No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/06/05 - Agenda Packet CITY COUNCIL AGENDA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REGULAR MEETINGS 1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m. June 5, 1996 Civic Center Council Chmnbers 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City Councilmembers William J. Alexander, Mayor Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tem Paul Biane, Councilmember James V. Curatalo, Councilmember Diane Williams, Councilmember Jack Lam, City Manager James L. Markman, City Attorney Debra J. Adams, City Clerk City Office: 989-1851 City Council Agenda June 5, 1996 All items submitted forthe City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items. A. CALL TO ORDER Pledge of Allegiance. Roll Call: Alexander Biane , Curatalo Gutierrez , and Williams__ B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation honoring Rosemary Faust as Rancho Cucamonga's Small Businessperson of the Year. Presentation of Proclamations to Ryan Gilkey and Cory Wilson for their assistance in solving a crime in our community. C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. D. CONSENT CALENDAR The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for discussion. 1. Approval of Minutes: May 1,1996 Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 5~8~96 and 5/15~96; and Payroll ending 5/2/96 for the total amount of $1,420,137.78. Alcoholic Beverage Application for On-Sale Beer and Wine for Barbee's Pizza, John J. Barbee, 7251 A Haven Avenue. Approval to declare surplus miscellaneous City owned equipment. Approval to purchase one (1) Indeco 621 HD Hammer, Hydraulic Breaker from RDO Equipment Company of Riverside, California, funded solely from Account Number 72-4225-7044, in the amount of $20,682.61. 12 14 18 City Council Agenda June 5, 1996 , Approval to purchase one (1) Double-Drum Vibratory Compactor from Ingersoll-Rand Company of Los Angeles, California to be funded from two Account Numbers: 09-4637-7044 as a Lease Purchase for $5,000.00 each year for five years, and 72-4225-7044 in the amount of $5,421.44. , Approval to amend Resolution No. 96-054 to include roadway construction equipment - compactor and hydraulic breaker - through Municipal Services Group. RESOLUTION NO. 96-054A A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-054 AUTHORIZING THE LEASE/PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT THROUGH MUNICIPAL LEASING ASSOCIATES, INC. 8. Approval of Resolutions relating to the November 5, 1996 election. RESOLUTION NO. 96-080 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE RESOLUTION NO 96-081 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CHARGE TO CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS OF THE CANDIDATES STATEMENT FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Approval of Ught Vadance Request for district 21 Baseball Play-offs at Red Hill Park and Heritage Park Sixty Foot Fields until 11:00 p.m. 10. Approval to adopt Memoranda of Understanding (CO 96-029, 96- 030 and 96-031) and Compensation Resolution for Fiscal Year 1996/97. 2 19 20 21 23 24 25 27 28 City Council Agenda June 5, 1996 3 11. 12. 13. 14. RESOLUTION NO. 96-082 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AUTHORIZING ENTERING INTO MEMORANDUMS OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL EMPLOYEE BARGAINING GROUP, MAINTENANCE BARGAINING GROUP AND SUPERVISORY/PROFESSIONAL BARGAINING GROUP FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 Approval to award and authorization for execution of Contract (CO 96-032) for Community Trail Fencing, located at Windrows Park and North Victoria Windrows Loop, east side, south of Kalmia Street and Banyan Street, south side, from Milliken Avenue to Mt. Baldy Place, to Econo Fence Company, in the amount of $74,993.05 ($68,176.50 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Landscape Maintenance District 2, Account No. 41-4130-9525 and Landscape Maintenance District 6, Account No. 45-4130-0525. Approval to execute a Program Supplement (CO 96-033) to Local Agency-State Master Agreement No, STLPP-5420 for the State- Local Transportation Partnership Program between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the State of California for the Improvement of Haven Avenue from Deer Creek Channel to Base Line Road. Reimbursable Funding from the Supplement Agreement shall be deposited to the SB140 Account. RESOLUTION NO. 96-083 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND SIGNING OF A PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE MASTER AGREEMENT TO NO. STLPP-5420 FOR THE STATE-LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF HAVEN AVENUE FROM DEER CREEK CHANNEL TO BASE LINE ROAD Approval to execute an amendment to the Epicenter Rental Application with Rancho Cucamonga (CO 94-039) with Rancho Cucamonga High School for Graduation Ceremonies at the Adult Sports Complex in exchange for City use of Rancho Cucamonga High School Gymnasium for Youth Basketball Program. Approval of Map, execution of Improvement Agreement. Improvement Securities, Monumentation Cash Deposit and Ordering the Annexatjon to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 4 for Parcel Map 14786, located on the north side of East Elm Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Church Street, submitted by Lewis Development Company. 28-1 29 31 33 35 36 City Council Agenda June 5, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. 96-084 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 14786, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT RESOLUTION NO. 96-085 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP 14786 15. Approval of Map, execution of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security, execution of Vintners Walk Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6 for Parcel Map 13845, located on the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, submitted by Masi Commerce Center Partners. RESOLUTION NO. 96-086 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ENCROACHMENT/ MAINTENANCE FOR VINTNERS WALK OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13845 RESOLUTION NO. 96-087 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 13845, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY RESOLUTION NO. 96-088 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOSo 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 13845 4 38 39 42 44 45 46 City Council Agenda June 5, 1996 16. Approval to Release Bonds and Notice of Completion for Tract 12659-1, located on the southwest corner of Etiwanda Avenue and 24th Street. Release: Faithful Performance Bond $ 88,000.00 Street Improvements #3SM 713 819 00 Release: Faithful Performance Bond 132,000.00 Etiwanda Storm Drain #3SM 713 820 00 RESOLUTION NO. 96-089 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 12659-1 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK 17. Approval to Set the Date for the Public Hearing for July 3, 1996 to Consider Vacating an Alley located between Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road, east of Red Hill Country Club Drive. RESOLUTION NO. 96-090 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AN ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND SAN BERNARDINO ROAD, EAST OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, APN: 207-113-18 THROUGH 24 49 60 51 53 E. CONSENT ORDINANCES The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non- controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion. No Items Submitted. City Council Agenda June 5, 1996 F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-04 - FRANCIS BALCHAK- An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 1,075 square foot video arcade and a 2,207 square foot pool room in conjunction with a 2,100 square foot restaurant within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) shopping center located at the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Base Line Road -APN: 208-202-17. (CONTINUED FROM MAY 15, 1996) RESOLUTION NO. 96-091 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96- 04, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A VIDEO ARCADE, OCCUPYING 1,075 SQUARE FEET, AND A POOL ROOM, OCCUPYING 2,207 SQUARE FEET, IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT OF 2,100 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-202-17 CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE TRACT 15732 - LEWIS HOMES - Appeal of a condition of approval regarding school facility financing for a proposed subdivision of 33 single family homes on 9.46 acres of land in the Community Service designation, located at the northwest corner of Base Line Road and EffiNanda Avenue - APN: 277-522-05, 07, and 08. (CONTINUED FROM MAY 15, 1996) CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 WOHURANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. 58 102 104 105 City Council Agenda June 5, 1996 ORDINANCE NO. 554 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, NORTH OF EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND WEST OF ELM AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208- 352-62 THROUGH 69 CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the continued use of modular buildings on 10 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5354 Haven Avenue - APN: 1074-271-01. RESOLUTION NO. 96-093 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-03, FOR EXISTING TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS LOCATED AT HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND VISTA GROVE STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-271-01 117 121 163 G. PUBLIC HEARINGS The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND ADDING CHAPTER 9.24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS (LEGAL WORDING CHANGES ONLY) ORDINANCE NO. 555 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING CHAPTER 9.24 OF TITLE 9 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.24 TO TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MASSAGE TECHNICIANS, MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND SIMILAR BUSINESSES 165 166 City Council Agenda June 5, 1996 8 CONSIDERATION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.30 AND PROHIBITING LOITERING BY MINORS ORDINANCE NO. 556 (first reading) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.30 AND PROHIBITING LOITERING BY MINORS 189 190 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. No Items Submitted. I. COUNCIL BUSINESS The following items have been requested by the City Council for discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may open the meeting for public input. 1. DISCUSSION OF HILLSIDE CHURCH BALL FIELDS (Oral Report) 2. CONSIDERATION OF PROCESS FOR FILLING CURRENT TERMS EXPIRING ON PLANNING COMMISSION 194 J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next meeting. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC This is the time and place for the general public to address the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five minutes per individual. City Council Agenda June 5, 1996 L. ADJOURNMENT MEETING TO RECESS TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS LABOR NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54957.6 TO GIVE JACK LAM, CITY MANAGER, DIRECTION IN REGARDS TO THE MEET AND CONFER PROCESS. EXECUTIVE SESSION TO ADJOURN TO JUNE 6, 1996 AT 5:30 P.M. FOR A BUDGET STUDY SESSION, LOCATED AT 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, IN THE TRI-COMMUNITIES CONFERENCE ROOM. I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on May 30, 1996, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive. 9 May 1, 1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL MINUTES Reclular Meetin.el A. CALL TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, May 1, 1996, in the Coundl Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 7:09 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander. Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor William J. Alexander. Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; William Curley, Deputy City Attorney; Brad Buller, City Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Shintu Bose, Deputy City Engineer; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Robert Dominguez, Administrative Services Director; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Deborah Clark, Library Manager; Diane O'Neal, Management Analyst II; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Capt. Ron Bieberdorf, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk. B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS B1. Presentation of Proclamation declaring the Month of May as Older Americans Month in Rancho Cucamonga. Mayor Alexander presented the proclamation to various seniors of the community. B2. Presentation of Proclamation commending the Northtown Housing Development Corporation on the successful completion of Villa Del Norte. Mayor Alexander presented the proclamation to the North Town Housing Development Corporation Board and Nacho Gracia. Mr. Gracia thanked the City Council for their support and also former Councilmember, Chuck Buquet, who was in the audience. B3. Sal Briguglio presented a check in the amount of $2,300 to the City from proceeds of the D.A.R.E. Baseball Clinic sponsored by the Rotary Club on April 21, 1996. He added that funds will go back to help support the D.A.R.E. program. City Council Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 2 C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC C1. Pete Smits, resident at 10458 Vivienda, directly south of the Hillside Church, presented information about the erection of the baseball facility at the church. He stated it is a nuisance to his neighborhood and that they cannot use their backyards because of the activity. He stated it is a problem relating to his privacy. He also felt their CUP was not being monitored. He asked for the City Council's help. He invited the Council to come up and see what is going on. Mayor Alexander assured him they definitely would. D. CONSENT CALENDAR Jack Lam, City Manager, stated Item D5 has a correction to the Resolution as noted in the memorandum distributed. D1. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 4/10/96 and 4/17/96; and Payroll ending 4/4~96 for the total amount of $1,164,161.55. D2. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Beer and Wine Import for Coors Brewing Company, located at 8858 Rochester Avenue. D3. Approval of City Co-Sponsorship of the Daily Bulletin All-Star Game on June 12, 1996. D4. Approval of City Co-Sponsorship and Banner Application for the San Antonio Hospital Foundation's Grand Prix on June 8 and 9, 1996. D5. Approval of a Summary Vacation of a 30-foot emergency fire access easement on two lots at the southwest corner of Laredo Place and Laramie Drive - APN: 1061-801-06 and 07. RESOLUTION NO. 96-061 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY ORDERING THE VACATION OF AN EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT ON TWO LOTS AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAREDO PLACE AND LARAMIE DRIVE D6. Approval to award and authorization for execution of Contract (CO 96-016) for the Ninth Street Improvements, from Grove Avenue to Edwin Street, to the lowest responsive bidder, Gentry Brothers, Inc., in the amount of $199,512.50 (amount of bid plus 10% contingency) to be funded from the CDBG Fund, Account No. 28-4333-9316. D7. Approval to execute Improvement Agreement Extension for Parcel Map 12854, located on the west side of East Avenue, between Catalpa and Victoria Streets, submitted by Style Homes Company, L.P. RESOLUTION NO. 96-062 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR PARCEL MAP 12854 City Council Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 3 D8. Approval to Release Maintenance Bonds for Tract 13280. Release: Maintenance Guarantee Bond #3SM882040-00 $52,842,00 MOTION: Moved by Guljerrez, seconded by Curatalo to approve the staff recommendations in the staff reports contained in the Consent Calendar as corrected. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. E. CONSENT ORDINANCES No items were submitted. F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS No items were submitted. G. PUBLIC HEARINGS No items were submitted. H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS H1. CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96- 01A - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request for land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues- APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts for consideration. (Continued from April 17, 1996) Jack Lam, City Manager, and Brad Buller, City Planner, presented information on the action to be taken for this meeting. Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing the City Council was: Chuck Buquet, Charles Joseph Associates, expressed Mr. DeForge's regrets that he could not be in attendance due to a family emergency, but that this matter was very important to him. He stated he would answer any questions that the City Council had. RESOLUTION NO. 96-063 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96- 01A, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69 City Council Minutes May 1, 1996 Page 4 MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Williams to approve Resolution No. 96-063. Motion carried 3-2 (Alexander, Curatalo voted no). I, COUNCIL BUSINESS I1. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING FEDERAL LEGISLATION REGARDING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES (HR 2927) (Continued from April 17, 1996) Staff report presented by Councilmember Gutierrez. Councilmember Biane thanked staff and Councilmember Gutierrez for bringing this to the Council's attention. Mayor Alexander stated he felt this was a very good bill. RESOLUTION NO. 96-064 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING HOUSE RESOLUTION 2927 WHICH AMENDS THE FAIR HOUSING ACT REGARDING LOCAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITIES MOTION: Moved by Willlares, seconded by Biane to approve Resolution No. 96-064. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING J1. Coundlmember Gutjerrez stated he wanted the Hillside Church matter as previously brought up by Mr. Smits to be on the next agenda for discussion. K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC K1. Toni Rhodes asked a question about Item I1 as it related to disabled people. Councilmember Willlares clarified this for her. Toni Rhodes thanked the City for helping form another program for people with disabilities, i.e., the tennis program. City Council Minutes May 1,1996 Page 5 L. ADJOURNMENT MOTION: Moved by Willlares, seconded by Biane to adjourn to Executive Session to discuss Labor Negotiations per Government Code Section 54957.6 to give Robed Dominguez, Administrative Services Director, direction in regards to the Meet and Confer Process. Motion carried unanimously. 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 7:42 p.m. No action was taken in Executive Session. Respectfully submitted, Debra J. Adams, CMC City Clerk Approved: % V~ ~v~ L) ZIL~ ,I I-- ~-4 II, I I'- I'- 0 w Z ~ H (J A A ooo~~oo~~oo~oooooooo~~oooo~~oo~~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 Z ~ Z ~ ~Z ~Z Z Z ~Z~ ~4~Z ~ ZZ~W~ ZZ~ZZ~WW~ZW~W~ % Z 41--1 (JZQO (.Jl~cl · r2 ~c i..,~ U.v~uJ .I i- C2 · · · ~ leae uJ O i...i..-~l~ ZZZ UJuJ,,( t..4 C:)C)s" *:::):~...J ZZtU w~ UZU~ZUWWUU~ U~UU~ %ZZ~ZOHOZZOOOZO~Z~Z OZ ~Lt U · ZU ZZJ2 J Z · d I- e~ UJ l- r',W I-- ,,J 4c:~ U, uJ Z % Z ~)~1 ~c2c2 ee uJ I,,,,, C~ z ,v · · · · · · · · · I I · · I · · I · · · I · · · · · · · · · I · · · · · · · e · I1-1 · · · ir-'l 1:31 I · · · · · I I · · · · · · I I · · I'I I""1 I · · · I · · · · · · · · I I · I · · · · I I · l I · · · · · · · I I I · I I · · I~! IC~I I1--1 i,,v,I IUI I~1 · II,-I · · I I I I · · · I I · · · · · I I I · · I -' I I I I · · I I · · I I I I · · · · · · I · · · · I · I · I I I~1 I1:1 I I I,vl · · OO00~HNINOO~O~O0000~O~O W ~OW [~OHOO~ OZ~¢O~O~ DZOZO ~O[O)~Z~O~O ZOZWZO Z ZO W O~ · r · I--(~ ,J · l I · · · · · · · · · · · I · · · ~1 · · · I · · · · · · · · I~1 ~1~1 ~1~1 NI · \1~1 ~1~1 I --I I ~1 I ~1 I ~1 · QI I · · Zl I I I~1 I~1 I~1 I · · · I · · I I · · · I · I I · · · · · · I · · · · · I I I · I · I · I · I · I · INI I~1 I~1 I~1 I~1 I~1 IQI · I I~1 I~1 INI · · II · I · · · · · · · I I I · I I · · I · I · I · I I I · · · I · · I I I I · · · I · I · · · · · · · I · · · · I · · · IZl I(I · · · I I>1 · · o~o~oo~ eeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeeee A A A o~oo~~~~oooooo~~~~oo~oo~~oo ~ e 0 N ~ N N ~ V ~H V V Z Z t,') · O I-, t,) ,,,$1-- (~) H,t _,10 UI O0 3~,r tM J ,i; · ,~ e CI ( Zl,-- H e'l-- Z HI-. ,d, *rwZ ,,J UJUJ C3,( I: O~O"riU3t' ZZU ,J · i' | Z uJ I.-.e i- :Zw 'Y J ) ) p.~ 4 Z C) ~ Z ~Z Z II I.I ,"1 I A ) ',) ,, I Z (J t 41. ,) 3 I,- I,- 41. APPLICATION FOR ALCOHOL BEVERAGE LICENSE(S) TO: DeparUnent of Alcoholic Beverage Control DISTRICT SERVING LOCATION: Nm-ne of Business: Location of Business: Number and Street RIVERSIDE File Number ............ 317944 Receipt Number ...... L..1078115 Geographical Code ........ 3615 Copies Mailed Date .... 3/13/96 Issued Date Barbee's Pizza 7251A HAVEN AVE City, State Zip Code County Is premise inside city limits? Mailing Address: (If different from premise address ) RANCHO CUCAMONGA SAN BERNARDINO YES CA 91730 ff premise licensed: Type of license Transferor's names/license: License TYpe PERROTTI INC 294745 Transaction TyPe Fee TYPe Master DUD Date Fee 1.41 ON-SALE BEER AND W PERSON TO PERSON TRANS NA YES 0 MAR 13,1996 $150.00 : 2.41 ON-SALE BEER AND W ANNUAL FEE NA YES 0 MAR 13,1996 $205.00: TOTAL $355.00 Have you ever been Have you ever violated any provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage C0nirol convicted of a felony? NO Control Act, or regulations of the department pertaining to the Act? NO Explain any "Yes" answer to the above questions on an attachment which shall be deemed psrt of this application. Applicant agrees (a) that any manager employed in on-sale licensed premise will have all the qualifications of a licensee, and (b) that he will not violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act. STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of SAN BERNARDINO Date MAR 13,i996 Under penalty of perjury, each person whose signature appears below, certifies and says: (1) He is an applican~ or one of the applicants, or an executive'officer of the applicant corporation, named in the foregoing application, duly authorized to make this application on its behalf; (2) that he has read the foregoing and knows the contents thereof and that each of the above statements therein made nre true; (3) that no penon other than the applicant or applicants has any direct or indirect intesest in die applicant o~ applicaat's business to be conducted unda the liceuse(s) for which this application is made; (4) llmt the a'an~a ap ticsdon er red transfer is not made to satisfy the payment of a loan or to fulfill an agreement entered into more than ninet~ (90) days preceding the day on which ~ wartslet ~Pr°~'c~tion is filled with the Depatunent or to gain or establish a preference to or for any creditor or transferor or to defraud or injure any creditor of transferor; (5) that the transfer application may be withdrawn by either the applicant or the licensee with no resulting liability to the Department Applicant Name(s) I BARBEE JOHN J I IAt:tached: 731 & '\ ,A~;tj,S~ to Fnl 1 nv: Ilti ca R~crn~ C. nrp. , 10681 Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 8310-SN #301 91730 ABC 211 (9/93) CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 5, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council City Manager, Jack Lam, AICP FROM: Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director BY: Joan Kruse, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO DECLARE SURPLUS MISCELLANEOUS CITY- OWNED EQUIPMENT RECOMMENDATION That City Council approval be given to surplus the following listed City-owned equipment which is either no longer needed, obsolete or unusable. BACKGROUND The City's purchasing manual identifies two major categories of surplus property; materials and supplies, and capital equipment. It has been the policy of the City to request that the City Council provide authorization to the Purchasing Agent to dispose of City property by declaring such items surplus. Methods of disposition can be transfer to another department, trade-in, sale by bid or auction, sale as scrap, donation, or simply trashing. With the purchase of the City' s new computer system various computers, printers, monitors and other equipment are surplus to our need. The attached listing will identify that equipment. As an added note, staff advertised and contacted several vendors and suppliers of computer equipment to determine the "sale" value of the equipment. We had no offers to purchase any of the equipment: this is indicative of fast moving technology that declares obsolete older technology. Attach. PT2OO's: Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Description PT200 Terminal City of Rancho Cucamonga Surplus Inventory SeriaiNo. 8809-32492 8829-60611 8809-58075 8029-60604 8702-48087 8829-60614 8829-60598 8609-32500 8617-38250 8702-48081 8829-60602 8809-58023 8820-59599 8609-32491 8609-32503 8829-60621 8627-40421 8609-32495 8625-40407 8506-09590 8829-60623 FIxed AssetNo. 00141 00748 N/A 00603 N/A N/A 00703 00288 00351 00495 00705 N/A 00697 00747 00348 00704 00491 00367 N/A 00179 00702 1 · 5/23/96 NBI's: Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Description NBI 14" Monitor NBI 2200 CPU NBI 2000 Terminal City of Rancho Cucamonga Surplus Inventory SerialNo. 8211352 TK1958006 GA1655022 GAl186016 GA1655029 GA1655027 GA1555044 GA1436026 GA3067017 GA1436022 GA1655006 GA0666002 GAl116012 GA1645019 GAl186014 GA1216012 GA3645073 GA1216013 Fixed AssetNo. 00624 00320 00143 00386 00340 00315 00344 N/A 00331 00378 00312 00319 N/A 00361 N/A 00330 00190 Printers: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NBI Diablo 630 NBI Diablo 630 NBI Diablo 630 NBI Diablo 630 (LL) NBI Diablo 630 (LL) NBI Diablo 630 (LL) NBI Diablo 630 (B&S) NBI Fujitsu 735-0 NBI Fujitsu 735-0 NBI Fujitsu 735-0 (LL) 86301943 84512 86248764D63 862958 86295832D63 48325 86295830D63 24815 22958 31436F35 00145 00335 00343 00336 00411 00189 00354 00467 N/A 00770 2 · 5/23/96 City of Rancho Cucamonga Surplus Inventory Miscellaneous: Item No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Description ADDS VPT Terminal NCR Terminal Selanar Terminal Selanar Terminal Tektronix 4107A Tektronix 4207 Tektronix 4208 Wang Terminal Wang Terminal Wyse Terminal Wyse Terminal Serial No. 893888 893889 905678 905365 9021 9014 9011 8984 8980 9052 600006007 600025307 B034378 B011238 B031651 OS7370 L84441 0217296 00220V9 FIxed Asset No. N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 00124 N/A 00117 N/A 00116 N/A N/A 00184 00295 00494 00209 N/A 00302 N/A 3 ° 5/23/96 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Gary Varney, Street and Storm Drain Maintenance Superintendent AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE (1) INDECO 621 HD HAMMER, HYDRAULIC BREAKER FROM RDO EQUIPMENT CO. OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA, FUNDED SOLELY FROM ACCOUNT NUMBER 72-4225-7044, IN THE AMOUNT OF $20,682,61. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the purchase of one (1) Indeco 621 HD Hammer Hydraulic Breaker from RDO Equipment Co., of Riverside, California, to be funded solely from Account No. 72-4225-7044, in the amount of $20,682.61. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Staff has been reviewing different hydraulic breakers to replace the old breaker unit which is unreliable and no longer cost effective. The new breaker is more versatile and mounts to the 510C John Deere Backhoe. The hydraulic breaker mounted to the backhoe will expedite the removal of harriscape materials for the replacement of sidewalks, curbs/gutters, and wheelchair ramps. RDO Equipment Company of Riverside is our single source servicer for all our present John Deere equipment. One other supplier of the Indeco 621 HD Hammer was compliant, but RDO was determined to meet our operational needs more effectively. RDO has met all the requirements of the specifications and with their current service record, meets the City's specifications on performance safety and equipment standards. Respectfully submitted, William J~('~ City Engineer WJO:gV/jfs CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Gary Varney, Street and Storm Drain Maintenance Superintendent AUTHORIZATION TO PURCHASE ONE (1) DOUBLE-DRUM VIBRATORY COMPACTOR FROM INGERSOLL-RAND CO. OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA, TO BE FUNDED FROM TWO ACCOUNTS: 09-4637-7044 AS A LEASE PURCHASE FOR $4,952.15 EACH YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS AND 72-4225-7044 IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,912.44, FOR A TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE OF $32,673.19. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the purchase of one (1) Ingersoll-Rand Model DD22 Double-Drum Vibratory Compactor with trailer from Ingersoll-Rand Co. Of Los Angeles, California. The compactor is to be funded from two accounts: 09-4637-7044 as a lease purchase for $4,952.15 per year for five years and 72-4225-7044 in the amount of $7,912.44. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Staff has been reviewing a wide selection of Double-Drum Vibratory Compactors to replace the old Mauldin Roller which is no longer operational. Ingersoll-Rand offered the City the option of a Piggy-Back purchase from the County of Los Angeles' purchase order for a compactor roller with the exact specifications which our staff determined met our operational needs. Ingersoll-Rand, together with their piggy-back offer, has met all requirements and is compliant by meeting or exceeding the City's specifications on performance safety and equipment standards. Respectfully submitt. ed, Willia~.O,Neil~/~'~c~ City Engineer WJO:GV/jfs CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 5, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director BY: Joan A. Kruse, Purchasing Agent SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO AMEND RESOLUTION NO. 96-054 TO ENTER INTO A LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH MUNICIPAL LEASING ASSOCIATES, INC., TO INCLUDE THE PURCHASE OF VIBRATORY COMPACTOR AND TRAILER. RECOMMENDATION That Council amend Resolution No. 96-054 to enter into a lease/purchase agreement in the amount of $22,500 with Municipal Leasing Associates, Inc., adding onto the original lease/purchase agreement an Ingersoll-Rand Model DD22 3-5 Ton Vibratory Compactor and a New Zieman Trailer Model 1137 Single Axle. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Council approved purchase of the Vibratory Compactor and the New Zieman Trailer at this meeting. Staff would like to add these two pieces of equipment onto the original lease/purchase due to the favorable interest rate of 5.03 percent. Prime rate at this time is 8.25 percent. The current lease/puchase agreement is for one (1) Athey/Mobil model 2TE5DB street sweeper. Respectfully submitted, Z Administrative Services Director RCD:JAK/da Attach. RESOLUTION NO. 96- C5) .~q ill' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 96-054 AUTHORIZING THE LEASE/PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT THROUGH MUNICIPAL LEASING ASSOCIATES, INC. WHEREAS, The City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California ("City") is duly authorized and existing under the laws of said State; and WHEREAS, the City has entered or will enter into agreements for the acquisition of one (1) Ingersoll-Rand Model DD22 3-5 Ton Vibratory Compactor and one (1) New Zieman Trailer Model 1137 Single Axle ("Property") all in accordance with the applicable law; and WHEREAS, the goveming body has determined it is in the best interests of the City and the citizens it serves to secure lease-purchase financing to provide moneys in the approximate amount of $22,500.00 necessary to pay for the Property; and WHEREAS, Municipal Leasing Associates, Inc. ("Corporation") has offered the City a cost effective lease~financing arrangement requiring periodic rental payments including principal plus interest computed at a 5.03% annual percentage rate; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has taken the necessary steps, including any legal bidding requirements, under applicable law to arrange for acquisition of such equipment; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby directs the City Attorney to review the agreement and negotiate appropriate modifications of said agreement so as to assure compliance with state law and local statutory law, prior to execution of the agreement by those persons authorized by the City Council for such purpose; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager and/or Bob Dominguez, Administrative Services Director acting alone be hereby authorized in the name and on behalf of City to enter into binding agreements with the Corporation for leasing the Property upon such terms as may seem advisable to said officer(s), and to execute as agent for the City, all necessary agreements including, but not limited to, a lease/option agreement, acknowledgment of assignment and acceptance certificate. Each officer is also authorized to accept or direct delivery of the Property. The authority given hereunder shall be deemed retroactive and any and all acts authorized hereunder performed prior to the passage of the resolution are hereby ratified and affirmed I, , Clerk of City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that the foregoing is a tree copy of a resolution duly and legally adopted by the goveming body of the City at a legal meeting of said body duly and regularly held on ,1996, and that said resolution has not been revoked. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk APPROVAL OF RESOLUTIONS RELATING TO THE NOVEMBER 5, 1996 ELECTION Attached you will find Resolutions relating to the November 5, 1996 election. It is recommended that the Council adopt the following Resolutions: Calling for the Municipal Election to be held November 5, 1996, for the positions of two City Council seats, one City Clerk, and one City Treasurer, and to consolidate said election with the County of San Bemardino. ,. Approving the regulations for candidates running for elective office. After the Council approves the above Resolutions, I will proceed with the San Bemardino County Registrar' s office to place these matters on the November 5 ballot. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. /dja Attached (Resolutions as noted above) RESOLUTION NO. 96- O A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN SAID CITY ON TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1996, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS OF THE CITY AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES, AND CONSOLIDATING SAID ELECTION WITH STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON SAID DATE WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to General Law Cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on Tuesday, November 5, 1996, for the election of Municipal Officers. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION '1: That pursuant to the requirements of the laws of the State of California relating to General Law Cities within said State, there shall be, and there is hereby called and ordered, held in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, on Tuesday, the 5th day of November, 1996 a General Municipal Election of the qualified electors of said City for the purpose of electing two members of the City Council for the full term of four years; a City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for a full term of four years; and a City Treasurer of the City of Rancho Cucamonga for a full term of four years. SECTION 2: That the General Municipal Election hereby called for the date hereinbefore specified shall be and is hereby ordered consolidated with the Statewide General Election to be held on said date within the City. The proceedings, polling places, precincts, precinct board members and officers for the General Municipal Election hereby called shall be the same as those provided for said Statewide General Election. The Board of Supervisors of San Bemardino County is hereby requested to order the consolidation of the General Municipal Election hereby called with said Statewide General Election, and said Registrar of Voters is hereby authorized to canvass the returns of said General Municipal Election and said election shall be held in all respects as if there were only one election and one formal ballot, namely the ballot used at said General Election shall be used. Said Registrar of Voters shall supervise the canvass of said returns for said Special Municipal Election and transmit said returns to the City Council of said City which shall thereafter declare the results thereof. SECTION 3: The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall reimburse said County for services performed when the work is completed and upon presentation to the City of a properly approved bill. SECTION 4: The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is directed to forward, without delay, to said Registrar of Voters, a certified copy of this Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 96- (:::2::) ~ / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A CHARGE TO CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE, FOR PREPARATION OF MATERIALS SUBMITTED TO THE ELECTORATE AND THE COSTS OF THE CANDIDATES STATEMENT FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1996 WHEREAS, Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California provides that the governing body of any city may adopt a charge against candidates pertaining to materials prepared by any candidate for a municipal election, including costs of the candidates statement. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve, declare, determine and order as follows: SECTION '1: General Provisions. That pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code of the State of California, each candidate for elective office to be voted for at the General Municipal Election to be held in the City of Rancho Cucamonga on November 5, 1996, may prepare a candidate's statement on an appropriate form provided by the City Clerk. Such statement may include the name, age and occupation of the candidate and a brief description of no more than 200 words of the candidate's education and qualifications expressed by the candidate himself or herself. Such statement shall not include party affiliation of the candidate, nor membership or activity in partisan political organizations. Such statement shall be filed in the Office of the City Clerk at the time the candidate's nomination papers are filed. Such statement may be withdrawn, but not changed, during the pedod for filing nomination papers and until 5:00 p.m. of the next working day after the close of the nomination period. SECTION 2: Additional Materials. No candidate will be permitted to include additional materials in the sample ballot package. SECTION 3: Payment. The City Clerk shall estimate the total cost of printing, handling, translating, and mailing the candidates statements filed pursuant to the Elections Code, including costs incurred as a result of complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (as amended), and require each candidate filing a statement to pay in advance his or her pro rata share as a condition of having his or her statement included in the voter's pamphlet. The estimate is just an approximation of the actual cost that varies from one election to another election and may be significantly more or less than the estimate, depending on the actual number of candidates filing statements. Accordingly, the Clerk is not bound by the estimate and may, on a pro rata basis, bill the candidate for additional actual expense or refund any excess paid depending on the final actual cost. In the event Resolution No. 96- Page 2 of underpayment, the Clerk may require the candidate to pay the balance of the cost incurred. In the event of overpayment, the Clerk shall prorate the excess amount among the candidates and refund the excess amount paid. SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall provide each candidate or the candidate's representative a copy of this Resolution at the time nominating petitions are issued. SECTION 5: That all previous resolutions establishing Council policy on payment for candidates statements are repealed. SECTION 6: That this Resolution shall apply only to the election to be held on November 5, 1996, and shall then be repealed. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of June, 1996. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: William J. Alexander, Mayor Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, at a regular meeting of said City Council held on the 5th day of June, 1996. Executed this 6th day of June, 1996, at Rancho Cucamonga, California. Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: May 22, 1996 TO: Mayor, Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager BY: Kathy Sorensen, Recreation Superintendent SUBJECT: LIGHT VARIANCE REQUEST FOR DISTRICT 21 BASEBALL PLAYOFFS AT RED HILL PARK AND HERITAGE PARK SIXTY FOOT FIELDS UNTIL 11:00 P.M. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of a temporary variance of the Light Usage Policy to allow for light use until 11:00 p.m. on the 60' Field at Red Hill Park and Heritage Park from June 29 through July 26, 1996 (excluding Sundays). Game times are to be 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. for two game nights and 6:00 p.m. for single game nights. BACKGROUND The current sports field light policy curfew is 10:00 p.m. Similar tournaments have been hosted over the past several years and variances have been permitted. No complaints from residents have been received. Since this tournarnent is for younger boys, play traditionally lasts 1.5 to 2 hours. In recent years the Council and Commission have approved a curfew variance only to accommodate extra inning play. ANALYSIS The requested variance would apply to only the 60' base path field(s) located at the east side of Red Hill Park and the west side of Heritage Park. Staff requested the Council continue with their current policy of providing curfew variance only for extended, overtime or extra innings which is necessary for tournament play. As in the past, the Leagues are to provide the City with a draft of the notice to the neighbors a minimum of two weeks prior to the games. This notice has been required by the Commission so that starrounding neighbors are aware that a variance has been permitted by the City to accommodate play and that any question regarding use should be addressed to the City or league representatives. Once the draft is approved, the Leagues must distribute to the neighbors who adjoin the park. A final tournament bracket should also be submitted to the City prior to June 7, 1996. Respectfully submitted, Suzanne Ota Community Services Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council, Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. TO ADOPT A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR ALL CITY EMPLOYEE GROUPS - FISCAL YEAR 1996/97 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. which will enact a Memorandum of Understanding for all City employee bargaining groups for fiscal year 1996/97. BACKGROUND During the past two months, staff has met collectively with the City's three bargaining groups. During the most recent meeting, staff and the employee groups reached a tentative agreement regarding a package for fiscal year 1996/97. The attached Memorandum of Understanding has been executed by representatives of the employee groups and is available for enactment via the attached resolution. The cost for enactment of the Memorandum of Understanding can be contained within the proposed 1996/97 Fiscal Year Budget and represents a 2.5% cost of living adjustment. Respectfully submitted, Administrative Services Director RCD:pm Attachment RESOLUTION NO. ~p' -' C) ~C9-- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AUTHORIZING ENTRY INTO MEMORANDUM'S OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CITY' S GENERAL EMPLOYEES MEET AND CONFER GROUP, MAINTENANCE MEET AND CONFER GROUP, AND THE SUPERVISORY PROFESSIONAL MEET AND CONFER GROUP FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996/1997. WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga ( the "City") annually meets and confers with its three groups, namely, the General Employees Meet and Confer Group, Maintenance Meet and Confer Group and the Supervisory Professional Meet and Confer Group over wages, hours and working conditions; and and WHEREAS, the City has reached agreement with the City' s three meet and confer groups; WHEREAS, Memorandums of Understanding for Fiscal Year 1996/1997outlining the agreement between the City and each of the three meet and confer groups are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference to this Resolution; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby approve entry into Memorandums of Understanding for Fiscal Year 1996/1997 with the City' s three meet and confer groups. I, , Clerk of the City ofRancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of a resolution duly and legally adopted by the goveming body of the City at a legal meeting of said body duly and regularly held on , 1996 and that said resolution has not been revoked. M!~-M f)RANDUM OF UND~R.~TANDIN~ Whereas, the representatives of the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and representatives of the City have met and conferred regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, and; Wlnv, as, the representatives of the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and representatives of the City have reached agreement on items within the scope of Meet and Confer, and; Wlunv,~ the representatives of the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and representatives of the City wish to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the agreements of the Meet and Confer process; Now, therefore, the Supervisory/Professional Employees Group and the City of Rancho Cucamonga agree as follows: IMPI ~F. MENTATION All terms and conditions of employment curren~y in effect and not changed by the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding will remain in effect. Unless otherwise stated, the effective date for implementation of the items in this Memorandmn of Understanding is July 1, 1996. The term of this agreement is July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997. COST OF I,IVING ABJUSTMENT A base salary increase of 2.5% MEDICAl ~ DENTAl, AND OPTICAl, COVERAGE Maintain all current benefits at current premium costs. Additional costs imposed by the insurance companies such as increase in co-pay cannot be covered by the City. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT The City agrees to reimburse employees for tuition on classes approved in advance by their supervisor. The mount shall not exceed $250 per employee for the fiscal year. Funded mount shall not exceed $5,000. 7% ADD ON TO FINAl. YF. AR The City agrees to submit for an acmarial for 7% added on to final year for retirement purposes. When results are available, the City and bargaining group will meet and have the opportunity to approve or reject participation. Further, any related cost would be considered as a matter of Meet and Confer at the time the cost becomes effective. For the Supervisory/Professional Employees: Barbara Krall Carlos Silva toS For the City: Personnel Analyst M'F.~VIf)R&NDI]'~4 OF I]N1)ER,¢'FANDINC, Whereas, the representatives of the Maintenance Employees Group and representatives of the City have met and conferred regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, and; Whereas, the representatives of the Maintenance Employees Group and representatives of the City have reached agreement on items within the scope of Meet and Coffer, and; Whereas, the representatives of the Maintenance Employees Group and representatives of the City wish to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the agreements of the Meet and Confer process; Now, therefore, the Maintenance Employees Group and the City of Rancho Cucamonga agree as follows: IMPI .EMENTATION All termn and conditions of employment currently in effect and not changed by the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding will remain in effect. Unless otherwise stated, .the effective date Memorandum of Understanding is July 1, 1996. through June 30, 1997. for implementation of the items in this The term of this agreement is July 1, 1996 COST OF I,IVING ADJUSTMENT A base salary increase of 2.5% MF. DICAI,, DENTAl. AND OPTICAl. COW. RAGE Maintain all current benefits at current premium costs. Additional costs imposed by the inqurance companies such as increase in co-pay cannot be covered by the City. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT The City agrees to reimburse employees for tuition on classes approved in advance by their supervisor. The amount shall not exceed $250 per employee for the fiscal year. Funded mount shall not exceed $5,000. 7% ADD ON TO FINAl, YF, AR The City agrees to submit for an acmarial for 7% added on to fmal year for retirement purposes. When results are available, the City and bargaining group will meet and have the oppommity to approve or reject participation. Further, any related cost would be considered as a matter of Meet and Confer at the time the cost becomes effective. For the Maintenance Employees: ,L LL zsTndrew Belter' M~~K~/~ Personnel Analyst MF, MORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING Whereas, the representatives of the General Employees Group and representatives of the City have met and conferred regarding wages, hours and other terms and conditions of employment, and; Whereas, the representatives of the General Employees Group and representatives of the City have reached agreement on items within the scope of Meet and Confer, and; Whereas, the representatives of the General Employees Group and representatives of the City wish to enter into a Memorandum of Understanding regarding the agreements of the Meet and Confer process; Now, therefore, the General Employees Group and the City of Rancho Cucamonga agree as follows: IMPI ,EMENTATION AH terms and conditions of employment currently in effect and not changed by the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding will remain in effect. Unless otherwise stated, the effective date Memorandum of Understanding is July 1, 1996. through June 30, 1997. for implementation of the items in this The term of this agreement is July 1, 1996 COST OF I,IVING ADJUSTMENT A base salary increase of 2.5% MEDICAI o DENTAl, AND OPTICAl, COW. RAGE Maintain all current benefits at current premium costs. Additional costs imposed by the insurance companies such as increase in co-pay cannot be covered by the City. TUITION REIMBURSEMENT The City agrees to reimburse employees for tuition on classes approved in advange by their supervisor. The mount shall not exceed $250 per employee for the fiscal year. Funded mount shall not exceed $5,000. 7% ADD ON TO FINAl, YEAR The City agrees to submit for an acmafial for 7% added on to final year for retirement purposes. When results are available, the City and bargaining group will meet and have the opporttmity to approve or reject participation. Further, any related cost would be considered as a matter of Meet and Confer at the time the cost becomes effective. For the General Employees: SheHey Maddox J~ene Spikes ' ) For the City: R D Sve Director Personnel Analyst CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O~Neil, City Engineer Linda Beck, Junior Engineer AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR COMMUNITY TRAIL FENCING, LOCATED AT WINDROWS PARK AND NORTH VICTORIA WINDROWS LOOP, EAST SIDE, SOUTH OF KALMIA STREET AND BANYAN STREET, SOUTH SIDE, FROM MILLIKEN AVENUE TO MT. BALDY PLACE, TO ECONO FENCE COMPANY, IN THE AMOUNT OF $74,993.05 ($68,176.50 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY) TO BE FUNDED FROM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 2, ACCOUNT NO. 41-4130-9525 AND LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT 6, ACCOUNT NO. 45-4 130-0525 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council award and authorize for execution the contract for Community Trail Fencing, to the lowest responsive bidder, Econo Fence Company, to be funded from Landscape Maintenance District 2, Account No. 41-4 130-9525 and Landscape Maintenance District 6, Account No. 45-4130-0525 BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on May 15, 1996, for the subject project. Econo Fence Company is the apparent lowest bidder, with a bid amount of $68,176.50 (see attached bid summary). The Engineers estimate was $90,000.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents. This fence will replace existing wood fence that has deteriated. The new fence will be plastic which has a longer life span. Respectfully submitted, City Engineer WJO:LB:dlw Attachment CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA _ STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Barrye R. Hanson, Senior Civil Engineer APPROVAL AND EXECUTION OF A PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE MASTER AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP-5420 FOR THE STATE- LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF HAVEN AVENUE FROM DEER CREEK CHANNEL TO BASE LINE ROAD. REIMBURSABLE FUNDING FROM THE SUPPLEMENT AGREEMENT SHALL BE DEPOSITED TO THE SB 140 ACCOUNT. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing the execution of a Program Supplement to Local Agency-State Master Agreement No. SLTPP-5420 for the State- Local Transportation Parmership Program. A certified copy of the Resolution along with the executed original program supplement (two copies) will be sent to the State of California for their execution. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Caltrans is to forward to the City for execution a supplemental agreement to the Local Agency-State Master Agreement SLTPP-5420 for the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program. The executed agreement and resolution need to be forwarded to Caltrans by June 15, 1996. The State will provide the funds to the City upon completion of the project. Those funds will be deposited in the SB 140 account. Similar agreements for seven other projects were approved by the City Council on May 15, 1996. Respectf~ ubmitted, ~-~C~ william ~ city Engineer Attachment WJO:BH:sd THIS IS A BLANK PAG RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION AND SIGNING OF PROGRAM SUPPLEMENT NO. 020 TO LOCAL AGENCY-STATE MASTER AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP-5420 FOR THE STATE-LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF HAVEN AVENUE FROM DEER CREEK CHANNEL TO BASE LINE ROAD WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga (hereinafter referred to as "Local Agency") has for its consideration and execution Program Supplement No. 020 to Local Agency-State Master Agreement No. SLTPP-5420 for the State-Local Transportation Partnership Program authorizing reimbursement of State Share Funds for the improvement of the streets in the amounts listed as follows: SUPPLEMENT NUMBER 020 LOCATION Haven Ave. from S/o Foothill Blvd. to N/o Base Line Road AMOUNT $242,693 WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of Transportation, District Office 8 (hereinafter referred to as "State") processes and monitors State funded project; and WHEREAS, as a condition to reimbursement payment of State Share funds for said projects, the City shall approve and execute said Program Supplement No. 020. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COI3"NCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, does hereby resolve to: Authorize the Execution of Program Supplement No. 020 to Local Agency-State Master Agreement SLTPP-5420 for the State-Local Transportation Parmership Program for the reimbursement of State Share Funds for the improvement of the street listed above. , Authorize the Mayor to sign said Supplement and direct the City Clerk to attach a certified copy of this Resolution, as well as type in the Resolution Number and Date in the blanks in the second block of said Supplement, and for the return of the original copies of said Supplement to the State of California Department of Transportation along with the certified copy of this Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Local Agency shall also comply with the "Special Covenants or Remarks" attached to said supplement including: It is mutually understood between the parties that this contract may have been written before ascertaining the availability of legislative appropriation of funds, for the mutual benefit of both parties, in order to avoid program and fiscal delays that would occur if the agreement was executed after that determination was made. The total amount of State-Local Transportation Partnership funds payable by the State shall not exceed the amounts shown above to be encumbered and reimbursed in F.Y. 95/96. This agreement is valid and enforceable only if sufficient funds are made available by the California State Legislature. Said reimburseable funds as received will be deposited into the SB-140 Account. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 5, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: BY: SUBJECT: Suzanne 0ta, Community Services Manager Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II ~/1/ APPROVAL TO EXECUTE AN ADDENDUM TO THE EPICENTER RENTAL CONTRACT WITH RANCHO CUCAMONGA HIGH SCHOOL FOR GRADUATION CEREMONIES AT THE EPICENTER STADIUM IN EXCHANGE FOR CITY USE OF RANCHO CUA1VIONGA HIGH SCHOOL'S GY1VINASIUM FOR YOUTH BASKETBALL PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends entering .into a two-year agreement to provide Rancho Cucamonga High School the Epicenter Stadium for high school graduation in the years 1996 and 1997. In exchange, the City will receive the usage of the Rancho Cucamonga High School's gymnasium for its City Youth Basketball program in 1997 and 1998. BACKGROUND Rancho Cucamonga High School has requested that the City consider an addendum to their Epicenter Rental Contract to allow its 1996 and 1997 graduation classes to conduct their commencement ceremonies at the Epicenter Stadium. Staff has been working with representatives from the high school to develop the attached cooperative arrangement. In exchange for the stadium's base rental fee of $2,000, the City will be allowed use of the high school's gymnasium for the City's Youth Basketball Program. The basketball program has continually grown over the past several years. The participant levels have exceeded Community Services ability to provide indoor game space, therefore in the past causing games to be played outside or relying on Sunday play indoors which was not popular with parents. A previous two year agreement with the High School was beneficial to both parties. The fee exchange applies only to facility rental. It does not include staff, maintenance or operational expenses associated with usage. Any dates for use of the Epicenter Stadium are coordinated with Valley Baseball prior to approval. SUMMARY The past has show that this agreement is mutually beneficial to both the City and Rancho Cucamonga High School. Respectfully submitted, Community Services Manager CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 5, 1996 TO: 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 MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECUR/TIES, MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTR/CT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP 14786, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EAST ELM AVENUE BETWEEN SPRUCE AVENUE AND CHURCH STREET, SUBMITTED BY LEWIS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Parcel Map 14786, accepting the Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities and Monumentation Cash Deposit, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 4 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 4, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Parcel Map 14786, located on the north side of East Elm Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Church Street, in the Low Medium Residential Development District of the Terra Vista Planned Community, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 12, 1995, for a subdivision of 10.2 acres of land into 2 parcels. Parcel 1 is for the construction of an expansion parking lot adjacent to Coyote Canyon School and Parcel 2 is for future single family residential tract. The Developer, Lewis Development Company, is submitting an Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities to guarantee the construction of the public improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond Labor and Materials Bond Monumentation Cash Deposit $88,800.00 $44,400.00 $ 2,500.00 j CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP 14786 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. June 5, 1996 page 2 Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's office. A letter of approval has been received from the Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:WV:sd Attachments RESOLUTION NO. q(.~ - O~iZ~SJ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 14786, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES AND MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSIT WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 14786, submitted by Lewis Development Company, consisting of 2 parcels, located on the north side of East Elm Avenue between Spruce Avenue and Church Street, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga on July 12, 1995; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 14786 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on June 5, 1996, by Lewis Development Company as developer, for the improvement of public right-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to as Parcel Map 14786; and WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and sufficient Improvement Securities, which are identified in said Improvement Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and That said Improvement Securities are accepted as good and sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the City Attomey; and That said Parcel Map No. 14786 be and the same is hereby approved and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 FOR PARCEL MAP 14786 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 4, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 4 (hereina~er referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT 'A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 4 STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 4 cHURCH /e /# C0[0?I[ CllT01 SC!00[, ie~Z.o 1 F.II. NO, 141M 131 / 17-3~ P,M. IIO. 14114, ... -CITY OF RANCHO-CUCAMONGA COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA ~0 EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: PARCEL MAP 14786 STREET LIGHTS: Di~. 5800L S1 --- S4 3' NUMBER OF LAMPS 9500L 16.000L 22.000L 27.500L LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L4 Tuff Non-Tuff Trees S .F. S.F. Ea. ...... 18 * Existing items installed under Tract 13270. This parcel map will add 18 street trees. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Parcel Acres S 1 S4 L4 1 3.34 3.34 6.68 6.68 2 6.86 ...... 1.72 Annexation Date: June 5, 1996 Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager, William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Phil Verbera, Assistant Engineer APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, VINTNERS WALK ENCROACHMENT/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 13845, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving Parcel Map 13845, accepting the subject agreement and security, also the Vintners Walk Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement, ordering the annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 6, and authorizing the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement and to cause said map to record. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Parcel Map 13845, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, was approved by the Planning Commission on September 2, 1992, for the division of 29.5 acres into 27 lots. The Developer, Masi Commerce Center Parmers, is submitting an agreement and security to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts: Faithful Performance Bond $1,110,000.00 Labor and Material Bond: $ 555,000.00 Monumentation Cash Deposit $ 3,750.00 J CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP 13845 June 5, 1996 Page 2 Copies of the agreement and security are available in the City Clerk's Office. Letters of approval have been received from Cucamonga County Water District. C.C. & R. 's and the Vintners Walk Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement have also been approved by the City Attomey. The Consent and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office. Respectiv~~ William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:PV:sd RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AN ENCROACHMENT/MAINTENANCE FOR VINTNERS WALK OF PARCEL MAP NO. 13845 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has for its consideration an Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement executed on , by Masi Commerce Center Parmers as developer, for the improvements of Vintners Walk in the public right- of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Rochester Avenue and 659 feet easterly of said avenue; and WHEREAS, the Developer is required to construct and install in the aforementioned Vintners Walk area, plaques, overhead arcade and other related features; and WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of said real property as referred to as Parcel Map No. 13845; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest. RESOLUTION NO. (~C9---C)~'7 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP NUMBER 13845, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map No. 13845, submitted by Masi Commerce Center Partners, and consisting of 27 parcels, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, being a division of 29.5 acres in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, was approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, on September 2, 1992, and is in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act and Local Ordinance No. 28 adopted pursuant to that Act; and WHEREAS, Parcel Map No. 13845 is the final map of the division of land approved as shown on said Tentative Parcel Map; and WHEREAS, all of the requirements established as prerequisite to approval of the final map by the City Council of said City have now been met by entry into an Improvement Agreement guaranteed by acceptable Improvement Security by Masi Commerce Center Partners as developer; and WHEREAS, said developer submits for approval said Parcel Map offering for dedication, for street, highway and related highway purposes, the streets delineated thereon. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Improvement Agreement and said Improvement Security submitted by said developer be and the same are hereby approved and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest; and that the offers for dedication and the final map delineating the same for said Parcel Map No. 13845 is hereby approved, and the City Engineer is authorized to present same to the County Recorder to be filed for record. RESOLUTION NO. q(~,, t~ ~'~' A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 13845 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City ofRancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has previously formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 3B, Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 6 (hereinafier referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the Maintenance District; and WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation without notice and heating or filing of an Engineer's "Report". NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct. SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the Maintenance District. SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder. EXHIBIT "A" ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 6~. 8 9 L 26 25 FOOTHILL BOULE~'ARD r ~2 !' t i6 i5 5 \ __ SEBASTIAN _ W_AY 24 23 22 2i 20 i9 i8 i3 6 i4 D. JJ I- tr) _u 'rl (J o -I :EGENF) ~A~Ek' oF_ PARKWAY T~EES/__LIGH'[S .: .-, CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA .... ~' COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO STATE OF CALIFORNIA EXHIBIT "B" WORK PROGRAM PROJECT: PARCEL MAP 13845 STREET LIGHTS: NUMBER OF LAMPS Dist. 5800L 9500L 16.000L 22.000L S1 11' 4 S6 15 27,500L * 5 - Lamps installed with other previous project. This parcel map will add 6 - 16,000L lamps only LANDSCAPING: Community Equestrian Trail Dist. D.G.S.F. L3B Turf Non-Turf Trees S.F. S.F. Ea. --- 800 184 Parcel 27 * Existing items installed with original project. ASSESSMENT UNITS: Assessment Units By District Acres S1 S6 L3B 23.7 47.4 23.7 23,7 Annexation Date: (June 5, 1996) Form Date 11/16/94 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Linda Beek, Jr. EngineeLZ/j RELEASE OF BONDS AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRACT 12659-1, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF ETIWANDA AVE AND 24TH STREET RECOMMENDATION: The required street improvements for Tract 12659-1 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 in the amount of $600,000.00 and $132,000.00. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Tract 12659-1 is located on the Southwest Comer of Etiwanda Ave and 241h Street Developer: The Walton Associated Company c/o Beat Bank 15770 North Dallas Parkway, Suite 300-LB 66 Dallas, Texas 75248 Release: Faithful Performance Bond(S~eetlmprovements)No. 3SM713 819 00 $88,000.00 Release: Faithful Performance Bond CEtiwanda Storm Drain) No. 3SM 713 820 00 $132,000.00 Respectfully submitted, William J. O'Neil City Engineer WJO:dlw Attachments RESOLUTION NO. ~Q;p" C2~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 12659-1 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tract 12659-1 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. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bemardino County. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Couricil Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer VACATION OF ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN FOOTt-HI .L BOULEVARD AND SAN BERNARD1NO ROAD, EAST OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND SETTING THE DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR JULY 3, 1996 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution setting the public hearing for July 3, 1996, for the vacation of an alley located between Foothill Boulevard and San Bemardino Road, east of Red Hill Country Club Drive. In addition, said resolution authorizes the City Clerk to cause same resolution to be published 15 days prior to the public hearing. BACKGROUND ANALYSIS The alley was dedicated prior to the City's incorporation in April 1937 as per Tract Map 2521. It is a 20-foot wide unimproved alley which extends diagonally from Red Hill Country Club Drive and to San Bemardino Road as shown on Exhibit "B". The owner of the Magic Lamp Restaurant, Anthony Vemola is requesting the alley to be vacated. Mr. Vemola owns all of the properties bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Red Hill Country Club, San Bemardino Road and the Vince's Spaghetti Restaurant property except for the liquor store at the northwest comer of the block. The alley is not built to City Standards and the diagonal portion is presently used as a part of the Magic Lamp parking lot. The portion connecting to San Bemardino Road is used to access the delivery dock for Vince's Restaurant and an existing house located on the same property. The portion of the alley adjacent to the liquor store is used for access to the rear of the store. The limits of the proposed alley vacation are indicated on the attached legal description and sketch shown as Exhib. its "A" and "B" respectively. In conjunction with the proposed vacation, Mr. Vemola will provide proper access to the property containing Vince's Restaurant by means of a new alley dedication. Said dedication will create a 26-foot wide access from San Bemardino Road to Foothill Boulevard as shown on Exhibit "D." CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT VACATION OF ALLEY BET~gEEN FOOTHILL BLVD. AND SAN BERNARDINO RD. EAST OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DR. June 5, 1996 Page 2 On November 13, 1991, the Planning Commission determined that the proposed vacation would conform with the General Plan and recommended that the vacation occur. On May 20, 1992, City Council Resolution No. 92-164 was approved declaring its intention to vacate said alley. Notices were posted at the site, and the public heating date was published in the newspaper. During that time, Magic Lamp only proposed an ingress and egress easement from San Bemardino Road to Foothill Boulevard versus an alley dedication as presently being proposed. On June 17,1992, the City Council forwarded the proposal to the Public Safety Commission for evaluation of parking and access issues. The Council expressed concern over the parking and deliveries in the 26-foot wide mutual access area. These issues have been resolved with the new proposal by extending the alley through to Foothill Boulevard. On July 16, 1992, Magic Lamp fenced the alley adjacent to its property which has created an inconvenience for Vince's Spaghetti House which is experiencing difficulty with delivery lrucks servicing its facility. The issue was not pursued at that time. Recently, Mr. Vernola of the Magic Lamp initiated contact with Staff to review the issue once again. Staff feels that the proposed vacation is acceptable as long as Magic Lamp will provide a 26-foot wide alley dedication from San Bernardino Road to Foothill Boulevard. This will satisfy an adequate access for both Magic Lamp and Vince's Spaghetti House. Both the Fire Department and Police Department have reviewed this proposal and feel it meets their requirements. William J. O'Neil City Engineer Attachments WJO:WV:dlw RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO VACATE AN ALLEY LOCATED BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND SAN BERNARDINO ROAD, EAST OF RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE - APN: 207-113-18 THROUGH 24 BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: SECTION 1: That the City Council hereby elects to proceed under Section 8300, et. seq., of the Streets and Highways Code, also known as the Street Vacation Act of 1941. SF. CTION 2: That the City Council hereby declares its intention to vacate an alley located between Foothill Boulevard and San Bernardino Road, east of Red Hill Country Club Drive, a City street, as shown on Map No. V-58 on file in the Office of the City Clerk, a legal description of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 3: That the City Council hereby fixes Wednesday, the 3rd day of July, 1996, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California, as the time and place for hearing all persons objecting to the proposed vacation for the purpose of its determining whether said City street is necessary for present or prospective street purposes. SECTION 4: That the City Street Superintendent shall cause notices to be posted conspicuously along the line of the street or part thereof proposed to be vacated at least 10 days before the hearing, not more than 30 feet apart and not less than three signs shall be posted, each of which shall have a copy of this resolution on them and shall have the following title in lettering not less than one inch in height: "NOTICE OF HEARING TO VACATE STREET". SECTION 5: The subject vacation shall be subject to the reservations and exceptions, if any, for existing utilities on record. SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign this Resolution and the City Clerk shall attest to the same, and the City Clerk shall cause same to be published 10 days before the date set for the hearing, at least once in Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, Califomia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. EXHIBIT "A" Alley Vacation and Reservations Alley vacation of that portion of alley 20.00 feet wide measured at right angles as shown on map of Tract No. 2521 as per map r~.corded in Book 36, Pages 37 and 38 of Maps, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California, described as follows: '. That portion of said alley bounded on the west by the easterly line of Red Hill Country Club Drive, 50.00 feet wide as shown on said map; bounded on the northeast by the southwesterly lines of Lots 19 through 25 inclusive, and to a point on the southwesterly line of Lot 18 said point distant 30.22 feet from the most westerly corner of said lot; bounded on the southwest by the northeasterly lines of Lot 46 and Lots 52 through 54, inclusive, and to a point on the northeasterly line of Lot 55 said point distant 62.58 feet from the northwest comer of said lot; and bounded on the east by a'-Iine described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southwesterly line of Lot 18, distant 30.22 feet from-the most westedy comer of said lot; thence South 04°37'08" East, 24.47 feet to a point on the northeasterly line of Lot 55 of said map, said point distant 62.58 feet, more or less, from the northwest corner of said lot. The subject vacations shall be subject to the reservations and exceptions, if any, for existing utilities on record. Also reserving for fire access that portion of said alley 20.00 feet wide measured at right angles more particularly described as follows: Bounded on the west by the easterly line of Red Hill Country Club Drive, 50.00 feet wide as shown on said Tract No. 2521; bounded on the northeast by the southwesterly lines of Lots 23 through 25, inclusive and to a point on the southwesterly line of Lot 22 said point distant 15.5 feet from the most westerly comer of said lot; bounded on the southwest by the northeasterly line of Lot 46 and to a point on the northeasterly line of Lot 52 said point distant 2.34 feet from the most northerly comer of said lot; and bounded on the southeast by a line described as follows: Beginning at a point on the southwesterly line of Lot 22 of said map distant 15.5 feet from the most westerly corner of said lot; thence 20.00 feet measured at right angles to a point on the northeasterly line of Lot 52 of said map, said point distant 2.34 feet from the most northerly comer of said lot. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is a sketch entitled Exhibit $0 ~3~-'30 -~7 EXHIBIT 'B' S~ 54 51 POINT " ~"' FEED HILL 058 COUNTRY CLUB' DRI~'E EXHIBIT "C,," Legal Description - Public Alley Dedication PARCEL A: The easterly 6.0 feet of Lot 55 as shown on map of T~'act No. 2521 as per map recorded in Book 36, Pages 37 and. 38 of Maps, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bemardino, State of California. PARCEL B: That portion of Lot 18 as shown on map of Tract No. 2521 as per map recorded in Book 36, Pages 37 and 38 of Maps, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, desc.'ibed as follows: " The centedine of a 26 foot wide public alley measured at dght angles being described as follows: Beginning at a point on the.southwesterly line of Lot 18, distant 14.89 feet from the most southerly corner of said lot, said point also being the true point of beginning; thence North 01°23'22" East, 42.46 feet;, thence North 30°34'30" East, 91.72 feet, more or less, to the southwesterly line of Foothill Boulevard, 1 O0 feet wide. The side lines of said 26.0 strip of land to be extended or shortened to meet at angle points and to terminate northeasterly at the said southwesterly line of Foothill Boulevard 100 feet wic~e and southerly at the southwesterly line of Lot 18. Attached hereto and made a part hereof is a sketch emitled Exhibit "B". 4'.8g' T.P.O.8. ~ LOT LOT ,.. 56 :ao" ~ N 8g'47'17"' 'i 5g"25'30" W' ~ 8.80° A = 00!'7'53"' R = 2450.00' T' = 1 L = 27.00' SAN BERNARDINO' ROAD SCALE: 1" = 4-0' ,~'X/GT/NG ~7 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-04 - FRANCIS BALCHAK -An appeal of the Planning Commission's denial of a request to establish a 1,075 square foot video arcade and a 2,207 square foot pool room in conjunction with a 2,100 square foot restaurant within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) shopping center located at the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 208-202-17. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission denied Conditional Use Permit No. 96-04 by the adoption of Resolution No. 96-24 on April 10, 1996. If the City Council concurs with the findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission, affirming the Commission's action by denying the appeal would be appropriate. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS During the Planning Commission's deliberation, they discussed the following primary concerns that led to the denial decision: The Commission felt that the facility is too large (number of games) for a neighborhood commercial center. The applicanrs initial application was for a total of forty-five games (ten being pool tables). At the public hearing, he stated he was willing to reduce to six pool tables and twenty-five amusement devices. Even at the reduced size, the Commission thought that the business would draw customers from outside the neighborhood and possibly create a loitering problem greater than might be contemplated with a smaller facility. CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 96-04 - FRANCIS BALCHAK June 5, 1996 Page 2 Concern was also raised about the potential for creating a loitering problem in the immediate area because the business location is on a well-traveled route for students from two nearby schools, Alta Loma High School and Cucamonga Jr. High School. Written and oral testimony from the two affected school districts indicated concern that a large arcade along the already convenient school route will make the facility an attractive gathering point for students on the way home from school. Loitering by young people in the parking area and walkways next to other businesses will probably result. Testimony by neighboring residents revealed that loitering problems already occur after activities in Lions Park. These concerns are intensified by the center's being next to a residential complex to the south and some of its residents voiced opposition over increased loitering near their homes. While the applicant has no intention to serve alcohol, the Commission felt that locating an arcade next to a liquor store was not a good combination. Overall, the Planning Commission felt that juvenile loitering problems would increase significantly in and around the shopping center because of the size and convenience of the facility, no matter how well the applicant supervised operations within the business. The lack of sufficient parking for the shopping center (with this facility) was a minor issue because of the heavy code requirement for pool tables (2 spaces/table) and the applicant's willingness to reduce the pool table amount. At the request of the applicant's representative (John Mannerino), a list of possible conditions (Exhibit "G") was prepared based on conditions placed on similar projects in the City and a neighboring community. These conditions, if vigorously applied, might reduce the potential loitering and associated problems anticipated from the project's activities. This list of possible conditions was prepared after the appeal was filed and was not considered by the Planning Commission. Mr. Mannerino submitted a letter (Exhibit "H") commenting on these conditions. The proposed modification of Condition No. 22 accomplishes the same result and staff would have no objection to this change. Regarding Condition No. 8, staff believes the security lighting should be included with such a project regardless of the property owner's actions. · Condition No. 9 would need to be retained as written to provide a greater degree of internal control of those entering the business. Finally, a new letter from Chaffey Joint Union High School District was received and is included as Exhibit "1." The letter reaffirms the district's opposition to the proposed project due to the potential problems revealed during the Planning Commission's hearing. CITYCOUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 96-04- FRANCIS BALCHAK June 5,1996 Page 3 CORRESPONDENCE In accordance with State and City requirements, the application request has been advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the site was posted, and notices were mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the subject site. Letters were received from two school districts and residential property owners in opposition to this request (Exhibits "B" and "F"). Also, letters (four) from two businesses were received in favor of the use (Exhibit "F"). Respectf submitted, uller BB:AW:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Exhibit "B" - Exhibit "C" - Exhibit "D" - Exhibit "E" - Exhibit "F" - Exhibit "G" - Exhibit "H" - Applicant's April 18, 1996, Letter of Appeal and April 8, 1996, Letter Planning Commission Staff Report dated April 10, 1996 Planning Commission Resolution of Denial Planning Commission Minutes of April 10, 1996 Petition in Opposition Correspondence to Planning Commission Possible Conditions Applicant's Letter of May 21, 1996 Exhibit "1" - Chaffey Joint Union High School District Letter, May 22, 1996 Resolution of Denial MANNERINO . JOHN D. MANNERINO SAL BRIGUGLIO MITCHELL ROTH' April 18, 1996 rtr"'~!Vr,,,U APR .2'. :?, .... ,' nf Rnn.chg CL!C~mOnn;: ,'~'-:",'-,inn HAND DELIVERED THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL'S OFFICE 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729 Re: Conditional Use Permit 9'6'-'04 / Balchak Council Members: Please be advised that this office represents Frank and Sue Balchak. On behalf 0fMr. andMrs. Balchak, we do hereby appeal-to the City Council the decision ef the Planning Con'urLission on April 10, 1996, on the hereinafter skated agenda item: The denial of Conditional Use Permit 96-04. The purpose of this appeal is to allow review cf this decision by the City Council. We enclose the.appeal fee of $12E. Should further information or documentation be required in order to · begin this appeal process, please contact the undersigned i.~'~ediately. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and cooperation in this matter. Very. truly yours, ~E~NO & BRI UGLI7 B /2~Z~l~ u " ~ zno · and Fncs 'Balchak CC REPORT EXHIBIT 'A" 9333 BASELINE ROAD. SUITE 110 / RANCH0 CUCAMONGA. CA 91730 / TEL (9091980-1100 / FAX (909)941-8610 ,/ April 8, 1996 Bunk~"s 9255 Baseline Rd..-:.'L ILancho Cucamonga CA Brad Buller 91730 RECEIVED APR 0 8 1996 City o1 Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division .,Lfier our conversation on Thursday, April 4, concerning the size and number of games requested for Bunky's, we have decided on making some modifications to relieve some of the city's concerns. The main point that we would like to keep is the square footage due to lease contracts. We w'i.ll change from 10 pool tables to 6, and from 35 video and miscellaneous games to 25. The number of shift personnel will be a minimum of 4 at peak hours with one stationed in the game room and a roving supervisor. The supervisor would take a walking check of the parking lot every 1i2 hour for loitering. A.fter a period ofthone, sk months, nine months or one year, we would like to be re- evaluated and if no problems have been noted, then be allowed to have the number of games and pool tables restored to the original petition. The hours of operation would be from 7am - 10pm Sunday -Thursday and 7 am - 11 pm Friday and Saturday. The game room would to opened to under 18 yr. old in conjunction with the school schedule and times of the local schools. We have already spoken with Dr. Sonya Yates of the Central School District and Mr. Koenig, principal of Cucamonga ~,'~ddle School and assured them that we will not allow/condone truancy and are happy to cooperate with them. We believe that we will be an asset and good neighbors to the community. ~~a~nkBalchak Bunk3"s CC REPORT - EXHIBIT 'A2" K CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: April 10, 1996 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Alan Warren, AICP, Associate Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-04 - FRANCIS BALCHAK - A request to establish a 1,075 square foot video arcade and a 2,207 square foot pool room in conjunction with a 2,100 square foot restaurant within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) shopping center located at the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Base Line Road - APN 208-202-17 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Office use, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South - Multiple family residential complex, Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East - Office building, Office/Professional West - Park and recreation facilities, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) General Plan Designations: Project Site - Neighborhood Commercial North Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) South Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) East Office West Civic/Community Site Characteristics: The projecrs location is within the neighborhood shopping center at the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Base Line Road (Exhibit "D"). The center consists of 28,000 square feet of lease space within a main building and two smaller satellite buildings. Immediately to the south is a multiple family condominium complex with which the shopping center shares access to Base Line Road. On the west side is Lions Park and the vacant library building. Presently, the center is about 80 percent occupied. Parking Calculations: The Development Code requires 4.5 parking spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area for shopping centers larger than 25,000 square feet. The subject proposal lies within a shopping center with 28, 132 square feet of gross leasable area, (Exhibit "E"). Therefore, the total number of parking spaces required for the center is 127 spaces (4.5 x 28,132). The site currently has 152 parking spaces which is well in excess of the required spaces. CC REPORT EXHIBIT "B" PLANNING COMMISSION AFF REPORT CUP 96-04 - FRANCIS BALCHAK April 10, 1996 Page 2 Because of the scope of activities in the proposed facility, it has been determined that the parking should be analyzed by individual uses as provided in the Ordinance 508 (Section 1 .B.1). The parking demands for individual uses are satisfied presently by the site's parking accommodations, as evidenced below. With the addition of Bunky's at the requested size, individual use parking requirements exceed the number provided by six spaces. A significant amount is generated by the allocation for pool tables; therefore, the demand could be significantly lowered by reducing the number of tables. Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Beauty parlor 5 stations 3/station 15 (Sweet Afhair) (803 sq.ft.) Health spa 1,101 1/150 8 (Brown Bare Salon) Retail (Play It Again) Retail (Liquor Land II) Retail (Danny's Cleaners) Medical (Dentist Office) Office (CINA Financial) Vacant suites 3,765 1/250 15 1,986 1/250 8 803 1/250 4 4,614 1/200 23 3,610 1/250 15 6,075 1/250 2__4 TOTAL 112 152 Bunky's Restaurant 2,091 1/100 21 Video arcade 1,075 1 ~250 5 Pool tables 10 tables 2/table 2._0.0 (2,207 sq.ft.) TOTAL 158 152 ANALYSIS: The applicant is requesting a combination of pool tables (as many as 10) and amusement devices totaling 45. In its review of the proposed facility, staff focused on the size of the facilities, its location relative to nearby schools, and site management, as discussed below: Facility Size: Staffs initial concern is that, with a total of 45 games (10 being pool tables), the facility is too large for a neighborhood commercial center. The Neighborhood Commercial District is defined as follows: "This district is intended to provide areas for immediate day-to-day convenience shopping and services for the residents of the immediate neighborhood. Site development regulations and performance standards are intended to make such uses compatible to and harmonious with character of surrounding residential or less intense land use area." PLANNING COMMISSION .AFF REPORT CUP 96-04 - FRANCIS BALCHAK April 10, 1996 Page 3 The size (pool tables and amusement devices) would cause the business to draw customers from outside the neighborhood and possibly create a loitering problem greater than might be contemplated with a smaller facility. The gaming portion occupies over 60 percent of the business' area which makes the restaurant portion an ancillary use to the recreation activities. While the small restaurant is appropriate for the center, staff believes that the number of amusement devices and pool tables greatly exceeds the needs of the immediate neighborhood as well as exceeding the center's parking availability. Approval of the facility, as requested, would necessitate the filing and approval of a Variance application to vary from the City's parking regulations prior to action on the use permit. It should also be noted that the pool room/arcade is designed in a manner that could become a stand-alone business simply by closing the single door that connects to the restaurant. Therefore, the potential exists that this would not be in combination with the restaurant but could be operated or owned as a separate business. Compatibility: Billlard halls and arcades located in neighborhood shopping centers require a Conditional Use Permit because of their unique operating characteristics, which differ from general retail establishments, and require special consideration in order to operate in a manner compatible with surrounding uses. These distinguishing characteristics include noise and loitering. Proper management and supervision is critical to minimizing these problems. The business' location on a well traveled route for students from two nearby schools, Alta Loma High School and Cucamonga Jr. High School, further advances the concern over the size of the facility. A large arcade along the already convenient school route will make the facility an attractive gathering point for students on the way home from school. Loitering by young people in the parking area and walkways next to other businesses will probably result based upon experiences at similar arcades in Rancho Cucamonga. This becomes even more likely because the site is located on the school routes. Staff believes the level of concern of these issues relates directly to the size of the facility and its high potential to attract significant numbers of young people. The Central School District has experienced an increase in truancy at schools that are close to video arcades. In this instance, the District recommends that the requested use not be approved. Chaffey Joint Union High School District also raised the truancy issues and requested that access to the game areas by minors be limited to after school hours only, and that the project provide a security service during potential peak hours to prevent the center from becoming a "hangout" during evenings and weekends. The bordering of the shopping center by a condominium project also raises the question of appropriateness of the site for such a facility. The only access to the residential project is by a shared driveway with the shopping center. Loitering in the shopping center could negatively affect the use of the shared driveway and bring into question the area's security in the minds of the residents and business persons. Facility Management: Mr. Balchak has agreed to limit the hours of the arcade and pool room to the hours stipulated in the City's standard recommended conditions, 10 p.m. Sundays through Thursday and 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. He also manages Mr. C's Pizza at Base Line Road and Victoria Loop that has only 5 pool tables (approved for 8) and 16 amusement devices. One important aspect of this request is that the applicant has no PLANNING COMMISSION . AFF REPORT CUP 96-04- FRANCIS BALCHAK April 10, 1996 Page 4 intention to serve alcoholic beverages. The Police Department has no serious concerns regarding the request if the operation remains alcohol free. The applicant has been informed of conditions required of similar facilities and has stated his willingness to accept them with this business. Environmental: The subject application is exempt from environmental review as a Class I Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Section 15301(a). NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting at the site on the evening of March 26, 1996. The applicant mailed notices to property owners and residents of the condOminium project. Seven adult residents of the neighboring condominium complex attended and the following comments were noted by staff: Two of the residents spoke in favor of the facility stating that the arcade would provide a well managed outlet for teenagers and a convenient restaurant/amusement center for families from the condominium complex. In response to concerns mentioned below, one resident suggested that the residents organize to help monitor the problem activities in and around the shopping center. These residents stated that such a facility was needed to provide recreational activities for neighborhood teenagers. One resident and the condominium manager spoke in opposition. They believe that regardless of how well supervised the business is, the drawing of teenagers to the facility will cause substantial loitering problems in and around the condos. A resident noted that he has already observed students stopping at the facility directly after school. The condo manager stated that activities at the park does, at times, cause overflow loitering onto the condo site, but that it is presently manageable. He is concerned that the business will significantly increase teenage gatherings in the area. One resident inferred that the facility may be too large, stating that one pool table should be sufficient for a neighborhood facility. It was generally agreed that the shopping center has been in need of an active maintenance program for graffiti removal and lighting repairs. Mr. Balchak noted that the center ownership has recently changed and that with vacancy reduction, the new center owners should be able to improve maintenance. CONCLUSIONS: As previously stated, staffs concerns with this proposal centers on its size and its location along student routes to two schools. By providing so many games, the facility will draw customers from outside the neighborhood as well as creating a major "hangout" for young students after school, and possibly during school hours. Because of the school route location, staff feels this site will very likely experience the negative consequences, even with the implementation of standard arcade conditions; therefore, the use, as requested, is inappropriate for this center. Additional mitigation measures, that go further than the City's standard conditions, may be able to reduce the anticipated concerns. The development of a site management plan, in concert with the school districts, might provide a basis for adequate site supervision, which staff feels is presently in question. Additional conditions could include: 1) on-site supervision for the entire shopping center; 2) limiting the use of the recreation areas by minors to after school hours or admittance only with a parent, 3) opening of the arcade only in the late afternoon. PLANNING COMMISSION ,AFF REPORT CUP 96-04 - FRANCIS BALCHAK April 10, 1996 Page 5 FACTS FOR FINDING: In order for the Planning Commission to approve the application, the Commission must find facts to support all of the following findings: Ao The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. Staff does not believe evidence can be provided, for the requested use, to support these findings. CORRESPONDENCE: In accordance with State and City requirements, the application request has been advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the site was posted, and notices were mailed to all properties within 300 feet of the subject site. Staff has received letters for two school districts in response to the application (Exhibits "E" and "F"). In addition, we received a letter in opposition from a property owner in the neighborhood (Exhibit "1"). RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission concurs with staffs analysis, it would be appropriate to deny Conditional Use Permit 96-04 by adoption of the attached Resolution. r sRespectfu submitted City Planner BB:AW: mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" Exhibit "F" Exhibit "G" Exhibit "H" Exhibit "1" Applicant's Letter Applicant's Letter dated March :11, 1996 Applicant's Letter dated March 21, 1996 Vicinity Map Site Plan Floor Plan Central School District Letter dated February 29, 1996 Chaffey Joint Union High School District letter dated March 15, 1996 Correspondence Received Resolution of Denial PI .ANNING CC>N IN IIS SION, ]'lIE PIYRPOSE OF THE CONDrI'IONAL U~SE P!ZRN IIT IS 'l'c) At)I) A VIDEO G.-MXIE ROON I ANT) A POOI. ROON[ TO THE EXISTING RliSTAUq~,ANT TO BE AFILE TO OFFER TF~ CUSTONIERS MORE TO DO AND '['O BE ABI_.E TO ATTRAC'F NIORE SPORTS PAI~TIES. TI IF, AREA ttAS A LOT OF CttlI:I)REN AND YOUNG ADULTS AND THIS WOULD BE A FA/~,IILY ORlliNTATED FACILITY, AS IS NIY OTHER LOCATION. AFTEl'( A YF. AR ANT) A HAI_.F WITI I TI-IE GAN IE I(<')OM AT NIR. C'S PIZZA, l,~,t! I IAVE BEEN :LBLE TO WOR.K OUT TIIE BUGS ANI) RUN PROBLENI FREE Tt ni I IOURS OF OI'ERATION WOULD BE FRONI 11 .~k l 'FC) 10 PNI SUNDAY THROUGII THURSDAY, AND 11 .~N,I TO 12 AN.I FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. THE NUNIBER OF EMPLOYEES WOULD RANGE FROiX[ 8 AT TIlE BUSY ttOURS AND NO LESS THAN 3 WHEN IT'S SLO\VER. \VE ARE REQUESTING A TOTAL OF 11 POOL TABLES, 2 AIR ItOCKEY TABLES, AND AN ASSORTiXlENT OF 55 OTtlER VIDEO, PINBAI_L, BASKETBALL, BO~VLING, AND OTItER MACHINES. 'FILE KITCHliN WILL BE OI'ENED .-LI_L THE HOURS \VE ARE OI~ENED. FRANK B AI.C1 I:LK MR C'S PIZZA Exhibit 'A' CUP 96-04 PLAN~"L',4'G DIVISION .~L.~x/WARRER NL4_RCH 11, 1996 SUBJECT; BD~'NKY'S ARCADE AaND GA:\.Iti ROORI IN REFERENCE TO YOLrR LETTER DATED FEB. 21, 1996, I WOUX.D 1 _IKE TO A.DDRESS THE ISSUES NEEDED TO CO.MPLETE THE APPLICATION. 1. LIST OF THE BUSB'NESSES WILL BE PROVIDED BY THE O~',."NERS - N,'IANAGER / 2. 152 ENl THE COUNT FOR THE CENTERS PARK~'G 3. THE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR THE STATE F,.~d~M DqSUR~NCE OFFICE IS 3610 SQ FT 4. TI4]ZRE ~,VILL BE NO .~LCOHOLIC BEVERAGES SOLD AT THIS LOCATION 5. OK 6. OK TECFhNICAL ISSUES 1 THRU 14 OK USE ISSU"ES 1, CFL&N'GE ITEN,IS REQUESTED FRO,.X,I 67 TO A TOTAL OF 45 2. OK BUILDING AND S,ffETY , FRANK BALCHAK BI:~'N'KUS 9255 BASELENE ROAD R.,a~N'CHO CUC.~\,IONGA Exhibit 'B" CUP 96-04 ~ ? RECEIVED March 20, 1996 Bunky's 9255 Baseline Rd. #L Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 MAR 2 1 1996 City of Rancho Cucan~)nga Planning ~ To: Planning Commission of Rancho Cucamonga, The purpose of this letter is to inform you that we already have some business experience relating to owning / running a game room/billiards in conjunction with Mr. C's Pizza located in the Victoria area of Etiwanda at 7270 Victoria Park Lane 2-E. It is now approximately 18 months since opening the addition. It includes pool tables, video games, air hockey, foosba[l, pinbail, and a jukebox. During the time that the addition has been open we have been fortunate not to have had any problems with the kids. We have a lot of families come in. There is an increase in team parties, birthday parties, anniversary parties and even a Leap Year party! Both parents and kids appreciate being able to have somewhere to play pool in the area because most ff not all the area pool rooms are restricted to adults, or age 18 and over. Since Bxmky's is non-alcohol and non-smoking, we beli~ that it will appeal to famih'cs, young adults and kids, and will likely stay that way. Right now there isn't any other business in the area for the older than "Chucky Cheese" crowd. Frank B alchak Exhibit "C" --~ rrZ OQ. Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" r t .j ~ Exhibit "F" ~, '-~, CUP 96-04 CEN' RAL SCHOOL DIS' RICT 10601 Church Street, Suite 112/Rancho Cuccmonga, California 91730/(909) 989-854t/Fax (909) 941-1732 Sonja L. 'fates, Ed,D. Ingfid Vogel Sharon L. N,,agel Robert A. Dalton, EdD, Jemt L. Shaw Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Director of Personnel Coordinator of Special Business Services Educational Services Education and Pupil Personnel February29, 1996 Alan'~Varren, AICP. - Associate Planner . City of Rancho Cucamonga' P. O. Box 807 Ranch0 CuCam0nga~ CA 91730 Dear Alan, " We appredate your giving us the opportunity RECEIVED MAR - 4 7996 City of Rancho CucarnOn' ' Planning Division ga to have input on the video game arcade and pool room that has been requested at Base Line Road and Hellman' Avenue. You are correct in that it is a direct travel route to Cucamonga ~ddle School. . . I have discussed this with one of our middle school principals, and he tells me that he has had experience in another district with a fadlily such as this near his middle school that resulted in a.high level of truancy. Therefore, we are requesting that it be denied. ' . . Thank. you for taking the time to contact us on this matter. help; please call me at 989-8541. SinCerely,· -. Superintendent If I can be of further sp c: C~iS Prindpal Exhibit "G" CUP 96-04 Joan Weiss Board Presidant Timothy Wilson Board Clerk Dicne Gcrner Board Member Learning Today for the Chafienga of Tomorrow Bgrbcr"J Rich Board Member KGth'/Thompson Board Member Chaffey joint Ur,. High School Dis,_ ict 211 WEST FIFTH STREET, ONTARIO, CALIFORNIA 91762-1698" (909) 988-851 l · FAX (909) 984-1164 BOARD OF TRUSTEES SGPERINTENDENT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT Kathleen E_ KinIcy Bette B. Harrison INSTRUCTION Birt C, Martin Allen A. Martens Raymond J. Sardo ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT Charles J. (Jhalley PERSONNEL Barry W, Cadwallader March 15, 1996 Alan Warren, AICP City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 RECEIVED MAR ! 8 1996 city of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division ~ t3NION ~ Alta Loma High School Chaffey Adult School Chaffey High School Etiwanda High School Montclair High School Ontario High School Rancho Cucarnonga High School Valley View High School Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-04 Bunky's video game arcade and pool room Dear Mr. Warren: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the request for a video game arcade and pool room at Base Line Road and Hellman. This location is on a well-used travel route to Alta Loma High School Chaffey District and the administration of the Alta Loma High School have the following comments: 1. The hours of operation are inappropriate for games this close to a school. Students will be enticed to be truant. We would request that access for minors be limited to after-school hours only. 2. To prevent this from becoming a "hangout" for students during evenings and weekends, we would suggest that the city require the project to retain security service during peak hours. 3. If alcoholic beverages are available in the restaurant, we would recommend that direct access not be allowed from the game room. We appreciate the City's efforts to provide a quality environment for young people in the community. We stand ready to assist in any way we can. Sincerely, Susan B. Sundell, Ed. Do Director, Business Services SBS:jm Exhibit "H" 5CUP 96-04 April 01, 1996 Chairman Barker Planning Commission Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Dear Chairman Barker, RECEIVED APR 0 3 1996 ;~ity Ot Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division I am writing to you in reference to the proposal of the CONDITIONAI, USE PERMIT 96-04 - FRANCIS BAI,CI4AK. I would like to express my disapproval of this proposal for the following reasons: I have lived in a house near Lions community park since 1989 when this park was not complete. Since that time, there have been numerous occasions when there have been teenagers and adults in the park making noise past the 10:00p.m. closing of the park. There has been fights in the park ,a drive - by shooting in my front yard, kids passing what appeared to be marijuana cigarettes to each other, two boys and male and female sex happening in the park in broad daylight and at night. These occurrences have slowed down considerably due to what I believe is because I have called the sheriffs department dozens of times to clear the park and the problems. I have had tires flattened, hood ornaments stolen, eggs thrown at our vehicles, trash thrown in our back yard. There was even a fire that miraculously started on the hill in our back yard shortly after kids were seen leaving the area running. Now there is this proposal to encourage loitering in the area after the 10:00p.m. closing week nights and midnight for the weekends. Where do you think these kids are going to go after closing time? I find it hard to believe that this clientele would immediately leave the area. I am quite certain that our problems would once again start and probably increase this time quite a bit. We did not buy this house to have these type of problems and have worked hard to eliminate them. Please help us by not allowing this activity to go on in our area. Please, at least check the sheriffs records during the past six years to see how many times they have had to come to take care of various problems. Sincerely, L' da~den in Property owner 7389 Lion Street Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 ,r ~ RESOLUTION NO. 96-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-04, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A VIDEO ARCADE WITH THIRTY-FIVE AMUSEMENT DEVICES OCCUPYING 1,075 SQUARE FEET, AND TEN POOL TABLES OCCUPYING 2,207 SQUARE FEET IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT OF 2,100 SQUARE, LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-202-17. A. Recitals. 1. The applicant, Francis Balchak, has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-04, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereina~er in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 10th day of April 1996, 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. 3. 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 fodh in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing Apdl 10, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Base Line Road with a total street frontage of 780 feet and lot depth of 295 feet and is improved with a 3.5 acre neighborhood shopping center; and b. The properties to the north are developed with a church and residential structures, to the east with a gasoline station and multiple story office building, to the south with a residential condominium project, and the properly to the west is developed with a public park and Community Center; and c. The subject property is located along a major route to school for students attending two nearby schools: a junior high school located approximately 1,100 feet to the south, and a high school located approximately 2,000 feet to the west. d. The application contemplates the operation of a billiards room with 10 pool tables, and an arcade with 35 amusement devices in conjunction with a pizza restaurant. CC REPORT EXHIBIT 'C' ( PLANNING COMMISSIO~,. ,ESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-04 - BALCHAK April 10, 1996 Page 2 96-24 e. An operational management plan to address the criteria listed in Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.10.030.F.3 -- such as the need for adult supervision, proximity to schools and other community uses, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and businesses, noise attenuation, and bicycle facilities -- was not developed for this application. f. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Table 17.10.030.B, the application as proposed, would be materially detrimental to the persons and properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site for the following reasons: (i) · Because of its large size, the proposed amusement facility is expected to attract significant numbers of customers from beyond the immediate neighborhood and is therefore inconsistent with the Neighborhood Commercial District goals and objectives; (it) The proposed use will generate a significant truancy at the nearby junior high school and result in a frequent loitering problem within the center and around adjacent propedies. As a result, the proposal will create a nuisance among adjacent land uses and other businesses in the shopping center. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forlh in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above. this Commission hereby denies the application. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TH DAY OF APRIL 1996. NNI ~JMMISSI OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA B: . Da~3/ark/~,/ Chair"naan . / PLANNING COMMISSIOI, CUP 96-04 - BALCHAK April 10, 1996 Page 3 .ESOLUTION NO. 96-24 ATTEST~'~er e I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby cedify 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 April 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY MELCHER NONE Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the resolutions approving Tentative Tract 15732 and Conditional Use permit 95-38 with the modifications indicated by Chairman Barker. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried The Planning Commission adjourned from 7:55 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-04 - FRANCIS BALCHAK - A request to establish a 1,075 square foot video arcade and a 2,207 square foot pool room in conjunction with a 2,100 square foot restaurant within the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) shopping center located at the southwest corner of Hellman Avenue and Base Line Road - APN: 208-202-17. Alan Warren, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and indicated that additional correspondence had been received including four letters from two of the businesses in the center in support of the project and two letters of opposition from residents in the condominiums to the south. He said the applicant had also provided a letter dated April 8 modifying his request by reducing the number of pool tables from 10 to 6 and the number of video and arcade games from 35 to 25. He stated that staff is still concerned there may be a problem with loitering outside even if the business is run very well on the inside. Commissioner Melcher asked that staff comment on the relationship on the kind of zoning on this property and that at the southwest corner of Haven and Lemon Avenues and the size and nature of this operation as compared to the size and nature of the recent application at Haven and Lemon Avenues. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner. stated that the zoning at both centers is Neighborhood Commercial and both centers are approximately the same size. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Frank Balchak, 11344 Genova Road, Rancho Cucamonga. stated that 18 months ago he applied for a conditional use permit for Mr. C's located at Base Line Road and Victoria Park Lane between the mini-mad and Subway. He said has never had a problem at that other location. He indicated he works with the schools and teams and several weeks ago Upland band brought in a group on a bus. He stated there are not very many places for such groups to go where they can have food and a place to play. He said it gets very crowded at Mr. C's with teams and birthday parties, etc. and that was one of the reasons he wanted to open at this location with more square footage. He said he has 3,200 square feet at Mr. C's, approximately 27 percent of the square footage of the center, and Bunky's is about 24 percent of the center. He noted that the food area at Mr. C's is 2,100 square feet while it is only 1,200 square feet at his new location. He proposed having hamburgers. french fries, ice cream, and sodas and stated there would be no beer. wine, or smoking. He expressed a willingness to open and close with a curfew. He said he wanted to give kids a place to go. He indicated they have already had one birthday party and they currently have a 2,100 square foot restaurant and an 800 square foot video game space with five video games and one pool table. He said they are proposing the large size because of the number of people who like to have padies there and use the facilities. He stated he does no advedising but instead attracts business by offedng free tickets through the school and getting repeat business from that exposure. He said he ~urrently opens for breakfast at 7:00 a.m. and closes around 8:00 p.m. He stated they question Planning Commission Minutes CC REPORT EXHIBIT 'D' -6- April 10, 1996 youngsters who come in during school hours. He said some people have come in to stad teen-age dart leagues and give instructions on pool. He commented they plan to have different color tables and gear the activities toward children. Commissioner Melcher asked if the applicant had said there would be no wine, beer, alcohol, or smoking. Mr. Balchak said that was correct. He said he has two other locations with beer and wine and he does not want a third. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the applicant intended to apply to serve beer and wine in the future. Mr. Balchak responded negatively° David Burger, Sr., 7422 Lariat Place, #A, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives in the apartment complex immediately behind the shopping center. He indicated he is a neighborhood watch captain for their apartment complex. He said he had to break up a gang fight at the entrance of the apartment complex within a week of Bunky's opening and they had come from Bunky's. He stated that Lion's Park is immediately adjacent and has youth activities which are supervised by people who are licensed by the State of Califomia. He felt there is no need for Bunky's to expand. He said there is already a loitering problem and that has increased since Bunky's opened. He felt there is a problem with traffic in the center which is adjacent to the entrance of their complex. He did not think there is sufficient parking in the center to handle the proposal and said the parking lot is already full every day. He stated that the liquor store adjacent to Bunky's has been known to sell alcohol and tobacco to school children. He said he has seen children in Bunky's playing the arcade games with their backpacks on the floor. He felt that meant the children had stopped there before going home after school and said that is against the State education laws. He stated he had brought that to Mr. Balchak's attention and Mr. Balchak had indicated it is up to the parents to be sure that children go home after school. He felt that was not a proper attitude for a proprietor of such an establishment. He thought there should be no rush to approve the applicant's permit. He said the applicant had indicated at the neighborhood meeting that there have been no problems at Mr. C's, the location at Haven and Lemon Avenues, and the set up is the same. He said he checked and did not feel the situation is the same as the shopping center with Mr. C's is better separated from the neighborhood. He did not feel that playing pool is educational for children and felt the situation is different from having a pool table in a home where neighborhood kids come over. He thought the establishment had already negatively impacted the apartments and felt if the use is approved, it would not be a good, safe environment for his child. Linda Alden, 7389 Lion Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives immediately behind Lions Community Park. She indicated she bought her home in 1989 before the park was constructed. She said that approximately 2~ years ago there was a drive-by shooting following a supervised dance at the park. She stated she has already had to call the Police several times because of the park situation and she felt that allowing a pool hall would seriously escalate the problems. She feared it would depreciate her property values. She said she has observed illicit activities in the park, has had tires flattened, and hood ornaments stolen. She did not think the use is conducive to the neighborhood. Mark Harrison, 9247 Spur Drive, #6, stated he is the on-site manager of Rancho Meadows Apartments. He said he was not too concerned about what goes on inside the establishment but rather what happens when the kids leave. He said that since Bunky's opened there has been an increase in kids hanging out behind the parking lot which looks over the apartment wall. He stated there is a walkway from the center to the front entrance of the apartments. He commented there has been an increase in graffiti in the center and on the apartment walls and stop sign. He stated that several residents have indicated they will move if the use is expanded and he presented a petition Planning Commission Minutes -7- April 10, 1996 signed by 44 residents and owners of the complex opposing the conditional use permit. He felt the use will have an adverse affect on the community. Elfdede (aka Freddie) Willtams, 7361 Saddle Road, Apartment A, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is a resident of the apadments. She said she has observed teenagers buying liquor and cigarettes from older teenagers in the back of the parking lot. She acknowledged that Mr. Balchak had said he would not allow smoking or alcohol in the establishment, but she feared it would not stop the kids. She said kids currently try to throw bottles over the wall into the apartment trash bins. She said there used to be a lot of gang violence when there was a telephone on the southeast corner of the liquor store. She reported the lights behind the center are knocked out so the area is dark. Lynn Coudney, 9330 Base Line Road, #202, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is with the management company which took over management of the center on November 1, 1995. She said the first problem they addressed with the tenants was the loitering and rollerblading in the center. She stated that Play It Again Sports attracts a lot of unsupervised youngsters. She said they posted signs and worked with the Police Depadment to cut down on rollerblading and there had been 15 arrests for rollerblading. She felt there has been a decrease in rollerblading and loitering over the last five months. She said she signed a contract for graffiti control and they have been doing a good job of removing graftlit. She asked that the conditional use permit be approved. She said they need to rent the space and she would like to see Bunky's approved because it is a family oriented place. She stated the property owner has agreed to do several things including fencing in the back area so that only shopping center tenants would have access. She was not sure if a trash truck will be able to get into the back if the area is fenced off. She thought she may have to move the trash enclosure outside of the fenced area. She felt they could also put in some high lights in the rear of the properly. She said she has an 800 number for the graffiti control people and she would provide that number or her number to adjacent residents so they could call to have graffiti removed. She said they also manage the property at Mr. C's and there have been no tenant complaints regarding loitering since she starling managing that property. 'She suggested checking to see if there had been any Police calls. She stated that the Police need to be called whenever someone observes drug deals in the back of centers. She said she wants to see the center come alive and she felt it has been looking better since she started managing it. Sharon Apple, 1041 East Foothill, Upland, stated she is an agent for Lariat Homeowners' Association, also known as Rancho Meadows Apartments. She said she represents the owners of the 22 buildings. She agreed that the center looks a bit better since the new owner has taken over. She stated that graffiti may have been removed today, but there had been considerable graffiti there from March through yesterday. She said she wrote five separate work orders today to remove graffiti from within Rancho Meadows and graffiti is appearing daily. She said they have 88 units and tenants complaint constantly because of problems which they feel spill over into their complex. She said she did not oppose having a pool hall. She commented that the Lion's Center has supervised staff but she would rather have the library back then what is going on now. She said she was here to represent the owners who ask that the conditional use permit be denied because of the traffic and problems they are already experiencing. She reported there are two light standards at the back of the center which have been inoperable for at least three months. She said it is very dark back there and kids congregate there and perform illicit activities. Kimberly Perry Price, 9255 Spur Drive, #C, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she resides in Rancho Meadows Apartment building and she supports the application. She indicated she had spoken with the Balchaks on several occasions and she and her family have visited the business. She said they enquired about the supervision and they were satisfied with the type of supervision, hours, and facilities they would provide for the youths. She agreed with Ms. Coudney that. some of the issues were there before Bunky's moved in. She said there had been problems when the telephone booths were there and the booths were removed. She noted that the telephone booths have been back for a few months and said they were tagged within three weeks of being returned. She commented that was before Bunky's even opened. She concurred that Play It Again Sports attracts a lot of Planning Commission Minutes -8- April 10, 1996 unsupervised youths. She said she has not noticed that the parking lot is crowded even though she can see into the center when she leaves her unit to go to her car. She acknowledged there is loitering but said she did not know if it is any better or worse. She understood the concerns of her fellow tenants but felt Bunky's should not be held responsible for problems because the problems were there before Bunky's was opened and would continue even if Bunky's were not there. She suggested that tenants, Bunky's personnel, or other tenants in the center should contact the proper authorities if the children are doing anything improper. Mary Bradford, 9160 Alder, Rancho Cucamonga, said youngstem do not have any place to play. She felt that the Balchaks have wonderful children and Bunky's provides a good place to play. She said Mr. Balchak makes sure his patrons know the rules when they come in. She stated she lives on the rim above the apadments and there have been problems for years including someone starting a fire near her house. She said there is a playhouse in the woods where kids love to go because they can hide there. She agreed that the park has been a problem but said that is not happening at Bunky's. She requested approval. Lenore Chu, 3374 Yankton Avenue, Claremont, stated Bunky's has not caused much of a problem yet; however it is not as big as they are proposing with 25 video games and 6 pool tables. She thought that teenagers are impressionable and vulnerable and she did not feel it would be a good idea to build a pool hall across from a high school and a junior high school. She feared the use will attract people from other communities and there will be gang members and teenage drug dealers hanging out when the business grows. She stated that teachers are trained to watch over children and she feared there would not be enough supervision at Bunky's. She felt the use would attract children who would then go to the liquor store and take the liquor to the park. 'She noted that graffiti is generally a sign of gangs trying to establish themselves. She stated that parents are concerned because of low test scores and she lamented that the library had been closed and children would now be attracted to improving their pool and video skills. She noted that children have arts and crafts and positive activities provided at the community center. She thought it is not right to indicate that it is the parent's responsibility to be sure that children go home immediately after school, as most parents work and are not home. She thought society has the responsibility to protect the children. She said the atmosphere in Bunky's may currently be like a family, but she felt that is because there is only one pool table and a few video games, not 25 video games and 6 pool tables. She stated that liquor stores are not allowed within a 1-mile radius of Stanford and many other colleges. She noted there is already a liquor store in the center and she felt it would not be advisable to add a pool hall with a park nearby. She noted the Planning Commission has high aesthetic standards for the buildings and landscaping. She requested that the Planning Commission deny the application because children depend upon the judgemerit of adults. Mardine Williams, 621 North Churchill, San Dimas, stated she is one of the owners at Rancho Meadows Apadments. She said she would not be proud to live next to a pool hall. She asked what children did before arcade games. Dr. Sue Sundell, 211 West 5th Street, Ontario, stated she is Director of Business Services for Chaffey High Joint Union High School District. She supported staffs recommendation of denial. She urged the Commission to think of the matter as a land use issue and decide if the proposed use is compatible with what already exists in the neighborhood. She stated that the School District has problems with young adults who are older than the students. She said she lives in a neighboring community which allowed a similar use in the neighborhood of their high school and it is a source of continuous problems with loitering, crime, and frequent police calls. She asked that if the project is approved, that additional conditions be added, such as regulating the hours of access for minors and imposing security requirements. She stated that the owner appears to be a good business person who wants to do the dght thing, but she remarked that the permit goes with the property and she feared a future owner may not be as responsible. She thought a similar use in the right neighborhood would work well because it would not be an attractive nuisance added to existing. problems in a neighborhood. (~5 Planning Commission Minutes -9- April 10, 1996 Sue Balchak, 11344 Genova Road, Rancho Cucamo.nga, stated she is married to Frank Balchak and they live in Rancho Cucamonga. She agreed with Dr. Sundell that minors should be restricted to after school hours. She said she would be happy to post signs and she welcomed the opportunity to work with the schools. She said she had already spoken with Dr. Yates of Central School District and Dr. Koenig, the principal at Cucamonga Middle School. She said she is a parent and knows about truancy. She thought that a conditional use permit can be revoked at any time. She observed there had been testimony regarding a drive-by shooting and said she understood that was related to a half-way house that used to be located on the street. She felt children need outside activities and if there are no such activities, they will be loitering at the park and other places. She indicated a willingness to paint over the graffiti so long as they are supplied with the right color paint. She said the tagging that is present has been there since before they opened. She said she understood the concern about attracting people from other communities, but she was not sure that would happen. She remarked they have not had such problems at Mr. C's Pizza. She thought that kids who want to create problems would not be coming there because they would not have alcohol and cigarettes. She felt the community should respect children and give them an opportunity to do something other than loitering. She requested approval based on their past record at Mr. C's. Albed Chu, 3374 Yankton Avenue, Claremont, stated he owns one of the buildings in the complex. He thought perhaps Bunky's could control things while they are open, but he feared there may be problems when the facility closes. He said there is already a problem in the area and he felt approving the use would increase the problems. Thomas Boucher, 9155 Alder, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his son goes to Bunky's quite frequently. He thought Bunky's is a good place. He said he lives about three blocks away and there is graffiti in his neighborhood and Bunky's has nothing to do with it. He commented that graffiti has been there long before Bunky's. Joanna Balchak, 11344 Genova Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated it is a crime for someone to sell alcohol or tobacco to a minor and she urged people to report such things to the Police and not associate those activities with Bunky's. She asked where kids should go for the summer and she felt that Bunky's should be open to give kids something to do. Mr. Balchak said he had spoken with the owners of the center and they said they would put a stop sign by the insurance office which he thought would help alleviate some of the traffic problems going to the apadment complex. Commissioner Lumpp asked how many video games are currently in Bunky's. Mr. Balchak replied there is one pool table and five video games. Commissioner Lumpp observed that Mr. Balchak had indicated he owns two other establishments. He asked how Mr. Balchak manage the operations. Mr. Balchak replied he has two daughters in college who now do about 80 percent of the work at Mr. C's. He said the other operation is a sports bar and grill with outdoor horseshoe pits which is owned and operated with two other padners. He said he spends approximately two days at each location and his wife spends a lot of time at Bunky's. Commissioner Tolstoy observed the staff report indicates he wants 10 pool table and 35 video games. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Balchak responded he had lowered his request to 6 tables and 25 games. He said the 25 games would not all be video games. He remarked that they want to appeal to families so they will have games similar to Chuck E. Cheese. Planning Commission Minutes -10- April 10, 1996 Commissioner Tolstoy asked how many pool tables are in Mr. C's. Mr. Balchak replied there are three 4~ foot by 9 foot regulation size tables and two 3~ foot by 7 foot bar size. He said he also has foosball, air hockey, pin ball, darts, and approximately 8 to 12 video games. Ms. Alden suggested that Police records be checked prior to granting any approvals. She felt the number of calls to the area will double because she feared that if the management at Bunky's were to eject any patrons, they would go to the park. Ms. Chu said she believes the majority of people who would patronize Bunky's are good, but she feared they will be contacted by bad elements. She said she has been a teacher for 25 years. Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel stated that it is difficult to make a decision when there is an emotionally charged issue. He thought that the applicants gave an excellent presentation and they appear to be capable in running their business and wanting to expand their business. He felt the neighbors are emotionally charged because of past experiences and what they have read in newspapers about places which have had problems and experienced negative factors. He observed that as a parent he had been involved in various sporting, scouting, and other youth oriented functions and he concurred that the vast majority of youngsters are neat people. He thought that most of the facilities that the Balchaks are trying to emulate are approached with noble intentions, but many times things start to slip after awhile. He felt that most of the problems occur outdoors and he feared that outdoor supervision would not remain in place. He said that one of,the biggest problems this center currently faces is skateboarding and he understood that is being addressed. He was concerned that without adequate outside supervision there would be problems because the shopping center is small, is very close to the apartments, and contains a liquor store. He said he found it difficult to support the application in this location and noted that it is less than 3/10 of a mile to the junior high school and near a senior high school. Commissioner Tolstoy thought it is important for a City to entertain its residents. He felt the City has done a lot by providing the Epicenter, parks, the library, and Lions Center. He thought it is most important for any business which caters to young people to have excellent management not only within their facility but also to take some responsibility for management outside the facility. He said he visited Mr. C's today but he unfortunately arrived before the business opened. He indicated he was concerned because the windows had been etched and there was graffiti in front of the store. He reported he spoke with business people at several of the other shops in the center. He indicated the business which fixes cars closes at 6 p.m. and the manager had no problems with Mr. C's but the gas station said that his night manager is having problems with loiterers. He stated the manager of the mini-mart indicated a lot of young people congregate in the center and there have been problems. He commented he therefore was concerned about the outside management of the business. He observed that the graffiti and the glass etching would certainly be discernable to the management of Mr. C's and he was surprised nothing had been done. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that both he and his wife have been associated with schools for many years and he did not think it is compatible to have the proposed type of establishment frequented by students on their way home. He observed that the shopping center shares a driveway with the apartments to the south and that there is no access to Hellman Avenue. He noted that at the neighborhood meeting two residents spoke in favor of the application but they also suggested that the residents organize to monitor any problem activities in and around the center. He felt that indicated that the residents recognize there is a problem. He said there are a number of pool hall facilities in the community and he thought most of them are in larger centers. He thought such a facility is not suited to a small neighborhood center but is an excellent use is larger centers where there is more room for buffering and the use is not so close to residences. He said he could not make the finding that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health or safety. Planning Commission Minutes -11- April 10, 1996 Commissioner Lumpp concurred that the City suppods and has done more than most communities to provide opportunities for creative recreational activities. He also agreed with Commissioner Tolstoy regarding the issue of management. He felt that the facility will not attract top students, but rather average ones looking for a thrill. He thought that having the liquor store in such close proximity would provide a perfect oppodunity for youngsters to have someone buy them liquor and cigarettes and then loiter either in the parking lot or in the park, outside the bounds of the restaurant. He was also concerned about conditions existing at the center where Mr. C's is located and he felt that there is an obligation of the management to be sure that the business does not create problems 'outside, similar to a bartender serving an intoxicated person a drink. He did not oppose expansion of the restaurant but he felt expanding the pool table area and gaming area would provide an opportunity for teenagers to tweak the law a little bit and aggravate adults. He felt the use would be detrimental to the neighborhood and he did not support the application. Chairman Barker asked Commissioner Melcher for comments. Commissioner Melcher suggested moving forward to the action. Chairman Barker stated that if the facility was in operation and an application was received to open a liquor store two doors away, the Commission would deny the liquor store, He felt the use is attractive and it would impact supervision away from the eyes of the applicant. He thought that Ms. Coudney is professional but he feared the impacts could not be sufficiently mitigated. Commissioner Tolstoy hoped that the decision would not become political. Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution denying Conditional Use Permit 96-04. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NONE MELCHER - carried Commissioner Melcher felt the applicant had been mislead by an ordinance which suggests that a permit could be obtained for his use in the zone. He suggested that the ordinance be re-examined. He asked where pool games for children could be located if they are not allowed in a location such as proposed. He questioned if there is any reason not to have such games. He said he goes to almost every shopping center in the City and every one is plagued with loitering by young people with nothing to do. He felt that one of the worst examples is by the Warehouse on Foothill Boulevard and the Stater's center on 19th Street and he asked if that meant that there should be no more music stores or grocery stores. He thought the problem is societal rather than with the businesses and he felt applicants should not be encouraged to apply only to be denied. Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is right to have pool halls in the City but he noted this one wants to expand in a neighborhood commercial center that is too close to residences. He noted there is a pool hall at Thomas Winery but said that neighborhood has more buffering. He thought such a use is not conducive to a very small neighborhood center. Chairman Barker felt it is inappropriate to try to justify a vote after a decision has been made. He thought the sharing of information and debating should take place before a vote is made. The Planning Commission recessed from 9:40 p.m. to 9:50 p.m. Commissioner Melcher did not return to the meeting. Planning Commission Minutes -12- April 1 O, 1996 "Petition in Opposition Bunky's 9255 Baseline Rd. # L We the undersigned oppose the conditional use permit for Bunky' s. We are now, and have in the past experienced difficulty from the shopping center. Specifically, poor maintenance, the inoperable lights are unsafe and attract loitering. The landscape is not maintained and detracts from the appearance and value of the property. Residents of Rancho Meadows have experienced people from the center fighting at the entrance to our property twice this week. This is the only entrance and exit to the property, our children use this access to and from school. Our opinion is that the increase in traffic and people will only add to We problems that already spill over to Rancho Meadows. Name Address Signature :C,C REPORT EXHIBIT "E' "Petition in Opposition Bunky's 9255 Baseline Rd. # L We the undersigned oppose the conditional use permit for Bunky's. We are now, and have in the past experienced difficulty from the shopping center. Specifically, poor maintenance, the inoperable lights are unsafe and attract loitering. The landscape is not maintained and detracts from the appearance and value of the property. Residents of Rancho Meadows have experienced people from the center fighting at the entrance to our property twice this week. This is the only entrance and exit to the property,, our children use this access to and from school. Our opinion is that the increase in traffic and people will only add to the problems that already spill over to Rancho Meadows. Name Address Signature "Petition in Opposition Bunky's 9255 Baseline Rd. # L We the undersigned oppose the conditional use permit for Bunky's. We are now, and have in the past experienced difficulty. from the shopping center. Specifically, poor maintenance, the inoperable lights are unsafe and attract loitering. The landscape is not maintained and detracts from the appearance and value of the property. Residents of Rancho Meadows have experienced people from the center fighting at the entrance to our property twice this week. This is the only entrance and exit to the property, our children use this access to and from school. Our opinion is that the increase in traffic and people will only add to the problems that already spill over to Rancho Meadows. Name Address Signature ,,T/ ,'tl L P,,, ~ ,, .S "Petition in Opposition Bunky's 9255 Baseline Rd. # L We the undersigned oppose the conditional use permit for Bunky's. We are now, and have in the past experienced difficulty from the shopping center. Specifically, poor maintenance, the inoperable lights are unsafe and attract loitering. The landscape is not maintained and detracts from the appearance and value of the property. Residents of Rancho Meadows have experienced people from the center fighting at the entrance to our property twice this week. This is the only entrance and exit to the property, our children use this access to and from school. Our opinion is that the increase in traffic and people will only add to the problems that already spill over to Rancho Meadows. Nalne Address 5.pdr Dr, Signature qO RECEIVED APR 0 9 1996 city of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division CC Report Exhibit "F" RECEIVED APR 0 9 1996 CiTy of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Divisior~ 2034 Glenview Terrace Altadena, CA 91001 April 8, 1996 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re: Conditional Use Permit 96-04 - Francis Balchak; Video Arcade and Pool Room Dear Sir or Madam: I am one of the owners and former president of the association of Rancho Meadows, the apartment community adjacent to the shopping center where the proposed video arcade and pool room are to be located. For a number of years the association has worked to create a pleasant, close-knit family community where families with young children may feel welcome and comfortable and safe. Last year great strides were made toward that goal with a summer program of activities for the children in the complex. The association has every intention of continuing and expanding these programs, thus encouraging young families to reside there. The association has also worked toward providing a law-abiding group of tenants. Unlike some apartment communities in the area, a visit to Rancho Meadows by the police department is now a rare event. I understand that the pool room and video arcade have been open for the last few weeks and that during that short period of time there have been several fights and the amount of graffiti on Rancho Meadows walls has greatly increased. It is therefore clear that the pool room has already attracted a group of people who will create an atmosphere which is inappropriate for the safe and pleasant family apartment community of Rancho Meadows. It is also clear that the pool room owner has not taken the steps necessary to control his clientele (and it may not be possible for him to do I am firmly convinced that the shopping center at Baseline and Hellman is an inappropriate place for a poolroom and video arcade and would be detrimental to the neighborhood and the residential community nearby. I urge you to deny the permit. Very truly yours, u rey . Vaug an RECEIVED APR 10 1996 City of Rancho Oucamonga Planning Division .............................. APR--i'O 1996 City of Rancho COcamo(t'~j ............ planning Division RFCEIVED APR i 0 1996 City of Rancho Cucamonga Plannin0 Division 'PLAY IT A6AIFI' 5POI T5 We Buy & Sell Used & New Sports Equipment ~e_~S Agc~lT (P, AFF~'T"r/ TE-E~- ' S i ,,~oD LOtTEp, f,UL,. T,aE 'p~ST ~YE VE~ES. ,AJE-S,""LE.~ 6~AFF-CT'f J TEE,kDS ~ ~ LO~ TEPj~J6 EOEQ--'-I A,~T,~ / I TEE ~ s .,.,~b F___...~"T moG '~Z-z_.a, A.~b I CcA,v,,\t& i o~o ,~.poe-c~E_ T~ ~ EE DOT~cE._b -A'TuP-x'~u,:~c_ T'44-v% cF LD rrE¢_ tkbc_.~ ~?..I. P---- ..s-T'~.p_.-~:_ / ) ,,L~/.70 FP--~Es AT '~.pEM,s . · 'r--~E oPe-k3 t .p s oF 9255 Baseline Road Rancho Cucamonga, CA-.-9t'~~/~71~) j POSSIBLE CONDITIONS 1) Tenant improvement plans shall be submitted to the Building and Safety and Planning Divisions as well as the Fire District for review and approval prior to occupancy. 2) No person under 18 years of age may enter, be in, or remain in any pad of the game arcade or pool room during the hours school is in regular session and after curfew. This limitation shall be prominently posted at the entrance of the fadlity, in letters not less than I inch in height, and shall be enforced by the adult supervisor. 3) The hours of operation of the arcade and pool room shall be no earlier than 10 a.m. and no later than 11 p.m. on Sundays through Thursdays, and no later than 11 p.m. on Fddays and Saturdays. 4) The following levels of adult, 21 years of age or older, supervision shall be maintained at all times during business hours: 1-25 Amusement Devices (including pool tables 1 adult supervisor 26-50 Amusement Devices (including pool tables) - 2 adult supervisors 51+ Amusement Devices (including pool tables) - 2 adult supervisors, plus 1 uniformed security guard 5) Separate public restrooms for men and women must be provided within the approved building and controlled by the adult supervisors. 6) An interior waiting area with seating facilities must be provided for patrons wishing to relax or wait for an amusement device to become available. 7) Change-making or token exchange facilities must be provided for patron use inside the premises. 8) Adequate extedor lighting shall be provided for evening security adjacent to all entrances and exterior walls of the building where the games are located. All lighting shall be arranged and shielded so as to eliminate excessive glare or reflection onto adjacent properties or businesses. 9) Access to the game area must be from the main entrance to the pdmary use and not from a separate extedor entrance. The rear exits shall be for "Fire Exit Only" and kept closed except for emergencies. 10) Adequate intedor clear space shall be provided for safe and convenient patron circulation and shall meet the following minimum standards: a) Amusement devices shall be located no closer than 12 inches from any wall assembly separating the arcade from any adjacent building or portion of a building. exit. b) Provide a minimum of 60 feet between amusement devices and any entrance or c) Where amusement devices are located along one side of an aisle, provide a minimum unobstructed aisle width of 66 inches. Where amusement devices are located along both sides of any aisle, provide a minimum unobstructed aisle width of 90 inches. CC REPORT EXHIBIT "G" only" shall 11) Two parking stalls adjacent to the arcade shall be stripped and designated for "bicycle parking and provided with security bicycle racks to the satisfaction of the City Planner. They be installed prior to occupancy. 12) All signs on the extedor of the building or visible from the outside, such as window signs, shall require Planning Division approval in accordance with the Sign Ordinance. 13) No amusement device shall be used for purposes of or in connection with gambling. The winning of anything of value shall constitute gambling, except the winning of a prize in a scheduled tournament. 14) No persons shall be permitted to enter, be in, or remain in any part of the arcade while in possession of, consuming, using, or under the influence of any alcoholic beverage of drugs. This shall be prominently posted inside the arlade in letters not less than 1 inch in height and shall be enforced by the adult supervisor. 15) The walls, ceiling, or floor, or any combination thereof, of the building or structure, or portion thereof, shall be insulated or otherwise constructed so that no vibration that is detectable without the aid of any mechanical device or instrument will be allowed to be on the outer perimeter of the arcade. 16) This approval shall become null and void if a Certificate of Occupancy is not issued with 24 months from the date of approval, unless an extension has been granted by the Planning Commission. This conditional use permit shall be monitored and brought back to the Planning Commission within six months from occupancy to review compliance with all Conditions of Approval and applicable City ordinances. Failure to comply with Conditions of Approval or applicable City Ordinances shall cause the suspension of the Conditional Use Permit and possible revocation of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 17) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code and all other applicable City Ordinances in effect at the time the Certificate of Occupancy is granted. 18) The business operator shall develop and implement a procedure with the local school districts (Central and Chaffey) to ensure student truancy does not occur at the business. This procedure must be approved by the City Planner prior to the beginning of arcade and pool hall operations. 19) The parking lot shall be posted "No Loitering" in letters not less than I inch in height on signs to the satisfaction of the City Planner and Police Department. 20) The sale or serving of alcoholic beverages is not permitted by this application. Any future request for the sale or serving of acholic beverages with the uses authorized with this use permit must be considered by an amendment application to this use permit. 21) If the operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, including but not limited to noise or loitering, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for the consideration and possible termination of the use. 22) Large, window size openings shall be cut in the interior separation walls along their entire length, to provide greater visibility of the arcade and pool room areas for the adult supervisors in the restaurant area. 23) No installation of pay phones is permitted in or near the game arcade or pool room. Pay phone installation is only permitted in the restaurant portion of the facility and shall not be permitted on the exterior of the building. MANNERINO - BRIGUGLI0 L A W~rO F F t C E S JOHN D. MANNERINO SAL BRIGUGLIO MITCHELL ROTH LZia Facsimile (909) -~=77-2849 and g.S. Mail ~,~y 21, 1996 RECEIVED MAY :8 2 1996 Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Dear lye. Buller: The purpose of this correspondence is to comply to your request of May 20, 1996 indicating our applicant's position with regard to the conditions as stated in your May 16, 1996 facsimile transmission with regard to the proposed Bunky's expansion. Please be advised that we have read and reviewed carefully each of the conditions being I through 23 and their respective sub-parts and agreed to comply entirely and further agree that they may condition the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit with the exception of the following proviso. With regard: to~,:condi~io~-r~-numbe~-:.~:';~e ~acj~,ee-to p.r~de-exterior 1 ight ing --.fGr:::~the :-,propose&,.-; ..eyening;~,secU~ity .:~2a. cent bo - all entrances and [u~Dher:ag~ee=~toy.pro~ideEadequa~e sec~r-~ty to-ensure the peace.ana!t~nqui~ity of-the .neighboring businesses so long as the landlord~.a~d-property. owner comply with their requirements to provide security for the center as delineated in the conditions by which the land..~use-..was modified from office/professional to residential/con~ercia!.-"!. '. ' " With regard to condition number 9, Fir. Balchuk wishes to remove all but one door in the game area and have a separate entrance to the game room and a separate entrance to the restaurant. He will send us ~' facsimile a ~grambefore ~:~ n M tomorrow ~d it provided to you via facsimile as soon as we receive it. With regard to condition number 22, it is the Wish to attempt to avoid window sized openings between Ehe arcade and pool room on the one side and the restaurant area on the other in order to provide for a more tranquil restaurant atmosphere. However, we agree to comply in spirit with this requirement by ma~ing a condition on the issuance of this Conditional Use Permit that an adult supervisor be present at a!l~ times in the arcade and during all hours of operation-of this a~ea of the facility and further that the restauranL side be provided with a close circuin television monitor with cameras located in.the arcade pool room area so that tt~at area ~ay be monitored by ~he a~u!t supem;isor present in the restaurant area. EXHIBIT "H" 9333BASELlNEROAD, SUITE110/RANCH0 CUCAMONGA, CA91730 TEL(909)980-1100 FAX(909)941-8610 Mr. Brad Buller May 21, 1996 Page Two Additionally, we wish to point out to you that we have met with Captain Bieberdorf of the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department and Daniel Stout, the school resources coordinator, and we have attempted and will attempt to address all their concerns with regard to the location. of this business. We are at this time in the process of meeting with the representatives from the school districts in question and will attempt to address any concerns that they might have. However, it would seem their concerns should be minimal' in light of our agreement to formulate a plan with the truancy officials from the various school districts with regard to the policing and curtailing of that potential problem. Moreover, as you know, the conditions which you have delineated above limit the age occupants on the premises during school hours to above 18 and that, in and of itself, we believe should assuage any concerns with regard to truancy from the local junior high school, middle school and high school students. We trust that this satisfies your concerns and that you will incorporate this letter and your conditions in your staff report which you indicated is required to be filed by noon on Wednesday, May 22. If you have any questions or foresee any problems with regard to our responses, kindly so indicate and we will attempt to address them as soon as possible. We genuinely hope that with the spirit of cooperation we can present before the City Counsel a plan which will have addressed the concerns which troubled the planning commissioners and therefore allow this project to more forward in an economical and satisfactory matter for all concerned. Very truly yours, MANNERINO & BRIGUGLIO JDM/df cc: Frank Balchak Kathleen E. Kinley Larry G. Lees Raymond J. Sarrio Charles J. Llhalley Chaffey Joint Union High School District 211 WEST FIF'rH STREET, ONTARIO, CAUFORNIA 91762-1698 ' (909) 988-8511 · FAX (909) 984-1164 ~~4~ ~ BOARD OF TRUSTEES SUPERINTENDENT ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT ~ / Arthur R. Bustamonte Betice B. Harrison INSTRUCTION Allen A. Martens ,/ May 22, 1996 ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT PERSONNEL Barry W. Cadwallader Alta Loma High School Chaffey Adult School R E C E i V E D Chaffey High School Etiwanda High School Montclair High School MAY 23 8 1996 O.ta.o High schoo, Rancho Cucamonga High School · ~.:t Of ~iFiOhO CIJCS. ITIOfig~I. Valley View High School Planning Division Alan Warren, AICP City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91729 Re: Conditional Use Permit No. 96-04 Bunky's video game arcade and pool room Dear Mr. Warren: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the appeal of Planning Commission's denial of a Conditional Use Permit for a video game arcade and pool room at Base Line Road and Hellman. This location is on a well-used travel route to Alta Loma High School. Chaffey District and the administration of Alta Loma High School are strongly opposed to the request. Although the current operators of the facility seem earnest in their desire to operate a problem-free establishment, evidence of many problems was presented at the Planning Commission's Public Hearing. Since the Conditional Use Permit is attached to the property and not the operation, the potential risk for future problems must be considered. If the Council chooses to grant the applicant's appeal, Chaffey District would ask consideration of the following: 1. The hours of operation are inappropriate for games this close to a school. Students will be enticed to be truant. We would request that access for minors be limited to after- school hours only. 2. To prevent this from becoming a "hangout" for students during evenings and weekends, we would suggest that the city require the project to retain security service during peak hours. 3. If alcoholic beverages are available in the restaurant, we would recommend that direct access not be allowed from the game room. We appreciate the City's efforts to provide a quality environment for young people in the community. We stand ready to assist in any way we can. Sincerely, Susan B. Sundell, Ed.D. Director, Business Services CC REPORT EXHIBIT "1" RESOLUTION NO. 9(-.~" (~'/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-04, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A VIDEO ARCADE OCCUPYING 1,075 SQUARE FEET AND A POOL ROOM OCCUPYING 2,207 SQUARE FEET IN CONJUNCTION WITH A RESTAURANT OF 2,100 SQUARE FEET, LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HELLMAN AVENUE AND BASE LINE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -APN: 208- 202-17. A. Recitals. 1. Francis Balchak has filed an application for Conditional Use Permit No. 96-04, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 10th day of April 1996, 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 and denied said application by the adoption of Resolution No. 96-24 3. Francis Balchak formally appealed the Planning Commission decision and on May 15, and continued to June 5, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 4. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: : 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenCed public hearing of May 15, and June 5, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of 'Hellman -Avenue and Base Line Road with a total street frontage of 780 feet and lot depth of 295 feet and is improved with a 3.5 acre neighborhood shopping center; and b. The properties to the north are developed with a church and residential structures, to the east with a gasoline station and multiple story office building, to the south with a residential condominium project, and the property to the west is developed with a public park and Community Center; and c. The subject property is located along a major route to school for students attending two nearby schools: a junior high school located approximately 1,100 feet to the south and a high school located approximately 2,000 feet to the west. CiTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-04 - BALCHAK June 5, 1996 Page 2 d. The application contemplates the operation of a billiards room with ten pool tables, and an arcade with 35 amusement devices in conjunction with a pizza restaurant. e. An operational management plan to address the criteria listed in Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.10,030.F.3, such as the need for adult supervision, proximity to schools and other community uses, compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and businesses, noise attenuation, and bicycle facilities was not developed for this application. f. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Table 17.10.030.B, the application as proposed, would be materially detrimental to the persons and properties in the immediate vicinity of the proposed site for the following reasons: (i) Because of its large size, the proposed amusement facility is expected to attract significant numbers of customers from beyond the immediate neighborhood and is therefore inconsistent with the Neighborhood Commercial District goals and objectives; (ii) The proposed use will generate a significant truancy at the nearby junior high school and result in a frequent loitering problem within the center and around adjacent properties. As a result, the proposal will create a nuisance among adjacent land uses and other businesses in the shopping center. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 (a) of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, -this Council hereby denies the application. 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. RECEIVED LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT CORP. 1156 N. Mountain Avenue / P. O. Box 670 / Upland, Callfomla 91785-0670 909/985-0971 FAX: 909/949-6700 Legal Department FAX: 909/949-6725 MAY 2 1 1996 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAM(JNL~A CITY CLERK Refer to Fi 1 e No. G-1729 May 20, 1996 VIA TELECOPIER 909/477-2849 Ms. Debbie Adams City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re .' Lewis Homes Enterprises' Appeal of Standard Condition No. 5 to Tentative Tract No. 15732 Dear Ms. Adams: Please be advised that Lewis Homes Enterprises ("Lewis") has entered into a School Facilities Mitigation Agreement with the Etiwanda School District with respect to Tentative Tract 15732. Given this, Lewis withdraws the appeal that it filed in connection with the referenced matter on April 17, 1996. Please let the members of the City Council know that the efforts of Messrs. Gomez and Buller in assisting in the amicable resolution of this matter are very much appreciated by Lewis. Very truly yours, }unsjl JMM: vh\G 1729 CC: Mr. Brad Buller Mr. Rick Gomez Mr. Gene Newton Clayton H. Parker, Esq. Ms. Sue Sundell Mr. Leon Swails Mr. Gary H. Luque Mr. David W. Graf CITY OF RANCHO CUCA1VIONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Brad Buller, City Planner Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 -WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. RECOMMENDATION: That the Industrial Area Specific Plan be amended to include a Community Commercial Retail Center bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Eucalyptus Street, Spruce Avenue, and Elm Avenue. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the subject amendment at their meeting on May 8, 1996, and did not support the subject amendment. BACKGROUND: On April 17, 1996, the City Council moved adoption of amendments to the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan designating the subject site Community Commercial and on May 1, 1996, adopted the General Plan amendment changing the General Plan Land Use Map to Community Commercial. On April 17, the Council also directed the Planning Commission to consider the language for the text amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan. On May 8, 1996, the Commission held a public hearing, received a memorandum from Councilman Williams, and heard testimony on the text amendment as directed by the City Council. Each Commissioner present stated that they did not agree with the Community Commercial designation for the subject site and therefore, on principle, could not support the proposed amendment. ANALYSIS: The proposed text amendment adds to the Industrial Area Specific Plan the category "Community Commercial Retail Business;" states that a Community Commercial Retail Center is Conditionally Permitted subject to a Master Plan; adds all retail business uses permitted in the Terra Vista Community Commercial category; retains all uses permitted in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan; and requires that the design be compatible with the Master Planned surrounding Business Park development in Subarea 7. Staff has reviewed the recommendation by Councilman Williams in her memorandum of May 5, 1996, and agrees that the following sentence from the Industrial Area Specific Plan text change is redundant and could be deleted: The Center shall be substantially completed with the first phase of development and with a minimum of two anchor stores of not less than 24,000 square feet each and all on-site infrastructure. _y CITYCOUNCIL STAFF REPORT ISPA 96-01-WOHURANCHO PARTNERS June 5,1996 Page 2 ACTION: Consistent with the Council direction on April 17, 1996, an ordinance amending the text for the Industrial Area Specific Plan is attached to this staff report. City Planner BB:MB:wh Attachments: Memorandum from Council Member Diane Williams, May 5, 1996 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, May 8, 1996 Draft Minutes of the Planning Commission, May 8, 1996 Ordinance approving Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~ DATE: May 5, 1996 MEMORANDUM TO: Brad Buller, City Planner ~::.:. FROM: Diane Willjams, Council member ~' ~ RE: Item F - Planning Commission Agenda - M~y 8, 1996 WolM/Rancho Partners In the background summary of your staff report dated May 8, 1996 the text change that is recommended is, indeed, what was in our City Council staff report of May 1, 1996. However, in reading it over I realize there was something I meant to bring up for discussion that night but forgot to do so. I am referring to the following statement: "The Center shall be substantially completed with the first phase of development with a minimum of two anchor stores of not less than 24, 000 square feet each and all on-site infrastructure." My first concern is that we have not required the total infrastructure completion on other projects such as Best Buy. Of course we would require adequate accessibility to each phase as it is developed but I think requiring everything as well as both anchors to be completed in the first phase is excessive. My other concern is that I do not recall that any of the units were proposed to be 24,000 square feet. It seems to me that the proposed Good Guys was around 20,000 square feet and the other anchor to be of similar size. This just may be an oversight but I know it was never my intention to restrict the development by forcing completion of the total infrastructure nor limiting the anchors to an exact size. Since I made the motion I feel somewhat responsible for not clearing that up at the appeal hearing. This is my question, is it possible to eliminate the above referenced sentence in its entirety from the proposed text change7 I would like to discuss this with you but unfortunately I have a family commitment for all day Monday and then I will be at ICSC from Tuesday morning through Wednesday evening. I will try to call you tomorrow (Monday) but in case I don't have that opportunity I wanted to make my concerns known. Thanks CC: William J. Alexander, Mayor Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tern James Curatalo, City Council Paul Biane, City Council Jack Lam, City Manager [O CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: May 8, 1996 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. BACKGROUND: On April 17, 1996, the City Council held a public hearing on General Plan Amendment 96-01A and the subject application. Following public testimony and deliberation, the Council approved a Land Use Change to "Community Commercial" for the 14.45 acre parcel bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Eucalyptus Street, Spruce Avenue, and Elm Avenue. The Council found that the Community Commercial designation was consistent with the General Plan in that the development would occur in a retail center and as a logical extension of the Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard Activity Center which currently extends to Elm Avenue through the extension of retail uses in the Terra Vista Planned Community. On May 1, 1996, the Council adopted the resolution approving General Plan Amendment 96-01A. As part of the motion of approval, the City Council directed the Planning Commission to review the following change to the Subarea 7 text (Exhibit "A"): On the south side of Foothill Boulevard, a Community Commercial Retail Center is Conditionally Permitted subject to a Master Plan on a 14.45 acre parcel bounded by Spruce Avenue on the west, Elm Avenue on the east, and Eucalyptus Street on the south. This site is a logical extension of the Haven and Foothill Activity Center which encourages a mix of uses to function as an active people place and be lively well into the night for the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Compatibility with adjacent existing and intended Industrial Park Development shall be demonstrated through site planning, building design, and landscaping. The Center shall be substantially completed with the first phase of development with a minimum of two anchor stores of not less than 24,000 square feet each and all on-site infrastructure. In-line shops should be limited. All retail business uses permitted in the Terra Vista Community Commercial designation are permitted within the Center and are incorporated by reference. A Master Sign Program shall be required and shall be consistent with sign code requirements for Commercial Retail Centers. · ANALYSIS: As determined by the City Council the aforementioned text change is intended to provide consistency between the General Plan and the Industrial Area Specific Plan in several ways. By mirroring the Terra Vista's Community Commercial designation, the subject site can be found to logically expand the Haven and Foothill Activity Center. The proposed text change mirrors the Terra Vista Community Commercial district in two ways. The first reference is to the definition of "Community Commercial" in the Terra Vista Planned Community as "an active people place...lively well into the night for the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamongao" The second incorporates by reference the "retail business uses" allowed in the Terra Vista Community Commercial district (Uses Permitted in Areas Designated Community Commercial: Retail businesses: Exhibit "B"). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ISPA 96-01-WOHURANCHO PARTNERS May 8,1996 Page 2 Also, the proposed text requires design compatibility with the surrounding Master Planned industrial development and requires a Conditionally Permitted Master Plan to ensure long term compatibility between the Retail Center and surrounding Industrial Park development. Further, the proposed text discourages piecemeal development by the requirement that the Retail Center be substantially developed with the first phase of development. Finally, the proposed text changes the sign code requirement from the "industrial" to the "commercial" category. It should be noted that Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan already permits expanded retail business uses on the northeast corner of Haven Avenue and Arrow Route in the former K- mart center, as well as in the Commercial Recreation center at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Activity centers and the former K-mart center are indicated on the attached map (Exhibit "C"). A further addition to the ISP text is proposed. The "Community Commercial retail" category should be inserted into Table 111-2 (p. II1-13) between "Business Support Services" and "Communication Services" as follows (Exhibit "A"): Community Commercial Retail Business: Within an approved Community Commercial Center which extends an Activity Center, this category adds uses to the retail uses already permitted within the Subarea in which the Center is situated. Uses shall be consistent with the Community Commercial retail business uses permitted in the Terra Vista Community Plan which are incorporated herein by reference. The intent is to encourage a mix of uses which can make a Center lively well into the night, to function as an active people place, and to serve not only the residents of the City but, by location, also to draw from residential areas in neighboring communities. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: An environmental assessment has been completed for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and was included in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated March 27, 1996. Staff has found that no significant adverse environmental impacts will occur because of the proposed amendment. A Negative Declaration would be recommended upon approval of the subject application. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council requests that the Industrial Area Specific Plan text be amended to include a Community Commercial Retail Center bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Eucalyptus Street, Spruce Avenue, and Elm Avenue. A resolution recommending approval of the aforementioned text changes is attached. 'BB:MB:wh Attachments: Exhibit "A" - ISP text changes Exhibit "B" - Terra Vista Community Plan Community business uses Resolution Recommending Approval - ISP Amendment 96-01 Commercial retail INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PART III - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES TABLE 111-2 - LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS - D. COMMERCIAL USE TYPES (page 111-13): After "Business Support Services" and before "Communication Services" insert: Community Commercial Retail Business: Within an approved Community Commercial Center which extends an Activity Center, this category adds uses to the retail uses already permitted within the Subarea in which the Center is situated. Uses shall be consistent with the Community Commercial retail business uses permitted in the Terra Vista Community Plan which are incorporated herein by reference. The intent is to encourage a mix of uses which can make a Center lively well into the night, to function as an active people place, and to serve not only the residents of the City but, by location, also to draw from residential areas in neighboring communities. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PART IV - OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBAREA 7: Special Consideration (Page IV-52) Change the fourth paragraph to read as follows: On the east side of Haven Avenue, north of Arrow Highway, Development Code provisions for the General Commercial District shall apply to the anchor store and adjoining northerly building. Development and use of satellite buildings in the Center are subject to provisions of the Industrial Area specific Plan. (Existing text revised to delete reference to K-mart.) At the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, adjoining the Rancho Cucamonga Adult Sports Park and Rancho Cucamonga Stadium uses allowed in the Recreational Commercial General Plan Land Use category shall be permitted within the planned 27-acres Mixed Use Center. (Ord No. 521,4/20/94) Add the following paragraph: On the south side of Foothill Boulevard, a Community Commercial Retail Center is Conditionally Permitted subject to a Master Plan on a 14.45 acre parcel bounded by Spruce Avenue on the west, Elm Avenue on the east, and Eucalyptus Street on the south. This site is a logical extension of the Haven and Foothill Activity Center which encourages a mix of uses to function as an active people place and be lively well into the night for the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Compatibility with adjacent existing and intended Industrial Park Development shall be demonstrated through site planning, building design, and landscaping. The Center shall be substantially completed with the first phase of development with a minimum of two anchor stores of not less than 24,000 square feet each and all on-site infrastructure. In-line shops should be limited. All retail business uses permitted in the Terra Vista Community Commercial designation are permitted within the Center and are incorporated by reference. A Master Sign Program shall be required and shall be consistent with sign code requirements for Commercial Retail Centers. (ISPA 96-01 ) EXHIBIT "A" IIo ~ 7y / ,6' / ~' '/r-~~ / ' LU (/) .3 -t ~C. x H z.6' ,,r "C " DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report and reported that Council Member Diane Willlares had submitted a memorandum requesting that the phasing reference be deleted from the proposed text. Commissioner McNiel asked for clarification that the area will continue to fall under the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Ms. Bratt responded affirmatively. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff felt it would be best to place a provision for Community Commerdal for this particular properly within the Industrial Area Specific Plan rather than removing the properly out of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and placing it under the Terra Vista Community Plan, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, or the general development code. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that would not be a departure from what has been done in the past because he recalled that was done for the K-mad center. Mr. Buller commented the Masi site was also handled in that manner. Commissioner Tolstoy observed that the proposed text amendment refers to a 24,000 square foot building. He did not recall a proposal for a building that size. Mr. Buller replied that one of the original plans included a 24,000 square foot Good Guys store. Commissioner Tolstoy thought it was only for a 20,000 square foot building. Ms. Bratt remarked that a current plan has been submitted for a Pre-Application review with a 29,000 square foot building and two buildings slightly larger than 20,000 square feet. Mr. Buller stated that the figure could be changed to 20,000 or 18,000. He reported that Council Member Willjams sent a memorandum indicating she meant to address the issue and she indicated that was not a position she would want to take. He said it was an option but is a condition that has not been placed on any other projects. He noted most phasing plans are reviewed at the time of a conditional use permit, not at the time of zoning approval, and said staff was willing to delete that phrasing from the recommendation. Commissioner Tolstoy thought the recommendation was directed by City Council. Mn Buller stated the Council recommended a Community Commercial designation but they did not discuss size of buildings or phasing. Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Peter Desforges, General Padner, Wohl/Rancho Partners, 2404 Michaelson Drive, #170, Irvine, stated his question had already been answered with respect to the phasing. He said their only concern was phasing. He thought none of the other projects had been required to submit a phasing plan at this step in the process. He remarked they are currently negotiating with potential tenants that may change the plan slightly. He said they are talking to an anchor store regarding a 30,000 Planning Commission Minutes -4- May 8, 1996 DRAFr- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY square foot store at one end of the project and they would want to be open as soon as possible, perhaps pdor to when they will be able to get the rest of the site through the planning process. He suggested that they be allowed to construct as soon as possible within a master plan, without requiring the entire site to be built. He objected to putting in the interior infrastructure because he feared there may be changes to the depth of other buildings which might alter where the driveways would ultimately be placed. He said he had also questioned the uses for the site. Mr. Buller stated Mr. Desforges called after receiving the staff report and asked about uses which were crossed out under Exhibit F-5. He said the proposal before the Commission is that the underlying zoning for Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan would remain intact. He observed the City Council desires to add the land uses currently allowed under Commercial Retail within the Terra Vista Community Plan. He stated the business support services are not being added from the Terra Vista Community Plan because they are already permitted or conditionally permitted in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan. He indicated there may be some instances where a particular use requires a conditional use permit under the Industrial Area Specific Plan but not under the Terra Vista Community Plan. Mr. Desforges said movie theaters is a conditional use permit under one plan but a permitted use under the other. He thought the City was going to be taking away industrial uses from the site. He remarked their master plan will not include industrial uses. Mr. Buller responded there is no proposal to take any of the uses away. Commissioner Melcher observed that the ordinance requires a master plan and he thought there is not yet a master plan. He understood an application had been received regarding Mimi's and he asked how the City could act on that application without a master plan. He observed that the Council had directed that the project should go forward and he asked why the Planning Commission was not considering the site plan instead of taking the time to work on the procedural aspect. Mr. Buller replied he had met with the applicant and the applicant is moving quickly to process the project. He said their first step is a Pre-Application and they would like to address the design direction for the center and hope to pull together the packet for the master plan and conditional use permit for the entire center. He noted that Mimi's was a use that would have been permitted under the existing zoning and he felt the applicant could show that a restaurant such as Mimi's is consistent with the current master plan which is on the site under the Industrial Park zoning. He said staff felt it would be appropriate to review Mimi's similar to restaurants such as Olive Garden on the north side of Foothill Boulevard with a schematic master plan that would make sure that circulation would be addressed with the approval of the restaurant pad. Hearing no further comments, Vice Chairman McNiel dosed the public hearing. He asked if anything happens' to the project until it goes back to the City Council. Mr. Hanson responded that tonight's hearing was to fulfill the requirements of state law and City code that the Planning Commission consider text changes to a specific plan. He said that when the matter was previously before the Commission, the suggested language of the text change was not considered. He reported the City Council could not independently take action prior to the Planning Commission's consideration of the change. He stated it would not be necessary for the Commission to adopt the resolution recommending approval because state law indicates that the proposed text changes be forwarded to the City Council with a written report of recommendations of the Planning Commission and the City Council could then act as it so chooses. He said that if the Commissioners did not wish to approve the resolution, it would be appropriate to direct staff to prepare a written report to City Council reflecting the Commission's comments. Planning Commission Minutes -5- May 8, 1996 DRAFT- FOR DISCUSSION ONLY Vice Chairman McNiel asked when the application would be heard by the City Council. Mr. Buller replied that it will be June 5, 1996. Vice Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing for a question from Mr. Desforges. Mr. Desforges noted that the section discussing shopping center criteria had been crossed out in the exhibit from the Terra Vista Community Plan. He thought the City might want that section included. Ms. Bratt read from the proposed text that "...a Community Commercial Retail Center is Conditionally Permitted..." She stated it would not be necessary to add in the text Mr. Desforges referred to. Mr. Desforges said that was acceptable. Vice Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing. Commissioner Melcher stated that at a recent meeting on another matter he was publicly chastised by the Chairman for expressing his opinions after the vote was taken, and up until that time he had always been under the impression that if a person wished to vote no, it was his prerogative to explain his no vote after the vote. He said he intended to no vote on this. He stated he simply wished to say that the City Council's action does not make this good planning, and he must therefore vote against it. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had previously made a number of comments and those comments still stand. Vice Chairman McNiel stated the item will go back before the City Council as scheduled for action by the Council. He observed that the Commissioners are not elected and serve at the pleasure of the Council, but that did not mean they have to agree with the Council. He observed he has expressed an uninterrupted record of opposition to this amendment and he too would be unable to suppod it. Mr. Hanson suggested that the Commissioners could make a motion to recommend denial and direct the staff to prepare a written report reflecting the Commission's vote. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to recommend denial of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01 and to direct staff to prepare a written report reflecting the Commission's vote. Motion carded by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE BARKER, LUMPP - carried Vice Chairman stated that the resolution in the staff report indicated staff support of the amendment as directed by City Council. He thought the Commission may have put staff in an awkward position but he felt principles needed to be dealt with as well. He said he appreciated staff's efforts on behalf of the City Council and said he did not want to see staffs integrity cornpromised. Planning Commission Minutes -6- May 8, 1996 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, NORTH OF EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND WEST OF ELM AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69. A. Recitals. 1. Wohl/Rancho Partners has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 96-01, as described in the title of this Ordinance. Hereinafter in this Ordinance, the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application." 2. On May 1, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted General Plan Amendment 96-01A approving a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial, and 3. On May 8, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 4. On June 5, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application. 5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred. B. Ordinance NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and ordained by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 5, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to approximately 14.45 acres of land, basically a rectangle configuration, located south of Foothill Boulevard, north of Eucalyptus Street, east of Spruce Avenue, and west of Elm Avenue and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Industrial Park; and b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Community Commercial and is partially developed. The property to the west is designated Industrial Park and is partially developed. The property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The property to the south is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ISPA 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS June 4, 1996 Page 2 c. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and e. This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent properties and would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding properties. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes 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 amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan. 4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows: a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application. b. That based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code · of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-1-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Council hereby approves of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 96-01 to add text changes as set forth in Exhibit "A" of this Ordinance. CITYCOUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. ISPA 96-01-WOHURANCHO PARTNERS June 4,1996 Page 3 6. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this ordinance and shall 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 in the City of Ontario, Califomia, and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PART III - DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES TABLE 111-2 - LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS - D. COMMERCIAL USE TYPES (page 111-13): After "Business Support Services" and before "Communication Services" insert: Community Commercial Retail Business: Within an approved Community Commercial Center which extends an Activity Center, this category adds uses to the retail uses already permitted within the Subarea in which the Center is situated. Uses shall be consistent with the Community Commercial retail business uses permitted in the Terra Vista Community Plan which are incorporated herein by reference. The intent is to encourage a mix of uses which can make a Center lively well into the night, to function as an active people place, and to serve not only the residents of the City but, by location, also to draw from residential areas in neighboring communities. INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN PART IV - OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBAREA 7: Special Consideration (Page IV-52) Change the fourth paragraph to read as follows: On the east side of Haven Avenue, north of Arrow Highway, Development Code provisions for the General Commercial District shall apply to the anchor store and adjoining northerly building. Development and use of satellite buildings in the Center are subject to provisions of the Industrial Area specific Plan. (Existing text revised to delete reference to K-mart.) At the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue, adjoining the Rancho Cucamonga Adult Sports Park and Rancho Cucamonga Stadium uses allowed in the Recreational Commercial General Plan Land Use category shall be permitted within the planned 27-acres Mixed Use Center. (Ord. No. 521, 4~20~94) Add the following paragraph: On the south side of Foothill Boulevard, a Community Commercial Retail Center is Conditionally Permitted subject to a Master Plan on a 14.45 acre parcel bounded by Spruce Avenue on the west, Elm Avenue on the east, and Eucalyptus Street on the south. This site is a logical extension of the Haven and Foothill Activity Center which encourages a mix of uses to function as an active people place and be lively well into the night for the residents of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Compatibility with adjacent existing and intended Industrial Park Development shall be demonstrated through site planning, building design, and landscaping. All retail business uses permitted in the Terra Vista Community Commercial designation are permitted within the Center and are incorporated by reference. A Master Sign Program shall be required and shall be consistent with sign code requirements for Commercial Retail Centers. (ISPA 96-01 ) EXHIBIT "A" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: June 6, 1996 TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack' Lam, AICP, City Manager FROM: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the continued use of modular buildings on 10 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5354 Haven Avenue - APN: 1074-271-01. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the modulars through adoption of the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND On April 24, 1996, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Conditional Use Permit 96-03 for the church to continue using their existing modular buildings. The modulars, which house classrooms and offices, are required to be removed within five years or upon completion of the next permanent building, whichever occurs first. This decision was appealed by an attorney, who represents the four adjoining property owners of Vivienda Street, on the grounds that the Planning Commission allegedly failed to follow Development Code Section 17.02.100 pertaining to lapse of development approvals. The City Attorney's office had previously responded to the appellant that they were incorrectly applying a section of the Code which is no longer applicable in this case (Exhibits "E" & "F"). The City Attorney reiterated during the public hearing that Development Code Section 17.02.100 provides that approvals will expire after 24 months if the developer has not diligently pursued building permits and obtained a certificate of occupancy. By its terms, the time limit becomes inapplicable once the project is completed. The permit for Hillside Community Church for the modular buildings was fully exercised when the modulars were installed and a Certificate of Occupancy issued; therefore, Section 17.02.100 has no bearing on this matter. · The Development Code recognizes that temporary structures may be allowed for churches for a time deemed appropriate by the Planning Commission. Accordingly, the City Attorney has stated that the Planning Commission was acting within its authority to approve this CUP for the modulars. ANALYSIS During the public hearing, property owners to the south objected to the continued use of the modulars, citing the length of time these temporary buildings have existed, noise, and aesthetics as their primary concerns. The modulars were originally installed in 1985. The residents felt that ,j CiTY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CUP 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH June 5, 1996 Page 2 the modulars have already been allowed to stay far too long. In their findings, the Planning Commission noted that the church has been diligently pursuing development of their property since 1983. Permanent improvements completed to date include: full street improvements, grading and landscaping of the entire site, construction of the family center multi-purpose building, parking, and ballfields. The Commission also noted that the modulars had existed on the church site since 1985 without complaint from surrounding residents. One resident complained that a compressor comes on at 5:00 a.m. and disturbed their sleep. The church testified that the air conditioners and heat pumps in the modulars are on a double fail-safe system to minimize energy costs. The air conditioners are preset to come on during the times they use the buildings which is normally after 8:00 a.m. The air conditioners must also be activated by manually turning a timer switch inside the buildings. There are heat pumps on one of the modulars which work on the same type of timers. Three bad timers were replaced recently because of the expense to run the units when they are not needed. The third concern was a general dissatisfaction with the appearance of temporary buildings versus permanent buildings. The residents felt that temporary buildings were less attractive than permanent buildings and should not be allowed to remain. In addition, the residents complained about the level of exterior maintenance on the buildings, citing cracked and peeling paint. The church indicated that these buildings are on a regular cycle of maintenance as evidenced by their repainting earlier this year. The modulars were repainted approximately 2 years ago and 2 ¼ years prior to that. The Commission also noted that modulars adjoin two of the four residents on Vivienda Street and that only portions of the modulars were visible because of extensive landscaping between the houses and the modulars. The fourth concern was whether the modulars meet building codes for seismic safety. The Building & Safety Division has indicated that the modulars met all seismic codes in effect at the time building permits were issued in the early 1980's. Although seismic codes have been amended since then, existing structures are exempt and are not required to be brought up to current code standards. CORRESPONDENCE This item was advertised as a public hearing by mailing notices to property owners within 300 feet, posting notices on the project site, and publishing a notice in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Resp '/~tfully bmu'~ed~ Dan Coleman Principal Planner Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Appeal Letter from Mr. Lumsdaine (dated April 29, 1996) Exhibit "B" - April 24, 1996, Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibit "C" - April 24, 1996, Minutes of Planning Commission meeting Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Resolution of Approval No. 96-27 Exhibit "E" - March 6, 1996, letter from Ralph Hanson Exhibit "F" -April 18, 1996, Letter from Ralph Hanson Resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 96-03 JOSEPH A. LUMSDAINE MARK C, DOYLE JEFFREY B. SINGER MICHELE S. AHRENS CHERI A. KAOOTANI MICHAEL A. LANPHERE DAVID A. PASQUALINI° MATI'HEW L. KINLEY GARY A. LIEBERMAN DANIEL R. GOLD SHARISSE E. MOLYNEUX JOSEPH A, MALEKI TREE)WAY LUMSDAINE Lawyers "3 'xc3c35 G~,J Cj pril 29, 1996 Debbie Adams, City Clerk City of Rancho Cucamonga P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0807 1920 MAIN STRE~ LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE DOWNEY. CALIFORNIA (310) 923-0971 FAX (310) 869-4607 ° of Counsel HAROLD T. TREDWAY RETIRED I1984) Certi~edfReturn Receipt Requested Re: Notice of Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, Conditional Use Permit 96-03 Dear City Clerk: Please take note that this finn is counsel to those Rancho Cucamonga property. owners ("Residents") residing at 10418, 10438, 10458, and 10478 Vivienda Street, Alto Loma, California 91737. Please take further notice that the Residents hereby appeal the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission decision approving Conditional Use Permit 96-03. CUP 96-03 concerns an application submitted by Hillside Community Church, requesting further approval for use of existing temporary modular buildings. The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission approved CUP 96-03 on April 24, 1996. This appeal is based on the Planning Commission's failure to comply with the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code, and specifically, Section 17.02.100. The Planning Commission has approved CUP 96-03 and thereby authorized continued use of the temporary modular buildings for an aggregate eighteen (18) year period despite the restrictions set forth in Development Code Section 17.02.100. Please direct all further communications conceming this matter to this office. Additionally, please provide this office with notice of the date that the City Council will hear this appeal. JAM:tll cc: Client Joseph A. Lumsdaine, Esq. Very t~/Ly._yQt;tr5, ...... /' · .... . : h A. M~leki " CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' STAFF REPORT DATE: April 24, 1996 TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request for a new approval for the existing modular buildings on approximately 10 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5354 Haven Avenue - APN: 1074-271-01 BACKGROUND: On February 9, 1983, the original church proposal (Conditional Use Permit 82-29) was approved by the Planning Commission. The approval reflected a phased development pursuant to a Master Plan (Exhibit "B"), which included permanent buildings and temporary modular buildings. The church proceeded with development of their first phase which included the temporary modulars, parking lots, and landscaping (Exhibit "C"). A subsequent application (Conditional Use Permit 88-10) was approved by the Commission on September 28, 1988, which was identical to the original with the exception of architectural changes to the permanent buildings. On that same date, the Planning Commission also granted approval of a fourth modular building under a separate Conditional Use Permit 88-38. The church installed the fourth modular in accordance with this approval. A modification to both Conditional Use Permits was approved on November 28, 1990, which granted a three year extension of time for the modulars. The time extension expired on September 28, 1993; however, none of the modulars were removed. In August 1994 the church completed the Family Center, its first permanent building. The church was sent a letter in August 1994 reminding them of their obligation to remove the modulars. ANALYSIS: Temporary modulars are allowed for churches where a Master Plan for development of permanent facilities is approved. This flexibility recognizes the fact that churches generally don't have sufficient funds to pursue an aggressive development schedule. The Planning Commission sets the time limits for temporary trailers for religious uses for a "specified interim period" on a case-by-case basis pursuant to DeVelopment Code Section 17.08.030.D.2. Traditionally the interim period has been up to five years to coincide with the time limits established for development approvals. The intent is to provide encouragement for project applicants to make progress toward completion of their permanent facilities. Hillside Community Church has made substantial progress toward completing the permanent improvements to their site. These include, in addition to the Family Center, full street improvements, fully graded site, all parking facilities (except for about 30 parking spaces underneath the modulars), landscaping, and ball fields. The church is requesting a five year extension for the modulars (Exhibit "D"). XHID!T' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH April 24, 1996 Page 2 FACTS FOR FINDING: Staff believes the following facts support the requisite findings: The proposed use is consistent with General Plan policies to create opportunities wherein a population diverse in terms of income, age, occupation, race, lifestyle, values, interests, and religion may interact, exchange ideas, and realize common goals. B. The proposed use is consistent with the Development Code provisions which allow churches within residential districts. C, The modular buildings have been located on the site since 1983/84 without complaint and no evidence has been submitted to show that they are a detriment to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. D. The modular buildings were installed on the site in full conformance with the Development Code requirements. CORRESPONDENCE: The Planning Division was contacted by several residents expressing concern that the modulars were not removed in 1993. Staff arranged a meeting between residents and church representatives on the church property to discuss this and other issues conceming the ballfields on January 11, 1996. Subsequently we received a letter from an attomey representing four residents on Vivienda, immediately south of the church site demanding removal of the modulars. The City Attorney's office responded in writing to this letter. Copies of the two attorney's letters were previously transmitted under separate cover. In an April 17 letter (Exhibit "E"), the residents' attomey cites the "unsightly scene of the modulars which directly abut their homes" as the basis for their opposition to this Conditional Use Permit request and their reason for wanting the modulars removed. RECOMMENDATION: Resolution. !ubmitted~ Principal Planner Staff recommends approval of the request through adoption of the attached DC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" Exhibit "B" Exhibit "C" Exhibit "D" Exhibit "E" - Vicinity Map - Master Site Plan - Modular Site Plan - Letters from Applicant - April 17 Letter from Tredway Lumsdaine & Doyle Resolution of Approval /^° .' . '/'(?) ~ · ~'~"~[V"'-'" ..... [- / : A L II February 6, 1996 R E C E I V E D bitside C0111,1'fif11 /ty C/91[t°C/2 5354 HAVEN AVENUE ALTA LO~,~A CALIFORNIA 91737 909.980.2191 FAX909.989.7971 DR. DAVID BURNS Senior Pastor Mr. Dan Coleman, Planner City ofRancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 F E B 0 6 1996 City of Rancbo Oucamonga Planning Division Dear Dan, I am writing to request a five year extension of our conditional use permit (C.U.P. 88~ 10) related to our modular buildings. We are very excited about the growth and progress that our church is making in moving towards the fulfillment of our long range master plan. When we completed the construction on our family center, which ~s the first permanent structure of the master plan, in August 1994, we were averaging about 450 in attendance. Since completion oft he family center our average attendance has grow~ to 900. In addition, vdth the completion of our athletic field, we have 360 children from the community all registered and prepared to embark this March, on a softball program we are calling "JUST FOR KIDS". Let me add that we are very pleased with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's playschool program which has been utilizing our facility. It is a great program. All of this is to say that our understanding of modular use, is that the city allows churches to utilize modulars as they continue to make progress toward permanent construction of their master plan, at which time the modulars will not be necessary. We appreciate very much the city working with us to enable the kind of growth we have experienced. It is our intention to continue to initiate the kinds of programs and plans that will allow us to continue to grow, so that we can move to~trd our next building phase, at which time we anticipate being able to remove the modulars. Right no~v, they are crucial to our growing programs. Thus, we are requesting the extension. Thank you again for all your assistance, and I will look fortyard to hearing from you. Sincerely, St. Pastor Hillside Community Church February 26, 1996 R E C E I V E D 5354 HAV,=N AVENUE ALTA LOMA CAUFORNIA 91737 902.980.2191 FAX 909.989.7971 DR. DAVID BURNS Senior Pastor Mr. Dan Coleman, Planner 105 10 Civic Center Dr. Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 F E B ..'3.. 9 !g96 City ot Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Dear Dan, This letter is in response to your request for additional information related to our request for an extension of our conditional use permit for the modular buildings. The modular buildings are used for several purposes. We use them for classrooms on Sunday mornings for ages ranging from infants through adults. During the week we use the modulars for various adult meetings and mid-week children's programs, as well as for junior and senior high programs. We also have an active Alcoholics Anonymous group that meets one night every week. Presently, the City ofRancho Cucamonga is utilizing our modulars, Mondays through Thursdays, during the morning hours for the Playschool activity program. The educational component of our activities is very strong due to the large number of children and youth that participate in our church program. Thus, the modulars play an essential role in enabling our growth and the eventual construction of permanent educational facilities as shown in our master plan. IfI can answer any further questions, please call me at (909) 980-2191. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Dr. David H. Burns Senior Pastor JO$~'l A. LUMSOAIN~ MA. KK C. DO'rt.~ J~I:F~lk'Y I~. SINGER MICH~L~ $. AHI~N$ ~ A KADOTANI DAVID A. PASQUALINI MATT~6W L. KINL-b~Y 0ANI~'!. R. GOlD 5HAi~giS~ P.. MOLYN~UX JOSEPH A MA/_~_Itj TREDWAY LUMSDAIN ®DO 10641 pARAMOUNT L',OV'th_'~t'. CA 90241 ('310) ~71 F~ ~10) ~7 ~ C0~ ~1~ ~1~) 7~ F~ ~14) 7~ H~ T. ~DWAY April 17, 1996 RECEIVED CITY' OF KANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION 10500 Civic Omter Drive P-O- Box 807 Kancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 APR 17 1996 City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division Re.-' Condiriond Use Permit 96-03--Hillside Community Church Pz~lic Hearing: April 24, 1996 Dear Planning Commission Members: I'NIR_ODU~ON Several Ranch Cucamonga property o~ners ("Residents") including those citizens residing at 10418, 10438, 10458, and 10478 Vivienda Street,. Alia Loma, California 91737, received notice of the above-stated public hearing for Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") 96-03. The aforementioned residents have lltnine<] this law firm to voice their objections to Hillside Community Church's C'Hillside") application for CLIP 96-03. Hillsidc now seeks approval of CLIP 96-03 for authorization to retain several modular buildings on its property located at 5354 Haven Avenue, l~ancho CucamongaL On February 20, 1996, via written correspondence to Brad Buller, the Residents formally informed the planning Commission of the City's failure to instigate the necessary regulatory measures m compel Hillside's compliance with the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code- A copy of the Residents' letter dated February 20, 1996, to Mr. Butler is attached hereto as Exhibit "1' and incorporated herein by this reference. While the February 20, 1996 le~zr sets forth the Residents' general concerns as to I-Y__dlside's use of its property, the propose of this instant letter is to particularly address CUP 96-03 with respect to the existing modular buildings which will be the issue before the planning Commission on April 24, 1996- III City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission April 17, 1996 Page 2 BACKGROIFND It is important to recofalze the context of the Residents' concerns, and for this reason, I am compelled to briefly outline the history of the subject modular units- On September 28, 1938, the pl~nn~nf Commission a/~n'ned Resolution No. 2g-19g whereby approving HiLlside's Master Plan. The Master Plan allegeally accountexi for ~L~lI~On of temperary modular units on Hillside's property. Those modular were authorized by CUP g2-10. The planning Commission concurrently zffu-med Resolution No. 8g-199 and issued CUP 22-10 for a~ addition modular u~t CUP Nos. glg-10 and 22-32 were subsequently tooairier by the p)~nn~ng Commission's approv-al of a three (3) year extension for the tempora~ modular units. This action was evidenced by Kesolution Nos. 82-19gA and 2g-199A. The extension of both CUPs were approved on November 2~, 1990. Therefore, based on the three (3) year extension of time, Hillside was obligated to remove the temporary u~ts on or before November 22, 19~-~. In fact, ~t is undisputed that the authorize1 time limits for Hillside's use of the temporary modulars expired nearly 2~ years ago, on Meowember 2~, 1~93. Ironically, the City aid not initiate any action agsln~ I-lHJside to insu~ Hillskle's compliance with the lapsed CUPs- On the contrary, du_Fmg the interim period from November 22, 1993 through the present, Hillside knowingly ignored the lapsed CUPs and h-~itiated affum~tive m~ to upgrade the modulars by, i~er alia, constructing concrete waLkways, sm~rs, railin~ and other such permanent measures- All of these actions clearly evidence Hillside's intent to continue use of the modulars and Hillside's failure to reco~nize th~ the modulars orig. im~tly authorized by the CUPs were to be and to rcrn~n as temporary units. In 1990, Pastor Bums represented to the Planning Commission that I-5Ilside requested the three- year extension because it lacked sufficient funds to commence with construction of the permanent . fzcilities as outlined in its Master Pla~. 1-511side further represented to the PlannZmg Comrnhsion that Hillside expected to proceed with development of the ~enI faci.lities within thr~ to five years. A copy of Pastor David H. Bums' letter addressed to Brad BulleL aatea September 2g~ 1990, is attached hemto as Extn'bit "2'~ and incorporated herein by this reference- It is quite apparent fi'em Hillside' s actions within.the prior 6~ years, that Hillside has no intention of ever removing the "temporary" modular units. This is precisely the reason that Hillside now demancLs the pl~n~ng Commission to approve the continued use of the existing modular units that were m be r~moved in 1993. II1 I I.I City of Rancho Cucamonga P,Ia~,,~ng Comm{ssion April 17, 1996 Page 3 THE CITY DOES NOT i=L4~VE AUTHORITY TO &}'PROVE USE OF THE EXISTING MODULAR UNIIS In light of the fact that the modulars have remained on Hillside's property for a total o:f' eight years, I-F, dlside's to right to use the modulars has long expired. Mo~ importantly, the City's authority to extend the use of the modulars has also expired as expressly set forth in Development Code §17.02.100, which states: "(A) Lapse of Approvals. Approvals for development review, conditional us~ perrnits, variances, and minor deviations _~I~11 lapse and become void twenty-four (24) months ~om the approval date, unless a aifferent expiration date is specifically established as a condition of approval and unless one of the following actions oec~. 1. A building permit is issued in accordance with the approved entitlement and construction is commenced and diligently pui-sued toward completion; or 2. A Certificate of Occupancy is issued. (I3) Extensions. An extension may be issued for lapse of approval for projects described in the previous subsection. Approvals originally granted by the City Planner my be extended by the City Planner. Approvals by the pJ~nn~ng Comrn~o~,~ion may only be extend by the Planning Commission. Extensions may be gr~nted in twelve (12) month increments and not to exceed a total of four (4) years from the ori~nal date of approval. All req~sts for extensions should be filed wi-da the City Planner sixty (60) days prior to the expiration date. The City Planner or Platruing Commission may extend the apprcrval of a project fithey find ~ there has been no sL~'ni~cant change in the Land Use Development,. Development Code, or character of the area in which the project is located, It would c~,,se the aptxoved Project to become inconsistent or nonconforming. Also, the granZing of an extension should not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious m properties or improvements in the vicinity."(Rancho Cucarnong~ Development Code ~1Z 02.100. Emphasis supplfett). City of Rancho Cuc'~monSa Planning Commission April 17, 1996 P~c 4 Section 17.02. I00 controls the lapse of approval and extensions of conditional use peruits. The provisions of the Development Code,, and specifically §17.02.100, are unequivocal in that the City does not have any authority to now consider Hillside's further use and rctentiim of the modular building- As expressly set forth in §17.02.100, extensions of conditional use permits c~--ot exceed four (4) years from the ori~mal date of approval In this insrace, Hillsidc's CUPs were ori~n~-lly aplxoved on September 23, 1983. Therefore, Hillside's CUPs should not have been extended subsequent to September 23, 1992- The City also violated §I7.02.100(B) by granting I-tiJJ-qidc a Imp-sum three (3) year extension of the CUPs whereas the Development Code unequivocally Jimits any extension to I2 month incrcmcnm- In response to the Residents' letter dated February 20, 1996, the City replied thaz the City does in fact have the discretion to again process a further extension authorizing the use of the temporary modulars. They City cited and relied on Development Code §17.03.030(D2), which merely states: "Temporary trailers for use in conjunction with religious and s..~,ricultuml uses for a specific inte~ period." The City is under the belief that "the City, by pJ~nning Commission action, could extend the tcmpor-a~ modular buildings as long as deemed neccisary." The City's contention w~th respect to this/ssue is misguided and directly contradicts express Frovisions of the Development Code. While the City relies on § 17.0&030(D2) for its proposition that the City has the unrestricted authority to e.-acnd Hillside's CUPs into perpetuity, such contention is certainly not dictated by § 17.0g.030(D2). Section 17.0g.030(D2) merely considers various use regulations- That provision does not discuss the procedures nor specific time parameters for extensions of conditional use permits. Therefore, §17.0g.030 is not controlling and is completely irrelevant to the subject issue- CONCLUS}[ON The Residents merely request that this Commiq~ion recognize the Fovisions set forth in the Development Code which all pro?my owners must be compelled To adhere to in development of their properties. Hillside Community Church is certainly not exempt from such regulations- The City has already afforded Hillside numerous opportunities to commence with development in accordance with its Master Plan and construction of permanent structures- Hillside, however, has failed to proceed with its purported plans and has continued to use the "temporary" modular units for eia. ght (3) years. Such conduct must be terminated immediately in ligzht of the f-act that the Resid:uts continue to live with the unsightly scene of the modulan which directly abut their homes- LA/38'2~.1 ~g16 City of 'Rancho Cuearaonga p!$nning C.o~,.,',ission April 17, 1.996 Page 5 The Ci~ is once ag-;n at a juncture wherts it can hat~-rvene and exeeme its du*ies and obli.~r,.ttions as set forth in ~e Developme. at Code. r,e Residents merely request the City to eompe2 Hillside's compliance x,,it.h the Development Code and t,he~for~ titmy t'iiilside's al~lieaticrn for CUP 96-03. The Residents faxthor reques~ that Hillside be ordered to immediately remove s-,'d modutars at Thi, TREDWAY LUMSDAINE ®DOYLE FAX (310) ~ HAROI..O T, 'TR~O'IN'AY February 20, 1996 'Via Facsimile and Certified Mail, Retara Receipt Request~ Brad Butler, City Plamaer The City of Ra~cho Cu_,:-mo~,a Departme=t of CornmuSty Development-Pl~nnlng Division 10500 Civic C,e'nt~' Drive P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 Re' I4ill-~ide Commtmity Charch New Soft. ball F~ili~ ~xl Old Modular B~il~mg~ Dear Mr. Bulle=. The folloivig Aha Loma property owner~ (colle~vely ."ResidentfD ha,,~ retained this office to represent their in~ co~.ernh~g violatiom of the Conditional Use Penuit C'CUP') by the HHl_~ide Commmaity Chmv. h CItlside'D ~nd failure by the City of Rancho Cucamonga C'City") to enfome applicable plam~mg crrrtlnances and ~,ul~fions: 10418 Vivienda S~x:et AIta Loma, CA- 91737 10458 Vivie=da Street AIm Loma, C..A. 91737 10438 Vivie~la Street Alta Loma, CA. 91737 10478 Vivienda Stre,:t Alia Lomb. CA. 91737 These P,~deats are the record ow~e~ of foar resideaxtial parcels on Vivie~ch Street which is immediately adjacem to the southerly boundary llne of I4ill~ide's property located a~ '5354 I--hve~ Avem~ Ran~o Cmm:tga, CA. 91737. l-rdlsi~'s wrongful conduct continues to s-ub~uially {n~rferc with the ResideIts' rights to use ~nd enjoy their xe~t.t.~ive properti~- The City has been made avrare of the pemistent problems but has thus far neglected its obligations to regulate I~ll~ide's use of the prol:xa ty. In fact, the City has failed to ensure B~l~de's eompl;~mce with _~rm_;-g orrI~n~nees concerning issu,~ce of conditional use permits and general development standards. Additionally, there .~ppem--s to have bee= serious violations of both The Brown Act and coaflict of interest rules contained, inter i in G~'ernment Code EYFI~IT "1" LA, r21-'~.I 0.1116 The City ofl~cho Cucamonga February 20, I9~6 Pa~ 2 Sections gl000 et ,~'q- 1. 'Wron~nxl Consl'ruction of "Recrution Ar~" The most ~iLZn~cant problem which the Residerim cuzremly encounter is with respect to Hillside's development of two baseball fields. I-li11~de proceeded wi~ 'quiet speed" to develope this iec~uion area withou~ obliging the aecessm'y u,~ peruits, nor were any public h~min~ no~c~I ~ ~ ~ inforlll r~sidents of limse pIan~ As shown by the advertisement in th~ Janlmry ZZnd issue of the DaVy Bnlleti-~ copy enclosed, this ~New Softbail Fa/dil-f' clearly goes beyond the usage co~md ~ CUP #8g-3g- Such developme~ ~zth~ requlx~ i~smmce of a new conditiozml use ~ ~z to City of Rancho CucmxKrng~ M.m:dcipaI ~ce COzdinm~c~") § 17.08.030. However, a sem'ch of the Rancho Cucamonga Plaming Depm'tmem reco~ _z~uy co-~'rr~- th~ ~de did not ob~in the n~ry use permits to develop such ~n ou~Ioor recre~on ~ Even ~sm'-~-g th~ I-rfll-~ide and the City had complied with the n~__,x~fy ~ite notice ~nd public hea~n~,% which cleady is not the c~se, the City has permit~ F__dlside to consm~ the two baseball fields in a manner which is the mo~ not the leas~ injurious and detdmenxal to the Re:siden~' u,~ and enjoyme~ of their pwper~cs. The two home-plains am1 two ~nonnous ~ck-smps' are direcdy adjac~mi m the Resid~zm' property and the Residents' back yarck The only ~,ria~ coasL~t~ of a four-foo~ tftgh black rod-irvn face which rrm~ th~ lemgth of the southerIy boundary line. Because of their heighI, the ba:k-swps m'e dir~ctly vim'blc ~ ~m ~e ~ont of tc ~~ of te ~d~ O~o~y, ~ h~l~ ~~ ~ o~a ~c R~d~' ~ ~ ~c ~o~alng ~~ F~, ~e 'dng~~ ~ ~ on ~e so~y ~,o~ ~~, ~~r-ly ~j~ ~o ~ R~' ~ ~ ~ ~ Hffie ~ no ~-~h ~ ~ ~ ~vm ~ ~bl~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e~ve ~ ~et~ ~~e ~ ~l~Ie ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.o~y ~ ~d ~e R~d~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ d~ ~ ~d'~ o~ ~ ~ h~ ~ of ~o~ fo~ d~ ~ h~ ~ on ~e Ci~ ~ ~ ~de m ~ly for ~ '-~de mm ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~. The City of Rancho Cucamonga February :20, 1996 Page 3 2, Failure to Remove Modular BuHdie~ As a fin/her example of the City's failure to mgulaze F1TI!~de's development of the property, I-lil]-~ide h~ been in flagrant violinion of the existing CUP under which it 1~ opemr~ since 1933. Specifically, ~he City a~proved tfdlside's mque~ed CUP's Nos. 8g-I0 and 33-33 on S~ber 28, 1933. These CUPs allowed I-Hil~de ~o install seve~. ~nporarf modular builaings for a two-year period. In 1990, the City Pl, nm/ng Department approved HHl~-ide's application for a three year extension 0ftFrne to cominue use of the modular~ Despite the fact th~ the City grinned tfzllskle' s repealed toquesis for extensions of the CUPs, and the fact that all such enensions of time expixed on or before September 28, 1993, FllIl_~ide continues to rebuff the City' s requess to remove the modular tmilaingJ. To r~;; a_ _-t_e. FTm--ide has not made .any apt to remove these btn'ldings and obviously has no intern to do As clearly set fozth in the City Ordinance, tr~Iside has no further right to request nor does the City have any further authority to extend the CUPs. The multiple extensions granted to I-rd~de have far exceeded the four yeazs from the orighzal date of CTJP atrpwval (SeptembeT. 2S, 1933). Fril]~ide is in flagrant violation of Chy Oraimmt-e § 17.02.100 and ~e term-~ of its ori~,~l CUP. Tha'~fom, demand is hereby made upon ~he City to ins6"""""""'~ revocation proceedings for CUP's 33-10 and 3~-3S, and to fl=th~_cornpel I4l||-~de to imme~i~_cly remove the t~i~oraxy modules. In the event the City fails to initia~ within 7 days of zeceipt of this leer, the necessary actions to compel I-till~ide's compliance with the ru/es and r~,ulalions ofth{~ community and of s~e law, the Residents have aurtwrized f~ firm to commence legal action a~ainst the City and I-~"-~ide. If posn'ble, it is still our clients' sincere desire zo resolve tizse cr2sputes without the need to instigate legal aciion. However, shor~ of reasonably prompt r~medial action, our clients will have no choice but to proceed to ~force the law t~m both th~ City and I~illdde. Very n~ly yours, JAL:idi 7 VWA DOYU . ~ Lllsn. .~llVie loseph A_ Malck~ Esq. Pastor David Bums, }-lfll~-ide Community Ch~,Ja Clients LA/II2S.I O~t6 c s C'IUrC 1 7:<. ~-~ ': Dr. David H. Bums Senior PasTor September 28th, 1990 ~. Brad Bu!!er, City Planer City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga , Ca 91730 Dear Mr. Bu!!er: At a public hearing of the Planning Commission in September, 1988, Hillside Community Church filed an application for the issuance of the Condi~icnal Use Permits Numbers 88-38 and 88-10. The Commission approved our application subject ~o certain conditions. We have promptly complied with those conditions which included reconstructing the existing commmni~y trail cn Haven Avenue to meet current standards; making parkway improvements along Haven Avenue to conform to the results of the Haven Beautification Study; removing the northernmost driveway on Haven Avenue and replacing it with curbs; gutters, and parkway improvements; and finally, putting in our half of the street bordering the north of our property. These projects have all contributed to our progress toward 'the goals of our Master Plan. I am writing to re.~uest a 3 year extension to C.U.P. 88-10 and modification to conditions 3 and 4 of C.U.P. 88-10, to allow the modular stmactures to remain for 3 years. Also, t am requesting a modification to condition number 5 of C.U.P. 88-38 ~o allow the modular buildings to remain for 3 years. We are very encov~qe~ by the growth of our Church these EX]~r~rr ~2" /"~ past years. we have steadily grown every year numerically, numbering around 400 currently. we have every year grown financially, increasin~ our aPmual income from $338,000 in 1987 to $550,000 in 1989. we have taken the necessary steps to provide for growth by adding additional meeting space and additional staff perscns to provide leadership. Our goal is to become a large enough church no build the first phase of our Master P!~n. we feel we will need zo be around 700-800 members no accomplish that. We are right on target to reach that in 3-5 years. That is why we are re.cuesting a 3 year extension on the use of our present modulars. We fully su_~port the intent of the Planning Commission to l~m~t the use of the Modular Buildings in our city, and it is absolutely our intent to move as rapidily as possible towards constructing a permanent facility as outlined in our Master Plan. Since we will not be in a position to bulid for three years, we would request an extension for that three year period. Tne Pianning De_partm~nt has been a great he~p to us in each stage of our development er.d it has been a pleasure to work wi~h you . Thank you for your consideration in the requests for these time extensions. Respectfully Dr. David H. Burns Senior Pastor Hillside Comunity Church AYES. BARKER, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLST .Y NOES: LUMPP ABSENT: NE - car ' d Commissioner Lu observed the Commission had several op ' s presented this evening and he felt the Commissio as delaying the applicant. He thought the Cit ouncil had given direction, and even if the individu Commissioners did not agree with that direct~ , they should move the project forward. The ' ' ' : p.m. to 9:09 p.m. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request for a new approval for the existing modular buildings on approximately 10 acres of land in the Very Low Residential District (up to 2 dwelling units per acre), located at 5354 Haven Avenue - APN: 1074-271-01. Brad Buller, City Planner, left the meeting. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff repod. Chairman Barker asked for confirmation that tonight's meeting did not concern ballfields or anything other than the modulars. Mr. Coleman confirmed that was correct. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Hugh Hewifi, partner with Irvine law firm of Hewittt & McGuire, stated he represented Hillside Community Church. He said that because of the letters from an attomey representing four neighbors in opposition to renewal of the conditional use permit, he was obliged to note for the record that the church was not waiving its waiver arguments, its estoppel arguments, and its free exercise clause arguments. He endorsed staffs recommendation and he expressed appreciation for staffs assistance in the church's building phase. He noted that he had gone to the church shortly before 6:00 p.m. and there were approximately 50 youngsters playing in two softball games. He said the modulars are there and are needed for their vibrant Sunday School program. He stated the building program has progressed according to plan and he requested approval of the modulars for another five years. David Bums, Pastor, Hillside Community Church, 5354 Haven Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they have completed the first phase of their building program. He said that when they moved into the facility they had approximately 400 members and they now have 800 - 900 people attending their church. He felt the modulars have allowed them to move ahead with their permanent structures. He said that Phase 2 will be the construction of the CE facility which will replace the modulars. He noted their had been some questions regarding the attractiveness of their modulars and they are very proud of them and have landscaped them to make them attractive. He said he had brought pictures of the landscaping. Commissioner McNiel asked the time line for the next phase. Pastor Bums replied they had just completed the first phase. He said it depends upon how fast they grow and how fast their monetary resources grow. He stated their intention is to move as rapidly as Planning Commission Minutes E, x "C,,'I -13- April 24)2/9176 possible but he could not predict how fast they will be able. He remarked the last project was a $2.5 million project plus $300,000 for the ballfields and they need to raise another $3 million. He said it depends upon the growth of the church. Commissioner McNiel hoped the time line is tight. Pastor Burns felt their history has evidenced that they are growing. He said nothing has changed in their determination to continue towards the master plan. Commissioner Melcher asked if any City programs are being held in the modulars. Pastor Burns responded affirmatively and said one primarily focuses on pre-school children. He remarked the City had asked for permission to use their facilities on a temporary basis while City facilities are under construction. He said their are 30 - 40 children at a time on Mondays through Thursday for about three to four hours. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the church needs to keep the modulars for an extended period of time in order to accommodate the City's program. Pastor Burns replied negatively. Kevin Hoyt, 10326 Alta Loma, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a local businessman and father and he encouraged the Commission to approve the application as he believes the church and school provides guidance in ethical and moral values. Pete Smits, 10458 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he owns the property just south of the project. He said his opposition has nothing to do with religious beliefs. He stated he is not opposed to the church°s desire for growth and he hopes the church will grow quickly so that the building can be constructed and the modulars can be removed. He felt the church's growth plan affects his pdvate use of his property. He observed the modulars have been in place since 1983 but the church did not even come before the Commission to obtain a conditional use permit until 1988. He stated the permit expired in 1993. He remarked that the staff report indicates the modulars have been in place since 1983184 without complaint and he questioned if citizens have to complain in order to be sure that proper permits are in place. He felt the government should protect his rights. He thought special treatment has been given to the church with respect to their activities. He said there had been a meeting with Pastor Burns and Mr. Coleman and he felt the residents were stonewalled and were not given credible answers. He said they subsequently hired an attorney because they feel their civil rights are being violated. He expressed concern about the relationship between the City govemment and the church and said. that the government should protect his rights by denying the conditional use permit. He observed that if the Commission approves the application, the modulars would be there for 18 years and he felt that was extreme. He stated there had not been public notice of a Design Review Committee meeting to review the design of the ballfields. He said he has owned the property since 1992. He thought he should have been advised about the meeting so he could have discussed his concerns and come to an agreement before the church spent the money on the ballfields. He thought if that had been done, he would probably not be present tonight to contest the conditional use permit application. He felt the City has been negligent in regulating what has been done. He commented the permit expired in 1993 and nothing was done until he complained. Commissioner McNiel asked for clarification of Mr. Smits specific complaint. Mr. Sinits responded his properly is located behind the modulars and he has a complaint about them. He said his properly is located behind the modulars. He concurred that the modulars look good now, but said that was because they have been spruced up since he complained and they have not been continuously maintained. He stated they are above his property line and block his Planning Commission Minutes -14- April 24, 1996 view. He remarked their air conditioners turn on at 5:00 a.m. every morning and are annoying. He asked why the City has allowed the church to build other things such as ballfields. He noted the church has cemented up to the modulars and added landscaping to make them look pretty rather than building the permanent building to replace them. He said that the design plans were approved in 1983 but the ballfields were built in 1995 and things change and he thought the City was not looking at things closely enough or showing concern for adjacent propedies. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the modulars were in place when he moved into his house. Mr. Sinits responded affirmatively. He said he had not complained about the modulars because he felt it is the City's job to regulate what the church is doing. He said the modulars were there and were unsightly when he moved in but said he did not expect them to be there another five years. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Smits was aware there was a master plan on the proper~y when he moved in. Mr. Smits acknowledged that he was. Commissioner Lumpp asked Mr. Smits which house he lives in. Mr. Smits replied he lives in the second house west of Haven Avenue. Commissioner Lumpp said he had visited the site this afternoon and the modulars did not look like they had just recently been repainted. He observed that Mr. Smits had said the modulars were just recently repainted. Mr. Smits replied that the way they look today is as good as they get. He said it is the best they have looked in years and he watched them being painted three weeks ago. Tom Smits, 10438 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is Pete Smits' neighbor and brother. He said he has the same concerns. He remarked that when he first bought the lot and built a custom home he was ecstatic to have a church behind his lot because his lot is approximately 10 feet below the church property and he thought it would be good not to have homes behind him. He said they had not complained about other things the church has done. He felt the temporary modulars had been cleaned up within the last two to three months. He stated in the past most of the maintenance had consisted of scraping off flaking paint and spot priming where they had scraped off. He said he had not complained when the over spray went on his windows and he had never complained when the Santa Ana winds blew did on his property from their unfinished fields. He stated he had also not complained when there was early morning construction when the recreation center was built nor when there was early morning construction of the ballfields. He stated he had also not opposed using the modular buildings for the City's day care center. He said they knew there was a master plan for the church even though he had not personally reviewed it and they always thought the modulars were temporary even though they have been there since 1983. He noted that comments had been made that the modular buildings should be allowed to stay because churches have a hard time raising funds but observed that Pastor Burns had just indicated the church raised over $3 million which the church used to construct facilities other than the sanctuary which would have allowed removal of the modulars. He said he has been a good neighbor. He acknowledged the church has a great program but felt the ballfields are now in place at his expense because he has no privacy in his house and he hears screaming coaches, children, and adults every afternoon and all day Saturday. He said he cannot even have a birthday pady for his daughter because it is too noisy. He asked how the ballfields could have been approved. He felt a line should be drawn and the modulars should be removed because they are illegal. He questioned if the modulars are seismically up to code with changes in the Building Code occurring in 1987, 1991, and 1994. He commented that the City should at least check out the safety as the City has a day care program conducted in the modulars. Planning Commission Minutes -15- April 2~,(,~L.~6 Commissioner Lumpp asked which house Mr. Smits lives in and how long he has lived there. Tom Smits replied that he has lived in the third house west of Haven Avenue since 1982. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the screaming kids was a result of youngsters coming out of the modulars and playing. Tom Smits responded that the noise is the result of the ballfields. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the noise from the ballfields is unrelated to the issue before the Commissioners. Tom Smits said the only connection is that the ball program is run out of the modulars. Deanna Grace, 10418 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is a sister to Pete and Tom Sinits. She said she is a teacher and she loves children and the church's programs but stated she is severely impacted. She opposed the modular permits on the grounds that they have been there for 13 years. She asked if granting permission for them to remain would stad a precedent that anyone could obtain a temporary permit for a modular building but then keep the modular in place indefinitely by extending the permit. She felt having the modulars there was an example of not following procedure. She could not believe that the City had approved a ballfield in her backyard. She showed pictures of the modulars being painted during the last few months and felt they were only painted then because the residents had complained. She said she cannot use her home the way she would like. She also showed pictures of the backstop viewed from her entry window. She indicated bleachers have now been erected immediately north of her back wall. She said that kids scream "Hey batter, batter' all day Saturday from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. and every day Monday through Fdday until 7 p.m. with games often taking place on all three ballfields. She questioned why cement was all around the base of the modulars if they are temporary buildings. She was concerned that children may fall into her yard because she said she has observed children hanging on the bars of the fence. She stated they had never been asked to attend any Design Review Committee meetings. She indicated she is not trying to penalize the church but she felt her personal privacy is important also. She extended an invitation to the Commission and the audience to come to her house and listen to the noise and felt that visitors would be shocked. She asked that the church be required to comply with the same rules and regulations as others in the City. Commissioner Lumpp asked how long Mrs. Grace lived there. Mrs. Grace replied she moved there in 1992. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the modulars are located behind her property. Mrs. Grace responded they are located north of Pete Smits' house. Commissioner Lumpp stated he did not recall any windows on the south side of the modulars so he thought her privacy was not being impacted by the modulars. Mrs. Grace acknowledged that was correct. Commissioner Lumpp thought there was a fence with a screening mesh running the full length of the property separated from the church's south property line by a landscaped area and a retaining wall with another separation before the residents' retaining wall. Mrs. Grace confirmed that is correct. Planning Commission Minutes -16- April 24,,/~6 / Commissioner Lumpp thought there is approximately 5 to 7 feet between the screening wall and the residents' back yards. He asked if Mrs. Grace would object to a 7 or 8 foot block wall along the church properly line. Mrs. Grace responded she had not thought about what would remedy the situation but she would like to meet with church representatives to try to work something out. She said children run along the did area between her property and the wrought iron/mesh fence and she felt that was dangerous for both the church and for her. Commissioner Lumpp said he had noticed a metal grate over the top of the two retaining walls. Mrs. Grace said there are sprinklers there also. She also commented that the landscaping consists of several shod scrubby bushes which appear to be dying and a few pine trees. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mrs. Grace's specific concern with the modulars was with the length of time they have been there. Mrs. Grace feared they will not be removed because there is cement up to the edge. She said something was also recently added on to them. Commissioner Lumpp thought the cementing may be a requirement of the building code to meet Title 24 requirements. Jim Grace, 10418 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, said he is Deanna's husband. He stated that in viewing the modulars from inside Pete's house, he can see tinted windows and he does not know who is staring back at him through those tinted windows. He objected to the modulars having been there for 13 years and noted that they would be there 18 years if approval is granted tonight. He asked that the modulars be removed and said he would like to be able to view the mountains again. He said he also has a problem with the ballfields. He commented he is a prisoner in his own house because he has to retreat into his house, shut all windows and doors, and turn up the stereo to try to muffle the noise. Joe Maleki, attorney, Tredway Lumsdaine & Doyle, 1920 Main Street, Suite 1000, Irvine, stated he represents the Smits families. He said they advised the Smits to try to resolve the matter amicable directly with Hillside Community Church, but the Smits got nowhere and requested his assistance to bring the matter to the City's attention in an attempt to reach a resolution without filing a legal action. He stated that the modulars are temporary, yet the issue has come before the Commission on three occasions dating back to 1983. He said the church acknowledges that the buildings were placed there in 1983 and he commented that if the City approves the latest application, it will mean the temporary buildings will have remained on the property for a total of 18 years. He asked for justification for allowing temporary buildings to remain on any property for 18 years. He felt that Development Code Section 17.02.100.B states that a use permit cannot be extended beyond four years from an original date of issuance. He noted that a conditional use permit was issued in 1988 and said it would have expired in November 1992. He thought the City has no authority to furlher grant an extension of the use permit and had no authority to grant a three-year extension in 1990. He commented that Deputy City Attorney Ralph Hanson cited Development Code 17.08.030.D.2 which permits "Temporary trailers for use in conjunction with religious and agricultural uses for a specified interim period." He asked that the City explain to homeowners how a specified interim period can extend to 18 years and noted the residents are living with noise created by the trailers. He thought the section relied on by Mr. Hanson was inaccurate in this situation. He said he understood that Hillside is a church and the homeowners have no objection to the programs the church is providing to the City but they feel the church should have to comply with the same codes as others. He asked that the Commission deny the application because of excessive noise from what he thought are air conditioning or heating units located directly adjacent to the properly line and the unsightly appearance. He stated that the Commission should compare the temporary structures Planning Commission Minutes -17- April to the permanent recreation building. He acknowledged that tonight's meeting was limited to considering the modular buildings but he thought the residents are concerned that the ballfields are pad of the same problem. He thought the Commission apparently noticed a hearing in June 1995 regarding construction of the ballfields, but he said the four adjacent property owners never received public notice. He felt that is a violation and believed the church intended to move with quiet speed to construct the ballfields. He said he is not an architect but he cannot fathom why baseball fields would be constructed in such a way as to place the bleachers and the majority of the crowd adjacent to the residences. He asked why the ballfields were not placed on the northerly podion of the property near the recreation building. He thought that was pad of the problem. He said it appeared that Hillside has not received City involvement and asked that the City step in and mediate so that an amicable resolution could be reached without filing legal action that will waste taxpayer money. Commissioner Lumpp commented that Mr, Maleki stated the City was violating its own code and he asked if Mr, Maleki was suggestion that the City should revoke the conditional use permit for the church. Mr. Maleki replied he was not; he was referring to the conditional use permits for the modular buildings. He said he understood a master plan was devised in 1983 and the City Attorney had indicated the modular buildings were part of the original master plan. He commented that in 1988 there were two conditional use permits issued with respect to the modular buildings. He did not know if modular buildings were contained within the original 1983 master plan. He said that the 1988 approval elapsed in 1992. Chairman Barker asked Mr. Hanson to comment on the City's authority. Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, responded that Development Code Section 17.02.100 does not apply in this matter. He said the language contained in that section is common to all zoning ordinances, in that when the City approves a permit, there is a concern that there be constant activity to ensure progress. He said that Section 17.02.100 provides for approvals to lapse if applicants do not make progress on their projects. He noted that once the project is complete, the entire section is not applicable. He observed that the installation of the modulars was completed in the 1980s and cedificates of occupancy were issued; therefore, that section is no longer applicable. He said that section does not apply to tonight's decision and the Commission would be dealing with the normal facts it would deal with on any conditional use permit application. John Tarrant, 10475 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives at the southwest corner of Vivenda Street and Haven Avenue. He said he is probably the least affected by the modulars but he is the oldest property owner in the area and he started his project a number of years before the church bought their property. He said he was notified of a variance request when the church processed their application and he had looked at the plans. He thought those plans showed a church with minimal day schooling and a playing field connected to it with a small baseball backstop (called a soccer field) which appeared to be a minimal use type of field applying mostly to school kids playing during recess. He said he did not object and could well understand the need for temporary structures because he acknowledged that churches have financial problems. He stated his feeling had been that the temporary modulars would be there a limited length of time and would be removed. He said he appeared before the Commission a number of years ago regarding the Seventh Day Adventist Church and had attended a Design Review Committee meeting and had been extremely impressed with the Commission's fairness and sensitivity to concerns. He said he could not believe the circumstances of today's situation as there had been no attempt whatsoever to work with the directly affected neighbors and he felt the softball fields could have been designed to everyone's satisfaction. He stated his home is farther away from the ballfields than any other on the block but he feels it is noisy. He did not think the ballfields can be separated from the modulars and felt the ballfields were the catalyst that infuriated the neighbors toward the modulars. He acknowledged he cannot see the modulars from his house but he felt they should not be there. He thought the church should have spent their money toward the replacement building for the modulars Planning Commission Minutes -18- April and not spent so much money on the elaborate baseball facility. He felt the ballfields completely destroy the integrity of the privacy of the residents and they have to keep their shades drawn and cannot use their back yards. He thought the Commission would not have accepted the design that was built. He observed that the backstop overwhelms the adjacent house and said the pictures shown do not do justice to the problem. He said he would not be able to live with the hoard of screaming people along his back yard wall. He stated the only tool he had to fight with was to urge the Commission to deny the request for the modulars. He felt some good people had been badly hurl by the situation. Pete Williams, 5723 Napa Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he does not belong to Hillside but has friends who are members. He said that 17 years ago he went to a church which met in homes and schools and finally two years ago they were able to move to a building on Beryl and 19th Street. He suggested that everyone bring blocks and build a wall approximately 6 feet high to take care of the baseball field problems. He recalled years ago when the City had no baseball fields except for at the school. He complimented the City on adding ballfields but felt there is still a need for more. He thought the church should be applauded for having baseball for youngsters to participate in. He noted there are no lights on at night. He requested that the Commission approve the permit for the modulars and felt the church will build when it can. Pete Sinits, 10478 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the father of Pete, Tom, and Deanna. He did not agree with Mr. Williams and commented that Mr. Williams does not have to listen to the noise created. He said he has nothing against the children playing baseball but he felt they could play at City parks and he thought the baseball diamond should not have been constructed along the fence line. He thought it probably would have been acceptable if it was turned around. He said he has.lived in his house since 1981 and the modulars were installed in 1983, completely blocking his view of the mountains. He commented that one of the reasons he bought the properly was for the view of the mountains. He stated the modulars have been in place for 5 years without a permit, followed by 5 years with a permit, and 3 years without a permit and he asked if he would be allowed to move a trailer onto his properly and leave it sit there for 13 years. He said that after he bought his properly he tried to sell the lots by putting up a sign indicating for sale by ownedbuilder. He stated that within four weeks of the sign's being erected, he received a letter from the City indicating he needed a business license to sell lots. He did not think the church should have staded its project if it did not have the money to build. He asked how many other people have put a trailer on a site in Rancho Cucamonga to build and left the trailer for 13 years. He said the modulars looked like trash for 10 years until they started complaining, at which time the church cleaned them up. He stated motors on the building wake him at 5:20 a.m. during the winter and at 6:20 a.m. during daylight savings time. He asked that the modulars be removed so he would not have the noise and he could see the mountains again. Commissioner Lumpp asked for clarification that Mr. Smits said he had gone to the City. Mr. Smits replied he approached the City in 1987 because the modulars had already been there for five years. He said he had asked why the buildings were still there and had been informed that the buildings were there without a permit. He remarked he asked how that could happen and no-one knew. He said the City then issued a permit. He also questioned how the buildings could be there for three years after the permit expired. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Smits thought the situation would be improved if the church built a block wall along its property line. Mr. Smits suggested that the Commission come up and look. He said there is already a 10- to 12-foot wall behind his property and a taller wall would merely turn his home into a prison. He said the wall would cut off his view of the mountain and would not be any improvement over the modular buildings. Planning Commission Minutes -19o April 24, 1996 Iq? Gary Hull, 10386 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his home is located adjacent to home plate. He said he has five children. He remarked that when he moved into his home he had no idea ballfields would be built there. He felt everyone has a right to their privacy and said it is very noisy and youngsters climb over the wall. He commented he could not say much about the modulars because they are not directly behind him but he felt they are a nuisance. He acknowledged they have been cleaned up and look nicer than they did. He supported his neighbors and asked that the City look into the situation further. Commissioner Lumpp asked how long Mr. Hull had lived there. He responded two years. AI Swayely, 10160 Victoda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has attended Hillside Community Church for approximately eight years. He said he has four children who have been counseled in the modulars. He stated his daughter was not going to play softball until Hillside opened their fields. He felt the community is better because of the teachings that have taken place in the modulars. He expressed sadness for the disruption in the lifestyles of the neighbors and hoped there would be a way to satisfy them. He asked that the modulars be allowed to remain. Margaret Smits, 10438 Vivenda Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the modulars are located directly behind her property and are an eyesore. She said she had taken the pictures of the modulars being painted and she had taken those pictures as evidence that they had not been kept up. She said her family is in favor of baseball but she questioned why the church built the fields in the most intrusive way to the adjacent properly owners. She reported that on January 8 she spoke to Dan Coleman who gave her a copy of what had been approved by the Design Review Committee in June 1995. She said she then went to the City Engineering Division to ask what codes are in place regarding having ballfields adjacent to residences. She said that staff member was not able to find any codes but said that the City would never build a park or a ballfield in that way. Mrs. Smits said she asked why and the staff member replied that the City is a good neighbor and would not do that to adjacent neighbors. Commissioner Lumpp asked how long ago the modulars were spray painted. Mrs. Smits replied it was a month ago at the most. Commissioner Lumpp asked if the paint had been blistered and peeling prior to being painted. Mrs. Smits responded affirmatively. She said the modular immediately behind her property houses the tiny pre-schoolers and the youngsters are taken out onto the back steps when they cry. She stated the back steps are located adjacent to her back yard and because they are situated above her house, she felt her privacy is invaded. She said the City engineer had indicated surprise that a noise impact or environmental impact study were not conducted and also expressed surprise that the church was built on a higher grade than the homes. She felt the least intrusive plan would have been to build the ballfields on the north end. She said if that had happened, she would not have been at tonight's hearing. She questioned the original grading plans and asked if the church had changed the grading. George Lighther, Business Administrator for Hillside Community Church, 5684 Malachite, Rancho Cucamonga, stated they started repainting the buildings in the beginning of 1996 simply because they had the budget to do it. He reported they had also painted the buildings 2 years ago and 2¼ years prior to that. He said they have improved the landscaping with an ongoing program to replace trees as they are blown down or vandalism occurs. He thought the church has been a good neighbor. Chairman Barker asked about the testimony that motors come on at 5:30 or 6:30 a.m. Planning Commission Minutes -20- April 24, 1996 Mr. Lightner replied that may happen on some occasions. He reported the modular units have air conditioning/heating units which have two time clocks. He said there is one on lhe unit itself which precludes it from coming on until the limes they are using the building and shuts it off when the building is not being used. He indicated it is also necessary to manually turn on a timer Iocaled within the building which allows the air conditioner to run for a two-hour period prior lo having to be reset. He repoded he has had failures of timers and they are replaced on a timely basis. He said he recently replaced three of them and a year ago he replaced three or four others. He commented it is an economic issue for the church because it is expensive lo run lhe units when they are not needed. He said there may have been times where their double failsafe system failed, but he is on lop of things to get it repaired as soon as possible. Commissioner Lumpp asked if Mr. Lightner was saying that the double failsafe system fails on a rare occasion, rather than a daily basis. Mr. Lightner confirmed that was correct. He said they have the internal timer because various people use the buildings and they do nol always remember to turn off lhe units. He remarked the internal timers are to preclude the air conditioning/heating units from continually running because it is extremely expensive. He said all of lhe modulars are on electrical healing systems. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the units come on. Mr. Lightner stated the first activity is at 8:30 a.m. on Sunday mornings so they might be turned on at 8:00 a.m. He said the modulars are also used on Saturdays for counseling activities and occasionally for babysitting. He indicated there are no activities in the buildings on a normal basis prior to 8:00 a.m. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if they are heat pumps which would be used during the heating season as well as when cooling is required. Mr. Lightner confirmed that was correct. Commissioner McNiel asked if there are any other mechanical devices that would be on automatic timers. Mr. Lightner replied there are two modular buildings which abut the adjoining properties. He said the modular dosest to Haven Avenue has heat pumps on the roof on the opposite end of the building from the adjacent houses, therefore, it would be about 60 - 70 feet from the properly line. He said those units work on the same type of timers. He could not think of anything on the property that would automatically come on. He also stated the softball program is not run out of the modulars, but is run out of the lower level of the family center. Chairman Barker asked if home plate is adjacent to the residences. Mr. Lightner responded the ballfields are laid out exactly as it was laid out when they applied for their master plan in 1988. He said the church installed a retaining wall approximately 2 feet away from the retaining wall located on the property line and placed a device over the two retaining walls to keep trash from collecting between them. He stated they constructed a wrought iron fence 10 feet further away and the chain link fence is another 15 feet from there. He reported the first base line is located another 15-20 feet away. He said that would make the first base line approximately 40 feet from the property line. Commissioner McNiel asked the grade separation between the two properties. Mr. Lightner replied it is approximately 11 feet, which has not changed since the initial approval. He said the landscaped area south of the wrought iron fence is planted at 12 inches on center with Planning Commission Minutes -21- April 2),4~96 Aaron's Beard, a ground cover, 5-gallon Purple Hop Shrubs, and 15-gallon Canary Island Pines as specified by the Design Review Committee. Commissioner Tolstoy asked when the plastic cloth screening was placed on the wrought iron fence. Mr. Lightner said they staded to install it prior to any practices and completed installation about two weeks ago. He commented it is a 90 percent screening material. He stated they did not want to use a solid screening because they felt it would make the neighbors feel closed in. He said it was felt the plastic screening would give the neighbors privacy and help to catch debris or dust. He commented the church is trying to be a good neighbor and he felt they could decide if the plastic screening should remain there once the landscaping matures. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the wrought iron fence runs the full length of the properly line. Mr. Lightner replied the 5-foot high wrought iron fence connects to the end of a 6-foot high wall behind Pete Sinits, Sr.'s house. He said the wrought iron fence goes the full length to the westerly end of the property and then crosses the drainage system and goes nodh along the westerly property line to join the block wall put in when they last did improvements. He remarked they have posted the properly with signs to prohibit trespassing and skateboarding and have security people to try to make it better but he did not think it is possible to totally stop youngsters from climbing over fences. Glenda Gonzalez, 6546 Kinlock, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she is a member of Hillside Community Church. She said she has several children from 8 years up to teenager that go to the church. She commented she lives in a one-story house and had a two-story home built behind her property and a junior high school built above her. She said they planted a lot of juniper trees and now have their pdvacy. She stated a lot of people ask her where the modulars are located on the church properly and when she points them out, the people say they look like buildings, not modulars. Ms. Gonzales said she used to live by a baseball field so she understood the neighbors' concerns. She asked that the neighbors remember that the baseball program is not year round and noted they will have their pdvacy the rest of the time. She suggested the church may be willing to plant some junipers which are fast growing to give the residents their privacy. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp. carried 5-0, to continue beyond 11:00 p.m. Commissioner Tolstoy recalled that one resident complained that they looked directly into a chain link fence and said that was why he asked about the wrought iron fence with the screening cloth. He asked if the chain link fence that the resident complained about was the backstop. Tom Smits confirmed it was the backstop. He said the chain link is higher than the wrought iron. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Smits was complaining about the perimeter fence. Mr. SmitS replied he was complaining about the perimeter fence because it blocks his view of the mountains. He said the pdvacy issue is one thing. but he felt there is also a sound issue and a site issue with regards to the ballfields. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. He observed that technically the Commission was not supposed to talk about a lot of the issues that were mentioned. He said the application is for a conditional use permit for existing modular buildings; however, the problem has been exacerbated by a number of issues. Commissioner Melcher noted that the master site plan depicts a field labeled soccer field, softball field, and grass field parking in the southwest quadrant of the properly. Planning Commission Minutes -22- April 24, 1996 Mr. Coleman confirmed that was correct. Commissioner Melcher asked if that is where the softball fields now in question are located. Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively. Commissioner Melcher stated that the staff report indicated that in January 1996 staff arranged a meeting between residents and church representatives on the church property to discuss issues concerning the ballfields. He asked when the ballfields were installed and what issues existed in January 1996. He asked if improvements to the ballfields have been ongoing and the bleachers have recently been added. Mr. Coleman replied the ballfields were constructed over several months and were basically finished in January. He indicated that subsequently the mesh material was added to the wrought iron fence and the bleachers were installed. He said the substance of the meeting had to do with issues relating to the ballfields; i.e., noise and loss of privacy. He said the purpose of the meeting was to try to resolve the issues and look at some alternatives. He stated that staff presented a couple of alternatives after explaining the landscaping and that the Purple Hop Seed Shrubs will grow to approximately 10 feet high and 10 feet wide. He said staff suggested options of a solid wall or adding more evergreen trees and neither of those two options were favorably received by the residents. He repoded the Smits and the Graces artended the meeting. He said the meeting concluded with the residents asking the church if they would remove the ballfields to which the church answered they would not as the ballfields had been approved since 1983. Commissioner Melcher said his understanding was that the ballfields were approved in 1983 but the properties to the south of the church property were developed and occupied prior to construction of the ballfields. Mr. Coleman confirmed that was correct. He said the Family center was completed in August 1995 and he thought the work on the ballfields started soon thereafter. Chairman Barker asked if consideration had been given to placing home plate closer to the family center and having the outfield next to the homes. Mr. Coleman said the layout of the ballfields had not changed since 1983 when the original master plan was approved, Chairman Barker asked if consideration had been given to making that kind of a change because of the impact on the residents. Mr. Coleman said that in January the residents asked the church if they would be willing to move home plate to the north side of the quadrant and the church replied negatively. Commissioner Melcher observed that the plan was approved 13 years ago and he thought that plan incorporated what is presumably the best orientation for a softball diamond, as it is the same orientation as the Quakes stadium. He thought the church would be reluctant to alter their plan 15 years later when they were ready to install the fields. Chairman Barker said he understood the impact of the mountains and the sun. Commissioner Melcher observed that two weeks ago the Commission considered a situation where residents currently occupying an area objected in advance to what they thought might be a future activity by a church, which is yet to be built, that would be injurious to their enjoyment of their property. He said that in this case, the church has existed there and abided by a plan for a good many years and all of the documents were of record. He thought someone pursuing a due diligence Planning Commission Minutes -23- April 24, 1996 could have discovered what would take place on the properly rather than assuming it would always remain unused. He said he had always been particularly proud of this church because he felt it exemplifies what planning is supposed to enable churches and other organizations to achieve; i.e., to become important, permanent members of the community. He thought the approach of using modulars and allowing them to stay for whatever necessary period of time with regular reviews is determined to be reasonable and appropriate based on progress toward the ultimate development. He thought that is a better way to get churches into neighborhoods rather than having them rent spaces in small industrial parks which are not near where the people live and have little chance of becoming community institutions, landmarks, meeting places, etc. He stated he would have been reluctant to approve continued use of the modulars if the church had made no progress over the last 13 years towards its ultimate development but he thought that was not the case. He supported the application. Commissioner McNiel stated the issue before the Commission is the use of temporary buildings and whether or not the Commission is acting in a diligent and legal fashion. He remarked that as long as he has been active in the community, the City has been liberal with the code in terms of assisting churches to get established. He said he is a member of a church which has been in the community for over 100 years but even there it is difficult to get things done. He observed the residents' attomey had raised a question about who else would be able to use temporary modular buildings for an extended period of time. He commented he had a daughter who graduated from Alta Loma High School in 1982 and was taught in some modular buildings which are still present. He thought the true problem is the activity on the ballfields rather than the modulars. He observed that if the property had been developed into residential dwellings, those dwellings would likely be two-story homes and the adjacent residents' view sheds would be more severely destroyed than with the church. He did not believe anyone can assume they have the right to a view. He observed that the church has moved forward with their plans. He suggested that the ballfield problem might be revisited but said he was not sure if there would be room to reconfigure the ballfields. He suppoded approval of the permit for the modular buildings. Commissioner Tolstoy commended the church for its growth. He commented that many of the churches coming into the City rent buildings in the industrial area because they are cheap. He said Hillside is aggressive and decided to purchase their properly and do what they could to attract a congregation. He thought one of the reasons the church is growing is because it presents fellowship activities which attract people who may eventually become members. He thought the church has done more than was required with respect to landscaping and he felt the properly is well maintained. He thought it is impodant for the City to suppod the church in its growth activities and he felt the modulars contribute to the growth activity. He observed the City Attorney had stated the Commission was within its legal right to approve the modulars and he suppoded the application. Commissioner Lumpp said it is his personal philosophy that churches do not belong in residential zones. He questioned who had rejected the idea of a block wall at the January meeting between the church and neighboring residents. Mr. Coleman responded that the residents rejected the idea because they felt it would not address their concerns. He said they felt the activity would still be too close to their homes and it would not · sufficiently shield the noise. Chairman Barker recalled that one resident had indicated a wall would block him off even more and he would feel like he was imprisoned. Commissioner Lumpp noted the question before the Commission was regarding the extension of the permits for the modular buildings and he said he could not deal with the ballfields because it was not an issue on the agenda. He thought perhaps the idea of the ballfields should be revisited. He noted that someone had said that modulars should not be there for as long as they have been and he said that one of the Commissioners mentioned that modulars have been at a school for an even longer Planning Commission Minutes -24- April 24, 1996 period of time. He felt the project has retained its consistency in terms of the overall master plan and he thought that someone doing due diligence would have known that ballfields would be built there and may have talked to the church prior to its building of the fields. He thought the structures are very well done and were built in an effod to provide some protection to the residents behind them. He suggested that if the condensing units are too noisy, the residents could turn to Code Enforcement to be sure they comply with the City's noise ordinance. He observed that the house on the corner has an existing block wall and landscaping which he felt virtually blocked visibility to the mountains. He noted that the modular building is not even behind that residence. He acknowledged that the second and third houses would have concerns about visibility of the modulars which could be mitigated by a block wall even though it would cut down on their visibility of the mountains. He stated that in many communities, churches and schools utilize modulars for a long period of time and he suppoded the request. Chairman Barker observed that following much public input, the community made a decision in its early years that churches belong in residential neighborhoods. He thought it would be nice to guarantee a view but said that is not the case. He stated the Commission was not to be discussing the impact of the ballfields. He remarked the Commission meeting forum is quasi judicial and is not the best forum to solve interpersonal or neighborhood dispute problems. He stated the Commission could only vote on the issue before them, not any peripheral issues. He said the only issue before the Commission was whether the conditional use permit should be extended and that decision has to be based on whether the requirements for the extension have been met. He felt the staff repod showed those requirements have been met and he would vote in favor of the extension. Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution approving Conditional Use Permit 96-03. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NONE NONE - carried The Planning Commission recessed from 11:14 p.m. to 11:18 p.m. Mr. Buller returned to the meeting.' PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-30 - McDONALDS - (Oral report) - A review of an approved fast food restaurant located at 8701 Base Line Road. Steve Hayes, Associate Planner, repoded that staff met with the project engineer to review the revised grading plan for the streetscape along Base Line Road and Carnelian Street. He said staff directed the engineer to make further changes to the plan and the engineer had submitted revised plans yesterday. He observed that Commissioners Lumpp and McNiel suggested that the berm along Base Line Road be continued toward the vehicular entrance to be sure that screening of the drive-thru lane will be continued across the full extent of the lot. Planning Commission Minutes -25- April 24, 1996 RESOLUTION NO. 96-27 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-03 FOR EXISTING TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS LOCATED IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND VISTA GROVE STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF APN: 1074-271-01. A. Recitals. 1. Hillside Community Church has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of Apdl 1996, 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. 3. 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 fodh in the Recitals, Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing on April 24, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to properly located at 5354 Haven Avenue which is presently improved with a church, including the subject modular buildings, family center multi- purpose building, parking lots, and landscaping; and b. The propedies to the north, south, east, and west of the subject site are single family residential; and c. The temporary modular buildings were installed on the properly pursuant to an approved Master Plan for phased development of the church campus under Conditional Use Permits 82-29, 88-1 O, and 88-38; and d. The church has, since 1983, been steadily making progress toward completion of their permanent facilities, including the family center, permanent parking lots, full grading of the site, landscaping, and ballfields consistent with the approved Master Plan; and e. The application contemplates maintaining the modular buildings for an additional five years until completion of the next phase of development; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH April 24, 1996 Page 2 96-27 f. The Development Code Section 17.08.030. D.2 gives the Planning Commission the authority to establish appropriate time limits for temporary trailers for religious uses on a case-by- case basis; and g. The temporary modular buildings have been located on the property since 1983~84 without any record of complaints from surrounding residents. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set fodh in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: Planning Division 1) All modular buildings shall be removed by April 24, 2001, or upon completion of the next permanent building, whichever occurs first. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. r~er, Chairman ATTEST: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH April 24, 1996 Page 3 96-27 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 24th day of April 1996, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE Number One Civic Center Circ[e P.O. Box 1059 Brea. California 92522-1059 (714)990-0901 ' (310)691-3811 Fax: (714)990--6230 9l I3 FoothUt Boulevard Sui".c 2O0 Rancho Cucamonga. Cal,-'fo.-".da 91730 (909) 930-2742 ' (¢X}9) 381-0218 Fax: (909)945-94 ! I March 6, 1996 Joseph A. Lumsdaine Tredway, Lumsdaine & Doyle 1084 1 Paramount Boulevard Downey, California 90241 Re: Hillside Community Church Dear Mr. Lumsdaine: RECEIVED MAR ! 1 1996 City ol Rancho ~ucamonga Planning Division Community Development Department staff has asked me to respond to .,,'our letter of February. 20, 1996 to Mr. Buller concerning the circumsca.nces of the City's review and approval of the above-referenced church. Basically, and as will be explained in greater detail below.. for over 13 years the basic site plan and con~g,-,.-ation of the Hillside Community Church (including provisions for tempora-O' buildings and softball fields) has been an approved project in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. The Church. has expended considerable time, effort and money improving their property. in reliance on those approvals and the City. (even if it had the inclination to do so) lacks the authority to now disturb those development rights. 1. Background On' February 9, 1993, the original church proposal (Conditional Use 'Per:mi'.f'No. 82-29) ',;,'as approved by Planning Commission Resolution No. 83-13. That ab'proval re~ect4d a phased development including a master plan which cle~,-ly delineated not only the permanent strucru.res, but also tempora-O,' modular buildings and future ballfields (both soccer and softball). City records reflect that this action occurred following a duly noticed public he,.-ing at ``vhich time the staff repor! contained specific references to the ballfields and described in detail the grading which would be necessar2:' to construct those facilities. /___T_"~/~' / 7~ -- // Joseph A. Lumsdaine March 6, 1996 Page Two Subsequent to the approval of CUP 82-29, the Church commenced some grading of the site, installed certain parking facilities and installed some of the temporary modular.buildings. Although, arguably, the rights of the Church vested in their entire project following such improvements, because the Church never obtained building pe, mitrfor a permanent structure, City staff took the position that CUP 82-29 had expired and required tile filing of a new conditional use permit. A subsequent project proposal (identical to the original with the exception of architectural 'changes to the permanent buildings) was resubmit~ed in 1988 as Conditional Use Permit No. 88-10. On September 28, 1988, following a duly noticed public hearing (noticed by newspaper publication, posting of the site, and radius mailing to property. owners adjacent - note - three of the four homes which you represent did not exist at the time of the CUP), the Planning Commission adopted their Resolution No. 88- 198 approving the project including the master plan with ball fields and 'temporary buildings. On that same day, a fourth temporary modular unit ,,,,'as approved by. Plarming Commission Resolution No. 88-199 under a separate conditional use permit applicatio'n (CUP No. 88-38). _ The master plan for Hillside Community Church has remained unchanged since the original CUP 82-29; hence, the ballfields and temporan,' modulars have always been part of this project. The only modifications of this project occm--red on November 28, 1990 were both CUPs were modified to grant a three year extension for the modular buildings (Resolution Nos. 88-198A and 88-199A). As before, these actions were conducted at a duly noticed public hearing. 2. Wrongful Construction of"Recreation Area" As described above, the Hillside Community Church has been the subject of no less than five duly noticed public hearings. There is simply no iruth to the allegation that Hillside Community. Church has developed ,.any or all of its site without obtaining the necessary review and permits from the City of Rancho Cucamonga. - "-- On the issue of the placement oft,he "back-stops", the Church has met all City ~Zeqh{remerits. That is, while the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code contains no specific regulation for ballfields developed on private propen)', any property (whether it is developed with a church or a residential dwelling) is allowed to install accessory structures on the propea>'. Section 17.08.060 pertinently provides a 16 foot height limitation with a five foot property line setback. Accordingly, the church construction of these facilities meets City code. Joseph A. Lt, msdaine March 6, 1996 Page Three Finally, your demand for a new CUP by the Church for their construction cannot be recognized since all of their project, as reflected in their master plan, is now a fulb'.ves.ted property right of the Church which carmot be disturbed by action of the City of Rancho Cucamonga provided development continues in accordance `,vith such appro-,.'a-{s. 3. Removal of Modular Buildings Wl'-,_ile you are correct in noting that the authorized time limits contained in Resolution Nos. 88-198A and 8.8-199A for removal of the modular buildings has expired, you are incorrect that the City does not possess the discretion to again process an extension for maintenance of these temporary buildings. Rancho Cucamonga Development Code Section 17.08.030D2 allows: .................... '~2. Temporm~.' trailers for use in conjunction `,vith religious and agricultural uses for a specified interim period." As is common with most municipal zoning ordin~ces, the RancM Cucarnonga Development Code recognizes that churches do not possess the funds necessary to maintain a strict development schedule, accordingly, greater allowa. n:e for temporary structures is granted such uses. Accordingly, the City, by Planning Commission action, could extend the tempora-D.' modular buildings as long as deemed necessary. Staff informs me that such a conditional use permit extension request is pending (albeit, the application is not now deemed complete) on these temporary,' m.z, dular buildings and that staff has contacted representatives of the Church to request their continued processing of these extension requests. As always, these requests ,.,,'ill be ~cted upon at a duly noticed public hearing. Violations of the "Brown Act" and Conflicts of Interest Although you do not elaborate, you seem to allege that some action in this process has taken place at something other than a duly noticed open public meeting as -: ' required- by the Brown Act. However, as mentioned in this letter and as reflected in the r~cords aZna rainfires of the City, all actions have t~<en place in op.~n, public and duly noticed public hearings. On the matter of your allegations as to a conflict of interest, fhe only :'interest" that I am aware of is that at least two members of the Rancho Cuca.,'7~onga Planning staff regularly artend Hillside Community Church. Naturally, the provisions of the Political Reform Act (and FPPC regulations promulgated thereunder) a/~.cLtor Government Code Sections 1090, et seq. only prohibit an officials conduct in an action Joseph A. Lumsdaine March 6. ! 996 Page Four where there are recognized financial interests. At no time do an)' oF Ihese provisions regulate an officials conduct in dealing ~2,'ith their chosen place of worship. Nevertheless, I am aware that both such staff members have stayed away from the review and processing of these applications, not as a matter of public la,.`.', but to avoid any interference at their chosen place of worship. I trust you ,.viii caution your clients to carefully avoid any accusations that such staff members have personally committed any · crime set forth in the applicable conflict of interest regulations. l~inally, staff has informed me that they have, on several occasions, spoken personally and by telephone to one or more ofyour clients regarding this matter. Indeed, City staff met with several of your clients and representatives of Hillside Community Church at the ballfield location to discuss these difficulties and suggest certain remedial actions which may be acceptable to the neighboring property ov,.'ners. While these efforts have, obviously, proven fruitless, staff informs me that they continue to be v,'illing to .......... participate, facilitate and/or lend any expertise in any potential discussions between your clients and representatives of Hillside Commtmi~' Church. Very.' truly yours, Ralph D. Hanson Deputy City Attorney City of Rancho Cuca. monga RDH/nlc N"vRCkLCHURCH 6.34 CC: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner Hugh Hewin, He,.vit-t & McGuire (transmitted via facsimile and mail) leeo .. Markthan. Af~=ynskl. Hanson & KIng Markrr arL Arczynsl<i, Hanson, CurIcy & Slough A Prolhssiun-al A~ornevs ,Xt Law NtuYtber One Civic Center Circli~ I'.'C). I-.~ox 1059 Brea, Ccdi.forma 92622:059 (.714)99(]-0901 ' (31(]/691-.'..,811 [:il×: t714)990-6!~0 91 15.: Foc',l.l'fill I;ovl,va,'d Suite 200 gand'~o C:t~camc',nga, Califorrfia 917%'.0 (909) 9.{.0-2742 ' (909] 38'1-02'!8 r',~x: (909)945-9411 M E M 0 RAN D U M TO: Fro]Ill: Chain'nan E. David Barker, Vice Chain'nan T,arry McNiel.. Planning Commissioners Heinz l,t, mpp, John .X,[ellher and Peter Tolsloy and Principal Planner Dan Colen'mr~ Ralph D. Hanson, Deputy Cily Atkm~ey .'April 1 g. 1996 CI..T' No. 96-03,' Hillside Community Cht, rch The purpose or the this rnen'mrandun'~ is to respond to lh~ leller ol'Mr. T.umsdaine in opposition to the application and to, hopelhlly, help Ibcus the issues Ibr the Ccmm~ission's cansideralion or this item. The letter asserts that the Planrfing Con'm'fissior~ is without jurisdictior~ to hear this item tm the basis orDevelopment Code Section 17.02.100 pertaining to lapse o1' development approvals. This theo~', however, is nonsense. Development Code Section 17.02.100 provides a twentv-lbur (24) ,ncntl'~ automatic termination Ibr discretiona~ approvals which have not been exercised. Bv its remus. the time limit is tolled so long as canstraction is commenced and becomes completely inapplicable once the project is completed. The pem'~ it o 1' Hill si de Communitv Church ibr the modular buildings was Ihllv exercised when the modulars were installed and a Certi ticale ol'Occupancy issued. Section 1'7.02.100 has, Ibr many years, had no bearing on this matter. / 7' "7:" It.el M~tkm,.n. Ato=ynsld. HI n'.on & KIng :~,s retL-rcnccd in your staff rcpoi~. the Development Code rccog~c-s Lmipor~, U'ailcrs may bc allowed hi coajuncfion wi~l religious uses tbr a ~nc dccmcd appropriate by fl~c Plmn~g Connnission. Accordh~gly. fl~c Plam~g Coxmnission vested wi~ filll jurisdiction to cx~'cisc its discrc~on whc~' or not to approve the pcm~it request. RDH:ci I' C\RC.,MRCPC..6.34 Transmined via Ihcsimile A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 96-03, FOR EXISTING TEMPORARY MODULAR BUILDINGS LOCATED AT HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF HAVEN AVENUE AND VISTA GROVE STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1074-271-01. A. Recitals. 1. Hillside Community Church has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 96-03, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." 2. On the 24th day of April 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and following the conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-27, thereby approving the application. 3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed to this City Council. 4. On June 5, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. 5. 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 City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines. 3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced public hearing on June 5, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above- referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-27, together with public testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The application applies to property located at 5354 Haven Avenue which is presently improved with a church, including the subject modular buildings, family center multi- purpose building, parking lots, and landscaping; and b. The properties to the north, south, east, and west of the subject site are single family residential; and CiTY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. CUP 96-03 - HILLSIDE COMMUNITY CHURCH June 5, 1996 Page 2 c. The temporary modular buildings were installed on the property pursuant to an approved Master Plan for phased development of the church campus under Conditional Use Permits 82-29, 88-10, and 88-38; and d. The church has, since 1983, been steadily making progress toward completion of their permanent facilities, including the family center, permanent parking lots, full grading of the site, landscaping, and ballfields consistent with the approved Master Plan; and e. The application contemplates maintaining the modular buildings for an additional five years until completion of the next phase of development; and f. The Development Code Section 17.08.030.D.2 gives the Planning Commission the authority to establish appropriate time limits for temporary trailers for religious uses on a case- by-case basis; and g. The temporary modular buildings have been located on the property since 1985 without any record of complaints from surrounding residents. 4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above- referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows: a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 5. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby approves the application subject to the conditions of approval contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 96-27. 6. This Council hereby provides notice to Tredway, Lumsdaine & Doyle that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this Resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. 7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-receipt requested, to Tredway, Lumsdaine & Doyle at the address identified in City records. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council, Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND ADDING CHAPTER 9.24 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading Ordinance No. ~ an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga repealing Chapter 9.24 of Title 9 and adding a new Chapter 9.24 to Title 9 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code pertaining to massage technicians, massage establishments and similar businesses. BACKGROUND The City of Rancho Cucamonga enacted Section 9.24 of the Municipal Code in May, 1992. Since then, the City has used this provision of the Municipal Code to govern the issuance of permits and licenses for massage technicians and establishments. As Section 9.24 has been applied, staff has found some inconsistencies and some areas of clarification which would be applied in the Code. The City Attorney has redrafted Section 9.24 to more clearly specify the requirements for massage technicians, massage establishments and similar businesses. The above referenced Ordinance does not alter the introduction of the original Ordinance but merely provides clarification and simplifies the process by which permits and licenses pertaining to massage establishments are proc '. Re ' , . C. Dominguez Administrative Services Director RCD:pm AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA REPEALING CHAPTER 9.24 OF TITLE 9 AND ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.24 TO TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE PERTAINING TO MASSAGE TECHNICIANS, MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND SIMILAR BUSINESSES. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as follows: Section 1. Chapter 9.24 of Title 9 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is repealed, in its entirety; provided, however, that said repeal shall not apply to or excuse any violation thereof occurring prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 2. A new Chapter 9.24 hereby is added to Title 9 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Chapter 9.24 "MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND TECHNICIANS "ARTICLE I. MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS "Sections: 9.24.010 - 9.24.020 - 9.24.030 - 9.24.040 - 9.24.050 - 9.24.060 - 9.24.070 - 9.24.080 - 9.24.090 - 9.24.1 O0 - 9.24.110 9.24.120 Definitions Permit Required Same - Exceptions Massage Establishment - Application Same - Operating Requirements Same - Facilities Same - Inspections Same - Permit Not Assignable Same - Change of Location or Name Same - Notification of Change - Same - Renewal of Permit o Applicability of Regulations to Existing Business C\RC\ORDMMASSAGE\I 3. i B 1 f (~ C~ "ARTICLE II. MASSAGE TECHNICIANS "Sections: 9.24.200 - Massage Technicians - Permit Required 9.24.210 - Same - Application 9.24.220 - Same - Renewal 9.24.230 - Same - Notification by Technician 9.24.240 - Same - Applicability of Regulations to Persons Working as Massage Technicians on Effective Date Hereof "ARTICLE IIl. OUT CALL MASSAGE SERVICES "Sections: 9.24.300 - Out Call Massage Services - Special Endorsement Required 9.24.310 - Same - Application 9.24.320 - Same - Records "ARTICLE IV. PROHIBITED CONDUCT, PROCEDURES, AND PENALTIES "Sections: 9.24.400 9.24.410 9.24.420 9.24.430 9.24.440 9.24.450 - Prohibited Conduct - Suspension Pending Revocation - Revocation - Message Establishment Permit - Same - Massage Technician Permit - Permit Denial/Revocation Appeal Procedure - Burden of Proof at Heating "ARTICLE I. MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS "Section 9.24.010 - Definitions. "Unless the particular provision of the context otherwise requires, the definitions and provisions contained in this Section shall govem the construction, meaning, and application of words and phrases used in this Chapter: "(a) 'Applicant(s)' shall mean the individual applicant and/or the designated officer or managing partner acting on behalf of a corporation or partnership. "(b) 'Chief' shall mean that Officer of the San Bemardino Sheriffs Department, or his or her designee, designated to by the City of Rancho Cucamonga to fulfill the prescribed duties herein. C\RC\ORD\MASSAGEN 1.3.1 B 2 /ce7 "(c) 'Director' shall mean the Director of Administrative Services of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or his or her designee. "(d) 'Employee' means any and all persons, other than a massage technician, who may render any service to the permittee, and who receives compensation from the permittee or his or her agent, and who have no physical contact with the customers or clients. "(e) 'Hearing Officer' shall mean the City Manager of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or his or her designee. "(f) 'Massage' means any method of treating the extemal parts of the human body for remedial, health, or hygienic purposes by means of pressure on or friction against; or stroking, kneading, rubbing, tapping, pounding; or stimulating the external parts of the human body with the hands or other parts of the human body, with or without the aid of any mechanical or electrical apparatus or appliances; or with or without supplementary aids, such as rubbing alcohol, liniments, antiseptics, oils, powders, creams, lotions, ointments, or other similar preparations. "(g) 'Massage Establishment' means any establishment having a fixed place of business where any person, firm, association, partnership, corporation engages in, conducts, or carries on, or permits to be engaged in, conducted or carried on, any business of giving massages, baths, administration of fomentation, electric or magnetic treatments, alcohol rubs, or any other type of system for treatment or manipulation of the human body with or without any character of bath, such as Turkish, Russian, Swedish, Japanese, vapor, shower, electric tub, sponge, mineral, fomentation, or any other type of bath. "(h) 'Massage Technician' shall include a 'Massage Technician', 'Massage Trainee', 'Masscur', 'Masseuse' and means any person who administers to another person, for any form of consideration, 'massage' as defined, or bathes, manipulates the body, or uses electric massage procedure, or similar procedure. "(i) 'Permittee' means any person, firm, partnership or corporation having a permit issued hereunder, for a massage establishment, and/or a massage technician, as the case may be. "(j) 'Qualified Massage Association' means any association which has established a minimum education requirement for membership of at least five hundred (500) hours of training from a recognized school of massage, offers and requires participation and completion by members of a minimum number of hours of specified continuing education as a condition of CXRC\ORDMMASSAGE\ 1.3.1 B 3 membership, is open to members of the general public meeting the requirements for membership, on a national basis, and has minimum educational requirements or equivalents, including at least five hundred (500) classroom hours or its equivalent in anatomy, physiology, hygiene, sanitation, massage therapy and practice, ethics of massage practice, first aid and CPR. Equivalency must be verified by written and practical testing by the Association. Further, the Association must have established rules of ethics and enforcement procedures for suspension or revocation of membership for violation of such rules. In addition, the Association must require participation and completion by members of a minimum number of hours of specified continuing education for eligibility for certification and recertification. In this regard, the City reserves the right to require evidence of such training, recertification and professional experience as a condition of continued membership. "(k) 'Recognized School of Massage' means any school or institution of learning which teaches the theory, ethics, practice, profession, or work of massage, which has been approved pursuant to Sections 94310 or 94311 of the California Education Code. A school offering a correspondence course not requiring attendance shall not be deemed a recognized school for purposes of this Chapter. The City of Rancho Cucamonga shall have the right to confirm that the applicant has actually attended class in a recognized school. "(1) 'Out Call Massage Service' means any business where the primary function of such business is to engage in or carry on massage, not always at a fixed location, but also at locations designated by the customers or clients. "Section 9.24.020 - Permit Required. "(a) It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership or corporation to engage in, conduct or carry on, or to permit to be engaged in, conducted or carried on, in or upon any premises within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the operation of a massage establishment as herein described, without first having obtained a permit issued by the City of Rancho Cucamonga pursuant to the provisions herein set forth. Said permit shall immediately be surrendered to the Director upon suspension, revocation, or expiration of said pennit. "(b) A permit under this Article I shall be valid for twelve (12) months from the date of issuance unless revoked or suspended. The permit required shall be in addition to any business license required by City ordinance or any other permit required for such use including, but not limited to, any conditional use permit or other similar entitlement for use. C\RCXORDLMASSAGE\ 1.3.1B 4 "Section 9.24.030 - Same - Exceptions. "The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to the following classes of individuals while engaged in the performance of the duties of their respective professions: "(a) Physicians, surgeons, chiropractors, osteopaths, or physical therapists who are duly licensed to practice their respective professions in the State of Califomia. "(b) Nurses registered under the laws of the State of Califomia. "(c) Barbers and beauticians who are duly licensed under the laws of the State of Califomia while engaging in practice within the scope of their licenses, except that this provision shall apply solely to the massaging of the neck, face, and/or scalp of the customer or client. "(d) Hospitals, nursing homes, sanitariums, or other health care facilities duly licensed by the State of Califomia. "(e) Accredited high schools, junior colleges, and colleges or universities whose coaches and trainers are acting within the scope of their employment. "(f) Trainers of amateur, semiprofessional or professional athletes or athletic teams. "Section 9.24.040 - Massage Establishment-Application. "(a) Any person, firm, corporation, or partnership desiring to obtain a permit to operate a massage establishment shall make application under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California, to the Director. Prior to submitting such application, a non-refundable fee in an amount established by the City Council shall be paid to the City to defray, in part, the cost of the investigation and reports required by this Article I. A copy of the receipt showing payment of the required fee shall accompany the application. "(b) The applicant, if a corporation or partnership, shall designate one of its officers or general partners to act as its responsible managing employee. Such person shall complete and sign all application forms required of an individual applicant under this Chapter; however, only one application fee shall be charged. The corporation's or partnership's responsible managing employee must, at all times, meet all of the requirements established for permittees by this Chapter or the corporation or partnership permit shall be CXRC\ORD\MASSAGE\1.3.1B 5 [ 7 0 suspended until a responsible managing employee who meets such requirements is designated. If no such person is found within ninety (90) days, the corporation or partnership permit shall be deemed canceled without further notice and a new initial application for permit must be filed. "(c) The application and fee required under this Section shall be in addition to any license, permit or fee required under any other provisions of this Code or ordinance heretofore or hereafter adopted together with a writing, signed and dated by the applicant, under penalty of perjury, stating that all information contained in the application is true and correct: "(d) The application for permit does not authorize conducting a massage establishment. No business shall be conducted until such permit has been granted. "(e) Each applicant for a massage establishment permit shall submit the following information: "1. The full true name under which the business will be conducted. If the name is a fictitious name, all individual owners, stockholders, partners, etc., shall be identified. "2. The present or proposed address where the business is to be conducted. "3. The applicant's full, true name, any other names used, date of birth, Califomia Driver's License number or Califomia identification number, Social Security number, present residence address and telephone number. The sex, height, weight, color of hair, and color of eyes. "4. Previous two (2) residences of the applicant and the inclusive dates at each address. "5. The applicant's business, occupation, and employment history for five (5) years preceding the date of application, and the inclusive dates of same. "6. The permit history of the applicant, including whether such person has ever had any permit or license issued by any agency, board, City, County, Parish, Territory, or State, the date of issuance of such a permit or license, whether the permit or license was revoked or suspended, or if a vocational or professional license or permit was issued, revoked, or suspended, and the reason(s) therefor. CARC\ORDXMASSAGE\1.3. I B 6 "7. All convictions for any crime involving conduct which requires registration under any state, federal or territorial law similar to and including California Penal Code § 290, or of conduct which is a violation of the provisions of any state, federal or territorial law similar to and including California Penal Code §§ 266h, 266i, 314, 315, 316, 318, 647, any other crime involving the elements of the foregoing code sections, by way of plea bargain, or any crime involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or moral turpitude. For the purposes of this Article I, 'conviction' shall include a conviction pursuant to a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. "8. A complete explanation of all services to be provided. "9. The name, address, and date of birth of each massage technician, aide, trainee, or employee who is or will be employed in said establishment. "10. The name and address of any massage business or other like establishment owned or operated by any person whose name is required to be given pursuant to this Section wherein the business or profession of massage is carried on. "11. Acceptable written proof that the applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age. "12. If the applicant is a corporation, the name of the corporation shall be set forth exactly as shown in its Articles of Incorporation or Charter together with the State and date of incorporation and the names and residence addresses of each of its current officers and directors, and of each stockholder holding five percent (5%) or more of the stock of that corporation. "13. If the applicant is a partnership, the application shall set forth the name and residence addresses of each of the partners, including limited partners. If the applicant is a limited partnership, it shall furnish a copy of its certificate of limited partnership as filed with the County Clerk. If one or more of the parmers is a corporation, the provisions of subsection 9.24.040(d)12 pertaining to corporate applicants shall apply. "14. The Director may require the applicant to furnish fingerprints when needed for the purpose of establishing identification. Any required fingerprinting fee will be the responsibility of the applicant. "15. Two (2) current, full-face, portrait photographs of the applicant, two (2) inches by two (2) inches in size shall be provided by the applicant. CXRC\ORDXIViASSAGE\ ! .3. I B "16. A description of any other business to be operated on the same premises, or on adjoining premises, owned or controlled by the applicant shall be set forth. "17. The name and address of the owner and lessor of the real property upon or in which the business is to be conducted shall be identified. In the event the applicant is not the legal owner of the property, the application must be accompanied by a copy of the lease and a notarized acknowledgment from the owner of the property that a massage establishment will be located on his/her property. "18. Authorization for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, its agents and employees to seek information and conduct an investigation into the truth of the statements set forth in the application shall be required. The Chief shall provide such assistance to the Director as may be required to fully investigate the applicant and the truth of the matters set forth in the application. "19. The applicant shall submit any change of address or fact which may occur during the procedure of applying for a massage establishment permit. "20. The applicant, if an individual, or designated responsible managing employee if a partnership or corporation, shall personally appear at the Police Department for fingerprinting and produce proof that the application fee has been paid and shall present the application containing the required information as described in this § 9.24.040. "21. A certificate of compliance from both the City of Rancho Cucamonga Development Services Department, Building and Safety Division, and the San Bernardino County Health Department must be submitted prior to the application approval. Any required inspection fees shall be the responsibility of the applicant. "If the certificates of compliance are not received by the Director within sixty (60) days of the date of filing, the application shall be deemed void. If any land use permit or other entitlement for use is required, such permit or use shall be applied for and received prior to the massage establishment permit becoming effective. "22. The Director shall have up to one hundred twenty (120) calendar days to investigate the application and the background of the applicant. Upon the completion of the investigation, the Director shall grant the permit if he or she finds: C~,RC\ORD\MASSAGE\ 1.3.1B 8 "(a) The required fee has been paid; "(b) The application conforms in all respects to the provisions of this Article I; "(c) The applicant has not made a material misrepresentation in the application; "(d) The applicant, if an individual, or any of the stockholders of the corporation, or any officers or directors, if the applicant is a corporation, or any partner if the applicant is a partnership, has not been convicted in a court of competent jurisdiction of an offense specified in § 9.24.040(d)7; "(e) The applicant has not had a massage establishment, massage technician, or other similar permit or license denied, revoked, or suspended by the City, or any other State, territory, county, parish or local agency prior to the date of approval; "(f) The applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age; "(g) The massage establishment as proposed by the applicant would comply with all applicable laws, including, but not limited to, health, zoning, fire, and safety requirements and standards. "23. If the Director, following investigation of the applicant, determines that the applicant does not fulfill the requirements as set forth in this Article I, the Director shall deny said application by dated, written notice to the applicant, forwarded to the applicant's address as set forth in the application, by U.S. mail, with a proof of service attached. Following a denial or revocation of a massage establishment permit, no application for a massage establishment permit may be filed by such applicant, at the same or substantially similar physical location, for at least one year following the date of such denial or revocation. The applicant shall have the fight of appeal as to any denial, as set forth in § 9.24.440. "24. Proof of compliance with all applicable provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code and the applicable ordinances shall be provided prior to the issuance of any permits. C~C\ORDMMASSAGE\1.3. I B 9 "Section 9.14.050 - Same - Operatin~ Requirements. "No person shall engage in, conduct, or carry on, or permit to be engaged in, conducted, or carried on, any massage establishment, unless each and all of the following requirements are met: "(a) Each person employed or acting as a massage technician shall have a valid permit issued by the Director, which permit shall be displayed in a conspicuous area open to the public at all times. It shall be unlawful for any owner, manager, operator, responsible managing employee, or permittee in charge of or in control of a massage establishment to employ or permit a person to act as a massage technician who is not in possession of a valid, unrevoked massage technician permit issued pursuant to this Chapter and which is worn clearly visible during working hours. '(b) The possession of a valid Massage Establishment Permit does not authorize the possessor to perform work for which a Massage Technician Permit is required. "(c) Massage and bath operations shall be carried on or conducted, and the premises shall be open, only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. "(d) A list of services available as approved pursuant to the application and the cost of such services shall be posted in an open public place within the premises, and shall be described in readily understandable language. In the event any list of services and costs posted or provided hereunder is in other than the English language, the permittee shall, at the permittee's cost and expense, provide to the Director an English language translation thereof. Said English translation shall be attested to being a full, true and correct translation thereof under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Califomia. No owner, manager, operator, responsible managing employee, or permittee shall permit, and no massage technician shall offer or perform, any service other than those posted. "(e) The Massage Establishment Permit and a copy of the permit of each and every massage technician employed in the establishment shall be displayed in an open and conspicuous place on the premises. "(f) Every massage establishment shall keep a written record of the date and hour of each treatment, the name and address of each patron, the name of the massage technician administering the treatment, and the type of treatment administered. Such written record shall be maintained on forms approved by the Director. Such records shall be open to inspection only by officials charged with enforcement of this Chapter, shall be available during C\RC\ORDMMASSAGE\ 1.3.1 B 10 all business hours of the establishment, and shall be used for no other purpose. Any unauthorized disclosure or use of such information by any officer or employee of the City or the County of San Bemardino, or the owner or employee of the massage establishment, shall constitute a misdemeanor and such persons shall be subject to the penalty of the provisions of this Chapter in addition to any other penalties provided by law. Such records shall be maintained on the premises of the massage establishment for a period of two (2) years. "(g) Massage establishments shall at all times be equipped with an adequate supply of clean, sanitary towels, coverings, and linens. Clean towels, coverings and linens shall be stored in enclosed cabinets. Towels and linens shall not be used on more than one (1) patron, unless such towel or linen has first been laundered and disinfected. Disposable towels and coverings shall not be used on more than one (1) patron. Soiled linens and towels shall be deposited in separate, Health Department approved receptacles. "(h) If male and female patrons are to be treated simultaneously at the same massage establishment, separate massage rooms, separate dressing facilities and separate toilet facilities shall be provided for male and female patrons. "(i) Wet and dry heat rooms, steam or vapor rooms or cabinets, toilet rooms, shower and bath rooms, tanning booths, whirlpool baths and pools shall be thoroughly cleaned and disinfected as needed, and at least once each day the premises are open, with a disinfectant approved by the San Bernardino County Health Department. Bathtubs shall be thoroughly cleaned with a disinfectant, approved by the Health Department, alter each use. All walls, ceilings, floors, and other physical facilities of the establishment must be in good repair and maintained in a clean and sanitary condition. "(j) Instruments utilized in performing massage shall not be used on more than one (1) patron unless such instruments have been sterilized, using approved sterilizing methods. "(k) All employees, including massage technicians, shall be clean, and wear clean, nontransparent outer garments. Said garments shall not expose their genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or chest. Massage technicians shall maintain the massage technician permit visibly on their person during business hours. "(1) No person shall enter, be or remain in any part of a massage establishment while in the possession of, consuming, under the influence of or using any alcoholic beverage or drugs except pursuant to a prescription for C~RC\ORD~vtASSAGE\ 1.3. I B 11 such drugs. The owner, operator, responsible managing employee, manager, or permittee shall not permit any such person to enter or remain upon such premises. "(m) No massage establishment shall operate as a school of massage, or use the same facilities as that of a school of massage. "(n) No massage establishment granted a permit under this Article I shall place, publish or distribute or cause to be placed, published or distributed any advertising matter that depicts any portion of the human body that would reasonably suggest to prospective customers or clients that any service is available other than those services described in § 9.24.050(d) of this Article I. Nor shall any massage establishment or out call massage service employ language in the text of such advertising that would reasonably suggest to a prospective patron that any service is available other than those services as described in § 9.24.050(d) of this Article I. "(o) No service enumerated in § 9.24.050(d) of this Article I may be carried on within any cubicle, room, booth or any area within a massage establishment, which is fined with a door capable of being locked. "(p) All exterior doors shall remain unlocked from the interior side during business hours. "(q) A massage shall not be given and no patron shall be in the presence of a massage technician or other employee unless the patron's genitals are fully covered by a non-transparent covering. In addition, a female patron's breasts shall be fully covered by a non-transparent covering. "(r) No massage establishment shall be open for business without at least one massage technician on the premises at all times who is in possession of a current, valid permit. "(s) Each massage establishment granted a permit under this Article shall have a manager on the premises at all times the massage establishment is open for business. The operator of each massage establishment shall file a statement with the Director designating the person or persons who shall act as manager. The operator, or manager in the operator's absence, shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with this Chapter. "Section 9.24.060 - Same - Facilities. "Every massage establishment shall maintain facilities meeting all of the following requirements: CNRC\ORDXMASSAGEN 1.3. i B 12 "(a) Signs shall be in conformance with the current ordinances of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; "(b) Minimum lighting shall be provided in accordance with § 1201 of the Uniform Building Code or successor provision or provisions. In addition, at least one artificial light of not less than sixty (60) watts shall be provided in each room or enclosure where massage services are performed on patrons; "(c) Minimum ventilation shall be provided in accordance with § 1201 of the Uniform Building Code or successor provision or provisions; "(d) Adequate equipment for disinfecting and sterilizing instruments used in performing the acts of massage shall be readily available; "(e) Hot and cold running water shall be provided at all times; "(f) Closed cabinets shall be provided for storage of clean linens; "(g) Adequate bathing, dressing, locker and toilet facilities shall be provided patrons. A minimum of two (2) tubs or showers and dressing rooms containing separate lockers which are capable of being locked must be provided for patrons. Separate toilets, wash basins, bathing and dressing areas shall be provided for male and female patrons; "(h) A minimum of one (1) separate wash basin for employees shall be provided at all times. The basin shall be located within or as close as practicable to the area devoted to performing of massage services. Sanitary towels shall also be provided at each basin; "(i) Pads used on massage tables shall be covered with a durable, washable plastic or other waterproof material acceptable to the San Bernardino County Health Department. "Section 9.24.070 - San~¢ - Inspections. "The Director, Chief, Development Services Director, and the San Bernardino County Health Department, or their authorized representatives, shall have the fight to enter the massage establishment for the purpose of making reasonable unscheduled inspections to observe and enforce compliance with applicable regulations, laws, and provisions of this Chapter. C~q,C\ORD~MASSAGEX 1.3.1 B 13 "Section 9.24.080 - Same - Permit Nonassipnable. "No massage establishment permit may be sold, transferred or assigned by the permittee, or by operation of law, to any other person or persons, and any such sale, transfer or assignment, or attempted sale, transfer or assignment, shall be deemed to constitute a voluntary surrender of such permit and such permit shall thereafter be deemed terminated and void; provided and excepting, however, that if the permittee is a partnership and one or more of the partners should die, one or more of the surviving partners may acquire, by purchase or otherwise, the interest of the deceased parmer or parmers without effecting a surrender or termination of such permit and in each case the permittee shall therea~er be deemed to be the surviving partner(s). One or more proposed parmers, in a partnership granted a permit hereunder, may make application to the Director, together with the fee established by the City Council therefor, to amend the original application, providing all information as required for partners in the first instance and, upon approval thereof, the transfer of the interests of one or more partners to the proposed parmer or partners may occur. "If the permit is issued to a corporation, stock may be sold, transferred, issued, or assigned to stockholders who have been named on the application. If any stock is sold, transferred, issued, or assigned to a person not listed on the application as a stockholder, the permit shall be deemed terminated and void; provided, however, the proposed transferee may submit to the Director, together with a fee established by the City Council, an application to amend the original application providing all information as required for stockholders in the first instance, and, upon approval thereof, the transfer may then occur. "Section 9.24.090 - Same - Change of l,ocation or Name. "(a) A change of location may be approved by the Director provided the massage establishment complies with all ordinances and regulations of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. "(b) No permittee shall operate under any name or conduct any establishment under any designation not specified in the permit. "(c) Any application for an expansion of a building or other place of business of a massage establishment shall require compliance with this Article I. C\RCXORD'uMASSAGE\1.3.1 B 14 "Section 9.24.100 - Same - Notification of Change. "(a) The holder of the permit to operate or conduct a massage establishment shall notify the Director, in writing, of the name and address of each person employed, including massage technicians, at such establishment within five (5) days of said person being employed. "The requirements of this § 9.24.100 are in addition to the other provisions of this Chapter, and nothing contained herein shall relieve the permittee of the responsibility of ascertaining, prior to employment, whether an employee has a current, valid Massage Technician Permit. "(b) If, during the term of a permit, the applicant has any change in information provided on or concerning the original application or permit renewal application, notification shall be made to the Director in writing, within ten (10) business days of the change. "Section 9.24.110 - Same - Renewal of Permit. "A massage establishment licensed under this Article I shall submit an application for renewal thirty (30) days prior to the expiration thereof. The renewal application shall be submitted together with the requisite fee as established by the City Council. Approval of the renewal application shall be contingent upon satisfactory compliance with all pertinent provisions of this Article I. "Section 9.24.120 - Applicability of ReEulations to Existinl~ Businesses. "The provisions of this Article I shall be applicable to all persons and businesses described herein whether the described activities were established before or after the effective date of this Article I, except that massage establishments legally in business prior to the effective date hereof shall have six (6) months or until the expiration of their current business license, whichever is greater, to comply with the terms hereof. "ARTICLE II. MASSAGE TECHNICIANS "Section 9.24.200 - MassaEe Technicians - Permit Required. "(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of acting or to act as a massage technician unless such person holds a valid massage technician permit issued by the City. Each massage technician permit holder shall be issued a photo identification badge which will also serve as a massage technician permit. The permit holder shall maintain the C\RC\ORDxMASSAGE\ 1.3.1 B 15 massage technician permit visibly on his or her person during business hours. Each permit holder shall immediately surrender to the Director any massage technician permit issued by the City upon the suspension, revocation, or expiration of such permit. "(b) A permit under this Section shall be valid for twelve (12) months from the date of issuance unless revoked or suspended. "Section 9.24.210 - Same - Application. "(a) Each applicant for a massage technician permit shall make application under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California to the Director. Prior to submitting an application, a nonrefundable fee as established by the City Council shall be paid to defray, in part, the costs of investigation and report required by this Article I. A copy of the receipt shall accompany the application. "(b) Permit fees required under this Section shall be in addition to any license, permit or fee required under any other provision of this Code. "(c) The application for permit does not authorize the applicant to practice massage. No work is authorized until such permit has been granted. "(d) Each applicant for a massage technician permit shall submit the following information: "1. Truthful and honest answers to each and every inquiry in § 9.24.040(d)3 through § 9.24.040(d)7, inclusive, of Article I hereof; "2. Acceptable written proof that the applicant is at least eighteen (18) years of age. "(e) The applicant must furnish proof of passage of the independently prepared and administered national examination through the National Certification Board for Therapeutic Massage and Bodywork (NCTMB), together with current recertifications in accordance with NCTMB requirements, a diploma or certificate of graduation from either a 500-hour resident course of instruction or 500 hours of cumulative education consisting of no less than a 300-hour resident course, and 200 additional hours of resident instruction from a recognized school of massage as defined in § 9.24.010(k) of Article I, hereof, or from an existing school or institution of learning outside the State of California, together with a certified transcript of the applicant's school records showing date of enrollment, hours of instruction and graduation from a course having at least the minimum requirements prescribed by Article 3 of Subchapter 3 of Chapter 21 of C\RC\ORDMMASSAGE\ 1.3.1 B 16 Division 1 of Title 5 of the California Code of Regulations, wherein the theory, method, profession and work of massage is taught, and a copy of the school's approval by the State Board of Education. Altematively, the provisions of this subsection (e) may be satisfied by the applicant receiving 300 hours of resident instruction and having membership, or the ability to obtain membership, in a qualified massage association, as defined in § 9.24.0100) of Article I hereof. "(f) The massage establishment's full name, address and telephone number where the massage technician will be employed at a fixed place of business. In the event the applicant seeks to conduct out call massage services not listed in the original application, an additional application and fee must be submitted. "(g) Such other identification and relevant information as the Director may require in order to discover the truth of the matters herein specified as required to be set forth in the application. "(h) Two (2) current full face, poruait photographs of the applicant, two (2) inches by two (2) inches in size. "(i) The Director may require the applicant to furnish fingerprints when needed for the purpose of establishing identification. Any required fingerprinting fees will be the responsibility of the applicant. "(j) A certificate from a medical doctor licensed to practice in the State of Califomia stating that the applicant has, within thirty (30) days immediately preceding the date of application, been examined and found to be free of any contagious or communicable disease. "(k) Authorization for the City of Rancho Cucamonga, its agents and employees to seek information and conduct an investigation into the truth of the statements set forth in the application shall be required. The Chief shall provide such assistance to the Director as may be required to fully investigate the applicant and the truth of the matters set forth in the application. "(1) Authorization to the Director that he or she shall have one hundred twenty (120) days in which to investigate the application and background of the applicant. Upon termination of the investigation, the Director shall approve or deny said application in writing. "(m) The Director, upon completion of the investigation, shall grant the permit if he or she finds in accordance with § 9.24.040(d)22(a)through (f), inclusive, and: CXRC\ORDMMASSAGE\1.3. I B 17 "1. The applicant has furnished an acceptable diploma or certificate of graduation from a recognized school, or "2. The applicant has fikmished written proof from a recognized school that the minimum number of hours of instruction have been completed. "(n) If the Director, following investigation of the application, determines that the applicant does not fulfill the requirements as set forth in this Section, the Director shall deny said application by dated, written notice forwarded to the applicant's address set forth in the application by U.S. mail, with a proof of service attached. A new application may not be filed for at least sixty (60) days after such denial. Any applicant for a permit who is refused a permit by the Director may appeal the denial as set forth in § 9.24.440. "Section 9.24.220 - Same - Renewal. "A massage technician licensed under this chapter shall file an application to renew the permit thirty (30) days prior to the date of expiration thereof. Approval shall be contingent upon satisfactory compliance with all pertinent sections of this Article II, including a current medical clearance. A renewal fee as established by the City Council shall be charged to defray, in part, the cost of the renewal investigation required by this Article II. "Section 9.24.230 - Same - Notification by Technician. "If, during the term of a permit, the massage technician has any change in information submitted on the original or renewal application, the massage technician shall notify the Director of such change within ten (10) business days thereafter, in writing. "Section 9.24.240 - Same - Applicability of Regulations to Persons Workin~ as MassaCe Technicians on Effective Date Hereof. "The provisions of this Article II shall be applicable to all persons working as massage technicians whether such employment commenced before or after the effective date of this Chapter, except that massage technicians legally employed prior to the effective date hereof shall have six (6) months after the effective date hereof to comply with the terms of this Article II. CLRC\ORD\MASSAGE\1.3.1 B 18 "ARTICLE III. OUT CALL MASSAGE SERVICES "Section 9.24.300 - Out Call Massage Services - Special Endorsement Required. "It shall be unlawful for any massage establishment or massage technician to provide, or to offer to provide, massage at any location except at the place of business approved for a massage establishment hereunder; provided, however, that a massage establishment or massage technician may obtain a special endorsement to the permit issued thereto specifically authorizing out call massage services. "Section 9.24.310 - Same - Application. "Any massage establishment or massage technician desiring to provide out call massage services shall submit to the Director, together with the requisite non-refundable fee therefor as established by the City Council, an application to provide out call massage services within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. In addition to the requirements set forth herein pertaining to massage establishment permit or massage technician permit application, as the case may be, the applicant shall submit detailed information setting forth the manner and means of transporting, to and from the premises where out call massage services are to be performed, the clean, sanitary towels, coverings and linens, sterilized insmunents to be utilized, as well as any supplementary aids, equipment or devices to be utilized and the method(s) of disposal thereof. "Section 9.24.320 - Same - Record. "All massage technicians authorized to perform out call massage services hereunder shall keep a written record, at the massage technician's principal place of business, of out call massage services performed as required by § 9.24.050(f) of Article I hereof and shall include therein the location, by street address including suite or apartment number, where such services have been performed. "ARTICLE IV. PROHIBITED CONDUCT, PROCEDURES, AND PENALTIES "Section 9.24.400 - Prohibited Conduct. "(a) It shall be unlawful for any massage technician to touch or massage the genital area of any patron or the breasts of any female patron or for any massage establishment to allow or permit such massage. C\RC\ORDMMASSAGEN 13.1B 19 "(b) It shall be unlawful for a massage technician to perform any massage services at any location other than that location specified on the massage technician permit or pursuant to a valid out call endorsement. "Section 9.24.410 - Suspension Pending Revocation. "When the grounds for revocation under this Chapter are that the permittee is suspected of immoral, improper, or otherwise objectionable conduct, the permit may be suspended until the revocation hearing procedure has been completed. "Section 9.24.420 - Revocation - Massage Establishment Permit. "The Director may revoke the massage establishment permit of any person, firm, partnership or corporation holding the same upon receipt of satisfactory evidence that the permittee has made a material misrepresentation on the permit application, or if the permittee, any managing responsible employee thereof or any of the persons enumerated in § 9.24.040(d)12 or § 9.24.040(d) 13 of Article I hereof has been convicted of or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to any charge of a violation of any of the provisions of this Chapter, or of the enumerated statutes set forth in § 9.24.040(d)7 of Article I hereof or any lesser included offense. "The Director may revoke, after notice and hearing, a massage establishment permit if, on the basis of satisfactory evidence, it is shown that the permittee, any managing responsible employee, or any employee, representative, or agent of the permittee or any massage technician employed by the permittee, has engaged in conduct constituting a violation of this chapter or of any of the enumerated statutes set forth in § 9.24.040(d)7 of Article I hereof. The Director shall provide the permittee with written notice of the revocation or proposed revocation by U.S. mail, with a proof of service attached, addressed to the street address of the massage establishment as shown on the application. "Section 9.24.430 - Same - Massage Technician Permit. "The Director may revoke the massage technician permit of any person holding the same upon receiving satisfactory evidence that the permittee has made a material misrepresentation on the permit application or if the permittee has been convicted of or entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere to any charge of a violation of any of the provisions of this chapter, or any of the enumerated statutes set forth in § 9.24.040(d)7 of Article I hereof or to a lesser included offense. C~RC\ORD\MASSAGE\ 1.3. I B 2O "The Director may, after notice and hearing, revoke the massage technician permit of any permittee if, on the basis of satisfactory evidence it shows that the permittee has engaged in conduct constituting a violation of this Chapter or any of the enumerated statutes set forth in § 9.24.040(d)7 of Article I hereof. The Director shall provide the permittee with written notice of the revocation by mail, with a proof of service attached, addressed to the permittee at the address of record shown on the massage technician permit application. "Section 9.24.440 - Permit Denial/Revocation Appeal Procedure. "(a) The applicant or permittee, as the case may be, within ten (10) business days after receipt of denial of an application for a permit under Articles I, II or III, hereof, or notice of revocation, may file an appeal with the City Clerk to be taken to the Heating Officer. In the event an appeal is filed within the ten (10) day time frame, a suspension of the permit shall be in effect until the final decision has been rendered by the Heating Officer. "(b) If the applicant or permittee fails to file an appeal within the ten (10) day filing period provided herein, denial/revocation shall take effect immediately upon expiration of such filing period. No permit shall be revoked until after a hearing shall have been held before the Heating Officer to determine good cause for such revocation, or the appeal filing period has lapsed. It is unlawful for any person to conduct a massage establishment or carry on the business of massage until the revoked permit has been reinstated by the Heating Officer. "(c) Notice of such hearing shall be given in writing and mailed at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the hearing, by U.S. mail, with a proof of service attached, addressed to the address listed on the massage establishment application, or massage technician application, as the case may be. The notice shall state the grounds of the complaint and shall state the time and place where such hearing will be held. "(d) After said hearing, the Hearing Officer shall render a written decision within ten (10) business days from the date the matter is submitted for decision. The action of the Hearing Officer shall be final and conclusive. "Section 9.24.450 - Burden of Proof at Hearing. "Unless otherwise specifically provided by law, the burden is on the City in any hearing under this Article IV to prove that the determination of the Director which is being appealed is unreasonable, and not an abuse of discretion." C\RC\ORDMMASSAGE\ 1.3.1B 21 Section 3. Penalties for Violation of Ordinance or Chapter It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance or the Chapter hereby adopted. Any person, firm, partnership or corporation violating any provisions of this Ordinance or Chapter or failing to comply with any of the requirements thereof shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or by imprisonment not exceeding six (6)months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every person, 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 Ordinance or the Chapter hereby adopted is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Ordinance. Section 4. Civil Remedies Available The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance or the Chapter hereby adopted shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances. Section 5. Severability The City Council declares that, should any article, provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this Ordinance or the Chapter hereby adopted be or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislative, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences and words of the Chapter hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect. CYRC\ORD\MASSAGE\ 13. I B 22 Section 6. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this __ day of , 1996. Mayor I, DEBBIE ADAMS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the day of 1996, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the ~ day of ,1996, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAINED: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga CXRC\ORDXMASSAGE\1.3. ! B 23 DATE: TO: FROM: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Danidle Stout, Deputy Sheriff, School Resource Officer 1977 SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.30 AND PROHIBITING LOITERING BY MINORS. RECOMMENDATION I recommend the City Council adopt the attached Ordinances prohibiting daytime loitering of juveniles who are subject to compulsory education and compulsory continuation education. BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Truancy is a significant problem throughout our city, for both our schools and our citizens. Under current law, the schools and Law Enforcement Officials only have the power to detain truant students and then deliver them to school or home, and there is no punitive recourse. These ordinances will deter our children from being truant, keeping them in the positive learning environment, and off the public streets where the inherent dangers are obvious. Section 9.30.030 will hold parents responsible who do not enroll their children, or those who allow their children to be habitually truant, not exercising their parental responsibility at our cost. Respectfully Submitted, Danielle Stout, Deputy Sheriff School Resource Officer _j ' ~111 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. ''~ 5(..~' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.30 AND PROIIIBITING LOITERING BY MINORS. TI]Ii CITY COUNCIL OF THE CII'Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: 5tEflOn 1. Title 9 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended by the addition of a new Chapter 9.30 to read, ia words and figures, as follows: "Chapter 9.30 "! -OIT RRINLQ J~Y. MINORS PROI RBITF~D "~ections: "9.30.010 "9.30.020 "9.30.030 "9.30,040 l,oitering by minors after curfew prohibited. Daytime loitering by minors prohibited, Responsibilities ofparents, legal guardian~ and/or custodians of minors. Violation - Pe~mlty. "9,30.010 loitering by. minors a~cr ct, rf~W vrolxibi.t.cd. It is unlawful for any minor to loiter, idle, wander or b¢ in or upon [ho public strccts, highways, roads, alleys, pro-ks, playgrounds, public buildings or other places open to the public, places of mnusc, rnent, eating establishnents, or any vacant Iota Igtwecn the hours of ! 0:00 p.m. and sunrise immediately following. This section shall not apply: "(a) When the minor is accompanied by his or her parent, legal guardian, or other person having lhe care or custody of the minor; or "(b) When the minor is on a medical emergemy errand directed by his or her parere, legal guardian, or other adult person lmving care or custody of the minor and the minor can produce written evidence of same; or L'tRCMlY, SIX)rrR%RC 1 t IB "(c) When the minor is traveling to or from his or her plac~ of gainful employment or to or from a medical appointment and the minor can produce written evidence of same; or "(d) When, with the approval oflhe minor's patent, legal guardian or other adult person having the care or custody of the minor, such minor is ~tuming direc~y home from a meeting, entertainment, recreational or school activity, or dance and the minor can produce writlcn evidence of such approval. "9.30.020 Daylim~.loitodng l>y minors prohibited. It is unlawful for any minor who is subject to compulsory education or to compulsory continualion education, to loiter, idle, wander, or be in or upon the publie streels. highways, roads, alleys. parks, playgrounds, public buildings or other places open to the public, pla~es of amusement, eating cslablishments, or any vacant lots during school hours and on school days applicable to such minor. This section shall not apply: "(a) When the minor is accompanied by his or her parent, !cgal guardian, or other adult person ]laving the care or custody of the minor; or "(b) When finso minor is on a medical emergency errand diweted by his or her par~t, legal guardian, or other adult person having care or custody of the minor and can produce written evidence of same; or "(c) When the minor is traveling directly to or fi'om a medical appoinhncnt and can produce written evidence of same; or "(d) When the minor has in his or her possession wriUen permission or a permit to leave the school cmnpus, or is traveling to or from, or is otherwise engaged in an event or activity sponsored, sanctioned or arranged for by the minor's sChool, and in which the minor is authori:t~d to participate. "9.30.030 Rer~gn~ibjlili~:t.of i~rea~ts, legal guardians and/oz custodialhs.0fJllirtof~. It shall be unlawful for any pamnl, guardian or custodian era mino~ to knowingly permit or allow such minor 1o be in violation of any of the provisions of Section 9.30.010 or 9.30.020 of this Chapter. In the event of any conflict between this section and California Penal Code Section 272, or any successor provision thereto, said Penal Code Section shall be deemed ~o govern. I,~cI~C~IESLOITRXRC I.].IB "9,30,04Q e.y(letlty fo_,r.:vj,OlD~fin- It ~ail ~ u~a~l ~r ~y ~n ~o ~olalc ~y p~vision, or fail to comply with ~y of~c ~men~ ofthis Chair. A first, ~nd or third viol~ion o~u~ng ~in a one (1) y~ ~d~ sh~l be punishable by (a) a fine not excelinS One H~d~ ~11~ ($100.~) f~ a first violation; ~)a fine not exc~ing Iwo Hunted ~llars ($2~.00) for a s~nd violation; (c) a fine not ~cecding Five H~dr~ Doll~ ($500.00) for a ~ird violation. "A fourth or subsequent violmien of any provision of this Chapter by any lx:rson within a one (!) year period shall be decmcd to be a misdemeanor ~md upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, oT by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person shall be dee~d guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thcrcof during which m~y violation of any ofthe provisions of this Chapter is committed, con6nued or permilled by such person and shall be deemed punishable thcrcforc as providcd in this Chapter." Section 2. Civil Remedies Ayeilable. A violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall constitute a nuisance and may be abatcd by the City through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisance, Scc|[p. Jt~. Ifauy section, subsection, sereonce, clause, phrase, or portion of tiffs Ordinanoe is for any reason dccmcd or held to be invalid or unconstilutional by d~ision of any coufi of competenl jurisdiction, or by preemptire legislation, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of t hi s Ordinance. The City Council of the City of P, mlcho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adoptcd this Ordinance and each section, subseclion, sentcncc, clause, phrase or perlion thereof, irrcspcetive of the fact that any one or morc sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or othe? portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional, or bc prcempted. LXIK,'~RF, SLOI FI(~RC 13.1B SectiOn 4, The City Clerk shall cefiify to the adoption ofthis Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner lxescribed by law. 1996. ADOFFED AND APPROVED this day of Mayor l, DEBBIE ADAMS, City Clerk ofthc City ofRancho Cu~axnonga, do hereby certify that the forcgoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular racering of the City Council of the City ofRancho CucamomXga held on lhe __ day of 1996, and was finally passcd at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the . day of... ,1996, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: city L~K3M~F, Sm ,Otl'R\RC 1.3.1 gm 4 f DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayo Members of the City Council Re~ez an~Biane City Council Planning Commission Subcommittee CONSIDERATION OF PROCESS FOR FILLING CURRENT TERMS EXPIRING ON PLANNING COMMISSION The purpose of this memo is to recommend a process for filling the current terms that will be expiring on the Planning Commission. The two Commissioners whose terms will expire on: June 30, 1996 are John Melther and Peter Tolstoy. The Subcommittee recommends: (1) an ad be mn for 30 days soliciting applications. The recommended ad is attached for the City Council's review. The applications, accompanied by a cover letter signed by the Mayor, will be available through the City Clerk's office;. (2) the Subcommittee will interview all qualified applicants (18 years old or older and a resident of the City) and create a "short list"; (3) at a scheduled Special City Council meeting, the "short list" of applicants will be interviewed by the entire City Council; and (4) following the interviews,of the "short list" of applicants, the City Council will then publicly vote on their choices to fill these two terms. Attachment: Draft Language for Ad EXCITING OPPORTUNITY The City of Rancho Cucamonga is an established leader in the area of City Government and Community Development. The City of Rancho Cucamonga is now seeking interested individuals to serve on the City's Planning Commission. The City is looking for an individual with a strong interest in local economic development and planning and design. Applicants must be 18 years old or older and a resident of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Applications to be submitted to the City Clerk's office by 6 p.m., (date inserted), City Hall located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga. Applications may also be picked up at the City Clerk's office. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 4, 1996 Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager William J. O'Neil, City Engineer~ CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FOR JUNE 5, 1996 ITEM D-15, APPROVAL OF MAP, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT SECURITY, VINTNERS WALK ENCROACHMENT/MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3B AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 6 FOR PARCEL MAP 13845, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS Please remove above said Item D-15 from the City Council Agenda for June 5, 1996. The Developer has failed to furnish all required items as required in the project's Conditions of Approval. A listing of the outstanding items is as follows: 1. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (C.C. & R'sl) 2. Reciprocal Access Easements, Parking and Joint Maintenance Agreements 3. Encroachment/Maintenance Agreement for the "Vintners Walk" area and the related features. 4. Consent and Waiver Form to join the City's Landscape Maintenance District and Street Lighting Maintenance District 5. C.C.W.D. Letter of Compliance 6. Securities and Agreements for required street, storm drain and traffic signal improvements Relative to Section 66458 of the Subdivision Map Act we have not received the final map for filing. As it does not conform to all the Conditions of Approval of the Tentative Map. WJO:dlw MANNERINO JOHN D. MANNERINO SAL BRIGUGLIO MITCHELL ROTH RECEIVED Via Facsimile (909) 477-2849 and U.S. Mail JUN - 4 1996 June 3, 1996 ~I'[YOFRANCHO CUCAMUNu~ CITYCLERK Fir. Brad Buller, City Planner City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Bunky's - Conditional Use Permit 96-04 - Francis Balchak Dear Fir. Buller: Please be advised that our clients on this date have instructed us to abandon the appeal of Conditional Use Permit 96-04-Francis Balchak of the Planning Commission dated April 10, 1996 currently on the agenda of the City Counsel meeting on June 5, 1996, at 7:00 p.m. Kindly instruct the Clerk of the City to withdraw the matter from that~renda' Very uly yours, MANN RI R G GLI0 BE . J . erlno cc: Fran ' City Clerk 9333 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE 110 / RANCH0 CUCAMONGA. CA 91730 / TEL (909)980-1100 / FAX (909)941-8610 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 5, 1996 Mayor and Members of the City Council Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager Danielle Stout, Deputy Sheriff, School Resource Officer Daytime Loitering Ordinance Please find enclosed a copy of the proposed Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code against Day Time Loitering by Minors, letters of recommendation, and my Public Education Plan. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AMENDING TITLE 9 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.30 AND PROHIBITING LOITERING BY MINORS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Title 9 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code hereby is amended by the addition of a new Chapter 9.30 to read, in words and figures, as follows: "Chapter 9.30 "l ,OITERING BY MINORS PROHIBITED "Sections: "9.30.010 "9.30.020 "9.30.030 "9.30.040 Loitering by minors after curfew prohibited. Daytime loitering by minors prohibited. Responsibilities of parents, legal guardians and/or custodians of minors. Violation - Penalty. "9.30.010 Loitering by minors after curfew prohibited. It is unlawful for any minor to loiter, idle, wander or be in or upon the public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks, playgrounds, public buildings or other places open to the public, places of amusement, eating establishments, or any vacant lots between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and sunrise immediately following. This section shall not apply: "(a) When the minor is accompanied by his or her parent, legal guardian, or other person having the care or custody of the minor; or "(b) When the minor is on a medical emergency errand directed by his or her parent, legal guardian, or other adult person having care or custody of the minor and the minor can produce written evidence of same; or LLRC\RESLOITRXRC 1.3.1B 1 "(c) When the minor is traveling to or from his or her place of gainful employment or to or from a medical appointment and the minor can produce written evidence of same; or "(d) When, with the approval of the minor's parent, legal guardian or other adult person having the care or custody of the minor, such minor is returning directly home from a meeting, entertainment, recreational or school activity, or dance and the minor can produce written evidence of such approval. "9.30.020 Daytime loitering by minors prohibited. It is unlawful for any minor who is subject to compulsory education or to compulsory continuation education, to loiter, idle, wander, or be in or upon the public streets, highways, roads, alleys, parks, playgrounds, public buildings or other places open to the public, places of amusement, eating establishments, or any vacant lots during school hours and on school days applicable to such minor. This section shall not apply: "(a) When the minor is accompanied by his or her parent, legal guardian, or other adult person having the care or custody of the minor; or .-. "(b) When the minor is on a medical emergency errand directed by his or her parent, legal guardian, or other adult person having care or custody of the minor and can produce written evidence of same; or "(c) When the minor is traveling directly to or from a medical appointment and can produce written evidence of same; or "(d) When the minor has in his or her possession written permission or a permit to leave the school campus, or is traveling to or from, or is otherwise engaged in an event or activity sponsored, sanctioned or arranged for by the minor's school, and in which the minor is authorized to participate. "9.30.030 Responsibilities of parents. legal guardians and/or custodians of minors. It shall be unlawful for any parent, guardian or custodian of a minor to knowingly permit or allow such minor to be in violation of any of the provisions of Section 9.30.010 or 9.30.020 of this Chapter. In the event of any conflict between this section and California Penal Code Section 272, or any successor provision thereto, said Penal Code Section shall be deemed to govern. L\RC\RESLOITR\RC 1.3. I B 2 "9.30.040 Penalty for violation. It shall be unlawful for any person to violate any provision, or fail to comply with any of the requirements, of this Chapter. A first, second or third violation occurring within a one (1) year period shall be punishable by (a) a fine not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for a first violation; (b) a fine not exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for a second violation; (c) a fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for a third violation. "A fourth or subsequent violation of any provision of this Chapter by any person within a one (1) year period shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00) or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each such person 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 committed, continued or permitted by such person and shall be deemed punishable therefore as provided in this Chapter." Section 2. Civil Remedies Available. A violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisance. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, or by preemptive legislation, such decision or legislation shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or other portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional, or be preempted. L\RC\RESLOITR~RC 1.3. I B 3 Section 4. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published in the manner prescribed by law. 1996. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of Mayor I, DEBBIE ADAMS, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the __ day of 1996, and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the __ day of ,1996, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga L\RCXRESLOITRLRC 1.3.1B 4 ZL, N-e4-~301 ~5:04 FRI]~ TO 9,47?2899 P.01 Chaffey Joint Union High School District 2l I W~ST F..tn~ S~l~e.~r, Or~l~o, ~U~t~ 91762-1~9B e (9~ 9~B~II · F~ 9~ 984-11~ /'~ .~:~ Re~ ~- ~r~o J tree 5, 1996 Danielle Stout, Deputy Sheriff School Resource Officer Rancho Cucamonga Police Department 105 t0 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Deputy Stout: [ have reviewed the proposed ordinance prohibiting daytime loitering by minors. The Ch~lT~y Joint Union High School District definitely supports this proposal. Enclosed is a copy of Chaffey Distri~'s i996-97 school calendar as well as a draf~ listing-the non-student (staff development) days. Thank you for your continued efforts to help curb this ongmng problem. Sincerely, Belie B. Hm'rison. Superintendent lkm art. CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT 10601 Church Street, Suite 1 i2/Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730/(909) 989-8541/Fax (909) Sonja L. Yates, Ed.D. Ingrid Vogei Sharon L. Nagel Robert A. Dalton, Ed.D. Superintendent Aasistant Superintendent Assistant Superintendent Director of Personnel Business Services Educational Services 941-1732 Jerry L. Show Coordinator of Special Education and Pupil Personnel June 3, 1996 Danielle Stout, Deputy Sheriff School Resource Officer -.. Rancho Cucamonga Police Department 1051 0 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 - Dear Dep..uty Stout: ': We are in agreement with your proposed ordinance adding a new chapter 9.30 and prohibiting daytime loitering by minors. To assist you in enforcing this ordinance, should it be approved by the City Council, we are enclosing our year-round calendar for 1996-97. Please note the schools are indicated on the calendar.. ' Thank you for your efforts to' ensure that students in our community are in school. Sincerely, .. . . .... ' Sn Y o Ja L. ates, Ed.D. Superintendent Joan Weiss Board President Timothy WilSon · Board Clerk Diane Garner Board Member Learning Today for the Challenge of Tomorrow Barbara Rich Board Member Kathy Thompson Board Member Thursday, May 2:1, 1996 g3:l!Z:08 PM Cucamonga Schoel Disbid Page I of 1 May 7, 1996 Mr. William J. Alexander, Mayor City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dear Mr. Alexander: School age students should be in school everyday unless there is a compelling reason for them to be absent. When children miss school they miss out of academic, social, and emotional growth. I was pleased to hear that the Rancho Cucamonga City Council will have the opportunity to consider and vote on a proposed juvenile tmancy ordinance that would encourage students and parents to abide by the school compulsory attendance laws of the Slate of California. · ' It is my understanding that Deputy Stout will be presenting this item to the Council at a meeting in May 1996. After talking with her about the provisions of the Truancy Prevention Ordinance, I strongly support her proposal. Please become familiar with the provisions of this proposed Truancy Prevemion Ordinance and vote to approve the proposed Ordinance. Sincerely, John T. Aycock Superintendent Gene Newton Superintendent John L. Golden, Jr. Assistant Superintendent Rebecca Lawrence Director, Instruction & Pupil 'Services 1883 P.O. Box 248, Etiwanda, California 91739 (909) 899-2451 FAX (909) 899-1656 May 29,1996 Board of Trustees David W. Long Marshall B. Pruitt Cecilia Solorio Andy Solorzano Mondi Taylor Ms. Danielle Stout, Deputy Sheriff School Resource Officer Rancho Cucamonga Police Department 10510 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 Dear Deputy Stout: I have reviewed your loitering policy and believe that the daytime portion relating to schools is a positive one. I also believe that your daytime burglaries will probably decline if the polic~y is enforced. Should you have any questions, please call. Sincerely, Gene Newton Superintendent GN:rg H:~lVVPDOCS~CORRES~052986-A~RG P R A N C H O C U C A M O N G OLICE DEPARTME A T DAY TIME LOITERING ORDNANCE PUBLIC EDUCATION PLAN STEP ONE: Media coverage with the local newspapers, such as the Daily Bulletin, the Grapevine, and Rancho Cucamonga Magazine, will be encouraged. Dan Watters can place the information on the Internet. STEP TWO: Publish the ordinance and our enforcement plan in the handbooks of Rancho Cucamonga High School, Etiwanda High School, and Alta Loma High School if the ordinance is passed by our City Council before July 1, 1996. If this time element is not met, an informational flyer can be added to the students package that they receive when they pick up their school schedules. STEP THREE: I will attend each high school's and middle school's first of the year rallies and discuss the ordinance with the student body. STEP FOUR: I will attend each school's Parent Forum to discuss the ordinance and our enforcement plan. This forum is held at the individual schools and all parents are invited to discuss various student/parent issues. Danielle Stout, Deputy Sheriff School Resource Officer 10510 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE · RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 · (909) 477-2800 · FAX (909) 477-2899