 CALIF EDISON- -ATTN: SHEILA LUMA 53 30 104 9100 02 000 9 0 69067 61161.08 319 SO CALIF GAS CO. 05 3160 Z38 IT06 2 I 69965 136.06 322 SPAR<LETTS OI 425 800 3680/05/001 69069 35.20 CI7Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 07 -22 -92 (91192) RON GATE[ 0}/22192 P1Lf: I ....... uu........uuuu..•.... .....ou.. ...... .... ...uu.....uu.uuu..uu.us..uu....... uuu...... ... ....... .... . VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION PARR NO NARK. ANT. ... ....... ................................ • ................................................. .................................. • .. . 667 VISA 6620 0058 8166 1009 9 69071 1103 VISTA PAINT FRAME 5 WIRE CAGE,CUVER PRCMO.6KT 69076 678 WARREN L CO.. CARL FILE 94411. BARTON. ET AL 69079 3526 WESTERN CONSERVATION PRODUCTS DOCUMENT STORAGE CASE 69060 509 VERON CORPORATION 1090 DUPLICATOR, LEASE AGREEMENT 0 69091 244vT 2UBER CONSRUCTION CITYWIDE CONCRETE REPAIR 69082 .. TOTAL y 23.36 27.50 93.11 66.65 1.631.25 613.93 2.009.33 96.30 359.0♦ 53.00 1.947.81 20.221.21 150.834.62 .F CHECK# O OVERLAP 2215 S STAR I HR. PHOTO O OVERPAYMENT OF BUSLIC 110302 6 69070 5990 T TALLEUR, SUSAN C CLASS REFUND- TAD -4:00 -I 6 69071 5006 T TAYLOR, PAUL T TUITION REIMBURSEMENT 6 69072 471 T TRICO H HALOGEN BULB 6 69023 2958 U URPS ARE US ASSOCIATION U UMP SERVICES 6116- 6130192 # 6 69074 1660 V VANIER GRAPHICS CORP P PAYROLL CHECKS 6 69075 <<< 69016 - 6 69076 >>> y 23.36 27.50 93.11 66.65 1.631.25 613.93 2.009.33 96.30 359.0♦ 53.00 1.947.81 20.221.21 150.834.62 ......................... VENDOR NAME ......................... 6956 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 6956 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 6956 DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES 2358 LEAGUE Of CALIFORNIA CITIES 654 l4 264 2693 2411 6948 61 555 3330 142 1166 3176 552 3565 \ 74 949 v 3331 3493 546 2886 2706 T24 1844 2640 3178 1128 1254 2155 9115 3434 137 1197 3.35 620 2412 3436 9120 B91 705 2315 9095 3179 541 2040 ACE LOCK L KEY ACTION TRAVEL AGENCY ALPHABETS AMTECH RELIABLE ELEVATOR CO. ARAGON. SALLY ASSOCIATION OF MUNICIPAL DATA BANK OF AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND BENEFIELD. KINGSLEY SURAL RESOLRCES. INC. BRADFORD. HAROLD BRUNSWICK DEER CREEK LANES BUDUET. SUZANNE BURN- 6LACKSCHLEGER. ROSEAMN BUS10S. ROBERT CITY RENTALS CLARK. KAREN CLOVER INSURANCE AGENCY CONES TV* ANNA DRAGNA. SHARON OWORAK. GAYLE EGGERS. BOB EMERGENCY EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS FLORIO. JOIN FONT ANA MOTORCYCLES INC. FORD OF UPLAND, INC. FOWLER, MARK FRAMATIC GENERAL BINDING CORPORATION GIULEA. VASILE GRANTREE CORP. GREEN. MICHAEL GTE CALIFORNIA RAINER. JULIE H.RRINGTON. LOUISE HEARD P.M.O.. EDWARD HOYT, RAYMOND HUNT. LUANNE "'ITT REGENCY MIAMI I.C.B.D. ICE. ALBERT INLAND WHOLESALE NURSERY KELSO. KELLY KENORENA. GONNA KDZLDVICM, CEOSIE LAIR. SHARON CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 07 -22 -92 C92/931 ................ ITEM DESCRIPTION RUN DATE: 07/22/92 PAGE: I ............... ................................ NARR NO NARR. ANT. ............................................... OF CHECKS FEE /.MITTEN L DRIVING TEST -CLASS M C<< 66744 FEE /WRITTEN L DRIVING TEST -CLASS B CLASS B LICENSE FEE /PAT GALLAGHER MAYOR L COUNCILMENBER CDHF- 7/29 -31 <f< 68969 BRASS TAGS AIR FARE /L.HEMDERSOM -NAT -L PRESRV 0 AIR OF JULY SUPPLIES e CONTRACT SERVICE FOR JULY 1992 1/2 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT SUMMER MEPREASHIP FEES P L I PMT /CFD 04 -1 DUE 811192 112 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT FOR SUMMER 3/B• FINE INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT IN FULL - SUMMER 1/2 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT FOR SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT IN FULL SUMMER INSYR. PAYMENT IN FULL 04080/4081 0 PEE NEE BASEBALL INSTR. PPE 7/12 TRACTOR L ROTARY - MOWER 0 1/2 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT FOR SUMMER EMPLOYEE DISHONESTY BOND 1/2 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT FOR SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT IN FULL SUMMER 1/2 INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT FOR SUMMER INSTRUCT PAT IN FULL CLASS 8 8002 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE INSTRUCT PMT FULL 92030.2032.ZD33 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 0 VEHICLE MAINTENANCE INSTRUCT PMT-CLASS 0 9000.9002.9004 BOK FRAME 11 A 14 GREY F ANNUAL RAINT AGNT= BINDING MACHINE CASH AOWANCE -813 -1192 PRIME SYSTEM OVERPAYMENT Of BUS. LIC. 6 18925 INSTRUCT PRY IN FULL /9020 -9025 944 -3673 4 INSTRUCT PAT 1/2 DUE CLASS 0 TOED INSTRUCT PAT IM FULL -CLASS 2000 -1 INSTRUCT PMT /CLASS 0 OD30 - 8033 CLASS 8040 -1/2 DUE 5000 - 5120 INSTRUCT PMT 1/1 DUE SUMMER 606D IN DEPOSIT /L.MENOERSON.O.SCHMIOT BLDG DEPT GUIDE /DISASTER MITIGATION INSTRUCT PMT 112 DUE SUMMER 3 FLATS GROUND COVER REFUND CLASS 1 4150 - ACT 1 101136 INSTRUCT PMT IN FULL CLASS 0 2150 INSTRUCT PHI 112 DUE 3100 - 3121 INSTRUCT PMT 112 DUE A 3130 - 3131 OVERLAP 687.3. 66965 »> 689666 66961• 689681 69986 >>> 69085 69066 69087 69088 69089 69090 69091 69092 69093 69096 69095 69096 69097 69098 69099 69100 69101 69102 69103 69104 69105 69106 69107 69108 69109 69110 69111 69112 69113 69114 69115 69116 69111 69116 69119 69120 69121 69112 69123 69114 69125 69126 69127 69128 69129 111.00 111.00 57.00 12T.50 12.07 783.04 66.63 384.66 721.80 120.00 1.077.391.25 207.90 20.36 158.40 351.15 24.00 2.926.26 14.00 ALL'S 267.30 Z.156.00 311.65 147.00 522.72 116.16 37.31 251.82 144.47 100.00 832.00 446.71 194.00 200.00 24.54 477.00 971.09 116.16 147.00 84.00 3.715.56 54.00 236.25 21.50 120.12 24.24 15.00 TZ.00 1.560.00 173.25 ................ I............ VENDOR MANE ............................. 600 4900 956 722 2952 3334 2727 2537 3015 3411 3333 2769 3437 2440 9116 3332 527 9121 1005 1023 618 3185 - 757 3547 5892 2119 2662 65 626 739 3432 276 2507 3335 2084 3543 1290 305 3067 535 319 3566 5376 2718 3187 5894 471 1226 213 5136 637 LYNCH, JAMIE M.S.A. TREASURER INLAND EMPIRE MAC DONALD, IAIN MAGALLAMES. LINDA MAILSORT, INC. MARVEL, KELLY MARL, MICHAEL MC ALLISTER, RICHARD MC CALL, SUSAN AC DOW. CAROLYN MOTT, SYLVIA MAT'L TRUST... HISTORIC PRESERVATION NATIONAL UNIFORM SERVICE NEWBORN, LISA NEWELL ENTERPRISE NICKLES. ARLEEN OLYMPIC STUDIOS, INC. PACIFICA HCTEL PACTEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS PAGENET PARAGON BUILDING PRODUCTS INC. PEARSON. ROBIN PEP ROTS PERPETUAL STORAGE PETERMAN LUMBER. INC. PONCHAUO. JANICE POSTAGE By PHONE PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY RAUL'S TIRE AND WHEELS REAGAN. VERA RI00. LINDA RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT ROBERTSNAW. ENVIRON. CONTROL DIV_ ROSE. CHRISTIE SAFECO LIFE INS. CO. GROUP ADMIX. SAMANTHA L ASSOCIATES SAN BERN CO ASSESSOR'S OFFICE SAN BERM CO TRANSPORTATION SAUL, SANDY SEMPLE. JUDY SO CALIF GAS CO. SOFT - TRAIN, INC. SPIRES RESTAURANT. INC. TERRY. DONNA TMROCKMORTCN, MARCELA TONG, HSIEN TRICO UNITED PARCEL SERVICE MAXIE, MLEEN -LIME CORP WC ISA CERTIFICATION COMMITTEE WEST ENO UNIFDRMS CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LIST OF WARRANTS FOR PERIOD: 07 -22 -92 (92193) ............................................ u u .... ...T/22./.9. ...P..AG..E: .. 2 .... ......... ITEM OESCRIPTIOM NARR NO VARR. AMT. ......ue..........s v... ...........uu..13.....13.....13..... •....... .............. 69 (HECK/ MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 2 CONFINED SPACE SAFETY WORKSHOP INSTRUCTOR PMT 112 DUE SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PMT 1/2 DUE SUMMER 16000 HEEL ENDING T/32/92 INSTRUCTOR PAT 112 DUE SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PMT 112 DUE SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PMT 1/2 DUE SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PAT IN FULL SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PAT IN FULL SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PMT I12 DUE SUMMER CONF.REGIS- L.NEMDERSON. B.SCHMIOT UNIFORM SERVICES BALLROOM DANCE - JULY 11. 1992 OVERPAYMENT OF BUS. L1C. 1 20108 INSTRUCTOR PHI 1/2 DUE SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PMT 1/2 DUE SUMMER MOTEL PREPAYMENT 9161 BASELINE ROAD 0 A /[014184 -C ROCK MIX 1SC INSTRUCTOR PAT CLASS 7091 -82 t12 LAMPS9 BOOSTER CABLE MICROFILM STORAGE DRAWERS FAS RED OR INSTRUCTOR PMT 1/2 DUE SUMMER 1/[111177269 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES F SERVICE CALL. DISMOUNT 6642 INSTRUCTOR PHI 1/2 DUE 11070 SHWA INSTRUCTOR PHI 1/2 #2130 SUMMER BLOELINE PRINTS.STAPLING OF SETS 0 SERVICE ON COOLER A INSTRUCTOR PMT I/2 DUE 06070 SUMMER JULT PRER 001- 010163 -00 3000GV WRIST PROTECTORS LIEN REMOVAL APN 0201 - 596 -67 RENT TEN 0004223-0001 -03 INSTRUCTOR PHI I/Z 06001 SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PHI 1/2 07020 PMT DUE MAIM GAS EXTENSION DEFICIENCY INSTRUCTOR PMT CLASS 06141 EARTHQUAKE - MEALS FOR CREWS INS75RLCTOR PMT l/2 DUE SUMMER INSTRUCTOR PHI 12071 C 2072 SAN CLASS REFUND 010S PLAY CAMP AMP RELAY. ROU,40 'BEAKER BELL DEPOSIT REQUESTtO KLEENEX 1 IAT• SCE OF ARBORCLTR -ANN CERTIF SWITCHES OVERLAP 69130 69131 69132 69133 69134 69135 69136 69137 69138 69139 6914 0 69141 69142 69143 69144 69145 69146 69147 69148 69149 69150 69151 69152 69193 69154 69155 69156 69157 69158 69159 69160 69161 69162 09163 69164 69165 69166 69167 69168 69169 69170 69171 69172 69173 69174 69175 691T6 69177 69118 69179 69180 42.28 90_00 6 TD 95 29 7.00 62.11 963.36 1.077.30 1,163.25 151.20 28.a0 111.00 705.00 345.62 95.50 94.97 90.00 2,050.95 321.Ot 2.545.20 S5.5D 40.95 225.60 36.24 62.25 9.56 199.90 4.000.00 46.90 45.30 267.30 198.00 110.55 1.111.96 101.25 97.54 83.59 8.00 150.00 165.00 166.32 1.872.90 532.00 15.15 391. 123.250 0 24.00 106.03 150.00 .,9 3, 25.00 43.10 FASB Aseboo6 /CMChn9 M[ttnts ...................1 3,069,182.19 S.2f3 3.2W Inot .cladA1 ,n Held ,I,vIetlm4 %celled IA—t N 9.a[Ae ^ .................{ 16,"1.32 I03A1 ^ ASM ..... ..............................9 10B5�NLX j m3Y CAM and [WESTWKTS ........ 132,27t,W.9 II181P MIN EISCk FISCAL IIRERFi1 ERNA 581E w SNP 10 wn am MIA Current Ynr 1 !0,817.45 S 1,613,611.93 1 t,613,813.15 i __.__ _ _ _ t [anry tAet ao 'wk eccmaai, ngnb ar, t9nq p 1. '...teen p6 ! Ap53 cm(ynp el to m,uMt Pol,p bagtN MrNe! 5, 1481. R cpC pt IAu A91MEA mtnnt pd1,1, ,9 raJeAle a the Fsanv pnsum pf the tlnlilke4re 7 / Rp¢es Oeparleent. IM Insnt.W hr fS Anne ]NMd Arvndn e9ffin mt AAS3, Im. 1,9m mp to ent not emtn'. nneAted some, mrn. WE CITY 9L R CITY 0AIFD HST FR SURR aY im 30, 11 42 AVFAPSE -- -YIFIO 10 MNAI ry - -- PERIEm OF AVERN NYE 10 360 365 I#VESIIE9tE PMC Vwx PORumn !ERE VAIIAIFII EWIME43 EQ63V W Cmhlvrtn of *.W - BAni ............... 3 9, 1(P,X6.X 3(.23 211 12S 3.934 3.9W Lxal ,11mcl la,ntemt hinds ................ 1 16,112,X6.12 A.A 1 1 5.305 3.319 Fedeul lamp Issue - CdlA................ 1 I,SW,O0.W 5.05 ],in 226 2.841 2.M k,t". R.tAl S.—n" es ................... 1 1,030,283.% 3.X 6,135 1,3CS 8.832 B. %5 Celli Bus +ne Adnmst"' mn ................ 3 1,101,511.30 3.11 9.131 M"65 °. IN 8.218 eucellmeaus Se^n,tvn - 0,+cpu.t.......... 9 X1pro1.00 1.61 10,068 9,082 8.315 8.150 IOT4 IAYESIRFIS and WRME5.. ....... ....A A,6B X.W 00.003 886 X9 5.AI1 5.3513 FASB Aseboo6 /CMChn9 M[ttnts ...................1 3,069,182.19 S.2f3 3.2W Inot .cladA1 ,n Held ,I,vIetlm4 %celled IA—t N 9.a[Ae ^ .................{ 16,"1.32 I03A1 ^ ASM ..... ..............................9 10B5�NLX j m3Y CAM and [WESTWKTS ........ 132,27t,W.9 II181P MIN EISCk FISCAL IIRERFi1 ERNA 581E w SNP 10 wn am MIA Current Ynr 1 !0,817.45 S 1,613,611.93 1 t,613,813.15 i __.__ _ _ _ t [anry tAet ao 'wk eccmaai, ngnb ar, t9nq p 1. '...teen p6 ! Ap53 cm(ynp el to m,uMt Pol,p bagtN MrNe! 5, 1481. R cpC pt IAu A91MEA mtnnt pd1,1, ,9 raJeAle a the Fsanv pnsum pf the tlnlilke4re 7 / Rp¢es Oeparleent. IM Insnt.W hr fS Anne ]NMd Arvndn e9ffin mt AAS3, Im. 1,9m mp to ent not emtn'. nneAted some, mrn. WE 11.01,99: CITY 0 MXLW WARREN MES•ENi ICR1fOl50 OE TAM - p1E51NENT5 JUNE ,1, 1092 IF - 2 CITY LNSIAEAT 10IIIASE STATIC -- i0, - -- XUAITY DAYS RARER 13KJER DATE STAFF VALK FILE 'VALID HARKU VALLE RATE 360 165 ORE TO III 114.5 DES SA Of!I - BAXA ENDS SR ICI 0.01149} 1,191,!15.0 I, 191,615.00 1,191.615.50 3.10 3.100 3.516 07133/92 II A•39O "AII W ffi PNERICP 92 123,00.00 3.100 1.100 3.111 07130192 SI 3 ^W EW IAGEF BAR 01/09,9 Alla 5W,92LW 500,00.00 50,000.00 500.00.00 6110 4.161 0110192 SWIM.O 9 9 -0915 ININILL FMMIlL IRIDES CMl -11,08,92 4.110 5O.OM.00 SOQO0.00 500.00.0 0!60 1.160 1.218 08105192 Si 'AIDES BMR AA 0110792 50,005.0 5O,O 200.00.40 9.160 E.In 09111/92 19 OO9.G; MIMI NGFNIL! !MEP BOIL 02010/92 MIS MIS 50,00.00 200,00.00 TOO. M0.90 3.940 1.960 1.015 0110112 mo 12 :Iee• 'o0tm, IRE? 109 05,01/92 501 !0,00.0 500,00.0 1.169 4.169 4.22100!11191 M 1919 ANSI! WSTEBN 0!/15192 50,00.00 50,00.0 SN,0O.00 1.000 9.N0 1.258 60153(92 IM 6REAI NESIEM 11/15/92 "Noo -0 50.00.00 SW.0O.O 4.20 4. no 1.25910122/92 Ill 3MM WENT 4ESTEPB 0111519: 50,02.00 50.00.00 SW,0O.00 4.20 LIDO 1.258 1110192 IN o9P19 AREAL NESIERN 05/01/92 O0iO3.DID 50.00.0 5W,O0.O 4.00 1.00 COSA 11112192 191 90915 A1111 TESIEBA 05:01192 50,00 .00 00,00.0 50.00.0) 4.250 1.250 4.309 ISIOU93 30 99912 WAIT *SIREN 95/01192 30.00.90 WISDOM 50,00.0 4.IW 1.135 Nam 2101194 215 00616 SAINT '*STERN 05/01!12 W.M0.O 500.00.0 50,00.00 1.150 1.15! 4.2003!22113 214 99811 WNW NESIENN 00115192 50.000.05 500,00.0 50.000.0 3.10 3.10 1.131 OIHI92 9l )MI SANYP 01!29152 SM.900.0 SW.0O.O 50,00.0 CASA I.MO I. IDA 01/25/93 210 9n -006 50W 9112,192 500,00.0 50,00).00 50,00.0 4.00 I.MO 1.106 01/11193 191 93BL9TALS TIO AVERNUS 9,119.546.50 9,II9,W.M 0,119.566..10 3.131 3.989 125 LOCAL WNIY INES9EN1 FUNDS I.TS LUAL WW, Tlfil AA 14,991 14,9 %,566.42 11,999,5 46.12 5.319 5.105 3.319 1 09R04 LOAAL WWI lNYST FAO 1,111,00.00 1.113,00.0 1,113 .00.0 5.321 5.105 5.319 1 SlIRIalkS ud AVERAGES 1d,M,546.42 16.111,1U.Y1 16,112,54.41 5.305 MIA 1 FEOERAL WWI ISSLES - INTENT 09450 RAW OF EEAICA 93/10169 1,50,00+30 1,5O,CW.O L.S4,0O.00 9.126 2.946 1.9541 6010193 126 RD9TEREE 33LIE0 WWIIIFS Mn RAW OD ANNA, 02/23/97 240,10.10 211,M5.11 112,0)9.10 9.0) 6.316 B.452 0111102 5,113 NMI RUN OF ANERICA 09 %21191 113,702.31 359,596.55 612,153.80 9.500 9.551 9.689 0101110 6,618 00969 OAN NITER REYNOl6S 07101181 10,496.56 69,10.32 61,210.58 9.000 8.95 8.6I4 03115101 3,181 9002 FIREMAN SAVINGS 0141/81 4251.05.31 131,124.65 663,169.18 MOO 8.631 8.151 05115101 3,242 SUB9FiL5 Intl REARF5 1.050.2995.0 1.091,131.26 t.603J0.16 B.B32 692 4.105 SMLI BUSINESS ONINISTRATION O N ENALL B,ISINE55 AMR 0125/66 1.101,562.50 1,00,00.0 1.065,112.11 Mn 8.184 9.146 07MIll 6,965 NISGELlREDIS SECURITIES - DIBESSLAT WT, W. IF AIWA 02110193 _._.- 501,904.00 5,20,00.00 404,02.00 9.41D 8.315 8.130 OB /15/11 .._ ------ - --- -- ----- _ ---- -------- - -------------------- - ` 8,082 - - - -- Gala- IIWESGENlS 966 wRJW% 1 29168510)3.0 14,319114.19 30,SM,912B.OI S.Ntl 5.3511 599 "- �D6!11V2 CITY OF AAApp MARINM AD- 3 IWESTAENI MIFXIO DETAILS - CASK CITY JIAIE 10, IISt DWESTMNi vIryCNASE STATED — TIM — PRIORITY DAYS "ACT ISSAW. DATE M VALLE EALE MILE WRIT VALK RATE 366 SAS SAFE ID MI a iN;E NIIES ACCOUNTS MDO SAYN DE MEAICA 31169.31.16 3.150 LIDS 3.M krrabd In,eresr a: Po¢UU 16,111.12 101K CA$N I 1.09S1661,50 TOW CA91 and IMWSI ENIS I L,M,124.50 ll\ 1::e611992 Cllr OF Fmcm czM m- 1 PORTFOLIO NSIU mESlnERI ACTHI, By rcH Clry JNIE I, Im .IV4 M, Iv@ SMT:O IRMSACTIN PMCMSES SALESIMIMIIIES tyeE IINES:K9l 1 ISSUER RATE MTE OP DEPOSITS OR YI(11BRAMLS BALIKE OFPIFICAFES K CEPO61t MAY BE61MIM6 FAR KE: 9,291,615.50 ID6C iMR CF wo ICA 3. MR 06/30/92 !77 "n.00 O^BII GREAT Vi 3.709 06/15/92 mo,oit 108:6 GREAT KSIFRR S.10 06,13192 $171,"0.00 SUBTOTALS Tel EKIM MIKE 627.921.00 w1w.00 9,11915".50 IDEAL WAGE 11VESIREV FUIIM K61M"6 MiMCE: IOS TOTAL AKKV "VET FWD 5.119 21 12o1w." 2,m0,OM.m -00 00 LOCAL WAR, IMV4 FWD 5. 3?9 SURTUALS End INIV6 MIKE 2,IM,CM.00 2,m0,00A.m 120,OW.00 1REME1161WERES KCOMIS ERIN[% MAKE: Oita SAW OF MERICA 2.250 5,291,211.57 2,2M,m0.M .M J,0 ",III.Sl 1 FEDERAL WWI ISSIAES - CMR011 BESIMI! OWE. I,SM,OM.M 'S I,SM,am.aa RUAISME M[RE0 SEMIIIES NEHADN6 BALYCfI moll BAN OF NEAICA 6.000 06115/92 10,203.70 ,m m203 BAN OF "RICA B.500 06125192 102.53 0006v OEM BITTER AEORROCS 9.000 0401192 379.12 00092 511WMMR 34VIAS 8 -500 06/16/92 2,530.32 SWIOtAL ml EMIK MIKE .00 11,06.51 - 11,06.51 OWL REINES OMIRISMA:IOR BEGINIM Wfl : I,I01,362.M 1,101,562.50 RISCELLME016 SECARITIE6 - DIK"t K61MIN BNM[E: MI,9M.m ---- _----------- — — - - - - - -- - — -------_-'.___------_.-- 501,"1." TO)ALS KSIMI8610tAA[E: 1 12,193,112.0 0,012,IM.51 1,218,06.51 15,689,170.03 C d a COPY__' _ . NKKAEION IFM YCa11O11C YYBAM EE130SWfI T. nPF15) OF IICFNSrySI iltE NO. Fe: Mparnnenl M Akdulk Sexwape C«wd Kam NO. IMF lraadeay Senwn�da, Cdl. 958I10 Nt ": ::In p4 rAU YrrP . wt'M GEOLR' MNI iw.rner.<w,r wumni i;AT1I::. 9IACF cm C vS�RE pm •rl[ Mxi.bm bbib.m b OaN IiM1xns. APPW u Sec 2p ❑ aped 2. NAME(S) OF APPIIC [S) TxmP. Poppet SPDh:Ji.S Aaele ERedire DUle: F11e<fln tote; e LCOh, nle•a pdac 2. TYPE(S) Of TRANSA"ON(SI FEE ll TYPE s LFO"• Vnl In t; Ld—1 1 1. Nerve.1 lkal. -• F:1 O9 nd- Cl A S. Lan:0 on of Smi— t —NUmbr and Sfm / Lap4DE901 101M Fwllilll plea, JU'1 2 6 _ City and Zip Code Cw�nry I S Pep v49 < Sae BnrTrad '. 10TA1 6. If Premiw uweeed, \ 9 Allnmiw MFiM Sho. type ai lkxx r.• / a ry Lmih9 S. Moo lhp Ad ,.x (if Al l inm S —Numbw ape SMxI 9 Nur. you ever bxn rani of o Allan,? 1). Nan yav ern rlokhd wry of IM pro.is— M d,e AkoholM< Servo!. Comrol An w npulollona of the DepaxMent pw. laini q to IM AW I 11. Explain o "YES" onva to Inml 9 w 10 en an aawhram wLkh "II M deemed purl of Ws oppFwfion " 12 Appli<anl o9nn 1a1 IMI any mnmper .mpbpd in on -wla li<mrd pr—,— .111 how all n. auaNC-non, of o Fwmx, and ' (b) I- M III ,al rglaM w <avw w pnMt a M ylaleM ony aF 1M pa.lranr d Xn AkaM1< xreraq. Cwhol All. 13 STATE OF CALIFMN1A Coonry al _- fl' %: LI1U----------------- ...... IM...... Lti'5= .:-... . N,. . . . nrtn rrM %� n—p _ MM Ie. APMICANT SIGN HERE --- A►nICAU01141 By TRANffRROR 15. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Caunry of .. -- --------------------------- C)o to ...... ..... ..... ..... ' W. r.W. •N,n '' hmYr. .M:w Mn�u.n ~m Vnwf . , ,..A.✓ J rvu,.L✓m . .rvw n.r nwnu .Nnnxx .— s .nun.. xr r.x,n nr ❑ FMwlwy papers, ❑ .............. ..... - -- --- ------- -- - ---- -COMES MAUfO --- - -------- C:. ?--....... ......... r]R.newal..Fxef ---------- aM m ........... ......------ ---- 011k. m ----------- ..,..J xiw Na. . --- - - - -- -- - - - - -. m xxa, o � x FOOTHILL BOULEVARD / EL DORADO / 10134 Foothill EL DORADO 10134 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Currently Zoned: Connnunity Commercial in Subarea ] Of the Foothill Specific Plan Zoning of Adjacent Properties: North: FSP, Community Commercial South: FSP, Commercial /Office East: FSP, Community Commercial West: FSP, Community Commercial, Vacant Parcel adjacent to subject location sasse 07/08/92 COPY.- - - - I,. ARRIICATH M m ALCANOIK A[YYAW IICENIEEt) 1. TYPE(S) OF LICENSE(S) FILE NO. T.: bporlmFnl M Ak. k 6•••r.P C.nirol Kai" 1,10. I W I 3••d+'W S¢raurW, C' i1. 95S1R Rivelnlde OFF SALE G"CRAL 592307 GEOGy4HKAl TM undnaDmd AvbT.ppl;e. b Oat. x.nw. dwcnlwd a l.lb.0 AWio,J ardv Sol. 210Y ❑ I.l..d 2. NAME(5) OF ANVCANL($) i.rnp. Permit CIAPEb, 3.we. v. mii li. D91w l?a.: [NH, Nar o 3. TYN(S) Of TRANSACTIONS) FEE _ TYN t STY.PNF.rG, L +nren<e ,l. 9rr.Ta [. 3376.00 31 A. N.n»or OW . I.cE9caDa 5 la.li.n M e.w;nn, -n.mbn end Sly..l 2 4 1992 8619 Baseline Pmd CM end Lp C.M Ceun PAWW CtKA,4,W.:A 91730 m B=dtm TOT AI t 13]1.00 6 If An rvemra.Inw. S- T of Can 21- 035892 C'ly Umib? Y.s !. Mol4ll AM.. (if diR .l fam $)-Nu .M Shen It•^e' I••'nt 1G' ✓�2 iSrrPlErUa Rini," , tlisnim Wejo, CA 92692 perm 97 Hare You ..n fiwn.w.i.M M a 1•bnY? 10. Ill- yw nv via iod any M th. Fll,AF r M 111. AkAttlh N-W. C..4 All or ryr,kNam of M• Daprlm.nt pn� + teinirp t. the A<I? i —_ L 1 L E.pl.in .,YES' en-, m INm, 9 w 10 .n an .naMmm wM.h ,hall M dwm•d pwt M IN, oppli -Ii- 12 AMI. -1 W... 1.1 IMI -y -.r •mpf y m .6 fonw p.miv .dl h.r..11 rh. 9.^II &orlon. of o Ikemw, and (b) ft, M -11 nn -1.1. w o. pnmil w b. vrol.Nd any of the p.. .f IF. Ak.hm., u.er.R• Control AU. awn iu.nl 13. STATE OF UUFCANIA Cwnry .1 . . TKI!dA. _ -------- 6122192 .. +Mnv �Nvm• n•..rpr... W.Mr. �nJ.. ✓. aM n. r ✓rnrN nx :.nrrw .nut mW r nM..✓ M xn.nM ✓, . Z. :M :,.:Jn •..Inx.✓. ,,✓r -. •n. .r rin.r. M nnnnn: All ✓r<Mn .M,n n MW a p ✓xMr • v. x.a, n ✓ ✓ ,rM n v+n .w.W ✓..n+ a. .. ., 'M. M iv,nrn .i:n n. ,.n arts w rv�:AN le SIGN , J „J_bl�l SIGN NERF ._..._... 1.....dw�_.. ...y_..+6_Ad------- ...... ......t ___.__... ......_.____ _._f..�._....__._..._.__.} -------------- ....................... .________.__________.___.__.._ APPLICATION RT TRANSFEROR IS EEAEF OF CApEORN1A `� C..nty M ....LQVBCRf{EO ....... ...... D.M1 ..fl /2i/42. .. Ir..yvm. rn r.Y..r.. n .+ x.wr ... nH•.n�e AM M+� � M • .Mn+ nn Mn:✓ �nwe�n .,.i.ry ✓ M iwmxr ..w i.. rvM:.n �+4.«b• M Yrnrr✓,x~ r ••'.n. J n... r,.x. , as: M n.n.rn ..W..xi.. ..er M ..rth. .r rM. M tD lueNOn N.m6.r.M SA,W Ciry and lip Coda Cwnry - .9G1.- lWel.t.e dr tw J 2 9 — Saw- Lr.�naWLl.a - - -- fM N.1 W61, &I. TAU File; F. dpmlmenl UN OMy Alm.h.d; Cj Rnad•if ❑ P1du.1wY pnp.n. 6/22/92 ..._ .._COPES MAIEED. , -------------------------------------- . BASI I. 1111 FT 1-1-1 IJ I_I111= N l� Sunrize Liquor 8679 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonqa 91730 A business within the Sunrize Center at the SWC Baseline /Carnelian Properly curmiLly zoned: Neighborhood Connercial Zoning of Adjacent Properties: North: low Residential South: Medium Residential Fast: Office /Professional West: Vacant /flood Control District 07/08/92 sasse APPYCrET1OE1 FOR ALCONOIEC SNSRAEIS LKDMS) I. TTPE(S) OF LICENSE($) NLE No, T. ltep«Im.nl d Ak"k S.nrIR. Coned 11FCEIpf, NOd rr I h°°dw'N' pivrr•d.y. OFF CV t &aPPL Saemewee, Cdi1. 9331! Mar, IIIU.L CODE ',.', TF. 9nd4<dRmd M , ppr., Ool. Iwr.d f m.. d 6w n IeSo..; AppW enter Sw.2O 0 ldhelln Dw 2. NMIE(S) OF AINIGNT(S) T.mp. Pwmll ERwen Dm.: i "'I I'I'✓ <Srl'£,9 Ce'r T'p',il'ri _ Onrv'': i.=,.d ^. C I •Ir vrr.'. .: S, tY S) OF rRANRACTOFE51 17R I d. Nam of IFvI- f, l «ants el Ewn«r -Numbs and $M1M �� rrm r.1sr•tt:r NOO vl j JUN 2 4 1992 ct, Id rp cod. CI- 1tRisRRF s — _ F"X.n p• „ylu "r 61ia :.pr. CertarAirv. d. ISI ow . mlype lak.n 2. MK.mnl Indd. T.l"=;. limiht y -, • <rm . �� L. M WII Addmu fl AEerenl M1mm si- Numb.. ant Shoa rt.wr rr...r VIr ra;l nlo, tll nsic•r t'icyr (J. L'.:,'t Mnr 9. Hme you ..w ben < «r:<hd d o hbnyt 10. Nay. you .re. ,IdaNd enY d M. pro,nien. d d" Alm Ak bnra9e Conhd M a <.9ubliem el M. D.padmmt pew ' Idni,q m M. Mt 1I. Explain a "YES” or:Iww u INmI 9 e• 10 nn nn aewbmem wbkb IMII M dwm.d pwl d IN• oppGm6an. 11. I.pplenm n9r.e< 1.) @I IMr M in lk—d Pwill - II M. --d 101 wll rot 0 Xro Po•Nm d M. AI<eMl< M, Goa M. 19. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Cwn - --- / Mai.__ _... DaM1_._...._..'••__.... I It •AmIIUNI • rw a ,�.•. a :. w r.mrn .,L.r.m ,,.. w ...um -. e...r+.. e. ..n...: > .M :,..m 3333. r.0 ..:.e:.... SIGN "ERE `i.L..... . ............................... ------- _---- _ --------- _--- __--- r I ..T,,I - -- -- APPLICATION BY TRANSFEROR 15. SLATE OF CALIFORNIA C-m m _ _ r_•, 1__ s%_ _Y_'r_I__•_n,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,LMN ......... ( M1 :,a,rM .,r:,.r.m m• Y .iM.,." her. M. wr 16 N-01) al Lk.—(0 lL 9pnoN•.(r) oI lk.m s) ¢ Is. Li«,u N-WO 19. t-.M - - Numbs acrd Sh.w Coy and Zip Code Cmnry M NO WNI, &I.. Th4 Lhv; Far O MOM,,, Uw 0ay All <,w Fi Ree<wded sake, Fl Fidud., papers, ❑ .------------- .------------------- --------------- _ COMES MAILED..,,.'. L ))L1 --- __ ------- ---------------- i . N' I'imnrl.'- [J Eemwl. F. d.....:.....IoN M...... -------------- _ ...AIN -W N9, .__.___ - ........ BASI I. 1111: � I U'J, I I i Sunrize Liquor 8679 Base Line Road, Rancho Cucamonqa 91730 A business within the Sunrize Center at the SWC Baseline /Carnelian Properly currently zoned: Ileighborhood Comnercial 7.oninq of Adjacent Properties: North: Low Residential South: Medium Residential Fas l,: Office /Professional West: Vacant /Floorl Control District. 07/0£3/92 sasse. m JUL 0 COPY.._.- . - .� VRKATIOM Fa Yt'OIg11C ffN�AW E1CY1Wf1 —.- --- I. TYMS) a LICENSE(S) —I FILF Np. To- Dyw9Fxw d AAMdk fewry+ Crowd MCW3M 1901 frondxry Swlww'ro.Cdl. MIS f1Tf3Ya=L off "I.G ,Al G[OGfA/yCM ,r •x•••••' COO! f15 3415 iM1. w" 61.61 ..Pf�Fd w " °'"" bw.d It IaviMdwYfwa Ap,b.dt So& 24D94 E] t. W ($) Gf MI KMR(S) T+ ti 473311 /19/92 - 10/15/93 PEAKY totter Di+tA.. Owe I+.e.ACt ESMiI. O+I.: :tANi W:1 D. TYR(SI Of iSANSACTM)145) B 11C. TYR rt'Jl. 2Ar. i 1.174.30 41 1 Cf ac :1 A.m'+ uecm ratter r s. laafen d Swlln.e�Iwnbw rod Srr+w c - 9477 teotbill .lod. P Coy wM LP Cod. S 9 b0 - w Y Xw _ iMU 1 :T4.of 1_ v. Slb. T M d I:wmt 31 -19 3 ). M Ir Mlb m Y City Lirwi } 1. Multi. AdY.w IA 6Fw.n1 Emo S) -IY.Mr rod be n.�� ln,h - +A +e 9Ot1 9. Xaw yw a.d 0. I.Iwlyl 10. Iles yw ..w .:ebbd .rq d fn wew3ew d db Ako S+mw Cw4d Act d r D.pwwbw pro. O bininl b M Aatl Ttw93e1. Me. )4309. Sltlf 19. I I. Fgldn o "YR" wm.w b ibrw 9 w ID w m .nahb4lr .bitb rbAll 4 Y..bd 9+0 n4 It pot tc.�lt cr1M lo.o la) Aa aw wwb9w +.r91+r+d h wltY Ik...ed w..�ib+ ,;0 Ao.. of Nw W+9AlerlOw d o Ft4xw, .M (bl Ib br roll mr .blob w row w PweF b M .IN.bf d dw .wn d 4. Akdeli SwweO+ [anlnl M 13. STATE GE CAMEO Ca ly d.... ---------------------- OObb /15/91------------ ."r. ......� r w N b+:�r..�; N..a..•r w r µra- n � N ..w... � .xxr,.. M..4 . •t. � xYywv el A6. w.in ..�44 �r Y .:Ml..n lr ..� ry • A r.M M1 AE9lP%K l a.a... +. .y r. 14 KA MEN SIGN [F[ __..---.__.. D______________________ ____________ ________________ _ __ ___________ _ _____ APPUCATM BY TOMSMEM I5. STATE OF CAUMM1A Cw d ----- .Jbityl4 ................... D+b._.�.{1y,3__...____._____ un4 .Wx N .nom +.n Y� �..wM.. ..4 ...�+ +�.. � n✓r .h. M h:.�vn. ra .. �.wM 4nn1J 4wM 4. �rti r• ,� x N �� nL � rI.Y,MrM w M. •w� �rN .v x ••mtin 4 h e.n..: ill 4 NrTin.M..vl4ww n nxwM wnln a ..r .w w ..rM. xn nr�.n w . ti...�nr i.W Dn Not Wr Attie TAY U.; Fw DtpwY.wd Vw 0* Arb.A.lr 0 Fww m nalk., Fidwiwy pgwn. ----------- ----- . 10 ....................._COPIES "lim ------ ------- massy -------- ...-------- OF.w.+lr f. @# W.=.ftw w..._ eift ------------ 011la.oe.......y /19/9AAw+IM N.._.__f913Sy_...__.._. w z w 0 4 w ti z U J Q `V 9475 FOOTHILL BOULEVARO 944, y x PERRY'S RANCHO MARKET 9477 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Currently Zoned: Foothill Specific Plan Community Commercial - Subarea 3 Zoning of Adjacent Properties: North: FSP Community Commercial South: Low Residential East: FSP Community Commercial West: FSP Community Commercial sasse 07/07/92 Perry's Rancho Market 9473 9469 9467 9465 9457 9477 9455 9451 9475 FOOTHILL BOULEVARO 944, y x PERRY'S RANCHO MARKET 9477 Foothill Boulevard Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Currently Zoned: Foothill Specific Plan Community Commercial - Subarea 3 Zoning of Adjacent Properties: North: FSP Community Commercial South: Low Residential East: FSP Community Commercial West: FSP Community Commercial sasse 07/07/92 It is recommended that City council approve the Resolution granting authorization to destroy records listed on the attached form(s). BUILDING S SAFETY Under the authority of Government Code Section 34090, a department head may destroy certain city records which are two years old under his charge as long as such destruction is first approved by the City Attorney and City Council. Also under the same Government Code section, authority is granted to destroy records which have been microfilmed. DA /tr attachment - - - -- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: July 23, 1992 TO: City Council FROM: Debra Adams, City Clerk/Recornds Manager BY: Tony Russell, Records ClerkjQ- SUBJECT: DESTRUCTION OF CITY DOCUMENTS It is recommended that City council approve the Resolution granting authorization to destroy records listed on the attached form(s). BUILDING S SAFETY Under the authority of Government Code Section 34090, a department head may destroy certain city records which are two years old under his charge as long as such destruction is first approved by the City Attorney and City Council. Also under the same Government Code section, authority is granted to destroy records which have been microfilmed. DA /tr attachment RESOIIIE'ICN NO. 92 -� 4 • •'' N 1 I 1•' 1' 1I fa`11 NYY CaNI(•f. :.�� 0 , .IDig 1 6. .:1a •• •, C. J! "106'J1. ••,• NJf DY e• J•.'IJ N''10.) •. .1.1 WHEREAS, it has been determined that certain City records under the charge of the following City Departments are no lar4er required for public or private purposes: f f 1 _: 4w41 wfII'UZS, it has been determ;nai that destruction of the above- Mentioned materials is rx.cescary to conserve storage space, and reduce staff time, expense, and confusion in hardling, and informing the public; and WHEREAS, Section 34090 of the Government Code of the State of California authorizes the head of a City department to destroy any City records and documents which are over two years old under his or her urge, without making a copy thereof, after the same are m lager required, upon the approval of the City Council by resolution and the written consent of the City Attorney; and WHERMS, it is therefore desirable to destroy said records as listed in E]dubit "A" attached hereto and nnade a part hereof, in storage, without making a copy thereof, Oudh are over two years old; and WHEREAS, said records have been approved for destr ctien by the City Attorney. NOW, THEREFORE, this City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: SF1_CUM 1: That approval and autharization is hereby given to destroy those records described as Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a part hereof. 517 -MCN 2: That the City Clerk is authorized to allow a amrnation by and donation to the Department of Special Collections of the University Research Library, University of California, or other historical society designated by the City Council, any of the records described in Edhibit "All attached hereto and made a part hereof, except those deemed to be confidential. SECTION 3: That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the raw-e shall be in full farce and effect. DEPARTMENTBuildin9 & Safety PREPARED BY/DATETonv Russell /7 -1 -92 RETENTION 2 Years DESCRIPTION OF RECORDS: 1989 Residential Plans Tr 13440 Lots 1,2,91- 94,101,111 89- 12610 -12626 10790 Civic Center OR 89 -14010 10900 4th st 89 -14008 i 14009 8610 Milliken 03 89 -14992 8530 Milliken 89 -14991 9041 Pittsburgh 89 -14931 9805 6th 0203/204 89 -14839 -14838 10841 White Oak 89 -14827 9337 Milliken 89 -14822 11630 Dayton 89 -14810 7974 Haven 8914807 PM 11891 Milliken /Arrow 89 -14798 9755 Arrow /G 89 -14792 10540 Baseline 89 -14791 11680 Dayton 89 -14721 10601 Church Bldg A 89 -14715 8316 Red Oak 89 -14641 8784 Rochester 89 -14536 9849 Foothill 1498 89 -14509 .APPROVED FOR DESTRUCTION BY: EP HEAD ASST. CITY TTORNEY RECORDS MANAGEMENT DIVISION Destruction Authorization Page 2 9849 Foothill 079B 89 -14508 9600 Center 1100/120 89 -14379 9600 Center 1120 89 -14327 10722 Arrow ,#710 89 -14224 12434 4th 89 -14216 8300 Utica 89 -14168 7368 Archibald 89 -14066 9000 9th 1140 89-14065 9819 Foothill 89 -15500 8916 Foothill 89 -15430 10532 Acacia B -3 89 -15400 10532 Acacia B -5 89 -15399 10601 Church Bldg A 89 -15284 10350 Commerce Ctr 89 -15238 10350 Commerce Ctr 110 89 -15237 8280 Utica 89 -15236 9227 Haven 1215 89 -15204 9227 Haven 1370 89 -15203 9227 Haven 1220 89 -15202 9041 Pittsburgh 89 -15198 9819 Foothill "A" 89 -15192 9849 Foothill "J" 89 -15191 TR 13823 89- 15173 -76 5632 Malachite 89 -15433 8280 Utica 1170 89 -15112 10621 Church 89 -15642 10641 Church "C" 89 -15641 10630 Town Ctr Bldg D 89 -15639 9467 & 9495 9th 89 -15626 10900 9th 1602 89 -15600 11340 Jersey 89 -15590 10722 Arrow 1116 89 -15584 6701 Carnelian 89 -15554 9433 Hyssop 89 -15531 8800 Baseline A/B 89 -15520 9227 Haven 1260 89 -15510 8228 Rosebug 89 -15506 9339 Foothill 89 -15816 9275 Buffalo 89 -15694 9227 Haven 1280 89-15874 9743 Crescent 89 -15871 10900 4th 1602A 89-15827 11492 6th 1617 89- 15865/66 8580 Milliken 89 -15857 10155 Sharon Cir 89 -15856 8667 19th 89 -15848 8767 Rochester 89 -15843 Destruction Authorization Page 3 9337 Milliken 89 -15819 9227 Haven 0240 89 -15818 9339 Foothill 89 -15817 9000 9th 89 -15846 8989 9th 89 -16216 11680 Dayton 89 -16174 10722 Arrow 89 -16134 10722 Arrow 89 -16133 9227 Haven 0100 89 -16132 10938 Jersey 89 -16053 10570 Foothill A 89 -16031 10582 Foothill B 89 -16032 8311 Haven 1113 89 -16013 9420 Santa Anita 89 -16000 10722 Arrow #712 89 -15996 10722 Arrow #804 89 -15995 10981 Jersey 89 -15994 9545 Santa Anita 89 -16706 8767 Rochester 89 -16705 9339 Foothill 89 -16701 8916 Foothill F/9 89- 16681/82 6723 Etiwanda 89 -16635 10540 Baseline 89 -16562 6501 Carnelian St. 89- 16537 -41 10731 Laurel 89 -16723 8255 Aspen 89-16722 9339 Foothill 89 -16701 10722 Arrow #508 89 -16467 10722 Arrow 1704 89 -16466 10722 Arrow 1570 89 -16465 10750 Civic Ctr 89 -16464 9614 Lucas Ranch 89 -16463 11555 Jersey 89 -16448 9275 Buffalo 89 -16447 9041 Pittsburgh 89 -16442 7974 Haven 89 -16414 12459 Arrow 89 -16358 8283 Grove #107 89-16355 7890 Haven #14 89 -16324 8865 Utica 89 -16284 9849 Foothill "J" 89 -16272 9819 Foothill "A" 89 -16271 9227 Haven #100 89 -16774 11200 Arrow 89 -16765 7777 Milliken 89 -16755 9105 Milliken 89 -16744 10737 Laurel 89 -16723 Destruction Authorization Page 4 8255 Aspen 89 -16722 9440 Lucas Ranch 89 -16708 9227 Haven 89 -7024 9600 Center 1180 89 -7021 10576 Foothill 89 -7019 8327 Vineyard 89- 6857 -59 8034 Haven 89 -6856 10541 Lemon "C" 89 -6946 10718 Civic Ctr 89 -6715 10681 Foothill /297 89 -6631 8687 Utica 89 -6629 8443 Haven 89 -6612 10787 Laurel 89 -6360 10431 Lemon M 89 -6262 9087 Arrow 0240/280 89 -6261 7365 Carnelian /121 89 -6253 9108 Pittsburgh 89 -6252 9275 Buffalo 89 -6249 10598 Baseline A 89 -6263 9950 Foothill Q 89 -6205 12434 4th 89 -6130 10431 Lemon 89 -6124 8619 Red Oak 89 -6114 10670 Acacia 89 -6074 11200 Arrow 89 -6042 9170 Haven 0105 89 -5729 9037 Arrow 1170 89 -5891 6346 Haven 89 -5889 9125 Archibald D 89 -5879 9047 Arrow 1130,140,150,160 89 -7236 9420 Santa Anita 89 -7193 9851 8th 89 -7252 8255 Aspen 89 -7511 10737 Laurel 89 -7512 8325 Haven 89 -8349 9190 Haven 89 -8339 9339 Foothill "J" 89 -8335 8800 Rochester "B" 89 -8330 7233 Haven "A" 89 -8219 9755 Arrow "F" 89 -8188 TR 3973 Lot 14 89 -8167 8730 Helms 89 -8076 12748 Arena 89 -8059 TR 13444 89 -7913 6797 Carnelian 89 -7619 10900 4th 89 -7613 10900 4th 89 -7612 Destruction Authorization Page 5 8540 8th 89 -7534 10877 Foothill 89 -9000 9420 Santa Anita 89 -8968 9087 Arrow 1160, 180, 190 89 -8920 PM 10782 Lots 1 -9 89 -8804 9269 Utica 1120 89 -8523 9000 9th 89 -8409 9540 center 1120 89 -9265 8830 Rochester 89-9101 9819 S 9840 Foothill 89- 9095 -96 9309 Foothill "A" 89 -9052 8830 Rochester 89 -9342 12451 Arrow 89 -9341 9183 Hermosa 89 -9320 TR 13441 89- 9504 -9525 10033 Feron 89- 10170,71,72 9087 Arrow 1120 89 -10113 9087 Arrow 1150 89-10112 8514 Vineyard 89 -10035 9057 Arrow 1170/180 89 -9971 10700 Jersey 1460 89 -9864 9540 Center 1120 89 -9799 9950 Foothill 1Q 89 -9740 10700 Jersey 1330/340 89 -9733 8784 Rochester 89-9664 9521 Business Center 89 -9644 TR 13063 89- 9588 -9602 10783 Bell Ct 89-9538 7201 Haven 89 -10502 9551 Lucas Ranch 89 -10479 9555 Center 89-9920 9819 Foothill 89 -10325 9300,9350,9400 7th 89- 10317,18,19 9755 Arrow H -K 89 -10243 10722 Arrow E,K,A 89 -10194 10431 Lemon Bldg "2C" 89 -10268 10900 4th 1602 89 -584 9238 Center 89 -552 9819 -9849 Foothill 89- 532 -534 10574 Acacia D -4 89-492 9866 Highland 89 -490 9805 6th Bldg 800 89 -477 9077 Arrow Rte 89 -298 10535 Foothill 1402 89-00283 9430,9440,9450 Lucas Ranch 89- 280,81,82 7890 Haven 120 89 -274 9430,9440,9450 Lucas Ranch 89 -225 Destruction Authorization Page 6 10572 Acacia 89 -224 9955 6th 89 -213 10900 4th 89 -198 9843 6th 0106 89 -143 9077 Arrow 89 -058 9227 Haven 1120 89 -044 9057 Arrow 1140 89 -635 9223 Archibald C/E 89- 624/627 10574 Acacia D -7 89 -621 9267 Haven 1140 89 -619 9380 7th 89 -13977 10431 Lemon 16 89 -13980 9227 Haven 89 -13974 TR 13441 -4 89- 13851 -71 9227 Haven #26 89 -13779 10601 Church "A" 89 -13765 9955 6th 89 -13760 8797 Rochester "C" 89 -13759 10841 White Oak 89 -13660 10900 4th 89 -13654 11493 6th Bldg 6/7 89- 13619/20 94131 Hyssop 89 -13610 10864 Edison 89- 13585/592 9227 Haven #240 89 -13581 9347 Foothill 89 -13570 10540 Baseline "B" 89 -13547 10532 Acacia B -1 89 -13557 8689 Red Oak 89 -13555 10900 4th 89 -13546 10431 Lemon "H" 89 -15484 8976 Foothill 89 -13505 9849 Foothill "B" 89-13381 9879 Foothill "E" 89 -13380 10900 4th 0602 89 -13318 9041 Pittsburgh 89 -13243 10431 Lemon "E" 89 -13177 9269 Archibald 89 -13172 10722 Arrow 1802 89 -12883 TR 13542 -1 89- 12844 -46 8045 Vineyard 89 -12881 TR 11626 89- 12822,23,24 TR 12870 89- 12805,06,07,08 9749 Crescent 89 -12787 9759 Arrow "C" 89 -12697 7890 Haven 121 89 -12628 9375 Archibald 89 -12549 10431 Lemon 89 -12541 Destruction Authorization Page 7 10824 Edison Ct 89 -12539 11190 Arrow 89 -10880 9100 9th 89 -10837 8776 Helms C -G 89- 10715,16 8776 Helms 89- 10714,13 11200 Arrow 89 -70669 9817 7th 89 -10668 8034 Haven 89 -10662 9380 7th 89 -10648 10790 Civic Center 89 -10646 10743 Bell Ct 89 -10643 SWC Vincent /Jersey 89 -10603 10350 Commerce Center 1180 89 -10598 10532 Acacia B -1 89 -10588 8311 Haven 1111 89 -10581 5689 Red Oak 89 -10571 9955 6th 89 -10508 9620 Center 89 -10979 10900 4th 89 -10967 9790 19th 89 -10962 9227 Haven 1370 89 -10955 8906 Reales 89 -10911 10723 Bell Ct 89-11295 9360 Baseline "J" 89 -11212 7900 Haven 125 89 -11066 8955 Foothill 89-1144 10532 Acacia B -4 89 -1139 10350 Commerce 1200 89 -1129 10431 Lemon 89-1152 10955 Arrow 89-1128 9267 Haven #270 89-641 9750 19th 89 -1197 10440 Trademark 89 -1480 9759 Arrow A/B 89 -1414 10532 Acacia B -5 89 -1258 10574 Acacia D -6 89 -1257 9275 Buffalo Bldg A 89 -1205 TR 13270 89- 927 -57 8776 Helms A &B 89- 788 -89 10535 Foothill 89 -774 9267 Haven 1180 89 -698 8167 Vineyard 89- 694,95,96 6623 Amethyst 89 -689 10841 White Oak 89-1634 8976 Foothill 89 -1623 8045 Vineyard 89 -1624 8045 Vineyard /8976 Foothill 89- 1620,21 Destruction Authorization Page 8 9259 Utica #100/125 89 -1616 11355 Arrow 89 -1582 11778 San Marino 89 -2185 11818 San Marino 89 -2184 11600 Dayton 89 -2068 11600 Dayton 89 -2060 9113 Foothill 89 -1990 10006 Foothill 89 -1975 9227 Haven 1210 89 -1969 6080 Haven 89 -1973 9485 Haven 1100 89-1841 TR 11734 89 -1648 10900 4th 89 -8596 8419 Haven 89 -11807 10700 Jersey #330/340 89 -11766 9614 Lucas Ranch 89 -11764 10722 Arrow #108 89 -11629 10722 Arrow 89 -11628 10900 4th 89 -11608 8787 Onyx Unit 1 89 -11605 8443 Haven 89 -11512 9087 Arrow 1100 89-11816 10841 White Oak 89 -11826 9000 9th 89 -2319 9387 Rochester 89 -2193 11698 San Marino 89 -2187 11738 San Marino 89 -2186 9267 Haven 1180 C9 -2600 8263 Grove 89 -2599 9881 6th 89 -2540 5354 North Haven 89 -2469 8021 Archibald 89 -2445 9339 Foothill "C" 89 -3212 9329 & 9339 Foothill A/C 89-2981,82 8325 Haven 1110 89 -3011 9267 Haven 89 -2919 8733 Monroe Ct 89 -2914 9007 Arrow #100/120 89 -2913 9037 Arrow 89 -2912 9955 East 6th 89 -2907 8916 Foothill H &1 89- 2855/56 9269 Utica 0160 89 -2834 9269 Utica 1165 89-2833 9785 Crescent Ctr 89 -2679 Foothill /Vineyard 89 -2609 10900 East 4th 1602 89 -2590 10970 Arrow 0101 89 -2633 Destruction Authorization Page 9 6346 Haven 89 -3176 9035 Haven 0202 89 -3235 TR 13823 89-12100/101 9047 Arrow 1100 /110 89 -12094 9227 Haven 89 -12060 10532 Acacia B -8 89 -12055 8737 Helms 89 -12050 10783 Bell 89 -11909 8045 Vineyard 0306 89 -11872 10431 Lemon "J" 89 -11861 9359 Foothill "E" 89 -11850 11335 Jersey #24 89 -11838 11355 Jersey 121 89 -11837 11340 Jersey 017 89 -11856 8610 Milliken 13 89 -11835 8530 Milliken 11 89 -11833 8580 Milliken 12 89 -11834 9592 7th 89 -7210 8797 Rochester 89 -12376 10900 4th 1600 89 -12373 church Town Center 89- 12361 -364 9000 9th 89 -2279 9227 Haven 1130 89 -3419 10532 Acacia 89- 3705,06,07 11600 Dayton 89-3522 10723 Beachwood 89-578 9047 Arrow 1180 89 -5808 SEC Arrow /Rochester 89 -5500 8677 Utica 89 -5460 8514 Vineyard 89 -5445 10722 Arrow 1308 89- 5450/51 9688 Baseline 89 -5452 9227 Haven /215 89-5429 12009,12049 Arrow /8521 Rochester 89- 5425/26 11150 Arrow 89 -5412 12434 4th 89 -5413 9560 Baseline 89-5407 8176 Helms 89 -5178 9710 6th 89 -5482 9309 Foothill 89 -5058 9420 Santa Anita 89 -4687 10220 4th 89 -4686 11421 Kenyon Way 89 -4681 9047 Arrow 1160B/170 89 -4674 9225 Buffalo 89 -4606 TR 9399/9400 85- 6786/6795 TR 11626 89 -1881 -1966 Destruction Authorization Page 10 5150 Moonstone 89- 14951/52 5002 Via Verde 88 -4283 5087 Via Serna 89 -7068 6181 Dartmouth 88 -883 10955 Arrow 88 -16501 8827 Rochester 89 -15089 9330 Baseline 1109 89 -15005 8733 Monroe Ct 89 -4517 8555 Red Oak 89 -4516 9153 9th 89 -4515 10535 Foothill 1402 89 -4509 8555 Red Oak 89 -4473 10809 7th 89 -4310 11699 6th 89 -4349 9600 Center 0180 89 -4304 9620 Center 0180 89-4303 8801 Onyx 01 89 -4287 8787 Onyx 12 89 -4286 9710 6th 89 -4215 9037 Arrow 89 -4214 10681 Foothill 0297 89 -4117 10955 Arrow 89 -3789 TR 13273 89 -3787 10431 Lemon 0130 89 -4108 10737 Laurel 89- 9099/9100 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: The Members of the Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation BY: Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF APPOINTMEMT TO FII*, VACANCY oN TEE RANCRO CUCAMONGA COMMUNITY FOUNDATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the selection of Paula Zadick to replace Jeanne Barton on the Board of Directors of the Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation, BACKGROUND: When the City Council originally formed the Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation in 1987, the intent was to have a seven member Board of Directors. With the resignation of Boardmember Jeanne Barton, there is presently a vacancy on the Board. ANALYSIS• It was felt that with Ms. Zadick's fundraising and organizational background, she would prove to be a real asset to the Board. Ms. Zadick has conducted an employee fundraising campaign for a corporation that employed 20,000 people. Additionally, she has organized fundraising and volunteer programs in a number of areas. Ms. Zadick currently serves on the San Gabriel valley United Way Allocations Committee. Ms. Zadick has the unanimous support of the Rancho Cucamonga Community Foundation Board of Directors. Respectfully Submitted, Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jerry Fulwood, Acting Community Services Director 6'-� i BY: Kathy Sorensen, Recreation Superintendent SUBJECT: Agreement Of Use Of Athletic Fields And Facilities RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council execute the attached Agreement for Use of Athletic Fields and Facilities for Spring and Summer of 1992. BACKGROUND Per the policy on Field Allocation, which the City council adopted on September 18, 1991, the City requires all sports users of City fields to sign a written seasonal agreement. This is the first time these contracts have come to the City Council since their recent adoption. All contracts are the same, citrus Little League is not included because they have a separate agreement with the City which has a five year duration. Attached for signature are individual contracts for the following Leagues: California Youth Soccer Association Alta Loma Little League Rancho Cucamonga Softball aka Miss Softball Rancho Cucamonga Womens Soccer League Rancho Little League Rancho Cucamonga Spirits American Youth Soccer organization - Region 65 Deer Canyon Little League A.C.E. Youth Softball Vineyard Little League Re pectfully submitted, rry Fulwood Deputy City Manager/ Acting Community Services Director JF: tp YOUTH SPORTS FIELD ALLCCATION RECOMMENDATIONS Below is a listinc of the organizations, the fields proposed per organization, and contact person. These are for 60' diamonds and soccer fields only. Ninety (901) foot diamond use won't be determined until after the January 23, 1992 Sports advisory Committee meeting. Little League boards have yet to determine what senior leagues are interleaguing with who. Contact: Joe Albera Day Phone: 714- 986 -0169 Evening Phone: 714 - 987 -5127 Alta Loma Little League Jasoer Elementary (2 fields) M - F Days Times 2/1 Dates ACE Youth Softball Sam - dusk Stork Elementary (3 fields) M - F Alta Loma Elementary (4 fields) M - F 4:30 - 8pm 2/1 - 6/28 dusk 1/1 Saturday Sam - 4pm 4pm - dusk Carnelian Elementary (3 fields) M - F 4:30 - 8pm 2/1 - 6/28 Alta Loma High Son. (5 fields) Saturday M - F Sam - 4:30 - 5pm 8pm 2/15 - 6/20 Saturday Sam - Saturday Sam - 8pm Heritage Park (Try Outs) Wednesday Red Hill Park North Softball Field Saturday 5pm - lopm 3/21 - 6/20 Contact: Joe Albera Day Phone: 714- 986 -0169 Evening Phone: 714 - 987 -5127 Alta Loma Little League Jasoer Elementary (2 fields) M - F 4pm - dusk 2/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk Stork Elementary (3 fields) M - F 4pm - dusk 2/1 - 7/31 Etiwanda H.S. ( 3 west fields) Saturday Sam - dusk 1/1 - 7/31 Alta Loma Junior High (2 fields) M - F 4pm - dusk 2/1 - 7/31 Summit Elementary (4 fields) Saturday Sam - dusk 1/1 - 7/31 Heritage Park (2 fields) M - F 4 - lOpm 2/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - lopm dusk 1/1 Heritage Park (Try Outs) Wednesday 6 - 91Dm 1/8 dusk 11 It " " " Saturday 9am - 5pm 1/4 - 1/25 Contact: Bob Olari - 7/11 Saturday Sam - dusk Day Phone: 714 -980 -2070 Evening Phone: 714- 987 -8481 Vineyard Little League Caryn Elementary (2 fields) M - F 4pm - dusk 1/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk Etiwanda S.H. (1 field) M - F 4pm - dusk 1/1 - 7/31 Etiwanda H.S. ( 3 west fields) Saturday M - F Sam - 5pm - dusk dusk 1/1 - 7/31 Saturday 1pm - dusk Summit Elementary (4 fields) M - F 4pm - dusk 1/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk Kenyon Park (1 field) M - F 4pm - dusk 1/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sant - dusk Victoria Grove Park (1 field) M - F 4pm - dusk 1/1 - 7/11 Saturday Sam - dusk -�,y (Vineyard Little League Continued) Vintage Park (1 field) Windrows Park (2 fields) Miliken Park (1 field) Contact: Dan Rosso Day Phone: 714- 989 -8442 Evening Phone: Same Deer Canyon Little League Central Elementary (4 fields) Deer Canyon Elementary (2 fields) Dona Merced Elementary (1 field) Hermosa Elementary (2 multi purpose fields) Vineyard J.H. (3 fields) Hermosa Park (1 field) Contact: Eric Sieber Day Phone: 714- 944 -9640 Evening Phone: 714- 987 -5652 Citrus Little League Los Amigos Elementary (3 fields) Bear Gulch Elementary (3 fields) Valle Vista Elem. (5 _"_eids) Red Hill Park (1 field) Contact: Ginny venzor Day Phone: 714 - 875 -7090 Evening Phone: 714 -989 -2202 M - F 4pm - dusk 1/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk Saturday 8:30am - dusk M - F 4pm - dusk 1/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk 2/1 - 6/30 M - F 4pm - dusk 1/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk Sunday 8:30am - dusk M - F 3:30 - dusk 1/18 - 7/31 Saturdav Sam - dusk Saturday 8:30am - dusk M - F 3:30 - dusk 1/18 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk 2/1 - 6/30 M - F 3:30 - dusk 1/18 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk Sunday 8:30am - dusk M - F 3:30 - dusk 1/18 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk M - F 3 :30 - dusk 1 /18 - 7/31 Saturday Ban - dusk M - F 3:30 - dusk 1/18 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk M - F 5pm - dusk 2/1 - 6/30 M - F 5pm - dusk 2/1 - 6/30 Saturday 8:30am - dusk 2/1 - 6/30 (N /E field) M - F 5pm - dusk 2/1 - 6/30 M - F 5 - lOpm 2/1 - 7/31 Saturday 8:30am - lOpm Sunday 8:30am - dusk 4O Miss. Softball America Cucamonga S.H. (9 fields) M - 4pm - dusk 2/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk Red Hill Park South Softball Field Saturday 5nm - lopm 2/1 - 7/31 Contact: Bill Malcolm Day Phone: 714- 356 -8888 Evening Phone: 714- 980-0581 Rancho Little Leaoue Cucamonga Elem. 14 fields) M - F 4pm - dusk 2/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk Spruce Park (1 field) M - F 4pm - dusk 2/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk Coyote Canyon Park (1 field) M - F 4pm - dusk 2/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk old :own Park (1 field) M /Th /F 4pm - dusk 2/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk R.C. Middle School (3 fields) M - F 4pm - dusk 2/1 - 7/31 Saturday Sam - dusk Contact: Primo Morales Day Phone: 714- 989-2607 Evening Phone: Same R_C. SDlritC Church Street Park (1 field) windrows Park (2 fields) Contact: Carmen Angelo R.C. American Legion Chaffey College Contact: Paul Moore Day Phone: 818 - 969 -4671 Evening Phone: 714- 989 -5851 H I M /Th 3:30 - 7pm 1/1 - 8/1 Sunday gam - 6pm Sunday gam - 6pm 1/1 - 8/1 18 undetermined Spring dates. ACE T -Ball :lest Beryl Park (Field =1) M - F Saturday Wesz Beryl Park (Field :2) M - F Saturday Bear Gulch Park (Soccer Field) M - Saturday Church Street Park (Soccer Field) M - F Saturday Contact: Howard Young Day Phone: 714 - 989-2919 Evening Phone: 714 - 948 -3082 AYSO (American 6/20 Youth Soccer Orc i ation) West Beryl Park (Field 81) M - F West Beryl Park (Field 42) M - F West Beryl Park (Field ;2) M - F (North 6 South Soccer Fields) Saturday East Beryl Park (2 fields) M - F Saturday Alta Loma J.H. (2 east fields) M - F Saturday Contact: Jean Lombardo Day Phone: 714 - 944 -0933 Evening Phone: 714 - 989 -9317 CYSA (California Youth Soccer Assoc 4:30- 7:30pm 3/2 - 6/20 8:30am- 6 ;30pm Saturday Sam 4:30- 7:30pm 3/2 - 4/4 8:30am- 6:30pm - dusk Red Hill Park (2 fields) 4:30- 7:30pm 3/2 - 4/4 8:30am- 6:30pm Sunday Sam 4:30- 7:30pm 3/2 - 6/20 8:30am- 6:30pm - dusk (North 6 South Soccer Fields) 7:30 -9pm 7 :30 -9pm 4pm - 9pm lam - 6pm 4pm - 9pm lam - 6pm 4pm - dusk 7am - 6pm Red Hill Park (2 fields) M - F 4:30- 9:30pm Saturday Sam - 9pm Sunday 2pm - dusk Red Hill Park (2 fields) Saturday Sam - lopm Tournaments Sunday Sam - dusk Cucamonga S.H. Sunday 9am - dusk (North 6 South Soccer Fields) Contact: Bob Martin Day Phone: 714 -370 -2244 Evening Phone: 714- 987 -8359 I k 71. 3/1 - 6/15 3/1 - 4/4 4/4 - 6/15 4/4 - 6/15 3/1 - 6/15 3/1 - 6/15 2/1 - 7/31 1/18, 3/14 1/19, 3/15 2/1 - 7/31 AGREEMENT FOR USE OF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND FACILITIES PREAMBLE The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides basic municipal services to its residents. One of these services is parks and recreation,. To accomplish this service, the City has developed a number of parks having various types of facilities designed to meet community -wide requirements. The City has also developed recreational programs which are an important element of creating an environment responsive to the needs, interests and desires of all residents. To make these services meaningful, the City has a strategy for the management of limited resources to maximize their benefit to all residents. While the park and recreation resources are limited and must be utilized to benefit all residents, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of all residents to occasionally designate for a specified time period a particular facility for the exclusive use of an organization. This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties' signatures below, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY ") , and c. ?f `> A livc,,¢2 (hereinafter referred to as "LEAGUE ") for the use and maintenance of specified athletic. fields /facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITIES "). qa R A. Recitals. M LEAGUE has been authorized to use the FACILITIES described in the attached "Authorized City Field Usage Form," a full and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated by reference. (ii) LEAGUE and CITY desire to enter into this Agreement in order to specify the obligations of the parties with respect to LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and LEAGUE as follows: 1. CITY shall approve all scheduling of uses of the FACILITIES based upon the needs of the entire community. 2. CITY will endeavor to coordinate and conduct its routine field maintenance program for the FACILITIES in such a manner as not to disrupt any approved and authorized schedule of LEAGUE play. 3. CITY shall be authorized to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maintain the FACILITIES including, but not limited to, charging of a maintenance fee as outlined in Section B, Item 22 and 23. 4. CITY shall set minimum acceptable maintenance standards for community and neighborhood parks. 5. CITY'S maintenance may include, but is not limited to, maintenance of: a. all turf and brick dust infields; b, all irrigation and potable water systems; C. parking lot(s); d. trees, plants and other landscape features e. perimeter fencing, backstops, dugouts and bleachers; f. athletic and security lighting g. picnic areas; h. restroom, storage and concession facilities; i. trash receptacles. 2 qa n 6. With respect to FACILITIES not owned by CITY, maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner of such FACILITIES and special maintenance arrangements concerning these sites should be directed to the respective owners thereof. 7. CITY shall have the right, in the event that emergency work or repairs are required to its FACILITIES, to close any area to LEAGUE and other users, until the maintenance and /or repairs are completed. 8. LEAGUE agrees to submit a written request for FACILITIES use as specified in CITY'S "Sports Fields and Facilities Allocation Policies and Procedures Handbook" ( "Handbook" herein), and to comply at all times with the provisions contained in the Handbook. 9. LEAGUE agrees to submit a printed master calendar of events, names and addresses and telephone numbers of current members of its board of directors, and proof of current non - profit status with the IRS and the State of California, as specified in the Handbook. 10. LEAGUE agrees to monitor its sound impact at all times on the surrounding neighborhood /residents in order to avoid disturbances, as required in the Handbook. 11. LEAGUE shall be responsible for monitoring parking patterns and insuring that parking lots are fully utilized and that any impacts on neighborhoods and residents are minimized as required in the Handbook. 12. LEAGUE shall be responsible to provide portable sanitary restrooms, if permanent ones are not available, at each particular FACILITY. 13. LEAGUE shall be responsible for making sure that permanent restroom facilities, if available, are clear of rubbish and debris upon completion of each scheduled activity. 3 40 C 14. LEAGUE shall not line CITY'S FACILITIES with chalk without advance written permission of CITY. 15. LEAGUE shall not burn-lines on CITY'S FACILITIES. 16. LEAGUE shall not line or burn lines on FACILITIES not owned by CITY without advance written permission of the owners thereof. 17. LEAGUE will be responsible for spot watering of brick dust areas, in accordance to CITY standards, on a regular basis. 18. LEAGUE may maintain brick dust for infield areas, in accordance with CITY standards, as necessary to maintain playability. 19. LEAGUE shall not permit cars or trucks on the field at any time. 20. LEAGUE will maintain and replace, in accordance with CITY standards, all fencing installed by LEAGUE, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. 21. LEAGUE agrees to reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for its actual costs of electricity for field lighting utilized by LEAGUE. 22. LEAGUE agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to perform any increased level of maintenance with respect to its FACILITIES, unless mutually agreed upon in writing. 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups or the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. 4 L1)a 25. Prior to its use of CITY'S FACILITIES as authorized herein, LEAGUE will obtain and keep in full force and effect, at LEAGUE'S sole cost, for the mutual benefit of CITY and LEAGUE, comprehensive, broad form, public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death and property damage arising from the use, occupancy, or disuse of the specified FACILITIES, providing protection of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.0o). Such insurance policies shall name CITY as an additionally insured. LEAGUE agrees that all insurance required herein shall be provided by responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California and that such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and against CITY agents and representatives; (b) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried with the CITY; (c) they cannot be cancelled or materially altered without prior written notice by the insurer to CITY. 26. LEAGUE shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims for damage to persons or property by reason of LEAGUE'S acts and /or omissions, and acts and /or omissions of LEAGUE'S employees, agents, guests, or invitees in connection with LEAGUE'S use of said FACILITIES. 27. In the event CITY'S FACILITIES approved for use by LEAGUE herein become unfit or unavailable for use or occupancy by LEAGUE during the period covered by this Agreement, by reason of fire, earthquake, strike, civil disturbance or any other cause beyond the control of CITY, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and CITY shall not be responsible for any losses incurred by LEAGUE as a result thereof. 5 -1a c 28. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice. 29. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, this Agreement may be terminated by CITY immediately upon delivery to LEAGUE of written notice of termination in the event of property misuse, privilege misuse and /or failure to carry public liability insurance as specified in this Agreement. 30. This Agreement shall be effective from 7ebruary 1 , 1992 , through and including Julv 31 1992 31. This Agreement supersedes all previous use and maintenance agreements, written or oral, between CITY and LEAGUE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written opposite their respective signatures: M • i:Cdi Dated: 3 -27 -y2 By :„ � Title: ¢,.p. Dated: By: _ Title: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dated: By: Title: 6 q! F AGREEMENT FOR USE OF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND FACILITIES PREAMBLE The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides basic municipal services to its residents. One of these services is parks and recreation. To accomplish this service, the City has developed a number of parks having various types of facilities designed to meet community -wide requirements. The City has also developed recreational programs which are an important element of creating an environment responsive to the needs, interests and desires of all residents. To make the service meaningful, the City has a strategy for the management of limited resources to maximize their benefit to all residents. While the park and recreation resources are limited and must be utilized to benefit all residents, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of all residents to occasionally designate for a specified time period a particular facility for the exclusive use of an organization. This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties' signatures below, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY "), and ALTA LGMA LITTLE LEAGUE (hereinafter referred to as "LEAGUE ") for the use and maintenance of specified athletic fields /facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITIES "). 4 a G A. Recitals. (I) LEAGUE has been authorized to use the FACILITIES described in the attached "Authorized City Field Usage Form," a full and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated by reference. (Ii) LEAGUE and CITY desire to enter into this Agreement in order to specify the obligations of the parties with respect to LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and LEAGUE as follows: 1. CITY shall approve all scheduling of uses of the FACILITIES based upon the needs of the entire community. 2. CITY will endeavor to coordinate and conduct its routine field maintenance program for the FACILITIES in such a manner as not to disrupt any approved and authorized schedule of LEAGUE play. 3. CITY shall be authorized to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maintain the FACILITIES including, but not limited to, charging of a maintenance fee as outlined in Section B, Item 22 and 23. 4. CITY shall set minimum acceptable maintenance standards for community and neighborhood parks. 5. CITY'S maintenance may include, but is not limited to, maintenance of: a. All turf and brick dust infields; b. All irrigation and potable water systems; C. Parking lot(s); d. Trees, plants and other landscape features; e. Perimeter fencing, backstops, dugouts and bleachers; f. Athletic and security lighting; g. Picnic areas; h. Restroom, storage and concession facilities; i. Trash receptacles. 2 (a 4 6. With respect to FACILITIES not owned by CITY, maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner of such FACILITIES and special maintenance arrangements concerning these sites should be directed to the respective owners thereof. 7. CITY shall have the right, in the event that emergency work or repairs are required to its FACILITIES, to close any area to LEAGUE and other users, until the maintenance and /or repairs are completed. S. LEAGUE agrees to submit a written request for FACILITIES use as specified in CITY'S "Sports Fields and Facilities Allocation Policies and Procedures Handbook" ( "Handbook" herein) , and to comply at all times with the provisions contained in the Handbook. 9. LEAGUE agrees to submit a printed master calendar of events, names and addresses and telephone numbers of current members of its board of directors, and proof of current nonprofit status with the IRS and the State of California, as specified in the Handbook. 10. LEAGUE agrees to monitor its sound impact at all times on the surrounding neighborhood /residents in order to avoid disturbances, as required in the Handbook. 11. LEAGUE shall be responsible for monitoring parking patterns and insuring that parking lots are fully utilized and that any impacts on neighborhoods and residents are minimized as required in the Handbook. 12. LEAGUE shall be responsible to provide portable sanitary restrooms, if permanent ones are not available, at each particular FACILITY. 13. LEAGUE shall be responsible for making sure that permanent restroom facilities, if available, are clear of rubbish and debris upon completion of each scheduled activity. 3 as z 14. LEAGUE shall not line CITY'S FACILITIES with chalk without advance written permission of CITY. 15. LEAGUE shall not burn lines on CITY'S FACILITIES. 16. LEAGUE shall not line or burn lines on FACILITIES not owned by CITY without advance written permission of the owners thereof. 17. LEAGUE will be responsible for spot watering of brick dust areas, in accordance to CITY standards, on a regular basis. 18. LEAGUE may maintain brick dust for infield areas, in accordance with CITY standards, as necessary to maintain playability. 19. LEAGUE shall not permit cars or trucks on the field at any time. 20. LEAGUE will maintain and replace, in accordance with CITY standards, all fencing installed by LEAGUE, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. 21. LEAGUE agrees to reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY determined costs of electricity for field lighting utilized by LEAGUE based upon actual Southern California Edison billings. 22. LEAGUE agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to perform any increased level of maintenance with respect to its FACILITIES, unless mutually agreed upon in writing. 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups of the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. 4 25. Prior to its use of CITY'S FACILITIES as authorized herein, LEAGUE will obtain and keep in full force and effect, at LEAGUE'S sole cost, for the mutual benefit of CITY and LEAGUE, comprehensive, broad form, public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death and property damage arising from the use, occupancy, or disuse of the specified FACILITIES, providing protection of at least one million dollars ($1,00o,000.00). Such insurance policies shall name CITY as an additionally insured. LEAGUE agrees that all insurance required herein shall be provided by responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California and that such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and against CITY agents and representatives; (b) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried with the CITY; (c) they cannot be cancelled or materially altered without prior written notice by the insurer to CITY. 26. LEAGUE shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims for damage to persons or property by reason of LEAGUE'S acts and /or omissions, and acts and /or omissions of LEAGUE'S employees, agents, guests, or invitees in connection with LEAGUE'S use of said FACILITIES. 27. In the event CITY'S FACILITIES approved for use by LEAGUE herein become unfit or unavailable for use or occupancy by LEAGUE during the period covered by this Agreement, by reason of fire, earthquake, strike, civil disturbance or any other cause beyond the control of CITY, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and CITY shall not be responsible for any losses incurred by LEAGUE as a result thereof. 5 tla K 28. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice. 29. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, this Agreement may be terminated by CITY immediately upon delivery to LEAGUE of written notice of termination in the event of property misuse, privilege misuse and /or failure to carry public liability insurance as specified in this Agreement. 30. This Agreement shall be effective from February 1. 1992, through and including July 31, 1992. 31. This Agreement supersedes all previous use and maintenance agreements, written or oral, between CITY and LEAGUE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates Written opposite their respective signatures: Dated: -.E / 2 LEAGUE: By: Titl Dated: 4Z'7 L91 By: Titl Dated: 6 �+a L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: _ Title: AGREEMENT FOR USE OF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND FACILITIES PREAMBLE The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides basic municipal services to its residents. One of these services is parks and recreation. To accomplish this service, the City has developed a number of parks having various types of facilities designed to meet community -wide requirements. The City has also developed recreational programs which are an important element of creating an environment responsive to the needs, interests and desires of all residents. To make these services meaningful, the City has a strategy for the management of limited resources to maximize their benefit to all residents. While the park and recreation resources are limited and must be utilized to benefit all residents, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of all residents to occasionally designate for a specified time period a particular facility for the exclusive use of an organization. AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties' signatures below, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a munic' al cor oration (hereinafter referred to a ^�, and i7r'P,1'ir:(_�L:A �lYf>i M1� (hereinafter referred to as "LEAGUE ") for the use and maintenance of specified athletic fields /facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITIES "). (4� f� A. Recitals. (i) LEAGUE has been authorized to use the FACILITIES described in the attached "Authorized City Field Usage Form," a full and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated by reference. (ii) LEAGUE and CITY desire to enter into this Agreement in order to specify the obligations of the parties with respect to LEAGU'E'S use of the FACILITIES. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and LEAGUE as follows: 1. CITY shall approve all scheduling of uses of the FACILITIES based upon the needs of the entire community. 2. CITY will endeavor to coordinate and conduct its routine field maintenance program for the FACILITIES in such a manner as not to disrupt any approved and authorized schedule of LEAGUE play. 3. CITY shall be authorized to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maintain the FACILITIES including, but not limited to, charging of a maintenance fee as outlined in Section B, Item 22 and 23. 4. CITY shall set minimum acceptable maintenance standards for community and neighborhood parks. S. CITY'S maintenance may include, but is not limited to, maintenance of: a. all turf and brick dust infields; b. all irrigation and potable water systems; C, parking lot(s); d, trees, plants and other landscape features e. perimeter fencing, backstops, dugouts and bleachers; f. athletic and security lighting g. picnic areas; h. restroom, storage and concession facilities; i. trash receptacles. 2 a N 6. With respect to FACILITIES not owned by CITY, maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner of such FACILITIES and special maintenance arrangements concerning these sites should be directed to the respective owners thereof. 7. CITY shall have the right, in the event that emergency work or repairs are required to its FACILITIES, to close any area to LEAGUE and other users, until the maintenance and /or repairs are completed. a. LEAGUE agrees to submit a written request for FACILITIES use as specified in CITY'S "Sports Fields and Facilities Allocation Policies and Procedures Handbook" ( "Handbook" herein) , and to comply at all times with the provisions contained in the Handbook. 9. LEAGUE agrees to submit a printed master calendar of events, names and addresses and telephone numbers of current members of its board of directors, and proof of current non - profit status with the IRS and the State of California, as specified in the Handbook. 10. LEAGUE agrees to monitor its sound impact at all times on the surrounding neighborhood/ residents in order to avoid disturbances, as required in the Handbook. 11. LEAGUE shall be responsible for monitoring parking patterns and insuring that parking lots are fully utilized and that any impacts on neighborhoods and residents are minimized as required in the Handbook. 12. LEAGUE shall be responsible to provide portable sanitary restrooms, if permanent ones are not available, at each particular FACILITY. 13. LEAGUE shall be responsible for making sure that permanent restroom facilities, if available, are clear of rubbish and debris upon completion of each scheduled activity. 3 qO C) 14. LEAGUE shall not line CITY'S FACILITIES with chalk without advance written permission of CITY. 15. LEAGUE shall not burn lines on CITY'S FACILITIES. 16. LEAGUE shall not line or burn lines on FACILITIES not owned by CITY without advance written permission of the owners thereof. 17. LEAGUE will be responsible for spot watering of brick dust areas, in accordance to CITY standards, on a regular basis. 18. LEAGUE may maintain brick dust for infield areas, in accordance with CITY standards, as necessary to maintain playability. 19. LEAGUE shall not permit cars or trucks on the field at any time. 20. LEAGUE will maintain and replace, in accordance with CITY standards, all fencing installed by LEAGUE, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. 21. LEAGUE agrees to reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for its actual costs of electricity for field lighting utilized by LEAGUE. 22. LEAGUE agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to perform any increased level of maintenance with respect to its FACILITIES, unless mutually agreed upon in writing. 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups or the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. d �v 25. Prior to its use of CITY'S FACILITIES as authorized herein, LEAGUE will obtain and keep in full force and effect, at LEAGUE'S sole cost, for the mutual benefit of CITY and LEAGUE, comprehensive, broad form, public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death and property damage arising from the use, occupancy, or disuse of the specified FACILITIES, providing protection of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Such insurance policies shall name CITY as an additionally insured. LEAGUE agrees that all insurance required herein shall be provided by responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California and that such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and against CITY agents and representatives; (b) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried with the CITY; (c) they cannot be cancelled or materially altered without prior written notice by the insurer to CITY. 26. LEAGUE shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims for damage to persons or property by reason of LEAGUE'S acts and /or omissions, and acts and /or omissions of LEAGUE'S employees, agents, guests, or invitees in connection with LEAGUE'S use of said FACILITIES. 27. In tho ev_nt CITY'S FACILITIES approved for use by LEAGUE herein become unfit or unavailable for use or occupancy by LEAGUE during the period covered by this Agreement, by reason of fire, earthquake, strike, civil disturbance or any other cause beyond the control of CITY, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and CITY shall not be responsible for any losses incurred by LEAGUE as a result thereof, 5 28. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice. 29. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, this Agreement may be terminated by CITY immediately upon delivery to LEAGUE of written notice of termination in the event of property misuse, privilege misuse and /or failure to carry public liability insurance as specified in this Agreement. 30. This Agreement shall be effective from February 1 1992 , through and including July 31 1992 31. This Agreement supersedes all previous use and maintenance agreements, written or oral, between CITY and LEAGUE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written opposite their respective signatures: LEAG Dated: 3 T By: Titl Dated: 2 By: Titl Dated: 6 �� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: _ Title: AGREEMENT FOR USE OF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND FACILITIES �Tfl The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides basic municipal services to its residents. One of these services is parks and recreation. To accomplish this service, the City has developed a number of parks having various types of facilities designed to meet community -wide requirements. The City has also developed recreational programs which are an important element of creating an environment responsive to the needs, interests and desires of all residents. To make these services meaningful, the City has a strategy for the management of limited resources to maximize their benefit to all residents. While the park and recreation resources are limited and must be utilized to benefit all residents, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of all residents to occasionally designate for a specified time period a particular facility for the exclusive use of an organization. AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties' signatures below, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY "), and _ )6 SvCC'F R. (hereinafter referred to 'j as "LEAGUE ") for the use a d maintenance of specified athletic fields /facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITIES "). ta -s A. Recce. (i) LEAGUE has been authorized to use the FACILITIES described in the attached "Authorized City Field Usage Form," a £u_1 and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated by reference. (ii) LEAGUE and CITY desire to enter into this Agreement in order to specify the obligations of the parties with respect to LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and LEAGUE as follows: 1. CITY shall approve all scheduling of uses of the FACILITIES based upon the needs of the entire community. 2. CITY will endeavor to coordinate and conduct its routine field maintenance program for the FACILITIES in such a manner as not to disrupt any approved and authorized schedule of LEAGUE play. 3. CITY shall be authorized to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maintain the FACILITIES including, but not limited to, charging of a maintenance fee as outlined in Section B, Item 22 and 23. 4. CITY shall set minimum acceptable maintenance standards for community and neighborhood parks. 5. CITY'S maintenance may include, but is not limited to, maintenance of: a. all turf and brick dust infields; b. all irrigation and potable water systems; C. parking lot(s); d. trees, plants and other landscape features e. perimeter fencing, backstops, dugouts and bleachers; f. athletic and security lighting g. picnic areas; h. restroom, storage and concession facilities; i. trash receptacles. 2 4d 6. With respect to FACILITIES not owned by CITY, maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner of such FACILITIES and special maintenance arrangements concerning these sites should be directed to the respective owners thereof. 7. CITY shall have the right, in the event that emergency work or repairs are required to its FACILITIES, to close any area to LEAGUE and other users, until the maintenance and /or repairs are completed. S. LEAGUE agrees to submit a written request for FACILITIES use as specified in CITY'S "Sports Fields and Facilities Allocation Policies and Procedures Handbook" ( "Handbook" herein) , and to comply at all times with the provisions contained in the Handbook. 9. LEAGUE agrees to submit a printed master calendar of events, names and addresses and telephone numbers of current members of its board of directors, and proof of current non - profit status with the IRS and the State of California, as specified in the Handbook. 10. LEAGUE agrees to monitor its sound impact at all times on the surrounding neighborhood /residents in order to avoid disturbances, as required in the Handbook. 11. LEAGUE shall be responsible for monitoring parking patterns and insuring that parking lots are fully utilized and that any impacts on neighborhoods and residents are minimized as required in the Handbook. 12. LEAGUE shall be responsible to provide portable sanitary restrooms, if permanent ones are not available, at each particular FACILITY. 13. LEAGUE shall be responsible for making sure that permanent restroom facilities, if available, are clear of rubbish and debris upon completion of each scheduled activity. u113 ' 1 v 14. LEAGUE shall not line CITY'S FACILITIES with chalk without advance written permission of CITY. 15. LEAGUE shall not burn lines on CITY'S FACILITIES. 16. LEAGUE shall not line or burn lines on FACILITIES not owned by CITY without advance written permission of the owners thereof. 17. LEAGUE will be responsible for spot watering of brick dust areas, in accordance to CITY standards, on a regular basis. 18. LEAGUE may maintain brick dust for infield areas, in accordance with CITY standards, as necessary to maintain playability. 19. LEAGUE shall not permit cars or trucks on the field at any time. 20. LEAGUE will maintain and replace, in accordance with CITY standards, all fencing installed by LEAGUE, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. 21. LEAGUE agrees to reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for its actual costs of electricity for field lighting utilized by LEAGUE. 22. LEAGUE agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to perform any increased level of maintenance with respect to its FACILITIES, unless mutually agreed upon in writing. 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups or the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. 4 4a V 25. Prior to its use of CITY'S FACILITIES as authorized herein, LEAGUE will obtain and keep in full force and effect, at LEAGUE'S sole cost, for the mutual benefit of CITY and LEAGUE, comprehensive, broad form, public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death and property damage arising from the use, occupancy, or disuse of the specified FACILITIES, providing protection of* at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Such insurance policies shall name CITY as an additionally insured. LEAGUE agrees that all insurance required herein shall be provided by responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California and that such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and against CITY agents and representatives; (b) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried with the CITY; (c) they cannot be cancelled or materially altered without prior written notice by the insurer to CITY. 26. LEAGUE shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims for damage to persons or property by reason of LEAGUE'S acts and /or omissions, and acts and /or omissions of LEAGUE'S employees, agents, guests, or invitees in connection with LEAGUE'S use of said FACILITIES. 27. In the event CITY'S FACILITIES approved for use by LEAGUE herein become unfit or unavailable for use or occupancy by LEAGUE during the period covered by this Agreement, by reason of fire, earthquake, strike, civil disturbance or any other cause beyond the control of CITY, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and CITY shall not be responsible for any losses incurred by LEAGUE as a result thereof. 5 L13 C-0 28. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice. 29. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, this Agreement may be terminated by CITY immediately upon delivery to LEAGUE of written notice of termination in the event of property misuse, privilege misuse and /or failure to carry public liability insurance as specified in this Agreement. 30. This Agreement shall be effective from February 1 , 1992 , through and including July 31 1992 —r 31. This Agreement supersedes all previous use and maintenance agreements, written or oral, between CITY and LEAGUE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written opposite their respective signatures: Dated:��., Dated: Dated: 6 4� LEAGUE: By: G Title: By: _ Title: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: _ Title: AGREEMENT FOR USE OF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND FACILITIES PREAMBLE The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides basic municipal services to its residents. One of these services is parks and recreation. To accomplish this service, the City has developed a number of parks having various types of facilities designed to meet community -wide requirements. The City has also developed recreational programs which are an important element of creating an environment responsive to the needs, interests and desires of all residents. To make these services meaningful, the City has a strategy for the management of limited resources to maximize their benefit to all residents. While the park and recreation resources are limited and must be utilized to benefit all residents, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of all residents to occasionally designate for a specified time period a particular facility for the exclusive use of an organization. AGREEMFr T This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties' signatures below, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal, corp ration (herJ inafter referred to as "CITY ") , and �`{' (hereinafter referred to as 1LEAGUE ") for the use and maintenance of specified athletic fields /facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITIES "). .4 y A. Recitals. (i) LEAGUE has been authorized to use the FACILITIES described in the attached "Authorized City Field Usage Form," a full and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated by reference. (ii) LEAGUE and CITY desire to enter into this Agreement in order to specify the obligations of the parties with respect to LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and LEAGUE as follows: 1. CITY shall approve all scheduling of uses of the FACILITIES based upon the needs of the entire community. 2. CITY will endeavor to coordinate and conduct its routine field maintenance program for the FACILITIES in such a manner as not to disrupt any approved and authorized schedule of LEAGUE play. 3. CITY shall be authorized to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maintain the FACILITIES including, but not limited to, charging of a maintenance fee as outlined in Section B, Item 22 and 23. 4. CITY shall set minimum acceptable maintenance standards for community and neighborhood parks. 5. CITY'S maintenance may include, but is not limited to, maintenance of: a. all turf and brick dust infields; b. all irrigation and potable water systems; C. parking lot(s); d. trees, plants and other landscape features e. perimeter fencing, backstops, dugouts and bleachers; f. athletic and security lighting g. picnic areas; h. restroom, storage and concession facilities; i. trash receptacles. uI 12 IV 7, 6. With respect to FACILITIES not owned by CITY, maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner of such FACILITIES and special maintenance arrangements concerning these sites should be directed to the respective owners thereof. 7. CITY shall have the right, in the event that emergency work or repairs are required to its FACILITIES, to close any area to LEAGUE and other users, until the maintenance and /or repairs are completed. S. LEAGUE agrees to submit a written request for FACILITIES use as specified in CITY'S "Sports Fields and Facilities Allocation Policies and Procedures Handbook" ( "Handbook" herein), and to comply at all times with the provisions contained in the Handbook. 9. LEAGUE agrees to submit a printed master calendar of events, names and addresses and telephone numbers of current members of its board of directors, and proof of current non - profit status with the IRS and the State of California, as specified in the Handbook. 10. LEAGUE agrees to monitor its sound impact at all times on the surrounding neighborhood /residents in order to avoid disturbances, as required in the Handbook. 11. LEAGUE shall be responsible for monitoring parking patterns and insuring that parking lots are fully utilized and that any impacts on neighborhoods and residents are minimized as required in the Handbook. 12. LEAGUE shall be responsible to provide portable sanitary restrooms, if permanent ones are not available, at each particular FACILITY. 13. LEAGUE shall be responsible for making sure that permanent restroom facilities, if available, are clear of rubbish and debris upon completion of each scheduled activity. 3 q3 ho 14. LEAGUE shall not line CITY'S FACILITIES with chalk without advance written permission of CITY. 15. LEAGUE shall not burn lines on CITY'S FACILITIES. 16. LEAGUE shall not lins or burn lines on FACILITIES not owned by CITY without advance written permission of the owners thereof. 17. LEAGUE will be responsible for spot watering of brick dust areas, in accordance to CITY standards, on a regular basis. 18. LEAGUE may maintain brick dust for infield areas, in accordance with CITY standards, as necessary to maintain playability. 19. LEAGUE shall not permit cars or trucks on the field at any time. 20. LEAGUE will maintain and replace, in accordance with CITY standards, all fencing installed by LEAGUE, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. 21. LEAGUE agrees to reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for its actual costs of electricity for field lighting utilized by LEAGUE. 22. LEAGUE agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to perform any increased level of maintenance with respect to its FACILITIES, unless mutually agreed upon in writing. 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups or the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. 4 q4 Oh 25. Prior to its use of CITY'S FACILITIES as authorized herein, LEAGUE Will obtain and keep in full force and effect, at LEAGUE'S sole cost, for the mutual benefit of CITY and LEAGUE, comprehensive, broad form, Public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death and property damage arising from the use, occupancy, or disuse of the specified FACILITIES, providing protection of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000,00). Such insurance policies shall name CITY as an additionally insured. LEAGUE agrees that all insurance required herein shall be provided by responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California and that such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and against CITY agents and representatives; (b) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried with the CITY; (c) they cannot be cancelled or materially altered without prior written notice by the insurer to CITY. 26. LEAGUE shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims for damage to persons or property by reason of LEAGUE'S acts and /or omissions, and acts and /or omissions of LEAGUE'S employees, agents, guests, or invitees in connection with LEAGUE'S use of said FACILITIES. 27. In the event CITY'S FACILITIES approved for use by LEAGUE herein become unfit or unavailable for use or occupancy by LEAGUE during the period covered by this Agreement, by reason of fire, earthquake, strike, civil disturbance or any other cause beyond the control of CITY, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and CITY shall not be responsible for any losses incurred by LEAGUE as a result thereof. 5 q4 h 28. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice. 29. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, this Agreement may be terminated by CITY immediately upon delivery to LEAGUE of written notice of termination in the event of property misuse, privilege misuse and /or failure to carry public liability insurance as specified in this Agreement. 30. This Agreement shall be effective from Fehruary 1 1992_, through and including July 31 1992 31. This Agreement supersedes all previous use and maintenance agreements, written or oral, between CITY and LEAGUE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written opposite their respective signatures: Dated: Dated: LEAGUE: y By: lihif `_y_. Title. arc —� Hy: 1 Title: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dated: By: Title: �I� 6 hl) AGREEMENT FOR USE OF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND FACILITIES l9RN1�al The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides basic municipal services to its residents. One of these services is parks and recreation. To accomplish this service, the City has developed a number of parks having various types of facilities designed to meet community -wide requirements. The City has also developed recreational programs which are an important element of creating an environment responsive to the needs, interests and desires of all residents. To make these services meaningful, the City has a strategy for the management of limited resources to maximize their benefit to all residents. While the park and recreation resources are limited and must be utilized to benefit all residents, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of all residents to occasionally designate for a specified time period a particular facility for the exclusive use of an organization. AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties' signatures below, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY "), and A. C ,ib1Yifs ( hereinafter referred to as "LEAGUE ") for the use and maintenance of specified athletic fields/facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITIES "). A. Recitals. (i) LEAGUE has been authorized to use the FACILITIES described in the attached "Authorized City Field Usage Form," a full and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated by reference. (ii) LEAGUE and CITY desire to enter into this Agreement in order to specify the obligations of the parties with respect to LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and LEAGUE as follows: 1. CITY shall approve all scheduling of uses of the FACILITIES based upon the needs of the entire community. 2. CITY will endeavor to coordinate and conduct its routine field maintenance program for the FACILITIES in such a manner as not to disrupt any approved and authorized schedule of LEAGUE play. 3. CITY shall be authorized to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maintain the FACILITIES including, but not limited to, charging of a maintenance fee as outlined in Section. B, Item 22 and 23, 4. CITY shall set minimum acceptable maintenance standards for community and neighborhood parks. 5. CITY'S maintenance may include, but is not limited to, maintenance of: a. all turf and brick dust infields; b. all irrigation and potable water systems; C. parking lot(s); d. trees, plants and other landscape features e. perimeter fencing, backstops, dugouts and bleachers; f, athletic and security lighting g. picnic areas; h. restroom, storage and concession facilities; i, trash receptacles. 2 6. With respect to FACILITIES not owned by CITY, maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner of such FACILITIES and special maintenance arrangements concerning these sites should be directed to the respective owners thereof. 7. CITY shall have the right, in the event that emergency work or repairs are required to its FACILITIES, to close any area to LEAGUE and other users, until the maintenance and /or repairs are completed. S. LEAGUE agrees to submit a written request for FACILITIES use as specified in CITY'S "Sports Fields and Facilities Allocation Policies and Procedures Handbook" ( "Handbook" herein), and to comply at all times with the provisions contained in the Handbook. 9. LEAGUE agrees to submit a printed master calendar of events, names and addresses and telephone numbers of current members of its board of directors, and proof of current non - profit status with the IRS and the State of California, as specified in the Handbook. lo. LEAGUE agrees to monitor its sound impact at all times on the surrounding neighborhood /residents in order to avoid disturbances, as required in the Handbook. 11. LEAGUE shall be responsible for monitoring parking patterns and insuring that parking lots are fully utilized and that any impacts on neighborhoods and residents are minimized as required in the Handbook. 12. LEAGUE shall be responsible to provide portable sanitary restrooms, if permanent ones are not available, at each particular FACILITY. 13. LEAGUE shall be responsible for making sure that permanent restroom facilities, if available, are clear of rubbish and debris upon completion of each scheduled activity. 3 Ala A G1 14. LEAGUE shall not line CITY'S FACILITIES with chalk without advance written permission of CITY. 15. LEAGUE shall not burn lines on CITY'S FACILITIES. 16. LEAGUE shall not line or burn lines on FACILITIES not owned by CITY without advance written permission of the owners thereof. 17. LEAGUE will be responsible for spot watering of brick dust areas, in accordance to CITY standards, on a regular basis. 18. LEAGUE may maintain brick dust for infield areas, in accordance with CITY standards, as necessary to maintain playability. 19. LEAGUE shall not permit cars or trucks on the field at any time. 20. LEAGUE will maintain and replace, in accordance with CITY standards, all fencing installed by LEAGUE, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. 21. LEAGUE agrees to reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for its actual costs of electricity for field lighting utilized by LEAGUE. 22. LEAGUE agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to perform any increased level of maintenance with respect to its FACILITIES, unless mutually agreed upon in writing. 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups or the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. �a4 � rl 25. Prior to its use of CITY'S FACILITIES as authorized herein, LEAGUE will obtain and keep in full force and effect, at LEAGUE'S sole cost, for the mutual benefit of CITY and LEAGUE, comprehensive, broad form, public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death and property damage arising from the use, occupancy, or disuse of the specified FACILITIES, providing protection of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Such insurance policies shall name CITY as an additionally insured. LEAGUE agrees that all insurance required herein shall be provided by responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California and that such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and against CITY agents and representatives; (b) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried with the CITY; (c) they cannot be cancelled or materially altered without prior written notice by the insurer to CITY. 26. LEAGUE. shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims for damage to persons or property by reason of LEAGUE'S acts and /or omissions, and acts and /or omissions of LEAGUE'S employees, agents, guests, or invitees in connection with LEAGUE'S use of said FACILITIES. 27. In the event CITY'S FACILITIES approved for use by LEAGUE herein become unfit or unavailable for use or occupancy by LEAGUE during the period covered by this Agreement, by reason of fire, earthquake, strike, civil disturbance or any other cause beyond the control of CITY, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and CITY shall not be responsible for any losses incurred by LEAGUE as a result thereof. 5 28. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice. 29. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, this Agreement may be terminated by CITY immediately upon delivery to LEAGUE Of written notice of termination in the event of property misuse, privilege misuse and /or failure to carry public liability insurance as specified in this Agreement. 30. This Agreement shall be effective from February 1 , 1992 , through and including July 31 1992 31. This Agreement supersedes all previous use and maintenance agreements, written or oral, between CITY and LEAGUE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written opposite their respective signatures: Dated: �C Z Dated: Dated: LEAGUE: By: Title: _6 By: _ Title: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: _ Title: th6A S AGREEMETiT FOR USE OF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND FACILITIES PREAMBLE The City of Ranchc Cucamonga provides basic municipal services to its residents. One of these services is parks and recreation. To accomplish this service, the City has developed a number of parks having various types of facilities designed to meet community -wide requirements. The City has also developed recreational programs which are an important element of creating an environment responsive to the needs, interests and desires of all residents. To make these services meaningful, the City has a strategy for the management of limited resources to maximize their benefit to all residents. While the park and recreation resources are limited and must be utilized to benefit all residents, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of all residents to occasionally designate for a specified time period a particular facility for the exclusive use of an organization. AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties, signatures below, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY "), and a i"34l (hereinafter referred to as "LEAGUE ") for the use and maintenance of specified athletic fields /facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITIES"). O� �P � A. Recitals. (i) LEAGUE has been authorized to use the FACILITIES described in the attached "Authorized City Field Usage Form," a full and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated by reference. (ii) LEAGUE and CITY desire to enter into this Agreement in order to specify the obligations of the parties with respect to LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and LEAGUE as follows: 1. CITY shall approve all scheduling of uses of the FACILITIES based upon the needs of the entire community. 2. CITY will endeavor to coordinate and conduct its routine field maintenance program for the FACILITIES in such a manner as not to disrupt any approved and authorized schedule of LEAGUE play. 3. CITY shall be authorized to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maintain the FACILITIES including, but not limited to, charging of a maintenance fee as outlined in Section B, Item 22 and 23. 4. CITY shall set minimum acceptable maintenance standards for community and neighborhood parks. 5. CITY'S maintenance may include, but is not limited to, maintenance of: a. all turf and brick dust infields; b. all irrigation and potable water systems; c. parking lot(s); d. trees, plants and other landscape features e. perimeter fencing, backstops, dugouts and bleachers; f. athletic and security lighting q, picnic areas; h. restroom, storage and concession facilities; i. trash receptacles. 2 da AL- 6. With respect to FACILITIES not owned by CITY, maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner of such FACILITIES and special maintenance arrangements concerning these sites should be directed to the respective owners thereof. 7. CITY shall have the right, in the event that emergency work or repairs are required to its FACILITIES, to close any area to LEAGUE and other users, until the maintenance and /or repairs are completed. 9. LEAGUE agrees to submit a written request for FACILITIES use as specified in CITY'S "Sports Fields and Facilities Allocation Policies and Procedures Handbook" ( "Handbook" herein) , and to comply at all times with the provisions contained in the Handbook. 9. LEAGUE agrees to submit a printed master calendar of events, names and addresses and telephone numbers of current members of its board of directors, and proof of current non - profit status with the IRS and the State of California, as specified in the Handbook. 10. LEAGUE agrees to monitor its sound impact at all times on the surrounding neighborhood /residents in order to avoid disturbances, as required in the Handbook. 11. LEAGUE shall be responsible for monitoring parking patterns and insuring that parking lots are fully utilized and that any impacts on neighborhoods and residents are minimized as required in the Handbook. 12. LEAGUE shall be responsible to provide portable sanitary restrooms, if permanent ones are not available, at each particular FACILITY. 13. LEAGUE shall be responsible for making sure that permanent restroom facilities, if available, are clear of rubbish and debris upon completion of each scheduled activity. 4I� n a1 14. LEAGUE shall not line CITY'S FACILITIES with chalk without advance written permission of CITY. 15. LEAGUE shall not bnrn lines on CITY IS FACILITIES. 16. LEAGUE shall not line or burn lines on FACILITIES not owned by CITY without advance written permission of the owners thereof. 17. LEAGUE will be responsible for spot watering of brick dust areas, in accordance to CITY standards, on a regular basis. 18. LEAGUE may maintain brick dust for infield areas, in accordance with CITY standards, as necessary to maintain playability. 19. LEAGUE shall not permit cars or trucks on the field at any time. 20. LEAGUE will maintain and replace, in accordance with CITY standards, all fencing installed by LEAGUE, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. 21. LEAGUE agrees to reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for its actual costs of electricity for field lighting utilized by LEAGUE. 22. LEAGUE agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to perform any increased level of maintenance with respect to its FACILITIES, unless mutually agreed upon in writing. 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups or the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. 4 4� n ^O , 25. Prior to its use of CITY'S FACILITIES as authorized herein, LEAGUE will obtain and keep in full force and effect, at LEAGUE'S sole cost, for the mutual benefit of CITY and LEAGUE, comprehensive, broad form, public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death and property damage arising from the use, occupancy, or disuse of the specified FACILITIES, providing protection of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Such insurance policies shall name CITY as an additionally insured. LEAGUE agrees that all insurance required herein shall be provided by responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California and that such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and against CITY agents and representatives; (b) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried with the CITY; (c) they cannot be cancelled or materially altered without prior written notice by the insurer to CITY. 26. LEAGUE shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims for damage to perscns or property by reason of LEAGUE'S acts and /or omissions, and acts and /or omissions of LEAGUE'S employees, agents, guests, or invitees in connection with LEAGUE'S use of said FACILITIES. 27. In the event CITY'S FACILITIES approved for use by LEAGUE herein become unfit or unavailable for use or occupancy by LEAGUE during the period covered by this Agreement, by reason of fire, earthquake, strike, civil disturbance or any other cause beyond the control of CITY, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and CITY shall not be responsible for any losses incurred by LEAGUE as a result thereof. 5 lie R o 28. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice. 29. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, this Agreement may be terminated by CITY immediately upon delivery to LEAGUE of written notice of termination in the event of property misuse, privilege misuse and /or failure to carry public liability insurance as specified in this Agreement. 30. This Agreement shall be effective from February 1 , 1992 , through and including July 31 1992 31. This Agreement supersedes all previous use and maintenance agreements, written or oral, between CITY and LEAGUE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written opposite their respective signatures: LEAGUE: Dated: ,b' . ��Xr 19�J•Z By: Title. Dated: By: _ Title: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dated: By: _ Title: 4a 0 AGREEMENT FOR USE OF ATRLETIC FIELDS AND FACILITIES PREANHLE The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides basic municipal services to its residents. one of these services is parks and recreation. To accomplish this service, the City has developed a number of parks having various types of facilities designed to meet community -wide requirements. The City has also developed recreational programs which are an important element of creating an environment responsive to the needs, interests and desires of all residents. To make these services meaningful, the city has a strategy for the management of limited resources to maximize their benefit to all residents. While the park and recreation resources are limited and must be utilized to benefit all residents, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of all residents to occasionally designate for a specified time period a particular facility for the exclusive use of an organization. {Ie 0piA rAFy This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties' signatures below, by and between the city of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY "), and (hereinafter referred to as "LEAGUE") for the use and maintenance of specified athletic fields /facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITIES "). A. Recitals. (i) LEAGUE has been authorized to use the FACILITIES described in the attached "Authorized City Field Usage Form," a full and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated by reference. (ii) LEAGUE and CITY desire to enter into this Agreement in order to specify the obligations of the parties with respect to LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and LEAGUE, as follows: 1. CITY shall approve all scheduling of uses of the FACILITIES based upon the needs of the entire community. 2. CITY will endeavor to coordinate and conduct its routine field maintenance program for the FACILITIES in such a manner as not to disrupt any approved and authorized schedule of LEAGUE play. 3. CITY shall be authorized to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maintain the FACILITIES including, but not limited to, charging of a maintenance fee as outlined in Section B, Item 22 and 23. 6. CITY shall set minimum acceptable maintenance standards for community and neighborhood parks. 5. CITY'S maintenance may include, but is not limited to, maintenance of: a. all turf and brick dust infields; b. all irrigation and potable water systems; c. parking lot(s); d. trees, plants and other landscape features e. perimeter fencing, backstops, dugouts and bleachers; f. athletic and security lighting g. picnic areas; h. restroom, storage and concession facilities; 1. trash receptacles. 2 4o 6. With respect to FACILITIES not owned by CITY, maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner of such FACILITIES and special maintenance arrangements concerning these sites should be directed to the respective owners thereof. 7. CITY shall have the right, in the event that emergency work or repairs are required to its FACILITIES, to close any area to LEAGUE and other users, until the maintenance and /or repairs are completed. 8. LEAGUE agrees to submit a written request for FACILITIES use as specified in CITY'S "Sports Fields and Facilities Allocation Policies and Procedures Handbook" ( "Handbook" herein), and to comply at all times with the provisions contained in the Handbook. 9• LEAGUE agrees to submit a printed master calendar of events, names and addresses and telephone numbers of current members of its board of directors, and proof of current non - profit status with the IRS and the State of California, as specified in the Handbook. lo. LEAGUE agrees to monitor its sound impact at all times on the surrounding neighborhood /residents in order to avoid disturbances, as required in the Handbook. 11. LEAGUE shall be responsible for monitoring parking patterns and insuring that parking lots are fully utilized and that any impacts on neighborhoods and residents are minimized as required in the Handbook. 12. LEAGUE shall be responsible to provide portable sanitary restrooms, if permanent ones are not available, at each particular FACILITY. 13. LEAGUE shall be responsible for making sure that permanent restroom facilities, if available, are clear of rubbish and debris upon completion of each scheduled activity. (�3 h s 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups or the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. 4 14. LEAGUE shall not line CITY'S FACILITIES with IC; �I chalk without advance written permission of CITY. 15. LEAGUE shall not burn lines on CITY'S FACILITIES. 15. LEAGUE shall not line or burn lines on FACILITIES not owned by CITY without advance written permission of the owners thereof. 17. LEAGUE will be responsible for spot watering of brick dust areas, in accordance to CITY standards, on a regular basis. 18. LEAGUE may maintain brick dust for infield areas, in accordance with CITY standards, as necessary to maintain playability. 19. LEAGUE shall not permit cars or trucks on the field at any time. 20. LEAGUE will maintain and replace, in mccordance with CITY standards, all fencing installed by LEAGUE, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. 21. LEAGUE agrees to reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for its actual costs of electricity for field lighting utilized by LEAGUE. 22. LEAGUE agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to perform any increased level of maintenance with respect to its FACILITIES, unless mutually agreed upon in writing. 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups or the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. 4 25. Prior to its use of CITY'S FACILITIES as authorized herein, LEAGUE will obtain and keep in full force and effect, at LEAGUE'S sole cost, for the mutual benefit of CITY and LEAGUE, comprehensive, broad form, public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death and property damage arising from the use, occupancy, or disuse of the specified FACILITIES, providing protection of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00). Such insurance policies shall name CITY as an additionally insured. LEAGUE agrees that all insurance required herein shall be provided by responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California and that such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and against CITY agents and representatives; (b) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried with the CITY; (c) they cannot be cancelled or materially altered without prior written notice by the insurer to CITY. 26. LEAGUE shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims for damage to persons or property by reason of LEAGUE'S acts and /or omissions, and acts and /or omissions of LEAGUE'S employees, agents, guests, or invitees in connection with LEAGUE'S use of said FACILITIES. 27. In the event CITY'S FACILITIES approved for use by LEAGUE herein become unfit or unavailable for use or occupancy by LEAGUE during the period covered by this Agreement, by reason of fire, earthquake, strike, civil disturbance or any other cause beyond the control of CITY, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and CITY shall not be responsible for any losses incurred by LEAGUE as a result thereof. 5 A U 28. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice. 29. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, this Agreement may be terminated by CITY immediately upon delivery to LEAGUE of written notice of termination in the event of property misuse, privilege misuse and /or failure to carry public liability insurance as specified in this Agreement. 30. This Agreement shall be effective from February 1992 through and including July 31 1g92 31. This Agreement supersedes all previous use and maintenance agreements, written or oral., between CITY and LEAGUE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written opposite their respective signatures: LEAGUE: Dated: - �I /� %/, y BNB -\t,` IaAi Dated: L%(;ea+ `-%, (17 % Z- Title: Title: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dated: By: Title: '0 "'j V AGREEMENT FOR USE OF ATHLETIC FIELDS AND FACILITIES PREAMBLE The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides basic municipal services to its residents. One of these services is parks and recreation. To accomplish this service, the City has developed a number of parks having various types of facilities designed to meet community -wide requirements. The City has also developed recreational programs which are an important element of creating an environment responsive to the needs, interests and desires of all residents. To make these services meaningful, the City has a strategy for the management of limited resources to maximize their benefit to all residents. While the park and recreation resources are limited and must be utilized to benefit all residents, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of all residents to occasionally designate for a specified time period a particular facility for the exclusive use of an organization. AGREEMENT This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties, signatures below, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municipa777777�� orpo�yation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY "), and llr t= \ P7ll.aAI (hereinafter referred to as "LEAGUE") for the use and maintenance of specified athletic fields /facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITIES "). A. Recitals. (i) LEAGUE has been authorized to use the FACILITIES described in the attached "Authorized City Field Usage Form," a full and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated by reference. (ii) LEAGUE and CITY desire to enter into this Agreement in order to specify the obligations of the parties with respect to LEAGUES use of the FACILITIES. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and LEAGUE as follows: 1. CITY shall approve all scheduling of uses of the FACILITIES based upon the needs of the entire community. 2. CITY will endeavor to coordinate and conduct its routine field maintenance program for the FACILITIES in such a manner as not to disrupt any approved and authorized schedule of LEAGUE play. 3. CITY shall be authorized to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maintain the FACILITIES including, but not limited to, charging of a maintenance fee as outlined in Section B, Item 22 and 23. 4. CITY shall set minimum acceptable maintenance standards for community and neighborhood parks. 5. CITY'S maintenance may include, but is not limited to, maintenance of: a. all turf and brick dust infields; b. all irrigation and potable water systems; C. parking lot(s); d. trees, plants and other landscape features e. perimeter fencing, backstops, dugouts and bleachers; f. athletic and security lighting g. picnic areas; h. restroom, storage and concession facilities; i. trash receptacles. 2 q� al 6. With respect to FACILITIES not owned by CITY, maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner of such FACILITIES and special maintenance arrangements concerning these sites should be directed to the respective owners thereof. 7. CITY shall have the right, in the event that emergency work or repairs are required to its FACILITIES, to close any area to LEAGUE and other users, until the maintenance and /or repairs are Completed. 8. LEAGUE agrees to submit a written request for FACILITIES use as specified in CITY'S "Sports Fields and Facilities Allocation Policies and Procedures Handbook" ( "Handbook" herein), and to comply at all times with the provisions contained in the Handbook. 9. LEAGUE agrees to submit a printed master calendar of events, names and addresses and telephone numbers of current members of its board of directors, and proof of current non - profit status with the IRS and the State of California, as specified in the Handbook. lo. LEAGUE agrees to monitor its sound impact at all times on the surrounding neighborhood /residents in order to avoid disturbances, as required in the Handbook. 11. LEAGUE shall be responsible for monitoring parking patterns and insuring that parking lots are fully utilized and that any impacts on neighborhoods and residents are minimized as required in the Handbook. 12. LEAGUE shall be responsible to provide portable sanitary restrooms, if permanent ones are not available, at each particular FACILITY. 13. LEAGUE shall be responsible for making sure that permanent restroom facilities, if available, are clear of rubbish and debris upon completion of each scheduled activity. 3 �. MY 14. LEAGUE shall not line CITY'S FACILITIES with chalk without advance written permission of CITY. 15. LEAGUE shall not burn lines on CITY'S FACILITIES. 16. LEAGUE shall not line or burn lines on FACILITIES not owned by CITY without advance written permission of the owners thereof. 17. LEAGUE will be responsible for spot watering of brick dust areas, in accordance to CITY standards, on a regular basis. 18. LEAGUE may maintain brick dust for infield areas, in accordance with CITY standards, as necessary to maintain playability. 19. LEAGUE shall not permit cars or trucks on the field at any time. 20. LEAGUE will maintain and replace, in accordance with CITY standards, all fencing installed by LEAGUE, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. 21. LEAGUE agrees to reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for its actual costs of electricity for field lighting utilized by LEAGUE. 22. LEAGUE agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to perform any increased level of maintenance with respect to its FACILITIES, unless mutually agreed upon in writing. 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups or the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. 4 25. Prior to its use of CITY'S FACILITIES as authorized herein, LEAGUE will obtain and keep in full force and effect, at LEAGUE'S sole cost, for the mutual benefit of CITY and LEAGUE, comprehensive, broad form, public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death and property damage arising from the use, occupancy, or disuse of the specified FACILITIES, providing protection of at least one million dollars ($1„000,000.00). Such insurance policies shall name CITY as an additionally insured. LEAGUE agrees that all insurance required herein shall be provided by responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the state of California and that such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and against CITY agents and representatives; (b) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried with the CITY; (c) they cannot be cancelled or materially altered without prior written notice by the insurer to CITY. 26. LEAGUE shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims for damage to persons or property by reason of LEAGUE'S acts and /or omissions, and acts and /or omissions of LEAGUE'S employees, agents, guests, or invitees in connection with LEAGUE'S use of said FACILITIES. 27. In the event CITY'S FACILITIES approved for use by LEAGUE herein become unfit or unavailable for use or occupancy by LEAGUE during the period covered by this Agreement, by reason of fire, earthquake, strike, civil disturbance or any other cause beyond the control of CITY, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and CITY shall not be responsible for any losses incurred by LEAGUE as a result thereof. 1^5 1� b o 28. This Agreement may be terminated by either Party upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice, 29. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, this Agreement may be terminated by CITY immediately upon delivery to LEAGUE of written notice of termination in the event of property misuse, privilege misuse and /or failure to carry public liability insurance as specified in this Agreement. 30. This Agreement shall be effective from February 1 , 1992 , through and including July 31 1492 31. This Agreement supersedes all previous use and maintenance agreements, written or oral, between CITY and LEAGUE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written opposite their respective signatures: Dated: '' ^ n Dated: l / •o 42 _ Sy: Tit Title: ✓'< <' �_rr, Jo.� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA Dated: Hy: Title: AGREEMENT FOR USE OF ATHLETIC FIELDS Mn FACILITIES PREAMBLE The City of Rancho Cucamonga provides basic municipal services to its residents. One of these services is parks and recreation. To accomplish this service, the City has developed a number of parks having various types of facilities designed to meet community -wide requirements. The City has also developed recreational programs which are an important element of creating an environment responsive to the needs, interests and desires of all residents. To make these services meaningful, the City has a strategy for the management of limited resources to maximize their benefit to all residents. While the park and recreation resources are limited and must be utilized to benefit all residents, the City has determined that it is in the best interest of all residents to occasionally designate for a specified time period a particular facility for the exclusive use of an organization. 1 :[H:1NS.�N;YS This Agreement is made and entered into as of the latest date appearing opposite the respective parties- signatures below, by and between the City of Rancho Cucamonga, a municip 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY ") , and .SD9` 4t75.-e2/ -N (hereinafter referred to as "LEAGUE ") for the use and maintenance of specified athletic fields /facilities (hereinafter referred to as the "FACILITIES "). BL A. Recitals. (i) LEAGUE has been authorized to use the FACILITIES described in the attached "Authorized City Field Usage Form," a full and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and hereby incorporated by reference. (ii) LEAGUE and CITY desire to enter into this Agreement in order to specify the obligations of the parties with respect to LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES. B. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and LEAGUE as follows: 1. CITY shall approve all scheduling of uses of the FACILITIES based upon the needs of the entire community. 2. CITY will endeavor to coordinate and conduct its routine field maintenance program for the FACILITIES in such a manner as not to disrupt any approved and authorized schedule of LEAGUE play. 3. CITY shall be authorized to take all necessary and appropriate actions to maintain the FACILITIES including, but not limited to, Charging of a maintenance fee as outlined in Section B, Item 22 and 23. 4. CITY shall set minimum acceptable maintenance standards for community and neighborhood parks. 5. CITY'S maintenance may include, but is not limited to, maintenance of: a. all turf and brick dust infields; b. all irrigation and potable water systems; C. parking lot(s); d. trees, plants and other landscape features e. perimeter fencing, backstops, dugouts and bleachers; f. athletic and security lighting g. picnic areas; h. restroom, storage and concession facilities; i. trash receptacles. 2 \ (1 � T)3) 6. With respect to FACILITIES not owned by CITY, maintenance will be the responsibility of the owner of such FACILITIES and special maintenance arrangements concerning these sites should be directed to the respective owners thereof. 7. CITY shall have the right, in the event that emergency work or repairs are required to its FACILITIES, to close any area to LEAGUE and other users, until the maintenance and /or repairs are completed. a. LEAGUE agrees to submit a written request for FACILITIES use as specified in CITY'S "Sports Fields and Facilities Allocation Policies and Procedures Handbook" ( "Handbook" herein), and to comply at all times with the provisions contained in the Handbook. 9. LEAGUE agrees to submit a printed master calendar of events, names and addresses and telephone numbers of current members of its board of directors, and proof of current non - profit status with the IRS and the State of California, as specified in the Handbook. 10. LEAGUE agrees to monitor its sound impact at all times on the surrounding neighborhood/ residents in order to avoid disturbances, as required in the Handbook. 11. LEAGUE shall be responsible for monitoring narking patterns and insuring that parking lots are fully utilized and that any impacts on neighborhoods and residents are minimized as required in the Handbook. 12. LEAGUE shall be responsible to provide portable sanitary restrooms, if permanent ones are not available, at each particular FACILITY. 13. LEAGUE shall be responsible for making sure that permanent restroom facilities, if available, are clear of rubbish and debris upon completion of each scheduled activity. 3 4 fit. 14. LEAGUE shall not line CITY'S FACILITIES with chalk without advance written permission of CITY. 15. LEAGUE shall not burn lines on CITY'S FACILITIES. 16. LEAGUE shall not line or burn lines on FACILITIES not owned by CITY without advance written Permission of the owners thereof. 17. LEAGUE will be responsible for spot watering of brick dust areas, in accordance to CITY standards, on a regular basis. 18. LEAGUE may maintain brick dust for infield areas, in accordance with CITY standards, as necessary to maintain playability. 19. LEAGUE shall not permit cars or trucks on the field at any time. 20. LEAGUE will maintain and replace, in accordance with CITY standards, all fencing installed by LEAGUE, unless otherwise agreed upon in writing. 21. LEAGUE agrees to reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for its actual costs of electricity for field lighting utilized by LEAGUE. 22. LEAGUE agrees that, in no event, shall CITY be required to perform any increased level of maintenance with respect to its FACILITIES, unless mutually agreed upon in writing. 23. LEAGUE shall reimburse CITY, upon receipt of a written invoice, for CITY'S actual expenses, including CITY'S reasonable overhead charge, for any previously approved increased level of maintenance between the LEAGUE and CITY. LEAGUE further agrees to reimburse CITY for any vandalism and /or damage occurring during LEAGUE'S use of the FACILITIES which is caused by individuals or groups or the LEAGUE. 24. At all times, LEAGUE shall abide by, and cause to be enforced, CITY'S rules and regulations with respect to the use of the FACILITIES. 4 q ) I—P— -) F 25. Prior to its use of CITY'S FACILITIES as authorized herein, LEAGUE will obtain and keep in full force and effect, at LEAGUE'S sole cost, for the mutual benefit of CITY and LEAGUE, comprehensive, broad form, public liability insurance against claims and liability for personal injury, death and property damage arising from the use, occupancy, or disuse of the specified FACILITIES, providing protection of at least one million dollars ($l,0oo,000.o0). Such insurance policies shall name CITY as an additionally insured. LEAGUE agrees that all insurance required herein shall be provided by responsible insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of California and that such policies shall contain language to the effect that: (a) the insurer waives the right of subrogation against CITY and against CITY agents and representatives; (b) the policies are primary and noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried with the CITY; (c) they cannot be cancelled or materially alterel without prior written notice by the insurer to CITY. 26. LEAGUE shall indemnify, defend and hold free and harmless CITY and its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees from and against all claims for damage to persons or property by reason of LEAGUE'S acts and /or omissions, and acts and /or omissions of LEAGUE'S employees, agents, guests, or invitees in connection with LEAGUE'S use of said FACILITIES. 27. In the event CITY'S FACILITIES approved for use by LEAGUE herein become unfit or unavailable for use or occupancy by LEAGUE during the period covered by this Agreement, by reason of fire, earthquake, strike, civil disturbance or any other cause beyond the control of CITY, then this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and CITY shall not be responsible for any losses incurred by LEAGUE as a result thereof. 5 0 BG 28. This Agreement may be terminated by either party upon thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice. 29. Notwithstanding any other provisions hereof, this Agreement may be terminated by CITY immediately upon delivery to LEAGUE of written notice of termination in the event of property misuse, privilege misuse and /or failure to carry public liability insurance as specified in this Agreement. 30. This Agreement shall be effective from February 1 , i99? , through and including July 3: , 1992 31. This Agreement supersedes all previous use and maintenance agreements, written or oral, between CITY and LEAGUE. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates written opposite their respective signatures: Dated: O v2 Dated: Dated: LEAGUE: 2Z. By: BY: / Title: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA By: _ Title: i yr rtnivunv uuuviviviNUA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jerry Fulwood, Acting Community Services Director BY: Kathy Sorensen, Recreation Superintendent SUBJECT: AGREEMENT FOR USE OF WINDROWS ELEMENTARY City Council sign a one year agreement for use of Windrows Elementary School for Recreation Programs. For the past five years the City and Etiwanda School District have entered into an Agreement to use Windrows Elementary for Recreation classes. Through this Agreement the City provides activities three days a week from 4:00 p.m. until 9:00 p.m., year round, to Etiwanda community residents. There is no rental charge for the use of the room per an Agreement between the City and District in trade for exclusive use of part of Windrows Park during the school day. Respectfully subm.tted, arry Fulwood cting Community Services Director Jr: KS:tp 43 P. 0. BOX 248 ETIWANDA, CA 91739 (714) 899 -2451 REQUEST FOR USE OF FACILITIES DATE August 5, 1992 NAME OF ORGANIZATION City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Services PERSON MAKING REQUEST Kathy Sorensen, Recreation Superintendent SCHOOL OF FACILITY REQUESTED Windrows Elementary School ROOM OF FACILITY REQUESTED Multi- purpose Room DATE OR DATES REQUESTED Mon, Wed, and Thurs nights for 92 -93 STARTING TIME 3:30 p.m. ENDING TIME 7;30 o.m. FURNITURE AND OTHER EQUIPMENT REQUESTED (CHAIRS, TABLES, MICROPHONE, ETC.) NONE NUMBER OF PEOPLE ATTENDING (APPROX.): ADOLTS 50 CHILDREN 75 wk COST TO ORGANIZATION (IF ANY) 0 AUTHORIZATION GNAT R OF PERSON MAKING (SUPT. OR ADM. ASSISTANT ONLY) REQ ES PHONE NO. 989-1858 FOR SCHOOL USE ONLY ACTUAL HOURS: STARTING TIME ENDING TIME NUMBER OF PEOPLE ATTENDING: ADULTS SIGNATURE OF DUTY MAN CHILDREN r q SAVE HARMLESS AGRCEMENT AND COVENEN'T NOT TO SUE I, Cite of Rancho Cucamonga in consideration of (Name of Individual or Organization) being permitted to use facilities of the Etivanda School District, in connection with Community Services Department between the dates of September 21, 1992 and September 2, 1993 do hereby covenant and agree that the Etiwanda School District, their officers, employers, agents, members or representatives shall not be liable for any loss, damage, injury or liability of any kind to any person or property caused by or arising from any use of the premises of the Etivanda School District, or any part thereof, or by any building, structure or improvement thereon, or arising from any act or omission of the undersigned or its agent, employees, nor shall the above enumerated entities be liable for any loss, damage or injury from any cause whatsoever to the property or person of the undersigned or any of its employees, agents or other persons entering upon or using said premises or any part thereof, or to any property stored or placed thereon. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein contained and irrespective of any insurance carried by the undersigned for the benefit of the above enumerated entities, the undersigned agrees to protect, indemnify, covenant not to sue and hold the above enumerated entities and said premises harmless from any and all damages or liabilities of whatsoever nature arising out of or in connection with the Etivanda School Disstrict or in the use or occupancy of the premises or arising from any state or condition of said premises or any part thereof. Dated: August 5, 1992 Community Services Department Address: Post Office Box 607 _n ho Ra amon a. A 91729 Signature Telephone: Signature Home: Business 989 -1858 I� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, A.ICP, City Manager r FROM: Jerry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager /Acting Community Services Director BY: Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II Qy SUBJECT: Approval of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) Memorandum of Understanding for Fiscal Year 1992/1993 RECOMMENDATioN Staff recommends that City Council approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between Alta Loma, Central, Etiwanda School Districts, the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the continuation of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) program for fiscal year 1992/1993. The MOU provides $44,552.00 from the City through its law enforcement contracts to the D.A.R.E. program. This activity is budgeted in account number 01- 4451 -6030. BACKGROUND As City Council is aware, the D.A.R.E. program was implemented by City Council as a pilot program during fiscal year 1990/1991. The program is jointly funded by Alta Loma, Central and Etiwanda School Districts and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The attached MOU for the D.A.R.E, program is for the time period of July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. The City's financial obligation to the program remains unchanged. In order to continue the D.A.R.E. program it is staff's recommendation that the attached Memorandum of Understanding between Alta Loma, Central, Etiwanda School Districts, the County of San Bernardino and the City of Rancho Cucamonga ho approved. R�spec_tfu/l1Q,ly subm'ttedY Jerry Fulwood Deputy City Manager /Acting Community Services Director JF: PP:tp Attachment MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding is entered into by the Alta Loma, Central, and Etiwanda School Districts, the County of San Bernardino, and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for the purpose of jointly sponsoring and continuing the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program. In order to accomplish this goal the agencies listed below will contribute the following dollar amounts to be used for the continuation of the DARE program; Alta Loma School District -- $29,498; Central School District -- $16,908; Etiwanda School District -- $6,425; the City of Rancho Cucamonga -- $44,552. The County of San Bernardino will provide one DARE officer in accordance with the terms and provisions of the contract for police service between said County and the City of Rancho Cucamonga to be shared between the three school districts on a proportional basis based upon the dollar amount contributed by each district to the program (Alta Loma School District -- 56% of the officer's time; Central School District -- 32% of the officer's time; and Etiwanda School District -- 12% of the officer's time. This agreement shall be effective from July 1, 1992 through June 30, 1993. If modifications are necessary before or at that time, they will be added to this Memorandum of Understanding by mutual agreement of all the parties involved, We hereby agree to this Memorandum of Understanding and certify that the agreements made here will be honored. Signature Alta Loma School District, Superintendent Signature Central School District, Superintendent Signature Etiwanda School District, Superintendent Signature Bernardino Signature __ _ _ ___ _ City of Rancho Cucamonga, Mayor 4-7 UI I Y Up KA1Vt.:HU UUUAMUINUA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 70 Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Contract for Cal ID Services Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the contract for Cal ID services for fiscal year 1992/93. The contract is for an amount not to exceed $63,990.00 and has been budgeted for this year from account 01- 4451 -6028. Background: This contract is the City's share of participating in the Cal ID program. Cal ID is the statewide fingerprint identification system utilized by law enforcement. The City's share of the contract is based on our population and the contract is renewed annually. Cal ID has been a useful tool for law enforcement in clearing many criminal cases and for bringing many criminals to justice. It is recommended that the City Council approve the Cal ID contract for fiscal year 1992/93. Z Rc Z milted I� CITY OF RANCHO CUCANIONGA STAFF REPORT''`_' ' 4 DATE: August 5, 1992"0,' TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: 'William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jeff Barnes, Parks 8 Landscape Maintenance Superintendent SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO EXECUTE AN EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE HAVEN MEDIAN ISLANDS AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENTERPRISES, INCORPORATED, OF SOUTH EL MONTE, CALIFORNIA IN THE AMOUNT OF $168,845.43 TO BE FUNDED BY: GENERAL FUND, 01 -4647- 6028 ($32,550.16). SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY REIMBURSEMENT FUND, 08- 4647 -6028 ($42,211.08); LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 1 FUND, 40- 4130 -6028 ($11,170.06); LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 4 FUND, 43 -4130 -6028 ($21,891.28); AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 38 FUND, 46- 4130 -6028 ($61,016.85). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council approve and execute an extension of the agreement with Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises, Incorporated, of South E1 Monte, California for the Haven Median Islands and San Bernardino County Flood Control Landscape and Irrigation Maintenance Contract. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS The City Council previously awarded the contract on December 7, 1988, to Mariposa Landscape, Incorporated, The contract was renewable yearly through June 30, 1992. The contract has been amended so that it may be negotiated and extended on a year -to -year basis beginning July 1, 1992. Consequently, negotiations with Mariposa Horticultural Enterprises have resulted in a price structure for fiscal year 1992/93 which will not increase the maintenance costs for the Haven Median Islands and the San Bernardino County Flood Control locations over the 1991/92 costs. Respectfully submitted, i William J. O'Nei1'� City Engineer WJO:JB:jk 4 - -- -CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .a. STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Jeff Barnes, Parks 8 Landscape Maintenance Superintendent SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO EXECUTE AN EXTENSION OF THE AGREEMENT FOR THE CITYWIDE TREE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT TO GOLDEN BEAR ARBORISTS, INCORPORATED, OF MONROVIA, CALIFORNIA IN THE AMOUNT OF $184,130.00 TO BE FUNDED BY GENERAL FUND, 01- 4647 -5028 ($140,000.00); LMD -4, 43- 4130 -6028 ($3,500.00); LMD -6, 45 -4130- 6028 ($5,430.00); LMD -3B, 46- 4130 -6028 ($16,000.00); LMD -7, 47- 4130 -6028 ($18,400.00) AND LMD -8, 48- 4130 -6028 ($800.00). It is recommended that the City Council approve and execute the extension of the agreement with Golden Bear Arborists, Incorporated, of Monrovia, for the Citywide Tree Maintenance Agreement. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS Per previous Council action the agreement was awarded on February 19, 1992, to Golden Bear Arborists, Incorporated, for the remainder of the fiscal year. The agreement is renegotiable on a year -to -year basis starting July 1, 1992. Negotiations with Golden Bear Arborists, Incorporated, have resulted in no increase in the unit costs for fiscal year 1992/93. Respectfully submitted, William J., O'Neil City Engineer WJO:JB:jk Attachment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 4pi T0: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT FOR TRACT 13753, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF KENYON WAY AND BELVINO NEST, SUBMITTED BY LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, AND RELEASE OF PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND MONUMENTATION DEPOSIT ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 21, 1991, FROM PERPETUAL ASSET MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INCORPORATED. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution (1) accepting the new Improvement Agreement, Security and Monumentation Cash Deposit, (2) releasing the previous Improvement Agreement and Security (3) authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign and release said agreements, and, (4) authorizing the Finance Department to refund the previous Monumentation cash deposit. AMALYSIS/BACKGROUMD The map, Improvement Agreement, Security, and Monumentation Cash Deposit, for Tract 13753, located at the northwest corner of Kenyon Way and Belvino West, was approved by City Council on January 18, 1989. The Tract was recorded on February 13, 1989. The property has been purchased by Lewis Homes of California, who is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the completion of the public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond: $483,089.00 Labor and Material Bond: $241,545.00 Monumentation: $ 9,000.00 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil U City Engineer WJO:WV:dlw Attachments RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT FOR TRACT NO. 13753 AND RELEASING THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY AND MORU14ENTATION DEPOSIT PREVIOUSLY ACCEPTED BY CITY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 21, 1991 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California did consider an Improvement Agreement, related Security and Monumentation Cash Deposit, submitted by Lewis Homes of California, as developer, for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located at the northwest corner of Kenyon Way and Belvino West and release of the previously approved Improvement Agreement, Security and Monumentation deposit from Perpetual Asset Management Company, Incorporated. WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secu ^ed and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified In said Improvement Agreement. NON, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES that (1) said Improvement Agreement, Security, and Monumentation Cash Deposit submitted by Lewis Homes of California are hereby approved, (2)the previously approved Improvement Agreement, Security and Monumentation Deposit from Perpetual Asset Management Company, Incorporated, are released and (3) the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest thereto. ce -- z --- -- wmi.i i i i � v v J •�1,�f1 (�.� /J,' °!1f. X11 1.1 1� 1 ----- -- --•----- -11��----- l(Jl ,J N CITY OF nw. /374 3_ RANCHO CUCAMONGA TrML. EN(3DnWWO DIVISION EXHUM. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council �llJ Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspector II SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, REDUCTION OF BONDS AND EXTENSION OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR TRACT 13304, LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TERRA VISTA PARKWAY AND MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council accept certain improvements, reduce the Performance Bond, and extend the Improvement Agreement for Tract 13304, located on the northwest corner of Terra Vista Parkway and Mountain View Drive. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS The City Council, at their regularly scheduled meeting of November 1, 1991, approved a Street Capping Agreement between the City and Lewis Homes. Pursuant to that Agreement, it is being recommended that Council accept certain improvements within Tract 1334, complying with the provisions stated in the Agreement. The improvements being recommended for acceptance are the Interior tract streets, storm drain and landscaping, all of which are complete. The only remaining construction item (which is not being recommended for acceptance at this time) is the final lift of paving on Mountain View Drive and also on Terra Vista Parkway. The completion of these two streets will occur at a later time. Pursuant to subparagraph 2(a) of the Agreement, it is also being recommended to reduce the Performance Bond to 102 of the original amount. In this case, the reduced amounts equal $42,130 for Terra Vista Parkway, and $55,195 for Mountain View Drive. Also, subparagraph 2(a) provides for a two to five year extension of the Improvement Agreement to complete the final lift of paving on certain specified streets, in this case, Mountain View Drive and Terra Vista Parkway. Therefore, it is being recommended to authorize the extension of the Improvement Agreement for a time period of two years from the date of this approval. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT TRACT 13304 August 5, 1992 Page 2 Mountain View Drive Release: Faithful Performance Bonds $557,954 Accept: Reduced Faithful Performance Bonds $ 55,795 Developer: Lewis Homes P.O. Box 670 Upland, CA 91786 Respectfully submi((((t, \Se�A /,7,II�,`'c William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:SMG:sd Attachment SS Terra Vista Parkway $421,296 $ 42,130 RESOLUTION NO. /V- a O A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN TRACT 13304 WHICH INCLUDE THE INTERIOR TRACT STREETS, THE LANDSCAPING, AND THE STORM DRAIN; THE REDUCTION OF THE TWO PERFORMANCE BONDS FOR THE INCOMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH INCLUDE MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE AND TERRA VISTA PARKWAY, TO AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO 10% OF THE ORIGINAL AMOUNTS; THE APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION TO THE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR A TIME PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THIS APPROVAL WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tract 13304, including interior tract streets, landscaping and storm drain, have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, the reduced amounts of the performance bonds are pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act and the Street Capping Agreement and are in an amount sufficient to secure the completion of the remaining improvements; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement Extension executed on August 5, 1992, by Lewis Homes as developer, for the improvement of public right -of -way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the northwest corner of Mountain View Drive and Terra Vista Parkway; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said Tract 13304; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement Extension is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Security, which is identified In said Improvement Agreement Extension. NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved, that the described work is hereby accepted; the reduction of the Performance Bond 1s hereby approved; that said Improvement Agreement Extension and said Improvement Security are hereby approved. .J L CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve N. Gilliland, Public Works Inspector SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF BONDS AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR DR 88 -09, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF MAPLE PLACE NORTH OF ARROW HIGHWAY RECOMMENDATION: The required street improvements for DR 88 -09 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bond in the amount of $6,000. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS DR 88 -09 - located on the west side of Maple Place north of Arrow Highway Release: DEVELOPER: Ben Sharfi 4740 Brooks Street Montclair, CA 91763 Faithful Performance Bond (Street) $6,000 Respectfully submitted, 1 " � �f✓ G%Z.e: c�� William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:SMG:sd Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 93 - Jjj A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR OR 88 -09 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for DR 88 -09 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NON, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. 5� CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works Inspector II SUBJECT: ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF BONDS AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR OR 89 -21, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF SPURGE AVENUE AND WHITE OAK AVENUE RECOMEIDATION: The required street improvements for DR 89 -21 have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that City Council accept said improvements, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful Performance Bonds to the amounts of $30,500 and $43,000. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS DR 89 -21 - located on the northeast corner of Spruce Avenue and White Oak Avenue DEVELOPER: Great Western Hotel Corporation P.O. Box 2127 La Habra, CA 90632 -2127 Release: STREETS SPRUCE MEDIAN Faithful Performance Bond $30,500 $43,000 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil % City Engineer l/ WJO:SMG:sd Attachment RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR DR 89 -21 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for OR 89 -21 have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work complete. NON, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bernardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Steven Ross, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 89 -07 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP - A request to amend the Development Districts Map from Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) for 5 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Road, west of Alta Cuesta Drive - APN: 202- 025 -01, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14. Related Files: Tentative Tract No. 14208 and Tree Removal Permit No. 91 -40. RHCOMMBNDATION The Planning commission recommends that the City Council approve Development District Amendment 89 -07 through adoption of the attached Ordinance. ANALTSIS The applicant is requesting an amendment to the Development Districts Map to change the land use designation from Low - Medium Residential to Medium Residential. This change would make the Development District and General Plan designations consistent. The request is associated with Tentative Tract 16208, which was approved by the Planning Commission on Jane 10, 1992. On June 10, 1992, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed change and recommended that the City Council adopt the amendment. Attached are the Planning commission staff report, minutes, and resolution from the meeting of June 10, 1992, which contains a more detailed discussion of the proposed amendment. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DDA 99 -07 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP August 5, 1992 Page 2 ODRNESPORDBNOB This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, as well as within an expanded notification area. Respe lly submitted, Brad let City Planner US: SR: sp Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission staff report dated June 10, 1992 Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes dated June 10, 1992 Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 92 -85 Ordinance Approving Development District Amendment 89 -07 Gl�- CM1 7 OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 10, 1992 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FRDM: Brad Buller, City Planner BY: Otto xroutil, Deputy City Planner SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 89 -07 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP - A request to amend the Development Distrlc s Map from Low- Medium 4 Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) for 5 acres of land located on the north aide of Base Line Road, west of Alta Coast& Drive - AP14: 202 - 024 -01, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14. Related Files Tentative Tract 14208 and Tree Removal Permit 91 -40. PROTECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Requested: Forward recommendation of approval to City Council of a Development District Amendment from Low Medium to Medium Residential. B. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Single Family and Multi - Family Residential) Low- Medium Residential (4 -9 dwelling units per acre), and R -M 3.6 (up to 12 dwelling units per acre) within the City of Upland. South - Single Family Residential; Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) East - Vacant, Flood Control Channel within the City of Upland West - Multi - Family Residential; R -M 3.6 (up to 12 dwelling units per acre) within the City of Upland C. General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) North - Multi- Family Residential; City of Upland South - Low Residential (2 -4 dwelling units per acre) East - Flood Control; City of Upland West - Multi - Family Residential) City of Upland D. Site Characteristics: This approximately five acre site fronts on Base Line Road, and is surrounded on the West, north, and east by land within the city limits of Upland. Although the site is predominately vacant, three older single family homes exist in the PLANNING COMMISSION %F£ REPORT DDA 89 -07 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP June 10, 1992 Page 2 northeasterly portion. A large number of trees exist on the site (please see associated report on Tentative Tract 14208). LAND USE ANALYSIS• Background: Although the properties within t!.is site are currently zoned Low - Medium Residential (4 -8 dwellings per acre), the General Plan designation is Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling per acre). The proposed District change would make the zoning consistent with the General Plan. The reasons for the current discrepancy are noted below: Initially, this site was both zoned and General Planned Low- Medium Residential, 4 -8 dwellings per acre. In the early eighties, the City of Upland approved a 12 unit per acre townhouse project on immediately adjacent properties. In 1985, the owners of this site requested, and were granted, a General Plan amendment increasing the potential density on this site to the Medium category. Both the Planning Commission and the City Council supported this change. However, during the hearings on the General Plan change, it was clearly stated that because of the constraints associated with the site, the applicant should not expect approval of a multi - family project at the maximum density of 14 dwelling units to the acre. Ratner, a density in the 10 -12 unit range would be more appropriate. It was also noted that single story structures would be necessary along Base Line Road to provide an acceptable transition to the single family neighborhood to the south. As a result, the General Plan change was approved, but the necessary zoning wag deferred pending the submittal of an acceptable development project. ANALYSIS: The proposed Development District change is clearly consistent with the current General Plan designation, and if approved, would eliminate the discrepancy between the Development Districts Map and the General Plan. The associated application for Tentative Tract 14208 appears to address the concerns expressed in previous hearings. If approved, it will result in density of 10.7 dwelling units per acre on its portion of the site. A conceptual master plan submitted by the developer for the remainder of the site illustrates the potential viability of future development of the remaining parcels with similar housing types. 6q PLANNING COMMISSION 4FF REPORT DDA 89 -07 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP June 10, 1992 page 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed the Initial Study, Part I, and coapleted tha Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study, and has found that no significant adverse environmental impacts will occur as a result of the proposed Development District Amendment. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: Based on the facts and conclusions outlined in this report, staff believed the Planning Commission can make the following findings regarding this application: The property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed land use and Development District designation in terms of access and size as evidenced by the site's ability to conform to the City's development standards; and 2. The proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Environmental Assessment; and The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and Development Code due to the site's capacity to promote the goals and objectives for residential developments. CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site, as well as within an expanded notification area. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Development District Amendment 09 -07 changing the land use designation from Low- Medium to Medium Residential, and the issuance of a Negative Declaration to the City Council through the adoption of the attached Resolution. Re lly su ed Bra er City Planner BB :OK:js Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter Requesting Change Exhibit "E" - Location Map Exhibit "C" - Development Districts Map Resolution Recommending Approval October 4, 1989 City of Rancho Cucamonga 9320 "C" Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Planning Department Attn: Bruce Abbott RE: APN 202 - 025 - 4,13 &14 Proposed 39 Condominium Units Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA This letter is to provide justification for the requested development district from low /medium density residential (4- 8DU /AC) to medium density residential (8 -14 DU /AC) on our proposed project on 3.17 acres located on the north side of Baseline Road west of Topaz (Upland city border). We feel this request to be appropriate for several reasons. This amendment will align the present properties zoning with that of the General Plan and will harmonize with the existing medium density on the north, east and west property sides. If you should have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Respectfully submitted, A E SMITH CORPORATION Ala 6 M- N F - I 1 ,VA) Jl l „ Fc L I< L at CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REM: D DA 89-07 PLANNING DIVISION TILE Locwriea mR► N BXHIDR': Fj SCALE. (0' L OS J' RM-3.6 J �� L o°'r os i SP RM , I SASS" 1101/ c.... a..... ---� QC* 9a `tJLY 1 SP ; SP d �1�3 CS�m SP SP Fc L I< L at CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REM: D DA 89-07 PLANNING DIVISION TILE Locwriea mR► N BXHIDR': Fj SCALE. (0' CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA EERT- _DDA Sq- 07 PLANNING DIVISION L�cloRwt n UK�� rt 111 N G SCALE: MA AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried S. ENVIBONMENTU aSSVeSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 89 -07 - souTHWEST DESIGN GROUP - A request to amend the Development District@ Map from Lou - Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units pet acre) for 5 acres of land located on the north side of Bas* Line Road, west of Alta Costa Drive - APN: 202- 025 -01, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, and 14. Related Filau Tentative Tract 14208 and Tree Removal Permit 91 -40. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner, presented the staff report. Commissioner Melchor asked if there would be any way to tie the amendment to Tentative Tract 14208, so that the amendment would become void if the project were not built. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, stated it could not because general zoning is a policy issue of the city whereas the project itself is subject to action by the developer. chairman McNial opened the public hearing. He asked about the small piece of land to the east of the applicant's project. Alan Smith, Southwest Design Group, 8632 Archibald Avenue, 0201, Rancho Cucamonga, said the land belongs to someone ales. He indicated the owner had purchased that sliver of land and triad to purchase the remainder of the site which is now owned by the applicant. He said they had master planned the area so that one entire development could be built. He said he did not know if they had any current plans to develop, but the remainder parcel is not land locked and future access would be provided through this site. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman MCNIel closed the public hearing. Motion: Moved by Melchor, seconded by Chitisa, to recommend issuance of a negative declaration and adopt the resolution recommending approval of Development District Amendment 89 -07. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERSt CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Planning Commission Minutes - carried -7- June 10, 1992 ce R There wars no-additional public comments. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Malcher, seconded by Valletta, unanimously carried, to adjourn. 8:24 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submittsd, /fie ,�� Otto Rroutil Deputy Secretary Planning commission Minutes -8- June 10, 199. —/ C) RESOLUTION NO. 32-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT NO. 89 -07, REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM LOW- MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 5.0 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, WEST OF ALTA CUESTA DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202 - 025 -01, 04, 07, 08, 12, 13, 14, A. Recitals. (i) Southwest Design Group has filed an application for the Development District Amendment No. 89 -07 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Oevelopnent District Amendment request ie referred to as "the applicat ±.on.^ (ii) On June 10, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on June 10, 1992, Including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows; (a) The application applies to property 1Gcated on the north side of Base Line Road adjacent to the Upland city limit with a street frontage of 447 feet and lot depth of 496 feet and is presently improved with three single family homes and a large number of mature trees; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is multi- family housing within the city of Upland, the property to the south consists of single family attached housing, the property to the east is a flood control channel, and the property to the west is multi - family housing within the city of Upland. (c) The application is associated with Tentative Tract 14208, an application proposing 32 condominium units for 7 acres of the subject property, resulting in a density of 10.7 dwelling units per acre. 71 PLANNING COMMISSION ' OLUTION NO. DDA 89 -07 - SOUTHWEST - .:SIGN CROUP June 10, 1992 Page 2 (d) The General Plan designation for the site is Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre). 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the subject property is suitable for uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and (b) That the proposed Development District Amendment would not have significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and (c) That the proposed Development District Amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. 5. eased upon the findings and conclusions not forth in paragraph 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: (a) That the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adapt Development District Amendment No. 89 -07. (b) That a Certified Copy of this Resolution and related material hereby adopted by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council, 6. The Secretary to this commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF JUNE 1992. PLANNING COITSSION OF THHEE� CITY OOFRANCHO CUCAMONGA Deputy Secretary 74 PLANNING COMMISSION I MUTTON NO. DDA 89 -07 - SOUTHWEST veSIGN GROUP June 10, 1992 Page 3 I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 10th day of ,tune 1992, by the following vote�to -wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CP.ITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT, COMMISSIONERS: NONE 73 ORDINANCE NO. 4-r AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT NO. 89 -07, AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM "LM" LOW - MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (4 -8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) TO "M" MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL (8 -14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) FOR 5 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BASE LINE ROAD, WEST OF ALTA CUESTA DRIVE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 282 - 025 -01, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, AND 14. A. Recitals. (1) Southwest Design Group has filed an application for Development District Amendment No. 89 -07 as described in the title of this Ordinance. (ii) On June 10, 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above - referenced Development District Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 92 -85, thereby recommending that the City Council adept Development District Amendment No. 89 -07. (iii) On August 5, 1992, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to adoption of this Ordinance. (iv) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance Tne City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby ordains as follows: Section 1: This Council hereby specifies and finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of the Ordinance are true and correct. Section 2: Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing on August 5, 1992, including written and oral staff r,,ports, together with Public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows; a. The application applies to approximately 5 acres of land located on the north side of Base Line Road, between Alta Cuesta Drive and Tanglewood Avenue, and is presently improved with 3 single family homes and a large number of mature trees; and b. The properties to the north and west of the subject mite contain multi- family housing within the City of Upland; the property to the south consists of single family attached housing; and the property to the east is a flood control channel; and -7q CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DOA 89 -07 - SOUTHWEST DESIGN GROUP August 5, 1992 Page 2 c. The application is associated with Tentative Tract No. 14208, an application proposing 32 condominium units on 3 acres of the subject property, resulting in a density of 10.7 dwelling units per acre; and d. The subject property is currently designated Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) on the Development Districts Map, and the General Plan designation is Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre). Section 3: This Council hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental quality Act of 1970, and further, this Council hereby issues a Negative Declaration. Section 4: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds as follows: a. That the subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area, and b. That the proposed Development District Amendment would not have significant adverse impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amen'baent is in conformance with the General Plan. Section 5: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves Development District Amendment No. 89 -07 changing the district designation from "LM" Low- Medium Residential (4 -8 dwelling units per acre) to "M" Medium Residential (8 -14 dwelling units per acre) for those properties located on the north side of ease Tdne Road adjacent to the Upland city limit with a street frontage of 447 feet and a lot depth of 496 feet. (APN: 202- 025 -01, 41 7, Sr 12, 13, and 14 as depicted in the attached Exhibit "1.11) Section 6: The City Clerk shall certify as to the adoption of this Ordinance and 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. --�5 OS os SP c.n.l RM-3.6 M„ I 8'14 /rJlt�.,,ti rrw) I I I wnN pu SP SP � L9. nLa 9[� � awu u. aan.s � vu uoou SP _ Q q1 11 SP SP L 0� tG3 gal ICI L ig L i I 1 0 L ra.r R' OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA LEXH118M - PLA NNING DIVISION -07 _ L SCALE: — L at — CITY OF RANCHO C17CAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council AV FROM: Linda D. Daniels, Deputy City Manager BY: Jan Reynolds, Assistant Redevelopment Analyst SUBJECT. RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO THE FORMATION OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 1 WITHIN COMMUNITIES FACILITIES DISTRICT 91 -1 Hahn/Foothill Associates, proponents of Improvement Area No. 1, have requested the continuance of the public hearing to the City Council meeting of September 2, 1992. 7� CITY OF RANCHO Ct1CAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jim Hart, Administrative Services Director BY: Joan Kruse, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 3.08 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION RECOMMENDATION That the City Council hold first reading of the ordinance modification to Chapter 3.08 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to allow a competitive negotiation process. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS In 1987 the City Council adopted a purchasing ordinance which defines the method for procurement for supplies, equipment and services. Additionally, it established a centralized purchasing division whereby goods and services are acquired in the most cost effective manner. The purchasing procedure was established not only to obtain goods at the lowest pLasible price but to provide the City Council with some assurances and credibility that purchases will be handled fairly. The purchasing ordinance provides for bid processes, both formal and informal, however, was not clear regarding competitive negotiation. Accordingly, in keeping with the present standards, we recommend the modification in the Ordinance which makes it clear that under certain circumstances the City be allowed to proceed with purchases by sealed proposal /competitive negotiation. The proposed Ordinance provides for the approval of this process by the City Manager and limits such departure to those unique situations where the City would be at a disadvantage by having formal sealed bids. Procurements such as fire trucks, specialty equipment, telephone systems, and professional contracts will benefit by allowing the City to customize requests to fit our needs, yet stay within the legal bounds. Reaped fully bmi ed, Jim Hart Administrative Services Director JH:jak /j ORDINANCE NO._ AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING SECTION 3.08.090 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW SUBSECTION 3.08.090(F) PERTAINING TO PURCHASES BY COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: SECTION 3.08.090 Of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to addd a new Subsection 3.08.090(F), to be read, in wards and figures, as follows: "F. If a proposed purchase involves goods, equipment or products of a unique and complex design and /or must be manufactured or assembled to the particular needs of the City, the purchasing agent may, in place of formal bidding procedures, institute procurement by a process of sealed formal proposals and competitive negotiations. The City Manager or his or her designee must approve of such purchasing procedure and purchases.^ SECTION 2: The City Council declares that should any, provisions, section, 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 pre - emptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect regardless of such court action or legislation. SECTION 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published int he City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this , 1992. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: -79 day of - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Member of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Jim Hart, Administrative Services Manager BY: Joan Kruse, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT; COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE - ANNUAL UPDATE RECOMMENDATION a That the City Council adopt the attached Resolution implementing the City's Comprehensive Fee Schedule. BACKGROUND /ANALYSIS On an annual basis the City's Comprehensive Fee Schedule is reviewed and updated where necessary, to include any modifications that have occurred over the past year. Attached for your approval is a Resolution which incorporates current fee categories. Also, it incorporates clarification of verbiage within the fire district fee schedule; adds fees for research done by the City Clerk's Department; establishes fees for copies of the municipal code; clarifies cost of non - profit solicitor badges; increases the subscription fee for agendas and minutes to reflect actual costs; provides fee information for massage establishments, filming permit and taxicab service applications; and, lists fees for capital improvement plans and specifications. With the exception of the above, no other changes have been made. Respec fully im Hart Administrative Services Director JH:jak:j Attach. RESOLUTION NO. 7d A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NOS. 90 -049, 91 -194, 91- 194 -A, AND 91- 194 -B, AND ESTABLISHING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES PROVIDED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT A. Recitals. (i) Section 54992 of the Government Code requires that prior to levying a new fee or increasing an existing fee or service charge, local agencies shall hold a public meeting at which oral or written presentations may be made; and (ii) Notice of the time and place of the meeting is to be called fourteen days prior to the meeting to interested parties having previously filed a written request for such notice; and (iii) Ten days prior to the meeting, data indicating the amount of cost or estimated cost required to provide service for which the fee or service charge is to be levied, shall be made available to the public, and (iv) No valid request for mailed notice is on file with the City, and iv) Copies of the required data Were made available in the City Clerk's office to the public on July 20, 1992; and (vi) All legal prerequisites to adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, the City .ouncil of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1.0 Building and Safety Pees: 1.0 A fee for each building permit or service shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: Total Valuation of Work Fees $ 1.00 to $1,000.00 $25.00 1,001.00 to $2,000.00 $25.00 for the first $1,000.00 plus $2.00 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $2,000.00. C11 -2- $ 2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $45.00 for the first $2,000.00 plus $7.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof, to and including $25,000.00. $217.50 for the first $25,000.00 plus $5.50 for each additional $1,000.00 of fraction thereof, to and including $50,000.00. $355.50 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.00 for each additional $1,000,00 or fraction thereof, to and including $100,000.00. $100,000.00 and over $555.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus $2.50 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof. i J Plan Review Fees: (a) When the valuation of proposed construction exceeds one thousand dollars, and a plan is required to be submitted, a Plan review fee shall be paid to the Building Official at the time of submittal of plans. (b) Plan review fees for buildings and structures shall be equal to seventy -five percent (75 %) of the building permit fees set forth in Section 1.0 herein. (c) Plan review fees for electrical, mechanical and plumbing work shall be equal to 25% of the total permit fee as set forth under the pertinent Section 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9 herein. (d) Plan review fees for grading shall be as set forth in the following schedule: Quantity of Cut and Fill Fee 50 - 100 yards $ 50.00 101 - 500 yards 100.00 501 - 1,000 yards 200.00 1,001 - 2,000 yards 250.00 2,001 - 3,000 yards 300.00 3,001 - 4,000 yards 350.00 4,001 - 5,000 yards 400.00 5,001 - 10,000 yards 500.00 10,001 - 50,000 yards 600.00 50,001 - 100,000 yards 700.00 100,001 - And up 900.00 tM -3- The sum of cut and fill yardages shall be used in computing grading permit and plan checking fees. (e) Additional Plan Checking made necessary due to changes in plans or incomplete plan submission, $55.00 per hour for the estimated time of checking revisions. 1.2 Compliance Inspections /Reinspections Inspections to determine compliance of existing construction with applicable codes when not included in an active, valid building permit or inspections made necessary due to work not being ready at time specified, or work not corrected after prior written correction notice ........ .........................$30.00 1.3 Change of Occupancy: Change of Occupancy Inspection ... .........................$50.00 1.4 Relocated Buildings: Fees for inspection of a structure to be relocated into or within the City, shall be $100.00 when located within 25 miles of City offices, plus $2.00 per mile, round trip, when located more than 25 miles from City offices. 7.5 Appeal of Abatement Notice: An appeal of a notice to abate a substandard or dangerous building ........... I ............ ........................$100.00 7.6 Insper.tion for Temporary Utility Connection or _Temporary Cccupancy: Inspection ................. ..............................$ 30.00 1.7 Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge four hours) ............. .........................$50.00 per hour 1.8 Inspections for which no permit fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge one -half hour) ...................$50.00 per hour 1.9 Electrical Permit Fees: (a) Permit Issuance: For issuing each permit ..... .........................$15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit .................$ 4.50 J -4- (b) System Fee Schedule: (NOTE.: The following are in addition to permit - issuing fee.) New Residential Buildings: The following fees shall include all wiring and electrical equipment in or on each building, or other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the same time. For new residential buildings not including the area of garages, carports and other noncommercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same time, per square foot ................... ..............................$ .035 For new garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed in conjunction with a new residential building per square foot .............................$ .02 For other types of residential occupancies and alterations, additions and modifications to existing residential buildings, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Private Swimming Pools, Spas: For new private residential, permanently installed spas, hot tubs or swimming pools for single - family and multi- family occupancies including a complete system of necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water pumping and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of a swimming pool, each ............ ..............................$ 30.00 For other types of swimming pools, spas and alterations to existing swimming pools, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. Carnivals and Circuses: Carnivals, circuses, or other traveling shows or exhibitions utilizing transportable -type rides, booths, displays and attractions. For electric generators and electrically driven rides, each .................. ..............................$ 15.00 For mechanically driven rides and walk- through attractions or displays having electric lighting, each .......... $ 4.50 For a system of area and booth lighting, each ....... $ 4.50 For permanently installed rides, booths, displays and attractions, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE. V q -5- Services For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating, each ...... ..............................$ 18.50 For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes in rating, each .......................$ 97.50 For services over 600 volts or over 1000 in rating, each ................. ..............................$ 75.00 Temporary Power Service: For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all pole or pedestal- mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances, each .. ..............................$ 15.00 For a temporary distribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets for construction sites, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands, etc., each ................. ..............................$ 7.50 (c) Unit Fee Schedule: NOTE: The following are in addition to permit issuing fee. Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets: For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current is used or controlled, except services, feeders and meters. First 20, each ................... . ........ E •75 Additional outlets, each ........................ ...$ .45 NOTE: For multi - outlet assemblies, each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be considered as one outlet. Lighting Fixtures: For lighting fixtures, sockets or other lamp - holding devices. First 20, each ...........................$ .75 Additional fixtures, each ..........................$ .45 For pole or platform- mounted lighting fixtures, each $ .75 For theatrical -type lighting fixtures or assemblies, each ................... ..............................$ .75 Residential Appliances: For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall- mounted electric ovens; counter - mounted cooking tops; electric ranges, self contained room, console, or through -wall air conditioners; space heaters; food waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water 8Jr -b- heaters; clothes dryers; or other motor - operated appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilivolt- ampere (KVA), in rating, each .............$ 3.00 NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor - driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. Non- residential Appliances: For residential appliances and self - contained factory - wired, non- residential appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilivolt- ampere MA), in rating including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice cream cabinets; illuminated show cases, drinking fountains, vending machines; laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment, each .............$ 3.00 NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor - driven appliances having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus. Power Apparatus: For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters, capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking equipment and other apparatus, as follows: Rating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (KW), kilovolt- amperes (KVA), or kilovolt- amperes- reactive (KVAR): Up to and including 11 each .........................$ 3.00 Over 1 and not over 10, each ........................$ 7.50 Over 10 and not over 50, each .......................$ 15.00 Over 50 and not over 100, each ......................$ 30.00 Over 100, each., .................................... 45.00 NOTE: 1. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. 2. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays and other directly - related control equipment. MIM -7- Busways: For trolley and Plug-in-type busways, each 100 feet or fraction thereof ..... ..............................$ 4.50 NOTE: An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors and other appliances that are connected to trolley and plug -in -type busways. No fee is required for portable tools. Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees: For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one branch circuit, each ......................$ 15.00 For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting system or marquee, each ........... $ 3.00 Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors: For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit is required but for which no fee is herein set forth ................. ..............................$ 11.00 NOTE: This fee is net applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services, outlets, fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, signs or other equipment. 1.10 Plumbing Permits: (a) Permit Issuance: For the issuance of each permit ....................$ 15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit ...............$ 4.50 (b) Unit Fee Schedule (in addition to issuance fee above): For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, drainage piping, and backflow protection therefor) . ..............................$ 6.00 For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $ 15.00 Rainwater systems - -per drain (inside building) $ 6.00 For each cesspool (where permitted) .................$ 22.50 For each private sowage disposal system .............$ 45.00 For each water heater and /or vent ...................$ 7.50 v? -g- For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, excepting kitchen -type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps ...........$ 12.00 For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping and /or water- treating equipment, each ...............$ 3.00 For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture ............... ..............................$ 3.00 For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including hackflow protection devices therefor ................$ 9.00 For atmospheric -type vacuum breakers not included in lawn sprinkler system: 1 to 5 ................ ..............................$ 7.50 over 5, each .......... ..............................E 1.50 For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric - type vacuum breakers: 2 inches and smaller .. ..............................E 7.50 over 2 inches ......... ..............................E 15.00 For each gas piping system of one to four outlets ...$ 3.00 Swimming pool or spa piping including water heater (not including gas piping) ................ .. ... .. .. ..... .$ 10.00 1.11 Mechanical Permits: A fee for each mechanical permit shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: (a) Permit Issuance: For the issuance of each permit .....................$ 15.00 For issuing each supplemental permit ...............$ 17.50 (b) Unit Fee Schedule (In addition to issuance fees above): For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including 100,000 Btu /h ......... ..............................E 9.00 • • H N -9- For the installation or relocation or each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu /h......$ 11.00 For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including vent ....... ..............................$ 9.00 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater or floor - mounted unit heater ...................... ..............................$ 9.00 For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included in an appliance permit ................ ..............................E 4.50 For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by this code .....................$ 9.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including three horsepower, or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu /h....$ 9.00 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three horsepower to and including 15 horsepower, or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu /h and including 500,000 Btu /h .........................$ 16.50 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower to and including 30 horsepower, or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu /h to and including 1,000,000 Btu /h ....................$ 22.50 For installation or relocation of each boiler yr compressor over 30 horsepower to and including 50 horsepower, or for each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu /h to and including 1,750,000 Btu /h ...........................$ 33.50 For the installation or relocation of each boiler or refrigeration compressor over 50 horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu /h ..............$ 56.00 For each air - handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute, .including ducts attached thereto ... $ 6.50 Note: This fee shall not apply to an air - handling unit which is an integral portion of a factory assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit for which a permit is required elesewhere in this code. For each air - handling unit over 10,000 arm .......... $ 11.00 �q For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $ 6.50 For each ventilation, fan connected to a single duct..$ 4.50 For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air - conditioning system authorized by a permit ....................... ..............................$ 6.50 For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including the ducts for such hood $6.50 For the installation or relocation of each domestic -type incinerator ................ I....... I................$ 11.00 For the installation or relocation of each commercial industrial -type incinerator .........................$ 45.00 For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code ........... $ 6.50 1.12 Grading Permit Fees: A fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the following Schedule of Fees: Quantity of Cut and Fill Fee 50 cubic yards or less $15.00 51 to 100 cubic yards $22.50 101 to 1,000 cubic yards -- $22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards -- $117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $9,00 for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards -- $198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus $40.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 100,001 cubic yards or more -- $562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus $22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof. 1.13 A2plioation for Plan Duplication Application for duplication processing ..............$ 30.00 �b e� Section 2.0 Business License Fees Fees for business licenses are found within Title 5 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Cede, Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations and contained in Chapters 5.04, 5.08, 5.12 and 5.16, thereof. Section 3.0 City Clerk Fees Municipal Code $150.00 Supplements to the municipal code will vary in cost and will he billed Variable accordingly. Research Requests First 112 Hour No Charge Time spent beyond 112 hour will be billed in increments of 1/4 hr. at: $ 25.00 /Hr. FAX Requests No Charge A maximum of 6 pages may be requested. If material requested is more than 6 pages, material will be mailed and billed at rate established by this Resolution. Section 4.0 Copying Bates, Media and Subscription Fees: Fee Activity Fee Photocopies $ .25 /page Microfilming $ .25 /page Audio Tape $10.00 /tape Computer Diskettes $ 5.00 diskette Subscriptions: Council Agenda $118.00/yr. Minutes $145 00 /yr. Planning Commission Agenda $ 43.50/yr. Minutes $160.00 /yr. Historic Preservation, Comm. Agenda $ 9.00 /yr. Engineering Plans and Specifications per set cost $35.00 Mailing Costs (Overnight) for above $15.00 9l -12- Section 5.0 Engineering Fees 5.1 Applications Tentative Parcel Map Initial Study Tentative Parcel Map Appeal Time Extension - Tentative Parcel Map Certificate of Compliance Lot Line Adjustment Amending Parcel Map Street Vacation Subordination Agreement Release of Lien Agreement Certificate of Correction Flood Hazard Letter Bond Substitution Private Street Designation Reimbursement Agreement Storm Drain Street and Utilities Traffio Study Review (Dev. Proj.) 5.2 Map and Plan Checking Fees Property Legal Description Map Checking Residential Parcel Maps Tract Maps and Non - Residential Parcel Maps of 10 lots or less / C� Fee $2,514.00 $ 225.00 $ 251.00 $ 549.00 $1,190.00 $1,190.00 $1,190.00 $1,156.00 $ 298.00 $ 298.00 $ 256.00 $ 314.00 $ 420.00 $ 495.00 $2,2>27.00 $2,827.00 $ 751.00 $ 584.00 $1,370 + $180 per Parcel $2,070.00 -13- Tract Maps and Non -3e sident is! Parcel Maps over 10 lots $1,720 + $35 per parcel or lot 5.3 Improvement Plans Widening of existing streets $1.35 per LF + sheet charge for interior streets Interior Streets 1 -2 sheets: $1,370 per sheet 3 -5 sheets: $2,740 + $1,200 per sheet over 2 sheets 6 -10 sheets: $6,340 + $1,095 per sheet over 5 sheets 11 or more: $11,815 + $1,025 per sheet over 10 sheets Storm Drain Plans - Same as for interior streets Hydrology Study: Drainage areas up to 150 acres $1,370.00 Drainage areas over 150 acres $2,740.00 Landscape and irrigation plans for City - maintained areas $ 400.00 per sheet For maps and plans checking, the fees for rush checking, when approved by the City Engineer, will be 50% greater than those listed above. The fees for checking the revisions to approved plans will be on the basis of actual costs at hourly rates as determined by the City Engineer with a minimum fee of $100.00. 5.4 Public Works Construction Permit Fee: 5% of Improvement Cost to $25,000; Min. $50 4.5% of Improvement Cost next $75,000 4% of Improvement Cost over $100,000 The improvement cost of a project shall be based on the Engineer's Cost Estimate as shown on Surety Bond and as approved by the City Engineer. NOTE; Development Impact Fees may also apply and are addressed under separate resolutions. 9- 2 ) -14- 5.5 Overside Loads 'Single Permit $15.00 *Repetitive Permit $70 initial fee r $15 Per month renewal fee to a maximum of 6 months *Annual Permit $70 per year *Them fees are based on the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Section 35795 and Caltrans Fee Schedule. Section 6.0 Fire Protection District Fees (These fees have been adopted by the Fire Board) 6.1 Plans Checking and inspections 6.1.1 Start -up fee for commercial, industrial or multi- family dwelling units (paid prior to TRC) ......... $ 75.00 6.1.2 Plan review: building and /or system(s) inspection A. Single family residential .....................$ 120.00 B. Non - residential development and multi - family Residential dwelling ..........................$ 620.00 C. Interior and /or exterior building alteration..$ 190.00 D. New Sprinkler Systems or over 10 heads ........ $ 150.00 Ten heads or less (alteration only) ........... $ 85.00 E. Fixed fire - extinguishing systems (i.e. carbon dioxide, potassium bicarbonate, halon, etc.)..$ 135,00 F. Fire Alarm Systems ............................$ 140.00 G. The charge for any revision of a previously approved plan or a change request (form FSD -2) for any of the above, shall be $85.00 per hour for the estimated time spent in review but not less than 25% of the original fee. H. Failure to keep consultation or field inspection appointment without notification (one hour minimum) .................... ..............................$ 60.00 I. Division consultation fees not otherwise stated (except phone consultations) (one hour minimum) ........... $ 125.00 J. Fire flow test (one hour) .....................$ 40.00 9� -15- K. Consultant plan check fee shall be paid by the developer /contractor or owner, and shall be paid prior to plan approval ....... ..............................$ 40.00 L. Field inspection requiring more than the initial inspection, plus one follow- up ....................$ 100.00 M. Field inspection of self - inspection occupancies :;ho have refused to conduct their own inspection. ..... $ 54.00 N. Underground Tanks 1. Original application /plan check /tank inspection ............. ..............................$ 135.00 2. Tank removal ................ ...............$ 115.00 3• Inspection(s) resulting from leaks of unauthorized discharge .... ..............................$ 60.00 0. Hazardous chemicals: application /plan check /inspection (storage, handling or use as a solid, liquid or gas, other than underground tanks) 1. 55 gallons corrosive liquid ................$ 80.00 2. 500 pounds oxidizing material ..............$ 80.00 3. 10 pounds organic or inorganic peroxides ... $ 90.00 4• 500 pounds nitromethane ....................$ 90.00 5. 1,000 pounds ammonia nitrate or fertilizer mixture (any amount of highly toxic material, pyrophorie, hypergolic, cryogenic material, poisonous gas or radioactive material ) ......................$ 90.00 6. Any reactive, unstable or other hazardous material not herein classified (extent or hazard and allowable amount to be stored to be determined by the Fire Marshal) ............ $ 125.00 P. Explosives and blasting agents: Application /plan check /inspection I. Manufacture, possess, store or sell ........ $ 95.00 2. To use explosives or blasting agents ....... $ 140.00 Q. Fumigation and thermal insecticidal fogging when toxic flammable fumigant is used: application /plan check/ inspection .......... ..............................$ 110.00 Section 6.2 Permit Fees I. Permits (annual issuance or as otherwise noted) A. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not specifically described below, which in the Judgment, of the Fire Chief is likely to produce 96 M conditions hazardous to life or property. (UFC 4.10-0 ................. ..............................$ 75.00 B. Storage of readily combustile material (UFC 11.203) ................. ..............................E 105.00 C. Places of Assembly (except churches and schools) (UFC 2`.101) 1. A -3, 50 -299 without stage ..................$ 85.00 2. A -2.1, 300 or more without stage ...........$ 135.00 3• A -2, 999 or less with stage ................$ 155.00 4. A -1, 1000 or more with stage ...............$ 205.00 D. Bowling alley and pin refinishing (UFC 26.102).$ 75.00 E. Cellulose nitrate plastic (Pyroxylin) (UFC 27.102) ................. ..............................$ 75.00 F. Combustible fibers storage and handling exceeding 100 cubic feet (UFC 28 .102) ........................$ 75.00 G. Garages Motor vehicle repair (H -4) (UFC 29.102)........$ 75.00 H. Lumber yards (over 100,000 board feet) (UFC 30.101) ................. ..............................$ 75.00 I. Tire rebuilding plants (UFC 31.102 .............$ 120.00 J. Auto wrecking yards ............................$ 75.00 Junk or waste material handling plants (UFC 34.102) K. Flammable finishes .............................$ 75.00 Spraying or dipping operations, spray booths, dip ranks, electrostatic apparatus, automobile undercoating, powder coating and organic peroxides and dual component coatings (UFC 45.102) (per spray booth) L. Magnesium (more than 10 pounds per day) (UFC 48.102) .............. I ................................ E 115.00 M. 011 burning equipment operations (UFC, 61.102)..$ 75.00 N. Wens (industrial baking and drying) (UFC 62.102) ...................... .........................$ 75.00 0. Mechanical refrigeration (over 20 pounds of refrigerant) (UFC 63. 101) ..... ..............................$ 105.00 P. Compressed gases (store, handle or us exceeding 100 cubic feet) (UFC 74.103) -17- 1. non flammable over 100 cubic feet and up to 5,999 cubic feet ... ..............................$ 110.00 2. non flammable 6,000 to 12,000 cubic feet ... $ 130.00 3• non - flammable over 12,000 cubic feet ....... $ 195.00 4. flammable over 100 cubic feet and up to 1,999 cubic feet ...........................$ 75.00 5. flammable 2,000 to 6,000 cubic feet ........ $ 125.00 6. flammable over 6,000 cubic feet ............ $ 125.00 Q. Cryogenic fluids (storage, handling or use) (UFC 75. 103) ..... ..............................$ 75.00 R. Dust - producing processes and equipment (UPC 75.103) ......... I ......................... . .........$ 80.00 S. Flammable and combustible liquids (storage or handling or use) (UPC 79.103) 1. auto fueling station (B- 1) .................$ 90.00 2. inside storage, less than 60 gallons ....... $ 80.00 3. inside storage, more than 60 gallons ....... $ 115.00 4. outside storage, more than 5000 gallons (UFC.79. 402) . ..............................$ 115.00 T. High piled combustible stock (UPC 81- 103) ...... $ 90.00 U. Liquified petroleum gas (store, handle, transport or use more than 120 gallons) (UFC 82.102)....$ 75.00 V. Matches (more than 60 Matchman's gross) (UFC 83.101) ................. ..............................E 75.00 W. Welding and cutting operations to conduct welding and /or cutting operations in any occupancy (UPC 49.101) ................. ..............................$ 75.00 X. Alarm company permits (to install units within Fire District) annual permit ........................$ 95.00 I7. Special Services A. Board of appeals fee (to file an appeal and requiring a special meeting) . ..............................$ 225.00 B. Excessive or malicious false alarms causing response of fire apparatus 1. Code 3 response due to "failure to notify" fire department when working on or testing sprinkler or fire alarm sysoem 97 M-719 $140.00 per hour per piece emergency apparatus responding 1/2 hour minimum 2. Trouble alarm Code 2 response due to failure to notify fire department when working on or testing system $70.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding 112 hour minima 3. Malicious false alarms $140.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding with 112 hour minimum 4. Alarm system malfunction resulting in Emergency Code 3 response $140.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding to all false alarms in excess of 2 false alarms in 30 days with 112 hour minims 5. Alarm systems malfunction resulting in a trouble alarm Code 2 response $70.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding to all trouble alarms in excess of 2 in 30 days with 112 hour minimum 6. Code 3 response to false alarms due to negligence, tampering with system construction or modification of building $140.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding vitA 1/2 hour minims* C. Response to mitigate extended hazardous chemical and material incidents beyond normal service request (this includes response to railroad properties, freeways, and aircraft crashes) 1. Hazardous incident, per hour $235 per hour per piece of apparatus 2. Company Response $95.00 per hour per piece of equipment 3• Squad Response $75.00 per hour 4. Company with Battalion Chief is WE $140.00 per hour 5. Hazardous materials or major transportation incident response due to negligence $150.00 per hour per piece of equipment 6. Response to mitigate major transportation incidents (may include but not be limited to jetliner crash, railroad derailment or collision, or major freeway collision with extraordinary circumstances) $150.00 per hour per piece of apparatus D. Special Activities -- One time events (combination of plan check, fire permit; field inspection. These everts may need the services, at permittees expense, of one or more standby firemen). 1. Fireworks -- public display (UFC Article 78) $75.00 plus $140.00 per hour per piece of apparatus 2. Specialty public displays and /or sales (i.e. Christmas tree lots, pumpkin sale lots).... $ 45.00 3. Conducting any blasting operation (for each four hour period or fraction thereof) $100 plus $140.00 per boor per piece of apparatus 4. Special events (public assembly, stage productions, exhibits, previewing stands, grandstands and bleachers, trade shows, concerts, banquets, etc., other than tents and air supported structures) a. Less than 30,000 square feet at an occupant load of 2,000, whichever is more restrictive ......... ..............................$ 125.00 b. 3,000 square feet or more, but less than 60,000 square feet or an occupant load of more than 2,000 but less than 4,000, whichever is more restrictive .......... $ 165.00 c. 60,000 square feet or more, but less than 90,000 square feet or an occupant load of more than 4,000 but less than 6,000 whichever is more restrictive .......... $ 200.00 d. 90,000 square feet or more with an occupant load of 6,000 or more, whichever is more 91 -20- restrictive ............................$ 235.00 5. Tents and air - supported structures (UFC Artie!: 32) a. Less than 400 square feet ..................$ 75.00 b. 401 to 1500 sq. it .........................$ 100.00 c. 1501 to 15,000 sq. ft ......................$ 130.00 d. 15,001 to 30,000 sq. It ....................$ 160.00 e. over 30,000 sq. ft .........................$ 190.00 Section 7.0 Planning Fees 7.1 Applications Those charged as a base fee, plus a per unit or per acre amount, with a maximum set at 3X base fee. Application Base Fee Per Unit Fee Maximum Fee Tentative Tract Map $2,987 $60.00 per d/u $8,961.00 Conditional Use Permit $2,921 $292.00 per acre $8,763.00 Dev /Des Review Res $2,851 $57.00 per d/u $8,553.00 (5 or more) Dev /Des Review - Comm/ Industrial $2,851 $285.00 per acre $8,553.00 Initial Study $225 $22.00 per acre $ 675.00 General Plan Amendment $2,866 $287.00 per acre $8,598.00 Spec /Comm Plan Amend.* $2.866 $287.00 per acre $8,598.00 Bev Distr Amendment* $2,866 $287.00 per acre $8,598.00 *Should be charged at half rate if filed in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment. 7.2 Applications Those charged on a time- and - materials basis with a deposit taken up front. Application Deposit Amount EIR Review - Sensitive $2,000.00 M _21- Development Agreement Review $2,000.00 Mitigation Plan - Complex $2,000.00 Annexation $2,000.00 Development Agreement $2,000.00 New Specific /Community Plan $5,000.00 EIR Preparation $5,000.00 7.3 Other Application Fees Application Non - Construction CUP $ 435.00 Uniform Sign Program $ 580.00 Minor Exception $ 170.00 Dev /Design Review: 4 du's or less $1,027.00 Variance $ 871.00 Variance: 4 du's or less $ 291.00 Use Determination $ 315.00 Preliminary Review $ 325.00 Minor Development Review $ 296.00 Time Extension $ 549,00 Minor Time Extension $ 136.00 Sign Permit $ 51.00 Hillside Development Review 5 or more du's $1,462.00 Hillside Development Review 4 or less du's $ 244.00 Temporary Use Permit $ 68.00 Temporary Use Model Home $ 219.00 EIR Review Only $2,370.00 ! �f -22- Landmark Application $ 728.00 Residential and Small Business No Charge Landmark Alteration $ 835.00 Residential and Small Dusiness No Charge Mills Act Application $ 724.00 Residential and Small Business No Charge Mitigation Plan (Simple) $ 779.00 Mitigation Plan (Complex) See 5.2 7.5 - Appeal Fees Appeal of a City Planner Decision $ 62.00 Appeal of a Commission Decision $ 126.00 in Connection with an Application Appeal of a Tract Map $ 251.00 7.6 - Other Fees Entertainment Permit $ 571.00 Home Occupation Permit $ 53.00 Status Map Application $ 15.00 Tree Removal /New Development $ 472.00 Tree Removal /Existing Development $ 72,00 NOTE: Planning Division fees for documents, which are individually priced, are contained in the Document Price List Section 8.0 - Recreation Pees Following are current fees for recreation activities and rentals. All consumable costs are to be recovered. Definition of classes of fees by groups. Group 1: City of Rancho Cucamonga sponsored and co- sponsored events; other governmental agencies serving Rancho Cucamonga residents. Group 2: City resident not - for - profit, civic, athletic, social organizations whose management is not paid and organizations sponsoring a public forum or candidate's night. /Oa -23- Group 3: City resident not - for - profit, civic, athletic, social organizations which has paid management. Group 4: City resident private party activity, City resident employee organizations, City resident political candidate use for fund raisers; City resident college organizations and committees; work parties and social events. Group 5: City resident commercial, business, profit - making and religious organizations, non - resident not - for - profit, civic and social organizations, non - resident colleges, their organizations and committees, non - resident private party activity, non- resident employee associations. Group 6: Non- resident commercial, business, profit- making and religious organizations. Field Lights: Commencing in calendar year 1992 and continuing until amended by the City Council, each user group shall be charged fees equal to fifty percent (50%) of the costs of electricity used to provide light to that user group. This charge shall be reviewed prior to the first date of each year in which it is in effect subsequent to calendar year 1992. Classes: Commencing in calendar year 1992, each user shall be charged firty percent (50%) of the median cost for similar classes in the cities of Chino, Fontana, Ontario, and Upland. Commencing January 1, 1997' fees will be charged one hundred percent (100%) of the median cost for similar classes in the cities of Chino, Fontana, Ontario, and Upland. Notwithstanding the above statement, such fees shall remain static until required to be increased to reach one hundred percent (100%) of median cost. Workshops: Commencing in calendar year 1992, each user shall be charged fifty percent (50%) of the median cost for similar classes in the cities of Chino, Fontana, Ontario, and Upland. Commencing January 1, 1993, fees will be charged one hundred percent (100%) of the median cost for similar classes in the cities of Chino, Fontana, Ontario, and 'Upland. Notwithstanding the above statement, no presently effective class fees shall be reduced. Rather, such fees shall remain static until required to be increased to reach one hundred (100%) of median cost. Facility Rentals: Hourly fees for week day and Saturday use as follows; (Sunday and holiday use will be charged the 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. rate.) Building Rentals Hourly Fee (d3 GROUP ROOM TIME 1-2 3 4 5 6 SIZE Small Sam -5 pm None $ 3.75 $ 7.50 $15.00 $15.00 $30.00 Small. 5pm -8am None $ 7.50 $12.00 $25.00 $25.00 $50.00 Large 8am -5pm None $ 5.00 $10.00 $29.00 $25.00 $50.00 Large 5pm -8am None $10.00 $15.00 $35.00 $35.00 $70.00 (d3 -24- Kitchen Hourly Fee Small None $ 2.00 $ 2.00 $ 3.00 $ 5.00 $ 5.00 Large None $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $10.00 $10.00 Other Cees The facilities rental fee shall be charged for fund raisers, plus ten percent (10$) of the gross and, if additional City staff is required, $6.25 per hour for the s•.aff time. When a damage deposit is required, the charge is $200.00. Per Day Charges Coffee Pot (small) $ 2.00 Coffee Pot (large) $ 5.00 Small Stage $10.00 Large Stage $50.00 T.V. W /video player $20.00 Microphone $ 5.00 Small PA system $40.00 Slide Projector $10.00 Professional Style Lights $ 3.00 /light Piano at RCNC $25.00 (The piano is tuned by the City twice a year. If the piano does not meet the standards of the user, the City will arrange for tuning at the user's sole expense. Tuning fees will be added to rental cost.) Community amphitheater: The following are rental fees for amphitheaters. The first hour of monitoring is included in the stage rental for Groups 2 and 3• USAGE 1 2 3 4 5 b Stage -flat fee None $25.00 $40.00 $72.00 $72.00 $72.00 Sound Monitor /hrly None $10.00 $10.00 $26.75 $26.75 $35.00 Equestrian Center Fees and Charges will be as follows: USE GROUP *Hourly Boos Rental 8 am - 5 pm None $ 3.75 $ 7.50 $15.00 $15.00 $30.00 5 pm - 8 am None $ 7.50 $12.00 $25.00 $25.00 $50.00 "Daily Snack Bar / N/C $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 Kitchen IffLights 50% ACTUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION (1992) Annual Shared N/C $75.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A Storage Fee ��1I -25- 'Includes use of P.A. System. +A deposit may be required for this use. (See Equestrian Usage Policies.) "' *The small arena will have a coin metered box for electrical cost recovery. The large arena will recover electrical cost via direct billing for actual use. Tournaments: A $50.00 non - refundable deposit is required to reserve fields. Said deposit shall apply to final field rental totals. Should there be a need for City staff to oversee and coordinate activities, the fee is $17.00 per hour. The requester shall meet all liability insurance requirements for usage of facilities and provide additonal equipment needed to hoid the tournament at their own cost. USAGE Per Day None $20.00 $30.00 $70.00 $70.00 $125.00 Snack Bar: For City -owned snack bars located in City Parks. GROUP(S) USAGE 1 2 3 Seasonal None $450.00 N/A Other non- profit groups bringing in snack bars (i.e. trailers) will be charged a flat $300.00 seasonal permit fee, unless group is participating in a City sponsored event. Storage: For City -owned storage located in City parks USAGE 1 2 3 - 6 SEASONAL None $ 75.00 N/A Bon - Resident Charge: A $5.00 fee shall be paid by each non - resident, each class, each team, each season to participate in City - sponsored classes. Said fee is payable at the time of registration. Does not include one day activities or any trips sponsored by the City. Section 9.0 - Rancho Cucamonga Sheriff Department Fees Description Fee Fingerprinting $ 10.00 Criminal Reports $ 10.00 Traffic Accident Reports $ 10.00 Traffic Accident Reports - Mail $ 10.00 Criminal History $ 10.00 IWOE Bicycle License $ 3.00 Incident Print -Out $ 0.25 Special Event Jobs No Charge Public, Information Clerk - Hourly $ 12.04 Sheriff Specialist - Hourly $ 14.62 Records Clerk - Hourly $ 14.62 Secretary - Hourly $ 16.15 Deputy Reserve- Hourly $ 26.92 Deputy I - Hourly $ 41.64 Deputy II - Hourly $ 50.51 Senior Deputy /Detective $ 57.24 Lieutenant - Hourly $ 39.08 Captain - Hourly $ 48.53 Vehicle Cost - Hourly $ 85.00 Section 10.0 - Miscellaneous Fees Amendment to tax statements for prepaid assessments ............. ............................... $ 20.00 Bingo License $ 50.00 Calculation for 1915 Bond Act Assessment Districts ............. ............................... $ 7.50 Dog Licensing See Resolution 81 -79 Filming Permits Business i.icense Tax $ 20.00 Application Fee $ 99.50 Investigation Fee $ 110.00 per filming day Fire Department $ 100.00 per Hr.* per hour for each 3 -man piece of equipment Police Department ** (See Sheriff Fees) "Number and type of personnel is determined by the station commander after reviewing plans for the event. Home Park Rent Mediation - Filing Fee $ 15.00 ( r�? -27- Home Park Rent Mediation - Appeal Fee $ 300.00 Industrial Bond Development Bond Application A fee of 1/4 of 1% of the established maximum amount of the proposed bond application and not less than $1,2250.00 Massage Establishment Application $ 225.00 Massage Technician Application, $ 178.00 Massage Outcali Service $ 90.00 Renewal Massage Establishment Appl. $ 111.00 Renewal Massage Tech. Application $ 90.00 Renewal Massage Outcall Service $ 45.00 School Fees - Please refer to Ordinance Nos. 69 -C and 74 regarding these fees. Solicitor (Non - profit) identification badge $ 5.00 each Taxicab Service Application $ 95.00 Taxicab Driver's Permit Application $ 120.00 Taxicab Service Application Renewal $ 45.00 Taxicab Driver's Permit Appl. Renewal $ 60.00 C. Effective Date: This Resolution shall become effective with its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of August 1992. AYES: "TOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Clerk l07 Dennis L. Stout, Mayor U1 I Vr NAINUnU 1- iJUA1v1VINUA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO Mayor and Members of the City Council ROM: Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Pronosc&L Taxicab Ordinance Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance which would establish regulations and permitting guidelines for the operation of taxis. Background: Recently the City was made aware, by a local taxi company, of the provisions of Government Code 53075 regarding taxicab operations. This section of state law calls on every city or county to pass an ordinance regulating taxicabs and taxicab operators. The attached ordinance was drafted by the City Attorney's Office and is intended to provide the City with a legal method of regulating taxis in the community in the spirit of Government Code 53075. The ordinance would establish a detailed permitting process for businesses operating taxis in the City as well as individual drivers operating taxis in the community. This ordinance is similar to the ordinance adopted by the County of San Bernardino, The City has not experienced any difficulties with taxi service as of yet, however, the county detention facility has significantly increased the need for taxi services in Rancho Cucamonga, The attached ordinance is being recommended as an effective way of protecting consumers in the community by creating specific regulations and guidelines for taxi operators. This ordinance does not restrict the number of taxicab operators that can Operate in (lie City. Any taxicab operator that meets the requirements of the ordinance can be permitted to operate in the City. While some taxicab operators would like the City to restrict access into the marketplace, it is the opinion of the City Attorney's Office that any restriction on entry into the market of taxicabs would be an antitrust violation and would make our regulations vulnerable. Based on the above information, it is recommended that the city Council adopt this ordinance. pcctfully ttcdl rC)� T- Y : -U 1 I- Y • 1 I a • . « • • Y• • � la 11 I� jowl a : • 11 •,• • Y • Y• H1 •••I 19 • n • 9• r 9 J• V` 1 Y• : Y9• Y 1 17. 911 I'ar I LMMI M 2nil my V. 11 ••a•• • • V• A. Maus, THE CITY COUXM OF THE QTY OF RANCHO CT3(7fMr.A FDW AS FCLIOWS: Section 1. Chapter 8.30 hereby is added to Title 8 of the Rancho Oicamonga Mminipal code to read in words and figlaes, as follows: "Chaprt r 8.30 ITA)QCAB SERVICE "8.30.010 Definitions. "8.30.020 Permit Required for Taxicab Service. "8.30.030 Application for Taxicab Service Permit. "8.30.040 Is,vanoe of Taxicab Service Permit. "8.30.050 Grounds for Denial or Revocation of Taxicab Service Permit. 118.30.060 Permit Fees. 118.30.070 Taxicab Driver's Permit. "8.30.080 Application for a Taxicab Driver's Permit. "8.30.090 Grouaxis for Denial or revocation of Taxicab Driver's Permit. 118.30.100 Issuance of Taxicab Driver's Permit. 118.30.110 Appeal Procedures. "8.30.120 Revocation of Permits. "8,30.130 Exemptions. "8.30.140 Time for Cxpliance by Existing Taxicab Services and Taxicab Drivers, 118.30.150 Penalty for Violation. 1 I r I• _1_ •i_ "AS used in the Chapter, the following terns shall have the m9WWK s set forth below: 11(a) Driver. Any person driving a taxicab either as owner Or under the direction, employment control, or service of the carer as herein defined. l09 "(b) Owner. Every person having control, whether by outright ownership, lease or otherwise of any taxicabs for hire. "(c) Person. Includes both singular and plural, and shall mean and include any individual, firm, corporation, association, partnership, ar society, exclusive of public agencies. "(d) Taxicab. Any vehicle which is used to provide taxicab service as defined in this Chapter. "(e) Taxicab Service. Taxicab service means any public passenger transportation service available for hire on call or demand over the public firs of the City of Rdn cto gxamonga where the service is not provided over a definer) route but between suds points and over sudt routes as may be directed by the person(s) hiring the same, and irrespective of whether the operations extend beyond the area of the oorparate limits of the city of Rancho CO®mctga. "8.30.020 Permit Rmui ed for Taxicab Service, "It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of operating or causing to be operated any taxicab service within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, without having a permit to do so ruder the po visicus of this Chapter. "8.30.030 Application for Taxicab &,ndce aerm'r 11(a) Any person desiring to obtain a permit to operate a taxicab service ruder this Chapter shall submit a written application to the Administrative Services Director, on an application £cam provided by the Administrative Services Director. Applications shall be signed under penalty of perjury and shall contain the following information; applicant. "(1) Name, residence address and telephone number of the applicant. "(2) Business name., address and telephone nxmdner of the "(3) NLMber of vehicles to be operated umber the permit. "(4) The make, type, year, marnlfaCtarer, and passenger seating of the vehicles to be used by the applicant. 11(5) The Proposed color scheme, insignia or other distinguishable characteristics of the taxicab to be used, including the type of illuminated sign to be mrxmted on the top of the vehicle and legend thereon. "(6) Evidence of public liability insurance of not less than $1 million for each person killed a:.- injured and not less than $2 million for '/ O death or injury of any two (2) ar mare peons in any one accident, and for damage to pmpenty of at least $250,000 E any one (1) accident. "(7) Legal and registered Mwrship of the vehicles to be used by the applicant. "(8) Prior experience of the applicant in the taxicab business including the details of any prior denial, revocation or suspension by any public agency of any tacicab service or taxicab driving permit, license or certificate. 11(9) All felony convictions of the applicant and of all persons having an wnesship interest in the proposeed taxicab service for the previous five (5) years. "(10) Rates to be charged to the public throughout the term of any permit issued. "8,30,040 Issuance o h Servicepn „"•t, wLVcn the furnishing of all the information required by Section 8.30.030 and payment of the required fee hmhder' this Chapter, the City council shall issue the applicant a Taxicab Service Permit if the applicant is in 0rnpliance with this Chapter and there are no grounds for denial of the permit under the provisions of this Chapter. Any applicant denied a permit shall be given written notice of the reason for the denial. "8.30.050 Grounds far QgnigIl gr Epyocation of Taxicab-Service "(a) Taxicab Service Permits shall be denied or revoked on the following gro urns: "(1) Failure to maintain vehicles in good and safe order and in caspliance with all laws. this Chapter. 11(2) Any false statement made on an application submitted under 11(3) Faihu to pay any fees as r'equi-red under this Chapter. "(4) Repeated and pereistent violations by the permittee or the permit holder's drivers of the traffic laws of the City, County or State. "(5) IDQloying of a driver who does not have a valid Taxicab Driver's Permit under the reqrirewirts of this Chapter. permit holder. "(6) Violation of any of the provisions of this chapter by the "(7) Charging rates in excess of the amounts stated in the permit application. ME 11 (8) Conviction of a felonry within five (5) years of the date of application where such felony involved fraud or dishonesty i by the applicant with respect to any memUer of the public, or where any taxi awned or operated by the applicant was used in ootvv�tion with the mom; action of such felony. 118.30.060 Permit Fees. "Every person engaging in or carrying on the business of taxicab service, or engaged in the activity of driving a taxicab, shall pay an annual permit fee as established hg resolution of the City Council. Required fees shall be paid at the time of application for a permit is submitted under this Chapter. "iveiy permit issued order this chapter shall terminate at the expiration of one (1) year from the date of its issuance unless revoked prior to said termination. Any rend l of a permit issued under this Chapter shall be pursuant to the same requirements, procedures, provisions and regulations set forth in this chapter for an original permit. A person holding a Taxicab Service permit may not dive a taxicab without also possessing a Taxicab Driver's Permit. Permits issued under this chapter may not be transferred to any other person. "8,030.070 Taxicab Driver's Permit. ,,It shall be unlawful for any person to accept any passenger in a taxi or otherwise provide transportation services by taxi, beginning in the City of Rancho OXwX ga without having a Taxicab Driver's Permit to do so under the provisions of this chapter. 1 1 • 1 � 1! - � _1ll "(a) Any person desiring to obtain a Taxicab Driver's Permit shall silmit a written application to the Administrative Services Director. The application shall provide requestee information, Oder penalty of perjury, on application forms supplied by the Administrative Services Directs regarding the following: "(1) Pertinent personal data and proof of possession of a valid Class 3 diver's license issued by the State of California. "(2) Physical condition affecting diving ability. 11(3) Driving record for three (3) years prior to application including, but not limited to, any and all convictions of any provision of the California Vehicle Code. 11(4) The date and nature of any and all criminal convictions of the applicant for the previous five (5) years. "(5) sovacy of experience in driving motor vehicles, taxis and /or other vehicles for hire. 04 F. "(6) The name and address of the taxicab service by which the applicant will be employed. "Poch applicant shall provide a passport size photograph and be fingerprinted by the San Bernardino county sheriff's Office and a criminal records deck shall be contacted on the applicant. The applicant will be required to pay the Sthiiff's established fees for such services in addition to the Taxicab Driver's Permit fee. A driver obtaining a permit renewal need not be fingerprinted and photographed if the Sheriff deterndnes that such is not necessary for permitting purposes. 118.030.090 Grounds for Denial or Revocation of Tuicab Drivers "(a) Taxicab Driver's Permits shall be denied or revoked an the following grounds: 11(2) The person does not possess a valid class 3 driver's license issued by the State of California. "(3) The person has been convicted of a crime within five (5) years which involver]: "(a) fraud or dishonesty with respect to any member of the public; "(b) driving while Cyder the influence of alcohol or dr ; "(c) injuries to any member of the public as a result of such person's operation of a taxi. "(4) The person has been convicted for driving a taxicab recklessly within the preceding two (2) years. "(5) Repeated and persistent violations of the traffic laws of the City, County or State. "(6) Driving any taxicab the driver kenw or should have known was net in goad order and repair. "(7) False statements made on an application submitted under this Chapter. "(8) Violation of any of the provision of this Chapter. 01(9) Charging any person more than the established rate for taxicab service. "8.30.100 Issuance of Taxicab Driver's Arn�nir, "If the city Council, or its designee, finds that the applicant is duly qualified, in compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and there (I 1 1 are no grounds for denial, the applicant shall be issued a Taxicab privet's permit. Any applicant denied a permit shall be given written notice of the reasons for the denial. permits shall remain the property of the City of Pandm Cucamonga and are not transferable to any other driver. A permit shall be surrendered to the City by the driver upon such driver ceasing to engage in the activity of a taxicab driver. M1 'Taxicab privet's Permit shall set forth the driver's name and working address. The permit shall bear the driver's picture and shall be displayed while the driver is operating the taxicab so as to at all times be easily visible in the ^'s ccapartment of the taxicab. "Upon payment of all required fps, submittal of the required application and proof of c arpletion of fingerprinting and photographing, ;„ the City Council, or its designee, shall issue a Ttngnrary Taxicab Driver's permit which shall be valid for up to sixty (60) days if the applicant certifies under penalty of perjury that there are no grYUmds for denying the applicant a Permit under the provision of Section 8.30.090. A 'lzperary Taxicab Driver's Permit may be terminated by the City at airy time by written notification of termination to the holder of a Temporary Driver's permit is an investigation by the City determines that grounds for denial of a permit exists uuhder Section 8.30.090. Any T®poary Permit shall automatically terminate upon the issuance of a regular Taxicab Driver's Permit to the applicant after the avpletion of the Sheriff's investigation. "8.30.110 Anneal Procedures. "Arty person denied a permit pursuant to this chapter may appeal to the City council in Writing, stating -ea cns why the permit should be granted. The city council may hear appeals directly or in its sole discretion may appoint a hearing officer to hear any appeal and make a recorurc:n7ation to the City Council. Upon receipt of a timely, written request for appeal, the City council shall set a hearing to occur within forty -five (45) days, before said council or desingated hearing officer. The City Council shall render a decision within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of said hearing. "8.30.120 Revocation of Perron 'ts. 'Teo permit issued under this chapter shall be revoked until notice is provided and a hearing to determine whether there are grounds for revocation shall have been held before the City council or in the council's sole discretion before a hearing officer appointed by the city council to hear the appeal and make a recemendation to the council. Notice of suds hearing shall be given in writing and served at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing thereon. Ttle notice shall state the grounds of the complaint against the holder of such permit, and shall designate the time and place where such hearing will be held. said notice shall be served upon the permit holder by delivering the same personally or by leaving such notice at the place of business or residence of the permit holder. In the event the permit holder cannot be faud, and the service of such notice cannot be otherwise made in the manner herein provided, a copy of such notice shall be mailed, certified postage fully prepaid, addressed to the permit holder at his or her place of business or residence at least ten (10) days prior to the date of such /N M. bearing. The desicion of the City Council shall be final. This Chapter shall be enforced by the Sheriff of San Bernardino qty. "8.30.130 Exenotirvs, "7his Chapter shall cot apply to public transportatim service being performed Pursuant to a contract with the City of Return Cucamonga or any other. public entity in this State. A taxicab service shall not be required to obtain a permit under this Chapter for taxicab service in the City of Rancho ammo ga when said taxicab service is located within another public entity,. jurisdiction and its vehicles are based witbin said jurisdiction and the taxicab service has a license, certificate on permit from said jurisdiction to engage in taxicab service under an ordinance or resolution which regulates taxicab service. "A driver operating a taxicab for a service, that is exert from a permit uhrder the preceding sentence shall not be required to have a driver's permit under this Chapter is such driver has a valid permit or license from another public entity which requires an individual taxicab driver's permit or license. " me 8 30 140 Ti for Ompliance by 'stn Taxicab Ce 'oes and Taxicab Drivers. "Any taxicab service ar taxicab driver performing service within the City on the effective date of this Ch pter shall have sixty (60) days from the effective date of this Chapter to obtain permits required hereunder. "8.30.150 Penalty for Violation. "(a) Criminal Violation "It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, corporation to violate any provision or to fail to 1 with or erne y any of the rejairements violet' of this Chapter. Any person, firm, •+,•_•sh-p or corporate violating any provision of this Chapter or failing to amply with any of its rsquu)Mm is shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction themf shall be finished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars on by iMPrisamoent ro s t exceeding six contl , or by both such fine and ivprisatment. Each Mich prism, firm, Partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is cc m tted, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefone as provided in this Chapter. "(b) Civil Remedies Available "A violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of restraining crier, Preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner Provided by law for abatement of such nuisance." section m .2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrased, cs portion of this Ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any cost of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that is would have adopted this odumm and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespearive of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, seltances, clauses, phrases, or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3: The Mayor shall sign this ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days after its paw at least once in rag Daily Bausch, a newspaper of general cixwlatim published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPM this 5th day of August, 1992. AYES: NOES: A&SENP: ATTEST: Debra J. Adams, City Claris Donis L. Shut, Mayor I, DESRA J. ADAMS, CITY C[,MW of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 5th day of August, 1992, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Cm=i1 Of the City of Random Qramorga held m the 5th day of August, 1992. nMCUted this 6th day of August, 1992, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, City Clerk //V UPrY Ur RANCHO CLrCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer BY: Paul A. Rougeau, Traffic Engineer SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE SECTION 10.52.020 PERTAINING TO LIMITED TIME PARKING ZONES TO PROVIDE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF SIGNS TO DEFINE ZONES AS AN OPTION TO PAINTING CURBS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Section 10.52.020 of the Municipal Code, regulating limit time parking zones on Certain City Streets be amended. The Amendment would provide for the establishment and enforcement of limited time parking zones by the posting of appropriate sign(s) or by painting of the top of curbs with green paint in said zones. UCI(6ROUIU /ANALYSIS The current Ordinance only provides for the use of green curb to designate limited time parking. This amendment will permit the option of installing the appropriate sign(s) instead of or as a supplement to the painted curbs. This amendment will provide a number of benefits: • Reduced installation and maintenance costs. • Increased flexibility of application. • Improved recognition and compliance. CONCLUSION The recommended ordinance amendment will provide improved service and reduce cost to the community. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:PAR:ly Attachment 1 1 � ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 10.52.020 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY CODE REGARDING TIME LIMIT PARKING ZONES ON CERTAIN CITY STREETS A. Ordinance THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section i Section 10.52.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga City Code is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as follows: 10.52.020 Time limit ark in zones. Time limit parking zones as 24- minute, -m nu ,one our, wo- aur, ea. shall be Indicated by posting the appropriate sign(s) or by green paint upon the top of all curbs in said zones. The sign or green paint shall mean no standing or parking for a period of time longer than indicated at any time between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM on any day except Sundays and holidays. (Ord 39 14.1, 1978). Section 2 The City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published as required by law. Section 3 The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (1S) days after its passage at least once in the Daily Re ort, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, california. and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. 118 v.ii i yr nnivunv uuuraiviv.vu�� STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 - TO: Mayor, Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager - FROM: Jerry FUIWOOd, Deputy City Manager /Acting Community Services Director nn BY: Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II Cv SUBJECT: Selection of Reolacement for Youth Assistance Subcommittee RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council appoint an additional Councilmember to work with the Youth Assistance Task Force Subcommittee. PACKOROUND On November 2, 1988, City Council endorsed a community needs assessment to identify gaps in youth services and to determine if a youth assistance program would benefit the residents of Rancho Cucamonga. At that time City Council appointed a Council subcommittee to work with staff in completing the needs assessment. Councilmembers Wright and Brown were appointed to the subcommittee. In September, 1989, the Task Force completed their assessment and reported that while Rancho Cucamonga does have resources for youth in our community that unfortunately these resources are not always coordinated and therefore, may not be fully utilized. In November, 1990, Councilmember Brown completed her term of office thereby creating a vacancy on the Youth Assistance Task Force Subcommittee. Since that time staff, with direction from City Council, has continued to explore outside funding sources for this program. An opportunity to implement this program has recently been identified by staff. In order to proceed, staff is requesting that City Council appoint an additional member to this subcommittee to work with Councilmember Wright and staff in exploring the possible implementation of this program. Re pect£ul l_- y$ubmitte rry Fulwood, Deputy City Manager /Acting Community Services Director JF:PP:pp '1q CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Debra J. Adams, CbTC, City Clerk pad LAE SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF A VOTING REPRESENTATIVE AND AN ALTERNATE FOR THE LEAGUE OF CITIES ANNUAL MEETING RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council designate a voting representative and an alternate who can be present at the Business Session of the Annual League Meeting on October 13, 1992. This year's League Annual Meeting is scheduled for October 10 through October 13, 1992 in Los Angeles. At the Business Session, which is to take place on Tuesday, October 13. 1:30 p.m., at the Los Angeles Convention Center, the membership will be taking action on conference resolutions which will guide cities and the League In an effort to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government within the State of California. The League is requesting each City designate a voting representative and an alternate to be present at the Business Session to vote on matters affecting municipal and /or League policy. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me, 117spectfully submitted, ebra J. A ms, CIVIC City Clerk Attachment snow SOME some League of California Cities No'- 1400 K STREET . SACRAMENTO. CA 95814 " 1,916j 444 -5790 Wara eo'k rogvme, July 14, 1992 To: The Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Don Benninghoven, Executive Director Re: Designation of Voting Delegate for League Annual Conference This year's League Annual Conference is scheduled for Saturday, October 10 through Tuesday, October 13 in Los Angeles, One very important aspect of the Annual Conference is the General Business Meeting when the membership takes action on conference resolutions. Annual Conference resolutions guide cities and the League in our efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness and vitality of local government in California. It is important that all cities be represented at the Business Meeting on Tuesday, October 13, at 1:30 p.m. in the Petree D Room in the Los Angeles Convention Center. To expedite the conduct of business at this important policy-making meeting, each City Council should designate a voting representative and an alternate who will be present at The Business Meeting. The League Bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League policy. A voting card will be given to the city official designated by the City Council on the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form." If the Mayor or a member of the City Council is in attendance at the Conference, it is expected that one of these officials will be designated as the voting delegate. However, if the City Council will not have a registered delegate at the Conference but will be represented by other city officials, one of these officials should be designated the voting delegate or alternate, Please forward the enclosed "Voting Delegate Form" to the Sacramento office of the League at the earliest possible time (not later than Friday, September 18, 1992), so that proper records may be established for the Conference. The voting delegate may pick up the city's voting card at the designated Voting Card Table located in the League Registration Area. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Business Meeting, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. Prior to the Business Meeting, the card may be exchanged at the "Voting Card" table in the League registration area. At the Business Meeting, the "Voting Card" table, where the Credentials Committee will be seated, will be located in the front of the meeting room, The voting procedures that will be followed at this conference are printed on the reverse side of this memo. It is suggested that the Mayor and all Council Members from each city sit together at the Business Meeting so that if amendments are considered there may be an opportunity to exchange points of view and arrive at a consensus before each city's vote is cast. Your help in returning the attached "Voting Delegate Form" as soon as possible is appreciated. jai League of California Cities Annual Conference Voting procedures 1. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy. 2. To cast the city's vote a city official must have in his or her possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. 3. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city should designate a voting delegate and an alternate and return the Voting Delegate Form to the League for use by the Credentials Committee. 4. The voting delegate or alternate may pick up the city's voting card at the voting card desk in the conference registration area. S. Free exchange of the voting card between the voting delegate and alternate is permitted. 6. If neither the voting delegate nor alternate is able to attend the Business Session, the voting delegate or alternate may pass the voting card to another official from the same city by appearing in person before a representative of the Credentials Committee to make the exchange. Prior to the Business Meeting, exchanges may be made at the "Voting Card" table in the League Registration Area. At the Business Meeting, exchanges may be made at the "Voting Card" table in the front of the meeting room. 7. Qualification of an initiative resolution is judged in part by the validity of signatures. Only the signatures of city officials, who, according to the records of the Credentials Committee, are authorized to use the city's voting card and who have. left a sample of their signature on the Credentials Committee re -ister will be auprovcd 8. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting. I a-a- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Linda D. Daniels, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: FINAL REPORT REVIEWING AND MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE DELIVERY OF DEVELOPMENT RELATED SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: Accept the Final Report, and recommendations, prepared by Arroyo Seca & Associates for improving the delivery of development related services. BACKGROUND: In 1991 the City Council directed that a consultant be hired to overview the City's development related service. The purpose of the study was to identify ways in which development related services could be more efficient and effective. In addition, the Council established a subcommittee, comprised of Councilmen Alexander and Buyuet, and a resident, Dr. Lee. The subcommittee and staff were directed to work with the consultant in preparing the analysis of the present delivery system and recommendations for improvement. The City Council also slated that the departments involved should continue to look at their delivery systems and procedures and work to improve upon them, minimize duplication, and increase communication and coordination while the study was being conducted. During the preparation of the report, the consultant did meet with representatives of the building industry and the Chamber of Commerce. Information was also gathered from residents that submitted comment cards. The consultant also conducted interviews with personnel within the development related divisions (Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire) to gather information on the development process as well as conducting field visits with staff at job sites to review field inspection processes. ANALYSIS: The final report has been completed and reviewed by the subcommittee. It is being forwarded to the City Council for review and I a3 approval of the recommendations. During the process of finalizing the report and through discussions with the subcommittee, it is important to note that some of the recommendations have been implemented. These were done either through the budget process or through internal division improvements. Some of the recommendations do involve the need for expenditure of funds, either to purchase capital equipment (computer and software for tracking system, printing of development information material) or to fund a currently vacant position. As the City Council is aware, at the present time, funds are not available to implement these areas of recommendations. Staff will work to design a tracking system that, once the needed capital equipment becomes available, can be entered into an automated tracking program. Upon acceptance of the Report by the City Council, staff will work to implement the recommendations identified which do not require expenditure of funds which are not included in the budget. A copy of the Report has been sent to the Chamber of Commerce and the Building Industry Association. They have also been notified that the Report is on the Council agenda for tonight. Respectfully submitted, Linda D. Daniels Deputy City Manager la Final Report Organization Study CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS July 20, 1991 J IIS' TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. EXECUTWE SUMMARY_......._.__ ... ................ I...... »...........1 2 THE DEVELOPMENT/DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS ........... 10 3. PLAN CHECK REVIEW AND 4. INSPECTION ......» .. .... .... ............. .. .... .... ...................... »..36 5. FIRE SAFETYDMSION.._.........»... _.._ »._..___....... ».........45 6. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION . .......... » » ........... »._. ».56 7. EXHIBITS Follows Rage 1. ACTION P LAN.___......«.. ------------------------------ 9 2. DEVELOPMENT RE vIEWPROC�SS .__».__..._._._. ».... «..13 3 PLAN CHECK PROCESS»......._..»» _ ».. »...... »....__.._ « »......23 4. MATRIX OF INSPECITON S. SUMMARY OF PLAN CHECK WORKLOAD._ « » «... « » » «.. «64 6. PERMIT TYPES AS A PERCENTAGE OF ALL PERMITS ..... » «69 7, AVERAGE MAN DAY INSPECTIONS » »....... ».._.. » ............ 70 S. PLAN CHECKER ACTI VITYANALYSIS .. » » ».. «..,....... «.. «..76 9. BUILDING INSPECTION STAFFING ANALY5I5. » ««........_77 APPENDICES A. PLAN CHECK WORKLOAD AND REQUI0INENTS ANALYSIS B. BUILDING PERMIT ACTIVITY BY TYPE C. CONSTRUCTION PERMITTING PROCESS D. CONSTRUCTION PERMITS ISSUED AND FEES COLLECTED I2(O 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This section of our report discusses the background of the study, our specific scope and objectives, approach, and methodologies, and a summary of our overall findings and recommendations. Background The Inland Empire region, and its gateway, the City of Rancho Cucamonga, as shown in the charts below, have undergone dramatic growth in its residential, commercial, and industrial land uses during the last ten years. In recent years, the City has experienced a substantial decline in its rapid growth rate. This growth and change has a significant impact on City government Nowhere is this growth more acutely felt than in the City's Community Development and Fire Departments, whose mission, roles, and responsibilities are to oversee and coordinate the planning, enforcement, and regulatory functions regarding construction and land use within the City. 1990.91 1999.90 1200.99 1907.06 1966.67 1965.66 1964.65 1983.64 1982 -43 1991.62 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 1990 -91 1999 -90 1908 -69 1907 -80 1909 -97 1985 -84 1984 -80 1983-44 1942 -e3 1991.52 1980 -e1 1979.80 100 200 300 400 50o Billions of Dollars Millions of Dollars Figure 1: Assessed Valuation Figure 2: Building Permitvaluation As could be expected, given this rapid rise and recent decline in development, and as shown in the Figures above, the Community Development and Fire Departments have experienced a change and fluctuation in their workload, which has impacted City of Rancho Cucamonga jai 1 the efficiency and cost - effectiveness of their respective programs and related services. Given the complexity of the City's planning function and its importance to the community, the City Manager and City Council have requested that a study be conducted to review and improve the delivery of these services, which are essential to the safe and successful coordination of construction and development within the City. Scope and Objectives As shown in Figure 3 below, our study focused on the City's Community Development and Fire Departments, which are involved in the functions relating to the Development Review process. For the purposes of this study, the Development Review process is used to describe the entire development process within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, which includes three distinct processes: Development /Design Review, Plan Check Review and Permitting, and Inspection. Specifically, we focused on the Community Development and Fire Departments' services in relation to case processing during each stage of the three processes, including application submittal, processing and tracking, compliance checking, inspection, and the interrelationships among the various Divisions involved in projects. In focusing on the case processing and regulatory side of the Departments' activities, particular emphasis was given to reviewing the current organization structure, staffing requirements, approval process for permits and applications, case status and update procedures, budgeting and work methods, policies and procedures, as well as other internal systems of operation and communication. Commvnen R. Develvymml Depa ant Department IL Planning Peblieworb Beading Flwsddy Divlalon Figure & Development Review Functional Orgaaleatba The study included approximately 100 employees assigned to the Community Development Department's Building and Safety, Planning, and Engineering Divisions and the Fire Department's Fire Safety Division. City of Rancho Cucamonga 126 2 Approach / Methodologies In undertaking and completing this study, we collected and analyzed all relevant documents, codes, administrative manuals, policies and procedures (formal and informal), budgets and payroll records, financial reports, and operational data. In addition, we met with employees in the respective divisions and functions and distributed a detailed questionnaire that was completed and returned by 80% of the employees. In -depth interviews were conducted with each supervisor /manager in the functions under review and on -site observations, including ride - alongs, were made of administrative and field services. Finally, interviews were conducted with customers of the respective Divisions and data were collected regarding client attitudes and satisfaction with timeliness and quality of services rendered by the City's Development Services. Summary For the purposes of our discussion, our draft report on the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Development Review process is divided into four discrete areas: • The Development/ Design Review process, • The Plan Check and Permitting process, • The Inspection and Enforcement process, and • The individual operations of the supporting units and their related functions and services. A summary of our recommendations, including perceived cost /benefit and assigned parties responsible for implementation is presented in Exhibit 1, which follows page 9. Development / Design Review The City has established a formal and comprehensive Development/ Design Review process to ensure that development within the City complies with local design guidelines, standards, and ordinances and supports the implementation of the City's General Plan. This process is required for commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential projects (five or more dwelling units) involving the issuance of a building permit for construction or reconstruction. Our study noted the City has developed numerous and helpful public information materials, including booklets, pamphlets, checklists, videos, and information sheets, in an effort to communicate the objectives and the process to the client public. The materials are well done and far exceed what most other government agencies have done to date in the area of public information and communication. Public information is a difficult challenge City of Rancho Cursmonga `Zn 3 and one that, as a service provider, the City, and in particular the Community Development and Fire Departments, will have to continually strive to refine and improve. These efforts to date are commendable and should be continued and modified as recommended throughout this report. Despite the City's laudable efforts to improve and enhance awareness and expectations, our study noted considerable confusion and frustration exists on the part of the customers (developers, homeowners, etc.) with the development and design process. Initially, we believed, based on our review of the process and the interviews with various individuals, that much of that frustration and discontent stemmed from the City's emphasis on the design, code, and planning aspects that by their nature tend to involve value laden and discretionary actions and thus tend to be controversial, particularly when dealing in areas of property development. However, our closer analysis of the Development /Design Review process indicated much of the frustration stems from the length of time required to complete the process and confusion among the clients regarding the various details and requirements associated with approval. In that regard, there appears to be opportunity to increase both the efficiency and effectiveness of this important process. The City's Information Systems Division, in conjunction with the Community Development and Fire Departments, should develop an automated case management system to collect the necessary information, thereby enabling management to establish timeframes for review and approval of all applications in the Development /Design Review process. Those timeframes and standards should be communicated to the applicants and closely held to by both parties. Finally, at or near the conclusion of the Development /Design Review process, we recommend that City staff conduct an official exit meeting with the customer to ensure clarity of understanding regarding the approved conditions and the upcoming process and timelines for plan check and permit issuance. City of Rancho Cucamonga 3 0 4 Plan Check and Permitting As shown in Figure 4 below, our review of the plan check and permitting process, excluding the Fire Department's mechanical equipment permits, indicates the City has experienced, over the last three years, a 37% decline in the number of plans being submitted for review. 1200 1000 sao 600 am 200 1987 1988 1989 1990 PM 1991 ■ pre Sp bkkr 0 Q,&q ■eWldit Figure 4 Plan Check Workload 1987 through 1991 Moreover, as shown in Figure 5, the nature of the plans submitted has changed to include more residential additions and alterations and tenant improvements, which now account for 62% vs 50% in 1989, and fewer of the more complex single family tract and commercial and industrial properties. Our analysis indicates the City of Rancho Cucamonga 151 5 Permit Types as a Perr Inge of All Permits 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% 1986 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 09iesle Fe V CIBesideanel ■9trucaw ■other DveUmp AddiU. and Olher'1h. Addltlav and Ne d d Atteretbm Butidiup Alto Ak . 17 AO Build 13Multi Fmdty 0 All other (Camm= uaib Cat r.a and laduNnaU Figure 5 current plan check turn- around time averages 33 days from application to issuance of permit. This is approximately one half the time it took in 1989. The dramatic reduction in turn - around time appears to indicate the City is achieving enhanced efficiency and effectiveness in the plan check and permit issuance process. However, our more detailed analysis indicates that is not occurring. It is important to note that the combination of the reduction in volume and the dramatic change in the complexity of jobs being reviewed has an exponential impact on the workload of those Departments involved in the Development Review process. With the change in the nature of the plans submitted, an estimated 50% of the current applications discussed above are being processed over the counter. The Building and Safety Division staff do an excellent job of providing timely and quality counter service and screening customers' plans- submitted requests. This highly effective system has significantly enhanced the City's service level for a large segment of its current customers. However, given the high percentage of plans receiving one -stop over - the- counter approval, the turn- around time for those jobs whose plans are taken in, which are typically the large jobs, including commercial and industrial projects, is significantly higher than 33 days. For those projects, significant opportunities exist to enhance both the efficiency and effectiveness of the City's plan check and permit issuance process. We are recommending the City Council adopt a policy that specifies service levels for plan check services for each type and nature of project to be submitted. Furthermore, to ensure the successful implementation of this policy, we are recommending an internal reorganization of the Building and Safety Division's and the Fire Department's plan check and inspection functions, process, policies and procedures, and organization structure. Specifically we are recommending the creation of a new City of Rancho Cucamonga 13 Z 6 management position, Chief Plan Checker, to replace the current Plan Check Coordinator position. This position would be a management position and should have structural engineering and plan check experience. That individual would have direct supervisory responsibility for the plan check positions currently authorized in this unit. The five plan check positions would have specific expertise in assigned areas, but would be cross- trained to assist in the overall plan check function. Furthermore, we recommend that the Fire Chief delegate the Fire Department's authority and responsibility for reviewing and approving all plans that have received over - the - counter approval from the Building and Safety Division, except those for Fire Marshal regulated occupancies, hazardous materials, and other permits stipulated in the Uniform Fire Code, to the Building and Safety Division. This represents approximately 50% of the total number of plans that currently are being submitted and are, for the most part, restricted tenant improvements. The delegation of the Fire Department's authority and responsibility to the Building and Safety Division in this specific area will significantly enhance the turn- around time and service levels provided to the walk - through customer and reduce the Fire Department's plan check workload. Finally, based on the current staffing levels, the assumption of these additional duties and responsibilities and the reorganization of the Plan Check Section should enable the Building and Safety Division to significantly improve its service levels (turn- around times) immediately and without any additional staffing. We do not anticipate, based on the current workload, that any additional staffing will be required for plan check review and permit issuance in the foreseeable future. In those instances where volume outpaces available staffing resources, which has happened in selected instances in the past, the City should continue to contract out that overflow until such time as a pattern has developed to indicate that the volume warrants the addition of full time staff. Our review of off -site plan checks performed by the Engineering Division and permit issuance noted many similarities with the above mentioned comments. The Division's recent reduction in outside plan check services is appropriate given the reduction in the Division's workload. Moreover, it appears that additional opportunities exist to enhance the turn- around time for and quality of off -site and on -site plan approval, which the Division management is in the process of addressing. Inspection Services With respect to the City's inspection function, we are recommending that a new management position, Deputy Building Official /Chief Building Inspector, be filled, thereby enabling the two existing supervisors overseeing the activities of the field building inspectors to spend more of their time in direct field supervision and working with staff in training, performing the more complex inspections, and providing quality assurance or the Division's inspection services. The additional field supervision will help ensure both a more efficient distribution of the Division's workload among the field inspectors, and, perhaps more importantly, City of Rancho Cucamonga i1)3 7 enhance their overall effectiveness in executing these important duties and responsibilities. We recommend the Fire Department continue to provide, in addition, to plan check, inspection of new construction as part of the City's overall Development Review process. The reorganization and assignment of plan check responsibilities for over - the- counter projects to the Building and Safety Division will significantly reduce the Fire Department's plan check workload, thereby enabling the Department to consolidate the remaining plan check duties with field inspection and assign them to a single individual. The centralization of the Fire Department's plan check and field inspection functions, duties, and responsibilities will significantly enhance the accountability and communications for this important review process. Due to the integral nature of the Building and Safety Division's and Fire Department's duties and responsibilities in plan check and inspection, we recommend the physical reassignment of the Fire Department's staff member to the Building and Safety Division's offices located on the first floor of City Hall. The physical relocation of the Fire Department staff will enhance the communication as well as the cross - training and utilization of plan check and inspection personnel in those areas of utmost concern and importance to both the Fire Department and Community Development Department. It is important to note that this employee would remain an employee of the Fire Department. The files and records for all work in progress will be physically housed in the Building and Safety Division. Upon issuance of a final inspection, all Fire Department materials will be transferred for permanent storage and maintenance in the Fire Department. Staffing levels for inspection functions in the Community Development Department's Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions and in the Fire Department are adequate to meet current and near future workload (1991 -92, 1992- 93). For the present, we concur with the City's policy of not filling existing vacancies in the plan check and inspection areas until workload significantly increases. Moreover, it is important to note that the recommended reorganization and improved levels of services in both plan check and inspections can be achieved immediately with existing authorized staff resources. Finally, we recommend the City Council and Management evaluate the various alternatives to the City's current flex schedule. Although widely supported by employees responding to our survey, our on -site observations and discussions with supervisors indicated the current rotational system is impeding both efficiency and effectiveness of the City's Development Review process. There are periods during the week when, due to scheduled days off, supervisors are physically not available to provide needed direction and feedback to subordinates and conversely staff is not available to perform needed assignments. The latter is particularly true with respect to plan check and inspection functions. In order to achieve many of the performance standards recommended in this report, modifications will be required to the City's current flex scheduling. This may include, but not be limited to, 4/10 or split shifts. City of Rancho Caramonga 13 LA 8 It is important to note that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is not alone in this regard. In an attempt to comply with AQMD rules and regulations, many agencies adopted reduced work weeks. Now, having implemented them and experienced their full impact during the last two years, many organizations are re- evaluating prior decisions and are making modifications where appropriate. Our study noted the timing is appropriate for the City of Rancho Cucamonga to evaluate this policy as well. Based on our analysis and field observations, it appears there are many overlapping areas and additional benefits could be achieved by evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of the City's code enforcement and its overall service delivery systems in interrelationship with field inspection services provided by many of the same Departments involved in the City's Development Review process field inspection. Code enforcement is the cornerstone for an efficient and effective Community Development program and the maintenance of the standards added to in the Development Review process. Exhibit 1 summarizes each of the recommendations contained throughout the report and identifies the assigned parties and responsibility and costs /benefits associated therewith. Our report is organized as follows • Section 2 covers findings and recommendations relating to the Development /Design Review process, • Section 3 covers the Plan Check and Permitting process, • Section 4 covers the Inspection function, • Section 5 reviews the organizational issues affecting the Fire Department's Fire Safety Division, • Section 6 covers organizational issues impacting the Building and Safety Division of the Community Development Department, and • Section 7 covers organizational issues concerning the Engineering Division. City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 9 35 W City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review Process Action Plan Exhibit 1 Page 1 of 7 Recommendation Reference Assigned Critical Success Factors Anticipated Costa and Benefit. Responsibility I The CDD and Fire Department should 01, p.14 R. Comet • Materials is Supply Budge: Cuss $2 -5,000 per revision. continue to refine and update public 128, p.50 L. Daniels • Customer Feedback (includes reproduction, information materials relating to the etc.) Development /Design Review Process. Benefit: Improved Development Review process Improved customer relations z The CDD should examine the feasibility of a5, p.17 L. Daniels a User Requirement Analysis Cast: $25-50,000 for software and purchasing an automated information N9, p.27 R. Comet • System Design hardware, excluding staff system for one by all of the Divisions for the 011, p. 30 B. Buller • Software and Hardware time. coordination of plans tracking. monitoring 121, p.41 J. dNeil • Authorized Budget Benefit: Improved case tracking, and reporting. 029, p.52 J. Grant operating efficiency and 030, p. 52 D. Michael customer satisfaction 000, p.98 a Representatives of each Div. and other local 06, p.19 L. Daniels • City Management Cost: N/A agencies should regularly attend scheduled R. Comez Direction Benefit: Improved Development committee meetings (Technical Review). D. Michael • Department Head Review process commitment and monitoring a The Flaming Division should offer an exit 07, p.20 R. Gomez a City Council Policy Cost: Additional staff Time interview for applicants. B. Buller • City Management Benefit: Enhance customer service Direction and possible efficiency in plan check and inspection s The CDD should encourage the use of the R. Comet • Project Tacking System Cost: N/A Preliminary Review Procesa and continue to B. Buller (Manual / automated) Benefit: Enhanced accountability evaluate causes for delays in the Improved efficiency and Development/Design Review Proms+, customer satisfaction specifically those pertaining to commercial and industrial applications. ts1 City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review Process Action Plan Exhibit 1 Page 2 of 7 Recommendation Reference Assigned Crill<al Success Factor¢ Anticipated Costa and Benefits Responsibility • The CDD should continue to refine and 1. Grant • Customer Feedback Cost: $2 -5,000 update public information materials and R. Gomez a Material and Supply Benefit Improved direct develop a Guide to the plan check and Budget communication and service permitting process. (See Recommendation 01) 7. The B&S Div. should develop a standardize) 712,, p.30 J, Grant . Administrative Support Cost: 52 -5,000 plan check statue and routing card for N74 p.31 Benefit: Improved staff temporary use N the backing and accountability monitoring of plans. • Alt Div. of the CDD should set a priority on 915, p. 33 Cry Council s Csee Tracking Cost: N/A the Nmely review of plans. L. Daniel Benefit. Improved service level and R. Gomez customer satisfaction • BSS should continue to offer and suggest a 916, p.35 R. Gomez • Adopted Council Policy Cost: N/A correction pick up meeting to review J. Grant s Client Notification Benefit: Enhanced customer required plan check zorteceon, communication HL The CDD should adopt and publish target R- Gomez s City Council Policy Cost: N/A plan check turn-around times. J. Grant s City Manage` Direction Benefit: Improved efficiency B. Buller • Div. Head Commitment Improved service level and 1. ONeil customer satisfaction v. The CDD should examine streamlining 913, p.31 R. Gomez a Administrative Support Cost: In -house staff time application foreu. J. Grant Services Benefit: Improve performance data B. Buller J. O Neil Iz The CDD should develop a Guide to 020, p.40 J. Grant •Administrative Services Cast: 525,1100 Inspections that includes a description of Support Benefit: Improve customer inspections required by type of project and • Materials and Supply communication contents for each required inspection. Budget W City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review Process Action Plan Exhibit 1 Page 9 of 7 Recommendation Reference Assigned Critical Success Factors Anticipated Cost. and Benefits Aea onaibilil ro B&S should review its policy relating m 822, p.42 J. Grant City Manager Direction Cost: N/A notifying applicants of expirations. D. Michael Benefit: Improved accountability for staff workload and limits city liability 1a The CDD should examine areas of over- 0D, p. 43 J. Gant lapping and /or nonspecialized inspection responsibilities and study the streamlining of inspection functions. 13 Diva performing inspection functions should 024, p. 43 B. Buller s City Councd policy Cost: NA record ail visits to project sites. Benefit: Improved accountability sec The CDD should review its policy regarding 025, p.44 R Gomez a City Council Policy Cast: N/A the responsibility of the project applicants at J. Grant s City Manager Direction Benefit: Improved efficiency of Inspection. D. Michael inspection staff Possible dissatisfaction with selected customers 17. The Dies should attempt to provide next day 817, p.39 R. Come, a City Council Policy Cost NIA inspection services where possible. J. Grant a City Manager Direction Benefit: Maintain timely service 11 The Div, should strive to provide am or Pm 018, p. 39 R. Gomez a City Council Policy Cost: N. /A inspection service on applicants. J. Grant a City Manager Direction Benefit: Maintain timely service ns The CDO and the FD should adopt as policy 019, p. 39 R. t=ome: a City Counted Policy Cost: N/A and strictly enforce the application of L. Daniels a City Manager Direction Benefit: Enhance customer and City inspection w -check charges to applicants. D. Michael staff accountability m The City Council should adopt the updated /26, p. 49 D. Michaels •rice Chief - Staff Cost: N/A Uniform Fire Code. ). Grant recommendation Benefit: Eliminates staff and customer confusion 21. The ED should delegate responsibility, and #27,p.49 D. Michaels a Cary Couned FoBcy Cost N/A accountability for plan cbeck services to B&S. R Gomez a City Manager Direction Benefit: Improved staff utilization and customer service W City of Ranch. Cucamonga Development Review Proceu Action Plan Bxhibil 1 Page 4 of 7 Recommendation Reference Asalgned Cril @al Succena Factors Anticipated Costs and Benefits Rea nsibilit v- The FD should reevaluate the c rgan.u.. 730, p. 33 D. Michaels •City CouoN Polity /1 Co.; N/A and service delivery system for its inspection #31,p.53 L Almond • City Manager Direction Bensfit: improved staff tailization program. 032. p. SS and responsibility 2 Re- Organize Btildingand Safetyinto two M34, p. 60 R. Gomez • Chief Plan Check Position Cost: N/A functional areas J. Crane filled Benefit: Clear functional • Assistant Div.Chief/ responsibility and reporting Inspection filled • Building Official Direction • CDD so rt x Combine position of Plan Check Coordlrucor 735, p.61 R Gomez • City Manager authorize Cost Salary savings would not and Sender Structural Plans Eamiror J. Grant filling of position. materialize. • Upgrade current job Benefit: Improved supervision and qualifications staff accountability In -house structural expertise u Reclassify end fill vacant Deputy Building 736, p.62 R. Gomez • City Manager authorize Reduced contract cost Cost Salary savings would not Official Position as Deputy Building OlSdal/ J. Grant filling of position. materialize Chief Building Inspector • Hire seasoned building Benefit: Improved field supervision inspector with Potential to and quality assurance of become Buildin Official ins Iona Maintain current staffing lewls and rr 737, p.63 R. Gomez a Building Official Support Cost: N/A s5minats currently unfunded or unfilled J. Grant Benefit: Improved morale and podtiaru until subatsntial devalopmnt inereaer attitude of currently understaffed Administrative Secretary is responsible for 738, p.65 J. Grant •City Management Policy Coat: N/A assignment of workload end yearly review L. Leach Building Official Support Benefit: Clear functional line of stall uhorit and supervision 1a Combine receptionist uties for u ad n 739, City Council Polity Cot: N/A Safety to a Community Development 741. p.70 Division Head Agreement Benefit: Economies of scale Departntent Receptionist and Support d City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review Process Action Plan Exhibit I Page 5 of 7 Reeommen lotion Reference Assigned Critical Success Factors Anticipated Costs and Benefits Responsibility a. Community Development Deportment 841E p.66 L. Daniels • Synchmnlud scheduling of Cost: N/A should review and revise Bea schedule R. Gomez CDD personnel Benefit: Time saving due to Policy City Council Policy elimination of disruption sn Community Development Department L. Daniels • Agreed upon target service from different schedules Cost: Poor publicity if times not should consider adopting formal time R. Gomez times mm, estimates for target turn around time for J. Grant Benefit Increased service level to plan cheeks customer n. Develop end adopt atandardired plan cheek e42, p. 71 1. Cram • Adopted standardized Cost: N/A corrections little where appropriate D. Michael s Plans Examiner Support Benefit: Reduction in numberof rechecks. Increased standardization for customer. 3- Assign plan cheeks to specific plans 0193, p, 72 L Grant • Plan Check Coordinator Cost: N/A ssaminen throughout plan check life of J. Martin Support Benefit: Familiarity with plans. project Equal distribution of workload an.ong plans examiners. Issue Request for Qualf6eations for contract 846, p.74 R. Gomez • Specific RFQ Cost: N/A plan check servi. J. Grant Benefit Increased contractor service level. x �tab sh centralized data reporting preoees 846, P. 73 R.Gomez --System Design Cost: System and software cost which rategonsaw plan cheeks by type and J. Cnnt • Software and Hardware Benefit: Improved management aim and tracks tan as • Authorized budget information n Plan Cheek Pubiic Service Teehnfaans 846, p.74 J. Grant a Reassignment of Cost: N/A should assign all plan cheek and permit numbering responsibility Benefit: Increased internal control numbers of numbering for project tracking. a Clerical support staff should be responsible 847, p. 74 J. Grant • Automated tracking Cost: N/A far monitoring other Divisions turn around L. leach I program Benefit Enhanced tracking ability time for plan &..eek for client service. City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review Process Action Plan Exhibit 1 Page 6 of 7 Recommendation Reference Assigned Critical Success Factors Anticipated Costs and Benefit, Rea onsibilit Develop and Implement thorough training 74B, p.74 J. Grant • Develop training pmgram Cost: Additional training program for plan check staff and encourage J. Martin with goals and targets materials or budget muttidisdplin rros training s Training Budget Benefit: Improved plan checker sx Develop and adopt standard inspection Y51, p.78 Chief Building s Adopted staffing model abdily for client servim Cast: workload estimates and staff accordingly Inspector • Building activity reports Benefit: More Flexible staffing ). Grant Ability to meet workload D. Michael and improve quality assurance sk Dewlap standardised inspection rocedures p 050, 78 p. J. Grant • Draft inspection policy Cost: for all inspectors D. Michael and standardize approach Benefit: Improved quality Chief Building • Building Official Support assurance Inspector Building of esprit de corps J. Thomas within inspector group J. Schroeder 44< Rsaedgn an existing Building Inspector to 051, p.78 J. Grant • Re-Assignment of Cow: Training budget and train to become the Plumbing and Building Inspector materials Mechanical Specialist • Training Budget Benefit: Increase specialization and ex rtise u. Review current prattity (districting for 052, P. 80 J. Grant • Equitable distribution of Cost: inspection sons said refine thaw, cons Chief Building inspection workload Benefit: Equitable distribution of based on workload distribution Insf inspector workload u Building Inspection Buperriaoras ou 153,p.88 j- Thomas • Increase Field Work Cow: rantms greeter Said work rsponsibilitir J. Schroeder • bursas Supervision Benefit: Increased quality and iaereas on -sits supervidan (Building assurance and inspector Dswlop and Ira a ss nt thorough training x54, p.81 J. Grant • Develop training program Cost: Additional training =raining program for inspection xaff and ancourage Chief with goals and targets materials or budget mulliZedpBrr crow, training bnspector • Training budget Benefit: Improved inspector ability D. Michael I tLolity assurance City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Review Process Action Plan Exhibit 1 Page 7 of 7 Recommendation Reference Assigned Critical ticeeu Factors Anticipaled Coats and Benefits Res onsibilil sc Development Praeemng staff meet with the I55,p.95 R. Gomez s City Council Policy Cost: Time commitment of staff customer • part of the DVDR "e dt interview; B. Buller • Division Management Benefit: Enhance customer service to review conditions of approval and the Support and efficiency during plan components ofa'conplete' Ian. check ai Development Rocca Section discus ell ISO, p.96 Poled Engineer s Adopted Council Policy Cost: N/A exception, (red lining) m the plans being J. O'Neill • Client Notification Benefit: Improved service level returned with the developers engineer. Reduced plan r heck cycles a Eng make&variable a stafpoamn input J. O'Nedl • Division Management Cost: N/A of historical and current film Nan Support Benefit: Updated profile of Division information system workload o. Public Works provide one staff position by I57, p.96 J. ONeill s Division Management Cost: N/A reducing the number of Inspectors from 3 N I58, p. 97 Support Benefit: Re- assignment of 2 s6zp.99 personnel resource. Greater inspector efficiency, r COD study end analyze currant cods 064, p.99 R Gomez • City Council Policy Cost: N/A enforcsmmtraspondbigtia and activities N J. Grant • Management Support Benefit: Increased service delivery determine tiro meet efficient and efeetive organization liar the delivery of that amen. sa C D review opportunities N integrate 063, P. 99 R. Comez s City Council Policy Cost: N/A certain Public Weeks Lispeetion activities, J. O'Neill • Management Support Benefit: Elimination of overlap of with tboa carried out by SA S. J. Grant effort in fime and management sd Eng design and implement automated 159, P. 98 R. Gomez • System Design Cast: System and software cost methods to meet its own record keeping. NA, p. 98 J. ONeil s Software and Hardware Benefit: Improved management morn , tracking, and reporting needs, 061, p. 98 • Authorized Budget information su Inspectors N routinely rated inspection J. O'Nedl a Acorate Reporting Forms Cost: Forms, eetirities. Inspectors and Tracking Time for reporting Benefit: Determinations of appropriate staffin 52 Eng establish a record kftpFg eysfemin 061,p.98 J.ONall a Division Management Cost: Record keeping materials order N compere the number of inspection Support Benefit: Workload projection and requestereceivedach week. • Record keeping hardware measurement or material 2. THE DEVELOPMENT / DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS For the purposes of this study, we viewed the Development Review process within the City of Rancho Cucamonga as a process involving three phases, namely Development /Design Review, Plan Check Review and Permitting, and Inspection and Enforcement. The Development/ Design Review process was established to ensure that development within the City complies with local design guidelines, standards, and ordinances and supports the implementation of the Citv's General Plan. As specified in Section 17.06 of the City's Development Code, Development Review is required for commercial, industrial, institutional, and residential projects (five or more dwelling units) involving the issuance of a building permit for construction or reconstruction of a structure that meets the following criteria: • New construction on vacant property. • Structural additions or new buildings that are equal to 50% of the floor area of existing on -site building(s), or have a minimum 10,000 sq. k. size. • Reconstruction projects that are equal to 50% of the floor area of existing on -site building(s) or have a minimum 10,000 sq. ft. size. • Projects involving a substantial change or intensification of land use, such as the conversion of an existing building to a restaurant or the conversion of a residential structure to an office or commercial use. Smaller projects of limited scope may require a Minor Development Review, while residential construction involving four dwelling units or fewer are subject to Design Review. The goals of the Community Development Department in creating the Development/ Design Review process were many. The main points in the Department's philosophy behind the process, as addressed in the City's Development Code, include: • To recognize the interdependence of land values and aesthetics; To encourage the orderly and harmonious appearance of structures and property within the City; To maintain public health, safety, and general welfare throughout the City; City of Rancho Cuumonga t0 143 To assist private and public developments to be more cognizant of public concerns for the aesthetics or development; To ensure that new developments do not have any adverse impact upon existing, adjoining property or the City in general; • To implement sections of the General Plan that relate to the preservation and enhancement of the particular character of the City. In order to implement this approach, the Planning staff and the various committees involved review projects with a high level of technical scrutiny to ensure that development within the City meets the desires of the City and public. This effort has been successful in substantially increasing the aesthetic appearance and desirability of the community as well as the value of residential, commercial, and industrial properties throughout Rancho Cucamonga. Planning efforts within the City of Rancho Cucamonga have been directly linked to the increase in real estate values in the community. While some applicants and developers may see the City's Development Code as too stringent or the process of Development/ Design Review as too intrusive, the City Government should clearly understand that the direct link between prudent planning and real estate values does exist. Simultaneously, the City Government must understand that prudent planning contains associated costs and, in certain instances, may drive developers away from the City if the Development Code is too strict or the application process too onerous. In this case, there is no exact method to employ for a cost /benefit analysis to measure fiscal impact of the City's current development policy. However, the highest priority should be given to continually monitoring and evaluating the Development Code to ensure that it achieves a balance between the wishes of the City, local residents, and the building community. A regularly scheduled forum to discuss these issues could be established that would include members of each of those groups. This link would be a pro-active measure on the City's part to ensure that it is serving the public to the best of its ability. The Community Development Department's Planning Division is the coordinating organizational unit assisting customers in the Development/ Design Review process. Before submitting a formal application to the Planning Division for Development/ Design Review, an applicant may choose to take advantage of the Preliminary Review Process (for a fee), which enables the applicant io receive input from the Planning and Engineering staff on a number of potential environmental, land use, or building issues that may apply to their particular project. This pro- active feature of the Development /Design Review process is a service to applicants and appears to save both the applicant and the City staff a considerable amount of time and resources in both the short and the long term. Exhibit 2 on the following page diagrams in detail the Development/ Design Review process, including the City of Ramhu Carnmonga Itjbl 11 distinct requirements at each stage of the process, the project elements reviewed, the Divisions involved, and the reiterative nature of the entire prccess. Summary of Findings and Recommendations The Development/ Design Review process is by its nature an interactive process between developers and the City and currently exists as such. However, the Community Development Department, in conjunction with the Planning Division, can take steps to further enhance the process. For the purpose of analysis, we examined the Development /Design Review process components with regard to efficiency and effectiveness issues that included, but were not limited to, the following: • Turn - around time. • Availability of public information. • Application, record keeping, and work forms. • Participation of community development staff. Findings and recommendations are presented below in a separate subsection for each issue. In addition, a number of these recommendations are presented specifically to enhance the overall process and interaction between the applicant and the planning staff in the Development /Design Review process. These recommendations are: • In conjunction with the development of a Department -wide automated information system, the Planning Division should establish a more comprehensive project tracking system. • The Community Development Department should encourage the use of the Preliminary Review Process and subsequently continue to evaluate the causes for delays in the Development/ Design Review process, specifically those pertaining to commercial and industrial applications. • The Community Development Department should continue to refine and update public information materials relating to the Development /Design Review process. • The City and each of the Divisions within the Community Development Department should develop requirements and guidelines for a comprehensive project tracking, monitoring, and reporting system. • The Community Development Department should examine the feasibility of purchasing an automated information system for use by all of the Department's Divisions and the Fire Safety Division for the coordination of plans tracking, monitoring, and reporting. City of Rancho Cucamonga I yS 12 • Representatives of each Division of the Community Development Department, the Fire Safety Division and other local agencies should regularly attend scheduled Committee meetings (Technical Review). The Planning Division should offer an exit interview for applicants to ensure that all conditions of approval are followed -up in the construction phase of the project. Turn - around Time State law provides that when dealing with applications involving the division of land, the city must respond within 30 days to render a decision on the completeness or incompleteness of the application. In Rancho Cucamonga, these applications, as well as those involving all other development, are required to be processed through the Development /Design Review process. A sample analysis of projects submitted to the Planning Division for initial submittal revealed that the Division is in compliance with the state law and is successful in rendering a decision within the 30 -day limit. Once a subdivision application is deemed complete and accepted as such, the City then has 180 days to render a decision on that application. In certain instances, such as large master plan developments or projects that require full Environmental Impact Reports, the city can request that applicants sign a waiver of the 180 -day limit, without which the city would have insufficient time to comprehensively review the project and the project would, therefore, be denied. Exhibit 2, which outlines the Development /Design Review process, includes an estimated timeline of approximate target dates for completion of certain stages of the process. As illustrated, in the ideal case, where no major corrections or revisions are required, a project, from the time of acceptance as complete to a Planning Commission decision could be processed through the system in aooroximately 11 weeks, or 77 calendar days. This includes both sub - division and other development. At present, the Planning Division does not analyze average processing times for projects but does monitor the projects' progress to meet required deadlines and inform applicants if an extension will be needed. During the course of our study, our interviews with members of the building community revealed that extended delays in the Development /Design Review stage of commercial and industrial projects is a major source of concern for the City's business community. We were not able to analyze the extent of this problem or recommend improvements to expedite the Development/ Design Review process within the scope of this study. However, it is highly important that the City be sensitive to developers' concerns in this issue, and analysis of any delays should be given the highest priority. City of Rancho Cuumangu 13 1410 .0 y9 r tv- r'bib'd 1 Recommendations 2. T "FIR r Current tracking of Development /Design Review projects is done by the project planner and updated on the "Monthly Status Report." While the project planner is responsible for the timely processing of the project through the various stages of the process, the Division and the Community Development Department would benefit from having a readily available reference for checking the project status. The report or information screen would reveal the date of the past stages completed and the current stage of the project. In lieu of a Department -wide automated system, this report could be developed on a personal computer. As a management tool, this would be extremely useful in monitoring projects to gauge the efficiency of the project planner in managing the project. Furthermore, the report would be useful in "red flagging" difficult projects and follow up for resolution of any pressing problems. As cited earlier, the Preliminary Review Process can save the applicant and the City time and resources in the Development /Design Review process. The Preliminary Review Process should continue to be publicized and encouraged for use by applicants. Therefore, we recommend that the Community Development Department enhance its efforts to promote the use of the Preliminary Review process, particularly in instances of tentative tract and commercial /industrial projects. Furthermore, as cited earlier, the City's business community has voiced some concern regarding delays of commercial and industrial applications during the Development /Design Review process. Therefore, we recommend that the Planning Division, as the lead agency in this phase of the Development Review Process, make it a City of Rancho Cuumnnga lYQ 14 priority to closely monitor the timeliness of these applkaiions and evaluate the causes for any delays that may occur. Availability of Public Information The Planning Division offers numerous booklets, pamphlets, checklists, videos, and information sheets to the public regarding the Development /Design Review process and other specific permit applications that are required of applicants within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. These materials provide clear and concise guidelines to applicants of what is required in terms of application materials, the steps of the process, fees, and timeliness of the review and permit process. The Planning Division also staffs a public counter to process applications and to field general questions for walk -in applicants; appointments are also available on request. In addition, if chosen, the Preliminary Review process provides the applicant with information about development guidelines within the City. Public information materials and staff from the Community Development Department have created a pro- active, customer service atmosphere. Rancho Cucamonga's Community Development Department and its component Divisions compare favorably with similar sized cities and jurisdictions in Southern California in their efforts to inform and work with the public, and are to be commended. Recommendation 3. The Communitv Development T]onartmon• ct....aa r.....:_.._ As a service to the public, the City and the Department have placed great value on, and made a considerable investment in, developing materials and information and are currently successful in disseminating useful and clear public information through written materials and public counter service. Periodic review and update of all public information materials should be a priority for the Community Development Department to ensure that the City maintains its current level of service to the public. Despite the City's efforts, our field interviews with members of the local building community indicated some dissatisfaction with the City's lack of clarity in communicating policies and procedures governing the Development /Design Review process. Our analysis noted that the frustration rests with perceived inconsistencies regarding stated standards and the application of those standards to specific projects and the unnecessary time lags of the review cycle. City of Rancho Cucamonga (yn 15 Application, Record Keepink and Work Forms The Development/ Design Review application is filed using the Uniform Application available at the Planning Division's public counter. When an application is accepted for initial submittal, the applicable fee paid, and a project number assigned, it is then logged into the Planning Log P,00k, which is a daily record of all types of projects accepted at the Planning Division's public counter. The information is then input to the "Monthly Status Report,' which is generated and maintained by Planning Division staff. The "Monthly Status Report" tracks the status of projects through the Development /Design Review process and through to project permitting and completion. The report is distributed to other Divisions within the Community Development Department and to the Fire Safety Division as a reference for management and those staff members involved in the planning phase of the project. At present, tracking of projects and reports is maintained on a personal computer in the Planning Division. During our interviews with City staff, it was revealed that there is great reluctance throughout the Department to attempt to use the City's mainframe computer for Development Review process reporting, because of long delays in logging on and working within the system as well as the inflexible environment of the system in terms of report generating capabilities. Once the application materials are stamped and logged in during the initial, full, or final submittal, the materials are routed to the respective members of the committees by the project planner (with support from the clerical staff). The project planner is responsible for the distribution of materials and maintains a checklist of the routing of materials. The Planning Division's package of materials is retained in the Division project files by project type and project number for ready and easy access. Recommendations 1 1. • 1 I q q 1IZA V•• 11 1• 11 1 1 a 1' 1'q' 1ti .1• 1' 1q • . �.1. 1 . 1' 11/ 1 1 1 1 1' - 1• •• 1 1 •' 11 Prior to acquiring and implementing a comprehensive, Department - wide automated information system, each of the Community Development Department's Divisions and the Fire Safety Division should develop specific requirements and guidelines for the automated tracking, monitoring, and reporting of development projects. Each Division will need to explore and refine its specific data recording, tracking, and reporting requirements and coordinate those needs with the needs of the rest of the Department in order for the Department to design and purchase an efficient, effective, and appropriate automated information system. Should the Department- City of Rancho Caumonga S6 16 j 5. wide system not be implemented, the Department's Divisions should develop a case tracking system that can be run from stand -alone equipment. Specifications should include capability to: monitor and track a project's progress through each stage of the Development /Design Review process; • monitor, track, and report on the location and status of technical plans and permits; • monitor and report on the volume and type of workload within each of the Divisions and turn- around times for various types and sizes of projects. Each Division will need to develop forms that summarize the information required by and generated during the steps in the process for which they are currently responsible. In addition, formats for reports based on this information and required by the various Divisions, and by the City and the applicant, will need to be developed before a system can be put in place to create those reports. In addition to required system capabilities, it will be essential to define responsibility for input and tracking of information during each step of the process to enhance the utility, accuracy, and integrity of data throughout the Development Review process. At present, each Division within the Community Development Department, plus the Fire Safety Division, is maintaining its own system for project monitoring and tracking. This is true during both the Development/ Design Review cycle and the Plan Check, Permitting, and Inspection cycles. Furthermore, each Division has its own numbering system for plans or projects and these numbers are not coordinated in any comprehensive manner throughout the complete Development Review process life of a project from planning conception to final inspection approval during the construction phase. We recommend that the Community Development Department set the highest priority on examining the feasibility of purchasing a City of Rancho Cucamonga j 5 I 17 comprehensive Department -wide automated information system for use by all Divisions and the Fire Safety Division in coordinating the tracking and monitoring of development projects in the City. Ideally, this system would be installed on the City's mainframe computer. If, as in the past, this proves impracticable, the Department will need to invest in a stand -alone or networked system to which all Divisions plus the Fire Safety Division have access. The implementation of a new system would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Department as a whole as well as the Divisions in their ability to communicate with one another and inform the applicant and the public at large as to the status of development within the City. The system would be used to monitor each stage of a project's life throughout the Development Review process for timeliness and progress and provide daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly reports as needed as to the volume and timeliness of services provided by the Department. Related Issues — Participation of Community Development Staff A comprehensive Development /Design Review process ideally would involve all Divisions of the Community Development Department. In Rancho Cucamonga, all Divisions are involved in the thorough, reiterative review and revision process of Development /Design Review from the beginning, with the weekly Engineering, Planning, and Building and Safety meeting, to review in the separate committees, and through the full Planning Commission review. This systematic approach is both practical and efficient. The weekly meeting serves as a catalyst to coordinate the different inputs of each of the Department's Divisions and their various requirements and regulations as they apply to individual projects from the early stages of the project's review. In a joint effort, the meeting members will determine whether or not the project application is complete and notify the applicant of their findings before the project goes before the individual committees. After acceptance of the application as complete, the project is then reviewed by three (four if development is in the trails district) committees. Each of the committees is concerned with specific and distinct elements of the project: • The Design Review Committee is composed of one City Planner and two Planning Commissioners and addresses architectural and site plan issues. The Grading Committee includes representatives of each Division cf the Community Development Department and considers issues of grading and drainage. The Technical Review Committee is also made up of representatives of each Division of the Community Development Department, plus City of Rancho Cucamonga 15Z 18 members of the Fire Safety Division, the Cucamonga Water District and the Sheriffs Department. The focus of this committee is to review compliance with all applicable technical code requirements adopted by the City. Each member of each committee will make written comments on each project when applicable and in turn each committee will summarize those comments. At each stage of the Development /Design Review process, each Division has had an opportunity to provide input on projects. This iterative process has two results. The Divisions of the Community Development Department are acting in a coordinated process to present applicants with a clear picture of what is required for projects within the City and the standards that the City feels are vital to maintaining the quality of the life in their community. The second result, in theory, is to expedite the Plan Check and Permitting process for applicants because representatives from Building and Safety (the controlling Division of the Plan Check and Permitting process) have had an opportunity to provide input on specific building requirements for the project that, therefore, should be reflected in the technical drawings that will eventually be submitted. As will be discussed later in our report, that objective is not always being achieved. Projects approved by the Planning Commission typically will include a list of "Conditions for Approval" that the applicant will be required to meet for conditional approval from the Commission. The project is then approved with the respective conditions and the applicant has two years to apply for a building permit before approval expires (unless one files with the Planning Division for extension of approval expiration date). Recommendations xT.7mL7ArnaTy- Ti sait7n6STTi7TZ , „ n , t vzm . n A main strength of the Development/ Design Review process is the inclusion of members of the Community Development Department, the Fire Safety Division and other local agencies that represent all perspectives of the City staff involved in the Development Review process in Rancho Cucamonga. In some instances, representatives to committees review projects in their offices and submit written comments when appropriate. While this practice is satisfactory, mandatory attendance at all committee meetings would enhance the thoroughness of the review process. City of Rancho Cummonga ( 5 3 19 7. At committee meetings, the comments and differing perspectives of fellow development - related City staff often have implications on the project that will require further review from other committee members. However, if a committee member is not present, the newly discussed comments of other members may have implications for other Divisions or agencies but they will go unaddressed because of that member's absence. This creates the scenario of a problem developing during the construction phase when a previously unnoticed issue comes to light and requires an applicant to make changes to already approved plans. While this scenario was not raised as a problem by City staff, it has the potential to create a situation where the City will have to react to a problem instead of catching that problem in the pro-active Development /Design Review stage. Our review of the meeting minutes revealed that attendance is not always strictly adhered to. A common complaint voiced by the plan check staff in the Building and Safety Division was that, in certain instances, applicants do not adhere to all conditions of approval developed during the planning approval phase. On the other hand, during our external interviews, customers cited poor communication and misinformation regarding conditions and standards as the leading cause of their frustration with the City's process. While it was not possible to confirm the frequency of this problem within the scope of our study, it is an issue that should be addressed. As the controlling Division in the Development /Design Review process, the Planning Division maintains files on all approved projects, including the conditions of approval. Upon approval of a project, the Planning Division should develop a form that would summarize all information of the project, including the conditions for approval, and distribute it to the other Divisions in the Community Development Department and the Fire Safety Division. This purpose of this task will be to create a reference file in each Division of approved projects so that when technical drawings are submitted for plan check to the Building and Safety Division and routed to other Divisions, those Divisions will have ready access to information about the approved project and the conditions of approval that should be reflected in the technical plans. Furthermore, we recommend that the City offer an exit interview for applicants prior to the Planning Commission meeting, which would City of Rancho Cuumonga Is--I 20 serve to clearly indicate what the City expects of the applicant upon approval and completion of the Development /Design Review stage and the subsequent requirements for submission of technical drawings for plan check. The exit interview would be attended by the applicant, the project planner, and a representative of the Building and Safety, Engineering, and Fire Safety Divisions. The purpose of the interview would be to go over the conditions of approval and, specifically, what requirements are necessary to satisfy those conditions to ensure that the applicant understands what each condition means. This recommendation should be undertaken in conjunction with efforts by the Community Development Department to develop a uniform numbering system for projects throughout the planning and construction process that will simplify the Department's project referencing for all Divisions involved and enhance their project tracking and monitoring capabilities. This issue is discussed in greater detail in subsequent sections of this report. City of Rancho Cucamonga I5'r 21 3. PLAN CHECK REVIEW AND PERMITTING The second phase of the Development Review process in the City of Rancho Cucamonga is Plan Check Review and Permitting. This section of our report discusses the overall Plan Check and Permitting process . After a project has been approved by the City's Planning Commission in the Development /Design Review stage (discussed in the previous section), an applicant (in most cases) will have two years from the date of approval to submit a plan check application with technical drawings to initiate the Plan Check and Permitting process. Along with the plan check application, the applicant will also submit permit applications for the permits that will be required. The Building and Safety Division is the lead Division during this stage. Plan check, and associated building, grading, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical permit applications are submitted at the Building and Safety Division's public counter at City Hall. The Engineering Division also operates a separate plan check function. As will be discussed in Section 7, however, this process is specifically for off -site improvements in the public right -of -way (streets, storm drains, etc.). All Divisions of the Community Development Department and the Fire Safety Division are involved in the Plan Check and Permitting process. After plans are submitted at the Building and Safety Division's public counter, sets are routed to each Division. Each Division reviews plans for compliance with its respective guidelines, as illustrated below: City of Rancho Cucamonga j s b 22 Building and Safety examines the plans for Fire compliance with the City's adopted Uniform Building Code and all other documents as deemed appropriate. Planning examines plans for compliance with the Buildingand City's Development Code and land use policies as Planning Safety well as adherence with previously discussed Conditions for Approval and other documents as deemed appropriate. Engineering examines plans for coordination with Engineering on- and off -site improvement plans (if applicable) and compliance with other documents as deemed appropriate. Figure 6 Fire Safety examines plans for compliance with the Plan Check Uniform Fire Code and for occupancy types and Work Flow other documents that may apply as deemed appropriate. City of Rancho Cucamonga j s b 22 Once plans are returned to the Building and Safety Division, if corrections are necessary based on comments from any of the Divisions, the applicant is required to revise the plans and re- submit a new set of plans along with the old corrected set. The plan check process is then repeated with all Divisions involved until all Divisions approve the plans. When plans are approved and the permit is ready to be issued, the applicant pays the permit fee and then has six months from the time of permit issuance to begin construction. The Plan Check and Permitting process is illustrated in Exhibit 3. Summary of Findings and Recommendations Once applicants submit plans to the Building and Safety division public counter, they are then not involved in the Plan Check and Permitting process until they are called to pick up corrected plans or to obtain the permits upon plan approval. While Plan Check is by its nature, an internal function within the Community Development Department, the Department and the Building and Safety Division can take steps to further enhance the process and further involve the applicant in the process. We examined Plan Check and Permitting process components with regard to efficiency and effectiveness issues that included, but were not limited to, the following: • Turn - around time • Availability of public information • Application, record keeping and work forms • Related issues Findings and recommendations for each issue listed are presented below. A number of the recommendations that follow will enhance the overall process and interaction between the applicant and the plan check staff in the Plan Check and Permitting process. The Department's objective should be to streamline and clarify, to the degree that it is possible, the process for the City and the applicant. Public information and greater inclusion of the applicant will go a great distance towards meeting this objective. To achieve that objective, we recommend: • The Community Development Department should adopt and publish target plan check turn- around times for all Divisions involved in the Plan Check and Permitting process, • The City and the Community Development Department should implement a comprehensive plan check tracking and monitoring system as part of increased Department -wide automation efforts. City of Rancho Cucamonga 1 S i 23 dv3kCLL SIry 1�5.lmitlJ �Wtlp[! SJ@L�ylt Vi w_ .arr� wW a..ay ti. stop pi—i" srP lu:,wwrn�lq R e,ev Wd!li • The Community Development Department should continue to refine and update public information materials and develop a guide to the plan check and permitting process. • The City and the Community Development Department should develop requirements and guidelines for a comprehensive plans and permit tracking, monitoring, and reporting system. • The Community Development Department should examine streamlining application forms to reduce excess copies and paper flow through the Building and Safety Division. • The Building and Safety Division should develop a standardized plan check status and routing card for temporary use in the tracking and monitoring of plans through the plan check process. • All Divisions of the Community Development Department should set a priority on the timely review of plans in the plan check process. • The Building and Safety Division should continue to offer and suggest a corrections pick -up meeting process with applicants to review required plan check corrections. Turn- around Time An application for plan check submitted at the Building and Safety Divisions public counter, that application is good for six months from the time of submittal. In certain cases, such as new structures, the process time from submittal of plans to final approval and permit issuance is greater than 180 days. In those cases, applicants must file for extensions if they wish plan check to proceed on their plans. The turn- around time of the Plan Check and Permitting process is dependent upon a number of factors in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Planning and Engineering Divisions will process one set of plans, while the Fire Safety Division may process a second set, and either the Building and Safety Division or its structural plans consultant will process a third set. If any one of these sets is held up, it can impede the entire process. it is currently the responsibility of the Plan Check Coordinator to ensure that those plans are processed and returned by the respective Divisions in a timely manner. During the course of our study, it was necessary for the consultant to develop the data relating to the turn- around time of the City's Plan Check and Permitting process. This kind of information is vital if a Division or the Department hopes to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of its plan check operations. Our analysis of the total turn- around time for the Plan Check and Permitting process, from initial submittal to approval and permit issuance, is illustrated in Table 1 below. These numbers include all plans that generate a plan check card, including over -the- City of Rancho Cucamonga 19 i 24 counter approvals of tenant improvements yet exclude over - the - counter approvals of residential additions and alterations. The average total turn - around time for the entire process includes re- checks in many cases and accounts for the time the plans were with the applicant. As Table I illustrates, average duration of the plan check process has significantly decreased over the past three years. However, this apparent improvement in turn- around time is at least partially attributable to the changing nature of plans submitted over the past three years from the more complex new structures such as Single Family Dwellings to the relatively simple Tenant Improvements as is discussed in greater detail in Section 6. As shown in Figure 7, the number of plans submitted has 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 1987 1988 1989 1990 Pmi 1991 O F. Spr4Jdn O Cndln5 M &"Rn8 Figtue 7 Plan Check Workload 1987 thmugh 1991 declined over the past three years. A sample of the turn- around time for Single Family Dwelling plan check in 1989 versus 1991 revealed that turn- around time for City of Rancho Cucamonga 25 l6a Average Average Elapsed Elapsed Time Time Average Elapsed First Check Plans w/ Total Time Year (Internal) Applicant for Application to Correction Permit 1989 30 27 81 1990 20 30 48 1991 15 12 33 somrr ,tcc Table I Average Txicn and Time Plan Check As Table I illustrates, average duration of the plan check process has significantly decreased over the past three years. However, this apparent improvement in turn- around time is at least partially attributable to the changing nature of plans submitted over the past three years from the more complex new structures such as Single Family Dwellings to the relatively simple Tenant Improvements as is discussed in greater detail in Section 6. As shown in Figure 7, the number of plans submitted has 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 1987 1988 1989 1990 Pmi 1991 O F. Spr4Jdn O Cndln5 M &"Rn8 Figtue 7 Plan Check Workload 1987 thmugh 1991 declined over the past three years. A sample of the turn- around time for Single Family Dwelling plan check in 1989 versus 1991 revealed that turn- around time for City of Rancho Cucamonga 25 l6a these types of plan checks has not improved, despite the decline in workload, and continues to be well above the averages cited in Table 1. At times, it is averaging approximately 150 to 200 days to complete the entire Plan Check and Permitting process for these types of plans. Perhaps more important, the current average times have in large part decreased due to the increasing frequency of immediate over -the- counter approval of simple plan checks, which are included in the total number of plan checks performed by the Division. The percentage of all plan checks that are approved over the counter is estimated as high as 50 %n of the Department's current workload. A sample of 1950 turn- around times for first checks on plans also revealed that there are lengthy delays in a number of areas. As Table 2 below reveals, first check for all Divisions requires a considerable amount of time to process, given the nature of the project. Average Turn-around Time Division /Unit First Check Consultant -R. Sullivan 29 Building & Safety- Internal 15 Planning & Engineering 33 Fire Safety Division 12 Sw : ASA -Sampk d 19% elan Check Su" catch Table 2 Avenge Tum-Around Time Plan check Divisions Further analysis revealed that the 33 day turn - around time for the Planning and Engineering Divisions is primarily due to delays in the Planning Division. As discussed in Section 7, on average the Engineering Division is spending one or two days to turn plans around when they are received from the Planning Division. The improvement in their performance was due to the prioritizing of plan check within that Division in the recent past, as discussed under Recommendation 15 below. Recommendations The Community Development Department should establish target turn - around times for plan checks based on the nature and size of the project plans submitted. If these target times were agreed upon and adopted, they could then be published and shared with the development community and strictly adhered to. Current policy dictates that all plans be processed in order of submission as a matter City of Rancho Cucamonga 26 �(D I 9. of equitable service to applicants. This is a matter of policy for the City to dictate, and if current policy is maintained, then projected tum- around times by plan type and size would be inappropriate. With the implementation of recommendations regarding upgrading the automation capabilities of the Community Development Department, the Building and Safety Division, as the lead Division for the Plan Check and Permitting process, should establish an automated system to closely monitor turn - around time and track average turn - arounds to the targets set as discussed in Recommendation 8 above. This monitoring and reporting should be used to evaluate the Division's and the Department's efficiency and effectiveness in providing plan check services to the development community in Rancho Cucamonga. Availability of Public Information. As the control division for the Plan Check and Permitting process, Building and Safety, in conjunction with the Community Development Department, provides adequate public information to applicants regarding this process. The Division makes use of the booklets and pamphlets, which were discussed under the Development /Design Review process earlier, that describe the entire Development Review process within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. However, these booklets are not as thorough as they might be in describing the actual steps involved in the Plan Check and Permitting process and how different Divisions, including the Fire Safety Division, are involved. Building and Safety has developed a checklist for applicants to infoi-m them of what they must submit in the way of technical drawings and the number of sets required. The Building and Safety Division also staffs a public counter with two Public Service Technicians and one Counter Plans Examiner who provide information to applicants in person or can answer questions from callers. The public counter staff processes the applications, calculates the fees, accepts the plans and permit applications, and tracks the process of applications through the cycle. On routine or simple plan submittals, they can also grant "over - the - counter" approval. The public counter staff at the Building and Safety counter provide pro-active public service to applicants and in many instances serve in a positive public relations capacity for the City by guiding applicants through the Plan Check and Permitting process. When compared to other similar sized cities in Southern California, Rancho Cucamonga's Building and Safety Division is to be commended and compares favorably in its efforts to inform and work with the public. City of Rancho Curamonga 27 1 (oZ Recommendations M As cited earlier, the Community Development Department is successful in its efforts to provide clear and useful information outlining the Development Review process to the public. This existing public information material should be periodically reviewed and updated to keep up with current practices within the City. However, at the present time, the "Builder- Owner" guide that describes the Plan Check and Permitting process within the City is not as comprehensive as the materials discussed earlier and could be improved upon. We recommend that the Community Development Department develop a brief guide in the form of a pamphlet that outlines the Plan Check and Permitting process. The pamphlet would include complete instructions and descriptions as to what materials are required to be submitted upon application, fees applicable, and how they are applied, routing of plans and other Divisions involved, and required steps on the part of the applicant as well as a list of contact phone numbers so that applicants can periodically check on their application if they wish to do so. Finally, the pamphlet could also include projected turn- around times by plan type and size. However, current policy dictates that all plans be processed in order of submission as a matter of equitable service to applicants. This is a matter of policy for the City to dictate, and if current policy is maintained, then projected turn- around times by plan type and size would be inappropriate. Application, Record Keeping and Routing Forms Plan check and permit applications are filed simultaneously at the Building and Safety Division's public counter. A uniform application is used for all types of plan checks submitted, while for permit applications, two forms are used depending on whether it is a building, grading, or fire sprinkler permit (white form) or an electrical, plumbing, or mechanical permit (yellow form). At the time of submittal, fees are calculated by the counter staff, the plan check fee paid to the cashier in Finance and a plan check or permit number is assigned upon payment, and then the application and materials are date stamped and accepted at the counter. Once an application and materials are accepted, a color coded index card is created (black — building plans; brown — grading plans, and red — fire sprinkler plans) that includes the plan check number and applicable information and is filed in the plan City of Rancho Cucamonga 78 �ro3 check record file box that is kept at the public counter. During the plan check process, until the issuance of a permit, the plans are tracked on the card catalogue system. If applicants call to inquire as to the progress of their plans during the process, a Public Service Technician will go to the file box, pull the card, and give the applicant the most current status. The problem with the manual system is that cards are occasionally misplaced or lost during the plan's progress through the cycle and, when this occurs, a Public Service Technician must undertake an at times painstaking search for the card and track the plans. Furthermore, the information reported on the status cards is not standardized and is often incomplete and unclear. Finally, because the tracking system is not automated, the Division does not have the ability to aggressively track the progress of plans through the cycle and follow up when plans are lagging in their progress. The plan status card also s=erves as an unofficial routing card. When plans are put in another Division's or the consultant's pick -up box in the plans storage rack, the person who picks up or returns those plans is supposed to note it on the status card. When all plans have been returned to the corrected box in the plans storage rack, a Plans Examiner will sort through the various sets of plans and collate the returned sets of the specific plan and place them in the "ready for corrections" box in the rack and note it on the card. This requires the Plans Examiner to make a daily check of the storage rack to see whether or not plans from other Divisions have been returned. This leads to a considerable amount of the Plans Examiner's time being allocated to tracking or coordinating plans and the possibility that returned plans could sit "unprocessed" when they are ready for corrections. When plans are approved and a permit issued, the plan status card is moved to the "permit issued" file box at the front counter. During both the plan check phase and the permitting phase, the Division's clerical support staff monitors expiration or extension dates manually by periodically reviewing the cards in the file boxes and notifying applicants if expiration is approaching. In lieu of a Community Development Department -wide automated information system, the Building and Safety Division has done as well as could be expected in providing a makeshift case tracking system. However, if Department -wide automation does not occur in the near future, further attempts to automate Building and Safety record keeping functions should be made using available personal computer resources in the Division. As illustrated in Exhibit 3, while plan check and permit application forms are few in number, the applications generate multiple copies and a large amount of paper flow throughout the Division. With the implementation of recommendations related to the automation of tracking, monitoring, and reporting functions in the Department and the Division, many of the multiple copy forms would become redundant or unnecessary. City of Rancho Cummonga I bc� 29 Recommendations 12. As part of the effort to acquire and develop a comprehensive Department -wide automated system (as discussed in Recommendation 5 in Section 2), the Community Development Department should begin to develop specific requirements and guidelines for the automated tracking, monitoring, and reporting of technical plans and permits. Provisions should specify automated capability to monitor and track plans to include all action dates (acceptance, distribution to Divisions, return from Division, applicant pick -up, re- submittal, and permit issuance), the types and size of plans submitted, hours spent for internal plan checking of each plan, current status, turn- around times, inspection status after permitting (discussed in Section 4, Inspection), and any other necessary notations on the plan or permit status. The system should have the capability to "red flag" plans when a Division or consultant is taking a long time to process the plans or when a plan check application or issued permit is nearing expiration. The individual project file would be maintained and monitored by the Building and Safety Division as the controlling division during the phases of the Plan Check and Permitting process. The development of system specifications and the implementation and installation of an automated tracking system will take a considerable amount of time. In the meantime, the Building and Safety Division should develop a standardized plan check status card to replace cards that are currently being utilized. The new status cards should be formatted to require minimal effort on the part of staff to maintain and update the cards. The cards would be designed with space for all vital plan information, contain check boxes for each stage of the plan check process, provide appropriate areas for dating each stage of the process, and include a space for staff initials at each status update. It should also include space for notations as necessary and continue to be used to monitor the inspection phases in a similar check box style. City of Rancho Cucamonga 30 ((04, � 13. 14. Upon implementation and installation of a Department -wide automation system, we recommend that the Community Development Department continue to revise and update plan check and permit application forms to reduce the number of copies of each form. The usefulness of multiple copies should be eliminated by utilization of the system's automated reporting capability as much of the information on plans and permits will be immediately input onto the ,system at the time of application intake to the Building and Safety Division. This will eliminate the need for multiple copies to be circulated to the clerical staff to input to separate monitoring systems and considerably streamline the tracking and monitoring abilities of the Department and all Divisions. In an effort to decrease the frequency and the need for plan re- submittals and re- checks, we recommend that all Divisions involved in the plan check process develop standard correction lists in a checklist format where appropriate. The Fire Division has already developed these forms for in -house use. The availability and usage of these forms would enhance the staffs verbal and written ability to communicate those desired outcomes to applicants. These lists would serve to streamline the plans examiners' efforts by eliminating the need to write out lengthy corrections and by standardizing corrections for the clear understanding of the applicant. For certain types of industrial and commercial projects this may not be feasible because of the particular nature of an individual project, however, whenever possible standardized corrections list should be developed. Furthermore, the Community Development Department, in coordination with each Division, should develop a plan check correction guidebook that would be available to applicants. This guide would enable applicants to clearly understand requested corrections and what changes they must make to their plans prior to re- submittal. City of Rancho Cucamonga 31 (bb Related Issues — Participation of Community Development Staff When technical drawings are submitted at the Building and Safety Division's public counter, the involvement of various Divisions in the Plan Check and Permitting process will depend on the type and size or complexity of the plan check application. As discussed in subsequent sections, the majority of plans currently being submitted are Tenant Improvements (Commercial/ Industrial) and Residential Additions and Alterations (which often will not create a formal plan check application or routing card). Tenant Improvements typically involve alterations to existing commercial or industrial buildings and may be complex or very simple, in which case they are plan checked and approved over the counter by the Counter Plans Examiner. Residential Additions and Alterations may include a room addition, the installation or construction of a demising wall, or be as simple as a patio cover, and are tvpicaI y approved over the counter by the Counter Plans Examiner or one of the Public Service Technicians. The staff at the public counter will direct the applicant to secure over - the - counter approval from the Engineering and Planning Division if appropriate, which, when done, leaves only approval from the Fire Safety Division to be secured, which can be done over the counter at certain times each day. Plans which are more complex in nature, such as new construction of a building or house will be formally routed to each Division (Fire Safety Division will not receive Single Family Dwellings or any Residential Additions and Alterations). The Building and Safety Division typically lakes in three sets of plans. One set is routed first through the Planning Division and then to the Engineering Division, which will return the plans to Building and Safety. The second set of plans is routed to the Fire Safety Division for review, and the final set is for the Building and Safety Division's (or the consultant's) review. At present, structural plans are plan checked by an outside consultant, Robert Sullivan and Associates, due to a vacancy in the Senior Structural Plans Examiner position in the Building and Safety Division. Fire Sprinkler and Electrical plans are checked by the Senior Pla,is Examiner -Fire Protection and Electrical Specialist respectively, who are part of the Building and Safety Division. The Fire Safety Division does not review fire sprinkler plans, but does perform fire sprinkler inspections for commercial /industrial and multi- family dwellings. Grading plans are processed like most plans and are reviewed by each Division as well as by the Building and Safety's Principal Plans Examiner- Grading. Each Division involved in the Plan Check and Permitting process will compile a list of corrections, if applicable, to the reviewed plans. Our analysis noted that all commercial /industrial plans are currently routed to the Fire Safety Division for plan check. This raises the question of a possible duplication of effort. The current practice of routing all plans to the Fire Safety Division developed from the idea that since Fire Safety was required to conduct yearly fire inspections and to provide fire protection services, then they should be involved in the approval of plans of what they are required to inspect. While there are merits to City of Rancho Uu_wmonga (to t 32 this approach, the need to plan check for compliance with the Uniform Fire Code and the for occupancy type could be handled by a Plans Examiner in the Building and Safety Division such as the Senior Plans Examiner -Fire Protection. This issue is discussed in greater detail in Section 5. The current practice of routing plans to each Division is intended to enhance overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Plan Check and Permitting process and to ensure quality control. As in the case of the Development /Design Review process, each Division should be involved in ensuring that their various requirements and regulations are being complied with in the technical drawings that are submitted. However, the routing of plans to multiple Divisions or to the outside consultant can create, and is creating lengthy delays in the processing of plans. While routing of plans is necessary and should be maintained, the timeliness of plan check review could be substantially improved as is discussed under 'Turn- around Time ". When plans require corrections, the applicant re- submits a new set of plans and all Divisions are involved to the same degree as described above. Recommendation As discussed above under 'Turn- around Time ", it currently takes an average of 33 days to process a plan check from the time of application through initial plan check, applicant corrections (and re -check if applicable), and permitting. This average process time is lengthy considering the type and size of most plans submitted and could be substantially improved. We recommend that all Divisions within the Community Development Department establish lapse time standards for the timely review and return of plan checks to the Building and Safety Division in order to improve the overall level of public service to the building community at large in Rancho Cucamonga. Related Issues — Level of Review The goals of the Community Development Department in maintaining a Plan Check and Permitting function are many. Compliance with national, state, and local building regulations (as well as the City's Development Code) requires that all plans be examined. The objectives of this process, as described by the City's Uniform Building Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Development Code, and as expressed by the Department's employees, include: City of Ranch Cucamonga ((A 33 Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the City's residents and workers through the enforcement of all applicable codes. Ensuring the safe design, construction, and maintenance of building structures within the City limits. Processing plans and permits in the most accurate and timely manner possible. In order to achieve these objectives, the Building and Safety Division's staff and the other Divisions (including the Fire Safety Division) involved review plans with a high level of technical scrutiny to ensure that all construction within the City meets all code regulations as specified in the City's adopted policies cited earlier. This effort has been successful in substantially ensuring that residential, commercial, and industrial properties throughout Rancho Cucamonga have been and are being built in a safe and approved manner. While the level and thoroughness of review is a definite strength in the Plan Check and Permitting process, it appears that there is some concern regarding the clear communication of the requirements (either conditions for approval or plan check corrections lists) that applicants must meet in submitting plans for either first check or re -check for approval. An analysis of all plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division for plan check in 1990 as illustrated in Table 3 below revealed that, while it appears that 67% of all plans are approved in the original first check or with one re- check, which is commendable, this percentage is more a reflection of the predominance of small, less complex projects than of efficient processing. Those plan checks conducted by the Fire Division also indicated that about 3 out 4 applications required at least one re-submittal. Grading 13.16% 23.68% 15.79% 1053% 36.84% Fire Sprinkler 21.18% 62.35% 1059% 3.53% 2.35% Building 3759% 27.82% 12.41% 4.89% 17.29% Average -All 32% 35% 12% 5% 16% • ASA rMlauta Table 3 Frequency of Re4C7teck Calendar 1990 City of Rancho Caramonga `b 1 34 Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Type of Plans of Plan of Plans of Plans of Plans of (0) Re- (1) Re- (2) Re- (3) Rn Expired Plans Checks Checks Checks Checks or Other Grading 13.16% 23.68% 15.79% 1053% 36.84% Fire Sprinkler 21.18% 62.35% 1059% 3.53% 2.35% Building 3759% 27.82% 12.41% 4.89% 17.29% Average -All 32% 35% 12% 5% 16% • ASA rMlauta Table 3 Frequency of Re4C7teck Calendar 1990 City of Rancho Caramonga `b 1 34 A sample of large projects, particularly commercial, industrial, and Single Family Dwellings, for new construction revealed that those plans consistently required as many. as thrae cycles of corrections. While we were unable to analyze the reason for frequent re- checks on large project, within the scope of our study, interviews with plan check staff and a sample of the building community revealed that each side places the onus on the other for the frequency of re- checks. A commonly voiced concern of the plan check staff was that corrections were often ignored by applicants, while applicants complained of unclear understanding of correction requirements and introduction by the City of formal requirements. W*"M VA 11IMMMI&I MM r- KWT-AItrWTrr4KVXIIJ; II w. it 1- mtrmm WT-W r IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIAWA According to interviews with plan check staff during the course of our study, attempts were made to implement a practice of meeting with applicants to explain corrections when applicants were called to pick up plans. However, for a number of reasons outside of the control of the City, this practice was never implemented. We recommend that the Building and Safety Division continue to offer and even strongly suggest the practice of a "Corrections Pick Up Meeting" with the applicant to explain all corrections at the time of pick up. This meeting would serve to clarify mutual understanding between the plan check staff and applicants and should, if successful, decrease the frequency of time consuming re- checks for the plan check staff. In the event of a second re- check, a "Corrections Pick Up Meeting should be required. City of Rancho Cucamonga ! �d 35 4. INSPECTION The third phase of the Development Review process is the City's on -site inspection and enforcement of compliance with approved plans. After the technical drawings for a project have been reviewed and approved, the appropriate permits are issued and copies distributed to the respective Divisions. All Divisions within the Community Development Department in addition to the Fire Safety Division are involved in the field inspection and approval process. The inspection phase of the Development Review process exists in order to ensure that construction or reconstruction is being carried out according to the conditions and requirements set by the various Divisions in project approval, plan check approval, and granting permits to the client builder. It is also at this point in the process that the Divisions determine whether the actual construction is meeting the provisions of the applicable codes discussed throughout this report. During the construction phase of the process, all Divisions including the Fire Safety Division will be involved in performing multiple inspections on the site. Each Division conducts inspections for compliance with approved plans following the guidelines set forth below: • Building and Safety inspects the building site at various times during the construction life of the project depending on the size and complexity of the project as appropriate. Inspections will verify that the project is being built in structural compliance with the City's adopted Uniform Building Code and any other documents that may apply. • Planning inspects the site to confirm the use of approved materials, colors, set backs, and landscaping and other appropriate areas as set forth in the City's Development Code, the project's conditions for approval and the approved technical drawings and issues final approval related thereto. • Engineering inspects off -site street improvements related to building construction during construction stage for compliance with approved plans and integration with public right -of -way, and issues final approval related thereto. • Fire Safety inspects all new construction (with the exception of residential projects) and commercial/ industrial and multi- family fire sprinkler systems for compliance with City's Fire Code, the State Fire Marshal's requirements, and any other City of Random Cucamonga I ? I 36 City of Rancho Cucamonga Exhibit 4 Inspection Matrix Job Description specific and Qualifications Inspections Performed Refe ence Under generalm p mn field insp iaof •llli - Plumbin g •Uniform itlg. nawaan, alteration, o, repuro f@uddng and offer -Ftgy Reinf.ists a cnr F'Ibg. -Top -Unda, ir9LLe Code plumbinglawddotiemechani -YIr. SIeW Rotate -Top Wt Chi Coro. -F.A. ,(amb. Air andzo jogenfas andl laws; and somog mdca and caws; performs related dnhee as required. ad Meaonry, IfcinL -Wife, Pion, F.A. Unit 'Uniform Mechanical Bnlldlnr} - Wa1114in( G ipi, -Gas fiPinN 4AC -Unit (:ode llemn -4w Uiepuaal -vent. mpen Inspector HS.Dploma nr Lwf9hlg -Gas Tun[ Te Vents Uniform l'IumLmg Equivaent - Framingltwfmg .Nixturc -e 4 'ine1M «henlnd fade -Specialized -Irani!. -Water Howler .Swunming PouVSpa Training -lot. lath! Gyp.Hd. -Solar System • National Electric •g Y.ut one or -Et. lath. -Final Plumbing F:acavatmn. Satb.da. Code Moreof Genenl -Fmish Grading - Utility Cleanntt Iteinfumin8. handing Huildiog Trades Street No. Posted •F.leancal -Undergrd Conduit • California Gelding -Slope Planting Gas line, Gen' Pest fade - F,nergy Card P.td. Undergrd. Conduit - Heater-[,., Shut -offs -Final Hvildrn8 -Memr Penal F AW,- Typa,3 p_Tenk -Hough Wiring -Fenix. Game, Clasr - Ftixlurea Iatche. -Final P:lertrical -Final plumbing -Temp. Power -Final F➢xtdcsl -UGhty CS..nmee .Completion Inspection Undergensral supervision- pert mas anetrvRion inspxtion of workmmship and nuteriale used for a viimty of public works and •Engineering .7 City rapvtl impmvecomtp.ja ; ensure. compliance, with plans. Off-Sita lmprossmi Engineering apeafisetluns, vrdimmos., and eade requirements; p,rl ran rel m as irxd. -Find ad&a[. re •H.S.Dipbma Equivalent supplemented by In9 or pe CtOr •College kvel can rs woA in riot mgmeerivg or public worka mnatiawma and design •2 Yrs. mbpmfesabnal engineering,joumey lerel public works, or has, coaastmttso. W mnatmRUn inspection experienm Uvderganeral supervision, oonducts fins mveetwituova In 'Fire Safely determine the cans affire. for purpusa ffire pmventim .Auto. Fin Sprink. programs and the detection ofaram; inepe is building. and _Flood Exiting Sys. proper,y for fire haoi and .u1R ieocy cf fire pmbt"ro. Hydrants • F'Ire Code F>tre sty IDs carer, mq and p, in the devebpmea p saes in -Exit F.cilaie. - Q Inspector pregr. ;may fire yrevevtbo andpublic fin educationdista; may rosy maul in of Fire et in foe the mpdion Sladlduela;. �P'APFr. ap si s rbronira patio iplrmiolira;ivatertg rtllemdutiesu required. • ff9 Dipbw or equivaket supPlemevGd by HS • Coursa ie Fue 9cienca • 2 rime a. rrer w ar in fax re enuan •1'IenninH •kCDevelopment Undergegij supervision•iatnd PlanIlln Iethin,rared; ri,lxlt pmferaionaly en[orsdrsv ed planning woA;rela ddutiesm .peA'mg grequired. d'IentinB.Irri89Ye. Aode •Aoriat Manuel IIISpeCtOr •4Yr. Degree in Plammrgor Waited Field Waster'. Deairsble) Finnl •g Yn. Ezpenenre in Currant or Advnnmd Planning documents that may apply and issues final approval related thereto. The Building and Safety Division will not sign the final building inspection until all other Divisions and /or the Fire Safety Division have given final approval. Upon final approval, the building permit is archived on microfiche for public viewing at the Building and Safety Division's public munter. While the specialization of the Inspection functions among Divisions of the Community Development Department and the Fire Safety Division is a matter of City policy, the City and the Department must have a clear understanding of the cost of providing such comprehensive inspection coverage. The current policy is designed to, and succeeds in, controlling quality assurance of construction within the City (as reflected in increasing property values as discussed earlier). The possible combination of Inspection functions could reduce the resources required to staff the Inspection function, however, this could lead to a perceived decrease in quality control. At present, there is no uniform reporting system to record the number of inspection visits to individual sites by the various Divisions and, therefore, actual cost of inspections per project cannot be approximated. However, the current specialization of inspection functions results in multiple visits by each Division and consequently consumes a considerable amount of the Department's and the Fire Safety Division's time and resources. Summary of Findings and Recommendations The Inspection and Enforcement process is by its nature an interactive process between builder /applicants and the City. Therefore, enhanced participation and understanding on the part of the builder /applicant and greater coordination amongst those Divisions involved can only serve to improve the Department's ability to provide comprehensive inspection services. As illustrated in Exhibit 3 in the prior section, the Inspection process can be complex and quite confusing. For the purpose of analysis, we examined the Inspection and Enforcement functions with regard to efficiency and effectiveness issues that included, but were not limited to, the following: • Response time • Availability of public information • Application, record keeping, and work forms • Related issues Findings and recommendations for each issue listed above are presented below, as are a number of recommendations that will enhance the interaction and understanding between the applicant and the inspection staff in all Divisions and the Fire Safety Division in the inspection process. Specifically, we recommend: City of Random Cucamonga 37 1-73 • The Divisions of the Community Development Department and the Fire Safety Division should attempt to provide next day inspection services where possible. • The Divisions of the Community Development Department and the Fire Safety Division should strive to provide A.M. or P.M. inspection service to applicants. • The Community Development Department and the Fire Safety Division should adopt as Department -wide policy, and strictly enforce, the application of inspection re -check charges to applicants. • 1'he Community Development Department should develop a guide to inspections that includes a description of inspections required by type of project and whom to contact to schedule each required inspection. • The City and the Community Development Department should develop requirements and guidelines for a comprehensive permit and inspection tracking, monitoring, and reporting system. • The Building and Safety Division should review its polity relating to notifying applications of expirations. • The Community Development Department should examine areas of overlapping and /or non - specialized inspection responsibilities in the various Divisions involved and study the possibility of streamlining or combining specific inspection functions. • All Divisions performing inspection functions should record all visits to project sites, both formal and informal. • The Community Development Department should review its policy regarding the responsibility of the project applicant at inspection time for compliance with approved plans or inspection correction lists, Response Time When applicants call the Building and Safety Division for a building inspection, they are be given an approximate time for an appointment for the following day. If they call after 3:00 p.m., the appointment date will be in two days time. The clerical staff will then put the inspection file into a Building Inspector's slot for inspection the following day. The Planning Department attempts to respond to requests as rapidly as possible but the response time will depend on the workload of the assigned Project Planner, who City of Rancho Cucamonga t7 q 38 follows the project through all phases of the Development Review process, including inspection. The Engineering Division provides next day inspection. The Fire Safety Division will provide an inspection as quickly as possible (typically three to five days), dependent upon the availability of their inspectors, who are also responsible for duties aside from construction inspection. Prompt inspection service is one area where the City can serve the development community in an immediate fashion by saving developers time and money lost to costly delays. Of course, this service must be based in a mutual arrangement where developers or applicants are be responsible for calling for inspections only when they know they will be prepared for them. Recommendations 19. 11' 1 1' 11.111.1 �. ,,11'1 D' t % 1 &1. . We recommend that the Department and the Fire Safety Division adopt as policy the objective of providing next day inspection service for all types of development inspections. This pro -active approach will enhance the cooperative, service - oriented image of the Department as a whole. � � 11 7iT.rnf Fln 1 1 u 1 ' u 1' iT15i1 Most applicants view time as money and any delays in time typically adds up to wasted money, especially for large commercial developers. Therefore, we recommend that the Department and the Fire Safety Division adopt as policy the objective of providing A.M. or P.M. inspection services to applicants and strive to meet those commitments. This is, of course, again based on the responsibility of the builder to be prepared for inspections. As part of shifting the responsibility for compliance with conditions of approval, approved plans, and inspection correction lists back to the applicant, we recommend that the Department and the Fire Safety Division adopt as Department -wide policy, and begin to enforce, the charging of applicants for re- checks when the applicant is not ready or items from inspection corrections lists are not adhered to. City of Rancho Cucamonga j 1,5- 39 Availability of Public Information While the Community Development Department has published many useful and comprehensive guides to the Development/ Design Review process, and to the Plan Check and Permitting process, there is currently no guide to the Inspection process within the City. The number and kinds of inspections required will vary greatly with the type and size of a project, and many applicants are unclear as to what is required and when. As is discussed below, each Division of the Department, as well as the Fire Safety Division, may be involved in the inspection process and is required to sign off for final approval on the inspection record. Most large scale professional developers are familiar with the inspection process and what is required. However, the applicant for a Building Permit today is often a home owner or small business owner who is likely to be unfamiliar with the process. Therefore, the Department should strive to enhance its public information efforts regarding inspection as a pro-active measure of public service to the community. Recommendation 20. The Communiy We recommend that the Department develop and publish a guide to the Inspection process in the City. In brief, the pamphlet would categorize by type of project, the inspections required, how to schedule the inspection, and who to contact. This guide could be an addendum to existing publications or a stand -alone pamphlet. It should also be given to permittees at the time permits are issued Furthermore, the guide should clearly put forth the Department's and the Divisions' approaches to the Inspection process. This includes the reason for requiring inspections, what the inspectors from each Division will look for, and opportunities for applicant participation in expediting the process. Application, Record Keeping, and Working Forms Building, grading, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and fire sprinkler permits are processed and issued by the Building and Safety Division. As noted earlier, applications are submitted simultaneous with a plan check application submission. The permit application is then filed by address in file cabinets at the Building and City of Rancho Cucamonga 40 lib Safety Division's public counter pending approval of plans and permit issuance. Once a permit is issued, the clerical staff logs the permit on a database maintained on a personal computer and prepares an inspection file for the inspectors. Separate inspection files are maintained by each of the Building and Safety, Fire Safety, Public Works, and Planning Divisions for each applicant. The permit is good for six months and, as stipulated by code requirements, work must be performed on the project during that time or the applicant must file for an extension. If neither action is taken, the permit will expire and the technical drawings will be destroyed. The clerical staff currently monitors permit status for approaching expirations manually in a log book of permits issued and by reviewing the permits issued card file at the public counter. The Building and Safety Division will send two letters and send an inspector to the job site before they will allow a permit to expire. As the project dictates, an inspector from one of the appropriate Divisions will visit the site as many times as there are inspections necessary to be approved up to and including the final inspection and sign-off. The Building and Safety inspection staff records daily inspection activity on an inspection log that summarizes their total activity. However, they do not keep a record of or closely monitor the average number of inspections required on different types of jobs. Applicants must make separate calls to each Division and the Fire Safety Division if a site inspection is required on their project. The Planning Department does not keep a log of the number of inspection requests that they receive or of the number of inspections they perform, while the Engineering Division keeps separate logs regarding the number of inspections performed by inspector and type. The Fire Safety Division receives and logs calls for requested inspections but does not keep records regarding the inspections performed in the field. The record for all inspections is the Inspection Record, which is maintained by the applicant on the job site. Once the Building Inspector has signed off on final approval, after all other Divisions and /or the Fire Safety Division have signed off, the inspector's copy of the Inspection Record is then filed at the City, recorded as "finaled," and sent out for microfiche. The microfiche copy is then permanently maintained at the Building and Safety Division's public counter for public examination. Recommendations 21. The City and the Community Development. Department Should As part of the efforts to implement a Department -wide automated information system (as discussed in Recommendation 5 in Section 2), the Community Development Department should develop specifications for an automated system for entering, monitoring, and City of Rancho Cuumonga j V1 41 updating the status of permits issued and inspections performed by permit type. In the interim, the Building and Safety Division, as the controlling Division of the permitting process, should attempt to develop a personal - computer based tracking system that will serve the same functions and eliminate the need for manual checking of permit expiration dates. The data should be updated on a routine daily basis. This system should also have the capability to record the number and dates of inspections performed on specific permits as well as the type of inspection performed. While it is commendable that the City attempts to be thorough in notifying the applicant that a permit is nearing expiration, we believe that a visit by the Building Inspector requires too great an allocation of Division resources. The onus to keep permits current must be with the applicant as long as they are well informed as to their responsibilities from the start of the permitting process. We recommend that the Division continues its policy of sending out two letters, one notification of approaching expiration and one expiration notice. The practice of sending an Inspector to the site should be studied for discontinuance, and if current workloads increase in the future, this practice can be either cut or reduced to a discretionary level on a selective project basis. Related Issues — Participation of Community Development Staff As noted earlier, each Division of the Community Development Department, along with the Fire Safety Division, provides inspection functions related to development within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Each Division examines a different aspect of the development project for different inspection purposes. Dwing the course of our study, our discussions with staff throughout the Department, and with the Fire Safety Division, revealed that each Division's inspection function developed out of the specialized nature of its functions, which, it was commented, would not be adequately addressed by an inspector from another organizational unit. City of Rancho Cucamonga j 7 n 42 Recommendations 23. There are areas of the inspection function currently handled by separate Divisions that overlap and may present an opportunity for streamlining inspection services. As discussed in Section 6 of this report, the volume of inspections Department -wide has declined during the past two to three years. Despite this fact, each Division has maintained a separate inspection function. While this is a matter of Departmental polity and quality assurance, we recommend that the Department evaluate the feasibility of combining certain inspection functions of the Divisions and the Fire Safety Division where appropriate to be handled by a single inspector where two inspectors (and two site visits) are currently required. We do not feel that the specialization of functions in different Divisions requires a specialist in all cases and we believe that many inspectors could be cross- trained to provide multiple inspection functions. .i ,r . , :, I W 11PE 114 K0411r] As part of our recommendation to study the feasibility of streamlining certain inspection functions of the multiple Divisions and the Fire Safety Division, it is imperative that each Division begin to record the number of requests for inspections and the number of visits (both informal and formal) provided. This would enable each entity to accurately assess the cost of their efforts to provide comprehensive inspection coverage in terms of time and manpower. Furthermore, this would further enable the Department to examine areas where overlaps may be occurring (Recommendation 23) between entities and where savings could occur. Related Issues — Level of Review During the Inspection process, an inspector will issue a corrections list to the applicant or a representative at the building site if corrections are required before inspector approval. While it was not possible within the scope of our study to determine the frequency with which correction notices are issued, our observations revealed that correction notices were issued more than 50% of the time. This means that an inspector will be required to revisit the site for approval before the applicant City of Rancho Cucamonga 171 43 can proceed. Interviews with inspectors also revealed that applicants calling for inspections before they are prepared or before they have complied with corrections from.a previous inspection is not uncommon within the City. In either case, this will require inspectors to make return visits to the site. In these instances, inspectors have the option of charging the applicant a $30 re -check fee, but, according to our interviews, this policy is not being uniformly applied. According to interviews with the Planning staff, the project planner will perform both informal and formal inspections on a project during the construction phase. However, the number of these inspections and the length of time allocated is unrecorded. The purpose of these visits is to avert any problems that might arise during final inspection if the construction is not monitored. While this is a pro- active measure performed by the City, it requires an expenditure of both time and resources by the project planner. Recommendation ,• . .. W-. ,14- WA -J -10 [* Ili wig u 1 � .i is. In conjunction with many of the recommendations cited earlier in the Sections 2 and 3, the City and the Community Development Department should make every effort possible to place the onus for compliance upon the applicant. A number of steps such as the "Exit Interview" prior to project approval and a "Corrections Pick Up Meeting" during plan check, as well as enhanced public information materials are necessary steps towards that goal. If applicants do not comply with conditions of approval and /or inspection corrections lists, or they repeatedly call for inspections before they are ready (all of which generate re- visits), then the Department should enforce the policy of charging applicants for costly re- visits by inspectors. City of Raw ho cwAo ga /Ba a 5. FIRE DEPARTMENT The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department, a special District, is responsible for providing and managing numerous programs for efficient delivery of fire prevention and fire protection services in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The District currently has four Divisions: Administration, Operations, Personnel Development, and Fire Safety. The Department's Fire Safety Division is responsible for coordinating the delivery of the Department's services in relation to development and new construction. In that regard, the Fire Safety Division is responsible for: • Code development, including research, preparation, and adoption of codes, ordinances, and standards relating to fire and life safety. • Plan checking, including review of all plans submitted for permit, for compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, and standards. • Code enforcement, including conducting occupancy inspection of all commercial and industrial premises, to ensure compliance with all applicable codes, ordinances, and standards. • Arson investigation, including conducting on -scene investigation of all fires, as required by the Uniform Fire Code. • Public education, including development and dissemination of information regarding fire and life safety programs, rules, and regulations for the community. Summary of Findings and Recommendations For the purpose of our analysis, we examined the Fire Department's role and responsibilities in new construction, both in terms of meeting mandated duties and responsibilities stipulated in the Uniform Fire Code and the State Fire Marshal's Rules and Regulations. In addition, we evaluated the Department's role in developing policies and executing procedures that pro-actively enhance quality construction and their attendant use of all structures, thereby ensuring the desired fire safety protection offered to residents and members of the community. In that City of Rancho Cuumonga f D r 45 regard, we examined the Fire Department's plan check and inspection components with regard to efficiency and effectiveness issues, which include, but are not limited to: .. • Plan check process and tum- around time. • Availability of public information. • Applications, record keeping, and work forms. • Related issues. As a result of that examination and analysis, we learned that further enhancement of both the efficiency and effectiveness of the Fire Department's roles and responsibilities in the City's Development Review process can be achieved by implementing the following: • The City Council adopt the most recent Uniform Fire Code as an on -going policy and include those standards as part of the City's overall design standards. • The Fire Department delegate responsibility and accountability for sign-off and approval of over - the - counter plan check services submitted to the City's Building and Safety Division. • The. Fire Department develop public information materials outlining the specific provisions and guidelines governing the various development projects being submitted to the City for approval. • The Fire Department consolidate plan check and inspection duties and responsibilities and assign them to a single individual within the Fire Department's Fire Safety Division, to be augmented by additional staffing when needed. • The Fire Department's plan checker /inspector re- located adjacent to the Building and Safety Division's plan check staff on the first floor of City Hall. • The Fire Department develop detailed reporting forms identifying the number of inspections performed and corrective action taken for each of the inspections done, by site. • The Fire Department maintain a permanent record of each facility constructed in the City, including appropriate records regarding mechanical equipment systems. City of Rancho Cummonga 46 l8Z Plan Check Process The Fire Department is responsible for the enforcement of rules and regulations outlined in the Uniform Fire Code, as well as applicable provisions of the Uniform Building Code and the State Fire Marshal's Code. In achieving this mission, the Fire Department reviews all building plans, except Single Family Residential, and conducts on -site inspection of new construction in matters including, but not limited to, fire flow; fire extinguishers, sprinklers, hydrants, alarms, access, and exiting; emergency lighting; public assemblage; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment; material finish; and special hazards. The Fire Department is mandated to conduct inspection of fire sprinkler and alarm systems for commercial and industrial properties and other facilities regulated by the State Fire Marshal. Our study noted that the Fire Department, as part of it overall fire prevention services, also conducts annual inspections of all commercial and industrial properties to ensure their on -going compliance with rules and regulations pertaining to fire alarms; exiting; fire extinguishers; sprinklers; access; public assemblage; emergency lighting; hazardous materials; and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning equipment. It is important to note that the Fire Department's plan check and review process, includes both new construction and mechanical equipment permits. Those plan check and inspection duties, relative to new construction, are performed in conjunction with the Community Development Department's plan check and review process and are coordinated with the Planning, Public Works, Engineering, and Building and Safety Divisions of the Community Development Department. Those plan check and inspection duties and responsibilities relative to mechanical equipment may be done in conjunction with the above - mentioned building plan permit activities or may be limited to the installation of new equipment. These plans include commercial equipment and hazardous waste materials. While the plans submitted for commercial kitchens are not for design criteria, but are judged for life, safety, and protection of property items, the Fire District is involved in the process of reviewing the specifications and details as well as the operating devices including piping, testing nozzles, activation, and exhaust systems, and certifying their use. Fees are imposed for this service and revenue collected. In each instance, plans are submitted directly to the Fire Department for review and approval. As discussed in the previous chapter, over the last five years, the number of applications submitted to the Community Development Department, and routed to the Fire Department for plan check, review, and approval, has declined 37%. As shown in Figure 8 below, during this same period of time, the nature and type of construction seeking permit has changed dramatically. City of Rancho Cucamonga (S3 47 10 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 Praj IN Building ❑ Crading MI Sprinkler• • ASA Fsemote '•Taal. lndade A Plain Submiead Figure 8 Plan Check Workload 1987 through 1991 The number of applications designated "tenant improvements,' which includes backyard patios, room additions, etc., now account for 50% of the plans being submitted to the Community Development Department. Based on this current workload, our analysis indicates it is currently taking 12 calendar days from day of submittal for the Fire Department's plan check services to review the plans and return them to the Building and Safety Division. This is a timely and acceptable service level. However, our review also noted that 62% of the plans submitted for review required at least one additional re- submittal, many involving Fire Department request for plan modification. For those plans requiring re- submittal for corrections, our analysis indicates an additional 12 days are required for the plan check turn- around from the date of re- submittal. The high number of applicants requiring re- submittal and the extended delays associated therewith is not a desirable service level and the causative factors surrounding this needs to be reviewed. Based on our review of documents returned, as well as comments received from our survey of customers indicate the reduction in the number of re- submittals could be addressed by developing information items to be given to the applicants that outline the specific Fire Department rules and regulations governing their project. Currently, the Fire Department has one staff member assigned full time to perform all plan check duties and responsibilities. Our study noted that all plans, with the notable exception of Single Family Residential Development, are currently being sent to the Fire Department for review and approval. Based on the above - mentioned workload, which would include mechanical equipment permits as described above, the Fire Department plan checker appears to be reviewing approximately 3 plans a day, which includes those plans that could have been processed over - the - counter had the Fire Department participated in the over -the- counter approval process. This low level of plan check production indicates significant opportunities exist for this position to assume additional work City of Rancho Cucamonga /Ate 48 assignments. This was confirmed in our interviews with both employees and customers who noted significant frustration with the efficiency of the Fire Department's current plan check process. The recent relocation of the Fire Department's plan check staff in City Hall has enhanced the communication between the Community Development Department and the Fire Department. However, our analysis indicates opportunities continue to exist to enhance both the efficiency and the effectiveness of this important function. Recommendations 27. V1- 91== .. . , During our interviews, it was noted that various conflicts between editions of the various codes (UFC, UBC) and the City's failure to adopt the most recent edition of the Uniform Fire Code are major sources of disagreement among the staff and ultimately impede the efficiency and effectiveness of the plan check and inspection processes. The cited conflicts between the various editions of the two codes governing construction and maintenance of the City's structures are not significant and, given the proper attention by City staff, can be solved to everyone's satisfaction. The most recent editions of both codes should be included and complied with as part of the City's development standards that are reviewed during the design phase of projects. Once the Uniform Fire Code has been adopted, and any issues of disagreement between the UBC and UFC have been resolved by staff, it appears additional opportunities exist to enhance the efficiency of the plan check process and the customer service provided for walk - through applicants. As discussed in Section 2, the Building and Safety Division is currently doing an excellent job of screening applicants and determining those that can receive over the counter approval. Based on the current nature of the applicants being submitted for review and approval, which tend to be tenant improvements, approximately 50% of those are eligible for over -the- counter approval. In addition, the City is fortunate to have staff within the Building & Safety Division that have specific training and experience in reviewing plans requiring Fire Protection systems. We recommend that Fire Department assign the discretionary authority and responsibility for approval of the Fire Department's plans City of Rancho Cucamonga r 1b 5- 49 designated to be walk - throughs for compliance with those provisions of the Uniform Fire Code. The transfer of those duties and responsibilities to the Building and Safety Division can be assumed by existing staff without any compromise of the quality of the plan check process pertaining to the Fire Department. Moreover, the streamlining of the plan check process will reduce the Fire Department's plan check workload and enable the applicant to receive over- the - counter approval for all necessary reviews, thereby significantly enhancing the timeliness of the service provided to the customer. Those applications for facilities governed by the State Fire Marshal or dealing with hazardous materials would continue to be required to be taken in and reviewed by the Fire Department staff. During our review, we noted that all plans, with the notable exception of Single Family Residences, are being routed to the Fire Department for review and comment. Although not required, this inclusionary practice provides added checks and balances in the plan check system and should be continued with some modifications. Availability of Public Information Unlike the video and other handouts that are available to potential applicants through the Community Development Department, there is very limited public information regarding the rules and regulations pertaining to the Fire Department's requirement in the Development process. Often, the unsophisticated builder is unaware of any additional requirements, let alone the existence of the Uniform Fire and Fire Marshal's Codes, and does not take such requirements into account when preparing plans. Thus, a significant number of plans submitted for Fire Department review and approval require revisions that could possibly have been avoided with improved communications. Recommendation: 28. The Fire Department Should Develop Public Information Materials The Fire Department plays an important and integral role in the City's Development Review process. Our review noted additional attention and effort is required to develop the public information and material provided to applicants with respect to their understanding and meeting the Fire Department's requirements pertaining to new construction. The Fire Department's turn- around time for its component of plan checks submitted to Building and Safety Division is twelve days, which is an acceptable service level. However, 62% of the plans submitted to the Building and Safety Division and City of Rancho Cucamonga f8(� 50 requiring Fire Department review and approval require revisions and a re- submittal. Twelve additional days are required once those plans are re- submitted for approval by the Fire Department. The high proportion of plans requiring re- submittal, plus the extended turn- around time associated therewith, is not a desirable service level and needs to be addressed. We believe much of this can be accomplished with improved informational material so that applicants understand the requirements. The Fire Department should develop, in conjunction with the City's Community Development Department, informational brochures outlining the various rules and regulations governing both plan check and field inspection for various projects. This information would be included with the City's other Development Review materials and reviewed with the applicant during the exit interview discussed in Recommendation #7 A separate set of materials should be developed for the mechanical equipment review and approval process and the on -going occupancy inspections. The implementation of this recommendation could be accomplished with the City's existing staff resources. Applications, Record Keeping, and Work Forms The Fire Department currently maintains a log that identifies the date plans are received and returned to the Building and Safety Division. The Department's plan check function currently does not record the time spent reviewing each plan, the type of plan and /or the number and reasons for re- submittals. The absence of this data significantly impairs management's ability to assess both the efficiency and effectiveness of its plan check function. For the purposes of our study, we relied upon the Building and Safety Division's data to assess the Fire Department's plan check function and made appropriate adjustments in identifying the Department's workload. The Department maintains a separate application form and file for all mechanical equipment plans submitted for review and approval. The case numbers and files assigned to these applications are unique to the Fire Department and are not cross - referenced with the Building and Safety Division's permit number or address. The lack of an integrated file impedes both the Fire Department and Community Development Department in providing a comprehensive and well - coordinated case management of this structure. Finally, the Department's construction inspection function maintains records regarding requests for inspection and the assigned staff member. No records are kept regarding the permit number, number of inspections performed at the site, or corrective action required. Moreover, there is no integration of the Department's City of Rancho Caumonga (s 51 `j fire inspection records with the Community Development Department's records to ensure internal control and checks and balances in the plan check and inspection system. Recommendations . • . wg • , • • _ .� .. • Vff . n • . i In conjunction with the Community Development Department, the Fire Department should develop a case tracking system that enables the Department to cross reference applications with other permits issued and record all activities performed by staff in plan check and inspecting the applicant's project. The data contained in this system should be made available to and used in the performance of the Department's occupancy inspection program. Until such time as the automated information system discussed above can be implemented, the Fire Department should record on manual records the time spent by staff on plan check and inspection duties. Those records should record the permit number, and, where appropriate, cross reference the site to Building and Safety Division permit numbers. The record should also include the address, time spent by activity, date, type of activity, and any comments. The collection of this data will enable the Department's management to better assess the efficiency and effectiveness of these two functions. Moreover, this information will provide the Department with information to assess the adequacy of the current fees charged to cover the costs for providing these needed services. Related Issues — Inspection Currently, the Fire Department performs on -site inspection of new construction for commercial and industrial alarm and fire sprinkler systems in the City and for those Fire Marshal regulated buildings, and hazardous materials. As discussed above, up until May 1990, the Fire Department did not keep records regarding the number of inspections performed or time spent performing inspections. However, during the last eighteen months, a manual reporting system was instituted that records the request for inspections and the inspector assigned. However, no records exist regarding the number and type of inspections performed by Fire Department staff. Our analysis of the available manual records indicates that Fire Safety Inspectors are performing an average of 4 inspections per day. The time spent by the inspector varies based on the complexity of the job. However, based on our analysis of the City of R ndm Cucamonga (g® 52 permits issued and previously described, the number and size of commercial and industrial construction sites are significantly below the levels of three years ago. Recommendations 31. n'1 t' • 1 1 1 .. 1 1' v 1! 1 1 1 1 itlr'�rV 1• There is currently not a sufficient workload to keep two Fire Department employees, a plan checker and an inspector, efficient and effective each day. Moreover, with the implementation of Recommendation #27 regarding the transfer of plan check duties for over - the - counter approvals will further reduce the Department's plan checker's workload. Given the unique training and qualifications, duties, and responsibilities of the Fire Department's plan checker, we recommend the Department transfer the inspection duties and responsibilities to that individual, thereby centralizing responsibility and accountability for the Fire Department's role and responsibilities for new construction. The centralization of authority and responsibility and the designation of a single individual to execute this function will eliminate the possible confusion that currently exists within the Fire Department regarding the interpretation and application of various rules and regulations governing specific projects and misunderstandings regarding the ultimate accountability and responsibility for the compliance with the Fire Department's rules and regulations. For those projects, specifically commercial and industrial projects, that by size or by technical complexity require additional staff, the Fire Department would provide supplemental manpower to assist in those efforts and /or when additional workload materializes. The recent relocation of the Fire Department's Fire Safety Division to City Hall has significantly enhanced the communication between the various Divisions within the Community Development Department's Development Review process and the Fire Department's Fire Safety Division. However, they are still physically separated, which continues to impede both communication and, more important, customer service. Additional opportunities exist relative to enhancing both the utilization and the training, skills, and experience of the Fire Department's plan check professional and the Building and Safety Division's plan check staff. We recommend that City o f Rancho Curamanga 1 8 n 53 the Fire Department's plan checker /inspector be physically relocated to the Building and Safety Division and be co-located with that Division's plan checkers and inspectors. The co-location of these professionals will further enhance much needed communication between the three disciplines, provide opportunity for cross training and utilization of staff, and the unique skills and expertise associated therewith, and ensure a full integration of the Fire Department in the City's overall development and inspection process. It is important to note that the Fire Department's plan checker /inspector will continue to be assigned to and receive direct supervision from Fire Department, Occupancy Inspection The Fire District has a mandated responsibility to perform annual inspections of commercial and industrial buildings and public assembly facilities in the City to ensure compliance with the Uniform Fire Code. These inspections are mandated to be performed on an annual basis or prior to the issuance of a business license in the community. This is an essential element, and, in our opinion, the most important of the Department's pro-active Fire Prevention efforts. When the Fire Inspectors are not performing arson investigations or new construction inspections, they are expected to be conducting field occupancy inspections. In 1983, the Department initiated a self- inspection program for certain types of businesses and /or facilities in the community. That program, now fully implemented, has achieved the limited objectives set forth in the self- inspection program. However, in recent years, the proliferation in the number of businesses, industrial, and commercial facilities, and public assembly facilities has placed a significant challenge to the Department and its ability to meet its mandated and desired levels of pro-active occupancy inspection with existing resources. City of Rancho Cucamonga 14 54 0 Recommendation The cornerstone of the City's Fire Prevention Program is an aggressive and well- organized and efficient on -going Fire Inspection program. The reorganization of the plan check and fire inspection program and the implementation of an integrated case tracking system as recommended above will provide an opportunity for the Department to re- evaluate the overall organization structure of the Fire Safety Division and specifically those services and programs related to the on -going occupancy inspection services. Although outside the scope of the study, there appears to be a need to evaluate possible consolidation of the engine company inspections with those inspections currently performed by the five inspection services and specifically consolidating the self- inspection and public assembly inspection. The consolidation of inspection functions also has benefits for the business liaison and code enforcement duties and responsibilities. City o f Rancho C u c a m o n g a I Q I 55 6. BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION The Building and Safety Division, as a unit of the Community Development Department, is responsible for examining building, electrical, fire sprinkler, and grading plans, issuing building and other permits, and for performing follow -up inspections to ensure that structures built within the city limits of Rancho Cucamonga are built in accordance with local, state, and national standards for construction as spelled out in the City, State, and National Uniform Codes. The Division's responsibilities include, but are not limned to, the following functions: • Conducting thorough plan check reviews on all plans submitted to the Division; • Providing corrections to plans to bring projects into compliance with the City's Building Regulations; • Issuance of building, mechanical, plumbing, electrical, grading, and fire sprinkler permits and monitoring the status of those permits; • Performing inspections on all projects to ensure projects are built according to approved plans; • Monitoring and reporting of construction activity within the City on a monthly and annual basis; • Recording and storage of final permits for public inspection. The Division also assists in the preparation, monitoring, and review of projects in the Development/ Design Review process prior to the approval of the Planning Commission. In this regard, the role of the Division is to give input to the Planning Commission and subsidiary committees, as well as the project applicant, as to any possible problems that may arise during the planning or construction phases of the project as they relate to structural safety and the other ancillary codes cited earlier. The Division's pro-active role in the planning stages serves to expedite the entire Development Review process by informing applicants during the initial stage what will be required of them in the construction phase of their project. Summary of Findings and Recommendations The stated objectives of the Building and Safety Division's personnel were threefold: • To protect the public health, safety, and welfare through the enforcement of building codes. City of Rancho Cucamonga )9t- 56 • To oversee the safe construction and maintenance of building structures. To process plans and permits in the most accurate and timely manner possible. The staff's ability to provide these services in an efficient and effective manner at any given time will depend on the level of building activity within the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Division's resources available to manage that workload. As part of our review of the Division, we examined workload with respect to the number and type of plan checks submitted; the number, type, and valuation of permits issued as a measure of their complexity; and the number of inspections performed by inspectors on permitted building projects. During the course of our study, we identified a number of issues that were and are obstacles to efficiency and effectiveness within the Building and Safety Division. The findings and recommendations discussed below are divided into three general sub - topics for review purposes. The recommendations address Building and Safety Divisional Issues, then proceed to specific Building and Safety Plan Check and Permitting Issues, and finally address specific Building and Safety Inspection Issues. Within each of the three sub - topics we examined the Building and Safety operational components with regard to efficiency and effectiveness issues which included, but were not limited to, the following: • Organization • Hierarchical Reporting Relationships and Staffing • Related Issues • Turn - around Time - Plan Check • Contract Services - Plan Check • Applications and Record Keeping - Plan Check • Training - Plan Check • Service Levels and Staffing - Inspection • Workload Distribution - Inspection • Supervision - Inspection • Training - Inspection A number of recommendations that follow will enhance the Building and Safety Divisions' efficiency and effectiveness. Specifically, the Department can achieve this by implementing the following: Building and Safety Divisional Issues • Re- organize Building and Safety into two functional areas. Combine position of Plan Check Coordinator and Principal Plans Examiner. City of Rancho Cucamonga 193 57 • Re- classify and fill vacant Deputy Building Official Position as Deputy Building Official/ Chief Building Inspector. • Maintain current staffing levels and maintain currently unfunded or unfilled positions as such until significant increases in construction activity warrants increasing existing staff. • Make Administrative Secretary responsible for assignment of workload and yearly review of clerical staff. • Community Development Department should review and revise flex schedule policy. Building and Safety Plan Check and Permitting Issues • Community Development Department should consider adopting formal time estimates for target turn - around time for plan checks. • Develop and adopt standardized plan check corrections lists where appropriate. • Assign plan checks to specific plans examiners throughout plan check life of project. • Issue Request for Qualifications for contract plan check services. • Establish centralized data reporting process that categorizes plan checks by type and size and tracks plan progress. • Plan Check Public Service Technicians should assign all plan check and permit numbers. • Clerical support staff should be responsible for monitoring other Divisions' turn- around time for plan check. • Develop and implement thorough training program for plan check staff and encourage multi - discipline cross training. City of Rancho Cuwmonga 19`1 58 Building and Safety Inspection Issues Refine and adopt standard inspection workload estimates and staff accordingly. • Develop standardized inspection procedures for all inspectors. • Re- assign an existing Building Inspector to train to become the Plumbing and Mechanical Specialist. • Review current practice of districting for inspection zones and refine those zones based or, workload distribution. • Building Inspection Supervisors should assume greater field work responsibilities and increase on -site supervision of Building Inspectors. • Develop and Implement thorough training program for inspection staff and encourage multi - discipline cross training. Building and Safety Divisional Issues Organization The Building and Safety Division is currently assigned 35 positions under the direction of the Building Official and then grouped into two functional areas, Plan Check and Building Inspection. The Administrative Secretary serves as the supervisor of the clerical staff and, although grouped under the plan check functional area of the organizational chart, the clerical pool serves the entire Division. Under the direction of the Plan Check Coordinator, the Senior and Principal Plans Examiners, and the Plans Examiners for building, grading, and fire protection are responsible for performing plan check activities on plans that are taken into the Division. Meanwhile, the Counter Plans Examiner and the Public Service Technicians are located at the public counter in City Hall to field questions from the public, accept plan check and permit applications, apply fees, and provide plan check services for simple projects that can be approved over the counter without a formal plan check and review. During the past five years, the Division has also contracted with the private consulting firm of Robert Sullivan and Associates for plan check services. Contracting out for plan check was necessitated by occasional overflow of plan check workload and a vacancy in the Principal Plans Examiner (Structural) position over the years, which led to a lack of "in- house" structural expertise. Contract building inspection services have also been frequently utilized (up to three FTE) during periods of heavy building activity. City of Rancho Cucamonga t 95' 59 The two Building Inspection Supervisors manage the Building Inspection function. Each Supervisor currently oversees the work of six inspectors (including the electrical specialist, who is also responsible for the plan check of electrical plans). The Building Inspectors are responsible for visiting the building site to inspect projects in progress and to provide for periodic sign -off (or approval) at different stages of project construction including final approval, and to provide correction notices, when necessary, to applicants when a variance exists between the approved plans and the actual construction. The Rehabilitation Specialist specifically deals with any building abatement actions or review and repair of any structures that may be historical City landmarks, as well as being involved in City housing programs funded by the City's Redevelopment Agency. Due to on -going vacancies in key positions during the past three years, responsibilities for managerial functions were often shared by numerous individuals, which, in turn, limited those individuals' ability to deal promptly and efficiently with the responsibilities of their specific jobs. Furthermore, vacancies led to confusion regarding proper reporting hierarchy and the functional chain of command. Recommendations :mtr• , • . , •f.�rai'�7irmr•�:rst � •�mt�tr^r :�r:�r+ In order to eliminate further confusion and to streamline the functional reporting responsibilities of the Division, we recommend that the Building and Safety Division be re- organized. As illustrated in Figure 9 below, the Division should re- organize to formally recognize its two primary functions of plan check and inspections. A single supervisor managing each of the Division's two functions and reporting directly to the Building Official will create a clear hierarchical reporting relationship within the Division. The newly merged position of Plan Check Coordinator and Principal Plans Examiner - Structural will report directly to the Building Official and will be responsible for the efficient and effective processing of plans and the monitoring and tracking of the performance of that unit (as well as being a working plan checker). Simultaneously, the newly re- classified position of Deputy Building Official /Chief Building Inspector (Deputy Building Official position is currently authorized but unfilled) will assume all reporting responsibility for the inspection function, manage workload distribution, coordinate inspector training, and enable the two Building Inspection Supervisors to perform in a greater capacity as working supervisors training staff and performing quality assurance checks on field inspections. Under the new organization chart, the clerical staff City of Rancho Cucamonga jg4o 60 under the direction of the Administrative Secretary will report directly to and take directions from the Building Official to eliminate existing problems of conflicting instructions from different supervisors. r — — — — — — — — e.9a• "rae� Mm4va.u.. a.P,p auJdq Om ��' cl.idBm "Wbtim. PMLI.d GranMl 9p.+J4a A.Pm, Ea�itirv9weW Ol 35. M Figure 9 Building and Safety Division Recommended Organization Chart During the study, it was revealed that the existing vacancy in the Principal Structural Plans Examiner position had created a lack of "in- house" structural expertise and necessitated contracting out for plan check services for structural plan check. At present, the volume of plan checks is not sufficient to generate the need for contract services in and of itself. As is discussed under the Building and Safety Plan Check and Permitting Issues below, the timeliness of the plan check process as related to plan checker turn-around time created a backlog of work and necessitated contract assistance and the lack of "in- house" structural expertise made contracting out unavoidable. The need for a Principal Structural Plans Examiner still exists today for a number of reasons. From a control perspective, the City would be better served to place responsibility for oversight of structural plans with a City employee who is expert in that particular knowledge of the Building Code as it applies specifically to Rancho Cucamonga. Our interviews revealed that work sent out to the consultant was often re- checked upon return from the consultant, City of Rancho Cucamonga ' 9 i 61 36. which created a duplication of effort and an inefficient use of resources. Furthermore, the Principal Structural Plans Examiner would also be in a position to train and mentor less experienced plans examiners in their career development. The nature and type of plan check workload, as cited in Table 5 later in this section, indicates that the profile of the current workload would not in and of itself create a need for a Principal Structural Plans Examiner. However, with the need to fill the vacancy in that position, we recommend that the Division combine the position of Principal Structural Plans Examiner and the Plan Check Coordinator into one unified position with supervisory responsibility over the plan check function. We do not feel that the current or past plan check workload volume justifies the need for a non - working (in terms of plans examining) Plan Check Coordinator. The Division, in creating this newly merged position, should seek to fill this position with an engineer possessing the required knowledge and experience to perform these duties. At present, the 'inspection function is managed by two Building Inspection Supervisors who each supervise roughly half of the inspection staff (roughly six FTE) based on the geographic division of the City into North and South with multiple districts in each. A review of employee questionnaires, in addition to personal interviews revealed that many employees felt that this organization created a number of problems among the inspection staff. The major problems cited included: differing approaches to building inspection on the part of the two supervisors; the development of rival groups of inspectors dependent upon their approach; an uneven distribution of workload due to the geographic breakdown of the inspection districts. Furthermore, our interviews revealed that Supervisors were unable to allocate adequate time to actual field observations of staff inspectors, at times only observing their inspectors once in every S weeks due to the constraints of reporting responsibilities, assistance in field inspection during peak activity periods, and other duties. We recommend that the Department re- classify the currently vacant position of Deputy Building Official as Deputy Building Official /Chief Building Inspector and fill that position. That individual would assume all reporting responsibility for the inspection function, City of Rancho Curnmonga 'Q8 62 manage workload distribution, coordinate inspector training, and enable the two Building Inspection Supervisors to perform in a greater capacity as working supervisors. The creation of this position would serve to eliminate many of the problems cited above and also serve to formally create a single supervisor over each of the Division's two functions. More important, the creation of the new Supervisory position will enable the two supervisors to spend the majority of their time in the field training staff, enhancing productivity and ensuring the quality of field work. The improved field supervision should improve employee morale and enhance the City's monitoring of contractor compliance and quality development. Furthermore, the newly re- classified and filled position would provide needed support in the administrative and policy areas to the Building Official that have previously been provided by the Plan Check Coordinator in the absence of a Deputy Building Official. Hierarchical Reporting Relationships and Staffing During the course of our study it became apparent that while reporting relationships within the Division were outlined on paper, they were unclear in practice and led to confusion regarding setting priorities and individual job responsibilities. Meanwhile, vacancies in key positions during the past three years have led to a lack of in -house expertise and caused the Division to contract for plan check and inspection. These vacancies also led to a Divisional attitude that improving efficiency and effectiveness was beyond their control until those vacancies were filled. Recommendations YFTi:IT7tiSR]F'Nnw ITS Ui7 WrIwI7R7?IF.Nona:lamPiT.i=1t6 1 PWRINVITMMUTWWWR.M. 1 1 1 1 '1l •1 1 Y' 1 During the course of our study, through interviews and the employee questionnaires, we were repeatedly told that the Division had been historically understaffed, particularly over the past three to five years. Through our analysis of workload and using generally accepted industry standards, we determined that according to manpower availability estimates of the Building and Safety management, the Division Plan Check function was understaffed in calendar years 1989 and 1990 to manage the workload. However, as illustrated in Exhibit 5 on the following page, we analyzed the Projected FTE Requirement for Plan Check using two different manpower availability figures. As illustrated above, using 1,360 hours per FfE as suggested by Building and Safety management (65% utilization of the standard 2,080 hour City of Rancho Cucamonga (41 63 staffyear) the Plan Check function was understaffed. Our experience in similar studies has shown that 100 hours per FTE is typically the target utilization for personnel (86% utilization of the standard 2,080 hour staffyear). As shown in Exhibit 5, using 1,800 hours as a baseline availability, the Division's Plan Check function was adequately staffed to manage the workload over the past three years through the utilization of contract plan check services. From our analysis, it is apparent that the adequacy or inadequacy of staffing levels for the Plan Check function is a matter of maximizing the availability of the staff available to do direct plan check work. it would also appear that an examination of Exhibit 5 reveals that the workload in Grading and Fire Sprinkler plans would indicate that the personnel assigned to those functions are underutilized. However, the Principal Plans Examiner- Grading has significant additional responsibilities in Conceptual Grading Plan Review as part of the Development /Design Review Process in coordination with the Planning and Engineering Divisions. The Senior Plans Examiner- Fire Protection also has additional responsibilities which include coordinating sprinkler plans with the Fire Safety Division and providing support with their plan check activities. Changes cited earlier in the Fire Safety Division section of this report regarding the coordination of plan check activities between the two Divisions serve to increase the efficiency of plan check personnel utilization overall. The examination of the workload for the inspection function, as will be discussed later under Building and Safety Inspection Issues, indicates that the Division was understaffed during calendar years 1987, 1988 and 1989. The overflow of work was handled in part by the utilization of up to 3 FI'E contract inspectors but even with that additional manpower uneven workloads between inspectors may have created a situation where certain inspectors were carrying too heavy a workload. During the past three years, the existence of vacant positions, either funded or unfunded has led to a commonly expressed opinion (by staff) that no one is sure of who is responsible for what, and what the proper reporting relationships are within the Division. This confusion and disenchantment was based in part on the belief that the Division was severely understaffed. As cited earlier, and as discussed in further detail in the recommendations that follow, we feel that the Division had and now has adequate personnel resources to manage the current workload and, in fact, to manage sizable increases in volume should they occur in the future, We concur with the City's policy that the Division leave vacant all unfilled and /or unfunded positions including the following positions: one City of Rancho Cucamonga Zop 64 Exhibit 6 City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Division Summary of Plan Check Workload and Requirement Atmlysis•AR Typos Plan Cheoh. Raurb, Repulnneewb liu"m 7yPP CA.d T.nmtb.p .m..t.44hnJ Si.pl. Fundy (8 hn) D.ctriol (4 M.) B fldiop ABTypa(19M.) M01d F.fly (16 fed 8... Additive i Alt.ruko. 44 hm) Mi.a11.wm.(6 It..) S.bT.W (Soddivg PI.. Check) ar.diag Mum (8 ins) Fk. Sumkhr plum (4 hn.) C.Imdv Glands C.lead.r 1,810 1,968 1,479 2,1N 827 NO 692 676 467 1,160 1,006 769 189 62 160 78 91 87 988 190 420 6,7M 6,122 9,Td7 1$80 610 440 907 1,207 826 Tabl World . 8,921 6,880 4,806 Prq/.efed Ra,s" cntl• 4.96 7.80 267 Pfgjee P777 RNml.rmc v ddb 6.03 2.62 Sf.AAmi/.kb Pima E.wmcv f2 at 70% aru1.) 1.40 to 1.40 ©.deic iSp..Ii.W 0.89 0.26 0.22 CmaWl.ml -R SWlieum7• 048 Od4 0.20 C.w plum C'hcbr lat 701 .odj Od0 01" 0.70 Sr. M. Rosakwr O.dba(.t 701) 0.70 070 0.70 (h.diag Spisl4t(a 701) 0.70 0.70 0.70 Br. Mum Eaa skar8 PM.rtim3• 0.62 0.68 0.00 ToW SIURA,.H.M. 4.74 4d0 742 Nobs 1• .S.Wm1800.m0.bl.m.n haar(9080hw.bc..utka; hdid.y., rick Om., ate.l 7• .e...am L760..ahW. sem hwNR080 hsmsl.p r.ratim, hdid.T, .irk th..• dadfpbd to am ,p tk plan deck maem.ihWtb) . r .Bu.dm.nulackl.adfaH.elrbl Bp.tldbt.od Pfp Penbdlmga.mlmc,.md m.WMmt'4 ucaW bWubb boun. Zol (1) Senior Plans Examiner - Building (to be merged with Plan Check Coordinator), one (1) Plans Examiner, one (1) Building Inspector (to reclassify and fill the Plumbing/ Mechanical Specialist position), one (1) Structural Inspection Specialist, and one Office Specialist/Receptionist. 39. During the course of our study it was revealed that the Division's clerical staff was receiving conflicting instructions regarding the priority of Division work from multiple supervisors as well as the Building Official. It was further revealed that the Administrative Secretary has not been given the opportunity to fully supervise and review her staff's performance due to a lack of clarity regarding hierarchical reporting responsibilities. Under the new organization chart, the clerical staff under the direction of the Administrative Secretary will report directly to and take directions directly from the Building Official. This should eliminate existing problems of conflicting instructions from different supervisors to the clerical staff. The priority of work for the clerical staff will be arranged by the Administrative Secretary in coordination with the Building Official. Furthermore, the Administrative Secretary will be responsible for conducting yearly reviews of the clerical staff. A review of staffing in the Divisions of the Community Development Department revealed that the Building and Safety Division is the only Division that currently does not have a receptionist. This vacancy (actually an unfunded position at present) has been the source of continual problems for the Division's clerical staff. When contractual help was curtailed and the Receptionist position was "frozen ", the telephone system was modified to individually channel incoming calls to the three Office Specialist. The lack of a receptionist to channel calls creates constant interruptions of the clerical staff in answering phones, which is further exacerbated by the fact that callers are often frustrated in their attempts to speak with a "live" person. Furthermore, the lack of a City of Rancho Cucamonga Z62 65 ' S I VA r-3 1 1 1' Tom, M. 39. During the course of our study it was revealed that the Division's clerical staff was receiving conflicting instructions regarding the priority of Division work from multiple supervisors as well as the Building Official. It was further revealed that the Administrative Secretary has not been given the opportunity to fully supervise and review her staff's performance due to a lack of clarity regarding hierarchical reporting responsibilities. Under the new organization chart, the clerical staff under the direction of the Administrative Secretary will report directly to and take directions directly from the Building Official. This should eliminate existing problems of conflicting instructions from different supervisors to the clerical staff. The priority of work for the clerical staff will be arranged by the Administrative Secretary in coordination with the Building Official. Furthermore, the Administrative Secretary will be responsible for conducting yearly reviews of the clerical staff. A review of staffing in the Divisions of the Community Development Department revealed that the Building and Safety Division is the only Division that currently does not have a receptionist. This vacancy (actually an unfunded position at present) has been the source of continual problems for the Division's clerical staff. When contractual help was curtailed and the Receptionist position was "frozen ", the telephone system was modified to individually channel incoming calls to the three Office Specialist. The lack of a receptionist to channel calls creates constant interruptions of the clerical staff in answering phones, which is further exacerbated by the fact that callers are often frustrated in their attempts to speak with a "live" person. Furthermore, the lack of a City of Rancho Cucamonga Z62 65 Receptionist, when combined with flexible schedules, absences, sickness, etc., has led to a situation where only a single line remains accessible at times for those callers wishing to speak to a real person. While the phone mail system is an efficient technology tool and is invaluable in inspection requests, it will not eliminate the need for personal service to phone customers. While we do feel that the Building and Safety Division is in need of the services of a receptionist, we recommend that the interest of the Community Development Department would best be served by combining the receptionist duties of the Engineering, Planning, and Building and Safety Divisions into one Community Development Department Receptionist position. The combination of the receptionist position is particularly economical in light of the fact that current workload volumes in all Divisions do not merit a single receptionist in each Division. However, Building and Safety, as the control Division for the Plan Check and Permitting process, is the busiest Division in terms of public questions and contact and is in need of the duties of a receptionist. If construction activity were to significantly increase, then we recommend that the filling of a Building and Safety Receptionist position once again be examined. Related Issues Recommendation During the last two years, many jurisdictions, in response to AQMD regulations, implemented flex schedules. Now that it has been implemented and they are experiencing its full impact, many organizations are re -evaluating their current approach and making modifications. Rancho Cucamonga is not unique. A summary of employee questionnaire responses from the Building and Safety Division revealed wide- spread employee support for flex scheduling. However, comments from the questionnaires and personal interviews also revealed that flex scheduling created frequent difficulties in a number of areas including inadequate clerical support due to lack of staff on a frequent basis, delays in the processing of plans through plan check in a timely manner, and periods during the work day when supervisors were not available to provide the necessary supervision and quality control of subordinates and employees were not available to meet the unpredictable demands for service inherent in this service function. City of Rancho Cucamonga Loa 66 We recommend that the Community Development Department, in conjunction with the City's Personnel Department, examine the possibility of standardizing flex policy among all Divisional and Department employees to eliminate inefficiencies created by multiple flex scheduling options available throughout the Department. There are a number of options available, including 4/10, 9/80, etc. Moreover, the flex schedule should be tailored to meet the unique needs of each work unit, i.e., field inspection vs. office administrative support. Building and Safety Plan Check Issues Our analysis of the Building and Safety Plan Check function revealed that significant opportunities exist to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of current operations. Since 1989, the volume of plan check workload has declined substantially. As was discussed in Section 3, the City's turn- around time for the plan check process has improved over the past three years but indications are that this improvement has been the result of a decrease in the workload volume and the change in the nature and complexity of plans submitted for review. Table 4 below illustrates the changing workload for the plan checking staff over the past five years. As noted, the plan check workload hit a peak in calendar 1989 and has declined steadily since that time. During that period, the Division had roughly equivalent to 6.9 budgeted FTE positions in -house to manage that workload including the Plan Check Coordinator, the Principal Plans Examiner- Grading, the Senior Plans Examiner -Fire Protection (0.70), two Plans Examiners, the Counter Plans Examiner, the Grading Plans Examiner (70% split with inspection duties), and the Electrical Specialist (0.50 -split with inspection duties). Robert Sullivan and Associates also provided plan check services during that time period on a contract bass. Plan Check Purl, 7Ype 1987 1988 1999 1990 1991 Building 341 575 819 749 568 Grading 101 82 126 51 44 Fire Sprinkler- ti na 164 171 89 Total-- 442 627 11109 971 701 • ASA Eamate "Tomb Include A9 Plans Submitted Table 4 Plan Check Workload 1987 through 1991 The effort required in terms of time of a plan checker to process building plans varies according to the type of plan. In 1989, a substantial percentage of building City of Rancho Cucamonga -Z o 67 plans were Single Family Dwellings and new Buildings (both commercial and industrial), which required significant plan checker time to review. It is significant to note that since 1989, as the total volume of plan checks was declining, the nature (type) of those plans was also changing from the more complex, time consuming new structures, to more simple tenant improvements. Table 5 below illustrates the change in the composition of the building plan check workload over the past three years. Percentage Percentage of All Plans of All Plans Type of Plan Check 1989• 1991' Tenant Improvement 51% 63% Single Family Dwelling 17% 4% Electrical 17% 16% Building (All Types) 6% 4% Multi - Family 1% 1% Miscellaneous 6% 10% Total 100% 100% ASA Estimate Table 5 Change in Building Plan Cheek Type 1989 through 1991 It is important to note in reviewing the number of plan checks processed that a significant number of those plan checks will be approved over the counter by the Colmter Plans Examiner and, therefore, will not require a more lengthy formal plan check. While estimates of the percentage of all plan checks that are approved over the counter vary within the Division, we estimate that of all tenant improvements submitted, approximately 50% are approved over the counter. Thus, the plan check work profile during the past three years is one of declining volume, decreasing complexity, with a large percentage screened (counter approved) from a more formal plan check. Based on this, we analyzed the plan check workload over the past three years and compared that with plan checker availability (plan checkers only). Our analysis included allowance for the frequency of one, two, and three re- checks on plans as discussed earlier in Section 3 of this report. As summarized in Exhibit 5 earlier and illustrated in Appendix A, we feel that (using the 1,800 hour standard) even during the high point of plan check activity in 1989, the City was adequately staffed to process the plan check workload (including fire sprinkler and grading plans). As cited earlier, we feel that the use of 1,360 hours per FCE staffyear is too low and brings into question the efficiency of the overall plan check function. Our analysis indicates that in calendar 1991, 2.67 FPE (using 1,800 hours) or 3.53 FIE (using 1,360 hours) would in either instance, be sufficient to process all plans City of Rancho Cucamonga Z -5— 68 including electrical, fire sprinkler, and grading plans. It is important to note that the recommended staffing level should be able to perform plan check services and meet the desired turn- around time discussed in Section 3. It is clearly apparent that our analysis suggests that there is the potential to greatly increase the efficiency, effectiveness, and service level of the plan check function without increasing current total staff and without significant assistance of contract plan check services, given the current level of construction activity. The shift in the volume and type of building plan check workload is also reflected in the decline in all types of permits issued by the Building and Safety Division. Table 6 below reflects the decline in all types of permits over the past five years. Permit Type 1985 _1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 Electrical 2.424 3,675 3,838 3,719 4,310 2,394 1,720 Plumbing 6,075 5,244 5,152 5,077 4,555 1,983 1,175 Mechanical 1,713 2,923 201 2,819 2,576 1,176 662 Grading 86 115 105 101 103 69 36 Yearly Totals 13,742 16,658 16,799 17,788 17,467 9,745 6,908 • ASA Estimate projected on actual through November 1991. Table 6 Permit Activity All Types 1989 through 1991 The total number of permits issued has substantially declined since 1989.. In addition, the change in plan check type over the past three years cited earlier is further reflected in the change in the types of building permits issued over the past seven years. In 1985, Single Family Dwelling permits accounted for approximately 54% of all building permits issued while Residential and Other Additions and Alterations accounted for 27% of the total. By 1991, the percentages for each of these categories had changed drastically to 2% and 72% respectively. The change in all categories of building permits issued is summarized in Exhibit 6. As a further measure of the changing nature of the workload within the Building and Safety Division's plan check function, we analyzed the average valuation of building permits over the past five years. As illustrated in Table 7 below, the average valuation per permit has declined steadily since 1986. The current average of $22,341 represents a decline of 72% when compared with the average for 1986. It should be noted that the average value in 1989 is distorted by the inclusion of a single permit (Etiwanda Detention Center) valued at approximately $81 million, without which the average value falls back to $58,148. While we do not believe that valuation is the best way to measure workload, when used in conjunction with other data, it is an accurate indication of the type and complexity of the average permit. City of Rancho Cucamonga Z o cr 69 70.00% 60.00% 60.00% 40.00% 30.00% N 0 J 20.00% 10.00% 0.00% City of Rancho Cucamonga Exhibit 6 Community Development Department Building and Safety Division Permit Types as a Percentage of All Permits 1986 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 • �may Dw lhap 11 R.WWttW Addtku WW ! 9Us ONr 7b. Beadnp ■Other Addekw and Aaentim, d t ■AO BuBdip BuWaFinaJuails 6Aa Other Gtep f. ASA Estimate projected on actual through November 1991. Table 7 Average Valuation Per Building Permit 1985 through 1991 Turn - around Time — Plan Check As shown in Exhibit 7, the two plans examiners are averaging from 9 to 17 hours for a typical plan check based upon only 70°% availability of their time. This average time per plan check is particularly high when considering the current profile of plans processed by the plan check staff. Furthermore, the data would suggest that, when excluding over - the - counter plan checks (as well as grading, electrical, and fire sprinkler plans), as unit, the plan check staff processed only 270 actions on submitted plans including re- checks on the same plans. Recommendations 41. The_Sommunity Devolnnmont Tla.,as... o..a et _iA Many Community Development Departments throughout Southern California have developed and adopted target turn- around times for the plan check process for utilization as a management tool to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of their plan check operations. During the course of our study, we discovered that, in many instances, plan checks on individual projects of all types were requiring uncommonly long amounts of time to complete. While we acknowledge that each project will vary according to complexity and size and that not every project submitted will fit the time parameters, we do feel that it is appropriate to establish a target for turn-around time by type and size. We recommend that the Building and Safety Division, in conjunction with the Community Development Department, develop standards and establish targets as relates to what is a City of Rancho Cucamonga ,Lop 70 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991• Building Pertrdts 3,306 4,500 4,930 6,072 5,888 4,125 3,310 Total Valuaticn(000's) 207,578 351,453 310,958 347,956 423,925 175,415 73,946 Average Valuation $62,788 $78,101 $63,075 $57,305 $71,998 $42,525 $22,341 ASA Estimate projected on actual through November 1991. Table 7 Average Valuation Per Building Permit 1985 through 1991 Turn - around Time — Plan Check As shown in Exhibit 7, the two plans examiners are averaging from 9 to 17 hours for a typical plan check based upon only 70°% availability of their time. This average time per plan check is particularly high when considering the current profile of plans processed by the plan check staff. Furthermore, the data would suggest that, when excluding over - the - counter plan checks (as well as grading, electrical, and fire sprinkler plans), as unit, the plan check staff processed only 270 actions on submitted plans including re- checks on the same plans. Recommendations 41. The_Sommunity Devolnnmont Tla.,as... o..a et _iA Many Community Development Departments throughout Southern California have developed and adopted target turn- around times for the plan check process for utilization as a management tool to assess the efficiency and effectiveness of their plan check operations. During the course of our study, we discovered that, in many instances, plan checks on individual projects of all types were requiring uncommonly long amounts of time to complete. While we acknowledge that each project will vary according to complexity and size and that not every project submitted will fit the time parameters, we do feel that it is appropriate to establish a target for turn-around time by type and size. We recommend that the Building and Safety Division, in conjunction with the Community Development Department, develop standards and establish targets as relates to what is a City of Rancho Cucamonga ,Lop 70 Plan Checker Counter Plane Examiner ana Examiner ens Examiner ,au Check Coordinator N Exhibit 7 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department Building and Safety Division Plan Checker Activity Analysis January 1- November 90,1991 148 100% 49 100% 73 100% 270 190% 1.18 n.a. Notm:'1 Counter Plans Examiner is primarily the counter plans examiner, not assigned solely to plan check. a2 Plea Check Coordinator dose not utivelY Perform Plan check. a3 Avai ap Plan Checks Per Day is baaad'm 229 workdays from January through November of 1991. a4 An rW Hoorn Par Pan Cheek's based an an Show work day multiplied by 229 work days and multiplied by the % availeblty of the plan elaekws time for plan cheek. Average lloara Per Plan Check Percentage, Percentage Percentage Percentage Average Rased on First of All of All of All of All Plan Cheeks 70% Checks First Checks Re -Checks Re- Checks Write Ups Write Ups Total Total Checks Per Dny(•31 Availohilityf'4) 23 16% 30 20% 16 22% 49 7890 n.a. n.a. 16.87 44 30% 10 20% 22 30% 76 289 0.33 79 53% 29 59% 32 44% 140 52% 0.61 9.16 n 1% 0 0% 3 4% 5 2% ne. n.n. 148 100% 49 100% 73 100% 270 190% 1.18 n.a. Notm:'1 Counter Plans Examiner is primarily the counter plans examiner, not assigned solely to plan check. a2 Plea Check Coordinator dose not utivelY Perform Plan check. a3 Avai ap Plan Checks Per Day is baaad'm 229 workdays from January through November of 1991. a4 An rW Hoorn Par Pan Cheek's based an an Show work day multiplied by 229 work days and multiplied by the % availeblty of the plan elaekws time for plan cheek. reasonable expectation for turn- around for different types of projects (even if only for internal performance monitoring). Many cities and private firms that contract with cities to provide plan check services have adopted similar targets for plan check types as listed below and we recommend that the Division adopt these standards as guidelines and strive to achieve these targets: • Single Family Dwelling 610 hours • Commercial /Indushial Buildings 14 -18 hours • Multi- Family /Condominiums 14 -18 hours • Electrical 4 hours • Tenant Improvement (fo l) 24 hours • Tenant Improvement (counter) 1 hours • Mismllaneous 1-6 hours Table 8 Recommended Tum -wound Guidelines eA. r. ... ... .T- .t 4I,. During the course of our study, we examined the process for developing plan check corrections during the plan check process. We found that, depending on the project type and size as well as the different plans examiners, the number and complexity of corrections varied widely and was not standard among plans examiners. In order to streamline the plan check review process, we recommend that the Building and Safety Division develop and adopt a Standard Plan Check Corrections List (or lists depending on different types of plans) where appropriate that would serve to standardize correction comments for applicants and create less confusion as to the interpretation of specific corrections. We believe that this would gradually decrease the incidence of plan re- checks as the building community and plan checking staff come to a mutual understanding of the requirements enforced by the City when plans are submitted for plan check. City of Rancho cucamonga ZIb 71 r-MITIM 1 ' VI' 11 1' ,11 1711 11 11 1 (' 111.1 1 1 (' 1• (' At present, newly submitted plans are placed in a bin of recently received plans in order of submission date. Plans examiners, upon completion of their last plan review, will take the project from the bin that has been there the longest and proceed with their plan check. This system creates a number of problems due to the possible lack of an equitable distribution of workload unless that distribution is being closely monitored. We recommend that the Building and Safety Division adopt the practice, administered by the newly combined position of Senior Structural Plans Examiner /Plan Check Coordinator, of assigning plan checks as they are received to specific plans examiners and that the turn - around time of those plan checks be monitored and the Plans Examiner be held accountable for the timely review of those plans. Furthermore, when re -check of plans previously submitted is needed, the original plans examiners should whenever possible be assigned those re- checks, as they are readily familiar with the project and the attached corrections and therefore should be able to re -check plans in a more timely manner. Contract Services — Plan Check Recommendation 44. During the past five years, the Building and Safety Division has utilized the services of Robert Sullivan and Associates for plan check services and particularly for structural plan check as discussed earlier. This consulting arrangement has existed on an informal, non- contract basis and the consultant has billed the Division on an hourly basis. At no time was a competitive bid package developed to solicit competing bids from other firms. An analysis of the consultant's turn - around time for plan check revealed that on average the consultant was taking approximately one month to process plans. to comparison to industry averages, this is a lengthy turn- around time, particularly in light of the fact that the typical structural plan check is less complex in nature, as most new structures in Rancho City of Rancho Cucamonga In 72 Cucamonga are either single family dwellings or low -rise office buildings. We recommend that the Building and Safety Division promptly issue a request for qualifications from firms qualified to provide plan check services and evaluate responses based on the firm's ability to provide plan check services in an economical and timely manner. The Division should continue to utilize a consulting firm to process structural plan checks until the newly combined position of Senior Structural Plans Examiner /Plan Check Coordinator is appropriately filled. Consulting services should then only be employed when there is a clear overflow of work, which, as discussed earlier, is unlikely in the near future. A formal contract between the consultant and the City would also serve to decrease the City's liability in the event of unforeseen issues. Applications, Record Keeping— Plan Check Recommendations 45. As discussed repeatedly in this report, the Community Development Department is in need of a comprehensive central automation system that would serve to integrate record keeping functions and track projects through each of the Department's Divisions. In the meantime, with or without an enhanced Department automation system, the Building and Safety Division should establish a centralized, computer record keeping process that would summarize and create reports that would categorize plan check workload by type and size. This information was not readily available for analysis purposes during the course of our study and necessitated raw data collection. However, this is vital information for the Building Official to gauge the actual workload for the plan check staff. Plan check workload will in large part be determined by the type and size of plan checks submitted. As our earlier analysis illustrated, an examination of the type of plan checks submitted revealed that plan check staff had adequate manpower resources to handle the workload. The new record keeping system should also be developed to include a tracking mechanism to monitor the progress of plan checks to ensure timely turn- around. City of Rancho Cucamonga 21 2 73 46. At present, when an applicant submits a plan check or building permit application, the fee is paid to the Cashier in the Administrative Services Department, who assigns a number to the plan check or permit. The number assigned to either application is in numerical sequence starting with 0001 at the first of the new calendar year. As part of efforts to increase the efficiency of current record keeping and tracking of plans and permits within the Building and Safety Division, we recommend that these plan and permit numbers be assigned internally by the Public Service Technicians at the Building and Safety Division's public counter upon payment of the fee. The rationale for this change would be to directly record the acceptance of applications and their numbers for tracking immediately into a system of record keeping and to maintain internal control of numbering. ETrIFT Once the new plan check record keeping system is in place, it should then become the responsibility of the Building and Safety Division's Clerical staff to monitor the progress of plan checks through the plan check process. This would include monitoring and contacting other Divisions involved if lengthy delays develop in other Divisions which lengthen the process. The clerical staff should also update the record keeping system on a daily basis as the status of plan checks change. Training— Plan Check Recommendation 48. As we established earlier, plan check production on the part of plans examiners could be significantly improved and the plan check function service level provided by the Building and Safety Division City of Rancho Cucamonga 213 74 could be substantially enhanced in terms of timeliness and standardization of corrections. As part of an effort to improve the overall efficiency of the plan check process, we recommend that the head of the plan check function, the Senior Structural Plans Examiner /Plan Check Coordinator, in coordination with the Building Official and plan check staff, develop an aggressive technical training program for plans examiners. The target of the training program should be increased opportunities to enhance technical knowledge and emphasize cross- training across all types of plan checks including building, grading and fire sprinkler plan checks. This desire for cross - training was consistently raised in employee questionnaires as a priority desire and we believe it would serve to decrease delays in the event of absences due to sickness or vacation. Building and Safety Inspection Issues Our analysis of the Building and Safety Inspection Operations revealed that significant opportunities exist to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of current operations. During the course of our study, we looked at the workload of the Building & Safety Division's building inspectors over the past seven years in terms of the number and type of building inspections performed. It is important to note that there is a clear relationship between the number of plan checks submitted, the number of permits issued and the number of inspections required. The number and types of plan checks submitted will determine the number and types of permits issued on those plans, and that will consequently affect the number and type of inspections requested. The impact on requests for inspection will lag behind plan check submittals and permit issuances. Therefore, if plan checks submittals have declined and become less complex, and the number of permits issued on those plans has decreased and have also become more simple, then this will be a good indicator of the future inspection workload. As shown in Table 9 below, the decline in the permits issued led to a decline in inspections. In addition, a decline in the average number of inspections per permit in 1991 reflects the increasingly less complex nature of the workload, as discussed earlier. The dramatic increase in average number of inspections per permit in 1990 is due to the fact that with the dramatic decline in permits issued, the Division was able to re- establish a program to inspect past projects that had not been closed but were carried over from 1989 and 1990. City of Rancho Cummonga ,21 � 75 Calendar Permits Inspections Avg. lusp. Year Lssued Performed Per Permit 1965 13,742 86,274 6.28 1986 16,688 111,373 6.68 1987 16,799 109,630 6.53 1988 17,788 94,479 5.32 1989 17,467 92,769 5.32 1990 9,745 74,493 7.65 1991• 6,908 39,636 5.74 'MAa W <Fi,f matu,l t] ,h Nwm 1931. Table 9 Number of Permits Wued, Inspections Performed, and Avenge Inspections Per Permit 1985 through 1991 As shown in Figure 10 below, while inspection workload in terms of total inspections has declined steadily over the past seven years, the average number of inspections conducted each day by each inspector has also declined steadily since January 1987. D m A...r s3 to.vRw.. o D D xl !6 !6 M M AT !T " AS As so Ao A9 91 91 O Mmuy mboa A'la MmtA AvaAp Figure 10 Average Inspecuom Per Day Per Inspector 1985 through 1991 The decline in the average number of inspections per inspector day is attributable to several issues. First, a declining workload as was discussed above, and secondly, an increase in the number of inspectors (both City employees and contract inspectors) over time, and finally, as a result of the realization of substandard work, inspection vigilance has increased. Exhibit 8 on the following page illustrates the simultaneous impact on the average number of inspections per inspector juxtaposed with a Cily of Rancho Cucamonga 7 I S 76 So SO 'ro so so Arery� �V lI�n lMy Np tint so to to 0 —� —Hu dle.pCm 6 An. Yin Ay lwpedionG Exhibit 8 City of Rancho Cucanwnga Building and Safety Divi.ion Average Mau Day Inspections 1985 through 1881 declining inspection load and increased staff. At present, the City's building inspectors are down to an average of approximately 20 inspections per day and an average 9 stops per day, which means that 2 inspections are done at each stop. As of the end of 1991 and the writing of this report, all indicators from plan check submittals to permit issuance suggest that workload will continue at low levels during 1992. This will further impact the inspection workload in the coming months and year. Service Level and Staffing — Inspection As workload has declined over the past three calendar years in terms of number of inspections, the inspection staff has increased from 9 to 11 inspectors (not including contract inspectors). As part of our study, we discussed appropriate staffing levels with the Building Inspection Supervisors and discovered that a comprehensive model had beer, developed to project staffing needs based upon permit types issued, which would translate into inspection work. While we realize that this model is not exact, it does provide a valuable management tool for assessing staff size and productivity. Exhibit 9 on the following page presents the Building Inspector staffing analysis based on actual numbers for the past seven years. As highlighted in Exhibit 9, it would appear that the inspection staff was understaffed in 1988 when the volume of permits issued dictated a need of approximately 17.22 inspectors and the City was working with a staff of 13 (10 FTE and 3 Contract Inspectors). As permit volume has decreased and the nature of permits has changed, the projected level of staffing has significantly dropped to a projected 8.94 in 1991. According to the model, the inspection staff is now overstaffed by approximately two inspectors and temporary re- assignment of personnel may be required (at the time of the writing of this report this was being done). Our findings were further confirmed by on -site observation that, with the present decrease in workload, the building inspection staff is not being utilized in as efficient and effective manner as it might be. Recommendations Throughout this report, we have cited declining workloads in all areas of the Community Development Department, and this is particularly true in the case of the inspection workload. The Building and Safety Division needs to react to this change in workload now and in the future. An informal survey of other Southern California cities confirmed the belief that there is no perfect way to determine the appropriate staffing level of the inspection function and that City of Rancho Cammonga -b (7 77 City of Rancho Cucamonga Department of Community Development Building Inspector Staffing Analysis Exhibit 9 Standard. for Estimation. *Multi Res. Numbers from Report. 72 132 ® 221 144 67 Q 1880 Pro} Pro} Pro} Pro} Prof. Pro} prof, Avg. Hours AvaWhle 146p. Insp. Insp. Is., Imp. In.p. Pmj. Insp. No. Req. Man 11 Type of Impecti... 1985 Req. 1986 Req• 1987 Req. 1988 Req. 1989 Req. 1990 Req. 1991 Req. Insp, Inert (70%) Single Finally Units 1,767 4.03 2y54 5.82 1,961 4.47 2,077 4.73 1,656 3.78 542 1.24 70 0.16 10 0.3 1316 Reridentiel Mier. Permits Room Addition. and Petits 697 1.32 895 1.70 1,620 3.08 2,481 4.71 2,608 4.96 2,177 4.14 2,028 3.85 30 0.25 1316 Garage. and Csrporb 31 0.03 71 0.07 66 0.06 37 0.04 202 0.19 32 0.03 13 0.01 5 0.25 1316 Structures Other Than Buildings 456 0.43 468 0.44 660 0.63 751 0.71 786 0.75 815 0.77 761 0.72 5 0.25 1316 Multiple Residential UnIU* 263 0.60 482 1.10 343 0.78 807 1.84 526 L20 245 0.56 0 0.00 10 0.3 1316 Commercial Il Industrial Inc Additione/Alterstb.e Demolition. 14 0.14 3 0.03 15 0.115 19 0.19 31 0.32 23 0.24 25 0.26 18 0.75 1316 Amuerment amil Rm. Sulhiings 2 0.02 20 0.21 6 0.06 4 0.04 15 0.15 3 0.03 0 0.00 18 0.75 1316 Chanel" Other Rai. Buildings 1 0.01 2 0.02 3 0.03 2 0.02 1 0.01 1 0.01 1 0.01 18 0.75 1316 Industrial Bulk" 43 0.44 49 0.56 68 0.60 66 0.57 45 046 39 OAS 13 0.13 18 0.75 1316 O®ts, Bank, Professional Building 31 0.32 23 0.24 14 0.14 35 0 27 0.28 7 0.07 8 0.08 16 0.75 1316 Stores l Other Mercantile BuBdings 8 0.06 12 0.12 34 0.35 12 0.12 16 0.16 25 0.26 21 0.22 16 0.75 1316 Other Additionsa.d AlteratWes 181 1.86 261 2.68 390 4.00 377 3.87 354 3.63 393 4.03 340 3.49 18 0.75 1316 Other 3 0.03 10 0.10 1 0.01 O.W 2 O.D2 1 0.01 1 D.01 18 0.75 1316 Mobile 3,497 9.32 4,860 13.03 5,179 14.43 6,658 1722 6,270 15.91 4,303 11.78 3,281 894 *Multi Res. Numbers from Report. 72 132 ® 221 144 67 Q approaches vary from city to city. However, past efforts at developing a staffing model within the City of Rancho Cucamonga as shown in Exhibit 9 go a long way towards providing a useful tool for approximating staffing needs. This model was developed through in -depth analysis and extensive research by one of the City's Building Inspection Supervisors and we feel that it is a fair, albeit conservative, reflection of what the staffing ne,!, <,_r inspection are at present. We recommend that the Building and Safety Division staff begin to use this model for the ptrposes of projecting inspection staffing needs in the present and in the future. As cited earlier, the lag time between permit issuance and inspection requests would enable the Division to predict with some accuracy the approximate staff they will need to process the inspection workload. �.• U .716).. 1P1MV.... .... . TY .. 1.. , 1 . . (to 1.1 n f Y . 4.'. During the course of our study, through personal interviews and questionnaire comments, it was revealed that there is a growing concern among the Building and Safety Division's management and the inspection staff that, at present, individual inspectors' approaches to conducting inspections varies greatly While individual style and approach is not a detractor in and of itself, it can create a liability for the City if the City's approach to inspections is not clearly defined and understood. As part of the re- organization of the Inspection function within the Building and Safety Division and increased inspector training efforts discussed below, we recommend that the Building Official, in conjunction with the Deputy Building Official /Chief Building Inspector and the inspection supervisors and staff, develop and standardize inspection procedures and clearly define the Division's philosophy and goals behind the inspection service that they provide. The current workload per inspector has decreased to the point that at full staff, the workload for inspections is not sufficient to keep all inspectors fully busy. Furthermore, the addition of a Deputy Building Official /Chief Building Inspector will enable the Building Inspector Supervisors to conduct more inspections and further reduce the workload of the inspection staff. Therefore, we recommend that the Cdy of Rancho Cucamonga yg 2i4 Building and Safety Division reclassify one of the current Building Inspectors to the currently vacant Plumbing/ Mechanical Specialist position and not refill the vacated Building Inspection position. The specialization of the Building Inspector will enhance the Division's inspection staff's ability to efficiently conduct complex plumbing and mechanical inspections, including the addition of Fire Protection Systems, as discussed earlier in this report, in addition to creating a specialist who will then be in a position to share that knowledge and cross -train other Building Inspectors, as discussed below. Workload Distribution — Inspection As cited earlier, while the average number of inspections per inspector -day has declined, there has historically been a sizable variance in inspection per day workloads, which still exists today. In the past and in the present, inspectors have been assigned to geographic areas on a rotating basis. The nature of their workload typically depends on whether they are assigned to a commercial /industrial area or a primarily residential area, which, in turn, will affect the complexity and time involved in performing the inspection. However, while a variation between workloads on a per day inspection basis is expected between different area assignments those differences should not be very large. Table 10 below illustrates the significant variances in inspector inspections per day workload has existed consistently. The variation in the number of inspections performed by an inspector indicates significant imbalances continue to exist within the Division regarding the allocation and distribution of workload. This was confirmed In our interviews with employees and our on -site observations of field personnel. Daily Daily Inspections Inspections Low Range RRh Range January 1989 18,67 55.06 July 1989 23A0 59.86 January 1990 13.26 4450 July 1990 19.10 3653 January 1991 10.17 28.71 July 1991 15.80 3233 Table 10 Variation in Average Inspections Per Dry Per inspector City of Rancho Cucamonga Z71D 79 ... ��. Ii Due to the actual physical size of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, there is a need to loosely create divisions or zones of the City to maximize the efficiencies in the Inspection staff's ability to cover the entire City. This practice serves to reduce non - productive travel time and the wear and tear on City vehicles. During the past five years and up to the present, the City has been divided into nine or ten zones and the assigned inspector has been responsible for the inspection workload in those zones. However, due to the diverse nature of building in different areas throughout the City, historical workload volumes have varied widely from area to area and from inspector to inspector as highlighted above in Table 10. In the recent past, the Building Supervisors have implemented a morning Inspector's meeting to review daily workloads and to ensure equitability of those loads. This is a prudent practice and we recommend that this practice be continued. Furthermore, the Deputy Building Official /Chief Building Inspector should continue to refine inspection zones and use them only as a general guideline in distributing work. Supervision — Inspection Recommendation 53, During the course of our study, our observations and interviews revealed that the two Building Inspection Supervisors were unable to provide adequate supervision of field inspectors due to the time constraints of reporting and performing temporary management functions throughout the Division. According to the Supervisors, they were only able to observe (ride with) Building Inspectors for a few hours once every eight weeks. Supervision plays an important part in the career development and education of Building Inspectors as well as ensuring quality control for the inspection function. With the addition of a position of Deputy Building Official /Chief Building Inspector, as described previously, most non - supervisory functions of the Building Inspection Supervisors will become the responsibility of the Deputy Building Official /Chief Building City of Rancho Cucamonga ZZI 80 Inspector. Consequently, we recommend that the Building Inspection Supervisors should return to this rol^ as working supervisors with the majority of their time spent in the field. 'Phis increase in supervision will help to achieve the standardization of inspection techniques among inspectors, provide increased training for field inspectors, and significantly enhance the City's technical capabilities in its field inspection function. The latter will be particularly important when the City's commercial and industrial properties begin their long - arrested development. Training — Inspection Recommendation 54. During the past few years, training opportunities for the Building Inspection staff have been limited in scope. Recently, the Building Inspection Supervisors implemented a weekly training session for building inspectors that is conducted by either in -house staff or guest speakers. Responses of the Building Inspectors to the employee questionnaire revealed that there is a strong desire for increased training opportunities amongst the staff. Requests range from a desire for education in building inspection specialties, such as electric, plumbing, and mechanical, to staff -wide cross training. As discussed earlier, both permitting and corresponding inspection volumes for all types of permits have declined substantially since 1989, and the type of building permits issued are largely Residential Additions and Other Alterations in nature. These factors are significant because they would suggest that most inspections being performed today are general in nature and do not require specific specialization. However, we do recognize that certain areas in the building trades are continually progressing and becoming more complex and therefore require continual education and training to keep inspectors up to date. Therefore, we recommend that the newly created position of Deputy Building Official /Chief Building Inspector set a priority on immediately beginning to develop an aggressive training program for the Building Inspection staff that includes periodic in -house training, outside seminars or classes, and cross training with inspection specialists. As of the writing of this report, the low workload volume presents a prime opportunity for management, supervisors, and staff to develop a comprehensive training program. City of Rancho Cucamonga Z Z, -Z, 81 7. ENGINEERING The Engineering section of the Engineering/ Public Works/ Maintenance Division (Public Works) provides engineering, technical review, and inspection of the development and maintenance activities in the public right -of -way. These processes include the review of improvements in the public right-of -way (also known as off - site improvements) during the development process that precedes review and consideration of development plans by the Planning Commission. After a project receives approval to proceed from the Planning Commission, the Engineering section performs plan check services for the off -site improvements. They also review the on -site improvements to ensure that the two plans integrate properly. Besides the plan check of the on -site and off -site improvements, Engineering is responsible for the computation of transportation fees and, if in Etiwanda, drainage fees. The computation is provided to the Building and Safety Division, which totals the fees required for building permits. The inspection function within Engineering is part of the final inspection process before a building permit is "finaled" or closed. This inspection ensures that off -site improvements are undisturbed and undamaged. The Engineering division is organized into five functional sections: Flgure 13 Public Wodn The categories of work items submitted include the following categories: • Maps: Checking off -site improvements related to track and parcel maps. • Streets: Checking the plans for street improvements, such as paving and construction of utility infrastructure. • Storm Drains: Checking plans for construction of storm drains. • Hydrology: Reviewing the studies that determine the design parameters for storm drains. City of Rancho Cucamonga Zs 82 • Legal Descriptions: Reviewing the technical accuracy of easements in the public right -of -way, including street widening easements, landscape easements, storm drain easements, etc. • Miscellaneous: Reviewing lot line adjustments, dedications, pool permits (for encroachments onto easements), and other minor plans. Not all of the work items represent plans per se. For example, hydrology "plans' are studies to determine the design parameters of storm drains, yet all work items are referred to as plans. Figure 14 below shows a simplified organization chart for the functions involved with private development. Figure 14 Public Works Functions Supporting Private Developarent The Development Management unit is divided into two sections, Development Review and Development Processing, The Development Review section is involved with the engineering design aspects that occur before private developments are presented to the City Planning Commission for review and consideration. The processes and the recommendations have already been presented in the section that documents the Development / Design Review process. The Development Processing section reviews both on -site and off -site improvement plans. The on -site plans receive a cursory review to ensure that they mesh effectively with the off -site plans. The off -site plans are reviewed extensively as the City depends upon the Engineering function to ensure that the plans conform to the specifications adopted by the City for off -site improvements. Construction Management calculates the fees, issues the construction permits, and provides the inspection services for improvements in the public right -of -way. Appendix C gives an overview of the processes related to construction permits. There are supporting ancillary activities required when exceptions or problems City of Rancho Cucamonga ZZL( 83 occur. The purpose of this presentation is to provide the reader with a basic understanding of the major work activities accomplished in this service area. Summary of Findings and Recommendations Our study focused on private development activities and the processes that support that development, therefore, we studied those units of Public Works that relate to private development — Development Management and Construction Management. Traffic Management was reviewed to the extent that some development - related activities are performed in this unit. The Administration, Project Development, and Maintenance sections were not included in our management study. In Construction Management, the Capital Projects section was not included as it performs services related to capital improvement projects. The receipt and checking of off -site improvement plans is the other portion of the Development Processing section that was studied. Several years ago, the Development Processing section implemented an "up front' review process to determine the completeness of the plans. The implementation of this process required that applicants were only eligible to submit plans that were deemed to be complete prior to approval, review, and processing. Initially, customers were unhappy that they could not incrementally submit off -site plans for review. However, after a relatively short period of time, it was noted that the review process was being expedited and applicants came to appreciate need for the change and its attendant improvement in service. However, due to recent staffing changes and the elimination of outside consulting services, the turn- around time for off -site plan check has increased, thereby raising concerns in the development community. During the course of our study, we examined the workload processed by the Development Management and Construction Management units with respect to design review, plan check, and inspection. As illustrated in Figwe 15 below, the workload processed by the Division during the last five years has changed significantly. City of Rancho Cucamonga Z 2.S 84 Figure 15 Off -site Plan Checks by Category Our analysis, as indicated in Figure 16 below, noted significant changes in the types, i.e., storm drains vs. legal descriptions, of off -site plans being submitted and processed. It is clear that the applications being submitted, processed and analyzed IZ{ ISt 11i nx Is{ � na ssx Ns M ■ WP .n/Jrdnp ]]a la SM 1{ 11{ Oa Ila Sa ❑91ww1 ❑CyY Dt ,- • 'rarss zn lasses Irtw Fiscd Yr. Figure 16 Off -Site Plan Check Volumes by Type tin percentages) are less complex and require less technical expertise than those previously processed by this Division. This trend, in terms of the decline in the numbers as well as the change in the nature of applications being processed, is continuing during the current fiscal year and is projected to continue during the next fiscal year. The decline in the number of applications and the changing nature of those permits is consistent with the changes being experienced by the Bwlding and Safety Division, as discussed in Section 6 of this report. The management has responded to the continuing decline and change in the complexity of plans being submitted by reducing the use of outside consulting services to perform various plan check services. The elimination of outside consultants for plan check services was equivalent to a six FPE in -house staff reduction. The two remaining in -house plan check staff members have assumed responsibility for processing the Division's remaining plan check workload. As a result of this recent change, the turn - around City of Rancho Cummonga 22 V 95 time has increased, much to the chagrin of the applicants. It is unclear, due to the absence of appropriate record keeping, as to the exact causes surrounding the extended turn- around time currently being experienced for off -site plan check review. The Division's management is currently monitoring the turn- around time vis -a -vis the volume and nature of work on hand. That assessment, regarding the adequacy of current staffing resources, should be completed and implemented prior to the 1992 -93 fiscal year. Table 14 below compares the prior year, which had historical volumes and staffing comparable to previous years, to the current year. The engineering aide had the percentage of plan checking support added to the internal staff's equivalent total. The reduction in outside services was converted to staffing equivalents using $60,000 per person per year with fringe benefits included. Staffing Equivalents FY 1990 -91 FY 1991 -92 Changes Changes Staff Staff as % Equivalents Equivalents City Staff - Actual 4.1 3-5 - 0b -15% Outside Services 6 0 _6 -100% Totals 11.1 15 -65% Table 14 Comparison of Prior Year Staffing to the Cummt Year This reflects a reduction of about 65% in staffing equivalents to respond to a 33% decrease in work volume and the increased proportion of simpler plans to plan check. Construction Management calculates the fees, issues the construction permits, and provides the inspection services for improvements in the public right -of -way. Appendix C gives an overview of the processes related to construction permits. There are supporting ancillary activities required when exceptions or problems occur. The inspectors routinely make a number of informal inspections at work sites to monitor the progress and the performance of work. An example would be work being performed in a public thoroughfare that requires lane closure. Properly setting out markers and barricades has obvious safety implications, If a lane closure is not properly done and represents a potential hazardous situation, the inspector can, and on occasion has, shut the job down. These informal inspections are not recorded and not reported. Calls for inspection are made by telephone to the administrative staff at the Public Works counter. They complete a two part form with the information necessary for City of Rancho Cucamonga ZZ 1 96 an inspector to find and know the nature of the inspection. The City commits to making all inspections within 24 hours. With regard to inspection of off -site improvements in the public right of way, our analysis indicates that, unlike the plan check process, the cycle for inspection lags far behind, due to the nature of the construction cycle. Our analysis of the inspector's workload indicates that the volume of permits has remained relatively constant during the last period of time. However, the work content of the average permit and the average number of inspections per permit has decreased. We are recommending an adjustment in the number of inspectors assigned to this function and the reassignment of the additional staff tnember to assist in the design and implementation of a Department -wide project tracking system, as previously discussed. For the purpose of analysis, we examined Engineering Division components with regard to efficiency and effectiveness issues that included, but were not limited to, the following: • Turn- around time • Application, Record keeping and work forms • Related issues For each of these issues, findings and recommendations are presented below, including a number of recommendations that will enhance the overall process and interaction between the applicant and the plan check and inspection staff in the Engineering Division. The recommendations are as follows: • Development Processing staff meet with the developer and developer's engineer as part of the Development / Design Review "exit interview,' to review conditions of approval and the components of a "complete" plan. • Development Process Section discuss all exceptions (red lining) on the plans being returned with the developer's engineer. • The Engineering Division prepare guidelines and requirements for an Department -wide automated information system, including their record keeping, monitoring, tracking, and reporting needs. • The Engineering Division participate in the Department -wide design and purchase of an automated information system. • The Engineering Division make available a staff position for input of historical and current files to either a Department -wide automated information system or an information system dedicated to Engineering Division records. City of Rancho Cucamonga -12, o 87 • The Public Works Unit provide the above mentioned staff position by reducing the number of Public Works Inspectors from three to two. • The Engineering Division study and analyze current code enforcement responsibilities and activities to determine the most efficient and effective organization for the delivery of that service. • The Community Development Department review opportunities to integrate certain Public Works Inspection activities with those carried out by the Building and Safety Division. • The Engineering Division design and implement automated methods to meet its own record keeping, monitoring, tracking, and reporting needs, in the event implementation of the Department -wide automated information system is delayed or fails to fully meet the needs of the Division. • Inspectors in the Engineering Division begin to routinely record inspection activities. • The Engineering Division establish a record keeping system in order to compare the number of inspection requests received each week and establish guidelines for the maximum number of inspections that can be scheduled each day. Turn - around Time On -site improvement plans are initially submitted to the Building and Safety Division, which, during the review process, routes a set of plans through Planning to Engineering - Development Processing. This section has established a priority to review on -site plans and to return them to Building Safety within one or two days. Since August, the section has begun to track the receipt and return of plans. As shown in Figure 16 below, our analysis of those records indicates that approximately 90% were checked and returned to Building and Safety within 2 days of receipt. City of Rancho Cucamonga ZZ q 88 so 45 40 35 Numb rof 30 Plane 20 IS 10 5 0 3 4 Day, Elapsed Figure 17 Plan Check Service Time This function of the plans process seems to be performing well and the data supports those observations. The most important reason for this timely processing is that the supervisor has established a priority for checking on -site improvement plans. Several years ago, before this was established as a priority, these plans sat for days and sometimes weeks. Consistently providing timely service is the result of establishing priorities, providing visibility, tracking, and reporting results. However, our review of the document flow within plan check processing indicated these plans are routed at least twice. Even if they are approved on the first review, they are circulated again by the Building and Safety Division for the computation of drainage and transportation fees by Development Processing. When plans are submitted, a receipt for the fees paid is prepared. To determine the historical volumes the plan checks by category were counted using the current and archived receipt files. The tallies are listed in Figure 15 cited earlier. The totals for FY1991 -92 are projected based upon current volume data. Further examination of the current downward trend revealed that the mix of plans to be checked has also changed. The first four categories of plans reviewed by the Engineering Division listed above (i.e., Maps, Streets, Storm Drains, and Hydrology) require more technical skill and staff time to process than do the last two categories, legal descriptions and miscellaneous. Figure 16 cited earlier illustrates how the mix of work has changed. The more complex work has decreased as a percentage of the total work to be done. In FY1988.89, the more complex work represented 92% of the total mix. In the current year, it is projected to represent 63%. This is a 31% decrease. The less complex work now represents 37% of the total, up from 8 %. To respond to the decreasing volumes and increasing percentage of less complex plan checks, actual staffing and spending for outside plan check services have been City of Rancho Cucamonga z3 89 n reduced. In fiscal 1990 -91, the actual staffing included five City positions. Development Management also spent $499,495 for outside services. In the current fiscal.year, the engineering aide position is not budgeted and not authorized. The engineering technician position has been primarily for counter support. In previous years, this position worked about 90% at the counter and about 10% in support of the plan check function. Now this position spends about 50% of the time supporting counter functions, and the other 50% supporting plan checking. Spending for outside plan check services has been eliminated. All plan checking is being accomplished with internal staff. The result has been a reduction of $359,000 spent for outside plan check services. A by- product of the reduced staffing and elimination of outside services is longer plan check cycles. Our review of log sheets for active cases (plan checks of all types) revealed that the average time for a plan check was about 4.5 weeks per cycle for maps and about 5.8 weeks for the miscellaneous category. This reflects that the more complex work is being processed faster per cycle. We endeavored to document any change in cycle time and the average number of cycles. However, further analysis of trends, cycles and base line data was constrained by the fact that accurate logging of cases began only a year ago. Having no common key for accessing files, service cycles could not be computed. However, the staff estimates that the plan check cycle from initial submittal, allowing for all the iterations of submittals, to approval has doubled. This would seem consistent with a 33% reduction in volume and a 65% reduction in resources. The longer cycles are mitigated by the fact that developers typically have the off -site improvement plans ready for submittal before the on -site plans are prepared. On- site plans traditionally involve more disciplines not normally involved with off - site plans. With fewer disciplines preparing plans that are developed to meet existing, specific design criteria, the design and review process for off -site plans proceeds faster. There are no data (or observations) that the longer plan check cycles have adversely effected the developers ability to proceed in a timely manner. We noted that most of the exceptions noted on off -site plans relate to required information that is missing or design elements not conforming to the conditions of approval. This requires that the plans be returned to the developer's engineer for revisions. Sometimes plans are returned to the City without addressing the exceptions that were noted (often referred to as "red lined "), The decreased City staffing for plan checking and the reduction of $359,635 for outside services seems appropriate. As noted, the large reduction in staff equivalents probably explains the perceived prolongation of service time to approve plans. However, fees were increased 125% starting in this fiscal year. To the development community, fees went up and service got worse. City of Rancho Cucamonga Z 3 1 90 For the Engineering Division's inspection fLaction, during the course of our study, we monitored inspection requests and found an average of 6.9, or 7, requests per day are received, ranging from a high of 22 to a low of 2. Through interviews, the inspection staff and their management stated that 100% of all requests made by 3:00 p.m. are serviced by 3:00 p.m. the following working day. The administrative staff stated that they are unaware of any failure to service a request when the requestor provided accurate information. There have been instances where confusion between the contractor's field and office staff resulted in the miscommunication regarding the timing and location of an inspection. Excluding these exceptions, the staff appears to be consistently meeting their service objectives. During our fact - finding, extensive research was conducted to quantify the work activities so that the processes and functions could be analyzed. The following is a measure of activity. The volume of permits issued and the fees collected by Construction Management are shown below in Figure 18 for each quarter beginning in 1987. As illustrated, the trend for the volume of permits has not varied substantially over the past five years. While there have been substantial fluctuations, the current volumes are comparable to 1987. 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 -•- Permits o Fen (in Goo's) Figure 18 Number of Construction Permits Issued and Fen Collected (in 8W's) Our analysis also revealed an additional dimension represented by permit volumes. The work content of permits was examined by sampling permits and recording the number of categories of work being carried out under each permit. A random sample of 10% of the permits issued for each year was taken. The trend in the number of categories being permitted per permit was then documented for the last four years. During this analysis, the number of documented inspections to the construction site was also examined. This was tallied by reviewing the inspector's copy of dosed permits. Certain phases of construction require the inspector to initial City of Rancho Cucamonga 2 5,L 91 and date the inspector's copy of the construction permit. The inspector may also enter notes which correspond to the documented inspection. The average number of categories and inspections per permit are charted below. loge loa9 1990 1241 -• -n.m. p.. Pamel o- Vb4 pr Palmil Figure 19 Average Number of Categories and Impectiom Per Permit Our analysis indicates that while the volume of permits has, as a trend, remained relatively level, the work content of the average permit has decreased. Permits issued in 1988 had an average of 33 categories compared to 1.6 items in 1991. This is a 54% decrease in the number of categories being permitted for each permit issued. Additionally, the records we reviewed indicated that inspections per permit during the same time period have decreased from 3.7 to 2.2 inspections, or 41 %. Applying the average number of inspections per permit to the annual totals for permits allows the computation of the total number of inspections performed per year. For 1991, the history of the first three quarters was used to project an annual amount. The trend is charted below. Total Pmpded bupediao 1986 1969 1990 1991 Figure 20 TOW Projected 4upectiotu City of Rancho Cucamonga 23= 92 As reflected in Figure 20, above, the total number of inspections has decreased from 2,379 inspections in 1988 to 1,410 in 1991, a 41% decrease. In 1988, with three inspectors, the average would have been 793 inspections per inspector. In 1991, with three inspectors, the average would be 470 inspections per inspector. Using annual totals, for 1991, 1,410 inspections would project to an average of about 6 inspections daily . We observed that the average number of requests was about 7. This cross reference of data supports that the average number of daily inspections is approximately 6 to 7. A leading indicator of the Construction Management unit's workload would be the number of plans being submitted for review and approval by Development Processing. Approved plans drive the number of construction permits to be issued. The lag factor is estimated to be about one year. As discussed above, the workload for Development Processing is down by 33% and plans being submitted are less complex. This means that Construction Management has yet to experience the full impact of the downturn in construction activity predicted by Development Processing's 33% drop in volume. While valuation and fees alone are not an indicator of complexity, a significant and consistent shift in the complexity of permits should also be reflected in the average fees collected per permit. The following figure documents this trend in the fees. The number of permits issued and fees collected, as discussed earlier, has been augmented with the average fees per permit. before 1990, it was an exception if the average fee per permit was less than a $1,000. In fact, before 1990, there never were two consecutive quarters when fees were less than $1,000, In the third quarter of 1990, the fees have dropped below $1,000 and there were four consecutive occurrences. This is a significant statistical occurrence. 19 19 19 19 19 87 88 89 90 91 ❑per Permit ■Permits Fisun 21 Femdts Iuued sod Arers6e Fen Collected City of Rmaho Cucamonga 26 93 A single project in the third quarter of 1991 represented $74,010 in fees. Without this large project, this quarter would also have dipped below $1,000, making it the fifth consecutive quarter during which average fees fell below $1,000. Statistically, this tingle, large project may be considered an aberration, and when adjusted, the average for that quarter drops to $936. A final area of investigation was the mix of construction being performed in the public right -of -way as reflected by the permits. The many different categories of work were grouped into the five types of classes listed below: • Utilities • Streets • Curbs • Traffic • Parkways The data for this analysis was collected by randomly sampling 10% of the construction permits. As each sample was drawn, the number of work items (permits often document that multiple work items are being constructed) and the description of each was recorded. The data was grouped into the classes listed above. The totals for the 10% random sample are presented in the following figure. The totals represent how often a particular work item occurred and is not the number of permits. As shown in Figure 22, the data indicates that utility related categories have grown substantially. In the last four years, this class of work has grown from 26% to 58 %. Street related work has decreased from 42% to 17 %. City of Rancho Cucamonga Z 3 5- 94 Percentages 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Permit Volumes by Type (in percentages) 0 Utility ®Curb. ©. Street ®Traffic '©�.',� .'',.'�, Parkways 1988 1989 1990 1991 Years Figv-_ 22 Permit Volumes by Type 2% The other three types have also changed, but the change is less dramatic in absolute terms. This analysis indicates that less complex, major street work is being performed now as compared to several years ago. While a simplification, overall, utility - related permits represent less complex projects and are now majority of the work load. The change in mix also supports the prior fact finding that the work content of permits has decreased. Recommendations 55. Components of a "Complete The utility of requiring an "exit interview" to review the conditions for approval of plans has been discussed in Section 2 of this report. The inclusion of the Engineering Section in this interview will City o/ Rancho Cuawnga 2 36, 95 reinforce the usefulness of the process in ensuring that plans submitted for plan check are more complete and more likely to comply with stated "Conditions of Approval" than those submitted without the exit interview. An emphasis on having the developer submit complete plans the first time that address the conditions of approval will reduce the number of cycles required before plans can be approved. Y' 1.11'1 I 1' 11 0-'.y •11 t'• 1 f' 11 1' 1' 1' I II' ♦ 1 1' �' 1• 14. An emphasis on communicating and educating the developer's engineer will reduce the number of cycles to correct errors and omissions. This and the preceding recommendation focus on cost effective opportunities to reduce the perceived service time to the development community while operating with reduced resources. These recommendation build upon an earlier change where the staff began reviewing for completeness before accepting plans for checking. The average number of inspections per inspector in 1988 was 793. Two inspectors would provide the coverage to make 1,586 annual inspections which exceeds the projected demand of 1,410 inspections for the current year. In addition to the reduction in the number of inspections, data suggest that individual inspections have become less complex and less time is required for each inspection. Application, Record Keeping, and Work Forma The current process of logging in plans received for plan check requires that a separate log sheet be created for each case. A summary listing, manual or automated, does not exist. When a case is dosed, the log sheet is filed with it. At this point, any reliable trail to cases ceases. The numbers assigned to cases generally relate to the tract numbers assigned by the County. These are not cross- referenced to case, log, or parcel numbers assigned anywhere else in the Community Development Department's Development Review Process. In addition, these plans are not received by the City in numerical order. For example, five consecutive pages of tract map cases from the log book were drawn. Note the dates when received: Number Rite TR 14382 12 -20-90 TR 14407 8-29-91 TR 14159 6-21-90 TR 14486 5 -14.91 TR 14544 12 -13-90 City of Ranch Cucamonga -Z;7 96 Files pulled at random revealed that the status of a case was not obvious. Also, it was not clear where the log sheet would be placed in the file. Currently, there is no structured system for tracking the receipt, processing, staff investment, service times, reporting, or retrieval of information about plan checking of off -site developments. In reviewing the inspection function of the Engineering Department, our fact finding required extensive integration, synthesis, and simplification of information found in various locations and formats. Data compiled and computed during this study were not commonly available from any routine information source. Unlike the documented inspections that are recorded on the inspector's copy of the construction permit, there are no data and, consequently, there is no history regarding the number, frequency, or trend of these inspections. Inspection requests are recorded on a two-part form. The two part form is separated with the top copy being routed to the inspector and the administrative staff keeping the second copy. When requests are received, the inspector organizes the requests for inspection for the next day. A record of the inspection is made on the inspector's copy of the construction permit. The inspector's copy of the request for inspection is discarded. The administrative staff is required to keep its copy of the request for five days. Informally, it may be kept as long as ten days. Then it is discarded. Neither the inspectors nor the administrative staff tallies the inspection requests. As both copies are discarded and no reporting is performed, there is no history of the volume of inspection requests or of inspections performed. The inspectors do not report daily activity in any formalized weekly or monthly report. There is no reporting of the number of documented inspections or informal inspections. Construction permits are assigned much like projects. However, there are no periodic "project" reports. When the work is finaled, the completed inspector's copy of the construction permit is routed to the administrative staff who will then pull the appropriate files and dose the project. Ultimately, these records are archived. Recommendations 58. In the absence of data it is nearly impossible to determine appropriate staffing or service levels for this important function. The sections in the Engineering Division involved in the inspection function should City of Rancho Cucamonga 2 �S 97 59. begin immediately to design and implement time recording and project tracking systems. Y�M The Engineering Division should have the number of requests for inspection reported weekly and then compare the number requested to the number actually performed. Consider determining an maximum number of inspections to be performed in a single day so that the City does not over commit and cause the inspection process to become short circuited with a decrease in quality. 61. The Engineering Division must develop its own information system prior to the implementation of the Department -wide system. Design, purchase and installation of a Department -wide system will be a lengthy process, and in the meantime, the Engineering Division needs to be able to track and monitor its plan check and inspection functions. In the event implementation of the Department -wide system does not take place or is not appropriate to some needs of the Engineering Division, it will still be possible to provide the information necessary to appropriately manage the entire division, including those functions not involved in the Development Review process, and support improvement in the efficiency and effectiveness of the entire Division. The Division should review whether the individual efforts to automate information gathering, tracking, and reporting should be combined into a departmental, or City, effort. The long range utility and integration of individual, stand alone systems should be reviewed for the cost effective use of resources. City of Rancho C "monga ? 39 98 �T'7414TM no �TIS� Related Issues Our on -site observations noted that the Public Work Inspector was asked to respond to locations and report observations that would be considered code enforcement activities. Examples of this work included the proper cleaning of debris from the gutter of a small development and, in a different location, cleaning of a trail. This work was being performed by the inspector because the public right-of -way areas had not yet been dedicated and where still under the control of a developer. Once dedicated, the responsibility for code enforcement of these areas would be transferred. Recommendations 63. The Communitv rievetnTmem f]nnv.L.. e..• CL....IA 6C There would appear to be opportunities for certain economies of scale if only one inspector is sent to performed combined inspections. The area of overlap would be smaller job where the work performed is in the parkways. The increased number of permits relating to utility work provides an opportunity. As observed, this might be inspecting that a utility box in the parkway is at the proper grade. With adequate cross training, either Public Works or Building and Safety could perform the inspection. This implies that the requests for inspections are received at a central location, and the most effective and efficient routing of inspectors from each department is determined. Inspectors would remain in their functional departments. The Community Development Department should consider studying field enforcement activities performed through City departments and determine the most effective land efficient organization for the delivery of that service. Currently, code enforcement appears to be fragmented and the optimum use of City staff is probably not occurring. City of Rancho Cucamonga 94 Z 40 Appendix A Page I of 2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safety Division Plan Check Workload and Requirement Analysis Calendar Calendar Calendar 1989 1990 1891 Plan ChadeAURW e,PCT>pvr 619 749 568 Wo GradiMIMre SPr- 47 (2)R.Ch k.1241% M.. 173 144 Tenant lmpmvemena 369 405 102 • Single Family 219 % 39 •tna.aad by 50A 5.8ctered Use rill 141 117 92 units • Buildngs AB Ty . 74 56 29 Multi Family 9 3 9 Rea. Ad litiarw k Alurat. 51 64 57 Mused. 53 67 57 Tow 917 796 594 Vo . P"Isreed RaWeive ofCcanler Charlie 87 389 490 Tana.t improamats 359 405 302 (•)R. Add L Alt.. are Single Family 219 84 39 alioaed at691l mmmar, Electrical 141 117 92 checked and append. Inklings All Typva 74 56 39 Multi Family 9 3 8 • Sea. Additio s 4k A t.431a Remain) 16 20 16 Miwlsvems 53 67 57 Tow 881 752 554 Va . Pryjee4d Inelading IF.orJ 11r,Asr.k. Taysvt Lnpwrmavts St.& Family M.cb.al Building. All Typa Multi Family Res. Addition k Alleratm. Taal Rarn Resstrad Pra lsesed By Volena Tenant Impmam.W4 Ina) Sicgla Femtly (8 has.) ©aetreal (4 bas) Buildings All Typos (16 hn.) Multi Family (18 hn.) Sea Addition k Ahen o..44 has.) Miwll. (a M.) Tow P.*raksd F771Rrgs ra .N. /- ProJroted I=Rrgahesawtr 452 497 370(1)R.1Ch.ck•71.SMafPlan 268 103 47 (2)R.Ch k.1241% M.. 173 144 113 (33RaCImrh.4.BB1kdAan 91 69 47 -For calassuladicis r elyd. 11 3 10 .a moaida U2. Snt 19 24 22 dark. 65 82 70 two 921 680 1810 INS 1479 2144 823 See 692 575 453 1460 1099 759 185 52 160 78 97 87 389 490 420 6754 5122 3737 3.75 2.25 208 497 3.77 275 Nara. la -Based an 1800 available man hours (2080 hovn lea vaatian, holidays, sick Lima, ate) J* -Razed an 1360 available man hnvs(2080 hours loss vacation, holidays, sick Lima 6 2L( I Appendix A Pate 2 012 City of Rancho Cucamonga Building and Safely Division Grading Plan Check Workload and Requirement Analysis Gadind Plan C&eke VefearN jeeMd kseledind IRor a Re-chrckr Cradiot Please Hwn RegeirN Pryjeelyd By Volume Criolm, Plow (a less.) Pr ojeeird F78l/e9viremrnh 1 e ProterNd FMitequi esseette Calendar Ca.emler C.I.nder 1989 1991 1991 G 51 44 1.59 69 66 1260 510 440 0.70 0.29 am 090 am 012 Fire Sprinkler Plan Check Workload and Requirement Analysis Calendar Calendar C.I.M. IRR9 1990 19x1 Pin spri kiler Plas Charb Volume PrgjnMd hseludind Ji ors Re -eMeRa Fuse 9priakler Rue 9wn Reye4edPre)teMdB) Volume Fkn Swsoklar Place (41 has.) Pra}eM PIE Regeimne s"Ie Pryseted PPR Reaelnmrnkfe 64 17t 89 227 002 187 907 1207 6M 0.50 0.67 O.a6 0.67 0.88 a.W N;thar Is •Bassel.1800ars2ablemesa h.(2090 hove less vacation, hdidays, sick time, eks.) M -Bewdm 1880avWable mesa hoan(2WO home less vacation, holidays, sick time& time dedkaed to am+pci& plan check asp nsibiliticq 2Yz AppendlaH City of B., ho Cucamonga Community Development Department B.Bding Permit MIMI, By Type IBM through 1091 rYd:.f A.tl.1ry T.131a.mbw NP...ib 1. 11 C. 1M6 1Teb N..b.. P..k ar A %o(All Paralb F 1 IMa 1Me N.�. Pxr,lt d Aa1MAm P.>.Ib N.Ib left IM Nubr P-,-J& a A.%afm Kalb Pa.db lab IM N-� Pa1.11 ae "Sam P1wb P. 11a 11Wt .e N.�, Na I of A.19fml P.mib P..mib It D im N..br P.-i1T ar M %afml P.ml1. P.mib 1991 1"1 P q. N.mber P..0 efpn6. A %.f All Pomib Pam1b ibl. Pa.6 D.-O -P D.beb.d 1,161 61461 9,686 66.1&1 lom M.131 2,08 34.ITA I,N9 21.61. 619 1114% M 2.1 g1.111. Partly D-akpM bd am 29 am 21 am 9 0.09% BDf 9.68% am 0. D.l% P..*(CS.6. 1 Ap.) UY1. 19 lift 132 2m 141 991 3.61% 1N 146. 61 I.M 0. llwisgaiDaW B ltl.p 3 am 2 am 1 a0A am am am - am o. m am amt am o. m o. i1.Ida 11.1Ja, GbIM o. am am, am am 0. m I 0.03 DI►.NtN.rb�ple{3hJ14aa am am am am, om am 0. INsgadd..wq 14 a4SM& 3 OM is 19 021 31 G.M M 0 m 26 0.76% Ate. ®I W partlm Baadinp 2 am M O." 6 oln 4 O.Oft 16 am 3 O.CM, om IlvrY.1 W Qb� a.lpaa 9mNbP 1 am 2 OM 3 am 2 am 1 am 1 O.M1, I 0.03 Iad.n.W {Idi�.p V lJM 4D AJM b IZIS am 46 am 39 0.0% 13 0. Pl.tl.b C�.p. am am Om Om 0. om0% 0.00% R.d�Y.l Qe W CrpV 31 am 11 1 b 131 31 0.61% 119 3.4ft M am 13 0. 8..p Bbtlaa WAaPW am am am 2 G.m I a am Bl..11labWpbr leWt.tima1861dbp a0ft 1 amt am am 0. m am a. 0658 Bd, P1.f11s.Y ii d w 31 all,06 93 051 14 Dm M am 71 0.4ft 1 0.1 6 0.24% p k 19 .M Da� Bdldl.p am am am am 0. am Om% Seri W lklr 66..0..1 B.iwd am 6 0.1 0. 0. 0. Om 8bw ad Qb�L.salg. Ba0iv7. 6 12 0.71 94 12 0 I6 a 25 0.61 21 O.N qJr Nsn.la�blBW161ap Q 1 0. 0. 0. 0. am BY.eb6�ctY 7u. B.IWga 466 11 461 10.401 a60 135D1 161 1181% T66 11961 616 10.18% 461 16.19% HdMY.I AAina. WAM.aa9m 69T 21. BM 10.89. 1/690 m T,bl b.M. 16m 44.31% 1116 62 2,028 61A1. dbr A6ditia4 W AII�tIW 161 64 161 6. 3M 7." 3M &811 964 8.01 393 B 310 1026. f�dsTaab 92M IMON 4,= IM.OD1 4,M0 100 6,M 100. 6,886 100. 4,115 lm. 3,261 100.00% atkpfl Appendix C Page 1 of 2 City of Rancho Cucamonga Engineering Division Construction Permitting Process 1. The developer submits an application for a construction permit with all supporting documents. 2. Within two days, the Construction Management staff completes a field review, office research, and computes fees and deposits. If appropriate the process continues; otherwise, all documents are returned to the applicant for the necessary remedial actions. 3. Construction Management types the necessary information onto the construction permit. 4. Construction Management call the applicant. 5. Applicant takes construction permit to cashier; pays fees; has permit stamped by cashier. 6. Applicant returns to Construction Management with proof of payment; completes and signs the agreement regarding the use of deposits. 7. Applicant keeps two copies of the construction permit. 8. Construction management keeps two copies, the canary and the "hard card ". 9. The transaction cause a "new" construction permit to be issued is recorded on a computer system that is being developed by the staff of Construction Management. 10. The canary copy is placed in a notebook; the "hard card" is photocopied. The application and receipt are combined with the hard card and placed in a filing cabinet. 11. The photocopy of the "hard card" is given to the inspector. (This copy will be referred to as the inspector's copy). 12. Inspector places copy in a binder. 13. Inspector performs inspections as requested. The inspector enters his/her initials,date, and comments about this inspection. Our report refers to this as a "documented" inspection. VfL! Appendix C Page 2 of 2 14. When finalled, the inspector will enter "final" onto the copy and date it. 15. The inspector's copy marked "final" is given to the office staff. 16. The "hard card" and related documents are pulled from the file. 17. Developer is notified that the job has been finalled. 18. Staff computes amount of refund due the developer from the deposit. (Developer will during the course of a project replenish deposits that are used). This process drives financial transactions resulting in the refund of deposits. 19. The construction permit is closed on the computer system being developed. 20. The "hard card ", inspector's copy, and all related documents are then archived. 2ys Appendix D City of Ranch Cucamonga Number of Construction Permits Issued and Fees Collected Year Quartcr Permits Fees 1987 1 131 $176,300 2 123 $151,700 3 123 $103,800 4 112 $201,000 1988 1 164 $228,300 2 168 $227,900 3 179 $626,300 4 132 $191,600 1989 1 197 $223,800 2 244 $650,700 3 218 $205,000 4 156 $168,600 1990 1 224 $299,300 2 180 $192,100 3 145 $121,200 4 134 $93,600 1991 1 185 $132,949 2 157 $63,074 3 139 $204,067 2y� DATE: August 5, 1992 TO: FROM: BY: SUB.SECT: U1 T Ur KAfNUHU UUl.AAIUNUA MEMORANDUM Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer rr Steve M. Gilliland, Public Works nspector II City Council Agenda Item D -16, Tract 13304 Tract 13304, located on the north west corner of Mountain View Drive and Terra Vista Parkway is scheduled for City Council approval at tonights meeting. Due to a lack of proper landscape maintenance over the past two weeks, it will be necessary to reprove this item from the Consent Calendar until such time that Lewis Homes has the landscape back to City standards. WJO:SMG:ly Blaq Remarks to th'e`.1Taria`did'ESiaiicgA City Council by Frank Williams Governmental Affairs Director Building Industry Association /Ba ldy View Region August 5, 1892 I want to inform the City about what is happening with the Congestion Management Program. An effort is being made to strip the City of local land use decisions by SANBAG. Don't take my word, but investigate for yourself. Section 3.3.3 of the Draft EIR for the Congestion Management Program states, "However, the Land Use /Transportation Analysis Program has the potential to influence local land use decisions by requiring full evaluation and disclosure of impacts to the regional transportation system, regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. (page 28) Section 4.3.2 of the Draft EIR for the Congestion Management Program states, " ...the CMP TIA requirement represents a new layer of government review. " .... "While the CMP does not alter the responsibilities and obligations of lead agencies under CEQA, it does require SANBAG to impose sanctions if the agency is not in compliance with the CMP Statute. I bring this to your attention because of the potential for SANBAG to create a new bureaucracy that is going to be costly to the cities. You may be asking the question, "How will SANBAG be able to do this ?" The Draft EIR recommends MANDATORY SANBAG REVIEW. This sets the gears in motion to create another layer of government (Appendix G, option 1, page 3 and 4.) To eliminate another layer of government and the creation of an unmanageable bureaucracy Option 3. Self- certification by each local jurisdiction that it has followed the guidelines established in the CMP, accompanied by a 11hold- harmless" clause regarding SANBAG's role in the process will assure that local land use decisions will continue to be made at the local level (Appendix G, page 4) . I specifically request that this item be placed your agenda as soon as possible and urge the Council to instruct your SANBAG representative to vote for and support self- certification when this matter comes before the SANBAG Board, 9227 Haven Avenue, Suite 280 • Rancho Cucomonge, CoBfom* 91730 • (714) 945 -1884 • FAX (714) 948 -9631 B111 Saidy View Region August 5, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council city of Rancho Cucamonga Rancho Cucamonga, CA SANBAG BUDGETS $ 533,287 TO PROMOTE REGIONAL GOVER101ENT AND $3,307,OG2 IN NEW PROGRAMS Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: On July 1, 1992, the I (BIA /BV) testified on the 1992 -93 SANBAG budget and opposed a recommendation to eliminate a conflict resolution process from the proposed Congestion Management Program in favor of preparing a conflict resolution process to settle all disputes. Wes McDaniel suggested that SANBAG adopt the San Diego Plan; however, the Board sent the matter to the Administrative Committee. I am attaching an article that appeared in the San Diego Union - Tribune on Friday July 3, 1992 entitled "Special Panel To Study Streamlined Regional Government ". This study commission will consider scrapping the present government structure of cities and counties and replacing it with a regional body. Is this the direction SANBAG staff wants to go-- eliminate cities? Two workshops on the budget were held for SANBAG Board members. At the first workshop only two members were present and at the second workshop no Board members were present. Over a half million dollars ($533,287) has been set aside to promote Regional Government. It is our belief that SANBAG staff is promoting a policy that is eroding local control (ie, land use decisions) and elevating these decisions to a regional level. The following budget items are being used to advance a "regional government" concept which will further erode the authority of local governments: 90110 Regional Comprehensive Plan /Master Environmental Assessment Task includes participation and representation of countywide interests in development of transportation, 9227 Haven Flvenue. Suite 980 • Honcho Cucamonga, COOIOmio 91730 0 (714) 945 -1884 • FFIX (714) 948 -9031 growth management, air quality, land use, water resources, human resources, and other elements of the regional plan. (Budget: $221,438) 90111 Regional Mobility Plan Task involves participation in a number of special study groups and tasks forces. (Budget: $11,139) 91100 Growth Policy Development SANBAG to Coordinate Growth Management Committee (Budget: $18,829) 91101 Air Quality SANBAG participation at SCAQMD IAIC, IAIC TAC, MSRC, MSRC TAC, etc.. (Budget: $107,853) 91102 Regional Institutions Participation with SCAG, CALCOG, County Transportation Commission, SCRACS, League Divisions, IEEC, CLOUT on Transportation related Issues (Budget: $35,161) Due to the fact that requests for detail of new programs that are included in the 1992 -93 SANBAG budget were not responded to in a satisfactory manner, I am including this for your information so that you can discuss these new programs with your representative on the SANBAG Board. Introductory Comments The new projects are presented as planned projects, but each figure is to a specific dollar figure but the detail is not available. These projects are obviously written up and have a detail budget, with a chart of accounts. This type of information is what I requested. 93103 Futures Proiect As funds for public sector projects continue to dwindle, one must be sensitive to, and plan for, those activities which will result in a direct improvement of our economic and social environment in the Inland Empire. This proposed project provides consultants with employment ($30,000 in consultant fees and $20,000 in "professional services ") and a select number of conference attenders with some information ($10,000 budgeted for printing costs) they may have received through reading available printed data. It appears that the concept has been executed before (Los Angeles 2000 and Bay Visions 2020). The project, which is being included in the budget without detail or a completed needs analysis to justify spending over $70,000., should be deleted from the budget. There is $4,755 (6.78) budgeted for salaries & fringes and $6,150 (8.7$) in indirect costs. This is a project that would be more suitable for an organization like IEEC to undertake. 93104 Intergovernmental Relations what is staff paid to facilitate, but to develop on -going collaborative efforts to improve communications and consensus - forming with sister agencies. Meetings between "sister" agencies can be held and executed without spending $67,9621 It is with great concern that I continue to see funds being spent on activities that are executed by other organizations at little or no cost. These funds are budgeted at $29,634 (43.6$) for salaries and benefits, with $38,328 (56.48) for indirect costs. 93603 Organization Future The project's description ends with a statement which it should begin with: "Does not at this point include consultant costs ". It appears that this project's costs is open- ended, without any planned upper and costs which include the consultant's work. Furthermore, why is it costing a minimum of $8,179. to further define the role, focus, culture, and operations of SANBAG. Mow can a budget of over seventy -two million be executed by an organization which needs to spend an undefined amount of money on a further definition of their purpose and operations. These funds are budgeted for salaries and fringes ($3,566 - 43.68) and $4,613 (56.48) in indirect costs. 93604 Governance Center This project appears to be a capital expenditure. The description reads in part, "Includes ... $20,000. (888) direct financing participation, exact nature unknown at this time." The remaining $2,726 (128) are for salaries, fringes, and indirect costs.In these tines when all private and public entities need to be lean and efficient, due to economic times, here is a capital project where it appears title will be held by the university (California State University - San Bernardino). All of us are aware of the need of new facilities for the university, but it is not the responsibility of the SANBAG funding sources to assist the university in meeting those needs. There is no apparent justification for this expenditure except for a gratuitous statement about SANBAG (perhaps) having their monthly meets at this facility. 93223 P.gogram Management - General This appears to be a most blatant example of "make work" for staff in an area where the description of the project is a current responsibility of staff. It is incumbent on any staff to a board of commission to monitor and report progress on efforts of the organization. To call it a new internal program does not justify the expenditure of $44,469. ($18,954 or 43.6% in salaries & fringes and $24,515 or 56.4% in indirect costs) for activities for which is the present charge of the SANBAG staff. This may be the time for you to take the lead in cutting staff costs and streamlining activities instead of expanding the already burgeoning bureaucratic structure. 93264 Maior Proiect Value Engineering The listed description states that this project will fund studies which will be an "...effort to control construction costs ". It should be considered, that for a quarter of million dollars, there should be more specific measurable goals listed for the project description. Without specificity in goal attainments (funds to be saved, efficiency levels increased, time delays reduced /eliminated, etc.) the $245,000 or 100% for consultant costs could be spent without any true benefit for the funds spent. 93521 State /Federal Funding It is a puzzle that funds are being expended ($17,272) to determine how much time is spent in meetings and work efforts. These funds could be saved by having the project charge codes, which,I am sure you utilize now to control costs, (as noted in your memo of May 18th regarding the position redesignation of the Mountain - Desert Program Manager) be kept by the respective staff as they attend the subject meetings and work on various policy implementation. If you have not set up a project code determination, it can be easily adopted into your present payroll /accounting system, which will assist you in providing staff accountability to your Board, without spending over $17,000. For your information, there is a $300. (approximate) software program entitled "Time Slips ". The cost of this project is budgeted $7,531 or 43.6% for salaries & fringes and $9,741 or 56.4% for indirect costs. 93522 Development Financing Here is another "consultant financing plan" for which the project description states that it "Does not necessarily imply positive conclusion of enacting such financing ". Furthermore, it is an open ended project with an unlimited cost potential in that the description states, "(The cost) does not at this time include consultant costs; may be added later" This is a curious statement where a project will focus on a study, which may not be used, and does not include consultant costs. Why are we spending a lot of money for nothing? What work will be coordinated with what County efforts? It is hoped that if this project is implemented, it does not fund activities which should be financed by the County General Fund. This project is budgeted for $17,244 in salaries & fringes (43.68) and $9,741 (56.48) in indirect costs. 3359 Operating Expenses - Rail These are funds solely for the direct subsidization of the commuter rail. If this is approved without justification for the subsidization, determination if this subsidization has a "sunset clause" included and /or how it was computed, it sets a precedence that will double the cost in the 1993 -94 budget. It will double the cost, at a minimum, because the project description states, "Operating subsidy requirement based on the following assumptions: 1) commuter rail service extended to San Bernardino (5 peak hour trains beginning 1993) and 2) commuter rail service operation on the Union Pacific line (3 peak hours trains beginning April 1993) ." This means that assumption #1 is subsidized for 6 months, with assumption 42 subsidized for 3 months. In the 1993 -94 budget these cost will be more than double when annualized. These are the kind of costs, whether justified or not, need closer examination to determine immediate and future financial impact. Concluding Comments It is strongly recommended that these new projects be deleted from the budget and brought back before the SANBAG Board on a case by case basis to determine their viability. In this reconsideration, it should be noted that on a set basis it appears the present new projects are usually set with 43.68 of the total funds are for salaries & fringes and 56.4$ is budgeted for indirect (overhead) costs. We don't know if these represent one time expenditures or if they represent recurring expenditures. I am confident that once you review these findings, you will also question these new programs. Sincerely, n^ / x. G 4a �- Frank Williams Director Governmental Affairs Valley Region {reuna.bt,uu .'ay -: _;,,y -. 'rhrssAxnmaouniowTTemurrs m- an- Special.pa4el to study streamlined regional government; m.W W.ken. Pln. Ne.mm sa J A r ..uu e a - Ge.eb , yn [he" C , ... P.I ml nuke .eme 1Ml peN,.ttv.blt W Fbke. eUnn a the rh'�tl V^el re LLan.d bet .� q.e.ninnt %he v.h0 be v .. a kv , hobs ..d Ne.m.e. .adG rt bbY tl rA.l .r.lu. ametW tW .ee3 to M. q e �ALLe.UIe tv.erMV t, .M the Mwf W h, w Ue tlu.. The v.nel memben ebo'. Nausea!SenN'vew bel Ytdva..lbb btP.li➢eemml. -tb .01Men PVride. TNl Hell m[.n Gault ..n.,ee tv nbeW eTl. fud Av..nd .FIrA'a, . M .bn PPOFen. bxntlstNa®- .RMkc pM1e tv Ne la.aev ud w:IF Ge Pnenl —,y tamm he I.alev ..W,. The mmef P?.Ftav tAUe.e..kn. rbho aeW,veH, w.r.ute anda.. n,r„t.,ale:�a;:e,,,l av va.- .aaM wme o-ua ln+me wa,..,. 'Tllut .<'r. hwt ho - -The mn.ni.ion MmNnY h er u. r .ee a mx Uun R.hfat Ne noPr — .bort Wl W mwH W •tlH u M fneal.W ul W PA•c •r Mt . 2. we .tWT. WI belt/ 31M. W b.bkb i S. ;w 9050A00 t.19400.0% fer e poeb u�Id Rket AeMt eGNalal Po 9 k heY.e. tbl Nye min- �efw.W; uk Ries !e ��If.e hebN .1 k. ee ee.l. tobethv VrckeNV9ip '0 'e ho" .n , Tve , a The edobab A.* bebt N Pvte4 1'mb' nrmbu. the Wven heJ Wt .Art lkpM Ane.pvtieG e,edo to hoke hm M :v U. Mw UAfe. -T"hm ee W vatlid tllr4 Uul e%C..I.ty11QM.hottet) b be.uHvif b salt/ Zqh cats. W «Pao W. BIR June 19, 1992 Scldy mew Region via fax Mr. Wesley C. McDaniel Executive Director SANBAG 472 North Arrowhead San Bernardino, CA SAN BERAARDINO ASSOCIATED GOVERNMENTS, PROPOSED BUDGET 1992 -93, JUNE 10, 1992 Dear Mr. McDaniel: In reviewing SANBAG's proposed budget for 1992 -93 more information is needed. We respectfully request the initial statement of program scope and objectives, program budgets, work schedules and high level management memos and any other correspondence relating to the following items relating to new programs that are included in this budget: 93103 Futures Project 93104 Intergovernmental Relations 93603 Organization Future 93604 Governance Center 93223 Program Management - General 93264 Major Project Value Engineering 92521 State /Federal Funding 93522 Development Financing 93359 Operating Expenses - Rail It is my understanding after attending the SANBAG Administrative Com:n4ttee meeting that members of the Board did not have any input into the "New Programs" recommendations. We hope SANBAG staff has not violated any State Administrative laws (ie., improper budget planning) . It is our intention to testify at the budget public hearing on July 1, 1992; therefore, it is necessary that we receive this information by June 24, 1992. Sincerely, � . 4.i 4 i h% '� n 0. Frank L. Wiiliams 9227 Hoven Pven "e. Suite 980 • Ron(ho <u(omongo. <oift,,,io 91730 • (714) 945 -1884 • FAX (714) 948 -9631 June 24, 1992 Frank Williams BIA - Baldy View Region 9227 Haven Ave., Ste. 280 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 San Bernardino Associated Governments San Bernardino County Transportation Commission San Bernardino County Trwuportation Authority Son Berea dino County Congestion Management Agency Service Aal ority for Freeway Emergencies 472 Ncrth Anourhead Avenue, San Bemerdino, California 92401 (714) 884-8276 FAX: (714) 8854407 Re: Nev: 1992 -93 Proposed Budget Project, request for formaaca in your letter of June 19, 1992 Dear Mr. Williams: Most of the new proposed work programs were simply derived through staff discussion during the budget preparation process over the past three months. There is no body of written detail, although some had initial budget form sheets prepared by the initiating staff member. The relevant detail may all be found in the budget. We refer you to the summary description, the large program budget spread sheet, the "job detail" pages which flesh out the expenditure components, and the labor distribution which identifies projected staff hours. As I noted at the Administrative Committee meeting, several of these programs will in fact need considerable detailed workprogramming before getting underway, with Board approval required. We have not yet developed the detail which you may want. In preparing the budget, California practice relies upon staff to make proactive recommendations for new programs based upon their professional evaluation of needs. Board members may similarly propose new work efforts. All of this goes into the review and final approval process. In this case, the proposed budget has been subjected to review at two Administrative Committee meetings, v. o City Managers' meetings, one Board muting, and one bluuntain- Desert Measure I Committee meeting. It is now subject to final Board action. These programs have been on the table consistently throughout this process. We too hope that staff has not violated any State Administrative laws or engaged in improper budget planning during this very traditional process. We have noted your desire to testify on July 1, 1992. Sincerely, Wesley C. McDaniel Executive Director cc: SANBAG Board BIA0624.WCM Cinu nf .Addaan, Bnrvnrv. B,g Benr We, Chinn. Clean Ndh, Olwo ,Fromm. 0 ..nd Hi,hland. Lnmu Linda, Manletalr Ne <dlet lhvar,n, R(a6hn Cuanrnnngn. Redlnndr, Ru,lm, San Brrnmdino, Tw <nrynme P,,!rna. Upland, Vicrurville. Yuealpo Town, o %A rile Vol Y, Yucca Vulle'Y Co11"q of Snn Bemmdin„ June 30, 1992 Wesley C. McDaniel Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments 472 North Arrowhead Avenue San Bernardino, CA. 92401 PROPOSED 1992 -93 SANBAG BUDGET Dear Mr. McDaniel: It is with much concern that I read your June 24th response to my letter dated June 19th on SANBAG's proposed 1992 -93 budget. My letter clearly requested all programmatic and fiscal documents supporting the need and viability of the new programs listed in your proposedd 1992 -93 budget. Further, I expressed concern that the Board did not have any input to what new programs were recommended. Your letter appears to internally discuss whether detail exists regarding the proposed new programs. In your first paragraph you state that, "There is no body of written detail, although some had initial budget form sheets prepared by the initiating staff mer,ber." Then, in your second paragraph you comment, "The relevant detail may all be found in the budget" Finally, in your third paragraph you write, "We have not yet developed the detail which you may want ". You cemn,.ented in your fourth paragraph that, "Board members may similarly propose new work efforts ". As you have stated, staff have developed these new programs without direct input or suggested structure from ttne Board. Due to the fact that my requests for detail were not responded to, I am forwarding my comments to the proposed programs with the information provided in SANBAG Proposed Budget 1992 -93. Introductory Comments The new projects are presented as planned projects, but each figure is to a specific dollar figure but the detail is not available. These projects are obviously written up and have a detail budget, with a chart of accounts. This type of information is what I requested in my letter of June 19th, but told in your letter of June 24th that this type of detail did not exist. .c _ Wesley C. McDaniel SA$BAG 1992 -93 Budget Page 2 93103 Futures Proiect As funds for public sector projects continue to dwindle, one must be sensitive to, and plan for, those activities which will result in a direct improvement of our economic and social environment in the Inland Empire. This proposed project provides consultants with employment ($30,000 in consultant fees and $20,000 in "professional services ") and a select number of conference attenders with some information ($10,000 budgeted for printing costs) they may have received through reading available printed data. It appears that the concept has been executed before (Los Angeles 2000 and Bay Visions 2020). The project, which is being included in the budget without detail or a completed needs analysis to justify spending over $70,000., should be deleted from the budget. There is $4,755 (6.7 %) budgeted for salaries & fringes and $6,150 (8.7 %) in indirect costs. This is a project that would be more suitable for an organization like IEEC to undertake. 93104 Intergovernmental Relations What is staff paid to facilitate, but to develop on -going collaborative efforts to improve communications and consensus - forming with sister agencies. Meetings between "sister" agencies can be held and executed without spending $67,962! It is with great concern that i continue to see funds being spent on activities that are executed by other organizations at little or no cost. These funds are budgeted at $29,634 (43.6$) for salaries and benefits, with $38,328 (56.4%) for indirect costs. 93603 Orcianization Puture The project's description ends with a statement which it should begin with: "Does not at this point include consultant costs ". It appears that this project's costs is open- ended, without any planned upper and costs which include the consultant's work. Furthermore, why is it costing a minimum of $8,179. to further define the role, focus, culture, and operations of SANSAG. How can a budget of over seventy -two mi111or, be executed by an organization which needs to spend an undefined amount of money on a further definition of their purpose and operations. These funds are budgeted for salaries and fringes ($3,566 - 43.6 %) and $4,673 (56.4 %) in indirect costs. Wesley C. McDaniel SANBAG 1992 -93 Budget Page 3 93604 Governance Center This project appears to be a capital expenditure. The description reads in part, "Includas,..$20,000. (88%-) direct financing participation, exact nature unknown at this time." The remaining $2,726 (12 &) are for salaries, fringes, and indirect costs.In these times when all private and public entities need to be lean and efficient, due to economic times, here is a capital project where it appears title will be held by the university (California State university - San Bernardino). All of us are aware of the need of new facilities for the university, but it is not the responsibility of the SANBAG funding sources to assist the university in meeting those needs. There is no apparent justification for this expenditure except for a gratuitous statement about SANBAG (perhaps) having their monthly meets at this facility. 93223 Program Management - General This appears to be a most blatant example of "make work" for staff in an area where the description of the project is a current responsibility of staff. It is incumbent on any staff to a board of commission to monitor and report progress on efforts of the organization. To call it a new internal program does not justify the expenditure of $44,469. ($18,954 or 43.63 in salaries & fringes and $24,515 or 56.4% in indirect costs) for activities for which is the present charge of the SANBAG staff. This may be the time for you to take the lead in cutting staff costs and streamlining activities instead of expanding the already burgeoning bureaucratic structure. 93264 Major Project Value Engineering The listed description states that this project will fund studies which will be an "...effort to control construction costs ". It should he considered, that for a quarter of million dollars, there should be more specific measurable goals listed for the project description. Without specificity in goal attainments (funds to be saved, efficiency levels increased, time delays reduced /eliminated, etc.) the $245,000 or 100% for consultant costs could be spent without any true benefit for the funds scent. Wesley C. McDaniel SANBAG 1992 -93 Budget Page 4 93521 State /Federal Funding It is a puzzle that funds are being expended ($17,272) to determine how much time is spent in meetings and work efforts. These funds could be saved by having the project charge codes, which I am sure You utilize now to control costs, (as noted in your memo of May 18th regarding the position redesignation of the Mountain - Desert Program Manager) be kept by the respective staff as they attend the subject meetings and work on various policy implementation. If you have not set up a project code determination, it can be easily adopted into your present payroll /accounting system, which will assist you in providing staff accountability to your Board, without spending over $17,000. For your information, there is a $300. (approximate) software program entitled "Time Slips ". The cost of this project is budgeted $7,531 or 43.63 for salaries & fringes and $9,741 or 56.4& for indirect costs. 93522 Development Financing sere is another "consultant financing plan" for which the project description states that it "Does not necessarily imply positive conclusion of enacting such financing ". Furthermore, it is an open ended project with an unlimited cost potential in that the description states, "(The cost) does not at this time include consultant costs; may be added later" This is a curious statement where a project will focus on a study, which may not be used, and does not include consultant costs. Why are we spending a lot of money for nothing? What work will be coordinated with what County efforts? It is hoped that if this project is implemented, it does not fund activities which should be financed by the County General Fund. This project is budgeted for $17,244 in salaries & fringes (43.6 %) and $9,741 (56.4$) in indirect costs. 93359 Operating Expenses - Rail These are funds solely for the direct subsidization of the commuter rail. If this is approved without justification for the subsidization, determination if this subsidization has a "sunset clause" included and /or how it was computed, it sets a precedence that will double the cost in the 1993 -94 budget. It will double the cost, at a minimum, because the project description, states, Wesley C. McDaniel SANBAG 1992 -93 Budget Page 5 "operating subsidy requirement based on the following assumptions: 1) commuter rail service extended to San Bernardino (5 peak hour trains beginning 1993) and 2) commuter rail service operation on the Union Pacific line (3 peak hours trains beginning April 1993)." This means that assumption #1 is subsidized for 6 months, with assumption #2 subsidized for 3 months. In the 1993 -94 budget these cost will be more than double when annualized. These are the kind of costs, whether justified or not, need closer examination to determine immediate and future financial impact. concluding Comments It is strongly recommended that these new projects be deleted from the budget and brought back before the SANSAG Board on a case by case basis to determine their viability. In this reconsideration, it should be noted that on a set basis it appears the present naw projects are usually set with 43.6% of the total funds are for salaries & fringes and 56.4% is budgeted for indirect (overhead) costs. I am ccnfident that once you review these findings, you will direct your staff to trim operating costs, including the excessive staff and overhead costs on future projects Sincerely, Frank Williams Director Governmental Affairs Valley Region cc: SANBAG Board of Directors