HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005/11/02 - Agenda Packet
TH E CITY O]F TIUNCJHIO CUCAMONGA
10500 Civic Center Drive ~ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730-3801
AGlENDAS
. ~~rdj(ev~~<<>>pm~lTil~ A~~lTilcy
. CCD~y CC<<>>UlITilCD~
REGUlLAR MlElETllNGS
151 and 3'd Wednesdays ~ 7:00 p.m.
N O'VIEMIBIEJR 29 2ill)([l)5
AGENCY, JBOARJI) &. Crry COUNCIL MEMBERS
William J. Alexander.................... Mayor
Diane Williams............... Mayor Pro Tern
Rex Gutierrez.......................... ..Member
L. Dennis Michael .....................Member
Sam Spagnolo....._.................... Member
Jack Lam......................... City Manager
James L. Markman.............City Attorney
Debra J. Adams..................... City Clerk
ORDlER OlF IBUS:u:NlESS
5:30 p.m.
7:00 p.m.
Closed Session. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. Tapia Conference Room
Regular Redevelopment Agency Meeting. .. Council Chambers
Regular City Council Meeting. . . . . . . . . . . .. Council Chambers
~
INFORMATION FOR THE PUBLIC
.
RANcHO
CUCAMONGA
TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
The City Council encourages free expression of all points of view. To allow all persons to speak, given the length
of the Agenda, please keep your remarks brief. If others have already expressed your position, you may simply
indicate that you agree with a previous speaker. If appropriate, a spokesperson may present the views of your
entire group. To encourage all views and promote courtesy to others, the audience should refrain from clapping,
booing or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience.
The public may address the City Council on any agenda item. Please sign in on the clipboard located at the desk
behind the staff table. It is important to list your name, address and phone number. Comments are generally
limited to 5 minutes per individual.
If you wish to speak concerning an item not on the agenda, you may do so under "Public Communications". There
is opportunity to speak under this section at the beginning and the end of the agenda.
Any handouts for the City Council should be given to the City Clerk for distribution.
To address the City Council, please come forward to the podium located at the center of the staff table. State your
name for the record and speak into the microphone.
All items to be placed on a City Council Agenda must be in writing. The deadline for submitting these items is 6:00
p.m. on Tuesday, one week prior to the meeting. The City Clerk's office receives all such items.
AGENDA BACK-UP MATERIALS
Staff reports and back-up materials for agenda items are available for review at the City Clerk's counter and the
Public Library. A complete copy of the agenda is also available at the sign in desk located behind the staff table
du,ing the Council meeting.
LIVE BROADCAST
Council meetings are broadcast live on Channel 3 for those with cable television access. Meetings are
rebroadcast on the second and fourth Wednesdays of each month at 11 :00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. The City has
added the option for customers without cable access to view the meetings "on-demand" from their computers.
The added feature of "Streaming Video On Demand" is available on the City's website at www.cLrancho-
cucamonga.ca.us/whatsnew.htm for fhose with Hi-bandwidth (DSUCable Modem) or Low-bandwidth (Dial-up)
Internet service.
The City Council meets regularly on the first and third Wednesday of the month at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers Located at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
Members of the City Council also sit as the Redevelopment Agency and the Fire District Board.
Copies of City Council agendas and minutes can be found at http://www.ci.rancho-cucamonga.ca.us
. If you need special assistance or accommodations to participate in this meeting, please
contact the City Clerk's office at (909) 477-2700. Notification of 48 hours prior to the
meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensu'e accessibility.
Listening devices are available for the hearing impaired.
Please turn off all cellular phones and pagers while the meeting is in session.
"
RANCHO
CUCAMON
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
NOVEMBER 2,2005 -7:00 P.M.
THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY
HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
A. CALL TO ORDER
1.
Roll Call: Alexander _, Gutierrez_,
Michael _' Spagnolo _' and Williams
II
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
1. Presentation of GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in
Financial Reporting for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2004.
2. Presentation of a Proclamation to Boy Scouts of Ame,ica Troop 650
for their involvement in organizing relief efforts for the hurricane
victims of Biloxi, Mississippi, and a video presentation from Troop 650.
II
C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
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.
II
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 Council member
or member of the audience for discussion.
1. Approval of Minutes: October 19, 2005
2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 10/12/05 through 10/25/05 and
Payroll ending 10/25/05 for the total amount of $7,010,839.98.
3. Approval of the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District Nos. 7
and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 7 for 12770
Amber Lane, located on the north side of Amber Lane, west of
Etiwanda Avenue, submitted by James L Previti.
1
I
II
I]
II
1
28
-
RANCHO
CUCAMON
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
NOVEMBER 2,2005 - 7:00 P.M.
THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY
HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
2
RESOLUTION NO. 05-304
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION
OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND
STREET LIGHTING MAiNTENANCE DISTRICT
NOS. 1 AND 7 FOR 12770 AMBER LANE
(APN: 0225-111-32)
29
4. Approval of Historic Landmark Designation DRC2005-00600 - Janette
L Huckins, to designate the house at 6862 Etiwanda Avenue as a
Designated Local Landmark - APN: 1089-511-07. Related File:
Mills Act Agreement DRC2005-00601.
36
RESOLUTiON NO. 05-305
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC
LANDMARK DESIGNATiON DRC2005-00600,
DESIGNATING A HOUSE LOCATED AT 6862
ETIWANDA AVENUE AS A HISTORIC
LANDMARK; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1089-511-07
5. Approval of Mills Act Agreement DRC2005-00601 (CO 05-109) with
Janette L Huckins, to implement the use of the Mills Act to ,educe
property tax on the house at 6862 Etiwanda Avenue, currently
applying for a Historic Landmark status - APN: 1089-511-07.
Related File: Landmark Designation DRC2005-00600.
65
36
6. Approval of a Supplemental Settlement Agreement (01-041) with the
County of San Bernardino related to Criminal Justice Administrative
Fees (Booking and Processing Fees).
67
7. Approval of a contract extension with Sunshine Windows (CO 02-134)
to June 30, 2006 for window washing services for City facilities with
the option to renew for additional one year periods up to two additional
years upon mutual consent and confirmation of pricing not to exceed
$86,350 annually, which includes $25,000 for anticipated extra work
related to construction and opening of the Cultural Arts Center to be
funded from 1 001 312-5304.
79
8. Approval of a Professional Services Agreement (CO 05-110) to
Applied Metering Technology, Inc., for installation, configuration and
meter testing services within the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility
service area, to be funded from Acct. No. 1705303-5309.
80
e
RANCHO
CUCAMON
9. Approval of a Reimbursement Agreement (SRA-37) and payment in
the amount of $77,668.00 for installation of Master Plan
Transportation Facilities on the south side of 61h Street between
Charles Smith Avenue and Hyssop Drive in conjunction with the
construction of Parcei Map 16010 (DRC2002-00750), submitted by
RKW Development Corporation, to be funded from Transportation
Reimbursement Acct. No. 1124303-5650/1026124-0.
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
NOVEMBER 2, 2005 -7:00 P.M.
THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY
HALL. 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
3
82
RESOLUTION NO. 05-306
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, SRA NO.
37, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH
SIDE OF 6TH STREET BETWEEN CHARLES
SMITH AVENUE AND HYSSOP DRIVE,
ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF
PARCEL MAP 16010
10. Approval to accept Improvement, release the Faithful Performance
Bond, accept a Maintenance Bond and file a Notice of Completion for
improvements for DRC2002-00132, located at the northeast corner of
61h Street and Cleveland Avenue, submitted by 61h and Cleveland,
T.LC.
88
89
RESOLUTION NO. 05-307
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRC2002-00132 AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
91
11. Approval to release Faithful Performance Bond No. 08658626 in the
amount of $589,162.00 for the Milliken AvenuelWilson Avenue
Extension, Milliken Avenue from 1380' north of Banyan Street to
Wilson Avenue and Wilson Avenue from Day Creek Channel to
Milliken Avenue, Contract No. 04-008.
92
12. Approval to release the Faithful Performance Bond No. 216104 in the
amount of $77,666.90 for the ADA 2003/2004 Access Ramp and
Drive Approach I mprovements, Contract No. 04-068.
94
13. Approval to accept the Renovation of Two Baseball Fields at Red Hill
Community Pa,k, Contract No. 05-057 as complete, retain the Faithful
Performance Bond as a Guarantee Bond, release the Labor and
Material Bond, and authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of
Completion and approve the final contract amount of $37,352.50.
96
-
RANCHO
CUCAMONG
II
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
NOVEMBER 2,2005 - 7:00 P.M.
THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY
HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RESOLUTION NO. 05-308
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNiA, ACCEPTING THE RENOVATION
OF TWO BASEBALL FIELDS AT RED HILL
COMMUNITY PARK, CONTRACT NO. 05-057
AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A
NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first
reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non-
controversial. The Council will act upon them at one time without
discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be
removed for discussion.
1. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
DRC2005-00437 - A request to amend the regulations for second
dwelling units for consistency with changes in State Law.
ORDINANCE NO. 748 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, REVISING REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO SECOND DWELLING UNITS
IN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND
AMENDING TITLE 17 (THE DEVELOPMENT
CODE) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE
2. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT
DRC2005-00639 - A request to amend the regulations for granting
of density bonuses and related incentives for consistency with
changes in State Law made by Senate Bill 1818.
ORDINANCE NO. 749 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
CALIFORNIA, REVISING REGULATIONS
APPLICABLE TO THE GRANTING OF DENSITY
BONUSES AND RELATED INCENTIVES, AND
AMENDING TITLE 17 (THE DEVELOPMENT
CODE) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE
4
99
II
100
106
e
RANCHO
CUCAMON
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
NOVEMBER 2,2005 - 7:00 P.M.
THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY
HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
5
II F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS ]
The following items have been advertised andlor posted as public
hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to
receive public testimony.
1. CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION 118
DECISION AMENDING THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-01 AND ENTERTAINMENT
PERMIT 91-03 FOR MARGARITA BEACH. LOCATED AT 9950
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD - APN: 1077-621-34 (CONTINUED
FROM SEPTEMBER 21,2005)
II G. PUBLIC HEARINGS II
The following items have no legal publication or posting
requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive public
testimony.
No Items Submitted.
II H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS II
The following items do not legally require any public testimony,
although the Chair may open the meeting for public input.
1. PRESENTATION ON CDBG HOUSING IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
(power point presentation)
2. CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - 119
QUALITY PROJECT COORDINATING DRC2005-00829 - A request to
amend Title 14 Sign Ordinance, Section 14.20.100 Permitted Signs -
Commercial and Office Zones, to ailow subtenant wall signs for a
business within a major anchor tenant occupying less than 50,000
square feet in floor area.
II I. COUNCIL BUSINESS II
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. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three
minutes per Councilmember.)
e
RANCHO
CUCAMON
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
NOVEMBER 2,2005 - 7:00 P.M.
THE MEETING TO BE HELD IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY
HALL, 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
2. DISCUSSION OF THE REESTABLISHMENT OF THE CITY
COUNCIL'S ANiMAL SHELTER AD HOC SUBCOMMITTEE
3. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (Oral Report)
J. ADJOURNMENT
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 October 27,2005, seventy-two (72) hours prior
to the meeting per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center
Drive.
6
]
Oclobe, 19, 2005
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL CLOSED SESSION MINUTES
II
A. CALL TO ORDER
II
The Rancho Cucamonga City Council held a closed session on Wednesday, October 19, 2005, in the
Tapia Room of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California.
The meeting was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present we'e Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, L Dennis Michael, Sam Spagnolo, Diane Williams and
Mayor William J. Alexander.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer;
and Kevin McArdle, Community Services Director.
." 1r *." ." ."
B. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
B1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING POTENTIAL LITIGATION, PER
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a), CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA V. DOUGLAS E.
BARNHART - CITY
B2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION (CLAIM FILED
SEPTEMBER 22, 2005), PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9, CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA V. AMERICAN LANDSCAPE - CITY
83. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOTIATORS PER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.8
FOR PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AT
THE 1-15 FREEWAY, JOE O'NEIL, CITY ENGINEER, NEGOTIATING PARTY - CITY
." *." * * 1<
C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS ON CLOSED SESSION ITEM(S)
No communication was made on the closed session items.
******
D. CONDUCT OF CLOSED SESSION
The closed session began at 5:35 p.m.
* * *." * *
E, CITY MANAGER ANNOUNCEMENTS AND REpORTS
~
* * * * * *
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 2
F. RECESS
The closed session recessed at 6:15 p.m. with no action taken.
'* '* '* '* * *
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Reqular Meetinq
II
A. CALL TO ORDER
II
A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, October 19, 2005, in
the Council Chambers of the Civic Center located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga,
California. Mayo, William J. Alexande, called the meeting to order at 7:19 p.m.
Present were Councilmembers: Rex Gutierrez, L Dennis Michael, Sam Spagnolo, Diane Williams and
Mayor William J. Alexander.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Pamela Easter, Deputy City Manager; James Markman,
City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Director; James C. Frost, City Treasurer; Larry Temple,
Administrative Services Director; George Rivera, Administ,ative Services Manager; Sheliy Munson,
Information Systems Specialist; Dawn Haddon, Purchasing Manager; Jon Gillespie, Traffic Engineer; Dan
Coleman, Acting City Planne,: Kevin McA,dle, Community Services Di,ecto,; Nettie Nielson, Community
Services Superintendent; Jennifer Hunt, Community Services Coo,dinator; Paula Pachon, Management
Analyst III; Lieutenant Scott Mesa, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; Chief Pete, Bryan, Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Kimberly Thomas, Management Analyst III: Fabian Villenas,
Management Analyst II; Shirr'l G,iffin, Office Specialist II - City Clerk's Office; and Debra J. Adams, City
Cle,k.
******
II
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
~]
B1. Presentation of a Proclamation in honor of "We Tip" Founder, Bili Brownell, for his years of service to
our community.
The Mayor and City Council presented the Proclamation to Miriam Brownell and Susan Aguiiar.
Proclamations were also given to others that were associated with the We Tip Family and members of
their Board.
B2. P,esentation of a Proclamation declaring October as the House of Ruth "National Domestic Violence
Awareness Month."
The Mayor and City Council presented the Proclamation to Sharon McGarth-Gold, Director of Finance.
B3. Recognition of Target Stores and Rancho Cucamonga Store Manager David Parker for their donation
to the summe, Concerts in the Pa,k Se,ies.
Jennifer Hunt, Community Services Supervisor, assisted the City Council with the presentation to David
Pa,ker, Target Store Manager, in thanking him for his support of all Community Services' programs.
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 3
B4. Presentation of Proclamations to Beth Pine and Rick Fontana in honor of being recognized as "2005
LA. County Fair Community Heroes."
The Mayor and City Council presented Proclamations to Beth Pine and Rick Fontana.
"* * *"* "*"*
II
C. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
II
C1. Ray Allard, a resident of Fontana and wiil soon live in Rancho Cucamonga, wanted to thank the City
because the Fire Department helped save his step-daughter's. He thanked Paui Lenz, Rich Toll and Rick
Snyder, who were the firemen that responded to help. He stated she has come out of the coma and has
come through her heart surgery.
C2. Tom Tullius stated he has been asked by his neighbors to submit a petition for a traffic signal or stop
sign at Day Creek and Carnelian Streets. He talked about all of the development that has occurred in his
neighborhood inciuding schools in his area. He stated there is a lot of traffic on Day Creek and that there
are always big trucks on this street He stated at Day Creek and Vintage and also at Banyan there is a
signal. He stated that at Keenland it is ve,y hard to gain access onto Day Creek because of all of the
traffic. He stated the speed is also ignored on Day Creek. He asked that a signal or stop sign be
installed to slow down the traffic and control it He had a petition that was submitted to the Council for
their consideration to support his request A copy was also distributed to Jon Gillespie, Traffic Engineer.
C3. John Lyons, Etiwanda area, mentioned a squad going in at Archibaid and 19th, and felt this is very
important and would save lives and help people. He mentioned the 3-story apartment building under
construction near the mall. He felt something should be done to finish this project
C4. George Bennet, Woods Development, stated behind his house there is a 3 y;, acre vacant lot and
stated the weeds have never been removed or taken care of. He stated last year the County never did
anything to help resolve this matter. He stated recentiy a couple of guys cut the grass down, but did not
complete the job. He stated he is af,aid the brush will catGh fire and cause problems to his home and
others surrounding this. He asked that the City Council do something to help him get this lot cleared.
Mayor Alexander asked that each Councilmembe, get copies of the photos.
M,s. Bennet stated on Silver Mountain Way nobody had ever enforced the street signs until their
granddaughter recently parked there for five minutes. She stated their streets a'e very narrow.
Mr. Bennet suggested that the signs be placed only on one side of the street
Mr. and Mrs. Bennet stated mo'e streetlights are needed on some of the streets nea, their home also.
Mrs. Bennet stated on Whispering Forest peopie are speeding and something needs to be done about
that She felt possibly the bushes need to be cut to make it safer.
Mayo, Alexande, referred them to M,. Gillespie, T,affic Enginee" to help with thei, concerns.
Mr. Bennet talked about a sidewalk that is needed in that area as weil.
C5. Nicole Mye,chin stated the,e are a iot of people in our thoughts, Dave Barry, Jim Moffit and Danny
Lobo. She stated she would like to remove Consent Calendar item 10 from the agenda. She stated an
animal got killed that had a hoid put on it at the animai shelter. She felt the County should not be above
the iaw and felt the Police Department shouid enfo,ce the law when the shelte, staff b,eaks it She also
commented on the cat room and stated it was not being maintained p,operly. She didn't feel the City
should be paying for ca'e for Devore cats either. She thanked the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Department
for what they did for her sister on September 30. She commented on the ceil phone problems in getting
through to emergency services. She stated that the Police should be equipped with the p,oper
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 4
equipment to emergency scenes to take care of hurt victims. She brought up the holiday gift drive for
seniors occurring this year and hoped everyone would help. She thanked the Fire Department for helping
her sister and felt response time is very important and that she would be investigating this further.
C6. Jim Moffit stated the animal shelter problem is getting out of control. He commented on the County
not taking ca'e of the animals like they should. He felt we need to get rid of the County as soon as
possible.
C7. A young man stated. on Base Line there was brush removed to build Centrai Park, but wondered why
the City has let it grow back.
Counciimember Michael stated his question would be looked into.
C8. .Matt Jones, Alta Loma, stated he has learned a lot in his classes about EMS. He stated Police
around the Country are not trained in basic life support. He felt the City should take a leading step in this
direction and do something about this. He commented on the County killing animals when they shouldn't
be. He stated they are breaking their contract with the City and wondered why we are paying them if they
are breaking the contract.
* * * *
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
D1. Approval of Minutes:
September 21, 2005
October 5, 2005 (special meeting)
October 5, 2005
D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 9/28/2005 through 10/11/2005 and Payroll ending 10/11/2005
for the total amount of $3,286,020.42.
D3. Approve to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of Septembe, 30, 2005.
D4. App,oval to authorize the advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" fo, the "Annual Maintenance
Agreement for City-wide Emergency and Routine Equipment Rental, pavement Repair, Shoulder
Grading, and Debris Removal Renegotiable on a Year-to-Year Basis," in the amount of $120,000 funded
f,om Acct. No. 1001316-5300.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-294
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE ANNUAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
FOR CITYWIDE EMERGENCY AND ROUTINE EQUIPMENT RENTAL,
. PAVEMENT REPAIR, SHOULDER GRADING, AND DEBRIS REMOVAL
RENEGOTIABLE ON A YEAR-TO-YEAR BASIS AND AUTHORIZING
AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE
BIDS
D5. Approval to app,opriate $23,249.00 from the Caiifornia Law Enforcement Equipment Program
(CLEEP) Fund Balance into Account No. 1366702-5605 (Capitai Outlay-Computer Equipment) and
appropriate $12,773.00 from Law Enforcement Reserves into Account No. 1001701-5605, and $3,978.00
into Account No. 1001701-5152 (Computer Software) for a total of $40,000.00 to pu,chase the Avid
Exp,ess Video Detective System (P,oduced by Ocean Systems).
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 5
D6. Approval to appropriate $10,315.65 from the California Law Enforcement Equipment Program
(CLEEP) Grant Fund Balance into Account No. 1366702-5605 (Capital Outlay-Computer Equipment) for
the purchase of three (3) Digital Image Management Systems (DIMS) produced by Linear Systems.
D7. Approvai of specifications for janitorial services for Citywide facilities and authorize the City Clerk to
advertise the request for proposals.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-295
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SPECIFICATIONS FOR
JANITORIAL SERVICES FOR CITYWIDE FACILITIES AND
AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE
TO RECEIVE PROPOSALS
D8. Consideration of a Public Convenience and Necessity - DRC2005-00808 - A-1 Auto Care - A request
to dete,mine a Public Convenience and Necessity fo, a Type 20 Off-Sale Beer and Wine License for a
convenience store in the community commercial district, located at 9524 Foothill Blvd. - APN: 0208-151-
19.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-296
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DETERMINATION OF
PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR A TYPE 20 OFF-SALE
BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE IN THE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 9524
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD - APN: 0208-151-19
D9. Approval of the Pa,ks. Rec,eation Facilities and Community Services Update.
D10. Approval of amendments to the City's Salary Resolution (04-313A) to include the new
classifications for the City's Animal Care and Services Program (04-313B). ITEM REMOVED FOR
DISCUSSION BY NICOLE MYERCHIN.
RESOLUTION NO. 04-313B
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1 OF
RESOLUTION NO. 04-313A TO INCLUDE NEW POSITIONS AND
SALARY RANGES FOR THE ANIMAL CARE AND SERVICES
DEPARTMENT
D11. Approval of a request from Valiey Baseball Club, Inc. (dba: Quakes) for a Waiver of Rental Fees for
use of the Epicenter Stadium on Wednesday, October 26, 2005, for a Season Ticket Holder World Series
activity.
D12. ApproVal to declare City-owned miscelianeous items and computer equipment as surplus and
autho,ize the donation of one lot of computers to the Gapas Gabaldon Elementary School, Philippines,
and the Etiwanda Histo,ical Society.
D13. Approval of Improvement Agreement, Improvement Securities, Map, Monumentation Cash Deposit,
and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Light Maintenance
Dist,ict Nos. 1 and 2 for Parcel Map 16455, located on the northeast corner of Hermosa and Wilson
Avenues, submitted by Iyad Haifa and Humberto Zarate.
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 6
RESOLUTION NO. 05-297
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 16455,
MONUMENTATION CASH DEPOSiT, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT,
AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR PUBLIC STREET
IMPROVEMENTS
RESOLUTION NO. 05-298
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NO.1 AND STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 2
FOR PARCEL MAP 16455
D14. Approval of Map, Improvement Agreement, Improvement Security and Ordering the Annexation to
Landscape Maintenance District No. g and Street Lighting Maintenance Dist,ict Nos. 1 and 8 fo, T,act No.
16716, located on the east side of Etiwanda Avenue between Etiwanda Intermediate School and
Etiwanda Raiiway Station, submitted by Monte San Savino, LLC.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-299
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TRACT MAP NUMBER
16716, IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITY
RESOLUTION NO. 05-300
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE ANNEXATION OF
CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NO. 9 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. 1
AND 8 FOR TRACT NO. 16716
D15. Approval to extend piggyback cont,act for the pu,chase of gasoline and diesel fuel with Poma
Distributing of San Bernardino, for Fleet Maintenance, Sheriffs Department and Fire District in annual
amounts not to exceed $192,000.00 from Fund 1001317-5255 (Fleet), $162,000.00 from Fund 1001317-
5256 (Fleet), $255,000.00 from Fund 1001701-5255 (Sheriffs Department), $40,000.00 from Fund
3281527-5255 (Fire District), and $80,000.00 f,om Fund 3281527-5256 (Fi,e District), and app,oval to
award an additional 10% contingency (all funds).
D16. App,oval to utilize the services of Richards, Watson & Ge,shon for right-of-way acquisition services
for the Base Line Road at 1-15 Freeway Interchange project, and appropriate $25,000 to Acct. No.
2660801-5650/1361660-6312 from Fund 660 (2004 Tax Allocation Bonds) Fund balance.
D17. Approval to execute a contract with Office Depot Business Services to suppiy and deliver citywide
miscellaneous office supplies based on U.S. Communities Contract No. 41421, Amendment No. 10.
D18. Approval of Improvement Agreement Extension for PM 16180, located at the southeast corner of
Banyan St,eet and G,eenwood Place, submitted by Jim Kelm.
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 7
RESOLUTION NO. 05-301
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING IMPROVEMENT
AGREEMENT EXTENSION AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITY FOR PM
16180
D19. Approval of final Map for Tract 16311, located at the southeast corne' of Heliman Avenue and 61h
Street, submitted by Crestwood Corpo,ation.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-302
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL MAP FOR TRACT
16311
D20. Approval to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond for Tract 14495, located on the southwest
corner of Day Creek Boulevard and Wilson Avenue, submitted by MBK Homes, Ltd.
D21. Approvai to release the Maintenance Guarantee Bond fo, Tract 14523, located on the west side of
Day Creek Boulevard between Banyan Street and Wilson Avenue, submitted by MBK Homes, Ltd.
D22. Approval to accept Improvements, release the Faithful Performance Bond, accept a Maintenance
Bond, and file a Notice of Completion for improvements for Tract 16431, located on the east side of the
Alta Loma Flood Channel, south side of Lemon Avenue, submitted by Cucamonga Ventures, LLC.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-303
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 16431 AND AUTHORIZING THE
FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
MOTION: Moved by Williams. seconded by Gutierrez to approve the staff recommendations in the staff
reports contained within the Consent Calendar with the exception of item D10. Motion carried
unanimousiy 5-0.
Item 10. Approval of amendments to the City's Salary Resolution (04-313A) to include the new
classifications for the City's Animal Care and Services Program (04-313B).
A Staff ,eport was p,esented by Pam Easte" Deputy City Manager.
Mayor Alexander felt it was too bad we disbanded the subcommittee that could have handled this instead
of having to get the whole Council involved with this issue. He wanted to discuss bringing this matter
back to the Council at the next meeting to re-establish the City Council Animal Shelter Ad Hoc
Subcommittee which would report back to the fuli City Council as needed. He felt we have set the
sala,ies too high on this.
Pam Easter, Deputy City Manager, stated several of the positions on here are to add value and help build
the City's animal program.
Councilmember Michael asked for Mr. Newton, the consultant, to provide information how he came up
with these salary ranges.
Mr. Newton provided additional information about the positions.
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 8
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated they are not hiring any of these positions at this point. He stated this is
to be ready for when they are ready to hire, but would not happen untii the service levels have been
identified by the Council.
Councilmember Spagnolo asked if there are job descriptions with each of the job titles and asked why
they weren't included in the packet.
Mr. Newton stated normally these wouldn't be finalized untii the service leveis have been identified.
Jack Lam, City Manager, stated the City Council does not approve job descriptions but would be happy to
provide the Council with copies of them.
Council member Williams feU staff is doing a great job with developing these. She stated you can't always
count on voluntee,s to do the work because we don't have a "ball and chain" on them. She feU there
needed to be a proper core trained staff and then add volunteers to fill in where they can.
Mayor Alexander stated he is not directing this toward Nathan Winog,ad, but stated he has problems with
the process.
Nicole Myerchin felt the public shouid be able to give input on this. She wanted to make sure
there is fiscal responsibility with this. She hoped that five years down the road we don't say we
can't afford the sala,ies that have been set. She really wished we could have a vet on staff as
opposed to the 2 vet techs. She stated if the salaries were reduced, we could afford a vet with
that money. She asked the Councii to make a good judgment decision.
Counciimember Williams stated she has toured several animal facilities, and a part time vet is $100,000.
She stated this is a goal to shoot for the future, but added we are just getting started right now.
Jack Lam, City Manager, didn't think these salaries were inflated and that they are comparable to the
ma,ket place. He asked that the Council app,ove these tonight and added the positions will not be hired
right away.
Councilmember Michaei stated the County salaries are not important to him, but that his goal is that we
have a fi,st class ope,ation and good quality staff wo,king the'e. He feU for tonight we need to move
forward with this.
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to approve item D10. Motion carried 4-1
(Aiexander voted no).
* * * * * *
II
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
II
No Items Submitted.
* * * * '" *
II
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
II
F1. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2005-00437 - A request to
amend the regulations for second dwelling units for consistency with changes in State Law.
A staff report was presented by Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner.
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 9
Councilmember Wiiliams stated this requirement is a result of some of our legisiators not eve' being
involved with local government. She stated she is very concerned about this and that we should keep
paying close attention to what the state is doing.
Mayo, Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. There being no response, the public hearing
was closed.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the titie of Ordinance No. 748.
ORDINANCE NO. 748 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVISING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE
TO SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE
LAW, AND AMENDING TITLE 17 (THE DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Michael to waive full reading and set second reading of
Ordinance Nos. 748 for the November 2,2005 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
F2. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT DRC2005-00639 - A ,equest to
amend the regulations for granting of density bonuses and related incentives for consistency with
changes in State Law made by Senate Bill 1818.
No staff report was given.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 749.
ORDINANCE NO. 749 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVISING REGULATIONS APPLICABLE
TO THE GRANTING OF DENSITY BONUSES AND RELATED
INCENTIVES, AND AMENDING TITLE 17 (THE DEVELOPMENT
CODE) OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Michael to waive fuli reading and set second reading of
Ordinance No. 749 for the November 2,2005 meeting. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
******
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
G1. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE THAT ADOPTS BY REFERENCE ANIMAL REGULATIONS
OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND AMENDS TITLE 6 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MUNICIPAL CODE
A staff report was presented by Pameia Easter, Deputy City Manager.
Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated this is an interim approach and that his office is working on an
Ordinance for the Council's consideration once the City takes over the shelter.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting fo, public input. Addressing the City Council was:
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 10
Nicole Myerchin stated once again there shouid be public meetings and that the public has not
had the opportunity to read or discuss this. She asked the Council to use extreme caution and
stated this sounds scary to her.
Jim Markman, City Attorney, stated this is very basic and that he and his staff have gone through this to
make sure it is acceptable fo, the time being.
There being no further input, public comments were closed.
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk, read the title of Ordinance No. 750.
\
ORDINANCE NO. 750 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING ANIMAL REGULATIONS OF
THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO BY REFERENCE, AND
AMENDING TITLE 6 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Gutierrez to waive full reading and set 2,d reading for the
November 16, 2005 meeting and also set the public hearing for that date. Motion carried unanimously 5-
o.
******
II
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REpORTS
II
H1. APPROVAL OF FACILITY USE PRIORITY POLICY AND USER FEES FOR THE VICTORIA
GARDENS CULTURAL CENTER
A staff report was presented by Nettie Nielsen, Community Services Superintendent.
Counciimember Michael stated he would question why we would not charge the Water District or the
County for the use of the facility, but would cha'ge a school.
Kevin McArdle, Community Services Directo" stated several years ago the schools were not charged, but
a couple years ago this changed since they have their own faciiities fo, most of their functions, but were
coming to the City to use our facilities for their events instead of their own. He stated this is when it was
decided to charge them the non-profit rate. He stated this is an encouragement to get the school districts
to ente, into joint use ag,eements also that would override this.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comments. There being no response, public comments
we'e closed.
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Spagnolo to approve staffs recommendation. Motion
carried unanimously 5-0.
******
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 11
II
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
II
11. COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS (Comments to be limited to three minutes per Councilmember.)
Councilmember Michael stated our City family has had its trials over the last couple weeks and
commented on the loss of Deputy Danny Lobo. He stated it was a great memorial service.
Councilmember Williams stated the service was very personal, yet very dignified. She stated the Fire
Department open house was a huge success. She stated all the Girl Scouts now have a bridge to cross
over at Central Park.
Councilmember Gutierrez added his condolences to Deputy Lobo's family and stated his daughter got a
lot of support from the students. He stated our prayers also go out to Captain Ortiz due to his family
crisis. He mentioned the man from the last meeting that had the problem with blowing dust, and that we
should look at this in the future to make sure there is water at a project site. He stated if there isn't, the
developer should be fined monetarily. He felt we should look at noise problems and enforce our codes.
He stated nuisance should not occur. He stated the issue on Day Creek that was brought up earlier was
something to consider. He stated heavy trucks should not be brought into residential neighborhood
areas. He stated the Grape Harvest was a lot of fun, and that he also went to the fire station open house.
Council member Spagnolo stated this past week we experienced the ioss of a Deputy for a total of two
deputies over the last year. He stated they were both dedicated men and died in traffic accidents. He
stated people need to slow down when they drive, and to remember to pull over when they hear sirens or
see emergency vehicles with flashing lights. He felt people need to pay attention when they drive and
should drive defensively. He stated courtesy on the road is very important.
Mayor Aiexander stated he would like to place on the next agenda the conside,ation of ,e-establishing the
animal control ad hoc subcommittee as opposed to these types issues being discussed by the full
Council.
12. CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA PLACEMENT FOR COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS
Councilmember Gutierrez stated this has been discussed in other sessions and felt the Council comment
portion should occur earlier in the meeting and not at the end of the meeting. He stated sometimes there
are issues they would like to respond to and that this should occu, eariier in the meeting so people don't
tune out if the meetings go too long. He also feit they should be allowed to speak for five minutes instead
of three minutes.
Counciimembe, Spagnolo stated his only suggestion is for the staff and. Council to ,esearch what people
are bringing up and then a report come back to the Council at the next meeting whatever information is
found.
Councilmember Michael stated if someone knows that comments are not true a Councilmember has
always been able to comment at that moment. He stated the reason Council Comments was moved to
the end of the meeting was to do City business first and then allow the City Council to speak.
Mayor Alexander stated he didn't really feel Council Comments was needed on the agenda at all, that it is
just an opportunity for the Council to toot their own horn.
Councilmember Gutierrez commented that presentations are taking up a long amount of time during a
meeting. He stated this issue was not brought up for a chance to allow the people that watch the
meetings to hea, answers to some of the things that a'e b,ought up. He felt it should be done earlier in
the meeting. He stated in the past, there have been Council members that were put on trial, so to speak,
and should have been defended. This is why he felt this should be moved forward on the agenda.
City Council Minutes
October 19, 2005
Page 12
Councilmember Wiiliams stated this is a City meeting run by the City, but didn't care if this is in the front
or the back of the agenda.
Councilmember Michael asked Mayor Alexander how he felt if a Councilmembe, defends himself after
someone criticizes or attacks him.
Council member Gutierrez felt if someone is making attacking comments, the Mayor shouid address that
person about their comments.
ACTION: No action taken
******
II
J. ADJOURNMENT
II
MOTION: Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Michael to adjourn. Motion carried unanimousiy 5-0. The
meeting adjourned at 9:37 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Approved: .
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 1012512005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228673 10/12/2005 A AND A AUTOMOTIVE 50.00
AP - 00228674 10/12/2005 A AND R TIRE SERVICE 5,081.19
AP - 00228675 10/12/2005 AA EQUIPMENT 28.35
AP - 00228676 10/1212005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 24.24
AP - 00228676 10/1212005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 14.55
AP - 00228676 10/1212005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 105.06
AP - 00228676 10/12/2005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 69.60
AP - 00228676 10/12/2005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 18.05
AP - 00228676 10/12/2005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 51.13
AP - 00228676 10/1212005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 31.66
AP - 00228676 10/12/2005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 40.41
AP - 00228676 10/12/2005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 32.33
AP - 00228677 10/1212005 ABLAC 16.39
AP - 00228678 10/12/2005 ABLETRONICS 32.40
AP - 00228678 10/1212005 ABLETRONICS 14.55
AP - 00228678 10/12/2005 ABLETRONICS 39.60
AP - 00228679 10/1212005 ACTION AWARDS INC 120.74
AP - 00228679 10/12/2005 ACTION AWARDS INC 654.75
AP - 00228679 10/1212005 ACTION AWARDS INC 62.78
AP - 00228679 10/1212005 ACTION AWARDS INC 59.80
AP - 00228680 10/1212005 ADAMSON, RONALD 1,320.00
AP - 00228681 10/1212005 ADVANCE UTILITY SYSTEMS CORP 26,860.40
AP - 00228682 10/12/2005 AEF SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 1.050.00
AP - 00228682 10/12/2005 AEF SYSTEMS CONSULTING INC 1,575.00
AP - 00228683 10/12/2005 AFLAC 14.86
AP - 00228684 10/12/2005 AG ELECTRIC CAR SPECIALISTS 186.79
AP - 00228686 10/12/2005 AJILON FINANCE 2,074.32
AP - 00228686 10/12/2005 AJILON FINANCE 2,414.88
AP - 00228686 10/1212005 AJILON FINANCE 1,238.40
AP - 00228687 10/1212005 AKM CONSULTING ENGINEERING INC 1,278.38
AP - 00228690 10/1212005 . ALT A LOMA ANIMAL HOSPITAL 200.00
AP - 00228691 10/12/2005 AMERICAN BODY ARMOR & EQUIPMENT INC 94.50
AP - 00228692 10/12/2005 AMERICAN CLASSIC SANITATION INC 166.94
AP - 00228693 10/1212005 AMERICAN LANDSCAPE INC 305,000.00
AP - 00228694 10/12/2005 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATION 152.50
AP - 00228695 10/1212005 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 195.97
AP - 00228695 10112/2005 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 146.31
AP - 00228696 10/12/2005 ANAHEIM, CITY OF 283,206.72
AP - 00228697 10/1212005 APG COMPANY 11,655.00
AP - 00228699 10/1212005 ASSE 155.00
AP - 00228700 10/1212005 ASSOCIATED GROUP 5,405.12
AP - 00228701 10/1212005 ASTRUM UTILITY SERVICES 10,997.40
AP - 00228701 10/12/2005 ASTRUM UTILITY SERVICES 6,750.00
AP - 00228702 10/1212005 AUFBAU CORPORATION 12,012.00
AP - 00228704 10/12/2005 AUTO SPECIALISTS 488.03
AP - 00228704 10/1212005 AUTO SPECIALISTS 29.95
AP - 00228704 10/1212005 AUTO SPECIALISTS 191.27
AP - 00228704 10/12/2005 AUTO SPECIALISTS 29.95
AP - 00228704 10/12/2005 AUTO SPECIALISTS 29.95
AP - 00228704 10/1212005 AUTO SPECIALISTS 29.95
AP - 00228705 10/12/2005 BAND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 30.30
AP - 00228705 10/12/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 92.86 I
AP - 00228705 10/1212005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 505.08
User: KFINCHER - Karen Fincher Page: I Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT _RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
A2enda Check Re2ister
10112/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228705 10112/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 101.02
AP - 00228705 10112/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 59Ll7
AP - 00228705 10112/2005 BAND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 202.Q3
AP - 00228705 10112/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 139.88
AP - 00228705 10112/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 33.83
AP - 00228705 10/ I 2/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 634.22
AP - 00228705 10/12/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE II4.98
AP - 00228706 10112/2005 BACKGROUNDS UNLIMITED 750.00
AP - 00228706 101I2/2005 BACKGROUNDS UNLIMITED 750.00
AP - 00228706 10112/2005 BACKGROUNDS UNLIMITED 750.00
AP - 00228706 10112/2005 BACKGROUNDS UNLIMITED 750.00
AP - 00228707 10112/2005 BALDEON, CARLOS 535.50
AP - 00228708 10112/2005 BARNHART INC 8,099.00
AP - 00228708 10112/2005 BARNHART INC -809.90
AP - 00228708 10112/2005 BARNHART INC 28,643.00
AP - 00228708 10112/2005 BARNHART INC 2,004.84
AP - 00228708 10112/2005 BARNHART INC 61,712.80
AP - 00228708 10112/2005 BARNHART INC 1,000.00
AP - 00228708 10112/2005 BARNHART INC 76.524.68
AP - 00228708 10/12/2005 BARNHART INC -13,545.00
AP - 00228709 10112/2005 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 5.140.00
AP - 00228709 10/12/2005 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC II,580.00
AP - 00228709 10112/2005 BEARD PROVENCHER AND ASSOC 2,730.00
AP - 00228710 10112/2005 BEDROCK COMPANY, THE 68.85
AP - 002287 I I 10/ I 2/2005 BERNARD, JEREMY 643.50
AP - 00228712 10/ I 2/2005 BONGARDE HOLDINGS INC 484.95
AP - 00228714 10112/2005 BRUNSWICK DEER CREEK LANES 308.00
AP - 00228715 10/12/2005 BURKE. KAREN 56.70
AP - 00228716 10112/2005 BUSH DECOR & CONSTRUCTION 15.02
AP - 00228717 10/12/2005 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC 23,972.00
AP - 00228718 10/12/2005 CAL PERS LONG TERM CARE 231.92
AP - 00228720 10/12/2005 CALIFORNIA ELECTRONIC ENTRY 355.42
AP - 00228721 10112/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 1,521.83
AP - 00228721 10/12/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 854.92
AP - 00228721 10112/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF -129.33
AP - 00228721 10112/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 28.51
AP - 00228721 10112/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 752.25
AP - 00228722 10112/2005 CALSENSE 1,103.73
AP - 00228722 10112/2005 CALSENSE 2,478.88
AP - 00228722 10112/2005 CALSENSE I,IIO.42
AP - 00228722 10112/2005 CALSENSE 974.90
AP - 00228722 10112/2005 CALSENSE 759.69
AP - 00228722 10112/2005 CALSENSE 1,103.58
AP - 00228723 10112/2005 CARRILLO, TRINA 1,053.00
AP - 00228725 10112/2005 CASTILLO, JESSIE 300.00
AP - 00228726 10112/2005 CCPOA 30.00
AP - 00228727 10112/2005 CENTER ICE ARENA 56.00
AP - 00228728 10/12/2005 CHARTER MEDIA INC 342.00
AP - 00228728 10112/2005 CHARTER MEDIA INC 1,308.00
AP - 00228728 10112/2005 CHARTER MEDIA INC. 350.40
AP - 00228731 10112/2005 CIRCLE CITY ROOFING INC 29.00
AP - 00228732 10112/2005 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 10,167.50 d-
AP - 00228732 10112/2005 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 13,534.50
User: KFINCHER - Karen Fincher Page: 2 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Registe, Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
-----
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228732 10/12/2005 CIVIC SOLUTIONS INC 1,094.25
AP - 00228733 10/12/2005 CLABBY, SANDRA 1,000.00
AP - 00228734 10/12/2005 CLARK, KAREN 150.50
AP - 00228736 10/12/2005 CLOUD, DON 420.00
AP - 00228737 10/12/2005 CMRE FINANCIAL SERVICES INC 233.67
AP - 00228738 10/12/2005 COLOR ME MINE 133.60
AP - 00228739 10/12/2005 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 84.95
AP - 00228739 10/12/2005 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 50.01
AP - 00228739 10/12/2005 COLTON TRUCK SUPPLY 96.24
AP - 00228740 10/12/2005 COMBINED MARTIAL SCIENCE INC 2,593.50
AP - 00228742 10/12/2005 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION 13,650.00
AP - 00228742 10/12/2005 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION -1,365.00
AP - 00228742 10/12/2005 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION -210.00
AP - 00228742 10/12/2005 COSCO FIRE PROTECTION 2,100.00
AP - 00228744 10/12/2005 CROWNER SHEET METAL 4,533.75
AP - 00228744 10/12/2005 CROWNER SHEET METAL -69.75
AP - 00228744 10/12/2005 CROWNER SHEET METAL -453.38
AP - 00228744 10/12/2005 CROWNER SHEET METAL 697.50
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 172.88
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 147.08
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 147.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 4,603.39
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 662.48
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 367.28
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 537.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 87.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 68.48
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 504.72
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 292.28
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,347.76
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.48
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,803.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 644.48
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 55.20
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 206.77
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 301.26
AP - 00228747 10/ t 2/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 432.08
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,910.48
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 158.42
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 843.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 675.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,455.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,677.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 94.88
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 279.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 66.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 74.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 178.58
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 36.08
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 55.20 -3
User: KF1NCHER - Ka,en Fincher Page: 3 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Po,t,ait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Agenda Check Register
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 535.28
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 492.44
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 163.28
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 915.68
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,429.28
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 106.88
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,454.48
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 217.28
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 102.16
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 73.60
AP - 00228747 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 106.88
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 184.42
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 882.Q7
AP - 00228747 1011212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,874.08
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 866.08
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 42.98
AP - 00228747 10112/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 147.68
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 152.56
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 189.68
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 696.08
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 271.28
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,045.28
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 836.48
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 918.08
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 864.08
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 68.68
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,718.12
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 174.68
AP - 00228747 10112/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 176.48
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 507.68
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 111.68
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 193.28
AP - 00228747 1011212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 381.68
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 259.28
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONUA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 44.48
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 26.18
AP - 00228747 1011212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 993.08
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 203.48
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 83.48
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT t68.08
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 301.88
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 87.08
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 58.58
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 136.28
AP - 00228747 10/1212005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 195.08
AP - 00228748 10/12/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1,354.88
AP - 00228749 10/1212005 D 3 EQUIPMENT 86.49
AP - 00228751 10/1212005 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 358.27
AP - 00228751 10/12/2005 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 495.65
AP - 00228751 10/1212005 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 755.33
AP - 00228751 10/1212005 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 1,113.60
AP - 00228751 10/12/2005 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 455.25 cf
AP - 00228751 10/12/2005 D AND K CONCRETE COMPANY 455.25
User: KFINCHER - Karen Finche, Page: 4 Current Date: 1O/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Aeenda Check Reeister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228752 10/12/2005 DAGHDEVIRIAN, KATHY 1,296.00
AP - 00228753 10/12/2005 DANCE TERRIFIC 2,863.04
AP - 00228756 10/12/2005 DAPPER TIRE CO 540.63
AP - 00228757 10/12/2005 DE PINHO ROOFING INC. 40.00
AP - 00228758 10/12/2005 DEER CREEK CAR CARE CENTER 86.00
AP - 00228759 10/12/2005 DEL MECHANICAL 151.25
AP - 00228759 10/12/2005 DEL MECHANICAL 211.99
AP - 00228760 10/12/2005 DELANY, DANI 144.00
AP - 00228761 10/12/2005 DELTA DENTAL 32,444.85
AP - 00228762 10/12/2005 DEMPSTER, KERI 216.00
AP - 00228763 10/12/2005 DICK, ERIC 50.00
AP - 00228763 10/12/2005 DICK, ERIC 50.00
AP - 00228764 10112/2005 DIETERICH INTERNATIONAL TRUCK 178.30
AP - 00228766 10112/2005 DIVERSIFIED PRODUCTS 339.90
AP - 00228767 10/12/2005 DOUBLET-DE LION, PATRICIA 619.50
AP - 00228768 10112/2005 DUFFY, RICK 2,826.25
AP - 00228769 10/12/2005 DYAN,DIANE 399.00
AP - 00228770 10/12/2005 DYNASTY GYM 1,264.80
AP - 00228771 10/12/2005 EASTON SPORTS DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATIOI 392.00
AP - 00228772 10/12/2005 ELECTRONICS WAREHOUSE 23.36
AP - 00228773 10/12/2005 EMCOR SERVICE 6,495.74
AP - 00228774 10/12/2005 ENVIRONMENTAL RECOVERY SERVICES INC. 1,640.73
AP - 00228775 10/12/2005 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 40.51
AP - 00228775 10/12/2005 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 296.31
AP - 00228775 10/1212005 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 49.93
AP - 0022877 5 10/12/2005 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 57.89
AP - 00228775 10/12/2005 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 96.86
AP - 00228776 10112/2005 EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY 55.14
AP - 00228776 1011212005 EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY 138.70
AP - 00228776 10/12/2005 EXPRESS BRAKE SUPPLY 138.26
AP - 00228777 10112/2005 F S MOTOR SPORTS INC 200.00
AP - 00228778 10/12/2005 F ASTENAL COMPANY lOOm
AP - 00228778 10/12/2005 FASTENALCOMPANY 8.49
AP - 00228778 10/12/2005 FASTENAL COMPANY 33.14
AP - 00228779 10/12/2005 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 16.63
AP - 00228779 10/12/2005 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 18.70
AP - 00228779 10/12/2005 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 28.44
AP - 00228780 10/12/2005 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC 152.15.
AP - 00228781 10/12/2005 FILARSKY AND WATT 1,782.50
AP - 00228782 10/12/2005 FILTER RECYCLING SERVICE INC 178.50
AP - 00228783 10/12/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 471.75
AP - 00228783 10/12/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,287.00
AP - 00228783 10/12/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,332.00
AP - 00228783 10/12/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 840.00
AP - 00228783 10/12/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 868.00
AP - 00228783 10/12/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 570.00
AP - 00228783 10/12/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 565.25
AP - 00228786 10/12/2005 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 408.12
AP - 00228786 10/12/2005 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 75.73
AP - 00228787 10/12/2005 FISHER, THERESA 750.00
AP - 00228788 10/12/2005 FORD OF UPLAND INC 222.76
AP - 00228788 10/12/2005 FORD OF UPLAND INC 41.20 S--
AP - 00228789 10/12/2005 FUKUSHIMA, JUDITH 2,385.00
User: KFINCHER - Karen Fincher Page: 5 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Registe, Po't,ait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Agenda Check Register
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228791 10/12/2005 GARNER, CATHLEEN 41.80
AP - 00228792 10/12/2005 GAYLORD BROTHERS 219.29
AP - 00228792 10/12/2005 GAYLORD BROTHERS 652.05
AP - 00228793 10/12/2005 GIORDANO, MARIANNA 174.00
AP - 00228795 10/12/2005 GOLDEN WEST OIL INC 32.50
AP - 00228796 10/12/2005 GOLF VENTURES WEST 14.98
AP - 00228797 10/12/2005 GONZALES, CARLOS noo
AP - 00228798 10/12/2005 GRAINGER 72.31
AP - 00228799 10/12/2005 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 3,045.46
AP - 00228799 10/12/2005 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 2,389.86
AP - 00228800 10/12/2005 HAINES AND COMPANY INC 307.58
AP - 0022880 I 10/12/2005 HALO BASEBALL CLUB 2,000.00
AP - 00228802 10/12/2005 HANGER 18 LLC. 287.00
AP - 00228803 10/12/2005 HANSON, BARRYE 1,920.00
AP - 00228804 10/12/2005 HDL COREN AND CONE 250.00
AP - 00228805 10/12/2005 HEILIG, KELLY 1,036.20
AP - 00228806 10/12/2005 HOLLIDAY ROCK CO INC 14,620.37
AP - 00228807 10/12/2005 HOLT'S AUTO ELECTRIC INC 242.44
AP - 00228809 10/12/2005 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 8.21
AP - 00228809 10/12/2005 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 208.17
AP - 00228809 10/12/2005 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 80.12
AP - 00228809 10/12/2005 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 41.59
AP - 00228810 10/12/2005 HOYT LUMBER CO., SM 54.24
AP - 00228811 10/12/2005 HOYT, RAYMOND 957.60
AP - 00228812 10/12/2005 HSU, STEVE 216.00
AP - 00228814 10112/2005 HUNTINGTON HARDWARE 318.90
AP - 00228815 10/12/2005 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 38.79
AP - 00228815 10112/2005 HYDROSCAPEPRODUCTSINC 454.86
AP - 00228815 10/12/2005 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 92.99
AP - 00228816 10/12/2005 IBM CORPORATION 1,870.62
AP - 00228816 10112/2005 IBM CORPORATION 1,297.00
AP - 00228816 10/12/2005 IBM CORPORATION 9,328.51
AP - 00228817 10/12/2005 IBM CORPORATION 1,327.48
AP - 00228817 10/12/2005 IBM CORPORATION 2,801.46
AP - 00228817 10/12/2005 IBM CORPORATION 883.96
AP - 00228817 10/12/2005 IBM CORPORATION 58,980.19
AP - 00228820 10/12/2005 INGERSOLL RAND 310.08
AP - 00228821 10/12/2005 INLAND V ALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 191.00
AP - 00228821 10/12/2005 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 638.40
AP - 00228821 10/12/2005 INLAND V ALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 154.00
AP - 00228821 10/12/2005 INLAND V ALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 83.68
AP - 00228821 10/12/2005 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 670.80
AP - 00228822 10/12/2005 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 18.00
AP - 00228823 10/12/2005 INLAND V ALLEY DANCE ACADEMY 3,555.00
AP - 00228824 10/12/2005 INSIGHT DIRECT 5,511.43
AP - 00228825 10/12/2005 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 41.50
AP - 00228825 10/12/2005 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 324.44
AP - 00228825 10/12/2005 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 210.05
AP - 00228825 10/12/2005 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 140.04
AP - 00228825 10/12/2005 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 207.55
AP - 00228825 10/12/2005 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 112.40
AP - 00228826 10/12/2005 ISA 145.00
AP - 00228827 10/12/2005 ISA 145.00 !p
User: KFINCHER - Karen Finche, Page: 6 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG]ORTRAIT _RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: t3:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!:enda Check Rel!:ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228828 10/12/2005 ISEC INCORPORATED 280.35
AP - 00228828 10/12/2005 ISEC INCORPORATED -28.04
AP - 00228828 10/12/2005 ISEC INCORPORATED -23.14
AP - 00228828 10/12/2005 ISEC INCORPORATED 231.44
AP - 00228829 10/12/2005 JOBS AVAILABLE INC 122,40
AP - 00228830 10/12/2005 JOHNSTON CONSULTING, CHRIS 1,575.00
AP - 00228831 10/12/2005 IONES AND MAYER LAW OFFICES OF 2,150.31
AP - 00228831 to/12/2005 JONES AND MAYER LAW OFFICES OF 200.00
AP - 00228832 10/12/2005 JONES, BOB 2,560.00
AP - 00228833 10/12/2005 KAMAN INDUSTRIAL TECHNOLOGIES 814.14
AP - 00228834 10/12/2005 KAPLAN, DENEAN 1,101.60
AP - 00228835 10/12/2005 KC PRINTING & GRAPHICS INC 618.57
AP - 00228836 10/12/2005 KELLY EQUIPMENT 7U6
AP - 00228838 10/12/2005 KNOTTS BERRY FARM 1,484.00
AP - 00228839 101 t 2/2005 KOZLOVICH, DEBBIE 4,528.50
AP - 00228840 10/12/2005 LEHIGH SAFETY SHOE COMPANY 75,43
AP - 00228841 10/12/2005 LIM, HEATHER 1,122.00
AP - 00228842 10/12/2005 LIVE OAK DOG OBEDIENCE 660.00
AP - 00228844 10/12/2005 LOS ANGELES FREIGHTLINER 345.06
AP - 00228845 10/12/2005 MAGRUDER, KAREN 210.60
AP - 00228846 10/12/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 17,036.64
AP - 00228846 10/12/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,464.17
AP - 00228846 10/12/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 8,80U5
AP - 00228846 10/12/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 130.61
AP - 00228846 10/12/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 17,462.73
AP - 00228846 101l2/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 9,093.84
AP - 00228846 10/12/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 130.61
AP - 00228846 10/1212005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,681.56
AP - 00228846 10/12/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 5,078.68
AP - 00228846 101l212005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,263.37
AP - 00228846 10/12/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 8,80U5
AP - 00228847 10/12/2005 MARK CHRIS INC 76.03
AP - 00228848 10/12/2005 MARSHALL, SYLVIA 1,557.00
AP - 00228850 10/12/2005 MEYER, PATRICIA 27.00
AP - 00228851 10/12/2005 MILLS, CAREY 1,200.00
AP - 00228852 10/12/2005 MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA n 24,581.51
AP - 00228852 10/12/2005 MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC & ELECTRONICS USA n -2,458.16
AP - 00228853 10/12/2005 MOE, JOHN 378.00
AP - 00228854 10/12/2005 MONARCH COIN & SECURITY 1,085.29
AP - 00228855 10/12/2005 MOUNTAIN VIEW GLASS AND MIRROR 267.10
AP - 00228856 10/12/2005 MOUNTAIN VIEW SMALL ENG REPAIR 27,48
AP - 00228857 10/12/2005 MUNICIPAL INFO. SYSTEMS ASSOC. OF CALIF. 240.00
AP - 00228859 10/12/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS 36.09
AP - 00228859 10/12/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS -59.25
AP - 00228859 10/12/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS 42.54
AP - 00228859 10/12/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS 16.75
AP - 00228860 10/12/2005 NASH, JESSICA 643.50
AP - 00228861 10/12/2005 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS INC 671.33
AP - 00228861 10/12/2005 NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION RENTALS INC 143.52
AP - 00228862 10/12/2005 NATIONAL DEFERRED 17,941.62
AP - 00228863 10/12/2005 NIKPOUR, MOHAMMED 48.00
AP - 00228864 10/12/2005 NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL 1,600.25
AP - 00228865 10/12/2005 NO KILL SOLUTIONS 3,109.74 7
User: KFINCHER - Ka,en Fincher Page: 7 Current Date: 1O/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
A2enda Check Re2ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 1,059.03
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 87.17
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 117.92
AP - 00228867 lO/t2/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 232.54
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 165.68
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 75.49
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 342.71
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 167.67
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 147.57
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 227.78
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 67.65
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 75.11
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 153.30
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT -26.97
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 45.78
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 14.12
AP - 00228867 10112/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 85.81
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 56.99
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 4Ll6
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 35.31
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 60.45
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 291.98
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 378.61
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 81.24
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 7.35
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 17.93
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 53.08
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 104.96
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 16.99
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 13.71
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 4.73
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 8.11
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 14.18
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 127.02
AP - 00228867 101 t 2/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 552.15
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 8.23
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 107.74
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 9.97
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 27.51
AP - 00228867 10/12/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 35.53
AP - 00228868 10/12/2005 ONTARIO ICE SKATING CENTER 890.40
AP - 00228869 10/12/2005 ONTARIO WINNELSON CO 153.39
AP - 00228870 10/12/2005 ORACLE CORP 868.59
AP - 00228871 10/12/2005 OWEN ELECTRIC 112.50
AP - 00228872 10/12/2005 PACIFIC EQUIP AND IRRIGATION INC 41.71
AP - 00228872 10/12/2005 PACIFIC EQUIP AND IRRIGATION INC 241.96
AP - 00228874 10/12/2005 PARKER, SHANNON 240.00
AP - 00228875 10/12/2005 PEACOCK SYSTEMS 440.70
AP - 00228876 10/12/2005 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC -25.00
AP - 00228876 10/12/2005 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC -230.25
AP - 00228876 10/12/2005 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC -470.88
AP - 00228876 10/12/2005 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 201.77 ~
AP - 00228876 10/12/2005 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 1,572.72
User: KFINCHER - Karen Fincher Page: 8 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT _RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228876 10/12/2005 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 229.87
AP - 00228877 10/12/2005 PIONEER MANUFACTURING 2,303.16
AP - 00228878 10/12/2005 PMI 1,058.40
AP - 00228880 10/12/2005 POUK AND STEINLE INC. 48,463.75
AP - 00228880 10/12/2005 POUK AND STEINLE INC. 5,803.92
AP - 00228881 10/12/2005 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 6.81
AP - 00228882 10/12/2005 PRECISION GYMNASTICS 2,104.90
AP - 00228883 10/12/2005 PRIMA MOSI 525.25
AP - 00228885 10/12/2005 PROJECT SISTER 81.00
AP - 00228886 10/12/2005 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 7.00
AP - 00228887 10/12/2005 RAMOS, GRETT A 336.00
AP - 00228888 10/12/2005 RANCHO CUCAMONGA QUAKES PROFESSIONI 770.00
AP - 00228889 10/12/2005 RANCHO CUCAMONGA QUAKES PROFESSIONI 420.00
AP - 00228890 10/12/2005 RCPFA 6,953.79
AP - 00228891 10/12/2005 RECREATION & PARK CONFERENCE 1,115.00
AP - 00228892 10/12/2005 REINHARDT, RITA 192.00
AP - 00228893 10/12/2005 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 3,973.79
AP - 00228893 10/12/2005 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 1,690.16
AP - 00228894 10/12/2005 RI TEC INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 284.00
AP - 00228894 10/12/2005 RI TEC INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS 266.06
AP - 00228895 10/12/2005 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 364.00
AP - 00228896 10/12/2005 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 40.36
AP - 00228896 10/12/2005 RIVERSIDE BLUEPRINT 944.11
AP - 00228897 10/12/2005 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 85.00
AP - 00228897 10/12/2005 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 60.00
AP - 00228897 10/12/2005 ROBLES SR, RAUL P 110.00
AP - 00228898 10/12/2005 RODRIGUEZ INC, R Y 190.00
AP - 00228900 10/12/2005 S AND K ENGINEERS 110.00
AP - 0022890 I 10112/2005 SAMPLES, KRISTY 45.18
AP - 00228903 10/12/2005 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR CONTRC 184.50
AP - 00228903 10/12/2005 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR CONTRC 246.00
AP - 00228903 10112/2005 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY AUDITOR CONTRC 184.50
AP - 00228905 10/12/2005 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 1,058.50
AP - 00228906 10112/2005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY RECORDERS OFFICE 55.00
AP - 00228907 10/12/2005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 82.20
AP - 00228908 10/12/2005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 2.967.53
AP - 00228909 10/12/2005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 6,871.70
AP - 00228910 10/12/2005 SAN DIEGO NATIONAL BANK 32,726.21
AP - 00228910 10/12/2005 SAN DIEGO NATIONAL BANK 7,404.66
AP - 00228911 10/12/2005 SANTOS, MANNY 72.00
AP - 00228912 10/12/2005 SASI MARBLE AND GRANITE 22.88
AP - 00228913 10/12/2005 SBC LONG DISTANCE 1,707.00
AP - 00228914 10/12/2005 SBC 1,360.93
AP - 00228915 10/12/2005 SCHOLTEN ROOFING 5.73
AP - 00228916 10/12/2005 SCOTTI, RENATO 2,971.56
AP - 00228917 10112/2005 SHAFER. DAYNA 270.00
AP - 00228918 10/12/2005 SIERRA SPRINGS 209.97
AP - 00228919 10/12/2005 SIGN SHOP, THE 16.16
AP - 00228920 10/12/2005 SIM,RAY A 1,096.86
AP - 00228921 10/12/2005 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 633.57
AP - 00228922 lOll 2/2005 SONITROL OF SAN BERNARDINO 48.15
AP - 00228922 lOll 2/2005 SONITROL OF SAN BERNARDINO 48.15
AP - 00228923 10/12/2005 SOUTH COAST AQMD 81.89 9
User: KFINCHER - Karen Finche, Page: 9 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Registe, Porlrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!:enda Check Rel!:ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228923 10/12/2005 SOUTH COAST AQMD 130.26
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3,069.09
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.83
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 11,472.54
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 113.48
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 98.99
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.66
AP - 00228927 I bIl 2/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.24
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4.32
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.23
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.24
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.53
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 84.37
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4.32
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 42.25
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 66.83
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.14
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.47
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.96
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 59.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2,038.55
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIAEDISON 55.28
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.90
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 100.72
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.21
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 110.71
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 78.41
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.36
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.00
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6L7t
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 88.60
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.23
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.02
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23,062.81
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 9L10
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.18
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.Q4
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.55
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 5L10
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6,287.50
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 51.80
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 108.23
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.66 /6
User: KFINCHER - Karen Fincher Page: 10 Current Date: 1O/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG]ORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Agenda Check Register
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 178.67
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.84
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.04
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 89.13
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73.00
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 131.81
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.48
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 555.87
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 72.36
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.12
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.22
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.22
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.53
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 444.06
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.57
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.17
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.99
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.73
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 219.08
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.58
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 234.46
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 127.05
AP'- 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.06
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 196.77
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 33.31
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 62.38
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 114.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.78
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.57
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 39.Q4
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.93
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.57
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 157.78
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 8,552.58
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 104.74
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 127.55
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.08
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.23
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 47.81
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.16
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.04
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 305.95
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.14
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.73
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.17
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 40.13
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 17.14
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.30
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 127.83 It
User: KFINCHER - Ka,en Fincher Page: 11 Current Date: 1O/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Registe, Po,t,a!t Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!:enda Check RCl!:ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.71
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 56.21
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 260.26
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.48
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 79.09
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 125.91
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.66
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 29.81
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 55.53
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.24
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 6,394.53
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 28.99
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1I6.80
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.81
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.77
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.90
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 60.01
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.65
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.24
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.63
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00228927 10112/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.23
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 19.74
AP - 00228927 10112/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 87.93
AP - 00228927 10112/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 14.23
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 80.36
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 110.65
AP - 00228927 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.65
AP - 00228928 10/12/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 5,526.02
AP - 00228929 10/12/2005 SOUTHWEST MOBILE STORAGE INC 175.60
AP - 00228930 10/12/2005 SPARKLETTS 34.50
AP - 00228931 10/12/2005 SPECTRA COMPANY 1,271.00
AP - 00228932 10/12/2005 STANDARD DRYWALL INC 241,064.41
AP - 00228932 10/12/2005 STANDARD DRYWALL INC 388,856.61
AP - 00228932 10/12/2005 STANDARD DRYWALL INC 32.250.84
AP - 00228932 10/12/2005 STANDARD DRYWALL INC -24,106.44
AP - 00228932 10/12/2005 STANDARD DRYWALL INC -38,885.66
AP - 00228932 10/12/2005 STANDARD DRYWALL INC -3,225.08
AP - 00228934 10/12/2005 STEGERINC 16.20
AP - 00228935 10/12/2005 STRATFORD, GAYLE 135.00
AP - 00228936 10/12/2005 SUNRISE FORD 233.45
AP - 00228936 10/12/2005 SUNRISE FORD 18.23
AP - 00228936 10/12/2005 SUNRISE FORD 107.56
AP - 00228936 10/12/2005 SUNRISE FORD 107.56
AP - 00228936 10/12/2005 SUNRISE FORD 18.62
AP - 00228937 10/12/2005 SUNSHINE GROWERS 1I6.78
AP - 00228938 10/12/2005 T AND D INSTALLATIONS 149.73
AP - 00228938 10/12/2005 T AND D INST ALLA TIONS 630.88
AP - 00228939 10/12/2005 TANGRAM INTERIORS 2.460.27 /,)
User: KFINCHER - Ka,en Finche, Page: 12 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
\ 10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228939 10/12/2005 TANGRAM INTERIORS -1,030.27
AP - 00228940 10/12/2005 TECH DEPOT 453.63
AP - 00228940 10/12/2005 TECH DEPOT 1,199.26
AP - 00228941 10/12/2005 TELEWORKS 20,650.00
AP - 00228943 10/12/2005 TERRA LINDA PROPERTIES LLC 125.76
AP - 00228944 10/12/2005 TERRY, DONNA 327.25
AP - 00228945 10/12/2005 THEWES, KRISTINE 405.00
AP - 00228946 10/12/2005 THOMAS, KIMBERLY 30.38
AP - 00228946 10/12/2005 THOMAS, KIMBERLY 117.37
AP - 00228946 10/12/2005 THOMAS, KIMBERLY 10.17
AP - 00228947 10/12/2005 TOXGUARD 403.09
AP - 00228948 10/12/2005 TRICOCHE, CAROL 200.00
AP - 00228949 10/12/2005 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 173.83
AP - 00228949 10/12/2005 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 94.45
AP - 00228949 10/12/2005 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 56.82
AP - 00228949 10/12/2005 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 2,552.06
AP - 00228949 10/12/2005 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 1,722.70
AP - 00228949 10/12/2005 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 1.576.79
AP - 00228949 10/12/2005 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 371.79
AP - 00228949 10/12/2005 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 1,440.32
AP - 00228949 10/12/2005 TRUGREEN LANDCARE 3,355.26
AP - 00228950 10112/2005 TUTORWHIZ INC 34.20
AP - 00228950 10/12/2005 TUTORWHIZ INC 171.50
AP - 00228950 10112/2005 TUTORWHIZ INC 171.50
AP - 00228950 10/12/2005 TUTORWHIZ INC 68.60
AP - 00228950 10/12/2005 TUTORWHIZ INC 137.20
AP - 00228950 10/12/2005 TUTORWHIZ INC 34.20
AP - 00228951 10112/2005 UGOT2DOIT INC 75.00
AP - 00228952 10/12/2005 UMPS ARE US ASSOCIATION 3,289.00
AP - 00228953 10/12/2005 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 196.85
AP - 00228953 10/12/2005 UNDERGROUND SVC ALERT OF SO CAL 192.20
AP - 00228954 10/12/2005 UNDERGROUNDTECHNOLOGYINC 634.20
AP - 00228954 10/12/2005 UNDERGROUNDTECHNOLOGYINC 673.70
AP - 00228954 10/12/2005 UNDERGROUNDTECHNOLOGYINC 262.50
AP - 00228954 10/12/2005 UNDERGROUNDTECHNOLOGYINC 629.80
AP - 00228954 10/12/2005 UNDERGROUNDTECHNOLOGYINC 397.25
AP - 00228954 10112/2005 UNDERGROUNDTECHNOLOGYINC 737.70
AP - 00228954 10/12/2005 UNDERGROUND TECHNOLOGY INC 375.80
AP - 00228954 10/12/2005 UNDERGROUNDTECHNOLOGYINC 570.70
AP - 00228954 10/12/2005 UNDERGROUND TECHNOLOGY INC 332.70
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 48.46
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 3UI
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 97.03
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 805.80
AP - 00228955 lO/t2/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 50.15
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 3UI
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 97.03
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 718.80
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 97.03
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 3Ut
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 50.15
AP - 00228955 10/12/2005 UNIFIRST UNIFORM SERVICE 851.90
AP - 00228956 10/12/2005 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR p, 2,853.34 /3
User: KFINCHER - Karen Finche, Page: 13 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT _RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
A2enda Check Re2ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228956 10/12/2005 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR p, 33,525.32
AP - 00228957 10/12/2005 UNITED WAY 46.00
AP - 00228958 10/12/2005 UPLAND MUSIC SCHOOL 1,834.00
AP - 00228959 10/12/2005 UPLAND TENNIS CLUB 2,160.00
AP - 00228960 10/12/2005 UPSCO POWERSAFE SYSTEMS INC 3,450.00
AP - 00228961 10/12/2005 UPS 23.32
AP - 00228961 10/12/2005 UPS 21.00
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 58.54
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 44.12
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 29.26
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 123.84
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 28.30
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 28.30
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 59.61
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 29.30
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 574.95
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 29.26
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 29.26
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 29.26
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 148.21
AP - 00228964 10/12/2005 VERIZON 1,247.95
AP - 00228964 10112/2005 VERIZON 158.73
AP - 00228965 10112/2005 VERIZON 300.24
AP - 00228966 10/12/2005 VILLAGE NURSERIES 697.24
AP - 00228967 10112/2005 VIRTUAL PROJECT MANAGER INC 500.00
AP - 00228967 10/12/2005 VIRTUAL PROJECT MANAGER INC 500.00
AP - 00228969 10/12/2005 VONS EMPLOYEE ASSOCIATION 400.00
AP - 00228970 10/12/2005 WAND W STEEL COMPANY 19,947.96
AP - 00228970 10/12/2005 WAND W STEEL COMPANY -815.88
AP - 00228970 10/12/2005 WAND W STEEL COMPANY -1,994.80
AP - 00228970 10/12/2005 WAND W STEEL COMPANY 8,158.71
AP - 00228973 10/12/2005 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 199.88
AP - 00228973 10/12/2005 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 40.35
AP - 00228973 10/12/2005 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 71.81
AP - 00228973 10/12/2005 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 52.76
AP - 00228973 10/12/2005 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 108.80
AP - 00228973 10/12/2005 WALTERS WHOLESALE ELECTRIC CO 301.70
AP - 00228974 10/12/2005 WALTON CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 500.00
AP - 00228975 10/12/2005 WATER OF LIFE COMMUNITY CHURCH 545.00
AP - 00228975 10/12/2005 WATER OF LIFE COMMUNITY CHURCH 2,500.00
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 195.11
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 126.41
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 730.37
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 435.83
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 69.39 If
User: KFINCHER - Karen Finche, Page: 14 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Registe, Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 627.88
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 16.81
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 88.79
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 930.09
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY -25.56
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 656.15
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 267.22
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 12.12
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 469.90
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 2,216.68
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 725.31
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 259.38
AP - 00228977 10/12/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 105.06
AP - 00228977 10112/2005 W AXlE SANITARY SUPPLY 117.44
AP - 00228978 10/12/2005 WELLS FARGO BANK 1,750.00
AP - 00228978 10/12/2005 WELLS FARGO BANK 1,750.00
AP - 00228979 10/12/2005 WFS FINANCIAL 2,131.00
AP - 00228980 10/12/2005 WILLIAMS, MARILYN 372.00
AP - 00228981 10/12/2005 WILSON AND BELL 849.67
AP - 00228982 10/12/2005 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 7,385.68
AP - 00228982 10/12/2005 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 1,800.15
AP - 00228982 10/12/2005 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 2,971.04
AP - 00228982 10/12/2005 WSA US GUARDS CO INC 6,298.63
AP - 00228984 10/12/2005 YEE, LARRY 16.00
AP - 00228985 10/12/2005 ZAILO, ROBERT 201.60
AP - 00228985 10/12/2005 ZAILO, ROBERT 86.40
AP - 00228986 10/1912005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 36.16
AP - 00228986 10/19/2005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 10.00
AP - 00228986 10/19/2005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 72.50
AP - 00228986 10/19/2005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 10.78
AP - 00228986 10/19/2005 ABC LOCKSMITHS 62.50
AP - 00228987 10/19/2005 ABLAC 298.44
AP - 00228989 10/19/2005 ACH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC 98,752.56
AP - 00228989 10/19/2005 ACH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC 35,646.11
AP - 00228989 10/19/2005 ACH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC 15,192.70
AP - 00228989 10/19/2005 ACH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC -9,875.26
AP - 00228989 10/19/2005 ACH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC -1,519.27
AP - 00228989 10/19/2005 ACH MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS INC -3,564.61
AP - 00228990 10/19/2005 ACTION IMAGES 1,325.33
AP - 00228991 10/19/2005 ACUTINT AND GRAPHICS . 115.00
AP - 00228992 10/19/2005 ADAMSON, RONALD 1,188.00
AP - 00228993 10/19/2005 ADOBE ANIMAL HOSPITAL 200.00
AP - 00228994 10/19/2005 AFLAC 1,068.44
AP - 00228995 10/19/2005 AGUILAR, MARIELENA 90.00
AP - 00228996 10/19/2005 AGUIRRE, PARIS 700.00
AP - 00228998 10/19/2005 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES 7,519.00
AP - 00228998 10/19/2005 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT SERVICES 12,286.89
AP - 00228999 10/19/2005 ALL STAR RAINGUTTERS 744.50
AP - 00229000 10/19/2005 ALPERT PRINTING 1,202.49
AP - 00229000 10/19/2005 ALPERT PRINTING 0.42
AP - 00229001 10/19/2005 ALPHA GRAPHICS 354.07
AP - 00229002 10/19/2005 ALTALOMA I AND II JOINT VENTURE 104,769.52
AP - 00229003 10/19/2005 AL T A LOMA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES 3,750.00 1-0
User: KFINCHER - Ka,en Fincher Page: 15 Current Date: 1O/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Port,ait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00229004 10/19/2005 AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH INC 208,000.00
AP - 00229004 10/19/2005 AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH INC 133,601.66
AP - 00229004 10/19/2005 AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH INC -20,800.00
AP - 00229004 10/19/2005 AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH INC -13,360.17
AP - 00229007 10/19/2005 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 195.97
AP - 00229008 10/19/2005 ANDRADE, LAINI 11.16
AP - 00229009 10/19/2005 ANTIMITE 250.00
AP - 00229010 10/19/2005 ARCH WIRELESS 1,006.21
AP - 00229011 10/19/2005 ARCHlTERRA DESIGN GROUP 1,008.00
AP - 00229011 10/1912005 ARCHlTERRA DESIGN GROUP 6,525.00
AP - 00229012 10/19/2005 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 180.92
AP - 00229012 10/19/2005 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 1,064.49
AP - 00229012 10/19/2005 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 116.90
AP - 00229012 10/19/2005 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 116.90
AP - 00229012 10/19/2005 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 397.23
AP - 00229012 10/19/2005 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 25.00
AP - 00229012 10/19/2005 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 652.75
AP - 00229012 10/19/2005 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 191.90
AP - 00229012 10/1912005 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 221.90
AP - 00229012 10/19/2005 ARROWHEAD CREDIT UNION 404.80
AP - 00229013 10/19/2005 AT AND T 154.88
AP - 00229014 10/19/2005 A V ANTS, MARGE 180.00
AP - 00229015 10/19/2005 BAND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 61.01
AP - 00229015 10/19/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 68.13
AP - 00229015 10/19/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 505.08
AP - 00229015 10/19/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 204.73
AP - 00229015 10/19/2005 B AND K ELECTRIC WHOLESALE 136.35
AP - 00229016 10/19/2005 BABER, TAYYABA 49.00
AP - 00229017 10/19/2005 BARNES, BESSIE 71.00
AP - 00229018 10/19/2005 BAUTISTA, CAROLINE 100.00
AP - 00229019 10/19/2005 BEST BEST AND KRIEGER 9,375.00
AP - 00229021 10/19/2005 BLANCO, MARK 325.00
AP - 00229022 10/19/2005 BRICKEN AND ASSOCIATES, GORDON 1,200.00
AP - 00229023 10/19/2005 BURR CYCLES INC, JOHN 498.65
AP - 00229024 10/19/2005 BUSAM, JUDY 60.00
AP - 00229025 10/19/2005 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC 2,248.34
AP - 00229026 10/19/2005 BUTSKO UTILITY DESIGN INC 1,025.00
AP - 00229028 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA CHIP SEAL ASSOCIATION 99.00
AP - 00229031 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 22.50
AP - 00229032 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 37.50
AP - 00229033 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 25.25
AP - 00229033 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 31.25
AP - 00229033 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 30.03
AP - 00229033 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 19.25
AP - 00229033 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 89.00
AP - 00229033 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 26.23
AP - 00229033 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 34.44
AP - 00229034 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 3,104.00
AP - 00229034 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 3,168.00
AP - 00229034 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 771.00
AP - 00229034 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 14.00
AP - 00229034 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 676.00
AP - 00229034 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 2,688.00 It.
User: KFINCHER - Ka,en Fincher Page: 16 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG]ORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Registe, Po,t,ait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/2512005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00229034 10/19/2005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 32.00
AP - 00229034 10/1912005 CALIFORNIA, ST ATE OF 1,415.00
AP - 00229035 10/1912005 CALIFORNIA, STATE OF 443.69
AP - 00229036 10/1912005 CENTENO, ROCIO 250.00
AP - 00229037 10/1912005 CENTEX HOMES 64,231.86
AP - 00229038 10/19/2005 CHAFFEY JOINT UNION HS DISTRICT 7,694.30
AP - 00229039 10/19/2005 CHAMPION AWARDS AND SPECIALIES 12.93
AP - 00229040 10/19/2005 CHARTER MEDIA INC 753.60
AP - 00229040 10/1912005 CHARTER MEDIA INC 1,140.80
AP - 00229040 10/1912005 CHARTER MEDIA INC 313.60
AP - 00229041 10/1912005 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERNMENT : 42.50
AP - 00229042 10/1912005 CLARKE PLUMBING SPECIALTIES INC 19.65
AP - 00229043 10/1912005 COMMUNITY BANK 58,759.73
AP - 00229043 10/19/2005 COMMUNITY BANK 1,615.66
AP - 00229044 10/1912005 CORAL POWER 25,188.08
AP - 00229046 10/1912005 CORNEJO, JESSICA 57.00
AP - 00229048 10/1912005 COURT TRUSTEE 200.00
AP - 00229049 10/19/2005 COURT TRUSTEE 118.50
AP - 00229050 10/19/2005 CPSRPTC 299.00
AP - 00229051 10/19/2005 CREATIVE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS 2,500.00
AP - 00229052 10/19/2005 CSMFO 100.00
AP - 00229053 10/19/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 138.08
AP - 00229053 10/19/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 489.08
AP - 00229053 10/1912005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 74.48
AP - 00229053 10/1912005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 88.88
AP - 00229053 10/1912005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 288.08
AP - 00229053 10/19/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 204.98
AP - 00229053 10/19/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 120.08
AP - 00229053 10/19/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 547.88
AP - 00229053 10/1912005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 472.88
AP - 00229053 10/1912005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 214.28
AP - 00229053 10/1912005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 229.28
AP - 00229053 10/1912005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT . 1,128.68
AP - 00229053 10/19/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 89.68
AP - 00229053 10/1912005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 57.72
AP - 00229053 10/19/2005 CUCAMONGA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 93.08
AP - 00229053 10/1912005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 172.88
AP - 00229053 10/19/2005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 234.08
AP - 00229053 10/1912005 CUCAMONGA V ALLEY WATER DISTRICT 2,858.23
AP - 00229054 10/19/2005 CUCAMONGA VENTURES 3,800.00
AP - 00229055 10/1912005 CYBERCOM RESOURCES INC 3,675.00
AP - 00229055 10/1912005 CYBERCOM RESOURCES INC 350.00
AP - 00229055 10/19/2005 CYBERCOM RESOURCES INC 700.00
AP - 00229057 10/19/2005 DEJESUS, ANA 62.61
AP - 00229058 10/19/2005 DIRECTV 29.99
AP - 00229059 10/19/2005 DYNASTY SCREEN PRINTING 2,275.68
AP - 00229062 10/19/2005 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL 256.45
AP - 00229063 10/19/2005 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS 181.02
AP - 00229063 10/19/2005 EMERGENCY MEDICAL PRODUCTS 724.08
AP - 00229064 10/19/2005 EMPIRE MOBILE HOME SERVICE 3,850.00
AP - 00229065 10/1912005 EVENHUIS, DERK 250.00
AP - 00229066 10/1912005 EXCLUSIVE EMAGES 77.58
AP - 00229066 10/19/2005 EXCLUSIVE EMAGES 226.28 /7
User: KFINCHER - Karen Finche, Page: 17 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK~AGENDA_REG_PORTRAlT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/2512005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00229067 10/19/2005 EXPERIAN 50.24
AP - 00229068 10/19/2005 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 27.06
AP - 00229068 10/19/2005 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 14.49
AP - 00229068 10/1912005 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 11.90
AP - 00229068 10/19/2005 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 13.88
AP - 00229069 10/19/2005 FIELDMAN ROLAPP AND ASSOCIATES 6,401.64
AP - 00229070 10/1912005 FILTER RECYCLING SERVICE INC 267.75
AP - 00229071 10/19/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,417.14
AP - 00229071 10/1912005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 702.00
AP - 00229071 10/1912005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 694.40
AP - 00229071 10/1912005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 486.20
AP - 00229071 10/19/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 208.20
AP - 00229071 10/19/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 954.00
AP - 00229071 10/19/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,890.72
AP - 00229071 10/19/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 694.40
AP - 00229071 10/19/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 520.80
AP - 00229071 10/1912005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 900.00
AP - 00229071 10/1912005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 1,386.00
AP - 00229071 10/19/2005 FINESSE PERSONNEL ASSOCIATES 612.00
AP - 00229073 10/19/2005 FIRST CENTENNIAL BANK 9,875.26
AP - 00229073 10/19/2005 FIRST CENTENNIAL BANK 3,564.61
AP - 00229073 10/19/2005 FIRST CENTENNIAL BANK 1,519.26
AP - 00229074 10/19/2005 FIRST HOTEL INVESTMENT CORPORATION 60,885.86
AP - 00229075 10/1912005 FIRST PLACE TROPHIES 905.91
AP - 00229076 10/19/2005 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 138.25
AP - 00229077 10/19/2005 FORD OF UPLAND INC 3.99
AP - 00229079 10/19/2005 G AND M BUSINESS INTERIORS 844.76
AP - 00229080 10/19/2005 GARDNER MEDICAL SPECIALTIES 30.00
AP - 00229081 10/19/2005 GOINGS, JERRY 5.00
AP - 00229082 10/19/2005 GOVERNMENT FINANCE OFFICERS ASSOCIATI 820.00
AP - 00229083 10/19/2005 GRAINGER 311.40
AP - 00229084 10/19/2005 HAAKER EQUIPMENT CO 855.61
AP - 00229085 10/19/2005 HAKIMI, SUSAN 279.00
AP - 00229086 10/19/2005 HIX DEVELOPMENT 158,772.15
AP - 00229086 10/1912005 HIX DEVELOPMENT 76,110.21
AP - 00229088 10/1912005 HOSE MAN INC 248.30
AP - 00229089 10/1912005 HOT LOOKS REAL OUTLET INC. 24.68
AP - 00229090 10/1912005 HOT SHOTS ATHLETIC APPAREL INC 277.66
AP - 00229090 10/19/2005 HOT SHOTS ATHLETIC APPAREL INC 3,524.73
AP - 00229091 10/19/2005 HULS ENVIRONMENTAL MGT LLC 8,952.50
AP - 00229091 10/19/2005 HULS ENVIRONMENTAL MGT LLC 9,780.00
AP - 00229091 10/1912005 HULS ENVIRONMENTAL MGT LLC 7,951.25
AP - 00229092 10/19/2005 HURST, CHERYL 288.50
AP - 00229093 10/19/2005 HYDROSCAPEPRODUCTSINC 122.67
AP - 00229093 10/1912005 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 8.61
AP - 00229093 10/1912005 HYDROSCAPE PRODUCTS INC 810.77
AP - 00229094 10/19/2005 IBM CORPORATION 493.50
AP - 00229095 10/1912005 IMAGE SOURCE 88.36
AP - 00229097 10/1912005 INDEPENDENT ELECTRONICS 256.50
AP - 00229097 10/19/2005 INDEPENDENT ELECTRONICS 1.197.00
AP - 00229097 10/19/2005 INDEPENDENT ELECTRONICS 1,071.96
AP - 00229098 10/19/2005 INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORTATIC 3,650.00
AP - 00229098 10/1912005 INLAND EMPIRE TOURS AND TRANSPORT ATIC 698.00 18'
User: KFINCHER - Karen Fincher Page: 18 Current Date: 10/26120C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Port,ait Layoul Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!:enda Check Rel!:ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00229099 10/19/2005 INLAND MEDIATION BOARD 12.50
AP - 00229101 10/1912005 INLAND V ALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 688.80
AP - 0022910 I 10/19/2005 INLAND V ALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 338.40
AP - 00229101 10/1912005 INLAND V ALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 338.40
AP - 00229101 10/19/2005 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 338.40
AP - 00229101 10/19/2005 INLAND V ALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 105.60
AP - 00229101 10/1912005 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 184.80
AP - 00229101 10/1912005 INLAND V ALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 132.00
AP - 00229101 10/19/2005 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 349.20
AP - 00229102 10/1912005 INLAND V ALLEY RV SERVICE & SUPPLIES 344.87
AP - 00229104 10/1912005 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 727.71
AP - 00229104 10/1912005 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 280.66
AP - 00229104 10/1912005 INTERSTATE BATTERIES 1,345.Q2
AP - 00229105 10/19/2005 IRELAND SOUND SYSTEMS 155.00
AP - 00229106 10/1912005 IRON MOUNTAIN OSDP 406.00
AP - 00229107 10/19/2005 JACOBS, BILLIE 66.00
AP - 00229108 10/1912005 JOHNS, JENNIFER 500.00
AP - 00229108 10/1912005 JOHNS, JENNIFER 500.00
AP - 00229109 10/19/2005 JPI LIFESTYLE APARTMENTS COMMUNITES, Ll 2,500.00
AP - 00229111 10/19/2005 KAMENSKY, ED 40.00
AP - 00229112 10/1912005 LANDIN, RON 60.00
AP - 00229113 10/19/2005 LA WRY'S THE PRIME RIB 1,275.00
AP - 00229115 10/19/2005 LEEDS, HELEN 100.00
AP - 00229116 10/1912005 LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 138.00
AP - 00229117 10/1912005 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 398.80
AP - 00229117 10/19/2005 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 6,612.65
AP - 00229119 10/1912005 LIL STITCH 873.04
AP - 00229120 10/19/2005 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 400.00
AP - 00229120 10/19/2005 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 200.00
AP - 00229120 10/19/2005 LITTLE BEAR PRODUCTIONS 200.00
AP - 00229122 10/1912005 LOS ANGELES COCA COLA BTL CO 552.89
AP - 00229123 10/19/2005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC 281.42
AP - 00229123 10/19/2005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC 505.86
AP - 00229123 10/1912005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC 586.16
AP - 00229123 10/1912005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC 212.40
AP - 00229123 10/1912005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC. 42.59
AP - 00229123 10/1912005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC. 53.75
AP - 00229123 10/19/2005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC. 39.80
AP - 00229123 10/19/2005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC 65.43
AP - 00229123 10/19/2005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC 316.79
AP - 00229123 10/1912005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC. 141.69
AP - 00229123 10/1912005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC. 195.67
AP - 00229123 10/1912005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC 19.41
AP - 00229123 10/19/2005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC. 19.30
AP - 00229123 10/1912005 LOWE'S COMPANIES INC 51.67
AP - 00229124 10/1912005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 3,407.42
AP - 00229124 10/1912005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 13,136.59
AP - 00229124 10/1912005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 2,789.17
AP - 00229124 10/19/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 1,090.61
AP - 00229124 10/19/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 542.19
AP - 00229124 10/19/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 803.53
AP - 00229124 10/19/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 4,668.58
AP - 00229124 10/19/2005 MARIPOSA HORTICULTURAL ENT INC 6,070.93 [9
User: KFINCHER - Karen Finche, Page: 19 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
Check No.
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229t25
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229125
AP - 00229126
AP - 00229126
AP - 00229127
AP - 00229128
AP - 00229129
AP - 00229130
AP - 00229132
AP - 00229133
AP - 00229134
AP - 00229135
AP - 00229136
AP - 00229137
AP - 00229138
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229140
AP - 00229141
AP - 00229142
AP - 00229142
AP - 00229143
AP - 00229144
AP - 00229146
AP - 00229147
AP - 00229148
AP - 00229148
AP - 00229148
AP - 00229148
AP - 00229148
AP - 00229148
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check Date Vendor Name
Amount
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARSHALL PLUMBING
10/19/2005 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE
10/19/2005 MARTINEZ UNION SERVICE
10/19/2005 MASTERCRAFT HOMES
10/19/2005 MATUTE, JANET
10/19/2005 MCARDLE, KEVIN
10/19/2005 MEZA, BEVERLY
10/19/2005 MIR, SONIA
10/19/2005 MITCHELLS
10/19/2005 MOBILE MODULAR MANAGEMENT CORP
10/19/2005 MONTE SAN SAVINO LLC
10/19/2005 MORASSE, MELANIE
10/19/2005 MYERS TIRE
10/19/2005 N M A DUES C/O DAVID MCDONALD
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NAPA AUTO PARTS
10/19/2005 NATIONAL DEFERRED
10/19/2005 NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION
10/19/2005 NATIONAL PEN CORPORATION
10/19/2005 NEWPORT PRINTING SYSTEMS
10/19/2005 NINYO AND MOORE GEOTECHNICAL
10/19/2005 NUNEZ, CLAUDIA
10/1912005 OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CENTERS OF CALIFO
10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT
10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT
10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT
10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT
10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT
10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT
101.00
-25.25
137.75
-34A4
125.00
-31.25
104.90
-26.23
120.10
-30.03
356.00
-89.00
71.00
-19.15
45.00
130.00
138,255.65
40.00
102.98
76.00
143.22
4,560.24
312A8
500.00
250.00
94.17
2.77
237.51
25.50
95.89
7.67
9A9
74.88
-2.86
22.30
49.83
430A6
21.78
-67.24
31.23
28,165.00
67.93
271.98
46.39
2,038.50
100.00
47.60
3,247.59
196A6
lOA 1
90.62
46AO
IOA1~
Current Date: 1O/26/20C
TIme: 13:35:2
User: KFINCHER - Ka,en Fincher Page: 20
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Port,ail Layout
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 517.17
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 172.39
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 276.22
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 36.10
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 387.88
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 349.65
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 42.35
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 25.79
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 582.62
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 35.41
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 31.97
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 69.16
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 7.93
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 457.43
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 179.85
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 551.66
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 14.44
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 22.83
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 76.99
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 97.86
AP - 00229148 10/19/2005 OFFICE DEPOT 21.21
AP - 00229149 10/19/2005 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 413.11
AP - 00229149 10/19/2005 OFFICE MAX CONTRACT INC 927.19
AP - 00229150 10/19/2005 ONESOURCE DISTRIBUTORS INC. 664.69
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 11.07
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDW ARE 17754
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6.32
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 23.69
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 211.48
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 112 .37
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 12.92
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 234.84
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 34.44
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 16.78
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 54.87
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 49.04
AP - 00229152 10/19/2005 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 6.99
AP - 00229153 10/19/2005 ORTIZ, JULIE 62.00
AP - 00229154 10/19/2005 OWEN ELECTRIC 116.65
AP - 00229154 10/19/2005 OWEN ELECTRIC 686.12
AP - 00229154 10/19/2005 OWEN ELECTRIC 620.00
AP - 00229154 10/19/2005 OWEN ELECTRIC 166.23
AP - 00229154 10/19/2005 OWEN ELECTRIC 367.13
AP - 00229154 10/19/2005 OWEN ELECTRIC 654.69
AP - 00229155 10/19/2005 PACIFICARE OF CALIFORNIA 46,365.73
AP - 00229156 10/19/2005 PAL CAMPAIGN 147.23
AP - 00229157 10/19/2005 PALOS,BERNADETTE 18.00
AP - 00229158 10/19/2005 PANDA DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION ( 56,140.64
AP - 00229159 10/19/2005 PANDA DEVELOPMENT 44,089.38
AP - 00229160 10/19/2005 PATTON SALES CORP 56.03
AP - 00229160 10/19/2005 PATTON SALES CORP 1,248.24
AP - 00229160 10/19/2005 PATTON SALES CORP -242.87
AP - 00229162 10/19/2005 PERRIN, JOELLE 68.00 ;)./
User: KFINCHER - Karen Finche, Page: 21 Current Date: 1O/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT _RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/1212005 Ihrough 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00229t62 10/19/2005 PERRIN, JOELLE 20.00
AP - 00229163 10/19/2005 PERVO PAINT CO 172.40
AP - 00229164 10/1912005 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC 114.50
AP - 00229164 10/1912005 PETES ROAD SERVICE INC -35.40
AP - 00229165 10/19/2005 PETPRO PRODUCTS INC 350.52
AP - 00229166 10/19/2005 PHOENIX GROUP INFORMATION SYSTEMS 308.13
AP - 00229167 10/1912005 POMA DISTRIBUTING CO 20,205.4 1
AP - 00229168 10/19/2005 POMONA PRINT STOP 102.36
AP - 00229169 10/19/2005 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 27.27
AP - 00229169 10/1912005 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 289.42
AP - 00229169 10/1912005 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 123.37
AP - 00229169 10/19/2005 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 89.45
AP - 00229170 10/19/2005 PRE-PAID LEGAL SERVICES INC 108.96
AP - 00229172 10/19/2005 QUINT ANA, ZIT A 193.00
AP - 00229173 10/1912005 QWEST 1.89
AP - 00229173 10/1912005 QWEST 0.70
AP - 00229174 10/1912005 RAND R LIGHTING 20.22
AP - 00229175 10/1912005 RAMIREZ, ARIANA 57.00
AP - 00229177 10/19/2005 RANCHO CUCAMONGA PUBLIC LIBRARY FOm 5.00
AP - 00229178 10/1912005 RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CITY OF 29.75
AP - 00229180 10/1912005 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 12.t2
AP - 00229180 10/19/2005 RBM LOCK AND KEY SERVICE 6.47
AP - 00229181 10/19/2005 RED WING SHOE STORE 150.00
AP - 00229181 10/1912005 RED WING SHOE STORE 100.73
AP - 00229182 10/1912005 REINHARDTSEN, DEBRA 282.50
AP - 00229183 10/1912005 REYES, NICOLE 126.67
AP - 00229184 10/19/2005 RICHARDS WATSON AND GERSHON 30.00
~ - 00229185 10/19/2005 RIVERSIDE CO DEPT CHILD SUPPORT 250.00
AP - 00229186 10119/2005 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 587,597.31
AP - 00229186 10119/2005 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 16,156.66
AP - 00229186 1011912005 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY -58,759.73
AP - 00229186 10/1912005 RIVERSIDE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY -1,615.66
AP - 00229187 10/1912005 RKW DEVELOPMENT CORP 1,370.00
AP - 00229188 10/1912005 ROADWAY ENGINEERING INC 75,392.00
AP - 00229188 10/19/2005 ROADWAY ENGINEERING INC -7,539.20
AP - 00229189 10/19/2005 ROBERTS, ELIZABETH 73.D4
AP - 00229190 10/1912005 RODRIQUEZ, MARY 60.00
AP - 00229192 10/19/2005 SAFE KIDS CAMPAIGN 60.00
AP - 00229193 10/1912005 SAFETYBELTSAFE USA 82.75
AP - 00229194 1011912005 SALVATIERRA, RAQUEL 100.00
AP - 00229195 101t9/2005 SAMPOGNARO, KIM 67.83
AP - 00229197 10/19/2005 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY 96.43
AP - 00229198 10/19/2005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY CENTRAL MICROFILM 29.03
AP - 00229199 10/19/2005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY CHILD SUPPORT PA YM 213.50
AP - 00229200 10/19/2005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY CHILD SUPPORT PA YM 322.50
AP - 00229201 10/1912005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY CHILD SUPPORT PA YM 408.00
AP - 00229202 10/1912005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 1,585,215.50
AP - 00229202 10/1912005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 17.570.00
AP - 00229202 10/19/2005 SAN BERNARDINO CTY SHERIFFS DEPT 13,642.50
AP - 00229203 10/19/2005 SANDOVAL, RAUL 75.00
AP - 00229204 10/19/2005 SBC 3,080.55
AP - 00229205 10/1912005 SCOTT, DIANA 500.00
AP - 00229206 10/19/2005 SEATTLE CHILDRENS THEATRE 272.80 ~
User: KFINCHER - Karen Fincher Page: 22 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAlT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP . 00229207 10/19/2005 SHANKS, TERRY 79.00
AP . 00229208 10/19/2005 SHOETERIA 58.17
AP - 00229209 10/19/2005 SlL VER, EDNA 360.00
AP.OO22921O 10/19/2005 SlL VIA CONSTRUCTION INC 15,119.29
AP . 00229211 10/19/2005 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 1,413.46
AP . 00229211 10/19/2005 SIMPLOT PARTNERS 30.00
AP.00229212 10/19/2005 SINGH, HARLEEN 5.22
AP.00229213 10/19/2005 SIR SPEEDY 10.78
AP.00229214 10/19/2005 SLUKA, SUSAN 407.94
AP.00229215 10/19/2005 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 100.89
AP - 00229215 10/1912005 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 821.58
AP - 00229215 10/19/2005 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 2,281.59
AP.00229215 10/19/2005 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 66.76
AP.00229215 10/19/2005 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 2,423.48
AP.00229215 10/19/2005 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 247.17
AP.00229215 10/19/2005 SO CALIF GAS COMPANY 324.92
AP - 00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 500.00
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 1,368.40
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 427.36
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 213.68
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 1,282.08
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 213.68
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 400.00
AP - 00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 300.00
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 300.00
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 1,087.50
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 1,012.50
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 200.00
AP.00229216 10/19/2005 SOCIAL VOCATIONAL SERVICES 213.68
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 2.57
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 144.58
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 87.35
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 149.32
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 9LlO
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1.30
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 933.23
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 85.37
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3.09
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.04
AP . 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.60
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 22.85
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 35.32
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 56.66
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73.91
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 23.80
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.Q2
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 54.24
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.91
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 20.92
AP.00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.36
AP . 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 3.82 ;)3
User: KFINCHER . Karen Finche, Page: 23 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC. CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
A2enda Check Re2ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.88
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 72.24
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.65
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 128.54
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.04
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.65
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.04
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 12.37
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 100.49
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4.29
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 59.91
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.04
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 91.23
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 9.71
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.53
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 34.54
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.68
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 73.50
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 46.44
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 114.61
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.53
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.53
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.04
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.06
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.41
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,104.40
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 1,989.83
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 36.68
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 24.04
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 26.00
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 25.86
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 35.87
AP - 002292 I 9 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 71.38
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.94
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 16.06
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 18.92
AP - 00229219 10/ I 9/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 71.36
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 251.81
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 90.23
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 54.16
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 95.34
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 21.70
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 61.80
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.04
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 15.51
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 684.04
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 179.22
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 4.16
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 207.00
AP - 00229219 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 94.96
AP - 002292 I 9 10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 57.62 )tI
User: KFINCHER - Karen Fincher Page: 24 Current Date: 1O/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Registe, Po,trait Layout Time: 13:35:2
Check No.
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229219
AP - 00229220
AP - 00229221
AP - 00229221
AP - 00229222
AP - 00229222
AP - 00229223
AP - 00229224
AP - 00229225
AP - 00229225
AP - 00229226
AP - 00229227
AP - 00229228
AP - 00229229
AP - 00229230
AP - 00229230
AP - 00229231
AP - 00229232
AP - 00229233
AP - 00229234
AP - 00229235
AP - 00229236
AP - 00229238
AP - 00229239
AP - 00229240
AP - 00229241
AP - 00229242
AP - 00229243
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/2512005
Check Date Vendor Name
Amount
10/1912005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10119/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/1912005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/1912005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/1912005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/1912005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/1912005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/1912005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
10/19/2005 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA MUNICIPAL A THLETfo
10/1912005 SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS
10/1912005 SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS
10/1912005 ST PIERRE. JODI
10/19/2005 ST PIERRE, JODI
10/19/2005 STANLEY PEST CONTROL
10/19/2005 STERICYCLE INC
10/19/2005 STEVES TOWING AND TRANSPORT
10/19/2005 STEVES TOWING AND TRANSPORT
10/19/2005 STOFA, JOSEPH
10/19/2005 SUNBURST VISUAL MEDIA
10/19/2005 T MOBILE
10/1912005 TANNER RECOGNITION COMPANY, 0 C
10/19/2005 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
10/1912005 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS
10/19/2005 TEEN 2 TEEN
10/19/2005 THEATRE COMPANY, THE
10/19/2005 TKACH, TAMARA
10/19/2005 TOMARK SPORTS INC
10/19/2005 TYLER, PATRICIA
10/19/2005 US CERAMICS IMPORTS
10/19/2005 UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA TRUSTEE FOR p,
10/19/2005 UNITED SITE SERVICES OF CA INC
10/19/2005 UNITED TITLE COMPANY
10/1912005 UNITED WAY
10/1912005 US IDENTIFICATION MANUAL
10/19/2005 VALDEZ, SUSAN
14.68
105.43
119.47
83.73
133.08
15.04
101.51
2.91
16.36
15.04
84.07
15.04
58.36
13.76
14.35
72.12
12.69
6.44
93.27
14.72
91.31
15.04
15.04
18.27
12.63
13.76
50.00
498.00
622.50
18.00
17.20
9.00
266.17
40.00
37.00
15.00
65.80
142.36
204.25
231.43
193.82
40.00
567.00
15.00
39.25
15.00
42.27
1,384.66
132.71
420.00
471.82
88.48
156.00 ~
Current Date: 1O/26/20C
Time: 13:35:2
User: KFINCHER - Karen Finche, Page: 25
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG]ORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Al!enda Check Rel!ister
10/12/2005 through 10/2512005
Check No. Check Date Vendor Name Amount
AP - 00229244 10/19/2005 VEND SOURCE 820.06
AP - 00229244 10/1912005 VEND SOURCE 1,035.67
AP - 00229244 10/19/2005 VEND SOURCE 57.74
AP - 00229244 10/19/2005 VEND SOURCE 5.65
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 28.32
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 29.28
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 139.46
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 2056
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 2056
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 2055
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 2056
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 29.26
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 29.28
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 28.30
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 29.79
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 20.56
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 9056
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 9056
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 9056
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 9058
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 28.37
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 28.30
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 90.58
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 2055
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 2055
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 9056
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 20.55
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 150.66
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 29.28
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 130.97
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 30.73
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 33.16
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 29.26
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 60.12
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 30.82
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 28.32
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 29.26
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 9058
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 24.00
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 20.55
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 29.04
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 56.65
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 87.86
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 113.30
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 28.32
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 90.56
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 38.80
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 38.80
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 44.07
AP - 00229246 10/19/2005 VERIZON 80.38
AP - 00229246 10/1912005 VERIZON 55.49 ;>&,
User: KFINCHER - Karen Finche, Page: 26 Current Date: 10/26/20C
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT _RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Portrait Layout Time: 13:35:2
Check No.
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229246
AP - 00229247
AP - 00229248
AP - 00229249
AP - 00229250
AP - 00229250
AP - 00229250
AP - 00229250
AP - 00229250
AP - 00229251
AP - 00229251
AP - 00229251
AP - 00229251
AP - 00229252
AP - 00229253
AP - 00229254
AP - 00229255
AP - 00229256
AP - 00229257
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
A2enda Check Re2ister
10/12/2005 through 10/25/2005
Check Date Vendor Name
Amount
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VERIZON
10/19/2005 VOLM, LIZA
10/19/2005 VORTEX INDUSTRIES
10/19/2005 WARD, DESIREE
10/19/2005 WARREN & CO INC, CARL
10/19/2005 WARREN & CO INC, CARL
10/19/2005 WARREN & CO INC, CARL
10/19/2005 WARREN & CO INC, CARL
10/19/2005 WARREN & CO INC, CARL
10/19/2005 W AXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
10/19/2005 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
10/19/2005 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
10/19/2005 W AXIE SANIT ARY SUPPLY
10/19/2005 WEST V ALLEY SENIOR CONCERN
10/19/2005 WILLIAMS, HERBERT
10/19/2005 WISLON-LAFARGE, CARRI
10/19/2005 YOON, KIM
10/19/2005 ZAMORA, ANITA
10/19/2005 ZIMMERMAN, IAN
22.08
29.26
29.26
28.30
20.55
29.79
27.34
90.56
90.58
90.56
90.56
50.81
20.66
112.50
189.95
452.50
19.20
540.16
621.28
509.12
71.36
59.61
270.15
871.78
270.15
3,000.00
500.00
40.00
5.00
500.00
62.00
Total for Check ID AP: 6,205,227.33
Total for Entity: 6,205,227.33
J-7
User: KFINCHER - Ka,en Fincher Page: 27
Report:CK_AGENDA_REG_PORTRAIT_RC - CK: Agenda Check Register Port,ait Layout
Current Date: 10/26/20C
Time: 13:35:2
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
I
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report
DAlE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECf:
November 2, 2005
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manage~
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Shelley Hayes, Engineering Technician
APPROVAL OF THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT
NOS. 7 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 7 FOR
12770 AMBER LANE, LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AMBER LANE, WEST
OF ETIW ANDA AVENUE, SUBMITTED BY JAMES L. PREVITI
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution, ordering the annexation to
Landscape Maintenance District No.7 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. I and 7.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
12770 Amber Lane, located on the north side of Amber Lane, West of Etiwanda Avenue in the Very
Low Residential District (less than two (2) dwelling units per acre), has applied for a building permit for
a new second dwelling unit. The developer is required to fulfill certain conditions along with the normal
processing. As part of those conditions, the developer is required to have the project annexed into the
appropriate lighting and landscape maintenance district.
The Consent and Waiver to Annexation forms signed by the developer are on file in the City Clerk's
Office.
Respectfully Submitted,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
ENGINEERING DIVISION
wQ~o~:l~~
City Engineer
WJO:SH:pjb
Attachments
:d-?r
RESOLUTION NO. OS'.... 301
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND STREET LIGHTING
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 7 FOR 12770 AMBER
LANE (APN: 0225-111-32)
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 IS, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California (the "72
Act"), said special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 7
Street Lighting Maintenance District No. I and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 7 (referred to
collectively as the "Maintenance Districts"); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Acto of
1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance Districts; and
WHEREAS, such provisions also provide that the requirement for the preparation of resolutions,
an assessment engineer's report, notices of public hearing and the right of majority protest may be waived
in writing with the written consent of all of the owners of property within the territory to be annexed; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the such provisions of the 1972 Act related to the annexation of
territory to the Maintenance District, Article XIIID of the Constitution of the State of California ("Article
XIIID") establishes certain procedural requirements for the authorization to levy assessments which apply
to the levy of annual assessments for the maintenance Districts on the territory proposed to be annexed to
such districts; and
WHEREAS, the owners of certain property described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by this reference have requested that such property (collectively, the "Territory") be
annexed to the Maintenance Districts in order to provide for the levy of annual assessments to finance the
maintenance of certain improvements described in Exhibit B hereto (the "Improvements"); and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of the Territory have filed with the City Clerk duly executed forms
entitled "Consent And Waiver To Annexation Of Certain Real Property To A Maintenance District And
Approval Of The Levy Of Assessments On Such Real Property" (the "Consent and Waiver"); and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have expressly
waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act to the
d~
annexation of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts and have expressly consented to the annexation
of the Territory to the Maintenance Districts; and
WHEREAS, by such Consent and Waiver, all of the owners of the Territory have also expressly
waived any and all of the procedural requirements as prescribed in the 1972 Act and/or Article XIIID
applicable to the authorization to levy the proposed annual assessment against the Territory set forth in
Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and have declared support for, consent
to and approval of the authorization to levy such proposed annual assessment set forth in Exhibit C
attached hereto; and
WHEREAS, at this time the City Council desires to order the annexation of the Territory to the
Maintenance Districts and to authorize the levy of annual assessments against the Territory in amount
snot to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit C hereto.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1:
The above recitals are all true and correct
SECTION 2:
This City Council hereby finds and determines that:
a. The annual assessments proposed to be levied on each parcel in the Territory do not exceed
the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each such parcel from the
Improvements.
b. The proportional special benefit derived by each parcel in the Territory from the
Improvemenls has been determined in relationship to the entirety of the cost of the
maintenance of the Improvements.
c. Only special benefits will be assessed on fhe Territory by the levy of the proposed annual
assessments.
SECTION 3: This legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the Territory to the
Maintenance Districts. approves the financing of the maintenance of the Improvements from the
proceeds of annual assessments to be levied against the Territory and approves and orders the levy of
annual assessments against the Territory in amounts not to exceed the amounts set forth in Exhibit B.
SECTION 4: All future proceedings of the Maintenance Districts, including levy of all
assessments, shall be applicable to the Territory.
2
12770 AMBER LANE
36
Exhibit A
Identification of the Owner and Description of the Property
To Be Annexed
The Owners of the Property are:
JAMES PREVITI, A SINGLE MAN
The legal description of the Property is:
PARCEL NO. I:
THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK "C",
ETIW ANDA COLONY LANDS, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2 OF
MAPS, PAGE(S) 24, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,
BEGINNING AT A POINT NORTH 890 20' 04" WEST, 626.70 FEET FROM THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE
CONTINUING NORTH 890 20' 04" WEST, 320.35 FEET ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE
SOUTH ONE-HALF OF SAID LOTS; THENCE SOUTH 0039' 56" WEST, 331.10 FEET TO
THE SOUTH LINE THEREOF; THENCE SOUTH 890 21' 49" EAST, 320.35 FEET ON SAID
SOUTH LINE TO A POINT NORTH 890 21' 49" WEST, 629.07 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LOT 9; THENCE NORTH 00 39' 56" EAST, 330.94 FEET
TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PARCEL NO. 2:
A PRIVATE ROAD EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER THE SOUTH 30
FEET OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF LOTS 9 AND 10, BLOCK "C", ETIWANDA
COLONY LANDS, IN THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 2 OF MAPS, PAGE 24, IN THE OFFICE OF THE
COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
APN: 0225-111-32-0000
The above described parcels are shown on sheet A-2 attached herewith and by this reference made a part
hereof.
A-I
12770 AMBER LANE
3/
Exhibit B
To
Description of the District Improvements
Fiscal Year 2005/2006
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.7 (NORTH ETIW ANDA):
Landscape Maintenance District No. 7 (LMD #7) represents landscape sites throughout the Etiwanda
North Area. These sites are associated with areas within that district and as such any benefit derived from
the landscape installation can be directly attributed to those parcels within that district. Because of this,
assessments required for this district are charged to those parcels within that district.
The various sites maintained by the district consist of parkways, median islands, paseos, street trees,
community trails and Etiwanda Creek Park
STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 (ARTERIAL STREETS):
Street Light Maintenance District No. I (SLD #1)) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of
street lights and traffic signals located on arterial streets throughout the City. The facilities within this
district, being located on arterial streets, have been determined to benefit the City as a whole on an equal
basis and as such those costs associated with the maintenance and/or installation of the facilities is
assigned to the City-wide district.
The siles maintained by Ihe di5tricl consist of street lights on arterial streets and traffic signals on arterial
streets within the rights-of-way or designated easements of streets dedicated to the City.
STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.7 (NORTH ETIW ANDA):
Street Light Maintenance District No.7 (SLD #7) is used to fund the maintenance and/or installation of
street lights and traffic signals located on local streets in what is termed the North Etiwanda area of the
City. Generally, this area encompasses the area of the City east of Day Creek Channel and north of
Highland A venue within the incorporated area of the City. It has been determined that the facilities in
this district benefit the properties within this area of the City.
The sites maintained by the district consist of street lights on local streets and traffic signals (or a portion
thereof) on local streets within the North Etiwanda area.
B-1
12770 AMBER LANE
3d-
Proposed additions to Work Program (Fiscal Year 2005/2006)
For Project: 12770 Amber Lane
Street Lights
SLD# I
SLD # 7
5800L
Number of Lamps
9500L 16,OOOL 22,000L
27,500L
Landscaping
Community Trail
DGSF
Turf
SF
Non-Turf
SF
Trees
EA
LMD#7
"Existing items installed with original project
Assessment Units by District
Parcel DU or Acres
IOU
S 1
S7
L7
B-2
12770 AMBER LANE
33
Exhibit C
Proposed Annual Assessment
Fiscal Year 2005/2006
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.7 (NORTH ETIW ANDA):
The rate per assessment unit (A. U.) is $307.05 for the fiscal year 2005/06. The following table
summarizes the assessment rate for Landscape Maintenance District No.7 (North Etiwanda):
# of Physical Assessment #of Rate Per
Units Units Factor Assessment Assessment
Land Use Type Units Unit Revenue
Single Parcel 1572 1.00 1572 $307.05 $482,682.60
Family
Comm/lnd. Acre 5 2.00 10 $307.05 $3,070.50
TOTAL $485,753.10
The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (12770 Amber Lane) is:
I Parcels x 1.0 A.V. Factor x $307.05 Rate Per A.U. ~ $307.05 Annual Assessment
STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.1 (ARTERIAL STREETS):
The rate per assessment unit (A.D.) is $17.77 for the fiscal year 2005/06. The following table
summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No. I (Arterial Streets):
# of # of Rate Per
Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment
Land Use Unit Tvne Units Units Factor ITnits Unit Revenue
Single Parcel 21,151 1.00 21,151 $17.77 $375,853.27
Family
Multi- Unit 8,540 1.00 8,540 $17.77 $151,755.80
Family
Commercial Acre 2,380.36 2.00 4,760.72 $17.77 $84,597.99
TOTAL $612,207.06
The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (12770 Amber Lane) is:
I Parcel x I A.U. Factor x $17.77 Rate Per A.V. = $17.77 Annual Assessment
C-I
12770 AMBER LANE
3Cj
STREET LIGHT MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO.7 (NORTH ETIW ANDA):
The rate per assessment unit (A.U.) is $33.32 for the fiscal year 2005/06. The following table
summarizes the assessment rate for Street Light Maintenance District No.7 (North Etiwanda):
# of #of Rate Per
Physical Physical Assessment Assessment Assessment
Land Use Unit Type Units Units Factor Units Unit Revenue
Single Parcel 1804 1.00 1804 $33.32 $60,109.28
Family
Comm/lnd Acre 5 2.00 10 $33.32 $333.20
TOTAL $60,442.48
The Proposed Annual Assessment against the Property (12770 Amber Lane) is:
I Parcel x I AU. Factor x $33.32 Rate Per AU. = $33.32 Annual Assessment
C-2
12770 AMBER LANE
35'
THE
~.,..-__,> .. i.~"
RANCUO
CITY OF
- -,',,'<J/""'-'_' '~;'_;i:-'V",~" V",:<
'. "'>,i',..;t';'~ii";<;;"; .-.;g,,-~-;;'~a~:NI
CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE: November 2, 2005
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
BY: Kristin Wnek, Planning Aide
SUBJECT: HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2005-00600 - JANETTE L.
HUCKINS - A request to designate a house as a Designated Local Landmark,
located at 6862 Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1089-511-07. Related file: Mills Act
Agreement DRC 2005-00601.
MILLS ACT AGREEMENT DRC2005-00601 - JANETTE L. HUCKINS - A
request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax for a house,
with a current application for Historic Landmark Status, located at 6862 Etiwanda
Avenue - APN: 1089-511-07. Related file: Landmark Designation
DRC2005-00600.
RECOMMENDATION: The Historic Preservation Commission unanimously recommends
designation of the house located at 6862 Etiwanda Avenue as a Designated Local Landmark
and approval of a Mills Act Agreement by adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval and
Mills Act Agreement.
BACKGROUND: An unknown architect and builder constructed the dwelling at 6862 Etiwanda
Avenue around 1930 on Lot 16 of the Etiwanda Colony Lands. The dwelling is an example of
the residences that were built on smaller City lots located along the main City thoroughfare of
Etiwanda Avenue. The location of these homes are important to the growth of the Etiwanda
community as the merchants needed to locate themselves closer to their businesses. Around
1930, Neil D. Hickcox, the son of one of Etiwanda's early residents, purchased the home and
lived there with his wife Emma and their children.
ANALYSIS: The attached Historic Preservation Commission staff report provides a detailed
analysis of the historical and cultural significance of this house.
3(."
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DRC2005-00600 - JANET L. HUCKINS
November 2, 2005
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15331
as a Class 31 exemption of the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act.
Dan Coleman
Acting City Planner
DC:KW/ge
Attachments: Exhibit A - Historic Preservation Commission Staff Report dated
September 28, 2005
Exhibit B - Mills Act Agreement for Mills Act Application DRC2005-00601
Draft Resolution of Approval for Landmark Designation DRC2005-00600
37
THE
I
RANCUO
C I T Y 0 F
CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE: September 28,2005
TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
BY: Kristin Wnek, Planning Aide
SUBJECT: HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2005-00600 - JANETTE L.
HUCKINS - A request to designate a house as a Designated Local Landmark,
located at 6862 Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 1089-511-07. Related file: Mills Act
Agreement DRC 2005-00601.
MILLS ACT AGREEMENT DRC2005-00601 - JANETTE L. HUCKINS : A
request to implement the use of the Mills Act to reduce property tax for a house,
with a current application for Historic Landmark Status, located at 6862 Etiwanda
Avenue - APN: 1089-511-07. Related file: Landmark Designation
DRC2005-00600.
BACKGROUND
A. Historical Sionificance: An unknown architect and builder constructed the dwelling at 6862
Etiwanda Avenue around 1930 on Lot 16 of the Etiwanda Colony Lands. The dwelling is
an example of the residences that were built on smaller City lots located along the main
City thoroughfare of Etiwanda Avenue. The location of these homes are important to the
growth of the Etiwanda community as the merchants needed to locate themselves closer
to their businesses.
Around 1930, Neil D. Hickcox purchased the home and lived there with his wife Emma and
their children.
B. Site Characteristics: The house sits on a 15,000 square foot parcel (.34 acre) on
Etiwanda Avenue as an example of the early to mid-twentieth century residences built in
the community. The land use zoning of the site and the surrounding area is designated
Low Residential (2-4 dwellings per acre).
ANALYSIS
A. General: The house was first surveyed in 2005 (Exhibit C). The house is a single-story
stucco building with a wood-shingle roof in the Colonial Revival style. It is rectangular in
shape with a projecting gable at one end and double hung windows. A carriage house sits
at the rear of the property and is similar in appearance to the main structure. With the
------.---
EXHIBIT A
Cc 11/2/0)
38
HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT
DRC2005-00600 - JANETTE L. HUCKINS
September 28, 2005
Page 2
exception of some recent painting and the addition of window shutters, the home retains
its original construction and appearance.
B. Landmark Desionation: The subject site qualifies for landmark designation based upon
much of the criteria from the City's Historic Preservation Ordinance, including such
significant areas as historical, cultural, neighborhood, and geographic setting. Details
concerning these areas of significance are contained in the Facts for Findings section.
The requested designation is for the structure that is greater than 50 years in age. The
purpose of the designation is to preserve, protect, enhance, and perpetuate a significant
feature that contributes to the cultural and aesthetic benefit of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. Mills Act Aoreement: In accordance with City policy, the owner has requested a Mills Act
Agreement. The Agreement Schedule List of Improvements has been drafted and
reviewed and is attached for reference (Exhibit D).
The concept of the Mills Act program is to provide an incentive for the property owner to
protect and preserve the property by retaining its characteristics of historical significance.
This intent is encouraged through the reduction of property taxes, thus enabling the
property owner to reinvest the money saved from the reduced property tax on the
improvements. The properties that enter into the agreement are to be inspected by City
staff on an annual basis to determine whether notable progress has been made in
rehabilitating the property. Staff estimates the property tax savings to the owner could be
as much as $2,087 per year. The exact amounts are dependent upon the County
Assessor's property valuation, which is based on income potential and capitalization rate
at the time of the assessment.
D. Environmental Assessment: The project is categorically exempt under Section 15331 as a
Class 31 exemption of the guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act.
FACTS FOR FINDING:
A. Historical and Cultural Significance:
1. Findino: The proposed landmark is particularly representative of a historical
period, type, style, region, or way of life.
FacUs:
The property is an excellent example of life in early Cucamonga, as the
residents needed to locate themselves towards the Cucamonga town
center to be closer to their businesses.
FacUs:
The dwelling is representative of the typical style of suburban dwellings in
Post WWI America. It employs the Colonial Revival style, which was
heavily used during the building boom of the 1920s and 1930s.
2. Findino: The proposed landmark was connected with someone renowned or
important or a local personality.
FacUs;
Neil Hickcox built and occupied the dwelling from 1931 onward and was
the son of one of Cucamonga's early residents. His father was Zanjero for
37
HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF REPORT
DRC2005-00600 - JANETTE L. ,HUCKINS
September 28, 20.05
Page 3
the Etiwanda Water Company and he himself was involved in the grape
and citrus industries.
B. Neighborhood and Geographic Setting:
1. Findinq: The proposed landmark materially benefits the historic character of the
neighborhood.
FacVs:
"
The proposed landmark contributes to the character of the historic
neighborhood as an early twentieth century home and represents t~e
evolution of small City lot development from large agricultural lots in early
Cucamonga. .
2. Findinq: The proposed landmark in its location represents an established and
familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, or the City.
The proposed Landmark is an example of the historic dwellings built for
suburban family use in the early twentieth century, which were located
close to the original Cucamonga town center.
CORRESPONDENCE: The Historic Landmark designation was advertised as a public hearing
in the Inland Vallev Dailv Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were sent to
all property owners within 300 feet of the project site.
FacVs:
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation Commission
recommend approval of Landmark Designation DRC2005-00600 and Mills Act Agreement
DRC2o.o.5-00601 to be forwarded to the City Council for final action.
DC:KW\ge
Attachments:' Exhibit A - Location Map
Exhibit B - Photographs of 6862 Etiwanda Avenue
. Exhibit C - Historic Resources Inventory (Completed 2005 by Property Owner)
Exhibit D Mills Act Agreement Schedule of Improvements
Draft Resolution of Approval for Historic Landmark Designation DRC2005-00600
fo
YOUR REFERENCE: 227:" .1
r---------
~ 'DER r,\"oo J291913-40
EXHIBIT "A"
PORTION OF LOT 16, IN 8LOCK "I", ETIWANDA COLONY LANDS, IN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA,
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, STATE OF CAUFORNIA, AS PER PLAT RECORDED IN BOOK 2 OF MAPS, PAGE
24, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE EAST UNE OF SAID LOT, 245 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
THEREOF; THE SAID POINT BEING THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF A PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO NEIL D.
HICKCOX AND WIFE, BY DEED RECORDED FEBRUARY 19, 1931, IN BOOK 698, PAGE 249, OFFICIAL RECORDS;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE NORTH UNE OF SAID HICKCOX LAND, 150 FEET;
THENCE NOR:li PARAllEL WITH THE EAST UNE OF SAID LOT, 100 FEET;
THENCE EAST PARAlLEL TO THE NORTH UNE OF SAID HICKCOX LAND, 150 FEET TO THE EAST UNE OF SAID
LOT;
THENCE SOUTH ALONG THE EAST UNE OF SAID LOT, 100 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
PC q/;)!/P~
,
Page 3
Lfl
I~~~!
.
.---'j'
..tall 11131
rl8t ..."
"- IAH_~
..ea.
. l
. ---.!- @
I L
- ,
It) 1I.J ll6J-.. - --
. , " "- ,
& _. -itNlfiMlI ....
, .. .. ei'
l> !
0 X
f ~ J
. . e ~-"". iSl
;1 19 e @ 19 @
E> ..... "<t_
,I': >-- - u!
:1:
g.o .
,
ttl!!'!
~ ~ E: III
e~
. :
. ..
'J<
:it..
I .. jdll!
z.
, "of
.r;:;
~
c:
"
...J !:: .
~ .. ~~ <!)
" .. (B) -r- -
-... .
8S:
..
.g~t
IS oil
;0 l!
~ I
~
If
,
I
0~ !!! .
. .
f
,
- lei.!!
<ID I
e .
~.... t.l
\$i
'1t;_.-D
-
-
-
0
EXHIBIT A
pc ~~~:-H_'"
.... .~
Yd-
6862 Etiwanda A~ *2005-02631
5/25/2005
,
...,
2:5
~.
~.
J!V'
r:;~:,~-='~a'
,~...-. .
. -_._~--- .~,
"--::. "';;-,::;
X/;,/' I
,
4:"'..11,.,.__
pc 9/;2fI05
1
L(-3
ae .2005-02631
6862 Etiwanda A
5/25/2005
~~....,~
~ '\' (f!f.4<.,
~A
II )f~
. fi.
II
:;)-~-?:-
i;>',,:,
~~.~::t
{~.;
~---":~ .
, ~
, -
f1;..._.:='.l'
--.- .....)>
.,~,
..,.. .' ;~ ;,t.:
:'J\ :(~*
," '~~;.)I!,:
,-,/'. ,
~ .....,~"
" ~.~(.:.:'~~:}\.::
~--l,. t::'.,.,.,~.
;;;:. '~.'!. -1; '~":~':~'!~ft.:.>.~.. "
'""" '~.;~l~... :;;... ...,~.
"'''H'3,.., -'''''',. .'.',,:
" .' '.Jl. ,""..~';~J', ~ .;" .J.~. ':~
"..... ~..~.,....H.
:"j:~ .~. -'U
J>,~.~"'; '. ;.,'.". l
....1.. "7". t, .
~",.~
~.t:.
,
il
'II
. 1";,-..T-".... ~ I
~1fi.,;ii',~.. " I
[.t lit l~II'jlJ;., -;;:.
B:,~'-:I Jlt~ c~ --- '-C:c--::- , " _ ~ _c'i
~l~l1:.';-'_I~.~a rn. :Gtt ~:ri.i1:lj;; III ~ ~ ~ '~~ :;'j I
'" ." f!5" ~l ff ,4:1 I!!l =. '",", I'll , _~, "
' ~ if: J'~ I Y ~ '\1il iOI',~ ~.~;;;.'~t .~..~.~~~" :;.E.:._f..:_~~ f-E$t~ -Fi#~ ~
~.,' >~ 'i":'i t "': .c.~; ~'._. "'.0,-". .....'M _',_. _ _ . . _ .
- b.1 ',. "=.' ~ I ".... ..~ ,
~t~.i it~J~ ,;,.1 - ;/9M!dS
2
1'1
j 1;:-....,~ ".- .'.~';o ~.'l' . ~~.~.. I v.:;'......~~~:-..)~.~.'.!:'.., lW'. ...1....1..1 ~.i""'.: ~.
c .. "1' \ /I~~ ~~- ~;iJ&,;;,' )..... ,'T\.~
. \....;.}J "';";""C\,..;.' :.~t;J ~_'\. ,p.~r:'''~ '~,..,
I '''''-;>..~ (' \1\.. '. ~;:)-::: ;~ ... -...~~.;::. ~.."/1" ~ '.. ... ~.;;'
I o'rp!'~V~~~/'h& . '.z ~;7'
,,)~\j C~~~~~~;".\
, '
1
6862 Etiwanda AJle 1r2005-02631
5/25/2005
"
1
./1.nbl ::::;;c
/'1i~U
:~':....~ n
I ' ~I
~...'A."(. 'if..I~rr/
.'ll-)jf\ :1
. "'l''''U
': i1~~
\
3
~ 11
3=':: 'Ii
~r=::J
F1E1
'~ ; .~..~~
JU
..j'....,.
, ,
: ,_~JJ
f~'" .........
_:.......- -.-~' "~-~
j] .
L
U
m.
I'
I
',.~
'. .~.
....J"......
l~.}" "~.c-:,t~L
~-..' .1t:'"I,...lF'
.~:;'~~;~1:~'ir
tt 4/Jf/tJS'
%
6862 Etiwanda A. ·
5/25/2005 v e Pm-2005-02631
,
,.....1<..
;~~;;.;.;
-':;',;:,...
,-"
.-...(..,
~Jr-
"~.:---'l'-':~"
",,". -j
, t..~;;}
._"":~* ,
..,-,"~
<<!--
"
2512' .' ".
.,' ,..3lJPM';
.'"'_ .__.,....;.' .;C
v':"-~
~';.~';~.: ,
..'
"
.;~~~:!~t' .
'"--":;':;
.. .' ::. - .~,'
-- -~ '- ."
.' .:.,~
OJ :'; '.~' \
.~:_~.; '.;.::~ '>,:~ ::.~ ~:.~. ';.': .'~ '.
;,.;- ,-
"'~ ':i~~C'-;:'~ ~\::;,.::--.-
_,'.,~:"". > .
.'~ .:
.',
4
ft OJ /;Jt/OS:
If?
6862 Etiwanda Av.e "-2005-02631
5/25/2005
~"~~':"~(""-." ~.. '.: ~..
. . t ~<::;"!' ~tt/ ;~..
" \, {J.c.- -- . . 'f~,
.-..'-~~ ;~.
~~ ._ ,,-,~-,:,~~~3:fof""
-... ~"";~,-.:;~'f:..-.::~~~-.~.~-,...\
r-- _ - .. -==-=e-~-- - -",,", ,.
-__-~-.-o;;....k~-- "..--.---~-;:I~.:..:;;T<l.-'
-t:.-:~~"'?=;.;-~-,~.~-Z:"::::::;'.' ."1;
:r:::~-~.~--..........~7"---~"Ji1'. ..
, :i~i.!c~i~~t~:~';':X~~1'Vf~~~
-~-. . ~ ;';~~-/':::::::::::::::3;E::t:::::::i:i~{::::1~1
~"........... ... .-~'..-..'. ..-.......c~r.
.. .................. '!..+' .~~.......'_...'.'.'
- ',............ .~,...'.'...-. ....'
:,.......... ....... ......,'j,.'!...'::..4.......~...~ ....~.O,'
,......+..~.......~~..:.y,....:..:....;; ~.;.;,'
'- :~:...:.......;./... '~.,.........i.;~.~.~-~;."....."~
..............-.": .'.'..',~._.:,'
:....-. ..~I,.....~.y " ".' ,'.
..+....+.......\~.f~{... >' .~, .
....................,-!' ..y~< " ,-
;. +'... ..'.- .....~....
;r:.~+'~~!...:.:~:~....
'.' '..'
, ~...
:~ ,..- ,.-~.",',
l)i ,:~',~ tho: .~;.:;:; ~<~:.r.'~s:;;(;:
("~''-'~, .~ ;.~;: ~- to "'.""-f'-' "'-., -~ ".,,;,;.._~' -.".... "'. ,~"".
b .'~ .~~-'-'r't'> _.:;:_...,.~ ~....
-------..--. - -;
"7~~-""-
25
12:31PM
:!_.~i'
: ',' -~j
..
.-
,-
t
I~,
l.. .:~.,,~..,......~~,_.
{' ,,,,-,,4-::'
i > ;.~~;~ [; __iJ~.~~~"~ ~~;; ~ -::_ - :
l~.:~_~.-+-..:x-_{~~-, .~" '.,
f'"'T"~8'" --"ti."..~. ...- ' "'~'! ..'
!~..-..;;:::o? ~"::: ~~'f''(~J~ '1' ,._,,:>' ,"; :- . _..l< -
~. ,C"-".y,. " .,' ,:. . .' .
~~~-M"''''''''' ..~~,,: ~":r,f1"''"' .i_'J.... .~
'o"'-a'J,t",'t'.'J1;,' ~;..r~ ~\l,!.,,:,/~:""""'~l .,f_ %~"1.~ k ..,,~.:.,
. ~l~m ."l'''''''' .,..". '''''t -",' _' -" U il
~ !~~~r:~.:.'t' ~,#.1;.'i.\.-....\.... ~.,
..=', . y..~' pL q/;}.g'/(}~
," . ". .,' ,:.;.,:;'i:j0,s-',7:;'.;.,.~
'f"~':'i',. ':\;".;-,,,,.:';"">"''2512'31 PM
:-:."1'.....~':.""..1 .:~~.-..y""'"'...-- .
5
if7
r
6862 Etiwanda Avae "f2005-02631
5/25/2005
c. .~' ~_~< - -~-.~_ ~7-c-
'-:
, ~-' ~.'~-~;- - ~-:--:~
--
...JOL- ___.......
"~f- ~~~
. ~- ::.~.:
~--:.~ ~
~._-~
.- ..-:
~i !
'-.
.~-:.--.!'
'-"-
~- ----
---
~
,-~ ~:i - - ==i-
. .~~- i ~::.
.- ,)~11;4f - z.:.
:....
-...
i~...
,....
~..~
'J.. ..
~..'4
'>.~4
.~...
~...._.
- --- .- ,.-
512:31PM
;,~;:;,<':~;1;C~~~;.. + c.-"
t't.. ,./(~-.<::k t...: "",".
6
p( q /;)f/tJS-
If?
"
.,
,
.
.tate of California - The Resources ~
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
mSTORlC RESOURCES INVENTORY
IDENTIFICATION AND LOCATION
;: ~m:~:o~~tName: G+\~r-d0l Cnlol"'f l.PlwtS. N IOO-Ff -S ~4~F+ c \SOFt
3. Number & Street: (g"3(O~. f~\..1.X:f~ Ave.... W
City: et.., Vicini~: Zip: C) 1131 County (3-Letter Designator): '. .
4. QuadmapNo:~KUTMZA: B: C: . D:.
S. ParceINo: 1m'1-S\\-OI-Other: Lot-l&
0000
DESCRIPTION
6. Property Category: If District, number of Documented Resources:
7. Briefly describe the present physical appearance of the property, including c;ondition, boundaries,
surroundings, and (if a,ppropriate) architectural style:. . .
~.~. .'.
. ~ \...I.ord \oobs l\Q o-.~I.cJ.. ~W\d~
8. Alterations & Date:
. 9. Related Features on Property:
10. ' PIAn';;ng Agency:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
11. Owner & Address
12. Type of Ownership:
13. Present Use:
-
EXHIBIT C
14. Zoning:
q),} S/tJS' 15. Threats: .
'if
(
....:_~.;.'_-.r
: .~.i,::..:
',ii.">::."...
,- :::,,~~:,:..
,
mSTORICAL INFORMATION
I
16. Construction Date(s):
Original Location:
Date Moved:
17. . Architect:
Builder:
18. Historic Attributes (With number from List):
SIGNIFICANCE AND EVALUATION
19. Context for Evaluation: Theme: Area:
Period: Property Type:
20. Breifly discuss the property's importance Within the context. Use historical and architecturaI analysis as
appropriate. Compare with similar properties.
21. Sources:
:-.---.....-...........--......-......--.......-.--.-----..............:
I :
i Sketch map. Show location and boundaries of 1
j property in relation to nearby streets, !
: railways, natural landmarks, etc. Name each !
!
j
I::::::' .
I .
......................................................................~...................................
22.. . Applicable National Register Criteria:
23. Other recognition:
State Landmark Number:
24. Evaluator:
Year ofEvaliJation:
25. Survey Type: (C=Comprehensive, P=Project
Related. S=Single property)
26. Survey Name:
27. Year Form Prepared:
By (Name):
Organization:
Address:
City, State, Zip.
Phone: ( ) - .
J!f. q /;;t/(lS"
56
.;,
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Historic Preservation Commission
(To be completed by the Applicant)
Potential Structure / Property Improvement TlDle - Line
Pldtse list the improvements which are in~ended to take place over the next 10 years. List them
in order of owner's priority.
.... IMPROVEMENT' .
.. . ~o:. . o~ 0: .: o.
.
"'"s
I certify that I am presently the legal owner of the subject property. Further, I acknowledge the
supplemental infonnation on this form will be used as an exhibit attached to the Mills Act
Agreement Date: 1- J-o<:;; Signature: ~ d~ '. .
{)
p( q pt/o5"'
6/
RESOLUTION NO. 05-04
A RESOLUTION OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL
OF HISTORIC LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2005-00600, DESIGNATING 6862
ETIWANDA AVENUE AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK, LOCATED AT 6862
ETIWANDA AVENUE; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
1089-511-07.
A. Recitals.
1. Janette L. Huckins filed an application for a Landmark Designation as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is referred to as "the application."
2. On September 28, 2005, the Historic Preservation 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 Historic Preservation
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to approximately .34 acre of land, basically a rectangular configuration,
located at 6862 Etiwanda Avenue.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced
public hearing on September 28, 2005, including written and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Commission
hereby makes the following findings and facts:
A. Historical and Cultural Sianificance:
1. Findinq:
FacVs:
F acts/s:
2. Findinq:
FacVs:
The proposed Landmark is particularly representative of a historic
period, type, style, region, or way of life.
The property is an excellent example of life in early Etiwanda, as the
residents needed to locate themselves towards the town center to be
closer to their businesses.
The dwelling is representative of the typical style of suburban
dwellings in Post WWI America. It employs the Colonial Revival style,
which was heavily used during the building boom of the 1920s and
1930s.
The proposed Landmark was connected with someone renowned or
important or a local personality.
Neil Hickcox built and occupied the dwelling from 1931 onward and
was the son of one of Cucamonga's early residents. His father was a
Zanjero for the Etiwanda Water Company, and was involved in the
grape and citrus industries.
5d-
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 05-04
DRC2005-00600-JANETTE L. HUCKINS
September 28, 2005
Page 2
B. Neiohborhood and Geooraohic Settino:
1. Findino: The proposed Landmark materially benefits the historic character of
the neighborhood.
The proposed landmark contributes to the character of the historic
neighborhood as an early twentieth century home and represents the
evolution of small City lot development from large agricultural lots in
early Cucamonga.
2. Findino: The proposed Landmark in its location represents an established and
familiar visual feature of the neighborhood, community, and/or the City.
Fact/s:
The proposed Landmark is an example of the historic dwellings built
for suburban family use in the early twentieth century, which were
located close to the original Cucamonga town center.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder. The Council finds that this Landmark Designation is exempt under CEQA,
pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15331, as a Class 31 exemption (Historical Resource
Restoration/Rehabilitation).
Fact/s:
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this
Commission hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code,
that the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends
approval on the 28th day of September, 2005, of the Landmark Designation.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2005.
BY:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
~ W~~
Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary
ATTEST:
I, Dan Coleman, Acting Secretary of the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed,
and adopted by the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular
meeting of the Historic Preservation Commission held on the 28th day of September 2005, by the following
vote-to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MACIAS
~-3
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
and when
RECORDED MAIL TO:
City Clerk, City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this -Z-nd day of November ,2005, by and
between the CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, a municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "City")
and Janette L. Huckins (hereinafter referred to as the "Owner").
WITNESSETH:
A. Recitals.
(i) California Government Code Section 50280, et seq. authorize cities to enter into contracts
with the Owners of qualified Historical Property to provide for the use, maintenance and restoration of such
Historical Property so as to retain its characteristics as property of historical significance;
(ii) Owner possesses fee title in and to that certain real property, together with associated
structures and improvements thereon, generally located at the street address 6862 Etiwanda Avenue Rancho
Cucamonaa. CA (hereinafter such property shall be referred to as the "Historic Property"). A legal description
of the Historic Property is attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "A" and is incorporated herein by this reference;
(iii) On November 2. 2005, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted its
Resolution No._thereby declaring and designating the Historic Property as a historic landmark pursuant to the
terms and provisions of Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code; and,
--- ----.-
EXHIBIT B
-1-
5f
(Iv) City and Owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this agreement both to
protect and preserve the characteristics of historical significance of the Historic Property and to quality the
Historic Property for an assessment of valuation pursuant to the Provisions of Chapter 3, of Part 2, of Division
1 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code.
B. Aqreement
NOW, THEREFORE, City and Owner, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions
set forth herein, do hereby agree as follows:
1. Effective Date and Term of Aareement. This Agreement shall be effective and commence
on November 2. 2005, and shall remain in effect for a term of ten years thereafter. Each year upon the
anniversary of the effective date, such initial term will automatically be extended as provided in paragraph 2,
below.
2. Renewal. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement
(hereinafter referred to as the "renewal date"), a year shall automatically be added to the initial term of this
Agreement unless notice of nonrenewal is mailed as provided herein. If either Owner or City desires in any
year not to renew the Agreement, Owner or City shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the Agreement on
the other party in advance of the annual renewal date of the Agreement. Unless such notice is served by
Owner to City at least 90 days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by City to Owner at least 60 days
prior to the annual renewal date, one year shall automatically be added to the term of the Agreement as
provided herein. Owner may make a written protest of the notice. City may, at any time prior to the annual
renewal date of the Agreement, withdraw its notice to Owner of nonrenewal. If either City or Owner serves
notice to the other of non renewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term
then remaining, either from its original execution or from the last renewal of the Agreement, whichever may
apply.
3. Standards for Historical Prooertv. During the term of this Agreement, the Historic Property
shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements, and restrictions:
a. Owner shall preserve and maintain the characteristics of historical significance of
the Historic Property. Attached hereto, marked as Exhibit "6," and incorporated herein by this reference, is a
list of those minimum standards and conditions for maintenance, use, and preservation of the Historic
Property, which shall apply to such property throughout the term of this Agreement.
-2-
50'
b. Owner shall, where necessary, restore and rehabilitate the property according to the
rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the State Department of Parks and Recreation
and in accordance with the attached schedule of potential home improvements, drafted by the applicant and
approved by the City Council, attached hereto as Exhibit "C."
c. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examinations, by prior appointment, of the
interior and exterior of the Historic Property by representatives of the County Assessor, State Department of
. Parks and Recreation, State Board of Equalization, and the City, as may be necessary to determine Owner's
compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement.
4. Provision of Information of Corporation. Owner hereby agrees to fumish City wtth any and
all information requested by the City which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance with the
terms and provisions of this Agreement.
. 5. Cancellation. City, following a duly noticed public hearing as set forth in California
Government Code Sections 50280, et seq., may cancel this Agreement if it determines that Owner breached
any of the conditions of this Agreement or has allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer
meets the standards for a qualified historic property. City may also cancel this Agreement if it determines that
the Owner has failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specffied in subparagraph 3(b) of this
Agreement. In the event of cancellation, Owner may be subject to payment of those cancellation fees set forth
in California Government Code Sections 50280, et seq.
6. Enforcement of Aareement. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the
Agreement as referenced herein, City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of this
Agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions of this Agreement by Owner, City shall give written
notice to Owner by registered or certified mail addressed to the address stated in this Agreement, and if such
a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the City within 30 days thereafter, or if not
corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default if said breach or
default cannot be cured within 30 days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default may be commenced
within 30 days and must thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by Owner), then City may, without
further notice, declare a default under the terms of this Agreement and may bring any action necessary to
specifically enforce the obligations of Owner growing out of the terms of this Agreement, apply to any court,
state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by Owner or apply for such other relief as may be
appropriate.
-3-
S'?
City does not waive any claim of default by Owner if City does not enforce or cancel this
Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in
CitYs regulations governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a
breach of this Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be deemed
to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereinunder.
7. Bindina Effect of Aareement. The Owner hereby subjects the Historic Property described
in Exhibit "A" hereto to the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. City and
Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations, and restrictions as set forth herein
shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner's
successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Property. Each and every contract, deed or other
instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the Historic Property, or any portion thereof, shall
conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations,
and restrictions expressed in this Agreement regardless of whether such covenants, reservations, and
restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed or other instrument.
City and Owner hereby declare their understanding and intent that the burden of the
covenants, reservations, and restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that Owner's legal
interest in the Historic Property is rendered less valuable thereby. City and Owner hereby further declare their
understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants, reservations, and restrictions touch and concem
the land by enhancin9 and maintaining the historic characteristics and significance of the Historic Property for
the benefit of the public and Owner.
8. Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of this Agreement shall be provided
at the address of the respective parties as specified below or at any other address as may be later specified by
the parties hereto.
To City:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Attention: City Planner
To Owner:
Janette L. Huckins
6862 Etiwanda Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
-4-
6?
9. General Provisions.
a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to
create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors or assigns, nor shall such
terms, provisions, 'or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint
enterprise.
b. Owner agrees to and shall hold City and its elected officials, officers, agents, and
employees harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and
claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or operations of Owner or those of
his contractor, subcontractor, agent, employee or other person acting on his behalf which relates to the use,
operation, and maintenance of the Historic Property. Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and fis
elected officials, officers, agents, and employees with respect to any and all actions for damages caused by,
or alleged to have been caused by, reason of Owner's activities in connection with the Historic Property. This
hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been
suffered, by reason of the operations referred to in this Agreement regardless of whether or not the City
prepared, supplied or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Historic Property.
c. All of the agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in
this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs,
successors, legal representatives, assigns and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic
Property, whether by operation of law or in any manner whatsoever.
d. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or
restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, orto determine the
rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable
attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court.
e. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be
unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the
validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be effected thereby.
f. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the
State of California.
-5-
a
10. Recordation. No later than 20 days after the parties execute and enter into this
Agreement, the City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the
County of San Bernardino. The Owner shall be responsible for any fees required by the County for recording
this Agreement.
11. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written
recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Owner have executed this Agreement on the day and year
first written above.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Dated:
By:
William J. Alexander, Mayor
Dated:
By:
Janette L. Huckins, Owner
-6-
S''I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
On , Kathy Scott, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
personally appeared WILLIAM J. ALEXANDER, personally know to me to be the person whose name is
subscribed to within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized
capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument, the person or the entity upon behalf of which the person
acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Kathy Scott
Deputy City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO )
On the _ day of , 200_, befor~ me . NotaN Public,
personally appeared . personally kl10wn to m!<l or proyeq to on the basis of
satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) islare subscribed to within instrument and
acknowledged to me that helshelthey executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and the by
his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s)
acted executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Notary Public in and for said State
-7-
~D
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
for
Janette L. Huckins
6862 Etiwanda Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
Mailing: Same as above.
Portion of Lot 16, in Block "I", Etiwanda Colony Lands, in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San
Bernardino, State of California, as per plat recorded in Book 2 of Maps, page 24, records of said county,
described as follows:
Beginning at a point in the east line of said lot, 245 feet north of the southeast corner thereof; the said
point being the northeast corner of a parcel of land conveyed to Neil D. Hickcox and wife, by deed
recorded February 19, 1931, in Book 698, page 249, official records; thence west along the north line of
said Hickcox land, 150 feet; thence north parallel with the east line of said lot, 100 feet; thence east
parallel to the north line of said Hickcox land, 150 feet to the east line of said lot, thence south along the
east line of said lot, 100 feet to the point of beginning.
Exhibit "A"
-8-
6/
THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR'S REHABILITATION STANDARDS
1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property that requires minimal
alteration of the building, structure, or site, and its environment, or to the use of a property for its
originally intended purpose.
2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure, or site, and its environment
shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historical material or distinctive architectural
features should be avoided when possible.
3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations which
have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged.
4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and
development of a building, structure, or site, and its environment
5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship, which characterize a building,
structure, or site, shall be treated with sensitivity.
6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, wherever possible.
In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in
composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing
architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historical,
physical, or pictorial evidence, rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different
architectural elements from other buildings or structures.
7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the most gentle means possible.
Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be
undertaken.
8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and preserve archaeological resources affected by, or
adjacent to, any acquisition, protection, stabilization, preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or
reconstruction project
9. Contemporary design for alteration and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when
such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historic, architectural, or cultural material and
such design is compatible with the size, scale, color, material, and character of the property,
neighborhood, or environment
10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that, if
such additions or alterations were to be removed in 'the future, the essential form and integrity of the
structure would be unimpaired.
Exhibit "B-1"
-9-
{;;;2
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE
Property Maintenance. All buildings, structures, yards and other improvements shall be maintained in a
manner which does not detract from the appearance of the immediate neighborhood. The following conditions
are prohibited:
1. Dilapidated, deteriorating, or unrepaired structures, such as: fences, roofs, doors, walls, and windows;
2. Scrap lumber, junk, trash or debris;
3. Abandoned, discarded or unused objects or equipment, such as automobiles, automobile parts,
furniture, stoves, refrigerators, cans, containers, or similar items;
4. Stagnant water or excavations, including pools or spas;
5. Any device, decoration, design, structure or vegetation which is unsightly by reason of its height,
condition or its inappropriate location.
EXHIBIT "B-2"
-10-
{;3
POTENTIAL HOME IMPROVEMENTS
for
Janette L. Huckins
6862 Etiwanda Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
The following is a list of renovation projects the applicant plans to complete. Future projects proposed by the
applicant or by the legal inheritors of this contract will be reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission's
staff.
ITEM YEAR TASK
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
EXHIBIT "C"
Repair sprinkler system
Relocate trash enclosure
Paint inside house
Have gravel driveway replaced/Hard surface
Finish planting rear yard
RepairlReplace windows in kind as needed
RepairlReplace fence as needed
Check electrical insulation
Refinish wood floors
Paint exterior
-11-
?'f
'---
RESOLUTION NO. D5 - 305
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING HISTORIC LANDMARK
DESIGNATION DRC2005-00600 DESIGNATING A HOUSE LOCATED AT
6862 ETIWANDA AVENUE AS A HISTORIC LANDMARK; AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1089-511-07.
A. Recitals.
1. Janette L. Huckins filed an application for Landmark Designation D'RC2005-00600, as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Landmark is
referred to as "the application."
2. On September 28, 2005, the Historic Preservation Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and recommended approval.
3. On November 2, 2005, the City Council held their meeting and approved Landmark
Designation DRC2005-00600.
4. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts setforth in the Recitals, Part "A,"
of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The application applies to approximately .34 acre of land, basically a rectangular
configuration, located at 6862 Etiwanda Avenue.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council, including Minutes of the
public hearing by the Historic Preservation Commission on September 28, 2005, written and oral
staff reports, together with public testimony, and pursuant to Section 2.24.090 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code, this Council hereby makes the following findings and facts:
Facts For Findino:
A. Historical and Cultural Sionificance:
1. Findino:
The proposed Landmark is particularly representative of a
historic period, type, style, region, or way of life.
The property is an excellent example of life in early Etiwanda,
as the residents needed to locate themselves towards the
town center to be closer to their businesses.
Fact/s:
Facts/s:
The dwelling is representative of the typical style of suburban
dwellings in Post WWI America. It employs the Colonial
Revival style, which was heavily used during the building
boom of the 1920's and 1930's.
iP5
---
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
LANDMARK DESIGNATION DRC2005-00600
November 2, 2005
Page 2
2. Findinq:
Fact/s:
The proposed Landmark was connected with someone
renowned or important or a local personality.
Neil Hickcox built and occupied the dwelling from 1931
onward and was the son of one of Cucamonga's early
residents. His father was a Zanjero for the Etiwanda Water
Company, and was involved in the grape and citrus
industries.
B. Neiqhborhood and Geoqraphic Settinq:
1. Findinq:
Fact/s:
2. Findinq:
Fact/s:
The proposed Landmark materially benefits the historic
character of the neighborhood.
The proposed landmark contributes to the character of the
historic neighborhood as an early twentieth century home and
represents the evolution of a small City lot development from
large agricultural lots in early Etiwanda.
The proposed Landmark in its location represents an
established and familiar visual feature of the neighborhood,
community, andlor the City.
The proposed Landmark is an example of the historic
dwellings built for suburban family use in the early twentieth
century, which were located close to the original Etiwanda
town center.
4. This Council hereby finds that the project has been reviewed and considered in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder, as Landmark Designations are exempt under CEQA, section 15331 as a
Class 31 exemption (historical resource/restoration/rehabilitation).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Council hereby resolves that pursuant to Chapter 2.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code, that the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves Landmark
Designation DRC200S-00600.
6. The Mayor shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
6'
THE CITY OF
I ,,'diU;">:,; ,J4jL1lJjj>;;'::h:A;L11lilli0h;~ d'!i'k;"
RANCUO CUCAMONGA
Ji,: ;;iiW1k:;i '{;;\JJ1blli;::ibJj).jldlliS;" ;J
Staff Report
DATE: November 2, 2005
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, and City Manager
FROM: Pamela S. Easter, Deputy City Manager
Kimberly S. Thomas, Management Analyst III, City Manager's Office
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO RELATED TO CRIMINAL
JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES (BOOKING AND PROCESSING
FEES)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council Approve the Supplemental Settlement
Agreement relating to booking and processing fees with the County of San Bernardino.
BACKGROUND I ANALYSIS
As you know, booking fees are currently levied by the County (regardless of the type of
offense) each time a City officer makes an arrest and delivers the suspect to the County
jail for booking or detention. In Spring 2001, the City as well as the other cities in San
Bernardino County entered into an agreement with the County of San Bernardino
setting the rate for booking and processing of those arrested at $159.72. In November
of 2004, Senate Bill 1102 (SB 1102) was enacted into law. This legislation reduced the
amount of booking fees that can be collected by counties beginning Fiscal Year 2005-
06. SB 1102 reduced fees to no greater than one-half of actual administrative costs,
including overhead costs permitted according to the "Federal Circular A8?" standards,
and in no event greater than the fee charged by a county to cities on January 1, 2004.
Effective FY 2005-06, this legislation also repealed all State reimbursement to cities for
payment to counties for booking fees.
Based on SB 1102, the County performed an updated cost study and calculated a new
cost per booking in the amount of $192.92, which would have allowed the County to
impose a new fee for each booking in the amount of $96.46. However, representatives
of the San Bernardino cities and County met informally, and agreed on a booking fee to
~7
PAGE 2
APPROVAL OF A SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO RELATED TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES (BOOKING AND
PROCESSING FEES)
be charged by the County to the. cities at a rate of $79.86 per booking ($79.86 equals
one-half of the former rate of $159.72), for a period of three (3) years beginning July 1,
2005, and ending on June 30, 2008.
The agreement also states that by July 1, 2006, the cities and the County will be
required to meet for the purposes of negotiating and recommending a methodology to
calculate booking fees and a process to adjust the fees after expiration of the three-year
period.
The attached supplemental agreement has been reviewed by legal counsel,
representing the cities and the County. Approval is recommended to adjust the new
rate of booking fees at $79.86 from $159.72.
Respectfully submitted,
~~
Pamela S. Easter
Deputy City Manager
f.i.1l .J~~
~~ Thomas
Management Analyst III
Attachments - Supplemental Settlement Agreement Relating to Criminal Justice
Fees (2005)
- Prior Supplemental Settlement Agreement Relating to Criminal
Justice Fees (2001)
60
2{)
1 SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATING
2 TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
3 This Supplemental Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as
4 "Agreement") is entered into between the COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, for itself,
5 its employees, servants, representatives, officers, officials, agents and departments
6 (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY") and the CITY OF ADELANTO, TOWN OF
7 APPLE VALLEY, CITY OF BARSTOW, CITY OF BIG BEAR LAKE, CITY OF CHINO,
8 CITY OF CHINO HILLS, CITY OF COLTON, CITY OF FONTANA, CITY OF GRAND
9 TERRACE, CITY OF HESPERIA, CITY OF HIGHLAND, CITY OF LOMA LINDA, CITY
10 OF MONTCLAIR, CITY OF NEEDLES, CITY OF ONTARIO, CITY OF RANCHO
11 CUCAMONGA, CITY OF REDLANDS, CITY OF RIAL TO, CITY OF SAN
12 BERNARDINO, CITY OF TWENTYNINE PALMS, CITY OF UPLAND, CITY OF
13 VICTORVILLE, CITY OF YUCAIPA, and the TOWN OF YUCCA VALLEY (hereinafter
14 referred to as "CITIES AND TOWNS"). COUNTY and CITIES AND TOWNS are
15 collectively referred to herein as the "Parties". The Parties agree as follows:
16 All CITIES AND TOWNS other than the CITY OF NEEDLES have previously
17 entered into "the Settlement Agreement" with COUNTY concerning payment of booking
18 and processing fees (criminal justice administrative fees pursuant to California
19 Government Code section 29550, hereinafter referred to as "booking fees"), that was
20 incorporated as part of the judgment entered by the Sacramento County Superior Court
21 in City of Adelanto, et aI., v. County of San Bernardino, Judicial Council Coordination
22 Proceeding No. 2584. The CITY OF NEEDLES and COUNTY have previously entered
23 into "the separate Settlement Agreement" concerning payment of booking fees.
24 References to "Settlement Agreements" in this Agreement shall mean the agreements
25 identified in the preceding two sentences. These Settlement Agreements provided for
26 the COUNTY to charge actual costs for booking fees after February 10, 2001.
27 Thereafter, almost all of the parties comprising the CITIES AND TOWNS entered into a
28 supplemental settlement agreement with COUNTY for booking fees to be paid at the flat
Page 1
DST 264021
Booking Fees Su . Settlement Agreement.DOC
~9
1 rate of $159.72 for each booking and other processing (hereinafter referred to as
2 "booking"), so long as CITIES AND TOWNS agreed to apply all realized savings to
3 expenditures for public safety, as referred to in California Government Code section
4 29950 and defined in the "ORDER" identified in the Settlernent Agreements, performed
5 by the COUNTY in connection with arrests made within the jurisdictional boundaries of
6 CITIES AND TOWNS after February 10, 2001. This rate was to remain in effect unless
7 COUNTY's actual costs incurred for booking, as referred to in California Government
8 Code section 29550, and as defined by "the ORDER" identified in the Settlement
9 Agreements, increased by twenty-five percent (25%) or more over the COUNTY's
10 actual costs as of February 10, 2001, or in the event that the State of California's
11 reimbursement for booking fees incurred by the CITIES AND TOWNS within the County
12 of San Bernardino was reduced by twenty-five (25%) or more, in which alternative
13 event a new booking fee was to be negotiated by COUNTY and CITIES AND TOWNS.
14 In November of 2004 Senate Bill 11 02 was enacted into law. This legislation
15 amended California Government Code section 29550 to reduce the amount of booking
16 fees that can be collected by counties beginning in Fiscal Year (FY) 2005-06 to fees no
17 greater than one-half of actual administrative costs, including overhead costs permitted
18 according to federal Circular A87 standards, and in no event greater than the fee
19 charged by a county to cities on January 1, 2004. Effective FY 2005-06, this legislation
20 also repealed all state reimbursement to cities for payrnents to counties for booking
21 fees.
22 Based on the above legislative changes, in March of 2005 the COUNTY
23 performed an updated cost study employing the same methodology that was used when
24 earlier agreements between CITIES AND TOWNS and COUNTY were executed, and
25 taking into account increased salary and benefit costs, and a dramatic rise in the
26 number of bookings compared with previous years. Based on the results of this study,
27 COUNTY calculated that current costs per booking were $192.92, which would have
28 allowed COUNTY to impose a new fee for each booking in the amount of $96.46, which
DST 264021
Booking Fees Su . Settlement Agreement.DOC
Page 2
76
1 represents one-half of the County's newly calculated cost per booking.
2 But, instead of imposing such a permissible fee, representatives of CITIES AND
3 TOWNS and COUNTY met informally and agreed upon a booking fee to be charged by
4 COUNTY to CITIES AND TOWNS at the rate of $79.86 per booking for a period of thre
5 years. This fee was enacted by the COUNTY Board of Supervisors on May 17, 2005 to
6 take effect on July 1, 2005, at which time the Board of Supervisors also directed the
7 County Administrative Officer and County Counsel to prepare agreements with CITIES
8 AND TOWNS for later approval, and to continue meeting with city managers or other
9 representatives of CITIES AND TOWNS to define a methodology for calculation of
10 booking fees, and to establish a process to adjust the fees after expiration of the three-
11 year period in which the fees are to be imposed at the rate of $79.86 per booking.
12 CITIES AND TOWNS and COUNTY agree that the booking fee to be charged by
13 COUNTY to CITIES AND TOWNS shall be at the rate of $79.86 per booking for a
14 period of three years beginning July 1, 2005 and ending on June 30, 2008.
15 CITIES AND TOWNS and COUNTY also agree that they shall meet with each
16 other from time to time to negotiate and recommend to the Parties by July 1, 2006 a
17 defined methodology for calculation of booking fees, and a process to adjust future
18 booking fees once the present enacted fee expires on June 30, 2008.
19 On or before December 1, 2005, COUNTY agrees to provide to CITIES AND
20 TOWNS a detailed written explanation of COUNTY's methodology and a step-by-step
21 explanation of the process used for calculating booking fees for CITIES AND TOWNS.
22 Within sixty (60) days of receipt of COUNTY's methodology and process used to
23 calculate booking fees, anyone or more of CITIES AND TOWNS shall provide to all
24 other Parties a detailed written explanation of any alternative methodology and/or
25 process proposed by anyone or more of CITIES AND TOWNS.
26 Following these exchanges of information, CITIES AND TOWNS and COUNTY
27 shall meet on or before July 1, 2006 for the purposes of negotiating and
28 recommending to the Parties a methodology to calculate booking fees, and a process to
Page 3
DST 264021
Booking Fees Su . Settlement Agreement.DOC
71
"
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
adjust the fees after expiration of the three-year period in which fees are to be imposed
at the rate of $79.86 per booking. Any such recommendations shall be included in a
proposed amendment to this Agreement and transmitted to each of the Parties for their
approval.
If, thereafter, COUNTY and CITIES AND TOWNS mutually agree upon a defined
methodology for calculation of booking fees, as well as a fee adjustment process and
implementation, the agreed upon methodology and process shall be implemented within
thirty (30) days of the date of the executed amendment to this agreement or other
agreement as the Parties deem appropriate.
If, instead, no agreement is reached by COUNTY and CITIES AND TOWNS on
either the methodology to be used to calculate booking fees, or on a process to adjust
booking fees in the future, or on both methodology and process, on qr before January 1,
2008, an impasse shall be declared (unless COUNTY and CITIES AND TOWNS agree
on a further extension of time to attempt to reach agreement on these issues). In such
an event, after expiration of the three-year period in which fees are to be imposed at the
rate of $79.86 per booking, COUNTY may then employ a methodology for calculation
of booking fees and a process to adjust fees in the future as are allowable by law,
which methodology and process anyone or more of CITIES AND TOWNS shall be free
to challenge in the Superior Court of the State of California if they so desire. If that
occurs, the final decision of the highest reviewing court shall thereafter be binding on
the Parties concerning methodology for calculation of booking fees and the process to
adjust such fees until such time as the law changes with respect thereto.
All provisions contained in judgments entered in City of Adelanto, et al. v. County
of San Bernardino, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584, and the original
Settlement Agreements and supplemental settlement agreements between the Parties
relating to booking fees that are not in direct conflict with the terms of this supplemental
settlement agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties are freely and voluntarily entering into and
Page 4
DST 264021
Booking Fees Su . Settlement Agreement.DOC
7)-
1 signing this Agreement on the respective dates indicated below.
2 Approved as to form:
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Dated:
,2005
RONALD D. REITZ
COUNTY COUNSEL
By:
DENNIS TILTON
Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
Dated:
,2005
RICHARDS WATSON GERSHON
By:
MARGUERITE P. BATTERSBY
12 Dated:
13
14
15
16
17
,2005
~OUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
By:
BILL POSTMUS
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Dated:
,2005
CITY OF ADELANTO
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 City Clerk
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF ADELANTO
25 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
26
City Attorney
27
28
[mayors or city managers of all other cities and towns signing in counterpart
Page 5
DST 264021
Booking Fees Su . Settlement Agreement.DOC
73
1 Dated:
,2005
2
3
4
5
6
7
ATTEST:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
8
9
10 City Clerk
11
12 APPROVED AS TO FORM:
13
14
15 City Attorney
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OST 264021
Booking Fees Su . Settlement Agreement.DOC
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
By:
Mayor
Ii
I .
eo Of-f) L( I
206/
1 SUPPLEMENTAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RELATING
2 TO CRIMINAL JUSTICE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
3 This Supplemental Settlement Agreement (hereinafter referred to as
4 "Agreement") is entered into between the COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO, for Itself,
5 its employees, servants, representatives, officers, officials, gen~ an~ departments
6 (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY") and the CITY 0, . {',VJ1. tL.;
7 (hereinafter referred to as "CITY"). COUNTY and CITY are collectively referred 0 herei
8 as the "Parties".
9 CITY and COUNTY have previously entered into "the Settlement Agreement"
10 concerning payment of booking and processing fees (criminal justice administrative fees
11 pursuant to California Government Code section 29550) that was incorporated as part
12 of the judgment entered by the Sacramento County Superior Court in City of Adelanto,
13 et a!.. v. County of San Bernardino, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584.
14 References to "Settlement Agreement" in this Agreement shall mean the agreement
15 identified in the preceding sentence. This Settlement Agreement provided for the
16 COUNTY to charge actual costs for criminal justice administrative fees after February
17 10,2001.
1 B The Parties desire to change the rate provision and other provisions of the
19 Settlement Agreement for fees imposed after February 10. 2001.
20 Therefore, COUNTY and CITY agree to the following terms and conditions:
21 1. Notwithstanding Section 3.d. of the Settlement Agreement and the provisions
22 of any other Supplemental Settlement Agreement entered into between the Parties, the
23 Parties agree that the CITY shall pay a criminal justice administrative fee at the flat rate
24 of $159.72 for each bookIng and other processing, as referred to in California
25 Government Code Section 29550 and as defined in "the Order" identified in the
26 Settlement Agreement, performed by the COUNTY in connection with arrests made
27 within the jurisdictional boundaries of the CITY after February 10, 2001. This rate shall
28 remain in effect unless changed as hereinafter provided in this Agreement.
Page 1
C!. 0 6/ -{y!/
/'
~
111698215
,~~~_~~~~~~ ~~!OT Tnn'.n7'~VW
I
1 2. In the event that the COUNTY's actual costs incurred for booking and other
2 processing, as referred to in California Government Code Section 29550 and as defined
3 in "the Order" identified in the Settlement Agreement, increase by twenty-five percent
4 (25%) or more over the COUNTY's actual costs as of February 10, 2001. or in the event
5 that the State of California's reimbursement for booking fee costs incurred by the cities
6 within the County of San Bernardino is reduced by twenty-five percent (25%) or more,
7 written notice of the former event shall be given by the COUNTY to the CITY. and
8 written notice of the latter event shall be given by the CITY to the COUNTY, and the
9 Parties thereafter shall reopen negotiations concerning the rate to be charged by the
10 COUNTY for such booking and other processing. If negotiations do not result in an
11 agreement within 180 days of the date of said written notice, the provisions of Section
12 3.d. of the Settlement Agreement shall thereafter be reinstated in full such that the rate
13 charged by the COUNTY for performing the activities properly includable in booking and
14 other processing, as referred to in Califomla Government Code Section 29550 and as
15 defined In "the Order" identified in the Settlement Agreement, performed by the
16 COUNTY in connection with arrests made within the Jurisdictional boundaries of the
17 CITY shall be the amount of the actual costs incurred by the COUNTY or such lower
18 rate as the COUNTY's Board of Supervisors imposes pursuant to its authority to set
19 COUNTY fees. The COUNTY shall provide the CITY with adequate documentation
20 supporting its calculation of the criminal justice administrative fee, Nothing herein shall
21 be treated as a waiver of the ability of the CITY to contest or challenge any such
22 recalculation of the COUNTY's criminal justice administrative fee as being either
23 computationally in error or unsupported by law.
24 3. The following paragraph contained in Section 4 of the Settlement Agreement is
25 hereby deleted by the Parties and declared to be null and \loid and of no force or effect:
26 "The parties shall consider the recommendations of the joint
27 committee established in Section 6 herein, and prior to February 11, 2001,
28 shall agree on a procedure to be instituted for a City executing thIs
Page 2
#169826
.. - - ~......,.... ............ .........., ....,. 0""-",,.'
\
1 Agreement to contest the proper allocation of billed criminal justice
2 administrative fees and/or interest for bookings and other processing, as
3 referred to in California Government Code section 29550 and as defined
4 in "the Order" occurring after February 10. 2001.-
5 4. Upon request of the CITY. the COUNTY, through either its Central Collections
6 Division or a contract firm used by the COUNTY, shall engage in reasonable efforts to
7 collect on behalf of the CITY all booking fee charges imposed on convicted defendants
8 by the courts which the CITY is entitled to recover under California Government COde'
9 section 29550.1. All such funds recovered by the COUNTY shall be Immediately
10 remitted to the CITY after deduction therefrom of any collection COsts incurred by the
11 COUNTY. COUNTY collection efforts under this paragraph shall only be required if
12 COUNTY detennlnes It is practical to do such work through Its Central Collections
13 Division or through a contract.
14 5. The Parties understand and agree that this Agreement is intended only to
15 supplement the Settlement Agreement reached by the Parties with respect to all matte
16 contained therein, and entered as part of the judgment, in City of Adelanto. et al.. v...
17 County of San Bernardino, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584. The
18 Parties hereby affinn their understanding of the tenns of that Settlement Agreement and
19 any Supplemental Settlement Agreements as well as this Agreement. and understand
20 and agree that they are still bound by all terms of the Settlement Agreement and a~~' ,
21 Supplemental Agreements and the judgment in C of Adelanto e
22 Bernardino. Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2584, that are not expressly
23 modified by this Agreement or any other written Supplemental Agreements between the
24 Parties. The Parties agree that this Agreement is a binding contract and not merely a
25 recital. The Parties further understand and agree that this Agreement may not be
26 altered, amended, modified, or otherwise changed in any respect or particular
27 whatsoever, except in writing duly executed by both Parties by their authorized
28 representatives.
Page 3
'7
'1ese:ze
OM) Icon' a t l1zr#
AgS~gllVg , Zg~V^~V ~~INn~g
6881-88(6Q6 ,"91 1QQZ,OZ'~
~
1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF. the Parties sign this Agreement on the respective dates
2 indicated below.
3 Approved as to form:
: Dated?;""""&"" Lr. 2001
6
7
8
9
10 Dated: '5 ~/ fo
11
12
13
14
,2001
15 DatedM;",,6' It .2001
16 ~
17
18
19
20 Dated: fl1 {v.L /7 . 2001
21 ~
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
#'69826
By:
ALAN K. MARKS
COUNTY COUN~E~ () I _
~:1~
DENNIS TILTON
Deputy County Counsel
Attorneys for COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
L. fVIa /'; 4(1
By: d/:, /' ~...,.
~ J5~ y . /
Attorneys for CITY OF 'f:::.Z:/'~/~/~/
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
By:
~~ ~/~
F D AGUIAR
Chairman, Board of Supervisors
Page 4
7
... ,.......... 1'...,....~
TaC~~TTVQ ~ 77~V^~W ~~T~n~g
688t-88€606 9t'9t tooz.oz'~
THE
.c I T Y
o F
RANCUO CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DAlE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 2, 2005
Mayor, Members of the City Council and
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Dale Catron, City Facilities Supervisor
APPROVE A CONTRACT EXTENSION WITH SUNSHINE WINDOWS (CO 02-134) TO
JUNE 30, 2006 FOR WINDOW WASHING SERVICES FOR CITY FACILITIES WITH THE
OPTION TO RENEW FOR ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR PERIODS UP TO TWO
ADDITIONAL YEARS UPON MUTUAL CONSENT AND CONFIRMATION OF PRICING
NOT TO EXCEED $86,350 ANNUALLY WHICH INCLUDES $25,000 FOR ANTICIPATED
EXTRA WORK RELATED TO CONSTRUCTION AND OPENING OF THE CULTURAL
ARTS CENTER TO BE FUNDED FROM 1001312-5304
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve a contract extension with Sunshine Windows (CO 02-
134) to June 30, 2006 for window washing services for city facilities with the option to renew for additional
one year periods up to two additional years upon mutual consent and confirmation of pricing not to
exceed $86,360 annually which includes $25,000 for anticipated extra work related to construction and
opening of the Cultural Arts Center to be funded from 1001312-5304.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Sunshine Windows is currently under contract with the City for window washing services for city facilities.
This contractor has not requested a rate increase since the inception of the contract; however, the letter
of intent submitted for this fiscal year has requested a small increase of $750 annually for the stadium (for
lift rental), with all other building rates remaining the same. The only other increase to the contract is the
additional scope of work for the PD 3rd floor addition and the Goldy S. Lewis Community Center/James L.
Brulte Senior Center.
The City continues to receive exceptional service from this vendor and recommends the extension of this
contract.
Respectfully submitted,
WiII:J!O~! L~
City Engineer
79
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
.ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 2, 2005
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Michael TenEyck, Administrative Resource Manager
APPROVE AND AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF A PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMENT TO APPLIED METERING TECHNOLOGY, INC.,
FOR INSTALLATION, CONFIGURATION AND METER TESTING
SERVICES WITHIN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL UTILITY
SERVICE AREA TO BE FUNDED FROM 17053035309
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve and authorize the execution of a
Professional Services Agreement to Applied Metering Technology, Inc., for installation,
configuration and meter testing services within the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility
service area to be funded from 17053035309
BACKGROUND ANALYSIS:
On August 31, 2001, the Rancho Cucamonga City Council authorized the creation and
operation of a municipally owned utility for the purpose of providing various utility services.
The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility has been providing of electric service to its
customers since July 2004. The Cities service area receives permanent electric service
from the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Utility via an electrical substation facility at the
southeast corner of Rochester Avenue and Stadium Parkway. The substation has been
operational since February 2004.
With the substation operational and the backbone infrastructure installed the City has an on
going need to provide retail customers with permanent metered electric service. Staff
research has found (i) other cities also did research and found AMT was the only service
provider available. (ii) Our researched confirmed the results of other cities. (iii) They are
also certified and used by each of the three Investor Owned Utilities (Edison, San Diego
So
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTS
APPLIED METERING TECHNOLOGY, INC.
November 2, 2005
Page 2
Gas and Electric, PG&E). (iv) The City was able to negotiate a lower cost compared to
other cities.
AMT is currently the only provider in the area certified by the California' Public Utilities
Commission as a Meter Service Provider (MSP No.1 011). They are also certified by each
of the three Investor Owned Utilities (IOU's) to install, maintain, test and calibrate utility
meters. Additionally, AMT is an Independent System Operator (ISO) certified meter
inspector. AMT is the service provider for three other recently formed municipal utilities,
City of Corona, City of Industry and the City of Beaumont.
Respectfully submitted,
~. ttUAl
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:MT
<6/
RANCHO cUcAMONGA
I
fNGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report
DAlE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECf:
November 2, 2005
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AlCP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Mark N. Brawthen, Contract Engineer
APPROVAL OF A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT (SRA-37) AND
PAYMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $77,668.00 FOR INSTALLATION OF
MASTER PLAN TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES ON THE SOUTH SIDE
OF 6TH STREET BETWEEN CHARLES SMITH AVENUE AND HYSSOP
DRNE, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF PARCEL MAP
16010 (DRC2002-00750), SUBMITTED BY RKW DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION TO BE FUNDED FROM TRANSPORTATION
REIMBURSEMENT ACCOUNT NUMBER 1124303565011026124-0
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution approving the
Reimbursement Agreement for the installation of the master plan transportation facilities on the
south side of 6th Street between Charles Smith Avenue and Hyssop Drive and authorizing the
Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement.
BACKGROUNDI ANALYSIS
As a Condition of Approval of Parcel Map 16010, RKW Development Corporation, the
developer was required to widen the south side of 6th Street between Charles Smith Avenue and
Hyssop Drive.
The above-required improvements to the Master Plan Transportation System have now been
completed by the Developer and accepted by the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
The Developer has submitted an itemized accounting of the construction costs for the
reimbursable portion of the Master Planned Transportation Facilities installed by his project.
Staff has reviewed these costs and concurs that the final amount is an accurate accounting. The
total cost of said reimbursable improvement is $77,668.00. The Developer paid the City
<6;;
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
PM 16010 (DRC2002-00750)
November 2, 2005
Page 2
Transportation Development fee. Said fee with respect to the Developer's project is $120,856.08
dollars. This was the fee amount paid at issuance of building permit by the Developer.
Copies ofthe agreement signed by the Developer are available in the City Clerk's office.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe (/t/IJU
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:MB:pjb
Attachments
3Y
66 Foothill
Q)
Q) >
> <<:
<<:
Arrow
.c:: Gl
...., :J
..... c:
El Gl
U) .'(
Gl
:J
c: Area
Gl
.'(
0
1:>
c: c:
Gl 0
~ ;t
:;:;
~ w
4th Street
City of
Rancho Cucamonga
ENGINEERING
DIVISION
10
~
~
;t
Q)
~
IL.
10
10
Freeway
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
Item: SRA-37
Title: VICINITY MAP
EXHIBIT: 1
81/
-1l.
(j)
~
....."
-"
OJ
-"
to
N
o
SHT. 2.
Tn
><
!ti~
)>r:Jl
~~
......,
):;
::
-= J:
Nt.I,<
N t.I III
. III
o
'C
~ 0
- (,0 :::::I
(,0 <'
(l)
',,",
-.........::
'---'
':0
,l
(
(
')
~
iii'
...
5'
'"
\~
(
/
'\
,
-I
1
1
~
;;:I
;;D'
3~'
.
'en
.....
CD
CD
.....,
. '., :..
elt
"tI
:>
;:0
()
m"tl
rm
~g
)>-
"'0-"
~
0)
o
-"
o
18+01,96
Property Line
01
f;
7'
I))
o
z
rn
AI
JT\
-
oS
OJ
s:
m
s
JT\
Z
-I
r-
-
~
::;
If~ ~
_...l:cn ~
=r
io '
_::I. (If
N~ <-!
(j)
:c
[i1
[T1
-f
-
o
TJ
N
4
......\.
W
......\.
~
......\.
(J'J
....lo.
en
f71
(JIX
.:::u:r:
)>-
,0:1
-
<.AI"';
-."j .
~
1"1
!;1
I ~
I .5
~
I :e
I
, /
~r
'\(/~
I 1I~)i
l Jh
1111/11111
, III~IIIII III
I . II 1m 1111 III
ate 15
;If
-
t5\
-f
%
/.
.',
3+0Q..4~
lli06.92
feR
\
l~t8L'
g
n
"
OJ
o
~
~
i
OJ
c:
;0
rIl
fT1
~
;::
-t
r-
j
-
-f
(')
:l>
~
JJ
J>
2
V\
;AI
-
~
.......
-l
I
o
Tl
I
<
~
-<
18
V'
::x:
JT1
f11
-1
N
C>
TJ
N
MAiCH LINE SHT. I
---- - ~ ..........._-~
~\.~
EXHIBIT "B"
OUTLINE OF BACKBONE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT COSTS FOR
SRA-37
I.
ENGINEERING/DESIGN:
A. Street hnprovement Plans
B. Street Survey Services
$3,622.84
$2,575.64
TOTAL ENGINEERING/DESIGN
$6,198.48
II. CONSTRUCTION:
A. Paving $25,472.40
B. Removals $4,831.47
C. Aggregate Base $8,712.76
D. Curb & Gutter $4,068.24
E. Fine Grade $5,608.24
F. Roadbed Mass Excavation $3,546.83
G. Verizon (Vault Relocation) $12,336.00
H. Sidewalk $3,595.00
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION $68,170.94
III. INSPECTION/TESTING/BONDS
A. Soils $1,480.00
B. Permit City of Rancho Cucaffionga $1,073.58
C. Bonds $745.00
TOTAL INSPECTION/TESTING/BONDS $3.298.58
TOTALSlXTHSTREETBACKBONESYSTEM $77,668.00
IV. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA FEE CREDIT $0.00
TOTAL ELIGIBLE FOR REIMBURSEMENT $77,668.00
rJ7
RESOLUTION NO. OS - ~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT, SRA NO. 37, FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF THE SOUTH SIDE OF 6TH STREET
BETWEEN CHARLES SMITH AVENUE AND HYSSOP
DRIVE, ASSOCIATED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF
PARCEL MAP 16010
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has for its
consideration a Reimbursement Agreement for Master Plan Transportation Facility,
submitted by RKW Development Corporation, the Developer, for construction of the
south side of 6th Street between Charles Smith Avenue and Hyssop drive, in conjunction
with the construction of Parcel Map 16010; and
WHEREAS, the Developer, at the Developer's expense, has completed the
construction of the south side of 6th Street between Charles Smith AvenUe and Hyssop
Drive.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES, that said Reimbursement Agreement is hereby
approved, and the Mayor is hereby authorized to sign said Reimbursement Agreement on
behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, and the City Clerk to attest hereto and cause
said Agreement to record.
<gg
RANCHO cUcAMONGA
'1
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report
DAlE:
TO:
November 2, 2005
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Tasha Hunter, Public Service Tech I
ACCEPT IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE THE FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE
BOND, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND FILE A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR IMPROVEMENTS FOR DRC2002-00132 LpCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 6TH STREET AND CLEVELAND AVENUE,
SUBMITTED BY 6TH AND CLEVELAND, T.I.C.
RECOMMENDATION:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
The required improvements for DRC2002-00132 have been completed in an acceptable
manner, and it is recommended that the City Council accept said improvements, authorize the
City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful
Performance Bond and accept a Maintenance Bond.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS:
As a condition of approval of completion of DRC2002-00132, located at the northeast corner of
6th Street and Cleveland Avenue, the applicant was required to complete improvements. The
improvements have been completed and it is recommended that the City Council release the
existing Faithful Performance Bond and accept the Maintenance Bond.
Developer: 6th and Cleveland, T.I.C.: 2131 S. Grove Ave., Ste. M, Ontario, Ca 91761
Release:
Accept:
Faithful Performance Bond # 104330777
(Bond No.)
Maintenance Bond # 104540795
(Bond No.)
$252,600.00
$ 25,260.00
Respectfully submitted,
C;Ce?~I~
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:TCH
Attachment( s)
87
/I
ARROW ROUTE J
PROJECT-
1 '""
ff
...
71ll ST. ~
.. .......
~ ,1.1 ~
!l!
-<
~ I 81H ST. ~ )
:z:
:Ii J
41lf ST. \
.- r-.... ~ .- r-....
\1111
-
...
N
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ITEM:
TITLE:
ENGINEERING DIVISION
96
RESOLUTION NO. 05,,3)1
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
DRC2002.00132 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF
A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for DRC2002-00132
have been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the
work is complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
hereby resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is
authorized to sign and file a Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of
San Bernardino County.
9(
RANCHO cUcAMONGA
r::.-
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
SiaffReport
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 2, 2005
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Cindy Hackett, Associate Engineer" ~/
Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Tec~~
RELEASE OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND NO. 08658626 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $589,162.00, FOR THE MILLIKEN AVENUEIWILSON AVENUE EXTENSION,
MILLIKEN AVENUE FROM 1380' NORTH OF BANYAN STREET TO WILSON
AVENUE AND WILSON AVENUE FROM DAY CREEK CHANNEL TO MILLIKEN
AVENUE, CONTRACT NO. 04-008
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Faithful Performance
Bond No. 08658626 in the amount of $589,162.00 for the Milliken AvenueIWilson Avenue
Extension, Milliken Avenue from 1380' North of Banyan Street to Wilson Avenue and Wilson
Avenue from Day Creek Channel to Milliken Avenue, Contract No. 04-008.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free
from defects in materials and workmanship.
Contractor: Laird Construction Co., Inc.
9460 Lucas Ranch Road
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Respectfully submitted,
'foe ()Z/i~l{
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:CH/RO:/s
Attachments
Cf;)
. .
MILLIKEN AVENUE/WILSON AVENUE EXTENSION
MTT.T.1T{F.N AVE.- FROM 1380'z NORTH OF BANYAN STREET TO WILSON AVE.
WIlSON AVENUE - FROM DAYCREEK CHANNEL TO UTU'.'TTOl!N AVENUE
.-
:-"1
I :
: I
I
~ u w 0
... !1l::J:
. 6THST 0..
. '" 0
~..rnl..~~.a.l._.. ~ ._~_..
/ /1.....
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
, 7T
.. Y
( U
1...J''r'
\.
VICINITY MAP
~93
RANCHO cUcAMONGA
l
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report
DAlE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 2, 2005
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Maria Perez, Associate Engineer ~
Richard Oaxaca, Engineering Technician~
RELEASE OF FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE BOND NO. 216104 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $77,666.90, FOR THE ADA 2003/2004 ACCESS RAMP AND DRIVE
APPROACH IMPROVEMENTS, CONTRACT NO. 04-068
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Clerk to release Faithful Performance
Bond No. 216104 in the amount of $77,666.90 for the ADA 2003/2004 Access Ramp and Drive
Approach Improvements, Contract No. 04-068.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The required one-year maintenance period has ended and the street improvements remain free
from defects in materials and workmanship.
Contractor: Dye and Browning Construction, Inc.
10640 Redwood Avenue
Fontana, CA 92337
Respectfuily submitted,
j6eVVuU
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:MP/RO:ls
Attachments
crt!
VICINITY MAP
ADA 2003/2004 ACCESS RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS
'.
PRO.JECT
LOCATION
.oJ'".
~- Di
., .
i"
,
g /..
'iC .'
>r-~' ~ ~ .- -'
j , ,~:
u.~.","
""'.. 'WilsDn Av
j .
I
I
a
c:l ....~JlI
'\iO:__~
c~ ..
:; e ~
'i ...
:: .:z
4th st
~
Freewa
""
!5
i I
;I
m
.
95
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
l _._
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Staff Report
DATE:
November 2, 2005
TO:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Jerry A. Dyer, Senior Civil Engineer IVV
Richard Oaxaca, Engineering TechniJan~
ACCEPT THE RENOVATION OF TVVO BASEBALL FIELDS AT RED HILL
COMMUNITY PARK, CONTRACT NO. 05-057 AS COMPLETE, RELEASE THE
BONDS, ACCEPT A MAINTENANCE BOND AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY
ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION AND APPROVE THE FINAL
CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $37,352.50
BY:
SUBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council accept the Renovation of Two Baseball Fields at Red Hill
Community Park, Contract No. 05-057, as complete, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of
Completion, accept a Maintenance Bond, release the Faithful Performance Bond, authorize the
release of the Labor and Materials Bond in the amount of $37,352.50 six months after the
recordation of said notice if no claims have been received and authorize the release of the retention
in the amount of $3,735.25, 35 days after acceptance. Also, approve the final contract amount of
$37,352.50.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
The Renovation of Two Baseball Fields at Red Hill Community Park scope of work consisted of re-
grading and re-sodding two Red Hill Community Park baseball fields at the infield/outfield interface.
Pertinent information of the project is as follows:
J;- Budgeted Amount:
J;- Account Numbers:
J;- Engineer's Estimate:
$45,000.00
11203055650/1222120-0
$40,910.00
9~
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Re: Accept the Renovation of Two Baseball Fields at Red Hill Community Park
November 2, 2005
Page 2
~ City Council's Approval to Advertise: April 20, 2005
~ Publish dates for local paper: April 26, 2005 & May 3, 2005
~ Bid Opening: May 24, 2005
~ Contract Award Date: June 15, 2005
~ Low Bidder:
~ Contract Amount:
~ 10% Contingency:
~ Final Contract Amount:
~ Difference in Contract Amount:
Athletic Field Specialists, Inc.
$37,352.50
$3,735.25
$37,352.50
$0.00 (0.00%)
The project was completed as per contract plans and specifications with no change orders.
Respectfully submitted,
Lj6'C (A~
William J. O'Neil
City. Engineer
WJO:JAD/RO:ls
Attachments
?7
BANYAN T
tvIl50N AVE I
~D
U'\
~
...
~
Cl
8TH 5T
GTI1 5T
4TH 5T
ONTARIO CITY UMIT
PROJECT
LOCATION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BBD BILL COmmNlTr PABK
RENOVA.TION OF TWO lIAmlRU.J. PJELDS
VICINITY MAP
RESOLUTION NO. D5 - 3O~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAliFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE
RENOVATION OF TWO BASEBALL FIELDS AT RED HILL
COMMUNITY PARK, CONTRACT NO. 05-057 AND
AUTHORIZING THE FiliNG OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the Renovation of Two Baseball Fields at Red Hill Community
Park, Contract No. 05-057, has 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 Bernardino
County.
~7
ORDINANCE NO. 748
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVISING
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO SECOND DWELLING UNITS
IN CONFORMANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND AMENDING
TITLE 17 (THE DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE.
A. RECITALS.
1. Government Code Section 65852.2 requires each city to adopt an ordinance
that allows second dwelling units in response to the critical need for
affordable housing statewide. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the
City's Development Code and adopt those regulations necessary in order to
comply with Section 65852.2.
2. Government Code Section 65852.2 defines a second unit as "an attached or
a detached residential dwelling unit which provides complete independent
living facilities for one or more persons. It shall include permanent provisions
for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation, on the same parcel as the
single-family dwelling is situated." A second dwelling unit also includes an
efficiency unit as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 17958.1 and a
manufactured home as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 18007."
Efficiency units are defined as "units for occupancy by no more than two
persons which have a minimum floor area of 150 square feet and which may
also have partial kitchen or bathroom facilities." Manufactured homes are
defined as "a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which, in the
traveling mode, is eight body feet or more in width, or 40 body feet or more in
length, or, when erected on site, is 320 or more square feet, and which is built
on a permanent chassis and designed to be used as a dwelling with or
without a permanent foundation when connected to the required utilities, and
includes the plumbing, heating, air conditioning, and electrical systems
contained therein; except that such term shall include any structure which
meets all the requirements of this paragraph except the size requirements
and with respect to which the manufacturer voluntarily files a certification and
complies with the standards established under this part. 'Manufactured home'
includes a mobilehome subject to the National Manufactured Housing
Construction and Safety Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C., Sec. 5401, et seq.)."
3. On September 14, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing
concerning the Development Code amendments contained herein, as
required by law. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission
recommended adoption of said amendments.
4. On October 19, 2005, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing concerning the
Development Code amendments contained herein as required by law.
17:1.)
5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. ORDINANCE.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: The facts set forth in the Recitals. Part A of this Ordinance, are
true and correct.
SECTION 2: The provisions of this Ordinance and the Development Code
amendments contained herein have been reviewed and
considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder. The City Council finds that
this Ordinance and said Development Code amendments are
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to the provisions of Section 1S061(b)(3) of
the Guidelines.
SECTION 3: Section 17.02.140.C Definition for Second Dwelling Unit, of Title
17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"SECOND DWELLING UNIT: A detached or attached
dwelling unit, which provides complete, independent living
facilities for one or more persons. It shall include
permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking,
and sanitation on the same parcel or parcels as the
primary unit is situated. A second dwelling unit also
includes an efficiency unit as defined in Health and Safety
Code Section 17958.1 and a manufactured home as
defined in Health and Safety Code Section 18007."
SECTION 4: Table 17.08.030 Use Regulations of Title 17 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to permit second
dwelling units in all residential districts as shown in the attached
Exhibit A.
SECTION 5: Section 17.08.030.E. Special Use Regulations, subsection 6
Second Dwelling Units, of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"6. Second Dwellinq Units. Permitted subject to the
following criteria:
a. The unit may be constructed as an accessory building
or attached to the primary residence on a parcel in a
single-family and multi-family residential districts.
I/)I
b. The unit is not for sale, but for rental purposes only, or
use by a member of the immediate family.
c. The lot contains an existing single-family detached
residence, and does not contain a guest house.
d. The unit shall not exceed 640 square feet if the parcel
is less than 20,000 square feet; if greater than 20,000
square fe.et, the second unit can exceed 640 square
feet but may not be greater than 950 square feet or 30
percent of the main dwelling unit, if attached. (Unit size
is exclusive of enclosed parking space requirement.)
Lot Size: A second dwelling unit may be established
on a lot or parcel of land having a minimum of 10,000
square feet.
Height: A detached second dwelling unit shall be
limited to one story, shall not exceed 16 feet in height,
and shall not exceed the height of the main dwelling
unit.
e. The unit shall have a separate entrance from the main
residence.
f. The unit shall provide parking and access per Chapter
17.12 and provide one enclosed parking space per
bedroom, not to exceed two enclosed spaces per unit.
The enclosed parking space shall not be located in the
required front or side yard setback for the primary unit.
Temporary removable units shall provide one off-street
parking space.
g. The unit construction shall conform to the site
development criteria applicable to accessory buildings
or additions to main residence in the base district in
which the unit is located.
h. The unit shall match the architectural style of the
primary residence in design features, such as but not
limited to, material, colors, roofing, scale, surface
treatments, and details.
i. The unit shall conform to the Hillside andlor Equestrian
Overlay District in which it is located.
j. The use of temporarylremovable structures for a
second dwelling unit shall be restricted to the area at
the rear of the primary residence and adhere to all
development criteria in this section.
( D)..
k. The applicant shall submit to the Building and Safety
Department written certification from the affected water
and sewer district that adequate water and sewer
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed
unit. For units using septic facilities allowable by the
Santa Ana Regional Quality Control Board and the
City, written certification of acceptability including all
supportive information shall be submitted."
SECTION 6: Severabilitv. The City Council declares that should any
provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance
be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court
of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive
legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs,
sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION 7: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
11)3
EXHIBIT A
Table 17.08.030- Use Regulations for Residential Districts
USE VL L LM M MH H
A. Residential Uses
Single-Family Detached P P P P' - -
Single-Family Attached (du-, tri- and four-plex) - - P P P P
Multiple Family Dwellings - - P' P P P
Mobile Home Parks C C C C C C
B. Other Uses
1. Animal Care Facility C - - - - -
Cemetery C C C C C C
Church C C C C C C
Club, Lodge, Fraternity & Sorority - C C C C C
College or University C C C C C C
Convalescent Center - - C C C C
Public Facility C C C C C C
Day Care Facility
Accessory - 6 or less P P P P P P
Non-Accessory - 7 or more C C C C C C
Fire & Police Station C C C C C C
Hospital - - C C C C
Outdoor Recreation Facility (non-commercial) C C C C C C
Public Park and Playground P P P P P P
Residential Care Facility
Accessory - 6 or less P P P P P P
Non-Accessory - 7 or more - - C C C C
Schools, Private & Parochial C C C C C C
Stable, Commercial C - - - - -
Stable, Private P - - - - -
Utility or Service Facility C C C C C C
Recreational Vehicle Storage or Mini- C C C C C
Storage for public u~e
!v'!
C. Accessorv Uses
2. Accessory Structure P P P P P P
Antenna P P P P P P
Caretaker's Residence C C C C C C
Guest House P P P - - -
Home Occupation P P P P P P
Lodging Unit P P P - - -
Other Accessory Uses P P P P P P
Private Garage P P P P P P
Private Swimming Pool P P P P P P
Second Dwelling Unit (including elder cottage) P P P P P P
Feed and Tack Store (if accessory tc C
commercial stable) - - - - -
Dormitory (if accessory to college or school) C C C C C C
Uses in Historic Structures C C C C C C
D. Temporarv Uses
3. Temporary Uses as prescribed in Section P P P P P P
17.04.070 and subject to those provisions.
Temporary trailers for use in conjunction
with religious and agricultural uses for a C C C C C C
specified interim period.
Note: Symbol * indicates permitted in conjunction with optional development standards only.
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use Permit required"
/7>5
ORDINANCE NO. 749
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVISING
REGULATIONS APPLICABLE TO THE GRANTING OF
DENSITY BONUSES AND RELATED INCENTIVES, AND
AMENDING TITLE 17 (THE DEVELOPMENT CODE) OF THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE.
A. RECITALS.
(i) Government Code Section 65915 requires each City to adopt 'an ordinance
that specifies how residential density bonuses and related incentives shall
be granted. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the City's
Development Code and adopt those procedures necessary in order to
comply with Section 65915.
(ii) On , 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly noticed public
hearing concerning the Development Code amendments contained herein,
as required by law. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning
Commission recommended adoption of said amendments.
(iii) On , 2005, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing concerning the
Development Code amendments contained herein as required by law.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. ORDINANCE.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council hereby ordains as follows:
SECTION 1: The facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A of this Ordinance, are
true and correct.
SECTION 2: The provisions of this Ordinance and the Development Code
amendments contained herein have been reviewed and
considered by the City Council in accordance with the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder. The City Council finds that
this Ordinance and said Development Code amendments are
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act pursuant to the provisions of Section 1S061(b)(3) of
the Guidelines.
SECTION 3: Chapter 17.40 of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code is hereby repealed provided, however, that such repeal shall
not affect or excuse any violation of said chapter occurring prior to
the effective date of this Ordinance.
IDIo
SECTION 4: A new Chapter 17.40 is hereby added to Title 17 of the
Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code to read as follows:
Chapter 17.40
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCENTIVES/DENSITY BONUS PROVISIONS
Sections:
17.40.010
17.40.020
17.40.030
17.40.040
17.40.050
17.40.060
17.40.070
17.40.080
17.40.090
17.40.010 Purpose.
Purpose.
Definitions.
Implementation.
Types of bonuses and incentives allowed.
Requirements for projects with affordable units.
Development standards.
Processing of bonus requests.
Density bonus housing agreement.
Changes in State density bonus laws.
The purpose of this chapter is to provide incentives for the production of housing for very low
income, lower income, moderate income, and senior households. in accordance with
Government Code Sections 65915-65918. In enacting this chapter, it is the intent of the City to
facilitate the development of affordable housing and to implement the goals, objectives and
policies of the housing element of the City's General Plan.
17.40.020 Definitions.
Whenever the followin9 terms are used in this chapter, they shall have the meanin9s
established by this section:
A ADDITIONAL INCENTIVE: A regulatory concession as described in Government
Code Section 65915 that may include, but not be limited to, the reduction of site development
standards or zoning code requirements, approval of mixed-use zoning in conjunction with the
housing development or any other regulatory incentive, which would result in identifiable cost
avoidance or reductions, that are offered in addition to a density bonus.
AFFORDABLE RENT: Monthly housing expenses, including a reasonable allowance
for utilities, for rental target units reserved for very low, lower- or moderate- income households,
not exceeding the following calculations:
1. Very Low-Income. Unless otherwise provided by law, households at fifty
percent of the area median income, adjusted for household size, multiplied by thirty percent and
divided by twelve;
2. Lower-Income. Unless otherwise provided by law, households at eighty
percent of the area median income, adjusted for household size, muitiplied by thirty percent and
divided by twelve.
3. Moderate-Income. Unless otherwise provided by law, households at 120
percent of the area median income, adjusted for household size, multiplied by thirty percent and
divided by twelve.
/D?
.
AFFORDABLE SALES PRICE: A sales price at which lower or very low income
households can qualify for the purchase of target units, calculated on the basis of underwriting
standards of mortgage financing available for the housing development.
D DENSITY BONUS: A density increase of up to those percentages above the
otherwise maximum residential density, specified in this chapter.
DENSITY BONUS HOUSING AGREEMENT: A legally binding agreement between
a developer of a housing development and the city, which ensures that the requirements of this
chapter and State density bonus law are satisfied. The agreement shall establish, among other
things, the number of target units, their size, location, terms and conditions of affordability and
production schedule.
DENSITY BONUS UNITS: Those residential units granted pursuant to the
provisions of this chapter, which exceed the maximum residential density for the development
site.
H HOUSING COST: The sum of actual or projected monthly payments for all of the
following associated with for-sale target units: principal and interest on a mortgage loan,
including any loan insurance fees, property taxes and assessments, fire and casualty insurance,
property maintenance and repairs, homeowner association fees and a reasonable allowance for
utilities.
HOUSING DEVELOPMENT: Construction projects consisting of five or more
residential units or lots, including single-family and multi-family, that are proposed to be
constructed pursuant to this chapter.
L LOWER INCOME HOUSEHOLD: Household whose income does not exceed the
lower income limits applicable to San Bernardino County, as published and periodically updated
by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health and
Safety Code Section 50079.5.
M MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY: The maximum number of residential units
permitted by the City's General Plan Land Use Element and Development Code, applicable to
the subject property at the time an application for the construction of a housing development is
deemed complete by the City, excluding the additional units permitted by this chapter.
MODERATE INCOME HOUSEHOLD: Household whose income does not exceed
the moderate income limits applicable to San Bernardino County, as published and periodically
updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 50093.
N NON-RESTRICTED UNITS: All units within a housing development excluding the
target units.
S SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING: A housing development consistent with the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act, that has been 'designed to meet the physical and social
needs of senior citizens,' and which otherwise qualifies as 'housing for older persons;' as that
phrase is used in the Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 and its implementing
regulations, and as that phrase is used in Civil Code Section 51.3.
(OD
T TARGET UNIT:
reserved for sale or rent
households.
A dwelling unit within a housing development, which will be
to, and affordable to, very low-, lower- or moderate- income
V VERY LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLD: Household whose income does not exceed
the very low income limits applicable to San Bernardino County, as published and periodically
updated by the State Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant to Health
and Safety Code Section 50105.
17.40.030 Implementation.
A. The City shall grant a density bonus and additional incentives to an applicant who
agrees to provide the following Target Units:
1. Lower Income Units. Designate at least ten percent of the total units of a
housing development, or such other percentage provided by law, as target units affordable to
lower income households; or
2. Very Low Income Units. Designate at least five percent of the total units of a
housing development, or such other percentage provided by law, as target units affordable to
very lo~ income households.
3. Moderate Income Condominium or Planned Development Units. Designate at
least ten percent of the total units of a condominium project, as defined in Civil Code Section
1351(1), or planned development as defined in Civil Code Section 1351(k), or such other
percentage provided by law, as target units affordable to moderate income households.
4. Any Senior Housing Development.
5. Donation of land pursuant to Government Code Section 6S915(h).
B. In determining the number of density bonus units to be granted pursuant to this
section, the maximum allowable residential density for the site shall be computed as follows:
1. Lower Income Household. The maximum allowable residential density for the
site shall be increased by twenty percent provided, however, that for each one percent increase
above ten percent in the percentage of units affordable to lower income households, the density
bonus shall be increased by 1.5 percent up to a maximum of thirty-five percent.
2. Very Low Income Household. The maximum allowable residential density for
the site shall be increased by twenty percent provided, however, that for each one percent
increase above five percent in the percentage of units affordable to very low income
households, the density bonus shall be increased by 2.5 percent up to a maximum of thirty-five
percent.
3. Moderate Income Condominium or Planned Development. The maximum
allowable residential density for the site shall be increased by five percent provided, however,
that for each one percent increase above ten percent of the percentage of units affordable to
moderate income households, the density bonus shall be increased by one percent up to a
maximum of thirty-five percent.
/cj
4. Senior Housing Development. The maximum allowable residential density for
the site shall be increased by twenty percent.
5. Certain Donations of Land. When an applicant for a tentative subdivision map,
parcel map, or other residential development approval donates land to the city that satisfies the
requirements of Government Code Section 6S91S(h), and complies with all procedural
requirements of that subsection, including recordation of a deed restriction, then the maximum
allowable residential density for the site shall be increased by fifteen percent provided, however,
that for each one percent increase above the minimum percentage of land required to be
donated pursuant to Government Code Section 6S91S(h), the density bonus shall be increased
by one percent up to a maximum of thirty-five percent. This increase shall be in addition to any
increase required by Section 17.40.030A of this Chapter, up to a maximum combined density
increase of thirty-five percent if an applicant seeks both the increase required by this subsection
and by Section 17.40.030A.
All density calculations resulting in fractional units shall be rounded up to the
next whole number. The density bonus shall not be included when determining the percentage
of target units. When calculating the required number of target units, any resulting fraction of
units shall be deleted.
C. Number of Incentives.
1. One density bonus and one incentive shall be provided to a developer who
agrees to construct at least ten percent of the total units for lower income households, five
percent of the total units for very low income households, or ten percent of units in a
condominium or planned development for moderate income households. A density bonus and
two incentives shall be provided to a developer who agrees to construct at least twenty percent
of the total units for lower income households, ten percent of the total units for very low income
households, or twenty percent of units in a condominium or planned development for moderate
income households. A density bonus and three incentives shall be provided to a developer who
agrees to construct at least thirty percent of the total units for lower income households, fifteen
percent of the total units for very low income households, or thirty percent of units in a
condominium or planned development for moderate income households. In cases where a
density increase of more than the amount specified in Section 17.40.030.B is requested, the
density increase, if granted, shall be considered an additional incentive.
2. In cases where the developer agrees to construct a housing development that
qualifies for a density bonus pursuant to Section 17.40.0'30A of this Chapter, that includes a
childcare facility as defined in Government Code Section 6591S(i)(4), the developer shall be
entitled to an additional density bonus that is an amount of square feet of residential space
equal to or greater than the amount of square feet in the childcare facility; or an additional
incentive described in Section 17.40.040 of this Chapter, that contributes significantly to the
economic feasibility of the construction of the childcare facility. Any such childcare facility shall
comply with the following:
a. The childcare facility shall remain in operation for a period of time that is
as long or longer than the period of time during which the density bonus units are required to
remain affordable;
!ID
b. Of the children who attend the childcare facility, the children of very low
income households, lower income households, or families of moderate income shall equal a
percentage that is equal to or greater than the percentage of dwelling units that are required for
very low income households, lower income households, or families of moderate income,
pursuant to this chapter.
c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City shall not be required to provide a
density bonus or incentive for a childcare facility when it is found, based upon substantial
evidence, that the city has adequate childcare facilities.
17.40.040 Types of bonuses and incentives allowed.
A. Density Bonus. The density bonus allowed by this chapter shall consist of those
density increases specified in Section 17.40.030, above the maximum residential density
applicable to the site as of the date of the project land use permit application. A single
development project shall not be granted more than one density bonus in compliance with this
chapter.
The City shall provide a density bonus and an additional incentive for qualified
developments, upon the written request of a developer unless the City makes the written
findings set forth in Government Code Section 65915(d)(1).
The development incentive granted shall contribute significantly to the economic
feasibility of providing the target units. Any applicant seeking a waiver or modification of
development or zoning standards shall show that such waiver or modification is necessary to
make the housing development economically feasible. This requirement may be satisfied by
reference to applicable sections of the housing element of the City's General Plan.
B. Other incentives. If requested by the applicant, a qualifying project shall be entitled
to at least one of the following incentives, unless the City makes the findings required by
Government Code Section 6S91S(d)(1):
1. Types of Incentives. The allocation of an additional incentive shall be
determined on a case-by-case basis. The additional incentive may include, but is not limited to
any of the following:
a. A reduction in site development standards or a modification of the
requirements of this Development Code, which exceed the minimum building standards
provided in Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 18901) of Division 13 of the Health and Safety
Code. These may include, but are not limited to, one or more of the following:
. Reduced minimum lot sizes andlor dimensions.
. Reduced minimum lot setbacks.
. Reduced minimum outdoor andlor private outdoor open space.
. Increased maximum lot coverage.
. Increased maximum building height.
. Reduced on-site parking standards.
. Reduced minimum building separation requirements.
. Other site or construction conditions applicable to a residential
development.
III
b. Mixed use zoning to allow the housing development to include
nonresidential uses andlor allow the housing development within a nonresidential zone.
Approval of mixed use activities in conjunction with the housing development if other land uses
will reduce the cost of the housing development, and the other land uses are compatible with
the housing development and the existing or planned development in the area, and is consistent
with the General Plan.
c. Another regulatory incentive or concession proposed by the applicant and
agreed to by the City, that results in identifiable, financially sufficient, and actual cost reductions.
Permissible incentives include direct financial aid (e.g., redevelopment set-aside, Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding) in the form of a loan or a grant to subsidize or
provide low interest financing for on or off-site improvements, land, or construction costs.
d. . A density bonus of more than thirty-five percent.
e. Waived, reduced or deferred plan check, construction permit andlor
development impact fees (e.g., capital facilities, park, traffic, etc.).
2. Requirements.
a. Economic feasibility. Any development incentive granted shall contribute
to the economic feasibility of providing the target units.
b. Waivers or modifications. An applicant seeking a waiver or modification
of development or zoning standards shall show that the waiver or modification is necessary to
make the housing development economically feasible assuming a reasonable rate of return
(e.g., at a minimum, an application shall include itemized accounting of projected costs and
revenues of the development).
c. Revenue. Project revenues shall include moneys from the sale or rental
of all units, including the density bonus units.
d. Costs. Projected costs:
i. Shall not include the 'lost opportunity' cost of the target units (e.g.,
the amount that would have been generated had the target units been rented or sold at market
rate).
ii. May include items that are required solely because of the
inclusion of the density bonus units and would not have been required without the units.
17.40.050 Requirements for density bonus projects.
A. The entry into and execution of the Density Bonus Housing Agreement shall be a
condition of any application for a discretionary planning permit (e.g., tract maps, parcel maps,
site plans, planned development, or conditional use permits) for a housing development
proposed pursuant to this chapter. The agreement shall be recorded at the applicant's cost as a
restriction running with the land on the parcel or parcels on which the target units will be
constructed. The owner's obligation to maintain units as affordable housing shall be evidenced
in the Density Bonus Housing Agreement. The agreement shall indicate the household type,
number, location, size, and construction scheduling of all affordable units and any other
information required by the City to determine the applicant's compliance with this chapter.
II>
B. Target units shall remain restricted and affordable to the designated group for a
period of thirty years (or a longer period of time if required by the construction or mortgage
financing assistance program, mortgage insurance program, or rental subsidy program), or
otherwise as provided by law.
C. In determining the maximum affordable rent or affordable sales price of target units
the following household and unit size assumptions shall be used, unless the housing
development is subject to different assumptions imposed by other governmental regulations:
ISRO (residential ..~otel)1175% of1 person i
I unit
IIStudio - J
-----.---. 111 person J
1-'-'--'-."--- --- -'--- -- - -
!11 bedroom ..-J12 persons I
I- -~- ,13 per~()~s
112 bedroom I
...1
I~- _ JI4 rersons J
3 bedroom
-- -
14 bedroom !I? persons I
- --- - i
D. Those units targeted for lower income households shall be affordable at a rent that
does not exceed current Housing and Urban Development (HUD) income limits for lower
income households for the county, adjusted for household size.
E. Those units targeted for very low income households shall be affordable at a rent
that does not exceed current HUD income limits for very low income households for the county,
adjusted for household size.
F. An applicant shall agree that the initial occupants of the moderate-income units in the
condominium project or in the planned development are persons and families of moderate
income, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093. Upon resale, the seller of the unit
shall retain the value of any improvements, the down payment, and the seller's proportionate
share of appreciation. The City shall recapture its proportionate share of appreciation, which
shall then be used within three years for any of the purposes described in Health and Safety
Code Section 33334.2(e), that promote homeownership. For purposes of this subsection, the
City's proportionate share of appreciation shall be equal to the percentage by which the initial
sale price to the moderate-income household was less than the fair market value of the home at
the time of initial sale.
G. The owner shall submit annually, and within thirty days of occupancy of a target
rental unit, a certificate of compliance, which shall include the name, address, and income of
each tenant occupying the target unit.
H. The owner shall maintain and keep on file annual sworn and notarized income
statements and current tax returns for all tenants occupying the target rental units.
I. The owner shall provide to the City any additional information required by the City to
insure the long-term affordability of the target units by eligible households.
113
J. The City shall have the right to inspect the owner's project-related records at any
reasonable time and shall be entitled to audit the owner's records once a year.
K. The City may establish fees associated with the setting up and monitoring of target
units.
L. All for-sale target units shall be occupied by their purchasers; no renting or
subleasing shall be permitted.
17.40.060 Development standards.
A. Target units shall be constructed concurrently with non-restricted units unless both
the City and the applicant agree within the Density Bonus Housing Agreement to an alternative
schedule for development.
B. Target units shall be built on-site wherever possible and when practical, be dispersed
within the housing development. Where feasible, the number of bedrooms of the target units
shall be equivalent to the bedroom mix of the non-target units of the housing development,
except that the developer may include a higher proportion of target units with more bedrooms.
The design and appearance of the target units shall be compatible with the design of the total
housing development. All housing developments shall comply with all applicable development
standards, except those standards, which may be modified as provided by this chapter.
Deviations from these provisions may only be permitted as part of an approved Density Bonus
Housing Agreement.
C. Circumstances may arise in which the public interest would be served by allowing
some or all of the target units associated with one housing development to be produced and
operated at an alternative development site. Where the applicant and the City form an
agreement, the resulting linked developments shall be considered a single housing
development for purposes of this chapter. Under these circumstances, the applicant shall be
subject to the same requirements of this chapter for the target units to be provided on the
alternative site.
D. Special parking requirements. Upon request of the developer of a housing
development qualifying for a density bonus pursuant to this chapter, the City shall permit
vehicular parking ratios, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, in accordance with the
following standards:
1. 0-1 bedrooms: One on-site parking space.
2. 2-3 bedrooms: Two on-site parking spaces.
3. 4 or more bedrooms: Two and one-half parking spaces.
If the total number of parking spaces required for a housing development is other
than a whole number, the number shall be rounded up to the next whole number. For purposes
of this subsection, a housing development may provide 'on-site parking' through tandem parking
or uncovered parking, but not through on-street parking.
17.40.070 Processing of density bonus requests.
ilL{
An application for a Density Bonus Housing Agreement pursuant to this chapter shall be
processed as part of the application for a housing development. An application for a housing
development shall not be determined 'complete' for purposes of Government Code Section
65920, et seq., unless and until the City Council has given preliminary approval of the form and
content of a Density Bonus Housing Agreement, which complies with the provisions of this
chapter. The process for obtaining preliminary approval of the Density Bonus Housing
Agreement, shall be as follows:
A. Filing. An applicant proposing a housing development pursuant to this chapter shall
submit an application for a Density Bonus Housing Agreement as part of the submittal of any
formal request for approval of a housing development. The application, whether a pre-
application or a formal application, shall include:
1. A brief description of the proposed housing development, including the total
number of units, target units, and density bonus units proposed;
2. The zoning and general plan designations and assessor's parcel number(s) of
the project site;
3. A vicinity map and preliminary site plan, drawn to scale, including building
footprints, driveways, and parking layout; and
4. If an additional incentive is requested, a description of why the additional
incentive is necessary to provide the target units.
B. Review of Density Bonus Request.
1. Within ninety days of receipt of the application for a Density Bonus Housing
Agreement and a housing development, the City shall provide to an applicant a letter, which
identifies project issues of concern, and the procedures for compliance with this chapter.
2. If additional incentives are requested, the City Planner shall inform the
applicant that the requested additional incentives shall or shall not be recommended for
consideration with the proposed housing development, or that alternative or modified additional
incentives shall be recommended for consideration in lieu of the requested additional incentives.
If the City Planner recommends alternative or modified incentives, the recommendation shall
establish how the alternative or modified incentives can be expected to have an equivalent
affordability effect as the request~d incentives.
17.40.080 Density bonus housing agreement.
A. The terms of the draft Density Bonus Housing Agreement (the 'agreement') shall be
reviewed and revised as appropriate by the City Planner and the City Attorney who shall
formulate a recommendation to the Planning Commission for review and the City Council for
final approval.
B. Following execution of the agreement by the applicant and the City, the completed
agreement, or memorandum thereof, shall be recorded. The conditions contained in the
agreement shall be filed and recorded on the parcel or parcels designated for the construction
of target units as a condition of final map approval, or, where a map is not being processed,
prior to issuance of building permits for such parcels or units. The agreement shall be binding
upon all future owners and successors in interest for this property, which is the subject of the
housing development application.
//6
C. At a minimum, the Agreement shall include the following:
1. The total number of units proposed within the housing development, including
the number of target units;
2. A description of the household income group to be accommodated by the
housing development, and the standards for determining the corresponding affordable rent or
affordable sales price and housing cost;
3. The location, unit sizes (square feet), and number of bedrooms of target units;
4. Tenure of use restrictions for target units of at least thirty years;
S. A schedule for completion and occupancy of target units;
6. A description of any additional incentive being provided by the city;
7. A description of remedies for breach of the agreement by either party (the City
may identify tenants or qualified purchasers as third party beneficiaries under the agreement);
and
8. Other provisions to ensure implementation and compliance with this chapter.
D. In the case of for-sale housing developments, the agreement shall provide for the
following conditions governing the initial sale and use of target units during the applicable use
restriction period:
1. Target units shall, upon initial sale, be sold to and occupied by eligible very low,
lower income, or, in the case of a condominium or planned development, moderate income
households at an affordable sales price and housing cost, or to qualified senior citizen residents
(i.e., maintained as senior citizen housing).
2. The initial purchaser of each target unit shall execute an instrument or
agreement, approved by the City Attorney, restricting the sale of the target unit in accordance
with this chapter during the applicable use restriction period. Such instrument or agreement
shall be recorded against the parcel containing the target unit and shall contain provisions as
the City may require to ensure continued compliance with this chapter and the State density
bonus law.
E. In the case of rental housing developments, the agreement shall provide for the
following conditions governing the use of target units during the use restriction period:
1. The rules and procedures for qualifying tenants, establishing affordable rent,
filling vacancies and the proper management and maintenance of target units for qualified
tenants;
2. Provisions requiring owners to verify tenant incomes and maintain books and
records to demonstrate compliance with this chapter; and
3. Provisions requiring owners to submit an annual report to the City, which
includes the name, address and income of each person occupying target units, and which
identifies the bedroom size and monthly rent or cost of each target unit.
11/0
17.40.090 Changes in State density bonus laws.
It is the intent of the City Council that the provisions of this chapter shall be interpreted so as to
fulfill the requirements of Government Code Section 65915 et seq., notwithstanding changes in
State laws revising percentages, numerical thresholds andlor other standards applicable to the
granting of density bonuses or related incentives that may occur after the effective date of this
chapter. Accordingly, it is the further intent of the City Council that any such changed
percentages, numerical thresholds or other standards shall be deemed to supersede and
govern any conflicting percentages, numerical thresholds or other standards contained in this
chapter, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
SECTION 5: Severabilitv. The City Council declares that should any
provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance
be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court
of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive
legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs,
sentences and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force
and effect.
SECTION 6: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance.
/17
THE CITY OF
_ ~~,- .,}!'
RANCUO CUCAMONGA
Staff Report
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
November 2, 2005
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
Michael Diaz, Senior Planner
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
REGARDING THE AMENDING OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-01 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03
FOR MARGARITA BEACH LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD -
APN: 1077-621-34 (CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 21, 2005, CITY
COUNCIL MEETING).
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council review the record and consider
the public testimony presented on the matter and provide direction to staff and the City attorney
as to the preparation of an appropriate resolution for final action at the next available meeting
date.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: On June 22 and July 13, 2005, the Planning Commission took
public testimony and discussed the issues regarding the operation of Margarita Beach. At the
conclusion of the July 13th meeting, the Planning Commission voted 4 to 1 to approve
Resolution No's. 05-50 and 05-51 (Exhibits A and B), thereby modifying the conditions of
approval for Conditional Use Permit 94-01 (allowing a restaurant and bar) and the associated
Entertainment Permit 91-03. Extensive background information regarding Margarita Beach is
contained in both the staff reports and the exhibits prepared for the above mentioned public
hearings (Exhibit C1).
In brief, the major changes imposed by the modified conditions included the following:
. Specified that the primary use of the business shall be a restaurant with the ancillary
service of alcoholic beverages.
. Modified hours of operation of restaurant - 11 :00 a.m. to Midnight.
. Entertainment is limited between the hours of 8:00 p.m. to Midnight.
. Specifically prohibited adult entertainment as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code.
. On-site parking restrictions.
. Required security personnel.
(I g
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-01 AND EP 91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH APPEAL
November 2, 2005
Page 2
On July 22, 2005, the applicant, through his attorney, appealed the Planning Commission's
action. In the Appeal Letter (Exhibit D), no particular issue(s) were identified. On August 31,
2005, the appellant and his attorneys met with staff to discuss procedures and other issues
related to the appeal. On September 15, 2005, the appellant submitted a letter to the City
Council requesting that the matter be rescheduled for. a later date, preferably
November 16, 2005 (Exhibit E). At its October 5, 2005, meeting, the City Council agreed to
delay the hearing of the appeal until November 2, 2005.
Police records regarding Margarita Beach from June 10 to October 3,2005, indicate 38 calls for
service (14 of which were initiated by the Police) resulting in two reports (Exhibit F). According
to the record, 15 calls were for disturbing the peace and three were for assaults. One of the
reports is for a fight that resulted in damage to an adjacent business storefront that occurred just
after midnight on August 1, 2005 (Exhibit G). Staff requested that local residents provide
information so that written declarations of their experience could be submitted with this report.
However, after the draft declarations were prepared for six residents, they declined to sign
them, believing that the existing record contained an adequate account of their experience and
concerns.
The appellant invited a community meeting to discuss various approaches to resolving the
situation with the. affected residents (Exhibit H). The meeting date was proposed for
October 1, 2005. However the residents declined to meet (Exhibit I). On October 26, 2005,
after this report had been prepared, the appellant's attorney submitted a binder of information to
the staff and Council. Given the late arrival of the new information, staff will prepare a response
to be given during the City Council meeting.
CORRESPONDENCE: On October 20, 2005, the notice for this public hearing was advertised
in the Inland Vallev Dailv Bulletin newspaper, and the property was posted. Notices were
mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site, and also to the
applicant, his attorneys, and other interested parties.
CONCLUSION: The issues regarding the operation of Margarita Beach have been thoroughly
discussed and analyzed. No new evidence has been submitted by Margarita Beach, nor have
they indicated any specific issue or condition as a reason for their appeal. Based on extensive
public testimony, written information and exhibits, and analysis, staff believes that the decision
of the Planning Commission was reasonable and should be upheld.
Dan Coleman
Acting City Planner
DC:MD/ge
((6--(
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-01 AND EP 91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH APPEAL
November 2, 2005
Page 3
Attachments: Exhibit A - Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-50 dated July 13, 2005
Exhibit B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 05-51 dated July 13, 2005
Exhibit C1 - Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 13, 2005
Exhibit C2 - Planning Commission Staff Report Exhibits L, M, N, and P, dated
July 13, 2005
Exhibit D - Notice of Appeal Letter dated July 22, 2005
Exhibit E - Request to Reschedule Hearing Letter dated September 15, 2005
Exhibit F Interoffice Memo - Margarita Beach Calls for Service dated
October 3, 2005
Exhibit G - Detailed History for Police Inc #RC052130017 dated
September 8, 2005
Exhibit H - Community Meeting Letter dated September 22, 2005
Exhibit I - Community Meeting Letter from Residents dated September 25, 2005
Exhib~ J - Information from Margar~a Beach Attomey (Provided Under Separate
Cover)
Ifg , .).-
RESOLUTION NO. 05-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45 FORA
RESTAURANT AND BAR WITH LIVE ENTERTAINMENT LOCATED
WITHIN A. COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD, SUITES R & S; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-621-34.
A. Recitals.
1. Conditional Use Pennit 88-45 was approved in 1988 for Siam Garden Restaurant by
adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 88-242.
2. In 1991, the Planning Commission approved a modification of Conditional Use Pennit
88-45 and Entertainment Pennit 91~03 on October 23, 1991, by adoption of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 88-242A to expand the size of the restaurant and bar and to allow live entertainment
under the business name of Skipper's Bar and Grill.
3. In 1996, the business was obtained by Mr. Davidson and renamed Margaritaville.ln
2004, the business name was changed to Margarita Beach.
4. At the February 2,2005, City Council meeting, 13 residents spoke on issues associated
with the Margarita Beach business that negatively impacted their residential neighborhood, and the
matter was referred to the Planning Commission for a review of the issues presented.
5. On March 9, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
detennine whether substantial evidence existed to set a public hearing for a fonnal review of
business operations at Margarita Beach. At the hearing 17 residents testified as to how their health,
safety and welfare have been negatively affected by the operation of Margarita Beach. Testimony
included submission of letters, petitions, and photographs. Also included in the staff report was a
summary of Police calls for service.
6. Based on the testimony presented during the evidentiary hearing, the Planning
Commission found that a public hearing was appropriate and directed that before said public hearing,
the business owner, local residents, and City staff meet and discuss how the issues raised regarding
the business could be resolved.
7. On April 19, 2005, City staff met with the business owner and local residents to discuss
the issues. Representatives from the Police Department provided a breakdown of the calls for
service and responded t9 questions.
8. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on April 27 , May 11,
June 22, and July 13, 2005 conceming the business operations and modification of CUP No. 88-45.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, detennined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
EXHIBIT A
(/8 --3
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-45 MOD. MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 2
1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on April 27, May 11, June 22, and July 13, 2005, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically
finds as follows:
a. The CUP modification applies to property located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard with a
street frontage of 632 feet and lot depth of 278 feet and is presently improved with a multi-tenant
commercial building; and
b. The subject property is surrounded by apartments to the north, a mobile home park
to the south, residences development to the east and west, and a service station to the west; and
c. The CUP modification applies to a 3,440 square foot leased space that includes the
Mar9arita Beaclh restaurant and bar, dance floor, the serving of alcoholic beverages, live
entertainment, and is currently permitted to be open between the hours of 11 :00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m.
daily; and
d. Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A includes conditions of approval that
require the serving of alcoholic beverages to be limited to those hours when the full listed food menu
items are available. While the current operation of Margarita Beaclh cOntinues to serve food, the
business is largely focused on the bar and entertainment as the primary activity as its
advertisements attest. In violation of Conditions 1 and 2 of Resolution No. 88-242A, the applicant, at
the March 9, 2005 Planning Commission meeting testified that they offer a full menu only until 1 0:00
p.m., suclh as steaks, fish, and c1hicken. Further, the business owner did not provide any
documentation that the restaurant use, as previously approved, is the primary focus of the Margarita
Beaclh business. Suclh documentation would include business records reflecting that the
percentage of gross receipts for food sales greatly exceeds gross receipts attributable to alcohol
sales, or business records reflecting that their expenditures for restaurant food menu items greatly
exceeds expenditures for the purchase of alcohol that will be resold; and
e. Based on public and staff testimony, site visits by staff, and a review of pictures and
advertisements for the business provided at the June 22, 2005 meeting, the four members of the
Commission (one absent) concluded that the nature ofthe current business operation had c1hanged
from a restaurant use with incidental entertainment to a primarily entertainment venue (with food),
more along the lines of a nightclub; and .
f. The findings made by the Planning Commission in their Resolution No. 88-242A
granting Conditional Use Permit 88-45 indicate that the use ''will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. n
However, testimony has been received from numerous residents of the surrounding neighborhood
indicating a variety of adverse impacts associated with Margarita Beaclh's operation and its
customers including, but not limited to, regular, extended parking by Margarita Beaclh customers in
front of residences, excessive noise during late night/early morning hours, and loitering of patrons
within adjacent residential neighborhood across Ramona Avenue; and
g. On June 30, 2005, staff visited the website of radio station X-1 03.9 and found seven
phot09raphs identified as being from Margarita Beaclh. One of these photographs shows a woman
fig /'1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-4S MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 3
from behind who is pulling down her pants revealing the cleft and upper half of her buttocks, an area
that is included within the definition of "Specified Anatomical Areas" by the City's Adult Entertainment
Business Ordinance; and
h. One print advertisement states "XX every Friday Night at Margarita Beach" including
"$2.00 sex shots all night long." All of the advertising refers readers to ..wwW.ieparty.com..formore
details. The www.ieparty.comwebsitefeatured numerous photographs allegedly taken at Margarita
Beach's Bunny Ball on March 24, 2005, including photos of a woman fondling the breast of another
woman, a woman squeezing and licking the breast of another woman, and a woman's buttocks being
fondled: The acts depicted in these three photographs are included within the definition of "Specific
Sexual Activities" set forth in the Adult Entertainment Business Ordinance. The Adult Entertainment
Ordinance defines a commercial business that provides "a place where two or more persons may
congregate, associate, or consort in connection with 'Specified Sexual Activities' or the exposure of
'Specified Anatomical Areas' as a "Sexual Encounter Establishment" ; and
i. The Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A also adopted a condition of
approval that stipulates that the business must comply with all applicable City Ordinances, and
Public Health Codes. On June 17, 2005, Mr. Davidson was convicted and fined for violating a
provision of the Califomia Labor Code by permitting smoking inside the business. Prior to issuance
of a citation, Mr. Davidson was given due notice and direction on how to achieve compliance.
j. The proposed use, together with the original conditions, as amended to add new or
modify conditions imposed by this Resolution, complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Districts.
3. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this
Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Ad
of 1970, as amended, ("CEQA") and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section
15301 of the Guidelines.
4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Commission during the
above-referenced public hearings, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1, 2
and 3 above, the Planning Commission finds that the business owner's violation of the Conditional
Use Permit, and/or the manner in which the business has been and continues to be operated, is
detrimental to the public health, safety and/or welfare, including that of the adjacent residential
neighborhood.
5. Based on the violations identified above and in order to insure future compliance with the
conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A, this Commission hereby modifies
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP88-45 by adopting the following conditions:
1) The serving of alcoholic beverages shall be in conjunction only with a
restaurant use and the availability of all items listed on the menu. The
sale andlor serving of alcoholic beverages shall cease when full listed
menu items are not available to customers. At all times, menu items
shall include full, hot "meals," as defined in California Business and
Professions Code Section 23038.
2) The primary use shall be a restaurant and "bona fide eating place" as
defined in California Business and Professions Code Section 23038,
II~ ,5
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-45 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 4
with ancillary serving of alcoholic beverages. In order to establish
compliance with this condition, within 15 days of the effective date of
this Resolution, and every three (3) months thereafter, the business
owner shall provide the City Planner with satisfactory documentation
reflecting the percentage of actual gross receipts attributable to
restaurant food sales, and to the sales of alcoholic beverages, for the
first two quarters of 2005. Altematively, the business owner may
provide satisfactory documentation of the business expenditures for
restaurant food menu items and for alcoholic beverages, for the same
period of time.
3) Within 15 days of the effective date of this Resolution, the applicant
shall provide the City Planner with an updated floor plan of the lease
space indicating the layout of the space and specific location and type
of tables and c1hairs, for review and approval.
4) The serving of alcohol in conjunction with restaurant usage may occur .
only between the hours of 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. The restaurant use
may remain open until Midnight.
5) The business owner shall at all times fully comply with all applicable
regulations of the Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control
(ABC), including, but not limited to, those provisions regarding Attire
and Conduct and Entertainers and Conduct (specifically Sections
143.2, 143.3 of Title 4 of the California Code of Regulations).
6) All business activities shall be conducted inside the building.
7) All doors shall remain closed during entertainment for noise attenuation
purposes. The rear (north) doors shall be used only for emergencies
from 8:00 p.m. to Midnight.
8) All customers shall use the front (south) entrance/exit, and use of the
rear (north) paoong lot shall be limited to employees only.
9) No entertainment activity shall create any noise' that exceeds an
exterior noise level of 60dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.,
or 65dB during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., or that otherwise.
unreasonably interferes with the peace and quiet of any adjoining
property. The business owner shall not pennit entertainment on the
premises, except as authorized by a valid Entertainment Pennit
10) The use of search lights, or flashing or otherwise light-animated signs
whiclh contain or are illuminated by flashing or moving lights or lights
whiclh are intennittently on and off, c1hange in intensity, or whiclh create
the illusion of flashing in any manner, shall not be pennitted.
11) The business owner shall be responsible for the clean up and general
maintenance of the areas in front and behind the lease space, and in
any and all parking lot areas occupied by its patrons. All collected trash
II~ / ~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-4S MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 5
and debriS shall be properly disposed in the trash receptacles located
on the site.
12) The business owner, and all persons acting on behalf of the business,
shall at all times comply with any and all local, state and federal laws,
rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, requirements of the
Foothill Boulevard Districts, all applicable City Ordinances, Rancho
Cucainonga Fire Protection District, and Public Health Codes. The
business owner shall provide all employees with a copy of these
conditions and shall personally ensure that each employee understands
and is familiar with each condition.
;
13) Any modification to the floor plan, expansion, or other change in
operation shall require a revision to this Conditional Use Pennit and
associated Entertainment Pennit.
14) All signage, including window signs, shall be in confonnance with the
Comprehensive Sign Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the
applicable Uniform Sign Program for the center, and shall require
review and approval by the Planning Department.
15) The dance floor maximum square footage shall not exceed 150 square
feet.
16) In the event the business owner fails, at any time, to comply with all the
conditions of approval, as amended, or; the operation of the business
causes adverse effects generating l;Omplaints by nearby property
owners, or; the operation of the business generates a significant
number of requests for service by the Police Department, then the
Conditional Use Pennit shall be brought before the Planning
Commission for consideration, including possible modification,
imposition of additional conditions, andlor revocation of the Conditional
Use Pennit.
17) The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed pennissible limits
under the building and fire codes. The maximum occupancy for the use
is 233 persons and shall be posted as detennined by the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or the City's Fire Prevention
Unit Department.
18) No adult entertainment, as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code Section 17.04.090, shall be pennitted.
19) Unifonned security personnel shall be provided within the parKing area
at all times during evening business hours (8:00 p.m. to Midnight) to
control parKing and monitor crowd behavior. A minimum of one
member of the security team shall be continually present at all times.
When the front parKing lot reaches 50 percent capacity, the number of
security personnel outside the establishment shall be increased to a
minimum of 2 persons monitoring the parking lot and directing patrons
Itf~?
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-45 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 6
not to piuk within the adjacenf residential neighborhood. Security
personnel shall immediately report any observed criminal activities to
the Police Department.
20) The business operator andlor its employees shall not direct patrons to
park in the rear parking areas on the north side of the building, in any of
the adjacent residential streets, or other off-site locations. On site
parking signs shall be installed by the applicant to instruct patrons not
to park anywhere but within the parking lot. The number, location, and
language of said signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner.
21) The City Planner shall monitor the operation of the business and shall
bring back a progress report to the Commission for two successive
3-month reviews, beginning on the date of this Commission action.
The report shall indicate whether the business establishment has been
operating in compliance with all conditions of approval. Two.
successive 6-month progress reports shall be provided to the
Commission beginning from the date of the last 3-month review.
22) The business owner shall work with the property owner to establish a
Business Watch program for the commercial center to address issues
related to crime prevention and personal safety.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 2005.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
JK
R'ich Macias, Chainnan
BY:
ATTEST:~
/" Brad ul , e ta
. 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 13th day of July 2005, by the following vote-to-wit:
II f --- g
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-45 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 7
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 13th day of July 2005, by the following vote-ta-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL
COMMISSIONERS: STEWART
NOES:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
"
/15/7
RESOLUTION NO. 05-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF .
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING ENrERTAINMENT
PERMIT NO. 91-03 TO OPERATE AND CONDUCT ENTERTAINMENT AND
DANCING FOR MARGARITA BEACH, LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD, SUITES R & S, WITHIN A COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN 1077-621-34.
A. Recitals.
1. On May 21, 1986, the City Council of the City of Ranclho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance
No. 290 providing for the regulation of entertainment.
2. On November 13, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Ranclho Cucamonga
adopted their Resolution No. 91-184 approving Entertainment Permit No. 91-03 for Skipper's Grill
and Bar allowing "entertainment," as defined in Section 5.12.020 of the Ranclho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, (specifically, small bands or individual musicians) and dancing in conjunction with a
restaurant use at the location as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit request is referred to as ''the permit."
3. Skipper's Grill and Bar was approved as a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages, With
entertainment occurring indoors, Sunday through Saturday from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
4. In 1996, the Entertainment Permit was transferred to a new owner (Mr. Davidson) doing
business as Margaritaville. In 2004, the business name was c1hanged to Margarita Beaclh.
5. At the February 2, 2005, City Council meeting, 13 residents spoke conceming the
Margarita Beaclh business and adverse effects that business has had on their residential
neighborhood, Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for a review of the
issues presented, as authorized by the City's Development Code.
6. On March 9, 2005, the Planning CommisSion conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
determine whether substantial evidence existed to set a public hearing for a formal review of
business operations at Margarita Beaclh. At the hearing 17 residents testified as to how their health,
safety and welfare have been negatively affected by the operation of Margarita Beaclh. Testimony
included submission of letters, petitions and phot09raphs. Also included in the staff report was a
summary of Police calls for service.
7. Based on the testimony presented during the evidentiary hearing, the Planning
Commission found that sufficient evidence existed to determine that a public hearing was
appropriate and directed City staff to set a public hearing on the matter. .
8. On the June 22, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Ranclho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the matter and after taking public testimony on the
operation of the business, the Commission continued the public hearing to July 13, 2005.
9. On July 13, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Ranclho CUcamonga conducted
the continued public hearing on the permit and concluded said hearing on that date.
10. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
EXHIBIT B
//6 r (0
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.05-~1
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 2
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning CommisSion
of the City of Ranclho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearings on June 22 and July 13, 2005, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. Entertainment Pennit No. 91-03 applies to the business known as Margarita Beaclh,
located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suites R & S, with a street frontage of 632 feet and lot depth of
278 feet and is presently improved with one multi-tenant commercial building; and
b. Margarita Beaclh consists of a 3,440 square foot leased space that includes
restaurant facilities and a bar, and dance floor. Pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 and
Entertainment Pennit No. 91-03, Margarita Beaclh is permitted to serve alcohol and provide
entertainment, and is currently open between the hours of 11 :00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. daily; and
c. Based on public and staff testimony, site visits by staff, and a review of pictures and
advertisements for the business provided at the June 22, 2005, the four members of the Commission
(one absent) concluded that the nature of the current business operation had c1hanged from a
restaurant use with incidental entertainment to a primarily entertainment venue (with food), more
along the lines of a nightclub; and
d. The findings made by the Planning Commission in their Resolution No. 91-184
granting the Entertainment Permit 91-03, pursuant the standards established by the Ranclho
Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 5.12.080, indicate that the use "will not be contrary to the public
health, safety, morals or welfare" and the "the premises or establishment are not likely to be
operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner." However, testimony has been received from
numerous residents of the surrounding neighborhood describing a variety of adverse impacts
associated with Margarita Beaclh's operation and its customers; and
e. On June 30, 2005, staff visited the website of radio station X1 03.9 and found seven
photographs identified as from Margarita Beaclh. One of these photographs shows a woman from
behind who is pulling down her pants revealing the cleft and upper half of her buttocks, an area that
is included within the definition of "Specified Anatomical Areas" by the City's Adult Entertainment
Business Ordinance; and
f. One print advertisement states "XX every Friday night at Margarita Beaclh" including
"$2.00 sex shots all night long." All of the advertising refers readers to ..www.ieparty.com.. for more
details. The aforementioned website featured numerous photographs allegedly taken at Margarita
Beaclh's Bunny Ball on March 24, 2005, including photos of a woman fondling the breast of another
woman, a woman squeezing and licking the breast of another woman, and a woman's buttocks being
fondled. The acts depicted in these three photographs are included within the definition of "Specific
Sexual Activities" set forth in the Adult Entertainment Business Ordinance. A commercial business
that provides "a place where two or more persons may congregate, associate, or consort in
118/1 (
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.05-51
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 3
connection with 'Specified Sexual Activities' or the exposure of 'Specified Anatomical Areas' is
defined as a "Sexual Encounter Establishment" by the Adult Entertainment Ordinance; and
g. The Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A approving the Conditional Use
Permit also adopted a condition of approval that stipulates that the business must comply with all
applicable City Ordinances, and Public Health Codes and;
h. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Commission during the
above-referenced public hearings, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1
and 2 above, the Planning Commission specifically finds that violations of Condition Nos. 3,10, and
11 of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-184 have occurred since adoption of said Resolution.
The violations of the respective conditions of approval are as follows:
i. The business operation has caused adverse effects on the adjacent
residential uses such as regular, extended parking by Margarita Beach customers in front of
residences; excessive noise during late night/early moming hours; and loitering of patrons within
adjacent residential neighborhood
ii. On June 17, 2005, Mr. Davidson was convicted and fined for violating a
provision of the Califomia Labor Code by permitting smoking inside the business. Prior to iSSuance
of a citation, Mr. Davidson was given due notice and direction on how to achieve compliance.
iii. The operation of the business has changed from a restaurant use with
incidental entertainment to primarily an entertainment venue with incidental food service, more along
the lines of a nightclub, without approved revision to the underlying Conditional Use Permit allowing
a restaurant use. .
3. The business owner's violation of these conditions and conditions adopted pursuant to
Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45, andlor the manner in which the business has been and continues
to be operated, is detrimental to the public health, safety and/or welfare, including that of the
adjacent residential neighborhood.
4. Based on the violations identified above and in order to insure future compliance with the
conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-184, this Commission hereby modifies
Entertainment Permit NO.91-03 by adopting the following conditions:
1) This approval is only for entertainment as an ancillary activity related to
the primary restaurant use. Entertainment is approved for small bands
or individual musicians, and a dance floor area. Any change of intensity
or type of entertainment shall require a modification to this permit.
2) The dance floor shall not exceed 150 square feet.
3) The provision of entertainment is limited to between 8:00 p.m. and
Midnight, Sunday through Saturday. Any expansion of days andlor
hours shall require modification of this permit.
4)' No adult entertainment, as defined in the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, Section 17.04.090, shall be permitted at any time.
5) All entertainment shall be conducted entirely inside the building.
!Iy //~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.OSC51
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 4
6) When entertainment is being conducted, doors and windows shall
remain closed for noise attenuation purposes. The rear (north) doors
shall be used only for emergencies from 8:00 p.m. to Midnight.
7) No entertainment activity shall create any noise that exceeds .an
exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m., or 65dB during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., or that
otherwise unreasonably interferes with the peace and quiet of any
adjoining property. The business owner shall not permit entertainment
on the premises, except as authorized by a valid Entertainment Permit.
8) Access to the loungelentertainment area must be from the main
entrance to the primary use and not from a separate exterior entrance.
Other exits shall be for "Fire Exit" purposes only.
9) The applic;ant shall at all times fully comply with all applicable
regulations of the Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control .
(ABC), including those provisions regarding Attire and Conduct and
Entertainers and Conduct (specifically Sections 143.2, 143.3 of Title 4
of the California Code of Regulations).
10) In the event the business owner fails, at any time, to comply with all of
the conditions of approval, as amended, or; the operation of the
business while entertainment is being provided causes adverse effects
generating complaints by nearby property owners, or; the operation of
the business while entertainment is being provided generates a
significant number of requests for service by the Police Department,
then the Entertainment Permit shall be brought before the Planning
Commission for review, including possible modification, imposition of
additional conditions, andlor revocation of the permit.
11) The business owner, and all persons acting on behalf of the business,
shall at all times comply with any and all local, state and federal laws,
rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, requirements of the
Foothill Boulevard District, all applicable City Ordinances, Ranclho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District ordinances, all conditions contained
in Resolution No. 91-184, to the extent not modified herein, and Public
Health Codes. The business owner shall provide all employees with a .
copy of these conditions and shall personally ensure that eaclh
employee understands and is familiar with eaclh condition of this
Resolution.
12) The term of the Entertainment Permit is one year. The business owner
shall annually renew this Entertainment Permit per Municipal Code
Section 5.12.115. Renewal of said permit shall be based on full
compliance with all the conditions of this approval, as modified, and
those of the associated Conditional Use Permit for the premises.
",
13) The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed building and fire
codes. Unless revised by a change in or interpretation of any
118 -'13
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.05-51
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 5
applicable statute or regulation, the maximum occupancy for the use is
233 persons and the same shall be posted as determined by the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District andlor the City's Fire
Prevention Unit Department.
14) Uniformed security personnel shall be providedwithin the parking area
at all times during evening business hours (8:00 p.m. to Midnight) to
control parking and monitor crowd behavior. A minimum of one member
of the security team shall be continually present at all times. When the .
front parking lot reaches 50 percent capacity, the number of security
personnel outside the establishment shall be increased to a minimum
of 2 persons monitoring the parking lot and directing patrons not to park
within the adjacent residential neighborhood. Security personnel shall
immediately report any observed criminal activities to the Police
Department.
;
15) The business operator and/or its employees shall not direct patrons to
park in the rear parking areas on the north side of the building, in any of
the adjacent residential streets, or other off-site locations. . On site
parking signs shall be installed by the applicant to instruct patrons not
to park anywhere but within the parking lot. The number, location and
language of said signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner.
16) The City Planner shall monitor the operation of the business and shall
bring back a progress report to the Commission for two successive
3-month reviews, beginning on the date .of this Commission action.
The report shall indicate whether the business establishment has been
operating in compliance with all conditions contained in this Resolution.
Two successive 6-month progress reports shall be provided to the
Commission beginning from the date of the last 3-month review.
17) The business operator shall work with the property owner to establish a
Business Watch program for the commercial center to address issues
related to crime prevention and personal safety.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. .That the conduct of the establishment and the granting of the renewal of the
Entertainment Permit, together with the original conditions, as amended to add new or modify
conditions imposed by this Resolution, would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals or
welfare; and
b. That the premises or establishment, together with the original conditions, as
amended to add new or modify conditions imposed by this Resolution, is not likely to be operated in
an iIIe9al, improper or disorderly manner; and
c. That the applicant, or any person associated with him as principal or partner or in a
position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such
11<6//i'
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.05-51
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 6
permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any
offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind or of
a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license
issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked within the
preceding five years; and
d. That renewal of the Entertainment Permit, as originally conditioned, and as
amended to add new or modify conditions imposed by this Resolution, allowing the business to
continue to provide entertainment, would not create a public nuisance; and
e. That the normal operation of the premises, as originally cOnditioned and as the
Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit have been amended to add new or modify
conditions imposed by this Resolution, will not interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding
commercial center and adjacent residential uses; and
f. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of
material fact in the required application.
6. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this Resolution
is categorically exempt from the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as
amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15301 of the State
CEQA Guidelines.
7. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 2005.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY j)~d~
Rich Macias, Chairman
ATTEST: ~
/' Bra e e eta
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certi,fy 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 13th day of July 2005, by the following vote-ta-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL
COMMISSIONERS: STEWART
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
II~ //S'
THE CITY OF
,
RANCTIO CUCAMONCA
Staff Report
DATE:
July 13, 2005
Y"
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
BY: Michael Diaz, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP88-45 AND ENTERTAINMENT" PERMIT
EP91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH - A public hearing to examine the business
operation of Margarita Beach, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, to ensure that
it is being operated in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or in a
manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission will
consider modification or revocation of the approved Conditional Use Permit and
Entertainment Permit. (Continued from June 22, 2005)
ANALYSIS:
Backqround: On June 22, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to
evaluate the operation of the Margarita Beach business at the abovementioned address. The
Commission took public testimony from the applicant, his attorney, 12 members of the public,
and staff. The major issues presented regarding the business involved problems with excessive
noise during the late hours of the evening and early morning, the overflow of parking and
loitering within the adjacent neighborhood, and the consistency of the current use with what was
approved under with the original Conditional Use and Entertainment Permits. When asked by
the Commission, residents indicated that the situation had improved in recent months, but they
feared that once the City's review of matter was over, the negative conditions would return.
Moreover, the residents were not satisfied with staff's recommended changes to the existing
conditions of approval for the existing use. Further background information including a
chronology of the significant events associated with the subject business and site are contained
in the staff report prepared for the June 22, 2005, meeting (Exhibit B). The minutes from the
previous public City Council and Planning Commission meetings regarding Margarita Beach are
attached (Exhibit C).
Conditional Use Permit 88-45: Approval of the original Conditional Use Permit CUP88-45
(Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242 and No. 88-242A--included in June 22, 005, staff
report - Exhibit B) and original Entertainment Permit EP91-03 (Planning Commission Resolution
No. 91-184 - Exhibit D) were based on the primary use of the site as being a restaurant with
EXHIBIT C1
/18---~
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP88-45 AND EP91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 2
incidental live entertainment. The Planning Commission adopted conditions of approval that
require the serving of alcoholic beverages to be limited to those hours when the full listed food
menu items are available. The current operation of Margarita Beach continues to serve food,
but the business is largely focused on the bar and entertainment as the primary activity as its
advertisements attest.
At the March 9, 2005 Planning Commission meeting, the business owner, Mr. Mark Davidson,
testified that they offer a full menu until 10:00 p.m., such as steaks, fish, and chicken. On June
7, 2005, two staff members visited Margarita Beach and observed customers eating after
11 :00 p.m.; however, the business is open selling alcoholic drinks until 2:00 a.m. Attached is a
copy of the Margarita Beach menu provided by the applicant (Exhibit E). Staff visited the site on
June 7 and June 16, 2005, and observed the space as having a bar and kitchen area, dining
booths along one side of the room, scattered tables, a pool table, a small dance floor, and
raised counter space with stools along the perimeter of the outer walls. When approved in
1986, occupancy for the space was set by the Fire Department at 233 persons based on
submitted Floor Plan (Exhibit F).
The liquor license type issued by the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) for
Margarita Beach is an On-Sale General Eating Place (Type 47) license (Exhibit G). According
to ABC, this type of license requires the operation of a bona fide eating establishment defined
as a place where meals are offered when the premises are open and where actual and
substantial sales of meals are made to guests for compensation. ABC regulations further define
"meals" to mean and include "the usual assortment of foods commonly ordered at various hours
of the day," and that service of "only sandwiches or salads" shall not be deemed to be in
compliance. This definition is provided in Section 23038 of the California Business and
Professions Code Section 23038 (Exhibit H). While ABC does not require food to be served
continuously or at all times alcohol is served, it does require food to be served during the
accepted normal lunch (11 :00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.) and dinner (6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.) timeframes.
However, the City, as part of its own discretionary review and approval process of a Conditional
Use Permit, may require that food be served continuously or at all times alcohol is served.
Based on public and staff testimony, and a review of pictures and advertisements for the
business provided at the June 22, 2005, meeting, four members of the Commission (one
absent) concluded that the nature of the current business operation had changed from a
restaurant use with incidental entertainment to a primarily entertainment venue (with food), more
along the lines of a nightclub. The Commission further determined that the current use was not
consistent with the restaurant use on which approval of the Conditional Use Permit and
Entertainment Permit was originally based. The Commission directed staff to prepare a revised
set of conditions designed to ensure that the Margarita Beach business be operated as a
restaurant use in a manner that is consistent with the spirit of the original Conditional Use
Permit issued for the site.
The findings made by the Planning Commission in granting CUP88-45, as required by state law,
indicate that the use "will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity." Testimony has been received from more
than 15 residents of the surrounding neighborhood of a variety of adverse impacts associated
with Margarita Beach's operation and its customers. As indicated in the previous report, since
/Ig -f7
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP88-45 AND EP91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 3
the March 9, 2005, hearing, the owner of Margarita Beach has made progress in addressing the
major concerns related to parking and noise affecting the adjacent residential neighborhood. In
addition, calls to the Police for service have been drastically reduced (Exhibit I). However, the
main question raised during public testimony was whether the current operation of the Margarita
Beach establishment was consistent with the nature of the business for which the Conditional
Use Permit was originally issued in 1988. The Planning Commission also adopted a condition
of approval that stipulates that the business must comply with all applicable City Ordinances,
and Public Health Codes. On June 17, 2005, Mr. Davidson was convicted and fined for a
violation of a provision of the Labor Code by permitting smoking inside the business (Exhibit J).
This conviction stemmed from City Code Enforcement action. When given the opportunity to
voluntarily comply, Mr. Davidson refused to remove the ashtrays inside his business when
asked to by a City's Code Enforcement officer. .
,.
Entertainment Permit 91-03: An Entertainment Permit is required by any business that allows
live entertainment, music, solo band, orchestra, play, fashion show, song, dance, etc., for the
purpose of gaining and/or holding the attention of guests or patrons (Exhibit K). When the
entertainment permit was first issued for the premises in 1991, use of the site was a full service
restaurant (Skipper's Grill and Bar). The entertainment activities specifically allowed small
bands or individual musicians to play and a small dance floor of 150 square feet in area. The
hours for entertainment were set at 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. The dance floor exists but it is not
known how often, if at all, small bands or individual musicians play at the site. When staff
visited the site, the primary source of music was provided by the house sound system and
recorded music videos. An area is provided for a disc jockey. According to Mr. Davidson's print
advertisements (Exhibit L) and information obtained from radio 'station X-103.9 website, the
radio station hosts "club night" promotions at Margarita Beach "with On-Air Personalities and the
X-103.9 STREET TEAM" (Exhibit M). The most recent advertised event was for June 30, 2005,
where the "all new Thursday Nights Bring Your Own Bitch (BYOB)" party was promoted. It is
not known whether a live disc jockey is used to play music for the entertainment of customers.
At the June 22, 2005, meeting, a member of the public presented copies of photos obtained
from the applicant's website and advertisements (Exhibit N). The photos were presented as
evidence of the activities that occur during some of the events held at the site. Upon reviewing
the photos, Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, indicated that there appeared to be evidence
of adult entertainment occurring at the site, including the display of specified anatomicar areas
and/or specified sexual activities as defined by the Rancho Cucamon9a Adult Entertainment
Ordinance (Exhibit 0). According to Mr. Davidson, several of the pictures are not from
Margarita Beach and others were grossly misinterpreted. Mr. Davidson's attorney has provided
the City with a written response for each of the pictures presented, in which he states that nearly
all the pictures were either from the San Bernardino Margarita Beach business or that he cannot
identify the location or persons depicted in the pictures (Exhibit Pl. Even if it is granted that
some of the pictures were not taken at the Rancho Cucamonga location, the fact that they were
on a website expressly promoting the subject business would lead a reasonable person to
conclude that the activities did occur, and are activities one may expect to occur, on the subject
premises. Noticeably, there are no advertisements or photos of bands or individual musicians
playing at the site that are the specifically approved activities of the Entertainment Permit,
although the internet advertisements do suggest the presence of a live DJ.
/fi --Ii
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP88-45 AND EP91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 4
On June 30, 2005, staff visited the website of radio station X-103.9 and found seven
photographs identified as being from Margarita Beach (Exhibit M). One of these photographs
shows a woman from behind who is pulling down her pants revealing the cleft and upper half of
her buttocks, an area that is included within the definition of "Specified Anatomical Areas" by
the Adult Entertainment Business Ordinance. A "Grand Opening" advertisement for "Margarita
Beach 9950 Foothill Blvd" includes a photograph of a bare breasted woman with nipples and
areola covered with text, which is also defined as a "Specified Anatomical Area". The printed ad
for the "9-year Anniversary" on April 7 at "Margarita Beach 9950 Foothill Blvd" shows a buttocks
and the cleft. The question here is whether the activities shown in the photos were only isolated
events or representative of what frequently occurs on the premises.
Planning Department staff did not witness firsthand any violations of the City's Adult
Entertainment Business Ordinance during visits to the site. However, the photos and business
advertisements suggest that some activities are nearing, and in some cases, appear to cross
the line so as to be classified as adult entertainment. One print advertisement states "XX every
Friday night at Margarita Beach" including "$2.00 sex shots all night long." All of the advertising
refers readers to "www.ieparty.com" for more details. The www.ieparty.com website featured
numerous photographs allegedly taken at Margarita Beach's Bunny Ball on March 24, 2005,
including photos of a woman fondling the breast of another woman, a woman squeezing and
licking the breast of another woman, and a woman's buttocks being fondled. The acts depicted
in these three photographs are included within the definition of "Specific Sexual Activities" set
forth in the Adult Entertainment Business Ordinance. A commercial business that provides "a
place where two or more persons may congregate, associate, or consort in connection with
'Specified Sexual Activities' or the exposure of 'Specified Anatomical Areas'" is defined as a
"Sexual Encounter Establishment" by the Adult Entertainment Ordinance.
Mr. Davidson has not identified what a "sex shot" is or involves, particularly whether it involves
simulated sex acts, exposure of "Specified Anatomical Areas" or physical contact between
employees and customers. In addition, ABC regulations regarding Attire and Conduct and
Entertainers and Conduct also apply. These ABC regulations prohibit "any person on the
licensed premises to touch, caress or fondle the breasts, buttocks" of any other person (Exhibit
Q). ABC regulations also prohibit "any entertainment or person so attired as to be in violation of
any City or County ordinance." As such, staff does not believe that the activities as represented
by the photos are consistent with the activities allowed with the original Entertainment Permit for
the site, or with ABC regulations.
Staff has prepared a draft resolution for the Commission's consideration regarding the
Entertainment Permit. The resolution provides a revised set of conditions designed to ensure
that entertainment activities at Margarita Beach are consistent with the current Entertainment
Permit and in compliance with all city codes regarding adult entertainment.
CORRESPONDENCE: The June 22, 2005, meeting date was advertised in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property
owners within a 300-foot radius of the project site. At the June 22, 2005, meeting, the
Commission continued the public hearing specifically to July 13, 2005.
11819
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP88-45 AND EP91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 5
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conclude the public
hearing on the issues raised by the public, assess the efforts of the operator at responding to
the issues, and adopt the proposed resolutions modifying the conditions for the Conditional Use
Permit and the Entertainmen e it.
-0,.,
Dan oleman
Acting City Planner
BB:MPD/ma
Attachments: Exhibit A - Location Map/Site Plan
Exhibit B - Staff Report for June 22, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting
Exhibit C - Minutes: February 2, 2005 City Council and March 9, 2005 Planning
Commission and Draft Minutes June 22, 2005 Planning
Commission
Exhibit D - Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-184 for Entertainment
Permit 91-03
Exhibit E - Food Menu of Margarita Beach
Exhibit F - Approved Floor Plan from 1986
Exhibit G - ABC License for Margarita Beach
Exhibit H - Alcoholic Beverage Control Act Regulations
Exhibit I - Police Calls for Service/Reports Summary
Exhibit J - Violation of Labor Code for Allowing Indoor Smoking
Exhibit K - Definition of Entertainment (RCMC Section 5.12.020 and 5.12.030)
Exhibit L - Advertisement from Margarita Beach (provided u(1der separate
cover)
Exhibit M - Advertisement/Photos from Radio Station X-103.9 website (provided
under separate cover)
Exhibit N - Photos Presented by Public at June 22, 2005, Planning Commission
Meeting (provided under separate cover)
Exhibit 0 - Rancho Cucamonga Adult Entertainment Ordinance (RCMC Section
17.04.090.B.)
Exhibit P - Written Response from Mr. Davidson's Attorney Regarding Pictures
Presented at the June 22, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting
(provided under separate cover)
Exhibit Q - ABC Regulations Regarding Attire and Conduct and Entertainers and
Conduct.
Exhibit R - Entertainment Permit Annual Renewal application
Exhibit S - February 2005 Petition and June 22, 2005 Petition
Draft Resolution to Modify Conditional Use Permit
Draft Resolution to Modify Entertainment Permit
/1 g ---)/)
.
,
..
.
,
..
-
Ii-
*
..
..
~
/1<6 "d(
:'~<:~~.3J.-B'.~4
:>:.'1" - r; . if'! '"
, . ~--j~~'-~"J"'~'
. ..:. ~ .. .
,"'f.,.: , .
. .... . .
.,
~ ",
.
.
THE CITY OF
I
RANCtlO CUCAMONCA
Staff Report
DATE:
June 22, 2005
"
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Michael Diaz, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CUP88-45 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT EP91-03-
MARGARITA BEACH - A pUblic hearing to examine the business operation to ensure
that it is being operated in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or in a
manner which is not detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially
injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning Commission will consider
modification or revocation of the approved Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment
Permit. (Continued from May 11, 2005)
BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 88-45 was originally approved in 1988 for Siam Garden
Restaurant (Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242 - Exhibit A). In 1991, Fred and Urai Nelson
filed an application to expand the size of the restaurant and bar and to allow live entertainment under
the business name of Skipper's Bar and Grill. The Planning Commission approved Conditional Use
Permit 88-45 Modification and Entertainment Permit 91-03 on October 23, 1991 (Planning
Commission Resolution No. 88-242A - Exhibit B). In 1996, the Entertainment Permit was transferred
to Margaritaville, and the name was changed to Margarita Beach in 2004.
On February 2, 2005, 13 residents spoke at the City Council meeting under Public Communications
regarding problems associated with Margarita Beach. The matter was referred to the Planning
Commission for a review of the issues at hand.
On March g, 2005, the Planning Commission considered a request to set a public hearing to consider
business operations at Margarita Beach. At that meeting, the Commission took testimony from the
public (21 speakers) regarding the impacts the business has had on their neighborhood to determine
if a full public hearing was warranted. Based on the testimony presented, the Commission found that
a public hearing was appropriate but indicated that before a public hearing was held, that the business
owner, local residents, and City staff should meet to discuss how the issues raised regarding the
business could be resolved.
On April 19, 2005, City staff met with the business owner and local residents to discuss the issues.
Representatives from the Police Department provided a breakdown of the calls for service and
responded to questions. During the meeting it was determined that further dialogue was necessary
between the parties to arrive at a mutually acceptable plan of action. Planning staff suggested the
neighborhood meet on their own and prepare a set of their recommendations on the operation of the
business for consideration by the applicant and the City.
B !:-- ~ ,-I
\it 1-1.:rO~.J
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP88-45 AND EP91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH
June 22, 2005
Page 2
At the suggestion of the Police Department, the residents were encouraged to re-establish a
neighborhood watch program as a proactive means for reporting and addressing neighborhood issues
as they occur. The residents held a private meeting on April 26, 2005. Since then, Neighborhood
Watch signs have been installed.
On April 25, 2005, following the private meeting of the residents, the City was provided with a list of
recommendations on how the business should be operated to address the concerns of the
neighborhood (Exhibit C).
On May 3, 2005, one resident provided a letter and information that he found on the Internet and in a
magazine that he believes shows a discrepancy between the current business and the described use
of the original Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit (Exhibit D).
Because of several scheduling conflicts, the Planning Commission postponed the public hearing until
June 22, 2005.
ANALYSIS:
Evaluation of Maior Issues: The major issues identified by the public can be narrowed down to those
regarding excessive noise, overflow of parking, and loitering within the adjacent neighborhood. The
owner of Margarita Beach has pledged to work with the residents and has begun to improve his
efforts at operating his business in a manner that avoids negative impacts to the adjacent
neighborhood. For example, there are more security guards on duty, patrons are directed to park
within the shopping center lot and discouraged from parking on streets within the adjacent
neighborhood on the west side of Ramona Avenue. In addition, the operator indicates that the center
and adjacent neighborhood is checked for trash and debris following the activities each evening. Staff
has also checked the neighborhood on a number of mornings and can verify that the area is free of
major debris and is generally clean.
In regard to calls for service, the Police Department provided a breakdown of over 400 calls recorded
for the subject business or shopping center address which occurred from January 2002 to
mid-February, 2005. Of the total number of calls, more than half were self-initiated by the police while
on routine patrols. Some of incidents that occurred within the neighborhood could not be adequately
verified, while others appeared to have had viable alternate explanations that did not directly involve
Margarita Beach. Only a small number of calls per year could be directly attributed to problems at the
Margarita Beach establishment, most of which were for disturbances that occurred within the
establishment or the adjoining parking lot, and not within the adjacent neighborhood.
During the months of February and March 2005, 25 calls for service were recorded. The Police
initiated 21 of these calls as part their regular patrol activities. Since then (March 22 to June 7), the
Police reported 6 calls for service (4 initiated by the Police) at Margarita Beach, and none for
surrounding neighborhoods that were related to the establishment.
Nature of the Business: A second issue raised by one of the neighbors is whether the operation of
the Margarita Beach establishment is consistent with the nature of the business for which the
Conditional Use Permit was originally issued in 1988. As indicated above, the original Conditional
Use Permit and Entertainment Permit were originally permitted for a use that was primarily a
restaurant/bar with incidental live entertainment. Section B.2(d) of Resolution 88-242, specifically
states that..."The application contemplates the addition of cocktails to the existing restaurant menu of
(1<6'>>
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP88-45 AND EP91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH
June 22, 2005
Page 3
oriental cuisine and beer/wine." While the current operation of Margarita Beach retains the restaurant
use, the advertising for the business appears to be largely focused on entertainment as the primary
activity.
Staff agrees the marketing direction of the current business is not the same as the marketing of the
original applicant. However, staff does not believe the Commission should establish marketing criteria
or conditions outside of those already covered in the City's Sign Ordinance. Moreover, staff does not ,
find that the business is operating as an adult business as defined by the City's Adult Entertainment
Business ordinance. The business operator has been notified of the ordinance and the City's
expectation that he comply with its provisions.
Based on the above information, staff does not find sufficient grounds for revocation of the Conditional
Use Permit or Entertainment Permit at this time.
Proposed ChanQes to Conditions of Approval: All of the conditions of approval contained in
Resolution No. 88-242A will continue to apply. However, while there has been improvement in the
operation of the business, staff believes that new conditions should be added to ensure that the
business operator and the public understand what is expected. The recommended conditions listed
below are based on an evaluation of the existing conditions of approval, and the recommendations
from the residents and staff. Consideration was given to those recommendations that would be easily
understood and enforceable. As a courtesy, staff provided the applicant and representatives from the
neighborhood a copy of the draft conditions listed below for their feedback. Some of the draft
conditions were modified to reflect their respective comments/concerns including a change in the
length of time frame for reviewing the business (6 months reduced to two 3-month reviews), a change
in the requirement for security guards, and a requirement to direct overflow parking. The goal of this
last requirement is to avoid overflow parking beyond that which can be contained in the front parking
lot on the south side of the business and commercial center. The proposed new conditions, as
modified, are as follows:
. No adult entertainment as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, Section
17.04.090 shall be permitted.
. Uniformed security personnel shall be provided within the parking area at all times during
evening business hours (9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.) to control parking and monitor crowd
behavior. A minimum of one member of the security team shall be continually present at
all times. When the front parking lot reaches 75 percent capacity, the number of security
personnel outside the establishment shall be increased to a minimum of two persons
patrolling the parking lot and one person on Ramona Avenue directing patrons away from
parking within the adjacent residential neighborhood.
. The driveway entries/exits on Ramona Avenue shall be closed each business day no later
than 1 :00 a.m. to direct patrons leaving the site to exit on Foothill Boulevard, subject to
approval by the City's Traffic Engineer.
. The business operator and/or its employees shall not direct patrons to park in the rear
parking areas on the north side of the building, in any of the adjacent residential streets, in
any of the adjacent residential streets, or in other off-site locations.
I f6 "d6
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP88-45 AND EP91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH
June 22, 2005
Page 4
. The City Planner shall monitor the operation of the business with a progress report being
brought back to the Commission for two successive 3-month reviews, beginning on the
date of this Commission action. The report shall indicate whether the business
establishment has been operating in compliance with all conditions of approval and
applicable City ordinances. A follow up progress report shall be provided to the
Commission one year from the date of the last 3-month review. Failure by the operator to
comply with all the conditions of approval, as amended, at any time, or because of
continued complaints from the public regarding excessive problems directly attributable to
the operation of the establishment, shall be cause for the possible revocation of the
Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
. The business operator shall work with the property owner to establish a Business Watch
program for the commercial center to address issues related to crime prevention and
personal safety.
CORRESPONDENCE: The original meeting date was advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within a 300-foot
radius of the project site prior to the April 27, 2005 meeting date. At that meeting, the Commission
continued the hearing to May 11, 2005, where it was once again continued to June 22, 2005. The
neighborhood was subsequently notified of this meeting date.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a public hearing to
discuss the issues raised by the public, assess the efforts of the operator at responding to the issues,
and approve the proposed resolution containing the added conditions of approval.
Respectfully submitted,
~
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:MPDfma
Attachments: Exhibit A - Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242
Exhibit B - Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A
Exhibit C - Recommendations from Residents dated April 25, 2005
Exhibit D - Letter from Jim Olson dated May 3, 2005 (distributed under separate cover)
Draft Resolution of Approval for Modification of Conditional Use Permit CUP88-45
(/8---Jr
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-242
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45 FOR THE SALE
OF HARD LIQUOR FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTION IN AN EXISTING
2,160 SQUARE FEET RESTAURANT ON 4.05 ACRES OF LAND IN THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND RAMONA AVENUE
IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF. - APN: 1077-621-34
"
A. Recitals.
(0 Siam Garden Restaurant has filed an application for the
issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application".
(iO On the 14th of December, 1988, 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.
(11i! All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evi dence presented to thi s Commi ssi on
during the above-referenced publiC hearing on December 14, 1988, 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
northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue with a street
frontage of 632.22 feet and lot depth of 280.96 feet and is presently improved
with a Commercial/Retail Center; and
(b) The application is for the incidental sales of alcoholic
beverages as menu items in conjunction with the sales of food.
(c) The property to the north of the subject site is
residential, the property to the south of that site consists of a mobile home
park, the property to the east is commercial, and the property to the west is
commercial.
1/ (PC 6P;LftS-)
(18 ~JS-
PLANNING COMMISSIO~SOLUTION NO.
CUP 88-45 - SIAM GA~N RESTAURANT
December 14, 1988
Page 2
88-242
.
(d) The application camtemplates the addition of cocktails to
the existing restaurant menu of oriental cuisine and beer/wine.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearin9 and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in para9raph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) That the proposed use is in accord with the
General Plan, the objectives of the Development
Code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, and
the purposes of the district in which the site
is located.
(b) That the proposed use, together with the
. conditions appl icable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
(c) That the proposed use complies with each of the
appl icabl e provi si ons of the Development Code
and the Foothi 11 Boul evard SpecHi c Pl an.
4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has
been reviewed and consi dered in campl i ance wi th the Cal i fornia Envi ronmental
Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative
Declaration.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph
I, 2, 3 and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below.
Planning Division
1. This approval shall apply to the serving of alcoholic beverages
only.
2. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all
sections of the Foothill Specific Plan, all applicable City
Ordinances, Foothill Fire District requirements and Public
Heal th codes.
3. Any modification, expansion or other change in operation will
require a revision to the Conditional Use Permit.
4. All signage shall be designed in conformance with the
Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and applicable Uniform Sign Program
and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division.
/18,JC:.
PLANNING COMMISSIO.SOLUTION NO.
CUP 88-45 - SIAM G N RESTAURANT
December ~4, 1988
Page 3
88-242
.
5. The serving of al cohol i c beverages must be in conj uncti on with
restaurant usage and the availability of full listed menu
items. The sale and serving of alcoholic beverages shall cease
when such menu items are not available to customers.
6. The serving of alcohol in conjunction with restaurant usage may
operate between the hours of 11:00 a.m. and 11:00 p.m.
6. The Secretary to this Conmission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
"
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 1988.
SSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning COllUllission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resol ution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Conmission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 14th day of December, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITIEA, Me NIEL, TOLSTOY
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK
118' -d 7
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45 FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE
RESTAURANT AND BAR FROM 2,160 TO 3,240 SQUARE FEET,
MODIFICATION OF THE HOURS OF OPERATION, AND TO PERMIT
LIVE ENTERTAINMENT IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE RESTAURANT AND
BAR LOCATED WITHIN A COMMERCIAL CENTER IS THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUITES
R & S, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:.
1077-621-34.
A. Recitals.
(i) Fred and Urai Nelson have filed an application for a
modification to Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 as described in the title of
this Resolution.. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the modification to the
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
(ii) On the 23rd day of October 1991, and continued to November 13,
1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that
date.
(iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucarnonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recita1F' .part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this commission
during the above-referenced public hearings on October 23, 1991, and November
13, 1991, 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 9950
Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 632 feet and lot depth of 278
feet and is presently improved with one multi-tenant commercial building; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is
apartments, the property to the south of the site consists of a mobile home
park,. the property to the east is a commercial building, and the property to
the west is a service station~
E (?c. tft;2--/oS-]
Iii ~)f
PLANNING COMMISSIO.SOLUTION NO. 88-242A
CUP 88-45 - SKIPPER'S BAR & GRILL
November 13, 1991
Page 2
.
(c) The application applies to the expansion of an existing
restaurant, "Siam Garden," to be renamed "Skipper's Grill and Bar, II and the
serving of alcoholic beverages from 11:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
restaurant
bar, stage
(d) The application
and bar from 2,160 to 3,240
and dance floor.
contemplates the expansion of
square feet including constructi~n
the
of a
(e) The application proposes to conduct live entertainment, "
consisting of small band, disc jockey, and comedians, from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00
a.m., seven days a week.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specif~c findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) That 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) That 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)
provisions of the
That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable
Development code and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to
each and every condition set forth below:
Conditions:
1) The serving of alcoholic beverages must be in
conjunction with restaurant usage and the
availability of full listed menu items. The
sale and serving of alcoholic beverages shall
cease when such menu items are not available to
customers.
2)
The serving of alcohol in
restaurant usage may operate
of 11:00 a.m. and 2:00 a.m.
conjunction with
between the hours
3) All doors shall remain closed during
entertainment for noise attenuation purposes.
The rear (north) doors shall be used only for
emergencies from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
!ft---d'j
PLANNING COMMISSION~OLUTION NO.
CUP 88-45 - SKIPPER'S BAR & GRILL
November 13, 1991
page 3
88-242A
.
4) All customers shall use the front (south)
entrance/exit, and use of the rear (north)
parking lot shall be limited to employees.
5) All entertainment activit:Les shall not create
any noise that would exceed an exterior noise
level of 60 dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
6) Approval of this request shall not waive
compliance with all sections of the Foothill
Boulevard specific Plan, all applicable city
Ordinances, Foothill Fire District
requirements, and Public Health codes.
7)
Any modification, expansion,
operation will require a
Conditional Use Permit.
or other change in
revision to. the
8) All signage shall be designed in conformance
with the comprehensive sign Ordinance and
applicable Uniform Sign Program and shall
require review and approval by the Planni.ng
Division.
9) The dance floor maximum square footage shall
not exceed 150 square feet.
10) If operation of the. facility causes adverse
effects upon adjacent businesses or operations,
the Conditional Use permit shall be brought
before the Planning commission for
consideration and 'possible termination of the
use.
11) occupancy of the facility shall not commence
until such time as all Uniform Building Code
and Uniform Fire Code regulations have been
complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building
shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
!lg,36
PLANNING COMMISSION'SOLUTION NO.
CUP 88-45 - SKIPPER' BAR & GRILL
November 13, 1991
Page 4
88-242A
.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1991.
PLANNING
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
",
ATTEST:
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Conunission 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 conunission held
on the 13th day of November 1991, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, VALLETTE
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
NONE
llfi-'31
. .
.
.
.
CITY OF RANCHOCUCAMONGA
To:
CC:
From:
Date:
Re:
Brad Buller, City Planner for Rancho Cucamonga APR 25 2005
Planning Commission Members
Residents surrounding Margarita Beach RECEIVED. PLANNING
April 25, 2005
Recommendation from residents as follow up to community
policing meeting, April 19, 2005
. Stop all Promotions. No Radio or Internet Marketing. No longer allow cheep
drinks, Le. - 2 dollar you-call-its, 50 cent draft beers. Advertising should only
be done in newspaper, so that the public can have accesses to all publications.
Currently all advertised promotions are done on radio and internet web sites.
. No Drink promotions!
. Hire professional licensed security service, since the current security guards
have MINIMAL training. Minimum of three security guards on east and west
side of the facilities, (Le. - Ramon Market, and USA Carpet) Also security in
parking lot to prevent any illegal drinking, and whatever security is required
inside the business. Ifbar patrons do not comply with security request, the
police will be called to handle the situation.
. Do not allow customers to park behind the building. Uthe customers do, it is
the security's responsibility to call the police or direct customer to designated
parking area (in the front of the building).
. Customers can ONL Y park in front of the business. Anyone walking in from
offsite will be refused entry and told to retrieve car and park in lot.
. Once parking lot is full no other customers will be allowed in Margarita Beach.
No matter what occupancy level is, the level in the parking lot is the real
occupancy-since there should be no off-site parking. The problem with the lot
being full creates overflow of Margarita Beach Customers to surrounding
Neighborhoods. "Lot Full Signs" should be posted if the parking lot is full, if
customers leave, and then the lot could be opened again until the lot is full.
. For businesses that are in the center with Margarita Beach operating at the
same hours (i.e. - Ramona Market and Sushi Bar) should be able to receive
signs for their "customer parking only" in front of their business.
. After closing, quickly and quietly security will disperse all Margarita Beach
customers from parking lot. No loitering, noise, fighting, loud music, or yelling
from customers while leaving the lot. Have customers be considerate of
C)(I-/It3/T e (PC 6p?/oS)
l;g ..-3d-
."
..
.
.
neighbors, no squealing oftires or revving of motors. Ifnecessary, a police
presence will be needed from 1 :30-2am to disperse cars.
. After closing, security will patrol aU neighborhoods to verifY aU Margarita
Beach customers have left the area. (We have had problems with customers in
neighborhoods after hours.)
. Portable signs, on the north and south comers of Estacia Ct, which would state
"NO MARGARITA BEACH PARKING". Signs to be set by security ,
personnel and removed after closing.
. Doors must be closed at all times, to prevent music from traveling to Mobile
Home Park. If door needs to be open, music will be turned OFF. Recommend
soundproofing waUs and windows of building to prevent base blasting across
the street.
. Landlord must attend the public hearing on May 11th to describe lease
requirements and whether any complaints have come from other business
tenants in the center about Margarita Beach.
/Ir -' 3.3
." .-
, .
. .
A
.
.
Signatures of Residents, Submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission, Regarding requirements for Margarita
Beach to implement for the security and the peace and quiet of
surrounding residents. .
Name/Print
Address
Signature
l::}'l 5.w CI-Itt:--:z::.
/I 4-.
Ji~ DIS',,'"
,
SavoJ, Mous~~ ~03d.. a5;~ Itv~, ~~'
,L
"l-
i l M \s-J-e15~f\~ <\010 PA'Sll6 AI/~
~ Lf3erMDif fif7/) e<;~ cr'
~
d~
~P1IV (1)a;fli.'f\J.c" qg&7) aiw.it...cJ. -fl.;;#1LJ)~
R+ S fez> <:z:f\J~ q.33~ Y::~h-t I ( ~ (37 .tPo:k ~
~t'
1183'1
( ~
.. .
'. .
. .~ .
...
.
NameIPrint Address
L.VCAf?;v ~
,
.
.' .
..
/18--35
.
.
LETTER FROM JIM OLSON DATED MAY 3,2005
DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
EXHIBIT D (PC r;,/;?;;/o~-)
Ilg -,3~
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2005
Page 8
*.. *,., * *
CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REpORTS
11. CONSIDERATIO
CREEK PROJEC T
CONSERVATION ENTI
PURSUANT TO AN OPEN
OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
HENDERSON CREEK PROJEC
F A REQUEST FROM GRANITE EQUITIES DEVELOPERS OF HENDERSON
HAVE THE CITY DESIGNATE HABITAT TRUST AS A QUALIFIED
OR THE PURPOSE OF THE MANAGING 54 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE
CE TRANSFER PLAN IN SATISFACTION OF THE REQUIREMENTS
PACT REPORT AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE
"
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated he w d like to continue this in order for the City Council to review the
materials that were handed out.
MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded Williams to continue the item to February 16, 2005. Motion
carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Michael absent).
J.
J1. CONSIDERATION OF CITY COUNCIL COM ITY SERVICES SUBCOMMITTEE'S
RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE APPOINTMENTS TO T BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
A report was presented by Council member Williams.
MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Gutierrez to appoint Ang Knox, Judy Gibson, Harry
Gibson and Marian Nelson. Motion carried unanimously 4-0-1 (Michael abse
* * * * * *
J2. LEGISLATIVE UPDATE (Oral)
Councilmember Williams stated she and City Manager Jack Lam, met with the n
Emerson in order to share our concerns and issues for our area. She stated the ave him a list of
projects that need funding and also asked him to protect RDA dollars. She stated he w Id come to City
Hall for a neighborhood meeting soon.
K. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR THE NEXT MEETING
No"items were identified for the next meeting.
. * * * * *
I
-*L1.
G
L. PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS
II
REQUEST FROM EDWARD SANCHEZ TO DISCUSS "MARGARITAVILLE."
I/~ .37
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2005
Page g
Mark Davidson, owner of Margarita Beach, formerly known as Margaritaville, wanted to speak to the
Council about this matter and stated one of the neighbors near his business wants his business permit
to be revoked. He talked about the success of their business and that they have strived to be a good
neighbor. He stated they do respect the rights of the neighbors, but felt if problems arise, they should
be contacted so they can correct them. He stated they have spoken to Mr. Sanchez in the past and
that Captain Ortiz has assisted with their meetings. He felt their meetings were successful and that
one of the meetings even resulted in one of his employees being terminated. He stated he has taken
measures so that the customers do not park on Estacia and that they have even picked up trash on
that street. He indicated he has given Mr. Sanchez his personal phone numbers if there are any
problems. He stated he has never been contacted by Mr. Sanchez and that there have not been any
complaints filed against him. He stated he respects the rights of Mr. Sanchez and would like the
opportunity to correct the problems that Mr. Sanchez talks about.
Ed Sanchez, Estacia, talked about how Margaritaville came into existence. He stated they hold
promotions that fill their parking lot. He stated the overflow is on their street where people are drinking,
leaving trash and having sex. He talked about meetings he has had with former Rancho Cucamonga
Captain, Rodney Hoops, and his staff. He provided more information about their meetings and that the
possibility of revoking their CUP was discussed. He stated Mr. Davidson stated he would have a
bouncer to keep the parked cars in his parking lot and would also pick up trash from his neighborhood.
He told about an instance that occurred where graffiti was sprayed on his van. He felt the owners of
Margaritaville fill the kids with cheap liquor and send them out into the streets. He felt this information
should be referred to the Planning Commission for review. He felt the City Council should do what is
the right for them.
Chris Cameron, Pasito, stated she lives perpendicular to Estacia. She stated she has watched girts in
her neighborhood drinking and then proceeding to Margaritaville. She stated they have had security
monitoring the residential areas. She stated they are constantly picking up beer bottles and that
something needs to be done because of these problems that occur every weekend.
Kim Weishan, Pasito, stated she has had kids that are drunk knocking on their door and having sex in
their parked cars.
Marya Black stated she has had kids having sex, drinking, and urinating in their front yard. She stated
the Police Department does not get their fast enough. She stated that Margaritaville needs better
security and something to take care of the parking lot overflow problem. She does not want her kids
to be scared any more.
Vicki Schimone, Pasito, stated she has had kids trying to break into her home because they are so
drunk. She is fearful for her kids' safety. She stated the kids are racing at 1 :00 and 2:00 in the
morning and that she wants this to stop. She stated they had been told there would be security on
Estacia and Ramona. She stated she has filed reports with the Police Department and that she is tired
of living this way.
Victoria Sanchez, Estacia, presented photos (on file in the City Clerk's office) of what the kids are
doing in front of her house. She told about all the problems they have had in front of her house, but
added the biggest problem was her Father's van getting tagged with graffiti. She stated she is so tired
of this and hoped their CUP would be revoked.
Jim Olson, Estacia, stated the problem he seems to have is after the closing of Margaritaville. He
commented on what he finds Sunday mornings such as broken glass, vomit and trash on the streets.
He talked about the kids racing on the streets. He did not feel the Police Department is doing enough.
He did not feel this behavior should be tolerated.
Betty Watkins, Estacia, talked about the kids urinating in her front yard. She wanted to make sure the
neighborhood is safe for her grandkids and asked the Council to consider this real hard.
II~ --35r
.., ...
City Council Minutes
February 2, 2005
Page 10
Rodney Trunnell, Estacia, stated everything that everybody has mentioned has occurred at his house
also. He stated there was even a weapon found in front of his house. He felt nothing has been done
to help them from the meetings that have occurred with the Police Department.
Peggy Sanchez, Estacia, stated they did not call Mr. Davidson every time there were problems
because it would not be documented through the Police Department. She did not think this was a very
safe situation for her daughter. She stated the Officer that responded to her house one time told her
there were not enough Officers on the street to respond as quickly as they would like to. She
encouraged Mr. Davidson to pay for better security and have a bouncer that will do something to help
them.
"
Emily La Quay, Pines Mobile Home Park, stated she does hear the kids from the bar racing on the
streets.
Larry Liberto, Estacia, stated he is tired of this and can~ take it any longer. He stated he is tired of
people urinating in front of his house. He did not feel the bouncer is doing his job. He asked that they
get their neighborhood back.
Pat Stevens, Pines Mobile Home Park, stated the noise from the kids makes her mobile home vibrate.
She added that Mr. Davidson, the owner of Margaritaville, has been fair and has offered to help with
the noise.
Council member Gutierrez stated both sides have been heard and felt the City needed the Planning
Commission to analyze this for the next step. He stated the City Council cares and wants to find a
solution. He felt Mr. Davidson should be treated fair and deserves his day in court. He asked what
kind of a detriment there is by having the liquor store in the same center. He stated this should be
looked into as well. He felt this should be referred to the proper department. He felt Mr. Davidson
would do what he could to fix the sityation.
Mayor Alexander felt nine years is too long for these people to put up with this. He felt the business
should be closed until this problem is remedied, but knew the City Council could not do this. He felt
the people that are wandering the neighborhoods drunk should be arrested. He stated this would be
looked into.
Councilmember Williams stated this would be investigated and that the liquor store monitored too so it
could be brought into this discussion. She suggested all the 'businesses should be looked at in that
center.
L2. John Lyons commented on the restaurant grading system and did not agree with some of the
problems this could be creating.
L3. Jim Moffit, Red Hill Coffee Shop in Rancho Cucamonga, stated some restaurants are putting their
grade in the window even though it is not required. He stated the Health Department comes in and
gives them corrective criticism, and some of those comments are not related to the food. He felt there
was a lot to be considered before people are given a grade to put in their window. He talked about the
food handler's permit that restaurants are required to get. He did not feel the restaurant should be
given any tougher problems.
L4. A lady (who did not identify herself) thanked Mayor Alexander and Councilmember Spagnolo for
their concems and encouragement they gave people to come to the Animal Shelter Subcommittee
meeting tomorrow. She stated it is at 1 :00 p.m. at City Hall.
******
-----
Iii -'37
E. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW DRC2004-00052 - VAN
DAELE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION - The review of site plan and elevations for 59 single-
family homes on 19 acres of land within the Low-Medium Residential District (4-8 dwelling units
per acre), located on the north side of Base Line Road, approximately 1,200 feet east of
Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 0227-131-29, 34, 35, 36, 52, 53, and 55 thru 58. Related files:
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16776, Variance DRC2004-01002, and Tree Removal Pemiit
DRC2004-00701. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration. (Continued from February 9, 2005)
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented tl1e staff report with the request the items be continued
to the March 23, 2005 meeting. He said that the consultant assisting the property owners to the
west of the proposed project had called and reported that they are making progress in resolving their
issues and that the continuance would give them more time the finish that process.
. Chairman Macias opened the public hearing to anyone that might not be able to attend the continued
'hearing at the March 23rd meeting. There was no response. Chairman Macias closed the public
hearing.
Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher to continue Items C, D and E as requested.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART
NONE
McNIEL - carried
...**
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
F. REVIEW OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 MODIFICATION AND ENTERTAINMENT
PERMIT 91-03 - MARGARITA BEACH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-01 - RAMONA
MARKET - A review of the business operations located at 9950 Footl1i11 Boulevard -
APN: 1077-621-34.
Brad Buller, City Planner, reported that the request for the Evidentiary Hearing was brought to the
Commission as a result of the concems presented to the City Council at their February 2, 2005
meeting by Mr. Edward Sanchez and 13 other residents in regard to the business operations of
Margarita Beach. Mr. Buller explained that two permits are held by this business, a Conditional Use
Permit and an Entertainment Permit. He added that the Conditional Use Permit for Ramona Market
is also being discussed. He commented that testimony and evidence is being received tonight only
for the purpose of determining if a public hearing is warranted and to consider and review the uses,
specifically Margarita Beach and Ramona Market. He explained that the reason a Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) and Entertainment Permit (EP) were required for these businesses is because the
CUP allows them to serve alcohol in conjunction with their use; the EP (which only applies to the bary
gives them the ability to have a level of entertainment as described in the permit. He noted that both
permits are subject to review that can occur whenever a resident, Councilmember or member of the
Commission feels it is appropriate. He said tonight they would only receive testimony to determine if
a hearing is warranted. He noted that notices were mailed to the neighbors that addressed the
Council, the owners of the center, Margarita Beach, Ramona Market, and also Alcoholic Beverage
Control (ABC). He invited the neighbors to speak, bu1 that they not repeat each other. He added
that the owners of the businesses would also be invited to speak as well as anyone from the
audience. Mr. Buller reported that Sergeant Paul Morrison from Police and staff from Code
Enforcement were in attendance at the meeting and that they would be available if the
Commissioners had any questions. He explained that because of the many letters received from the
neighbors, he asked Police, Fire, and Code Enforcement to prepare a report of the calls made to this
Planning Commission Minutes
-3-
March 9, 2005
1/8--'(6
location over the-last 3 years. He noted that their reports may not be all inclusive as evidence and
that the Commissioners may request at a future time a more detailed report if further investigation is
de.~med necessary.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Ed Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he has Jived here for 20 years. He
reported that he spoke at the February 2, 2005 City Council meeting. He commented that although
the two members of the City Council directed the Planning Commission to include Ramona Market in
their investigation, he said that out of 13 neighbors that spoke, not one mentioned the market as
being a problem or concem. He added that he believes the market should not be included in this
investigation and he believes they did nothing wrong. He commented that in 1996, Skippers was
sold to Mr. Davidson and the business changed its name from Margaritaville to Margarita Beach at a
later time, but that problems began to occur even when the business was named Margaritaville. He
mentioned that problems with traffic, parking in the neighborhood, people bringing their own,ice
ches~ of alcohol and drinking it in their neighborhood, urination in public and noise, as some of the
issues about which he spoke to Mayor Alexander in a telephone conversation. He reported that he
later met with Lt. Nelson and Mr. Davidson and two of the neighbors two years ago in hopes of
resolving these issues. He said at the time, Mr. Davidson was told he could not hold promotion
events and that if he could not confine his business operation to his property, that a review of his
CUP was possible. He said that they arrived at some solutions such as not allowing special
promotion nights, only allowing the cars to cross the streets at certain points, hiring a bouncer, and
trash pickup. He said he then contacted Captain Pete Ortiz <the new incoming Captain at the time)
to inform him of the problems and to re-emphasize the agreement. He said he had another meeting
that was attended by Captain Ortiz, several of his neighbors, Mr. Davidson, and two representatives
from the mobile home park located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. He stated that Mr.
Davidson's compliance with the agreement was good for a while, but then reverted back to having a
promotional event in January. He said the result was an overflowing parking lot and graffiti. He
commented that this business has always been a bad neighbor. He added that examples of the
types of promotions held are included in the agenda packet. He noted that these promotions attract
the young party types. He remarked that the owner of Margarita Beach bragged that he had 1.7
million dollars in gross income with over $200,000 in taxes paid to the City_ He said the real question
is, "Is maintaining a high quality of life a priority of City officials?"
Victoria Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, identified herself as the d!ilughter of Mr.
Sanchez, the prior speaker. She said a bouncer hired by Margarita Beach actually directed a patron
of the bar to her home. She said he had been told her father was a City Council member and he
was told there was an ordinance against parking in the street. She said another patron asked why
he was told he could not park on the street. She recalled that on one occasion a pickup truck
occupied by two drinking men was partially blocking her driveway. She said she asked them to move
and they did and they apologized, but she said this problem has gone on too long. She stated that
the noise was bad during the summer and they could not open their windows at home. She added
that now bouncers had been posted at the comer and that they added to the litter already created by
the patrons of the bar.
Marya Black, 8022 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said she has lived in the neighborhood torS
years and she has two young children. She stated patrons of the bar were having sex in front of her
house. She said she has since installed double pane windows and an alarm system. She noted
trash; urination in public and cars doing "donuts" in the street and screaming and yelling as additional
concems. She said she does not feel safe and she added that she does not believe it is the patrons
of the market causing the problems.
Vicky Seimone, 8016 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga. said she had submitted a letter of
complaint listing her concems ilbout Margarita Beach. She said that their street is very short and
from 11-1:30a.m., there is a lot of traffic on the street. She reported noise, vomit in her planters and
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
March 9, 2005
I/g -Lfl
problems with people urinating in public. She said one patron was so drunk, he tried to break into
her house because he did not know where he was. He then went into her backyard and tried to get
in again. She added that when he was unsuccessful, he went into her neighbor's backyard. She
said when the police arrived, they drove him home. She added that she has 5 children and she
believes Mr. Davidson should move his business to another location.
Kim Weison, 8010 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said she has lived on the street for 27 years
and in Rancho for a total of 30 years. She reported that her eldest son, who is now 30 years old,
frequented Margarita Beach when he was younger. She commented that itwas upsetting when he
would come home drunk, but at least he was not driving home. She asked why he no longer goes
there, and he said it is because it is such a young party crowd and that people that go there just want
to "score." She said she has concem for the safety of the other young people that frequent this
business. She added that there are many young children on her street. She commented that she
believes the Commissioners would not allow this business to continue operating next to their homes.
She said Mr. Davidson and Councilman Gutierrez have recently been examining the area and
, nothing is really going on now. She said it is really bad during the summer, but that it has been a
problem for 9 years.
Sarah Moussani, 8032 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said she has had problems with safety,
trash, cars, bottles, and public urination. She said the parking has become a problem to the point
that there is no parking available to those visiting her home. She said she has concem for her 16
year old. She said she has lived there since 1982 and wants the business to be moved. She said
she has always had good neighbors and she would like to keep it that way.
Christine Read, 9999 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she lives in The Pines mobile
homes. She said she wakes up 4 out of 7 nights at 2:00 a. m. because of noise coming from the
parking lot. She said the noise often continues until 3:00 a.m. when all the cars have disbursed.
She said she often hears girls screaming and car alarms going off. She said she called the police
and at first they responded, but no longer do. She said the police said they have a license for
playing the music. She said she loses valuable sleep because of the noise and it is difficult because
she has to leave for work early in the moming. She said sometimes she thought young ladies were
in trouble because of the screaming. She said the loud music has been tumed down some but she
believes this club is in the wrong location.
Chris Cameron, 8017 Pas/to Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said female patrons of the bar park on her
street at around 9:00 p.m., apply their makeup, get dressed, and when they leave, they leave behind
bottles and cigarette butts for her to clean up. She said she is in the process of adopting 3 children.
She remarked that she is concemed about these activities being observed by the State workers
when they make their home visits. She said she wants these children not to be denied the posSibility
of having a good life. She said these children should not see the things that go on with these
patrons. She added that headlights from the cars beam into her windows even through the blinds.
She said she hears tires screeching, dogs barking, and yelling and screaming every weekend. She
remarked that Councilman Gutierrez suggested they gate off their entire block. She indicated to him
that she did not want to pay for permits because of the bar operation. She said she thought Rancho
was a community where you could leave your windows open and not have to worry about it. She
added she now has security concems particularly with not knowing what intoxicated people might do.
Rob Evans, 9823 Palo Alto, Rancho Cucamonga, said he has been a resident since 1989 and he
supports the Ramona Market. He gave kudos to the Mayor for a previous complaint he had
regarding head shops. He reported that following his call to the Mayor, the head shops disappeared.
He said that was good customer service. He said the owners of the market are like family and call
him by name. He mentioned that the market is convenient and they are a positive influence in the
neighborhood. He commented that he does not know what the best solution is for Margarita Beach,
but he feels the market should not be involved.
Planning Commission Minutes
-5-
March 9, 2005
/18' ,,'-/;)..
Larry Liberatore, 9870 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he also favors the market. He
said the club has poor business practices. He said the owner claims he does not know about the
prpblems associated with his business. He reported that for the last 3 weeks, there have been
visible security guards employed by Margarita Beach. He said he had not seen any in the last year.
He said last weekend, the guards could be seen pacing up and down his street with flashlights. He
said the need for guards in front of homes is indicative that there is a problem. He said he should
not have to worry about activities taking place in his front yard every weekend. He said this. business
does not belong this close to homes and they want their neighborhood back.
Adam Evans, 9823 Palo Alto, Rancho Cucamonga, said he isa student at Rancho Cucamonga High
School. He stated that the owners of Ramona Market have been falsely accused and is a grievous
mistake; that the problems are being caused by Margarita Beach. He reported that there are liquor
stores all over town and you never hear of debauchery like this and it is because they are located
next to an unruly bar. He said it is unfair that the Ramona Market is grouped in with the people of the
bar. He said at Ramona Market, like many local grocery stores, you get good service.
Jim Olson, 9805 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, cited problems with patrons vomiting, urinating,
and having sex in his front yard. He said there are car chases on the street. He said on Saturday
and Sunday mornings, there are bottles and litter in the street. He said he had checked the police
calls for 2005, and thus far, 15 calls had already been received for Margarita Beach. He said at that
rate, more calls will be received than in previous years. He said for the last 20 years he has
observed Rancho Cucamonga change from a rural setting to a more upscale community. He noted
that this type of business would not be tolerated on the east side of town near Victoria Gardens and
he said he did not know why it is being tolerated in his nejghborhood.
Emily LeQuay, 9999 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she has been a resident for 10
years. She reported noise, traffic and screaming coming from Margarita Beach. She said Rancho
Cucamonga is a nice community but this bar is out of place. She added that she has never had a
problem with the market.
Peggy Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said she appreciated Mr. Buller's
responsiveness to their concems. She noted she believes the Ramona Market should not be
included in this review. She said the owners are a hardworking family, good neighbors, and are not
a problem. She said the club continues to disrupt the neighborhood and she finally installed an
alarm in her home. She noted that Rancho Cucamonga has grown into an excellent city but that to
the east of Haven Avenue it is very nice but to the west you have places like Twins and Margarita
Beach. She commented that if this business requires a high level of services from police and fire,
then the City really cannot afford to spend its resources on themand that if their demand is too high,
perhaps they do not belong in Rancho Cucamonga at all. She recommended a review of their
permits.
Betty Watkins, gaaO Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that all the concems have been
previously mentioned and she is requesting the help of the Planning Commission.
Trish Stevens, 9999 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, said that the management of Margarita
Beach had previously been told their patrons could not park along the fence on Foothill Boulevard.
She mentioned speeding cars and loud music. She noted that she called the police and the police
did not respond. She reported that she also called the manager and he did not respond either. She
said she has leamed to wear earplugs. She stated she collected 40 signatures on a petition in
opposition of Margarita Beach. She said she reviewed the 5-year report and was surprised that the
operation is within acceptable noise levels. She reported that her mobile home literally "rocks" from
the noise. She said she is 76 Years old and should not have to put up with this. She said she
received 5 more signatures today to add to the petition and presented them to the secretary.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if the noise is from the parking lot or inside the club.
V,.,
Planning Commission Minu1es
-6-
March 9, 2005
118 ".1../.3
Ms. Stevens stated the door to the club is often open; therefore it would be from the club.
Hilda Phillips, 11248 Terra Vista Parkway #85, Rancho Cucamonga, said she wanted to address an
issue related to Central Park and asked to whom should the letter be addressed.
Mr. Buller said she can direct her letter to the Chairman of the Planning Commission and all of them
will be given a copy of the letter.
Elian Backhous, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he recently took ownership of
the Ramona Market from his parents. He said they have operated the market for 20 years and they
treat the business and their community like their home. He reported that they have never received a
complaint and have even been complimented and thanked by the Department of Health Services for
refusing alcohol and tobacco sales to minor decoys. He mentioned that they have never been
ticketed ,lnd they strictly enforce their carding rules ahead of any profits. He said their neighbors
.have a right to live in peace.
Commissioner McPhail asked him for their hours of operation.
Mr. Backhous said they are open Monday through Thursday, 8-11 p.m.; Friday and Saturday, 8-12
p.m.; and Sundays, 8-10 p.m.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if patrons from Margarita Beach buy liquor at his store.
Mr. Backhous said once in awhile they do, but they usually buy tobacco.
Mark Davidson, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 5, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the owner of
Margarita Beach. He said he is shocked and embarrassed and claimed he did not know anything
about the charges until recently. He said he visits this neighborhood regularly and still did not know
about the problems but he said he would like to explain how he plans to correct the situation. He
said he canvassed the neighborhood and gave a letter to all of the neighbors, which he read into the
record. The copy of the letter was received and filed by the Planning Department Secretary. He
then read a 10-point list of suggested solutions for the neighborhood and an 8-point list of solutions
for calls for service, copies of each were received and filed by the secretary for the record. Mr.
Davidson then explained that 2 1/2 years ago he agreed to place a security guard at the market to
discourage his patrons from parking there. He said people continue to park there. He said he will
now place a guard on Estacia Court and that he was not aware his other measures were not
working. He said that Mr. Sanchez indicated the problems were solved at their last meeting and he
never heard anythihg different.-- He reported. that he believes there are 2-3 vehicles that park in this
area from Margarita Beach and that the other 5-7 vehicles are overflow cars from the neighboring
apartment complex. He said Captain Ortiz indicated there was no need to further condition or revoke
his permits. He said that Captain Ortiz also recommended a review in 3-6 months. He said he has
been operating these kinds of businesses since he was 14 years old and his mother and grandfather
did it before him. He said he likes doing it; he's too old to leam anything else and too young to retire,
so he will do a better job and continue to run this kind of business.
James Reiss, Reiss & Johnson, Attomeys at Law, 10593 Foothill Boulevard, #410, Rancho
Cucamonga, stated he is legal counsel for Mr. Davidson. Mr. Reiss stated the staff report in the
agenda packet is filled with self-serving information with no real evidence to back it up. He said
there have not been any violations of the laws, ABC, code enforcement, fire or police codes against
Mr. Davidson's establishment. He did not feel the Planning Commission had the authority to ask for
a hearing when no regulations, rules or conditions were violated. He stated that he did not believe
there is enough evidence that would show this business operation is contrary to the peace, safety
and general welfare of the public. He commented that nothing has been submitted that
substantiates the neighbors' claims of vandalism or violence that can be directly attributed to
Margarita Beach. He said he understands why the report was requested from the City Council
Planning Commission Minutes
-7-
March 9, 2005
/18~tf<l
meeting and that he viewed the tape of that meeting. He said we should take a "common sense
approach." He reported that Mark Salazar of Code Enforcement did not indicate any problems with
M~rgarita Beach. He commented that he does not support the recommendation. He said that the
high number of calls to the police, when examined, could be simply a bar check, a lost phone,
occupancy check or vandalism that was reported somewhere near the bar and that none of these
could be directly attributed to Margarita Beach. He said that the statement made by Captain Ortiz
should have been requested by Mr. Buller and included in the agenda packet. He said detailed,
supportive evidence is missing and it makes it difficult to make a critical analysis. He encouraged
the Commission to dig deeper. He said Sergeant Morrison would give a favorable report and that
Mr. Davidson has an excellent relationship and communication with the Police Department. He
claimed that there have not been any problems since the concems were reported to the City Council
at their February 2, 2005, meeting. He reported that half of the calls made to the Fire Department
were canceled before they arrived on the scene. He stated that there have been no violations of
overcrowding or excess services needed by the Fire Department. He said their memorandum
supports Mr. Davidson's position and not Mr. Buller's recommendation. He remarked that the letter
submitted by Mr. Sanchez states Margarita Beach is a sleaze business. He stated this is not a
moral issue. He said the claims that the bottles found in the neighborhood were from unrelated
activities and not from Margarita Beach. He stated he believes the City has never revoked a
Conditional Use Permit in the past, that the City only required a modification. He commented that he
believes shutting down the business is not the solution, but proper regulation and operation of the
facility is. He said Mr. Davidson has been very responsive and came "with his hat in one hand and
an olive branch in the other" and asked that he be given a chance to run his business better. Mr.
Reiss claimed there is no need for a public hearing, that the recommendation for the hearing should
be tabled and that if the City proceeded, it would be step 1 of a 3 or 4 step leg!!1 battle. He
suggested a meeting with the neighbors and Mr. Davidson to come up with solutions. He added that
the busine~s has never violated any regulations and none of the official agencies have ever issued
any written citations for violations. He commented that the Twins bar has as many calls for service
as the Margarita Beach location and they only do 1/2 to 1/3 the amount of business. He said there
are other bars up the street. He claimed that Mr. Davidson is being singled out. He said to find a
solution rather than fight.
At 8:35 p.m., the Planning Commission recessed for a break. They retumed at 8:40 p.m. to continue
the public hearing.
Chairman Macias announced that they would continue with the public testimony and if there was
anyone that had already spoken, but wanted to address the Commission again, could do so,
however, he would not entertain an ongoing debate between differing parties to take place.
James Colbreath, 7421 London Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is a student at Rancho
Cucamonga High School. He indicated that London Avenue is perpendicular to Palo Alto. He
reported that the Ramona Market is a great place to shop and he is a regular customer there. He
said parking is an issue. He suggested that the CUP could be modified, but that the bar patrons will
not change and they just want to have fun and that the bar may not be in the right place.
Vicki Seimone, 8016 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said she needed to clarify some things
from her previous remarks to the Commission. She noted there was a typographical error on her
letter (street name) and she asked that it be corrected. She said only a few cars park on her street
but that many cars pull into the street and then tum around, creating a traffic problem. She said Mr.
Reiss' comment regarding no formal reports being filed is in error because when the patron from
Margarita Beach tried to break into her neighbor's home, the police were called and they drove him
home. She said he even admitted he had come from Margarita Beach and that is positive proof that
there is evidence the business directly affects the neighborhood.
.Y,.,
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
March 9, 2005
11g' -t/S'"
Barbara Olson, 9805 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said she attimded the meeting held 2
years ago and that she had dealt with the issues for the last g years. She said she is tired of all the
"uninvited" people on her street.
Cristina Cameron, 8017 Pasito Avenue, readdressed the Commission and stated she attended the
meeting 2 years ago, but that no one else knew about it. She said that when she observed patrons
of the bar parking on her street, she called the manager and the manager would re-direct traffic. She
said that made the patrons mad and then they would leave broken bottles behind.
Victoria Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, retumed to the podium to address the
Commission a second time. She reported that she is not comfortable with a security guard on her
street. She remarked that if the bar really is not a problem as the owner states, then there should
not be a need for a security guard. She added that the guard adds to the problem because he
flashes his lights into their windows and then leave their trash behind. She noted that the cars
associated with the apartment complex have window ID stickers on their cars and the neighbors are
, . all familiar with those cars and she knows the owners of those cars are not the drinkers from the bar.
She added that her car was vandalized. She commented that the cars belonging to the bar patrons
are like cockroaches; when the lights go on, they scatter. She remarked that she is 20 years old and
would never go into that kind of establishment and would never get drunk in a neighborhood because
in her opinion, it is trashy.
Christine Read, said there was an accident one night that involved one of the bar patrons. She said
the driver pulled out onto Foothill Boulevard, attempted a -U-tum, llnd drove into a block wall across
the street in front of the Pines mobile home park. She noted that there must have been a record of
that because the City had to pay for the repair of the wall. She also reported that a medical
helicopter had to be called in to airlift a patron that had slashed her wrists.
Chairman Macias remarked that he felt the Commission understands the community impacts but
asked that any additional remarks or testimony be limited to new information/issues that have not
been discussed.
Mark Davidson, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 5, Rancho Cucamonga, said he had personally
reviewed the calls for service attributed to this location and that he felt they are not specifically
. related to the bar activities. He claimed he did not know about the impacts on Pasito Avenue. He
said this should be solved in a meeting in an office. He said if the neighbors don't like the security
guard, they can call him and that he wants to solve the problem. He suggested they meet with him
and come up with a solution and give the solution time to work and if that does not work then we
could try.something.else.~ He said after 3.or 4 times oUrying solutions and ifthe.solutions still don't
work, then the hearing process would be appropriate. He commented that at that time, the
Commission could place additional conditions on his Conditional Use Permit if he is unable to make
the changes himself. He said he would give it his best effort.
Commissioner McPhail asked Mr. Davidson if he serves food at Margarita Beach.
Mr. Davidson said they have a full menu such as steaks, fish, chicken etc. He said he used to
manage a Red Robin restaurant and that he substantially copied their menu.
Commissioner McPhail asked what hours they serve the food.
Mr. Davidson replied that they serve until 10:00 p.m.
Commissioner Fletcher asked what the legal capacity of the bar is.
Mr. Davidson said 233 persons.
Planning Commission Minutes
-9-
March 9,2005
/ /8 .--t/{o
Peggy Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, retumed to the podium and asked if the
police representative would be answering questions or would address the issue.
Ed Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, asked if the staff report is public because he
wanted to go over the police report in particular because of the level of staff that is needed to
respond to the calls at the business location. He mentioned that we have had problems staffing
during the hours that the problems most often occur.
Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Fletcher asked Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attomey, to clarify the action before them
this evening.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attomey, said the action is to consider the Conditional Use Permit and
Entertainment Permit for Margarita Beach and the Conditional Use Permit for Ramona Market. He
said the question was raised as to the authority of the Commission to set a hearing for revocation.
He noted that when the original permit was approved, provisions were made specifically as listed
conditions, that if the operation of the facility had an adverse affect upon adjacent businesses or
operations, the CUP shall be brought before the Planning Commission for consideration and possible
termination of the use. He said the Entertainment Permit has similar language including considering
the adverse affects on adjacent businesses operations or residential uses. He said these are the
terms and conditions that give the opportunity and right to conduct the use or activities and the terms
under which they are subject to and give the right to be reviewed by the Commission if it is
determined there are adverse affects. He noted that "Municipal Code Section 17.04:030G gives the
Planning Commission authority to periodically review any conditional Use Permit "to ensure that it is
being operated in a manner consistent with Conditions of Approval or in a manner which is not
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity.
If after review the Commission deems there is sufficient evidence to warrant a full investigation, then
a public hearing date shall be set." He reported that the provisions for review for Entertainment
Permits is also included in the staff report. He noted that per Municipal Code Section 5.12.100, the
Planning Commission has the authority to suspend or revoke an Entertainment Permit if, following a
notice and hearing, the Commission finds that the permittee "violated any rules, regulations or
conditions adopted by the Planning Commission... relating to the permittee's business or permit: or
conducted a permitted business in a manner cont~ary to the peace, health, safety and general
welfare of the public..." He said this is the legal test as to whether the Commission could move
forward to a public hearing. He added that there is no requirement for a formal notice or violation
issued by the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC), Police or Fire Department determination to show
there was a legal violation of a code. He said the decision can be based on testimony and that direct
eyewitness evidence presented by the speakers is sufficient on which to base the determination. He
stated that when and if the Commission decides there is enough evidence to set a hearing, and the
hearing occurs, then counsel will provide the Commission with advice at that time to determine if
there is enough to warrant revocation of the permits. He remarked that this is not the time or the
evidence upon which that decision will be made.
Commissioner Fletcher clarified that the hearing for revocation does not have to result in a 'yes' or a
'no' but can result in additional conditions.
Mr. Ennis said that is correct. He said that the Municipal Code provides the Commission can make 3
determinations: 1) find the CUP is being conducted in an appropriate manner and that no action to
modify or revoke is necessary; 2) find the CUP is not being conducted in an appropriate manner and
that modifications to conditions are necessary; or 3) find that the CUP is not being conducted in an
appropriate manner and modifications are not available to mitigate the impacts and therefore revoke
the permit requiring the operation to cease and desist within the time allotted by the Planning
Commission.
,
Planning Commission Minutes
March 9, 2005
I!~ -,Lf7
-10-
Chairman Macias asked for Sergeant Morrison to present his report and comments.
Sergeant Paul Morrison, from the San Bemardino County Sheriffs Department, stated he has been
at 'the Rancho Cucamonga station since 1987. He said Captain Ortiz assigned him to review the call
log for Margarita Beach and the center located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard. He explained that
sometimes, certain locations are used as landmarks by the responding officers in their reports, which
means that if an officer simply pulls over a car near that center, that center's address will be named
or Margarita Beach in this case, could be named as the specific location. He said he reviewed 700
calls in which the word 'Margarita' was used to see if the bar was specifically involved in the calls
listed, or if it was just used as a landmark and that he was personally responsible for making that
determination. He said 412 calls were directly related to Margarita Beach or Margaritaville in the last
3 years. He commented that of those 412 calls, some could have just been a "bar check," a call
related to driving under the influence, a car stop, vandalism in the parking lot or. just checking
someone in the lot. If it was a call at 2:00 a.m. and the person was drunk, then there would be a
high probability that the call was related to the bar operation, but there is a factor of error.
Chairman Macias clarified that the bottom line what he did is subjective based upon assumptions
that he has made.
Commissioner Stewart asked if his department had a crime analysis unit so that a dissection of the
call log could be done.
Sergeant Morrison stated that they do. He said the system is much more difficult to determine
details after the calls logged are over 90 days old.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if he could recall how many calls came in after midnight.
Sergeant Morrison said he did not know.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if he could recall how many came in after 2:00 a.m.
Sergeant Morrison replied that he did not know. He said if he was working with a time factor of 1 0:00
p.m. to 3:00 a.m., unless it was indicated as Margarita Beach it might not have related to them.
Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stewart asked if Code Enforcement had anything to add or give a response.
Alison Rowlen, Code Enforcement Officer, stated she had nothing to add.
Mr. Buller commented that Code Enforcement and the other departments were asked to review the
entire center for calls for service. He noted that there are numerous code enforcement violations,
property maintenance violations and sign violations in the center. He noted that there was a
comment made that Margarita Beach and Ramona Market did not violate any codes. He added both
businesses have illegal signs and one of their conditions states they must follow the sign ordinance.
He remarked that Planning staff did not ask a listing of all violations for purposes of this review, but
only asked for calls for service.
Commissioner Stewart suggested that before they act on setting the Evidentiary Hearing, they
remove Ramona Market from the hearing. She added that there is nothing that would indicate
conflict with them or that they should be responsible for the problems they are experiencing there.
She said she believes Mr.. Davidson is being responsive to the problems that he was aware of, but
based upon the 412 calls received, she felt they should set a public hearing. She commented that
the peace and welfare of the public have been affected and that the business is materially injurious
to individuals and property. She noted that 12 people had been injured in altercations related to this
Planning Commission Minutes
-11-
March 9, 2005
/115 -,'I~
business and judging from the call history thus far for this year, the number of calls for 2005 is likely
to be higher than in previous years. She said that of those 412 calls, 119 of them resulted in police
reports and that is a high volume for calls for service. She said she would like to set a public hearing
6-8 weeks out, and that would allow time to have the owner meet with the various departments and
neighbors. She added that she would like the call history to be dissected by the type of calls and the
time of the calls. She directed staff to do a community-policing project to include a mediator if
necessary to mediate between the business and the neighborhood. She stated that she would like
to see Code Enforcement, the neighbors, the Police, Engineering and those involved with the
streets, and any violations of signage noted to help this business remain successful where it is
currently located. She said she believes Mr. Davidson is making a good faith attempt and that it is
possible much of this could be resolved before the hearing takes place. She remarked that this
would require a lot of work and that she is asking for staff to step in and it will require a mutual effort.
Commissioner McPhail agreed that Ramona Market should be removed from the request for a public
hearing. She reported that on page F-30 of the agenda packet, Condition No. 1 of Planning
, Commission Resolution No. 88-242A specifically states that alcohol may only be served when the full
menu is available and when the full menu is no longer available, alcohol may no longer be served.
She remarked that we heard tonight that the full menu is no longer available after 10:00 p.m. She
said she wants this addressed and recommended a public hearing be set.
.y",
Commissioner Fletcher commented that the public does not need to wait 2-3 years to complain and
that they can request a review at anytime. He stated he believes that the City Council asked for the
review of the market because of the beer bottles found in the neighborhood and on the streets. He
said it is unlikely that a bar would allow someone to walk out of the bar with beer bottles in hand. He
said there was concem that it may have been beer purchased at the market and not in the bar. He
said he did not believe that was the case. He added that there are numerous sign code violations
throughout the center and asked that be addressed and asked Code Enforcement to do a separate
review of the signs. He said that should be discussed specifically. He commented that there is a
concem regarding the parking, the capacity of the bar, and the cars that overflow into the
neighborhood. He stated that there is enough evidence to support a public hearing for examination.
Chairman Macias stated that the action being taken is only to determine the need to conduct a public
hearing to modify or revoke the Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit for the bar and the
Conditional Use Permit for the Market. He concurred about the impact of the bar on the community
and that he believes a public hearing is in order. He said they should follow Mr. Davidson's
atlomey's suggestion for a common sense approach. He cautioned staff to provide the proper
evidence and that it needs to be solid and detailed from Code Enforcement, the Police and staff, so it
is ready if the process ever reaches the point of revocation. He said if the public hearing addresses
issues that include a report from Code Enforcement, then the report could include the market. He
said a public hearing is just that, it could go either way. He remarked that he was encouraged by Mr.
Davidson's desire to rectify this and that he hopes much of this will be resolved prior to the public
hearing. He commented that he is encouraged that the owner posted security guards, but found it
interesting as to why they are even needed. He suggested that there is enough evidence here to
legally support their action to hold a public hearing. He said he supports the idea of precluding
Ramona Market from the action, but asked for a review of the code violations for the entire center.
He supported a hearing in 6-8 weeks to modify or revoke the CUP and EP for Margarita Beach and
to preclude action against the market.
Mr. Buller noted that setting the hearing for April 27th may allow for the necessary meetings but if
more time was needed, the item could be continued at that point.
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by Fletcher to set an Evidentiary Public Hearing, slated forthe
April 27th meeting as requested by staff. The Planning Commission agreed to remove Ramona
Market from the primary action of this hearing. Motion carried by the following vote:
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
March g, 2005
(/8' -''19
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
,
FLETCHER, MACIAS, McPHAIL, STEWART
NONE
McNIEL - carried
***..
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No further comment was received from the public.
***..
COMMISSION BUSINESS
None
.*.**
ADJOURNMENT
Motion: Moved by Stewart, seconded by McPhail, carried 4-0-1 (McNiel absent), to adjoum. The
Planning Commission adjoumed at 9:30 p.m.
Approved: March 23, 2005
Planning Commission Minutes
-13-
March 9, 2005
lIS' --:5"6
DRAFT
Bob Gallishaw, 3419 Via Lido, #438, stated he represents G & L Commercial. He reported that
along with the conversion to condominium units, the project entails the total face-lift of a dated, 30-
year old structure. He said the renovation takes the existing Spanish style to something much more
updated. He said the change would also change the units from multi-tenant rentaVlease units to ''for-
sale" condos. He remarked that their company has been very successful doing this.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked what would happen to the current tenants if they were unable to
purchase their unit. .
Mr. Gallishaw commented that some will not be able to buy, but with the liberal loan programs
offered by the Small Business Administration (SBA) with only 10 percent down, many will try to do
so. He noted that rents also rise for businesses that continue to rent elsewhere instead of buying
their space. '
Vice Chairman McNiel asked for clarification of the time line. He asked if when the conversion from
'rental unit to purchase occurs, when does the rental contract expire for the current occupants.
Mr. Gallishaw stated that as soon as the map is recorded, the conversion would begin and that the
units would then be offered for sale. He reported that all the month- to -month tenants would be
offered the option of purchasing their unit or vacating. He said that all the tenants have been made
aware of the conversion plans and some of the tenants are making their arrangements already.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if there would be 52 units and what size would they be.
Mr. Gallishaw noted that the units range in size from 1,200 square feet to 4,000 square feet for a
total project size of 100,000 square feet. He commented that many purchasers would buy multiple
units to accommodate the needs of their businesses. He remarked that he does not expect 52
transactions to. take place but more than likely around 30.
Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McPhail said the project is straightforward and is in the best interes~ of the
community.
Commissioner Fletcher said the renovation lends a nice enhancement to a tired building.
Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the Resolution of Approval. for
Tentative Tract Map SUBTT17424 as presented. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:. FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
*****
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 - MARGARITA
BEACH - A public hearing to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being operated
in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or in a manner which is not detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity. The Planning
Commission will consider modification or revocation of the approved Conditional Use Permit and
Entertainment Permit. (Continued from May 11, 2005)
Mike Diaz, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Vice Chairman McNiel asked the Commissioners if they had any questions of the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes
-3-
DRAFT
June 22, 2005
I f6 -,:)1
DRAFT
Commissioner Stewart asked if the driveways and entries are blocked on Ramona Avenue, how
would that be handled and who facilitates that.
.
Mr. Diaz reported that either barriers would be placed by the Margarita Beach staff and/or a security
guard would be stationed at the Ramona Avenue driveway to direct patrons leaving the site to exit
directly onto Foothill Boulevard instead of using Ramona Avenue.
Brad Buller, City Planner noted that staff has worked with the City Engineer, that staff has been very
cautious, and that we are trying to prevent a traffic problem on the public right-of way.
Commissioner McPhail asked what time Mr. Buller and Mr. Diaz visited the site.
Mr. Buller reported that it was shortly after 11 :30 p.m. He commented that although they did not ask
for a menu that night, people were eating.
Vice Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
James Reiss, 10535 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 410, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is legal counsel
for Mark Davidson, the applicant. He noted that he was here for the meeting in March and that at
that meeting 21 people testified regarding the business operation. He commented that he would like
to move forward from this point and not rehash old issues. He said much of what was presented at
the time were things that occurred pre-2005. He said he would like the Commission to define what
they would hear from the residents. He said he would like their focus to be on what has been done
since that time to address this issues presented at the prior meeting. He commented that in his
estimation, the empirical evidence shows that only two calls had been recei~d over the last 5-month
period that could be directly attributed to the business operation of Margarita Beach. He said he
would like to limit the comments of the residents tonight to specifics of the last 4-6 months so they
can address it. He said that he takes the view that, "if there was no police report, than it did not
happen." He noted that Mr. Davidson does not object to the conditions in the resolution. He
commented that if the discussion becomes directed towards the issue being a moral issue, or
whether or not the operation is allowed, that we are not here to judge that there is a bar; we are here
to determine if they have violated some code or some zoning issue as it relates to the business
operation. He said he and Mr. Davidson support the adoption of the report and resolution and if
there were any fine-tuning on the conditions, Mr. Davidson would be open to that.
Mark Davidson, 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suite S, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is the owner of
Margarita Beach. He noted that many changes have been made to be sensitive to the neighbors
concems and that he wants to deal with the facts. He remarked that his business is not the sole
cause of the problems being reported by his neighbors and that the residents have overstated the
problems. He said that he would accept sole responsibility for making the corrections to all the.
issues. He claimed that since the meeting with the City Council on February 2, there has not been
one single call for service to the Police Department from the neighborhood. He enumerated his
changes that are now in place as follows:
1. Provided security on Estacia Avenue to prevent their customers from parking in the
neighborhood.
2. The security guards are no longer rotated for better consistency and effectiveness.
3. The local residents are prohibited from walking to and from Margarita Beach to prevent noise
issues on their retum home.
4. His staff inspects the neighborhood for trash 3 times a day. He (Mark Davidson> personally
inspects for trash 2-3 times a day.
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
DRAFT
June 22, 2005
Ilg--S;)-
DRAFT
5. The west exit onto Ramona is closed at 1:15 a.m. to ensure traffic is directed onto Foothill
Boulevard instead of the neighborhood.
6. He personally canvassed the neighborhood and requested input and suggestions from the
residents and gave all of his phone numbers and a letter to the residents so that he could be
contacted in the event of any problems.
7. He attended the City sponsored meeting with the neighbors to work on their concems and he
promised to attend any future neighborhood watch meetings.
Mr. Davidson stated he set a goal to reduce the calls for service (police) to address the nuisance
issue, and he believes there were only 6 calls in the last 3 months, 4 of which were police initiated
and that 2 of those calls were for regular "bar checks." He estimated a decrease in calls of about 60- '
90 percent over a 2-year period. He commented that this was accomplished by making the
,',operation of this business his top priority. He contacted Police Captain Ortiz and Sergeant Morrison
, on a weekly basis and set up monthly meetings to discuss the issues; he offered bonuses to his
security personnel to encourage them to be proactive; he added parking staff; he increased his
security staff; he put into place a cab voucher program to transport customers home free of charge;
he evaluated and reduced the number of advertisements distributed to reduce the overflow crowds.
He said that between Planning Staff, Fire, Code Enforcement, ABC, and the Sheriff, his business
has had over 100 random inspections in the neighborhood and that the Sheriff even performed
uniformed and undercover checks of the premises. He said three City Council members personally
checked the neighborhood. He reported that among all of those checks, not one person reported
any evidence of his customers impacting the neighborhood since the last meeting. He said there
was limited evidence supporting the complaints prior to the February 2 meeting. He said there is no
evidence following that meeting. He said that he was quoting Captain Ortiz of saying that "if there
was no report then it did not happen." He commented that Mayor Bill Alexander canvassed the
neighborhood and he could not find any complaints and he congratulated him for his efforts. He said
City Planner Brad Buller and Senior Planner Mike Diaz stated he is doing a good job, he is
cooperating, and there was nothing else he could do except maintain the current standards. He
noted that Captain Ortiz said repeatedly he is impressed with Mr. Davidson's cooperation, he sees
no evidence of impact on the neighborhood, and he saw no need to restrict the Conditional Use
Permit. He said the most recent complaint from the residents is that they do not want him to offer
drink specials and they object to the models shown on his flyers. He said he has been stealing the
models photographed in his ads from Frederick's of Hollywood and from Victoria Secret for years and
they should direct their complaint there. He said if the Commission has any guidelines for the
advertising he should use then he will comply. He noted that he has shut down his website because
the neighbors found it objectionable. He commented that there is a concem that he will revert to the
old way of doing business once this review is all over. He commented that Planning staff is
suggesting new conditions to prevent "backsliding" and that the neighbors can request a review at
any time. He said he would hope in the future, he could work directly with the neighbors to resolve
any issues. He said the only neighbor he has heard from since the last meeting is "Pat."
Commissioner Fletcher said Mr. Davidson asked if the shutdown of the website is temporary or
permanent.
Mr. Davidson said if you guys want it to be permanent then it is permanent. He added he has no
intention of starting it back up.
Vice Chairman McNiel commented that Mr. Reiss requested that comments be restricted to
information relevant to the last 5 months and although he (Vice Chairman McNiel) believed that was
a pretty good idea, he would not enforce that. He said he is a firm believer that everyone should
have a say in the matter but that he asked that those offering testimony not dwell on issues that have
already been corrected. He then opened the public hearing.
Planning Commission Minutes
-5-
DRAFT
June 22, 2005
II~ --5'3
DRAFT
Christine Cameron, 8017 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the residents' families are in
attendance tonight including the 2 children she is adopting. She commented that the
advertisements/flyers sent out by the applicant indicate BYOB, but in this case, the last 'B' does not
mean bottle. She said this is the kind of traffic that is coming in their neighborhood. She said she
does not want this activity occurring within 1,000 feet of her home. She said they have not had the
same kind of problems since February, but that they have had to do a lot to keep their families safe
from this business. She said it is shocking with everything that has gone on. She said they have
had to put up with a lot of problems. She noted her children ask why there is a security guard on the
street. She said there should not be a need for one.
Commissioner Stewart asked when the flyer she referred to was sent out.
Mrs. Cameron referred to another unidentified speaker in the audience that replied, "2 weeks ago."
Mrs. Cameron said it has been difficult to explain to her 6-year old as to why there is a need for
security, i.e., ''well honey, we have a bar that is really close, and the reason he is there is because he
has this kind of traffic that we don't want you to deal with so he (the bar owner) has to put the
security there in order to make our lives a little bit more comfortable in our neighborhood."
Commissioner Fletcher asked what she has experienced in the last 3 months.
Mrs. Cameron said there has not been anything going on because of the security that has been put
in place. But that is what had to be done in order to live the life we want in our neighborhood.
David Mosher, 8026 Cambridge Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the rear of his house abuts the
rear of Margarita Beach. He reported that he has called at least 6 times this year and some of those
calls occurred in the last 3 months. He said he can verify that with his cell phone records and he
does not understand the information regarding calls for service presented by Mr. Davidson. He
stated he still experiences issues with noise, car homs going off, customers urinating along the back
wall, illegal parking in the back alley, customers yelling obscenities at each other, customers using
the emergency exit which his understanding was not allowed by law, and cars racing in the back
alley. He said he has lived there 2 years and had he known this was going on in his own backyard,
he never would have moved to Rancho Cucamonga. He quoted an officer when he called for
-servicewas, ''what do you wantus-t~do, they are drunks." He said he was shocked and offended, it
needs to stop and that the business has become a nuisance. He added that last night there were
two guys loudly singing to one another in the open emergency exit. He said the police must have
had numerous calls, because when they called, they were put on hold. He presented a petition
bearing 28 signatures from his nearby" neighborhood streets that states, 'We the undersigned hereby
ask the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to consider revoking or suspending Margarita
Beach's Permits for being a public nuisance, repeatedly disturbing the peace, not abiding by the Law,
and encouraging public drunkenness."
Commissioner Stewart asked if he had placed his calls every other week since February.
Mr. Mosher said he attended the last meeting with the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Stewart asked if he was aware of the problems noted such as public urination.
Mr. Mosher stated that he was present at the last meeting arid yes; the calls were placed after that.
He remarked that a neighbor had damage to his property and now he has felt the need to install dual
pane windows to mitigate the noise, he can't sleep anymore. -
Commissioner Stewart asked if he ever directly spoke to the owner at Margarita Beach.
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
DRAFT
June 22, 200? / g ---G'Y
DRAFT
Mr. Mosher stated he had not, he called a couple of times and he could never get through. He
commented that his neighbors are tired from dealing with this for the last 9 years. He said he has
not seen any changes.
Vicky Scimone, 8016 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed gratitude to the Police
Department for upholdingtl'ieir promises made to the neighborhood since the previous meetings.
She said she has noticed a marked increase in police presence and they now have a neighborhood
watch program in force. 'She commented that she fears the presence will leave once the issues
have been resolved. She remarked that she believes Margarita Beach is an obvious detriment to the
community and they allow their customers to behave uncaringly in the neighborhood. She stated
that Mark Davidson and the City have ignored the complaints about Margarita Beach for years. She
said Mr. Davidson, in spite of his claims to the contrary, was aware ofthe problems being caused by
his business. She reported that he had two previous meetings with Mr. Sanchez and the police. '
She said the residents would no longer allow their quality of life to be stripped from them by this
.establishment. She remarked it is no longer just Mr. Sanchez vs. Mr. Davidson; it is all of the
neighbors. She noted it was not until his permits came into play that Mr. Davidson showed any care
for what was happening to his neighbors. Ms. Scimone said that she is frustrated with the lack of
performance from the office of the City Planner and that they have accomplished nothing by going
through his office. She commented that this indicates a bias toward Margarita Beach. She said she
feels they have jumped through hoops such as to renew their Neighborhood Watch program, attend
a mediation meeting to resolve issues prior to the public hearing, and meet with the other residents
to formulate ideas to restore their quality of life. She remarked that they attended the mediation
meeting and it was a joke in that Mr: Davidson was given full reign to speak and the residents were
hushed if they wished to make a point or challenge things that were said. She added that nothing
was resolved; the ideas formulated by the residents were rejected by the City, and so they came up
with another list of suggested conditions as requested by the City. She noted that the new list had
14 recommendations and only one of the conditions in the resolution is from their list and that no
repercussions are being imposed on the establishment. She said the City Planner's office showed
total disregard for their complaints and for what is best for everyone involved. She added that words
like "shall" and "will" are replaced with "possibly" and "maybe." She claimed that the City Planner
has no intention of enforcing the Conditional Use Permit. She stated that considering all of the
evidence presented in past meetings and in this meeting, Margarita Beach is clearly and blatantly
defiant in regard to their permits. She said she believes Mr. Davidson should be penalized heavily
--for-the-infractions to send a message to all-business owners that the City will-not tolerate the
disruption to the community due to the said defiance.
Commissioner Fletcher noted that she had mentioned the list of suggestions. He asked if she had
read the staff report- and the changes to the -conditiohs.----
Ms. Scimone said that only 1 of 5 suggestions were used, specifically the one dealing with the
security guards. She referred to the list shown in the agenda packet shown as Pages C-12 and C-
13.
Commissioner McPhail asked if things had been better in the last 2 months.
Ms. Scimone stated they are extremely better; and in a specific incident the security guard was
helpful. She said the issue is that this is the third time they have asked the City for help with a
business that is in clear violation of their Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit. She
asked what penalties are going to be imposed on him for these violations. She stated that nothing is
being done in that regard. She remarked that they will be back before the Commission in 6 months
because when the "heat is off," things will go back to where they were before just like the two times
previously. She asked that they move forward and keep moving forward and to stop wasting the
residents' time and the City's time. She said he is taking that away from us, "enough is enough."
Planning Commission Minutes
-7-
DRAFT
June 22, 2005 _
!I<g ---55
DRAFT
Jean Mosher, 8026 Cambridge Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, said he lives within a few hundred feet
of the back of the building, reported that noise is still an issue. She indicated that the nature of the
business is such that it does not belong where it is. She remarked that the Commissioners would
not like this business in their backyard. She added that when the wind blows it is smelly, you could
smell the urine.
Jim Olson, 9805 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, expressed his disappointment of the recent
actions of the Planning Commission. He stated the current conditions are totally inadequate and
without merit and that they do nothing to address the problems presented by Margarita Beach and
that it is like putting a band-aide on a broken arm. He stated that although Mr. Davidson promised to
cease his radio and promotional advertising, the ads have resumed on 103.9 FM. He said Mr.
Davidson has redefined the nature of the business without any consequences and it appears there
are factions in the City that favor Mr. Davidson. He claimed the establishment began as a restaurant
with ancillary serving of alcohol and now it is a nightclub. Mr. Olson referred to the Municipal Code
17.04.090/Adult Entertainment Business section. He stated the business is located within 1,500 feet
of residences and that Margarita Beach is not located within the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and
therefore these activities place the business in violation of the Municipal Code. He mentioned that
he believes everything asked of the residents so far have been "dilatory tactics employed by the
City." Mr. Olson stated the City is allowing Mr. Davidson to conduct business as usual. Mr. Olson
asked the Commission what they fear and "what is the power Mark Davidson lords over the City?"
He commented that if the City has not found any violations it i.s because they are not looking for
them. Mr. Olson stated that anything less than a total review of the permits should be forwarded to
the City Council and anything else is unacceptable. He referred to Municipal Code Section5.12.100,
which states that suspension, or revocation of a permit should be considered if the permittee has
"conducted a permitted business in a manner contrary to the peace, health, safety and general
welfare of the public." He added that sections of the Resolutions of Approval for the Conditional Use
Permit and Entertainment Permit have provisions within them that state that the permit wilj be
brought to the Commission for review for any adverse effects such as public health, safety morals, or
welfare, illegal, improper or disorderly operation of the business. He also cited the adverse effects
on adjacent businesses, operations, or residential uses. Mr. Olson demanded that the Commission
do its job. He then cited the 2001 General Plan which states the Planning Commission states: "A
belief in our families and the need to promote their well-being," and that they also resolved to "A
determination that our citizens and their property would be secure." He stated that we now have a
-"red light district".and nothing has been done, .
Commissioner Fletcher commented that Mr. Davidson is on his best behavior because "his feet have
been put to the fire." Commissioner Fletcher asked if Mr. Davidson's business operation is any
better.." -. -. -.-- .... -....- .....
Mr. Olson said he has found some beer bottles. He noted they have improved because they had to.
He remarked that the real question is what type of business is he running? He stated his permit was
for a restaurant with incidental sale of alcohol. He remarked that that is the same permit he is
currently operating under without changes or amendments. He asked how we could allow this to
snowball and degenerate into what it has become. He said what he has is not the same thing. He
added that this is an unfair situation because the residents did everything the City asked them to do
and favor is being given to Mr. Davidson and the City is not enforcing its own policies. He said that
he is in direct violation of what we have set and he could not understand why the City has not.
enforced that.
Commission Fletcher said that is why we are here today.
Mr. Olson remarked that over the course of the last 9 years the residents have become a problem.
He added that they are not going away and they will not let this type of business impact their quality
of life, nor let their children, families and the elderly to continue to be impacted by this.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
DRAFT
June 22, 2005
(18 -$""
DRAfT
Barbara Olson, 9805 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, presented for the record a postcard
advertisement for Margarita Beach, found in the parking lot since the last Planning Commission
meeting. She remarked that the BYOB means Bring Your Own Bitch. She said other people apart
from the customers of the bar go into this shopping center and people should not be exposed to this
type of business operating in her neighborhood.
Victoria Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said she was only 13 years old when the
trouble with this business first began. Ms. Sanchez used the overhead projector to make her
presentation displaying copies of advertisements and flyers for various promotional events held at
Margarita Beach. She pointed out an advertisement for a "grand opening" on June 16 and noted that
Mr. Davidson claimed he had stopped his radio promotions. She produced many pictures, and
promotional advertisements allegedly photographed at the business. She commented that his
restaurant is really adult entertainment. (Copies ofthe pictures are included in the official record). It . '.
included pictures of his staff approaching the cleavage of a bar patron with his tongue. She said the
. behavior is more indicative of a nightclub in Las Vegas. She included a photo of a patron taking a
"sex shot" (alcohol is poured into the mouth of a patron that is in a lower position beneath a scantily
clad waitress). She produced pictures of waitresses' rear ends and them grabbing each other's rear
ends, girls fondling and licking each other's breasts. She pointed out a patron whose breasts were
only covered with "pasties." She also displayed a photograph of two women "making out." She
pointed out the dress code posted outside the door that does not allow tank tops but they allow
women to attend practically nude. She displayed an advertisement for a "Pimp and Ho" party
wherein patrons were offered a prize of $1,000 for the best pimp and the best ho. She also had
pictures of a patron smoking within the establishment, which is illegal in bars in Califomia. She said
these pictures all came from their own website. She reiterated that this activity is not what you would
see in a restaurant, it is a red light district, a nightclub, and a sleazy bar.
Peggy Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the Conditional Use Permit
says the business is a restaurant but it is really a nightclub. She noted that even the Clark telephone
directory 2004-2005 lists Margarita Beach within the nightclub section of the directory; it is not
advertised as a restaurant. She reported that the hours for the business are not typical of a
restauranVbar with a 2:00 a.m. closing time. She mentioned that food is served and remarked that
what he advertised is tacos and the like. She noted that Mr. Buller and Mr. Diaz did not stay late
enough to really see what is really offered late into the night. She said it really appears the focus of
- -the-business'is as a nightclub. She noted-that the-copy oHheEntertainment-Permit-(EP}should
have been attached to the report and that it is not adequately addressed in the report. She asked
that the Entertainment Permit also be reviewed in conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
and that at the least, a specific restriction against adult entertainment be added. She said she has a
concem with the draft resolution including the hours of operation, specifically Condition No. 13
should reflect 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.; the original resolution indicated that when 50 percent capacity
is reached, the number of security personnel would go from one to two, but now it has been bumped
up to 75 percent; the original CUP has some different verbiage than the EP, such as in Condition No.
10. She noted the EP refers to impacts on the residential uses. She expressed concem that the
CUP will be talked about; the EP would be left out, and then the permits will be rubber-stamped.
She stated that entertainment is the primary focus of this business and they should be reviewed
together. She added that the level of investigation has not been enough. She noted that for City
staff to go to the business one time at 11:30 p.m. is not enough, that surprise visits need to be
made. She said to check the security. She commented that the City should have an implementation
and monitoring plan. She said he (Mark Davidson) is out of compliance and that a 'reasonable
person' could see that. She reported that Mr. Davidson is an experienced businessman, he has
owned bars his whole adult life, and that he should know all the conditions and rules to follow and if
he does not, then his attomey should advise him. She commented there are still noise issues and
that she placed a call on May 15. She said the police would send someone ou1, but it was close to
closing time. She added that for being located on Historic Route 66, people visiting our City, people
coming home from vacation and driving through town are exposed to these patrons and she has not
observed many police considering the drunks on the road. She said that the Commission should not
Planning Commission Minutes
-9-
DRAFT
June 22, 2005 7
II? "'5'
DRAIFT
make a decision tonight, take their time, that 4 or 5 modifications are not enough, it is a start, but it is
not complete and they need to review the Entertainment Permit.
.
Rodney Trujillo, 9889 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, remarked that the security that has been
placed directly in front of his property has made an impact but there are still negative impacts as well
such as loud confrontations from the patrons of Margarita Beach (with the security guard) and seeds
and cigarette butts left behind by the security guard. He asked if the guard could be placed across
the street instead.
Commissioner McPhail asked if there is still a problem with trash, seeds and cigarette butts in the
last few months.
Mr. Trujillo stated the seeds and butts remain, but the other trash is removed.
Kim Wieson, 8010 Pasito Court, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she has been a resident for 27 years
and a businesswoman for the last 15 years. She noted that it was a nice neighborhood, but now
there are orange cones in the street and guards at night, but that the situation has been better
recently. She asked why should they even have to have a security guard. She added that the
Commissioners do not have one on their street. She said she gets home everyday at 5 p.m. and is
around the house all weekend, but she could not recall anyone coming to her street to talk to her or
her neighbors.
Larry Libatore, 9870 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga and has been a resident for 22 years, stated
their problems have not changed; security is present on their street every weekend. He noted that
two weeks ago there was a loud argument between patrons and the security guard as to why they
could not park on his street. He added that the previous Sunday moming there was a confrontation
that was broken up by security and he called 911, but by the time the police arrived, the people were
gone. He wondered why the business would risk one of his employees to confront these people. He
said these people need constant supervision by the City and the Police Department. He added that
he would like parking restrictions on his street as a suggestion.
Sara Moussavi, 8032 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated she has been a resident for 23
years and that she supports the position of her neighbors. She said they are being truthful in what
.--they-have reportec:l.-She remarked-that she is appalled at this business operation. She said she has
a 16-year old and it is difficult enough to raise children these days without this kind of influence.
Ed Sanchez, 9865 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said that what was a restaurant with a bar
became a nightclub bar with entertainment as the primary activity and that entertainment is the
primary cause of all the problems. He said the Planning Staff has only offered 5 recommendations,
none of which address the Entertainment Permit. He noted that if staff had visited the business after
midnight they would have observed the loud activity at closing time. He commented that they are
still experiencing noise problems at the Pines Mobile home park. He remarked that Mr. Davidson
claims ignorance of some conditions, but that Mark Davidson sent a letter to Brad Buller in 1996
detailing the conditions of his permits and the letter stated he understood and would comply with
those conditions. He stated that Mr. Davidson changed the nature of his business without
authorization from Planning. He commented that Planning has the responsibility to review both the
CUP and the EP and if both were not addressed, then it would not be a thorough review. He
remarked that he believes some of the City departments (Police and Planning) are supporting Mr.
Davidson and therefore they are not getting to the core issue, which is the Entertainment Permit.
He said Planning give this a through investigation and review as well as the City Attomey to verify
that all of these "shenanigans" of changing and altering his business are looked at and dealt with
properly and that we are enforcing those permits. He said he hopes the Commission will retum this
to Planning for a thorough investigation.
Vice Chairman McNiel allowed the applicant's attomey to offer a rebuttal.
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
DRAFT
June 22; 200; t$f __~
DRAFT
James Reiss, 10535 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 410, Rancho Cucamonga, commented that although
the residents believe the Police and Planning staff have an agenda to support Mr. Davidson, but
thefe is no empirical evidence to support their belief. Mr. Reiss stated that the three main prOblems
detailed in the staff report (noise, overflow parking and loitering) have been solved. He remarked
that the criticism of Mr. Davidson by Mr. Sanchez would never come to rest until he is driven out of
business. He reiterated that Mr. Davidson has not violated the law and he is in compliance. He said
it is a moral issue dealing with things such as dress code and the flyers distributecj and that he is in
Compliance with all the laws. He stated that no matter whal his client does, it would not be enough.
He commented that you could propose changes that could condition an owner out of business or will
you attempt to create balance. He noted that staff supports moderate changes. He said it appears
10 be a moral issue, but without violations/empirical evidence from the Police, Code Enforcement,
ABC, and the Fire Department, then no one can say they should close down Ihe business. He
reported that he has attempted to accommodate the residents, Police, Code Enforcement, and the "
ABC and if they want more, they can ask.
Vice Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing. He thanked everyone for their participation and
commented that everyone took some hits but that he was determined the meeting would be
conducted in an orderly manner with no shouting matches. He reminded everyone that this is an
open meeting and nothing is done behind closed doors.
Commissioner Stewart asked the Assistant City Attomey, Kevin Ennis, to define adult
entertainment/nightclubs/bar - restaurant per the Municipal Code. She commented that she could
not see why so many pointed out' that they believe we are not addressing the Entertainment Permits.
She noted that the staff report clearly addresses the fact that the Entertainment Permit is clearly tied
to the Conditional Use Permit and both are being reviewed. She also asked Mr. Buller to explain
how they should address the issue of the Entertainment Permit.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attomey addressed the queslion regarding whether this constilutes Adult
Entertainment. He said Adult Entertainment business is categorized by the Development Code
Section 17.04.090. He reported that there is a category noted as 'Adult Cabarel' which is defined as,
"A nightclub, bar, restaurant, or similar establishment during which a substantial portion of the total
presentation time features live performances which are distinguished or characterized by an
emphasis on 'Specified Sexual Activities' or by exposure of 'Specified Anatomical Areas' and/or
feature films,' motion pictures, video-eassettes, slides, or other photographic reproductions which are
distinguished or characterized by an emphasis upon the depiction or description of 'Specified Sexual
Activities' or 'Specified Anatomical Areas' for observation by patrons." He continued with the a
definition of 'Specified Anatomical Areas' as in part, "... the female breast below a point immediately
above the tops of the areola." He addeifthat 'Specified'Sexual Activities' includes, ";.. the fondling or
other erotic touching, actual or simulated, of human genitals, pubic region; buttocks, or female
breast..." He noted that the question is whether this is an adult entertainment business. He said
that if in fact these photographs submitted as exhibits are from this business, there are some that do
qualify into these two categories. He suggested that if it is determined this is the predominant type
of activity of the facility/business and are they creating a venue/situation where they allow people to
present themselves in this manner. He said that there is some evidence that goes in that direction
and that it is engaging in an adult entertainment business that is not permitted in this zone. He
stated that staff can verify the facts further and code enforcement, and if this is exemplary of the
activities and if so, there is a violation of the code. He noted that there are two distinct categories in
the code and that there is a difference of category for a Bar and a second category for a Restaurant
and Bar, but not a separate category for a nightclub.
Mr. Buller noted that in the Development Code within the Foothill Boulevard Section of the code is
Community Commercial, Subarea 3 and in that matrix describes the various land uses allowed in
that subarea. He noted that a cocktail lounge/bar lounge/tavem including related entertainment use
is a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 3. He added that the category of restaurants/sit-down,
there are 4 categories including a restaurant with entertainment and/or with cocktail lounge and bar
DRAFT
Planning Commission Minutes
-11-
June 22, 2005
Ilff~
DRAFT
or incidental serving of beer and wine and cocktail lounge. He said these are all subject to
Conditional Use Permits (CUP) on this piece of property. He commented that the Conditional Use
Permit is the parent use and that you cannot have an Entertainment Permit (EP) without a CUP. He
noted that the EP is currently on hold and is up for review and will not be acted upon pending the
Commission's action on the parent CUP. He said it has everything to do with the use and the selling
of alcohol and the entertainment. He said the new CUP resolution addresses both permits.
Mr. Ennis added that the business operation is operating pursuant to previous discretionary actions.
He said the original application was for a restaurant and that was followed by a permit for alcohol.
He reported that it then was modified to serve alcohol incidental to the operation of the restaurant
use. He said that the Commission has the authority to require the facility to operate principally as a
restaurant. He said if you are concemed about how this facility is operating as something else, the
Commission could look at standards, conditions etc. to require it to ensure it operates principally as a
restaurant.
Mr. Buller replied that one of the residents offered an alternative and that is to limit the hours of
operation, which would address the late hour issues. He said they are all in their purview to consider
tonight.
Commissioner McPhail commented that the original intent of the Conditional Use Permit was for a
restaurant with the incidental serving of alcohol with food. She noted that at the last public hearing
for Margarita Beach, Mr. Davidson admitted that they stopped serving food at 10:00 p.m. and that it
became a different venue after that hour. She said they caught themselves on that and made the
changes. She said she believes they are not upholding the original intent of the CUP approved in
1991 and that they are in violation of other issues; the business has harmed the neighbors; a
security guard is there; cones are set up, and the neighbors have put up with far more than what
good neighbors would put up with. She commented that if this were a new business, we would not
be allowing cones, blocked driveways, security guards and noise. She said we would not want to
have that and that we would not believe that is an appropriate land use. She added that she
believes they have violated their CUP.
Commissioner Fletcher acknowledged the dilemma of the situation noting that he is sympathetic to
the neighbors concems that seem to have gone on for years. In response to the comments that
indicated staff was not doing anything about the situation, he explained that the Commission must
follow the process in the investigation and review of the business. He said that this business is a
conditionally permitted operation and can be reviewed at anytime and that the public has that power
in their hands. He said it is disturbing that this went on for g years and we had not heard anything
about it. He explained that the first contact was to the City Council, not the Planning Commission,
and when the issue was presented to the Planning Commission, the Commission was required to
first have a public hearing to determine if there was enough evidence supporting the complaints as
per the Development Code regulations. He noted that this (tonight) is the first time the Commission
as a body could say direct things about Mr. Davidson's business operation and that evidenced by the
residents' comments, the business owner has made attempts and has made significant
improvements in the last 3 months. Commissioner Fletcher said he reviewed the website and
believed from the start that the website would probably cause him more problems than anything said
here. He found the website disturbing as well as the promotional materials. He said that staff would
have to determine if there are Code violations and that this type of a business that encourages and
promotes young people to come and get drunk will cause problems in a neighborhood. He remarked
that if the promotions continue, the problems associated with the business would not go away. He
commented that the business operation has gotten out of hand, a little exaggerated and it is his (Mr.
Davidson's) responsibility to control it and operate it within the confines of the permit. He noted that
the residents mentioned their list of recommendations. He pointed out that some of those
recommendations are incorporated into staffs recommendations and some items could not be used
because the City has no legal control, such as offering a .25 (cent) beer. He commented that Mr.
Davidson's attomey said the business has no empirical evidence of violations, but Commissioner
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
DRAFT
June 22, 2005
/18 ~66
DRAfT
Fletcher remarked that the photographs are evidence and the website pictures were shocking such
as a banner on the wall that says, "Eat and drink and get fat and drunk." He said the promotion
encourages behavior that will be problematic for his business. He said he agrees with staffs
recommendations in the report. He said he is curious about the continuing problem with people.
hanging out at the rear of the building considering it is an existing condition of the use permit that this
not be allowed. He said he would support the review periods outlined by staff with the exception of
the final progress report. He commented that there should be two 6-month reviews. He said the
applicant will be on a tight leash and his feet are being held to the fire but they have made
improvements and that he recommends the Commission adopt the recommendations as presented
by staff with a modification to the frequency of review and approve their permits subject to those
changes and subject to the future comments of the neighbors. He noted that ifthere are any further
disturbances, the residents should let the Commission know because the CUP can be reviewed at
any time at their suggestion.
;.
Commissioner Stewart commented that this business went from 400 police calls in 2002 to 2 calls.
She remarked that this is significant and it says we are going in the right direction with this business.
She added that some of the calls were self-initiated and the police are performing well. She noted
that this is the first time this business has been reviewed by the Planning Commission, and although
the residents have experienced problems for 9 years, it was only brought to us in February from the
City COunciL She said that at that time we asked you (the residents) to work with staff and Margarita
Beach towards a resolution. She noted that most of the residents have testified tonight of some
improvement in the last 3 months. She commented in regard to long-term management of this
business operation; we cannot afford for the police teams to be solely dedicated to this business
operation. She concurred with Commissioner Fletcher in that if this resolution went forward, she
would recommend a shorter, more frequent review period for this business operation such as a 3-
month review followed by another 3-month review followed by a 6-month review and again followed
by another 6-month review to keep their feet to the fire and that they would rely on communications
from the neighborhood if there are continuing problems. Commissioner Stewart then said that she
believes they are bordering on adult entertainment and that we may be operating something in
violation of our Code and the zoning and we are moving outside the original parameters of the
permits in that this is no longer a restaurant. She noted that there should be more regulations in the
Resolution. She recommended they not take action tonight and that the review of this business go
back to staff to evaluate the zoning and the adult entertainment issue. She added that it is not her
-goal-to-shut down the business-but-this-is the first step was to address the. regulatory-issues. She
stated that the number of calls has been reduced and things are generally better in the
neighborhood. She said the placement of cones and security is not a good solution but there are
other issues that can be resolved. She recommended the review of the operation be referred back
to staff to work with the group and with Margarita Beach" to ad additional regulations but thahhe is
. more concemed with the possible zone violations.
Vice Chairman McNiel referred to the information included in the agenda packet, which gives a
chronology of the business. He noted that in 1988 we had a nice restaurant; in 1991 they added a
bar to the restaurant followed by the adding of entertainment. He explained that the original
Entertainment Permit was for a small band, disc jockey and a couple of comedians. He noted that
this is not what we have today, that the business operation has changed dramatically and goes
beyond the limitations of the Conditional Use Permit. He contended that based upon what we have
seen today, the COmmission has the right to pull their permit and close their doors. He noted that we
have seen improvements and the possibility exists that we could change this and go back to the
original restaurant use. He pointed out that if the Commission takes action tonight, to close the
public hearing, then they miss the opportunity to give it back to staff. He said the requirements need
to be strengthened, that this operation is not what we agreed to in 1991 and initially he thought he
would pull their CUP, but he decided sending it back to staff was the best option.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if they could adopt the additional conditions and continue the hearing
so that staff can further review the business operation.
Planning COmmission Minutes
-13-
DRAfT
June 22, 2005
118/t.,1
DRAFT
Vice Chairman McNiel staled he would prefer to continue the item and stiffen their conditions.
Commissioner Fletcher said it may not need more stiffening and would depend upon how Mr.
Davidson operates il in the future. He said that if Mr. Davidson continues operating it like he has,
then there is a good chance he will be out of business when we review it in the future.
Commissioner McPhail explained she does not have a background in the restaurant business and
therefore asked staff to help the Commission formulate conditions that transforms the business back
to a restaurant use that serves ancillary adult beverages then what it has become. She said she did
not feel qualified to come up with those conditions this evening.
Commissioner Stewart said she is not in favor with what Commissioner Fletcher is suggesting. She
noted that staff needs to have further discussions with Margarita Beach and they may elect to do
other things based upon what this Commission has said tonight and they may not. She said il might
. .not be appropriate if there is a potential zone violation then the Commission should not take action,
Vice Chairman McNiel inte~ected and said they are "over the line."
Commissioner Stewart continued and suggested they get staffs help, that staff can work with the
business and let them take the time needed, and that additional conditions will not be sufficient right
now because they have other things to deal with.
Brad Buller commented that we did not know if the direction of the Commission would be more
conservative and with the evidence presented by Ms. Sanchez and the attomey's comments alluding
to this being evidence of adult entertainment, it would take a lot of staff hours to evaluate that, its
degree and frequency and it is likely that if we visited the facility now, we would not see that
happening. He remarked that the photographs are evidence that is was occurring and has occurred
on site and that is assuming they were taken on site in that facility.
Commissioner McPhail asked for concurrence and direction we would like them 10 take. She said
she would like to see it go towards a restaurant. She said they have a couple of options, either for
staff to work with the owner to head in that direction or for staff to come up with a set of conditions
that would predicate that is what absolutely has to happen.
Vice Chairman McNiel said he supports the business operation going back to a restaurant use.
Mr. Buller commented that if the Commission is directing we continue the hearing, it is likely that staff
would need lWo- weeks to come up with more neighborly/conservative conditions such as the
recommendation to revert back to the 50 percent parking requirement, revert back to the 8:00 p.m.
requirement, add security guards, minimize the hours of operation that would be more conducive to a
neighborhood restaurant. He added that the Commission wants staff to work with the owner, then
30 days would work; two weeks may not be enough. He added that the attomey says there may be
enough evidence to say that this business is operating as an adult entertainment business. He said
the photos presented are evidence that these activities were and are occurring. .
Vice Chairman McNiel asked that if they made a determination in two weeks, would that be enough
time for staff to pull together everything they need for a report and to have communication with Mr.
Davidson.
Commissioner Stewart said crucial dialogue needs to happen and we owe Mr. Davidson as a
businessman the opportunity to dialogue with staff and if the neighbors are not insisting the business
be shut down as they have claimed, then we should give Mr. Davidson that opportunity.
Commissioner McPhail said she would like to see less of a need for security rather than beefing up
the security.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
DRAFT
June 22, 2005
I 18---6 if-
DRAFT
Mr. Buller noted that the presence of the security personnel did not feel right to the residents. He
indicated that the general consensus of the Commission is to have staff come back with
re!?0mmendations and conditions. He wamed Mr. Davidson that he (Mr. Buller)would come to a
point that he would make a recommendation with or without his support, that he would engage in
conversation but there will come a time with a deadline and he would present to him some
altematives or his best recommendation.
Commissioner McPhail moved to continue to the next Planning Commission meeting.
Commissioner Stewart seconded the motion.
Kevin Ennis interjected and clarified their intention to continue the item and keep the public hearing
closed or to reopen the hearing to allow additional comment. '.
Vice Chairman McNiel said he is a firm believer in allowing people their say and he would favor
reopen the public hearing and it would be an open meeting.
Kevin Ennis said they could re-open and continue the public hearing, and they could request that the
testimony heard at that meeting be limited to new information and any new conditions that may be
imposed on the business operation.
Vice Chairman McNiel re-opened the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by McPhail, seconded by Stewart, to continue the public hearing for Conditional
Use Permit 88-45 and Entertainment Permit 91-03 - Margarita Beach until the July 13, 2005
Planning Commission meeting. The business operation will be sent back to staff for this 3-week
period for further review, possible modification .of the conditions, and to work with the business
owner. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MACIAS - carried
Vice Chairman commented that he could bet that no one in the room is happy, but they are doing
_what.should beDone under-the law_andwhat should be doneJor all parties concemed. He said they
will get it resolved and even then some people won't be happy and when that occurs, someone will
appeal it to the City Council because that is part of the process and the law as well.
*****-
PUBLIC COMMENTS
No additional comments were made.
.*.**
COMMISSION BUSINESS
The Commission had no additional business.
***..
Planning Commission Minutes
-15-
DRAFT
June 22, 200ji
II~/~
RESOLUTION NO. 91-184
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT
PERMIT NO. 91-03 TO OPERATE AND CONDUCT LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING FOR SKIPPER'S GRILL AND BAR
LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUITES R & S, WITHIN
A COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
(SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-621-34.
A. Recitals.
(i) Fred and Urai Nelson has filed application for the issuance of
Entertainment Permit No. 91-03 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit request is
referred to as "the application."
(ii) On the 23rd of October 1991, and continued to November 13, 1991,
the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that
date.
(iii) All iegal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals, Part At of this Resolution are true and correct.
2.
during the
13, 1991,
testimony,
Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
above-referenced public hearing on October 23, 1991, and November
including written and oral staff reports, together with public
this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located at 9950
Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 632 feet and lot depth of 278
feet and is presently improved with one multi-tenant commercial building; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is
apartments, the property to the south of the site consists of a mobile home
park, the property to the east is a commercial building, and the property to
the west is a service station.
p
118' "6 if
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
EP NO. 9l-03/SKIPPERS GRILL & BAR
November 13, 1991
Page 2
(c) Skipper's Grill & Bar is a full service restaurant serving
alcoholic beverages. The proposed entertainment will be conducted indoors,
Sunday through Saturday from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows: .01',
(a) That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of
the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or
welfare; and
(b) That the premises or establishment are not likely to be
operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner; and
(c) That the applicant has not had any approval, permit, or
"license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provision of
entertainment revoked within the preceding ten years; and
(d) That granting the application would not create a public
nuisance; and
(e) That the
interfere with the peace and
community commercial center;
normal 'operation of the premises would
quiet of the surrounding residential uses and
and
not
the
(f) The applicant has not made any false, misleading, or
fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application."
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to
each and every condition set forth below:
Conditions:
1) This approval is for small bands or individual
musicians.
2) Dancing is permitted on a dance floor area
which shall not exceed 150 square feet.
3) If the operation of this Entertainment Permit
causes any adverse effects upon adjacent
businesses or operations or residential uses,
the Entertainment Permit shall be brought
before the Planning Commission for the
consideration and possible suspension or
revocation of the permit.
11'8/('s-
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-184
EP NO. 91-03/SKIPPERS GRILL & BAR
'November 13, 1991
Page 3
4)
All doors shall remain closed
entertainment is being conducted for
attenuation purposes. The rear (north)
shall be used only for emergencies
8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
when
noise
doors
from
5) Hours of operation of the entertainment use
shall be limited to Sunday through Saturday,
from 8:,00 p.m: to 2:00 a.m.
6) Entertainment shall be conducted inside the
building.
7) The Entertainment Permit shall not commence
until such time as all Uniform Building Code
and State Fire Marshall's regulations have been
complied with. Plans shall be submitted to the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and
the Building and Safety Division for review and
approval prior to commencement of any
entertainment activity.
8) All customers shall use the front (south)
entrance/exit, and use of the rear (north)
parking lot shall be limited to employees.
9) All entertainment activities shall not create
any noise that would exceed an exterior noise
level of 60 dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10) Approval of this request shall not waive
compliance with all sections of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, all applicable City
Ordinances, Foothill Fire District
requirements, and Public Health codes.
11)
Any modification,
operation will
Conditional Use
expansion,
require a
Permit.
or other change in
revision to the
12) All signage shall be designed in conformance
with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and
applicable Uniform Sign Program and shall
require review and approval by the Planning
Division.
5. The Secretary to this commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
/18 -'~?
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 9l~184
EP NO. 91-03/SKIPPERS GRILL & BAR
November 13, 1991
Page 4
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1991.
PLANNING
ION OF THE CITY O~O
CUCAMONGA
BY:
<,
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
requ1ar1y 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 13th day of November 1991, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, VALLETTE
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
NONE
1/8 -~ ?
~~'
,,<):~~:;,:; ,;"" " . ." ~
~illi"" ~~,1'. '0'J."f~ 'q"lIl.~. .'
~,',;~f!<.';;:~~'"". ... \U~~'H"""."~>>'~"'~'~'
I~'if ,,-?~<5~~~
::-::<.~~~ .~\J;~7~"~~~',~,7.,>>...........~nh','~" ,~'
! cGI""e~''N1'i~}<-'''' . ~~
.... J~. '~J~,..............._......C;1'?"~
i;<GI"l6~J:t2.r-. "'....~%l:,,(.:}'),.2!}},lX<l I-?fi:"\~'
J' " -.,.; "!).!>Iii \"oo"J"""-....U :.J~ ' _.,,--~~~.~ ~~.
I. '. "VI' ., '-"'~' " ,/
, .... ~ ?,;;::i - - - . ,,' ~'
.; '(...:.::;...,'", ~~lt;,~)Jl' _c'e' f:. _~,.~_'-- - . ~ " ;'-;0.-
. i ....~~~~,.".{!I~~IJh1,~.._.,...; ....... , -JIftJ
!,:~;v~jj'iw ~~F~ID~YimJA.:. ~ ~
;;c;;,.".!~,.~", . ,~..' I-?fi:"\aer 'f4,
,":gJ'7:~~~lWJ>;l",:;h""'''''''''''''''''~'~ tlJ
""'i'.'" ,,'....rJ:~ I-?fi:"\aer
';;;~~.,;J-v=-':J_.' '~~"""'..'..."'''.''~..~'~~~. ~
4::W~~-~Q"S'ticJcs "2. potcrto,Skins
~~;'-:;;~'-.:~
"::.:;:--:- -
..., -".:.,',-
~""",""':""
,~<'~/.l',IJ ./.l.~'." .
,~~~~
~ ~jJ1t12r;MixedGrt.era$. Tomatoes"~.,,.. gsCl~
~, ' OliveS. Mushrooms. Onions & Ch"eSe
.~ dEtJP:l" Mix"dGr-ar!$. l)iced H~rn and..~~~
~''', " Turkey. Torn(ltoc$ & Ch~eSe
, ," ' " " ' ^ r.Yi\
:' .. ~....' .' .. '.. " ~
~ ': _~,,$.~ixed Greens~ Diced Chicken.....grt;o
"\,,~,~~~mQt~$.. AvCX;ado" '~ese 4~Q~
~,~~ :\; ~~tQIiQn:~ Srue Cheie$e:~ Ranch,.
I \ l'lor\e)" MustQl'd
f
~~
in' ~
r' [2)~'Q ~iJJ~}~~ 60% Chicken Breast.,,,,. glJo (/I ",'
Srnother-ed in BIlQ S(luce with Amerlean
Chees". L4_ & T<>l1\Ot<> . ~
B.l'T~8Qcon. Lettuce", T(tmato w/Mt.ryJJ grt;Q
<>n Toasted White Bre(ld (w/Cheese (ldcl 51)4:)
"?~r.:<r:'" 1'" '-"1,.. - ~~
'J 'E:!.rJy~ 'Ul'J~~J,Q,,,...,.~.~-_....,-..<...'....'m<F
60% Chicken Breast Marinated in
Teriyold $ouee with Moyo. swiss.
Tomato. L4ttuce &Pine<>pple :fl!J
Tlli"l.",'i- SI' cd ....k.... I-?fi:"\
".t_'{ -, Ie, .urey WIHl,.;..._".....",....~
American Chee5C~Letttlce__ Tomato'& Mayo
served, on G HogieRoJI, ' ,', ~
B'w11 g}Ja:SZ27J-- 'thicken Breast "...,.,,..,..~o .
topped with Mayo. !l(Icon. SwiS$. ,
A~oC:Qdo. Lettuce ~!K" TornatQ ~
'f5pJ1; TUr'key. Horn. Sacan. L4ttuc:e.,,,..~~
Tomato" Mayo, Americ:<lf1 oncLSwiss 011 Toasted
White Sr-ead bouble becker Style. . ~
]}!Jeff1~ Sliced Ham wIth sw;s~.L4ttQ<:.t.,,~ 0
_ Tomato~ Mop Cin'G_ H~9'i,e ~o!f,. " ..
~~@;J.~~
--':'--
:\
I
I
:
t
,
~
--"
I
I
,
Ii
I
t
\,
f.'
lf1!NIP)SJ@!C}@J9i9J:(TJ~
tJlJf)~l;ii1[4~
<I Avocodc>, Socon, Ch"ese(Arner1c<tn. 5wls~)
\,1 Mushr~o"",. BBQ Sauce. Teriy<>1<i s_
I 'Gr~!ls ~g'"~~ 1/311> llIJr9"r~wlth..glJ~
, Moy~.. L4ttuce.. Tornoto, Pickl" & On~
rp"",--,-=,--~~ '...=~~ . Cl ~,,~
:.. fi~ !:.i~g!)JJ'&.h~~a.~~sgE.'~ A. .Q$S~.<.F .
/,1 ", ,B"r9<;r topped WIth Bacon & American Che~s..
" ~
E~!~;;~$.:~3~~~~ii.B';;~.~f!!4
Ameritan Che~ . .' . ." ~
T:2?j~,ills!l ~mr~ 1/31b ~....,.(jJ?J"
Marinated in te"iyaki with MQyo. SwiS$,
r.'Ch~~~':: _~"L4~{;;>'tl 1/31b S' ~,,~
~~,~'JJ'!i~JS. ~!u'iD~ '" . lII"!F...~
looded with Sal,lteed MUShroom$ & SwIss
. ~~
Z;~jjW'JiJ~ ~lli'g"~- Our C1ossiC....,~" · ·
Burget' topped wi.th !l(Icon. SwiSS & Avocado
.." ifJl!Jlit/f:2? @llJJ'.fJ2i'~t>oubl" Meat &.,,@iJJfJfJ
boubl" Chase
~~@;J~~
"
@fJ~
atlfb~~
~/~J6J~_
_.11
, .. :,.~,.ll
",''''''''''"'>1
""..
~.._.~_.P...f2. i~~ r::;:)'}..,__l.o.-.,_. ~. ',".~.
;.;;.'", ~." .. ,~ 'r;.' ,."'C' ""~- ~ ..... ~
~WJ, " j"..,. ...,::il!J_'J';;_JJ "....."..u....,..,..H...~..
60% Chi<;ken Sr-eo$f topped with BBQ 5OUC::".
American CheeSe. Bocon Bits & .GreenOnions
~
... - , ' ~'
i . . "~.~_._-.. ~ h '-" ,. ''''' .' . ". .' . ... .'
(J\'jli'o~,.~r:;.\<') C'I1ie!~.j1I~ .~. ,:0
:I~J~:J~...... .....1/ ~~'j-~,. ....~....~....................".
6~z Chicken Sl'east topped with SWiS$,.
B(lcon, Avocodo & Tomoto
, JfJfJ'
'r--!l^"'ft~" '''''''''.h"f.l '~;
; :.:;.! >'... .t:l r, f>: ,.r::' ~,~' ..... ...
.~,' ~~. .<;;;;i;/JJ...J'..:eJ .,.....~~.......~......~...........
60% Chicken Br-e(l$f Morinated'in T..riyakl s_
with Swiss Chase & Pineopple Rings
, t1f@
T Co. ~~ c,"A2il21. ' ~. a rJ'U"
. ~. ~ '". . ~ .-.,'~ .".''C: #- . ' . . .
. -:~JJe ""r . . -.......................
Cooked to your t>esire
t1. __, ."~. ..-.-"
f;; ____=,_'c... .
"dJ M @!YfJtl@
rt;"I/""'..-4-... ~~ _ ........~.~- _- ~:D~
\...t:I...... "':.l~" ,,,,'r' r.~J,~':O ..
.~~:::.~' "" '_......................... t1f@
" "tri".." qt1} rJ'U"
.a . ~....._......"..........~.~............~.......'".........:.~...". ~"~'
'l1'?""""'." ~~ .,
~,;::::~= ..................,........-.... ~~
;21:. r@S~' ~.;;.;....,................;.......................................... ~
, Chicken <>I' Beef
,-~..: ~~- "
',.
I&/~ %
CORONA
DOS XX LAGER
TECATE
,,"-'L
~
~.';..'
~,
If
~'
HEINEKEN
SAM ADAMS
ROLUNG ROCK
SMIRNOFF ICE
BASS ALE
GUINESS
~
"...
~~~
TRADITIONAL' CADILLAC' STRAWBERRY
MANGO' PASSION FRUIT' KIWI
BANANA' BLUE HAWAIIAN' RASPBERRY
APPLE . BLACKBERRY . BLUEBERRY
CHERRY' COCONlJT . WATERMELON
LEMON . ORANGE . PINEAPPLE
GREEN PEPPER~NT
""'O"t<<'"""".
u: >,i..,,", . "~~' ;~l.:U'i
.a...:
_ ..r
~~
BUD
BUD UGHT
COORS UGHT
MGD
MILLER UTE
.....~-..MICFfELOIrOLTRA-...
O'DOULS (NON-ALCOHOUC)
.~~
BUD
BUD UGHT
COORS UGHT
NEW CASTLE
HEFEWEIZEN
~~
CUERVO GOLD . CUERVO 1800
TEQUILA ROSE . CHINACO SILVER
SAUZA CONMEMORATIVO
SAUZAHORNITOS
SAUZA TRES GENERACIONES
PA~ON SILVER
CAZADORES . EL TESORO
11 - ~
/1'3/(, '1
.:1>:<""""
C1^ 19
I ~.~\
."\: ~~
?~8 .;,(';1.... ''. \
t~,~,< {,>~ R~
>, (\J)
, '
.....-.,
C~
,__~7
~'--" .... J-..
.'(/v . ,.j )>01:::
" ,.. ;o:t\~
. ..... Ip L .-
=c) ;'Y.~' ~() ~ , I ' ;
"k:,s;:-}d'-'?:'~'d';:;'~~' It m, L, . ! ',,,,\
,.....-"'{E"~,,,:;.. .,.....i};..... r l' ".r- "_ \ I:
~~.;_:..5t4:':_,:;:: ,_ll>":;lt\ -: ~~ (,("> )) i" /\
~!'1k.'~' L )> I ..... '- '.
.-'~~f"-r-(~~;~{:"~ :. ~ '':-.' . ,; ,-~
. "h'. I .'." ~ 'I
ed" ^", '
1. ~ C__ 3'
(J,J.; '~"';:' H~(:~ .L (l. ;")j (' .
. ...>,,; - ,-'^ . ....-.
.:""'~1'...J:.... ~V"}~l"" ,~ ),.-.., \--.
(~.. 'i~~f '~, ....1" ......./ '- '
"",' ~r"'I' 0,' h
. - . 'i'~ I ,
,..'- ..I "it.. ..- ""-t.t
'~'!:{;~~~'.. -r~~' l~ v " I,~
'L;,;~~;:,:I'{':'$;" " r ;i,L.v
--1'-n---", '~:. '.
\";"J..-"'., Q,
.": :s i
, rn
~<<; z
. '.' -~: l vi_
p';'; ~.
~'.~..~"
. I "'-i..
, .
1-'
::;I.,
....'.
:-'"
."
"
~
,
"
-<.
~I"
, ~
.,
; 'C
.,
"
-'
Ii"
~
r
f
...
L
r,
l1'i))
"(=~-,F
9'1i'
< ,
,i,
,
<
f1/- ~-
/ .' , '-"", "
/0{ij~)0,~ '~l..' . ::~})
I (l
'-
(1" (_
,I . i.
1 .'
.1
"
1
, .
"-'1-"1
1
" 1.
"
.
-"."
-:';;'l
::~i
~-,;,I :
.~:Tl
~.
1'1' H.LUO:! .,''.
'1:::-,.,
,>.1
to ~,'
, .
-' ,
IV
Q(.,---21/
J\
'.
, ,
~~
l~
i
,
,
,
:
i
..;
~
1
I
\
-,
\",
.
,
r- -'f-,
.. '
! -
L:J-' "
, ~
'''(\(.l :,
I >>~~"~'~
,oz "'l
~.~ o~ \;"1
.' \~; '-'~:1:
\.- ~ ")1:
.... '.,--r
. (~)t
(:'!1
'.'1
"",.,
(lIH~
,<.li,
,
, ]
, .'
'_/~
'-,
.,
i .~
,~
.:,.,
,~
9"'
< or-
..1..\
Z:.).
\Ii, .
.,~) ~:i...
i
3
"
"
.,
,-,
../'
(
1;;1
1
.
,
..
II
/'.,.'
.;~_..~,~._,.,\\
.,. ~:~)I.."f\)~U
1::'1 .
01~
0!J,:.
8"....
.., '1.1'~
,..11;...,.:'.\-,
Q" '.."'.
." I ':->
.:.".: I:~,:jt
m, k-
\:..!U,1-,,<
! ~j
..:,:j
. "., ,v.
..:-~I';~
,. ~...-'
"
..~;~
",;~
()i (:)
.- '~'~--ri . ";"1
,-~~ l'. j
I 1 1"~ ; V /:'.
'~ ;...~ \~l
. '-~l I
s.O '. __
~ ~ '10 ~';'j
~ ~ if;'-'
r '_
ra . r .~,
-~ ., ;-~(""J
- ~ :1. '''I
....a"',l I
f."k.;;'
~rJ
~118
."
- ...).:11
<ll \~ .._]
, ;;0
, ITl
, vo ,
;;:J
~ = ~. -
~ .-IfJ ,0 _ ']'__
11., 0 "\ ~
'. s: --:~
\)-I)> .<....T..n>
" '. :5" I:SQ,_
,;~i .. II ~~f'"
; !"l 11 .... 3 ~ 0 "15 .,
',.. '" , ~~
~" l' (1II <::..
-:; ~;II -' l' eo ~ rr .
";: r: :<J >'""ZQ---:-l
;:~... ;~ ~ ~() <."
~ ~ ~ , .
.!, r
~ ;: ,r
-1-01
~Oi
\110'
r r;
Pl_ :
--'
,
;.
'.
\-g
~
T
"-
1 :
, ' .}'.!~
d".,-
,(.. .
or!, .:n
c....../'~
~ ..
!
.~\
,VII . N
/'" - J:;. W 0
+11.,
,
:r"
,\0-
;.p
'..
..
;r
.
..
.
I~
.
,
~
.
.
~
."
i~
"
",)
.1'.
_.,,-
/'"
.__ ..I
I
C)
.1
['"Tj
"'"7
L
1+
R
~
.
.
!'-
iJ
<.
l)
(
\
" "
~L
[Tl' ....
.... ,..:1 -----..H-
H~l;1' . t.)
,. '..~'.It" 0.J ,r
.'"j 1'1 · 'Iii
)i,ti l!lIp I
j.~..' i.'.II"lIt Iii
.., '''''ill! ' "I
.,.~1. ,; i"'ll Il
:'. :\;~t- I ji
",?j .~ "'1l:i'~!:1 fi ~
License Query System Data Srary
.
California Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control
License Query System Summary
as of 6/22/2005
ILicense Information I
lLicense Number: 316819 Status: ACTIVE I
iPrimary Owner: RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESTAURANT VENTURES INC I
iABc Office of Application: RIVERSIDE I
IBusiness Name I
Iooine Business As: MARGARITA BEACH
IBusiness Address
IAddress: 9950 W FOOTHILL BLVD UNIT S Census Tract: 0020.05
ICity: RANCHO CUCAMONGA County: SAN BERNARDINO
IState: CA Zip Code: 91730 \
ILicensee Information
lLicensee: RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESTAURANT VENTURES INC
I Company Officer Information
I Officer: DAVIDSON MARK G, PRESIDENT
I Officer: SAMBOLIN JOSE A, VICE PRESIDENT
ILicense Tvpes
I 1) License Type: 47 - ON-SALE GENERAL EATING PLACE
I License Type Status: ACTIVE
I Status Date: 03-JUN-1998 Term: 12 Month(s)
I Orieinal Issue Date: 29-MAR-1996 Expiration Date: 28-FEB-2006
I Master: Y Duplicate: 0 Fee Code: P40
I Condition: OPERATING RESTRICTIONS
I License Type was Transferred On: From: 191834
I 2) License Type: 30 - TEMPORARY PERMIT
I License Type Status: ISSUE
I Status Date: 28-MAR-1996 Term: 0 Month(s)
I Orieinal Issue Date: Expiration Date:
I Master: Y Duplicate: 0 Fee Code: NA
!current Disciplinary Action
~ . . No Active Disciplinary Action found. . .
IDisciplinarY History
~ . . No Disciplinary History found. . .
IHold Information
L-\. No Active Holds found. . . I
(5
http://www.abc.ca.gov/datport/LQSData.asp?ID=2008279425
Page 1 0[2
'.
1/8>7;
6/22/2005
/I
170'd
~
lEse 181. 606
../
ALCOHOUC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT
States internal revenue bonded warehouses when the bonded warehouses are used for
storage of alcoholic heverages for the account of another licen""".
C..-refereacu.-C1ISlOm bMdocI"~ _ 19 U. S. C. A. t 1555.lnlCmlll n:VCDUt bollded ~ - 26 U. S. C.A.
fWlelMq.
23037. "Oub," "guesL" "Club" means a corporation or liSsociation which is
the owner, lessee, or occupant of an establishment operated solely for objects of a
social or alhletic nature but not for pecuniary gain, having a bona fide membership
list, and the majority of the members of which pay dues at least once in every year,
and the property liS well as the advantages of which 'belong to the members, and which
se1Is aloohoJic beverages only to its members and its bona fide guests. A guest is defined
as a person who is actually a houseguest, or a person whose presence as a guest is
in response to a specific invitation for the special occasion.
~ IIM'l, ell. 616, in.eel 8epteJaber 11, 196'1, added ~ which IIllIle aloohoUC......... oal7
to I'PI memben _d ILl bona lid. ....... ad ~ aen&enee.
(2ii3tl"Bona fide public eating place," "mea\s." "Bona fide public eating
~ans a place which is regularly and in a bona fide manner used and kepi
open for the serving of mea1s 10 guests for compensation and which has suitable kitchen
facilities connected therewith, containing conveniences for cooking an assomuent of
foods which may be required for ordinary meals, the kitchen of which' must be kept
in a sanitary condition with the proper amount of refrigeration for keeping of food
on said premises and must comply with all the regulations of the local department
of health. "Meals" means the usual assorunent of foods corrunonly ordered at various
hours of the day; the service of such food and victuals only as sandwicbes or salads
shall not be deemed a compliance with this requirernen~ "Guests" shall mean persons
who, during the hours when meals are regularly served therein, come to a bona fide
public eating place for the pmpose of obtaining, and actually order and obtain at such
time, in good fai1lt, a meal therein. Nothing in this ~tion, however, shall be oonsnued
to require that any food be sold or purchased witb any beverage.
Bittor7.-8taA. ]8M, ell. 17'18, operatift JUluary I, 195'1, ..eadeli MCtioD to read .. above.
~ qree1I1eat.-ex.cepl: IS pamiu.ed by Sec1XID 23787.. ~ under" boruI fide puh11c eodu&: pJlICCOll-Nla plIlUl
lieenJC may IIOl: /ea5c or make. ~asion ~ lUClcr whicb lie would in effect sublet Iht relDIJI'Rlll opmliom OJI hiJ pmaisa. 29
OJ-. AII)'. 0eII. 95. S'1~ 3-27.57.
OwDenbJp of lioeDlIII .. evldeau. of OWDenhip of eOftllected nstaura:Dt.-Tht IpptIl"InQIl; of I pcnom' I1ImO 0111
1IlpJrllcellseofl ty~ wlBch rcqlliml him 1o_1l:)od is eYidc:neethllhe L, theOWlll:lIUlll opcmororl R5laU1m\!I MijoinbtJthe IiccAsed
premisa. F_,~rJ CtMIpfIIf1 V. Kit".,.. 149 CIl. App. 2d167.
Ac:lub... ~fideeatinl' plaee.-Aelub Ucense and I baolI fukca1ingpiace Ikcmt' atelCJlUKlC..-.l dl$\lncl: lypesdDeaJsa
even thougb "club m1ptqualily.... bona f\dealio;pbloc. The NCtplloDupmllld in PcniI Co6c I J72e~ lIl1lexll:1ld to club liCCInICL
Hdrm v. Akahnlil: Bnerag~ CotIltoI /JppmU Ikxlrr/ (Bt,uKy City MbmclI:' Club}. 201 Cal. App. 2d 561.
23038.1. Convention center, exhibit ball or auditorium. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 23038, "bona fide public eating place" also means a convention
center, exhibit ha1I, or auditorium, which sball hereinafter be referred to as "premises,"
owned by or leased to the State of California, any inCOlporated city, county, city and
county, or public corporation of the State of California which is regularly and in a
bona fide manner used and kept open for the attendance of groups of guests, and in
connection with such use serves meals to such groups of guests for compensation.
and which has suitable kitchen facilities in connection therewi1lt, such kitchen containing
conveniences for preparation of ordinary meals and maintained in a sanitary condition
with proper refrigeration for the keeping of food on the premises in compliance with
all regulations of the local department of health.
"Meals," as used in this section, means foods commonly ordered at a lunch or dinner;
provided, however, that lbe service of food such as sandwiches or salads only sball
not be deemed compliance with this requirement.
19
!18--7d-'
\:jJ ;:lQ 31\:jlS
~ :01 S00c-0E-Nnf
I~EROFFICE MErJb
~
DATE JUNE 9, 2005
FROM Paul Morrison, Sergeant
Rancho Cucamonga Station
TO Pete Ortiz, Captain
Rancho Cucamonga Station
PHONE (909)477-2600
SUBJECT MARGARITA BEACH CALLS FOR SERVICE 032205.060705
~',
The following is a breakdown of the 6 calls for service related to Margarita Beach from
March 22, 2005 through June 7,2005. .
Call tvIJe Calls ReIJorls
Bar check/pedestrian/traffic stops 2 1
Assaults 0 0
Drunk in public/ DUI 1 1
Disturbing the peace 2 0
Other 1 0
Total 6 2
Total calls initiated by police
approximately 4
No calls for service related to Margarita Beach were recorded in the surrounding
neighborhoods.
-:r::
/If--/3
DATE
FROM.
I~EROFFICE ME~
TO
March 21, 2005
Paul Morrison, Sergeant
Rancho Cucamonga Station
Pete Ortiz, Captain
Rancho Cucamonga Station
PHONE (909)477-2800
)d#!
G.-&o'l."~
W
~o/
SUBJECT MARGARITA BEACH CALLS FOR SERVICE 020205 - 032105
The following is a breakdown of the 25 calls for service related to Margarita Beach from
February 2, 2005 through March 21, 2005. .
Call type Calls Reports
Bar check/pedestrian/traffic stops 18 0
Assaults 3 2
Drunk in public/ DUI 2 2
Disturbing the peace 1 0
Other 1 1
Total 25 5
Total calls initiated by police
approximately 21
!~-7V
I~EROFFICE ME~
DATE March 17,2005
FROM Paul Morrison, Sergeant
Rancho Cucamonga Station
TO Pete Ortiz, Captain
Rancho Cucamonga Station
PHONE (909)477-2800
SUBJECT MARGARITA BEACH CALL AND REPORT BREAKDOWN
The Rancho Cucamonga City Planning Commission requested a breakdown of the calls
for service for Margarita Beach. The Planning Commission reviewed 412 calls starting
January 2002 through February 2005. The following is a breakdown of these calls.
Call TVDe Calls ReDorts
Bar check! pedestrian/traffic stops 149 0
Theft related ,64 47
Assaults 54 22
Disturbing the peace 54 2
Drunk in public/ DUI 34 32
Vandalism 5 5
Alarms 4 0
Traffic collisions 3 1
Other 25 10
Total 412 119
Total calls initiated by police approximately 210
! 18 ~ 75
. .
.
OTSCASPR~
7/06/,/J5
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIF COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
CASE PRINT
SAN BDNO CO
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Page:
CASE NUMBER: 2173050MD DEFENDANT STATUS: CJ,osed
ARREST NBR : ARREST DATE ....: N/A
ARREST AGY : RANCHO CUCAMONGA PD/RC
Defendant .: DAVIDSON, MARK GERARD Defn: 1 of
========D~t~=Fil~d===05/02/05==============================================0
Continuances:
Age in Dars :
Last Tria. .:
o
30
07/17/05
District Attorney :
Defense Attorney : Jqmes Reiss
Custody Status ...:N/A. - Bail:
Charge Information
-------------------
ct
001 FILED 6404.5(B) LC
.Plea
ALLOW SMOKING IN PLACE OF EMPL G
OYMENT
Disposed Cases
--------------
Case Number
MWV041822
Exgir~s Convicted/Warrant Charges
05/05/99 M415 PC
Status Sev
Convicc I
Status
A/R Fine
Fine Amount
$330.00
Bail Information
Amount Paid
$330.00
Amount Due
Date/To Pay
06 17/05
$0.00
Amount
$0.00
$0.00
Depositor
DEFENDANT
Amt Ordered:
Total Posted:
Case Action Information
-----------------------
Action Div
6/21/05
6/17/05
R3
~
Description
-------------------------
CHECK 23219 FOR $330.00 APPLIED TO CASE.
-------------------------
Bail applied to fines on cases 2173050MD.
-------------------------
Bail of $330.00 applied from case number
2173050MD.
============= MINUTE ORDER END ================
-------------------------
COURT TRIAL
JUDGE LARRY WALLEN
Clerk Violet F Martinez
Reporter M Bernard
Balliff D Okeefe
APPEARANCES .
City Prosecutor Greg Palmer present in court
Attorney James Reiss present.
Pursuant to Section 977 PC, counsel present
without Defendant.
PLEA INFORMATION
Defendant withdraws plea of NOT GUILTY and enters
a plea of GUILTY as to Count(s) 1.
Defendant is informed of his/her right to be
sentenced no earlier than six hours nor any later
than five days after he/she has entered his/her
plea of
GUILTY or NOLO CONTENDERE or found GUILTY. The
court finds that he/she knowingly, freely and
expressly waives that right.
SENTENCING INFORMATION
For all charges.
Pay the fine $330.00,
by 06/17/2005. .
Authorized
No
status
Dispo
//<o..-7h
._'~:; ~!..,~",.,..:" ..__~_::..... ~.'4wy.:~"i..-H '''_-r-~
-~._--*..- .-~-.-.__. .,
SU~PERI~~ C~:~~'~F C~~IF '~~~~TY'OF SAN BERNARDINO
~~PElnOR CASE PRINT Page:
~~ ' ,SAN BDNO CO
'~u~~iRT--~--2173050MD---------------------~--R~~~~~Ag~~~T~~~~T-~}~;~d-"
ARREST AGY : RANCHO CUCAMONGA PD/RC
Defendant .: DAVIDSON, MARK GERARD Defn: 1 of
================================================================================
Pay fine to the Court
CUSTODY STATUS
Defendant Released.
Apply bail to fine.
============= MINUTE ORDER END ================
-
6/15/05
5/20/05
5/18/05 R5
5/06/05
5/05/05
5/04/05
5/02/05
2
-------------------------
(795) Rescheduled Hearing
Moved from Division R2 to R3
-------------------------
(795) Rescheduled Hearing
Moved from Division R2A to R2
-------------------------
(795) Rescheduled Hearing
Moved from Division R1 to R2A
citing,Agency notified;subpoena issued and sent
to offIcer.
eLK'S ARRAIGNMENT/COUNTER & TELEPHONE
JUDGE Gerard S Brown
Clerk S Meinhardt
Defendant present (at counter)
PROCEEDINGS
Advisal of rights signed by Defendant and filed.
Defendant waives formal arraignment.
PLEA INFORMATION
Defendant pleads NOT GUILTY to Count(s) 1.
HEARINGS
Court Trial set for 06/1~62005 at 8:00 in
Department R1. Estimated days.
Arraignment and Court Trial Setting Form filed.
Citing,Agency notified;subpoena issued and sent
to oftIcer.
CUSTODY STATUS
Defendant Released.
-------------------------
Trust 330.00 received fro~ defendant
Bail set at 050518-0922-CS TRSI 330.00 BAIL
POSTING DEFN
Dispo
Bail Quote Printed.
-------------------------
Case ready for Bail Enhancement.
-------------------------
continuation of notice to appear attached
Citation Filed by ARUVA
-------------------------
Jurisdiction set to RS by OTS305.
Bail Quote Info - Quote Date:05/06/05 Total Bail: $330.0b
**** No Local DMV data available for this case ****
**** END OF CASE PRINT ****
lIS"??
e
.
:e
,
REGULATION OF ENTERTAINMENT
Chapter 5.12
Sections:
5.12.010
5.12.020
5.12.030
5.12.040
5.12.050
5.12.060
5.12.070
5.12.080
5.12.090
5.12.100
5.12.110
5.12.115
5.12.120
5.12.130
5.12.140
5.12.150
5.12.160
Permit .requlred.
Entertainment defined.
exclusions.
Application for permit.
Investigation and hearing.
Notice of hearing.
Action at hearing.
Denial of application.
Conditions Imposed on permit.
Suspension or revocation of
permit.
Fees.
Annual renewaL
Time for filing application.
Security guard required at
dances.
Chapter to govern.
Prohibition and penalties.
Civil remedies available.
5.12.010 Permit required.
No person or business entity shall operate, con-
duct, or manage any place or premises open to the
public where food or beverages are sold, offered for
sale, or given away, and where any form of enter-
tainment, as defined herein, Is provided or fur-
nished wnhout first obtaining a pennn so to do as
hereinafter provided for In this chapter. (Ord. 290
~ 1 (part), 1986)
5.12.020 . Entertainment defined.
"Entertainment" means every fonn of live enter-
tainment, music, solo band or orchestra, act, play,
burlesque show, fashion show, review, pantomime,
scene, song or dance, act or song, and dance act,
or any other act or performance participated in by
one or more persons for the purpose of holding the
attention of, gaining the attention and interest of,
diverting or amusing guests or patrons. (Ord. 290
~ 1 (part), 1986)
5.12.030 exclusions.
The provisions of' this chapter shall not be
deemed to require a permn for the following:
A. For the use of a radio or other electronical
playback device in any establishment, except when
l<
5.12.010
utilized by an announcer or "disc jockey" who at
any time provides any fonn of vocal entertainment,
including the announcing of song titles or artists'
names in conjunction therewith;
B. For any entertainment provided for mem-
bers and their guests at a prtvate club where ad-
mission is not open to the public;
C. For entertainment conducted In connection
wnh a regularly established motion picture theater,
recreation park, circus, or fairground;
D. For entertainment conducted by or spon-
sored by any bona fide club, society or association,
organized or incorporated for benevolent, charita-
ble, dramatic or Inerary purposes, having an estab-
lished membership, and which holds meetings at
regular intervals of not less than once per three-
month period, when proceeds, if any, arising from
such entertainment are used for the purpose of
such club, society or association;
E. For entertainment provided solely by a pI-
ano player or harpist playing music for the amuse-
ment of guests or patrons of an establishment;
F. For entertainment conducted solely on or at
any premises or location which Is owned or oper-
ated by, or leased by, to or from the Unned States.
state of California, county of San Bemardino, or
any agency or subdivision thereof. (Ord. 290 ~ 1
(part),1986)
5.12.040 Application for permit.
Applicants for entertalnmllllt pennits shall file a
written, signed and verified application with the city
manager, or his designee, showing:
A. The name and permanent address ,of applI-
cant;
B. The name, proposed and current, if any,
business address of the applicanllf the applicant Is
a corporation, the name shall be exactly as set forth
in its articles of incorporation and the applicant shall
show the name and residence address of each of
the officers, directors, and each stockholder owning
not less than twenty-five percent of the stock of the
corporation. If the applicant is a partnership, the
application shall show the names and residence
addresses of each of the members, including lim-
ited partners;
C. A detailed description of the proposed en-
tertainment, including type of entertainment, num-
ber of persons engaged In the entertainment, and
any further information about the entertainment or
93
/13,78
e
e
e
D. That granting the application would create a
public nuisance; or
E. That the normal operation of the premises
would interfere with the peace and quiet of any sur-
rounding residential neighborhood; or
F. The applicant has made any false, mislead-
ing or fraudulent statement of material fact in the
required application. (Ord. 290 ~ 1 (part), 1986)
5.12.090 Conditions imposed on permit.
After the public hearing as to any application, the '
planning commission in granting any permit may
also impose such reasonable conditions as to the
use or extent of such permit as it deems appropri-
ate. (Ord. 290 ~ 1 (part), 1986)
5.12.100 Suspension or revocation of
permit.
A. After notice and hearing, the planning com.
mission may suspend or revoke any permit granted
pursuant to this chapter if said commission finds
and determines that any permittee; his agent or
employee, or any person connected or associated
with the permittee as partner, director, officer,
general manager, or other person who is exercising
managerial authority of, or on behalf of, the permit-
tee or any entertainer acting under the authority of
such permit
1. Made any false, misleading or fraudulent
statement of a material fact in the application for
permit, or any report or record required to be filed
pursuant to this chapter; or
2. Violated any provision of this chapter, or of
any statute, ordinance, or. condition relating to his
permitted activity; or
3. Is convicted of a felony, or any crime involv-
ing moral turpitude; or
4. Violated any rules, regulations or conditions
adopted by the planning commission or city council
relating to the permittee's business or permit; or
5. Conducted a permitted business in a man-
ner contrary to the peace, health, safety and gen-
eral welfare of the public; or
6. Demonstrated that he/she is unfil to be
trusted with the privileges granted by such a permit
B. The decision of the planning commission
shall. be set forth in a resolution which shall be
adopted within thirty days of the date of such deci-
sion and shall be final unless appealed in accor-
dance with the provisions of Section 17.02.080B of
5.12.090
the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. (Ord. 290
~ 1 (part),1986)
5.12.110 Fees.
The fee for an entertainment permit shall be
seventy-five dollars, payable annually on or before
January 1st of each and every year. Such permit
shall be in addition to any business license fee as
may be required by the business license law of the
city. However, for the year 1986, the fee for an en-
tertainment permit shall be the sum of. forty dollars .
payable upon submission of an application. (Ord. .
290 ~ 1 (part), 1986)
5.12.115 Annual renewal.
The applicant for every renewal of an entertain-
ment permit shall submit to the city manager, or his
designee, a written statement setting forth such
information conceming the applicanfs business
during the preceding year as may be required by
the city manager to enable him to ascertain
whether the information listed on their original en.
tertainment permit application has changed in the
past year. The city manager, or his designee, shall
review the information and determine if a modifica-
tion to the entertainment permit is warranted. The
planning commission shall review any such modifi-
. cation pursuant to the provisions of this chapter.
(Ord. 290A ~ 1, 1990)
5.12.120 Time for filing application.
All persons who will be presently required to file
for and obtain an entertainment permit by reason of
the provisions of this chapter shall have to and in-
cluding November 1, 1986. within which to file their
applications for an entertainment permit with the
city manager. (Ord. 290 ~ 1 (part), 1986)
5.12.130 Security guard required at
dances.
All persons conducting a publiC dance or any
entertainment where dancing by patrons or cus-
tomers is permitted. shall have in attendance at the
premises for the purpose of supervising the danc-
ing and the conduct of all patrons and customers, a
duly licensed and uniformed security guard at all
times such dancing is permitted or allowed. How-
ever, the provisions of this section shall apply only
to those establishments or premises where a dance
floor or dance area in excess of one hundred fifty
square feet is available or designated for dancing
95
II~ - 7'7
ADVERTISEMENT FROM MARGARITA BEACH
DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
EXHIBIT L
11?~r;o
"
ADVERTISEMENT/PHOTOS FROM RADIO STATION X-103.9
DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
EXHIBIT M
(/~~'8/
~,.,
PHOTOS PRESENTED BY THE PUBLIC AT THE JUNE 22,
2005, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
.
EXHIBIT N
118-ga--
, - . ,
Rancho Cucamomw Develovment Code
.
10. Sign age required for a recycling facility shall comply with the Sign Ordinance of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga and, where applicable, the approved uniform sign program for
the associated commercial use.
11. Recycling facilities, which ate operated by an on-site attendant and located w"hin 100
feet of a properly zoned or occupied for residential uses, shall operate only during the
hours 01.9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
~. Action of the City Planner.
1. The City Planner shall approve an application for a recycling facility provided the
application complies with each of the following requirements:
a. The recycling facility is certified, or has applied to be certnied, asa recycling
location pursuant to the Califomia Beverage Container Recycling and Litter
Reduction Act;
b. The operation of the recycling facility has presented a written authorization from
the property owner where the proposed recycling facility is to be located; and,
c. The recycling facility complies with all of the development standards as set forth
in this section.
2. Notwithstanding the foregoing,- the City Planner may deny an application for a recycling
facility n it is specnically found that the operation of the recycling facility will have a
detrimental effect on the public health, safety, or general wenare. In the case of any
such denial, the City Planner shall support the action with specnic written findings of
facts based on substantial evidence. .
F. Automatic Revocation. Any permit granted pursuant to the terms of this section shall be
deemed automatically revoked if the operator's recycling certificate is revoked or suspended
by the Calnomia Department of Conservation pursuant to the terms of the Califomia
Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act.
e
Section 17.04.090 - Adult Entertainment Business
A. puroose.
1. It is the intent of these regulations to prevent problems of blight and deterioration which
can be brought about by the concentration of adult entertainment businesses in close
proximity to each other or proximity to other incompatible uses such as schools for
minors, public parks, and residentially zoned districts. The City Council finds that" has
been demonstrated in various communities that the concentration of adult
entertainment businesses causes an increase in the number of transients in the area
and an increase in crime and can cause other businesses and residents to move
elsewhere. It is, therefore, the purpose of these regulations to establish reasonable
and uniform regulations to prevent the concentration of adult establishments or their
close proximity to incompatible uses, while permitting the location of adult businesses
in certa.in areas.
B. Definitions.
1. It is the intent of this Section that the definitions set forth in the Development Code
shall apply but only where they do not conflict with any definition set forth in this
Section.
2.
Establishment of an Adult Entertainment Business. As used herein, to "establish" an
adult entertainment business shall mean and include any of the following:
a. The opening or commencement of operation of any such business as a new
business.
e
o
17.04-15
619g
/~...~~
...-....." ~
Rancho Cucamonea Development Code
Section 17.04.090
e
C. Adult Mini-Motion Picture Theater. Shall mean a commercial establishment w~h
a capacity of more than 5 but less than 50 persons, used for the presentation,
exhibition, or display of films, motion pictures, video cassettes, slides, or similar
photographic reproductions projected on a screen, and in which a. substantial
portion of the presentation time is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis
on matter depicting, describing, or relating to "Specified Sexual Activities" or
'Specified Anatomical Areas.' .
d. Adult Motion Picture Arcade. Any place to which the public is permitted or invited
wherein coin or Slug-operated or electronically, electrically, or mechanically
controlled still or motion picture machines, projectors, or other image-producing.
devises are maintained to show images to five or fewer persons per machine at
anyone time, in which a substantial portion of the total presentation time of the
images so displayed are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
depicting or describing "Specified Sexual Activities' or 'Specified Anatomical
Areas.'
~'.,
e
e. Adult Drive-In Theater. An open lot or part thereof, with appurtenant facilities,
devoted primarily to the presentation of motion pictures, films, theatrical
productions, and other forms of visual productions, for any form of consideration
to persons in motor vehicles or on outdoor seats, in which a substantial portion of
the total presentation time of the material being presented is distinguished or
characterized by an emphasis on matter depicting, describing, .or relating to
'Specified Sexual Activities' or 'Specified Anatomical Areas' for observation by
patrons. .
f. Adult Cabaret. A nightclub, bar, restaurant, or similar establishment during which
a substantial portion of the total presentation time features live perlormances
which are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on 'Specified Sexual
Activities' or by exposure of "Specified Anatomical Areas' and/or feature films,
motion pictures, video cassettes, slides, or other photographic reproductions
which are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis upon the depiction or
description of 'Specified Sexual Activ~ies' or "Specified Anatomical Areas" for
observation by patrons.
g. Adult Motel or Hotel. A hotel or motel, or similar commercial establishment
Offering public accommodations for any form of consideration which provides
patrons with closed-circu~ television transmissions, films, motion pictures, video.
cassettes, slides, or other photographic reproductions, a substantial portion of
the total presentation time of which is distinguished or characterized by an
emphasis upon. the depiction or description of "Specified Sexual Activities' or
'Specified Anatomical Areas' for observation by patrons.
h. Adult Theater. A theater, concert hall, auditorium, or similar commercial
establishment either indoor or outdoor in nature which, for any form of
consideration, regularly features live performances, a substantial portion .of the
total presentation time of which is distinguished or characterized by an emphasis
on 'Specified Sexual Activities' or "Specified Anatomical Areas' for observation
by patrons.
i. Adult Model Studio. Any establishment open to the publiC where, for any form of
consideration or gratuity, figure models who display "Specified Anatomical Areas"
are provided to be observed, sketched, drawn, painted, sculptured,
photographed, or similarly depicted by persons, other than the proprietor, paying
such consideration or gratuity.
This provision shall not apply to any school of art which is operated by an
individual, firm, association, partnership, corporation, or institution which meets
the requirements established in the Education Code of the State of California for
e
17.04-17
6/99
/Ig-- 8'1
~.._, .
tit
.
.
Rancho Cucamonlla Develovment Code
Section 17.04.090
designed, or furnished for private sexual activity. No nudity or sexual activities by customers
shall be allowed on the premises. All portions of the premises shall be available by access
and visual inspection at all times by any City inspectors standing at the front door (not to
include eXisting and approved rest room facilities).
G. Adult Entertainment Zonina Permit Reauired. It shall be unlawful to establish or operate, or
cause or pemjitto be operated, any adult entertainment establishment without first obtaining
an adult entertainment zoning permit from the City Planner.
H. Permit Aoolication.
1. Any person, association, partnership, corporation, or other ent~y desiring to obtain an
adull entertainment zoning permit, shall file an application with the City Planner on a
form provided by the City Planner. The application shall be accompanied by a
nonrefundable application processing fee in the amount established by C~y Council
resolution. .
2. The application for a permit shall contain the following information:
a. The name, address, and telephone number of the applicant. If the applicant is a
corporation, the applicant shall set forth the name of the corporation exactly as
shown in its article of incorporation and the names and addresses of the officers,
directors, and each stockholder owning more than 10 percent of the stock of the
corporation. If the applicant is a partnership, the applicant shall set forth the
name and residence address of each of the partners, including. limited partners.
If one or more of the partners is a corporation, the provision of this Section
pertaining to a corporate applicant shall apply. The applicant corporation or
partnership shall designate one of its officers or general partners to act as its
responsible managing officer.
b. Name, address, and telephone number of the person who shall manage and
operate the establishment for which the perm~ is requested. The name and
address of a person authorized to accept service of legal notices.
c. The proposed business name of the adult entertainment establishment and
description of the type of adult establishment.
d. Street address of the proposed adult entertainment establishment and the tax
assessor's parcel number of the property.
e. A plot plan for the property depicting the location of the building housing the adult
entertainment establishment on the property.
f. If the adult entertainment establishment was in existence as of the effective date
of these re9ulations, the date the establishment first commenced operation.
g. Any other information reasonably necessary to accomplish the purposes of these
regulations.
3. Referral to Other Citv Deoartments. The City Planner may refer the application to other
City departments to determine whether the premises where the adult entertainment
establishment is located, or will be located, complies with the City's building, health,
zoning, and fire ordinances or other applicable ordinances or laws. City departments
may conduct an inspection of the premises to determine compliance with the
ordinances and laws they administer.
4. Action on Aoolication. The City Planner shall determine whether to grant or deny the
permit within 30 working days after receipt of a complete application.
17.04-19
6/99
II&' --g-~
f~ -, '. _
e
.
e
Rancho Cucamonea Development Code
Section 17.04.090
N. Violation and Penalties.
1. Criminal Violation. It shall be unlawful fot any person, firm, partnership, or corporation
to violate any provision or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Section.
Any person, firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Section or
failing to comply witt) any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor;
and upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding One Thousand
Dollars ($1,000) or by imprisonment not exceeding six months, or by both such fine
and imprisonment. Each such person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be
deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion thereof
during which violation of any of the provisions of this Section is committed, continued,
or permitted by such a person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed
punishable therefore as provided in this Section.
2. Civil Remedies Available. A violation of any of the provisions of this Section 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.
"
17.04-21
6/99
! /8 -- 8'b
RESPONSE FROM MR. DAVIDSON'S ATTORNEY
DISTRIBUTED UNDER SEPARATE COVER
EXHIBIT P
II~...-g?
.. .
TITLE 4
OEPAKI'MENT OF ALCOHOUC BEVERAGE CONTROL
143.2
142, Receiving Stolen Alcoholic Beverages; Ceillng Price Violations.
HISTORY:
1. Originally publisl1ed 3-22-45 (fide 4).
2. Repealer filed 9-11-47 (Regiller 9).
143. Employees of On-Sale Licensees Soliciting or Accepting Drinks.
No on-sale retail licensee shall pennitany employee of such licensee to Rolicit, in or upon
the licenKed premises, the purchase or sale of any drink, any part of which is for. or intended
for, the consumption or use of such employee, or to permit any employee of such licensee to
accep~ in or upon the licensed premises, any drink which haR beenpurchaKed or sold there,
any part of which drink is for, or intended for, the consumption or u.'lC of any employee.
It is not the intent or purpose of this rule to prohibit the long-established practice of a
licensee or a bartender accepting an incidental drink from a patron.
NOTE: Authority cited: Sections ;142005 and 25657, BIIii....s and Professions Cede.
HISTORY:
I. New section filed 5-25-54: effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 54. No. 12).
2. Amendment filed 7-12-72; designated effective 8-)4-72 (Register 72. No. 29).
;
4,.,
143.1. Employment of Minors in Public Premises.
NOTE: Authority cited: Section 25750. Busine&S and Professions Code. and Section 22. Article XX.
Califo~ia Constitution.
HISTORY:
I. New .ection filed 4.18-62; desigllllled effective 5-21-62 (Register 62. No.8).
2. Repealer filed 7.12-72; designated effectiva g-I4-72 (Register n. No. 29).
043:2. Attire and Condii'd::)
The following acts or conduct on licensed premises are deemed contrary to public welfare
and morals, and therefore no on-sale license sball be held at any premises where such conduct
or acta are permined:
(I) To employ or use any pel1lon in the sale or service of alcoholic beverages in or UpoD
the licensed premises while such pel1lOn is unclothed or in such attire, costume or clothing as
to CXJlOSe to view any portion of the female breast below. \be top of the areola or of any
portion of the pubic hair, anus, cleft of the bullocks. vulva or genitals.
(2) To employ or use the services of any hostess or other pe'rson to mingle with the pattons
while such bostess or other pel1lon is unclothed or in such attire. costume or clothing as
described in paragraph (1) above.
(3) To encourage or permit any pel1lOD on the licensed premises to touch. caress or fondle
the breasts. bullOCks, anus or genitals of any other pel1lOD.
(4) To permit any employee or pel1lOn to wear or ose any device or covering, exposed to
view, which simulates the breast. genitals, anus, pubic hair or any portion thereof.
If any provisiOn of this rule or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held
invalid. such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of the rule which can
be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisiollll of
this rule are severable.
NOTE: Authority eired: Sectiun 25750, BIlSinelS and Professions Cede and Section 22 of Art. XX.
California Constitution. Refe:reocc: Section 23001, Business and Professions Code.
HISTORY:
1. New Se<:tion 143.2 filod 7-9-70; designared effective 8-1Q.70 (Register 70. No. 28).
353
eX
/18 -,gg
<;Cl'r/
1S;:S0 18.... 606
to .:l0 31tllS
8S;: : ~n S00C-OC-Nnf
... .~
143.3 __._ OPPARTMF.NT OF ALCOHOUC BSVERAGE CONTROL TITLE 4
~.- -
(~. Entertainers and Conduct.
Acts or conduct on li premtses in violation of this role are deemed t'Ontrary to public
welfare and morals, and therefore no on-sale license shall be held at any premises where such
conduct or acts are pennined.
Live entertainment is pelOlitted on any licensed premises, except that
(1) No licensee sball pencit any person to perform acts of or acts which simulate:
(a) Sexual intercourse, masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, oral copulation, flagellation or
any sexual acts which are prohibited by law. '
(b) The touching, caressing or fondling on the breast, buttocks, anus or genitals.
(c) The displaying of the pubic hair, anus, vulva or ge.uita1s.
(2) Subject to the provisions of subdivision (1) hereof, entertainers wbose breasts and/or
buttocks are exposed to view sball perfolOl only upon a stage at least 18 inches above the
immediate floor level and removed at \east six feet from the ne,""st pabOn.
No licensee shall pennit any person to use artificial devices or inanimate objects to depict
any of the prohibited activities described above.
No licensee shall pennit any person to. remain in or upon the licensed premises who
exposes to public view any portion of his or her genitals or an...
If any provision of this role or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held
invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application of the role which can
be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of
this role are seveJ1lhle.
NOTE: Authority cited: Seaion 2.S7~O. Business and ProfessiODI Code and Section 22 of Arl xx. Calif.
Constitution. Refcreoce: See. 23001. Bus. & Prof. Code.
HlS'TORY: .
1. New oection filed 7-9-70: designaled effective 8-HI.70 (Regislol7o. No. 28).
2. Entrapment--OfflCel' aaIcing whether "more skin" wiD be shown duriug lap dance does not constitute
entrapment Ikpar17M1ll of Alcohol BevertlBf! Control v. Alcohol &vm:Jge COIIlml App~Qls BOtJrrl
(4805 Convoy) 100 Cal. App, 4th t066.
143.4. VIsual Displays.
NOTE: Authority cited: section ~7SO. Business and Professions Code and Section 22 of Art. xx. Calif.
Coostiollion. Ref.......: Sec. 23001, BOI, & Prof. Code,
mSTORY:
I. New section filed 7-9-70; designaled effective 8-1().70 (Register 70, No. 28).
2. Repealed. Repealer filed 1-1-2001.
143.5. Ordin9n_
Notwithstanding any of the provisions of Rules 143.2, 143.3 and 143:4, no on-sale licensee
shall employ, use the services of, or permit upon his licensed premises. any entertainment or
person so allired as to be in violation of any city or county ordinance.
NOTE: Authority oiled: Section ~750, BOlin... and Profesaions Code and Section 22 of An. XX, Calif.
Coostitution. RefereDCl:: Sec. 23001, Bu.. & Prof. Code.
IDSTORY:
I. New secti.. filed 7-9-70; designaled effective 8-10-70 (Register 70. No. 28).
144. Gambling Stamps.
NOTE: Authority oiled: Sections 24200 and ~750. Boslne&s and Professions Code; Section 22, Article
XX. California Coostitution.
mSTORY:
I, New section filed 1()'30.59: designaled effective t1-3()'59 (Regi.t<r 59, No, 18).
2. Repealer filed 12~8: delignaled effeotive 1-8-69 (Regist<r 68, No. 46),
354
! /8 -'8j
T.....-n TO J Cr.\C.
1:0 ~ 31tllS
6~:IH SOO2:-OC-Nf1f
'.
.
CIIY ()f RANCHO CUCAMONGA
.....
..
,
HB 012005
RECEIVEr) - PLANNING
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
(909) 477-2750
.
APPLlCA TION FOR AN
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT
Please check if this submittal is for a: D New Application or X Annual Renewal
~ I' t' P L. . ,- .' '.
.,..pp Ica Ion rocer-'ure "" ., ,
<,
This Entertainment Permit application shall be completed and submitted. Planning staff will evaluate the
completeness and accuracy of the information submitted. The City Planner shall determine if the permit
complies with each of the City's Codes and Ordinances prior to scheduling the project for Planning
Commission consideration.
Applicants for Entertainment Permits shall complete the following questionnaire:
I
1. Information about the applicant(s):
J-t~ik DaV\~"':::'<'~
Name
1\ - ;).8 .$"8
Date of Birth
'S') ~- d"~ - Lc j '(<..1
Social Security Number
J...ISOtfV3Q
Califomia Driver's License No.
"'KLf t.l- ('.Arn ~^'t y f-I i),e,Jr.
Street Address
.r2.lJkfCho tt.tClOooJ3a '1/130
City, State, & Zip
'JO<'i-4?c.1- cons
Phone Number
2. The proposed and/or current name of the business:
J-l Al2.cb Ar2. \.,.~ ~~Ac...h
,
JoSE 50. k too I,~
Name
c.::l ~~- l?
I -".i ') - ()..;
Date of Birth
.J19-qo-l.t,~~9
Social Security Number
~I '1 cq 'S c.I S 3'"
Califomia Driver's License No.
'alp., I I.JI Id.::e Ll~:S:J Dr.
Street Address
A- \ +-1:2 l...-onla c...a. . CY 1131
City, State & Zip
qcA . ~2.1-S .qo49
Phone Number
3.
The name, date of birth, Social Security Number, California Driver's License Number, address, and
phone number of all persons responsible for the management or supervision of applicant's business
and of any entertainment and provide the following information about each one:
<R
//9' --- ~O
1:IPLANNINGIFINALIFORMSICOUNTERIENTPERMT.APP.doc REV 11/14/04
Page 1013
.
.
,
~.-
.. . .....
8. Whether or not the applicant or any person responsible for the management or supervision of
applicant's business has been, within the previous ten years, convicted of a crime, the nature of such
offense, and the sentence received therefor including conditions of parole or probation, if any:
"
Llo!Jt::
9. Whether or not the applicant has ever had any permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of
alcohol or provision of entertainment revoked, including the date thereof and name of the revoking
agency:
t-.lut....\f
"
,
--:;
/
~
-----
-=
Signature of Applicant(s :
Pleaseprintname(s): :::f"oS(' $Am bo l : 0
UAlk Oo.~\d.s~
Date: II ~O lo~
Permit Fees:
New Application..... ~........................................................................................................ .$3,753
Annual Renewal........................................................................................................... C:..... $75 '")
Any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of material fact in the
required application shall begrC:>Lmds for denial of the application for an
entertainment p~rmit. .
/18/9/
1:IPLANNINGIFINALIFORMSICOUNTERIENTPERMT.APP.doc 11/14/04
Page 30f3
CITY OF RANCHO GUCAfv10NGA
FEB 07 2005
To: Brad Buller, City Planneq:(ec~~hQ F~~~a
CC: Mayor Bill Alexander, Council Members, City Attorney, City Manager, City
Clerk, Police Chief, Fire Chief
From: Residents living on the 9700 and 9800 block ofEstacia Ct, the 8000 block of
Pasito Ave, the 8000 Block of London Ave, the 8000 Block of Malvern Ave, the
8000 Block of Ramona Ave and the 9800 & 9900 Blocks of Foothill Blvd, and
The Pines Mobile Home Park at 9999 Foothill Blvd.
Date: 2/6/2005
Re: Quality'ofLife Issues Related to the Operation of the Bar named Margarita Beach
(formerly named Margarita Ville) as discussed at City Council Meeting on February
2,2005.'
At your request to Ed Sanchez on Thursday, February 3, 2005, we, the undersigned
residents of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby formerly:
1. Request City Staff conducts an Investigation of the Level of Services required by the
Police Dept (review any filed police reports) and the Fire Marshall for the bar now named
Margarita Beach and fonnerly named Margarita Ville, which is located at 9950 Foothill
Blvd.
2. Request City Planning or Code Enforcement staff conducts a Review of the Conditional
Use Pennit issued to Margarita Beach! Margarita Ville and any other permits issued for the
business operations.
3. Request City Staff prepares Ii written Report to present to the Planning Commission, the
City Council, and the concerned Residents, who initiated this investigation, at the second
City Council meeting in March 2005.
s
Ilg~93
Signatures of Residents requesting the Rancho Cucamonga City
staff to conduct an investigation into Margarita Ville/Beach.
Name/Print
Address
~o--'/!r11..D :Ym'CHr7-/
"
.-
, OLS~
-, t-I1!!
(' n{<../ ~
3e~ lA )C\...1.-1<'; AI':>
rye) l(.'( (-Ll
&~'1c.r>- K ~ ) e 7 .
$1 If"-
5ttAtJ~ r &rv-E ~d ?k)fl pflS(tn IWt- ~i;:-~L
9??kO c<;{cU:'t'<. [II. &11 Lvnd:f&~
qgfl t;~f.:tc(~c-t. ':f-~ ~
9Yi/ Fs1c.C-.i<.. ~-r (~)/Ji~~
I/t "'lV
""L
Address
Signature
N arne/Print
~.
OCCl!'o,q Co.R.;$'\
77/)o.rle/le Lf'o// ~() 3.3 h;nC/l~ flu:> -=d- /# 7>>7j/.tloy
11/e"~ 9",.,s-f/7,bt'l S'o33 I!dmcnK AP -",,;-,.Jcfg~~
11~ ml-:f,(}/ 5033 ~(JnO\ rtve-J} I~
160.\11 AlId€~0 33gb Lv; )5m ct.
C' M' 0 . l ~ \1',/1-r~--7:k.---
jah1 . _ouJ5aVI" C;:-o?,2. IA5/vo .k~. .'
'( g--O.;kl' Sl'roACAE ~~
-
tJtJ Iff' C. Q... ~
~OIO PR61TO f\\!G ~ c~C~ ~r
Ke-cn-\ \^'\lLLER %o\\. f().."3\'tU A.I.1E ~c ~~.u-...
fl..J- r-iQ..LJ<l1tJ~ Y"fi9q Fo~1~;f1 Oc. ?cd:: 5+{}~
Op ",.J r>1c, d...-> er-' '77"/9 p.. ).1,,.)) fi)v). ii/J(, #~ ~
?
///~ /'
(/
. \ fJI \~n IS l-IAN
118/9.)'
Name/Print
Address
Signature
Donn~\t;s qqqq Fo~{ II B(tXJ #/L(b ~ ~~
'L ~m~~
/1 ~I e IV l IYlA'Llpef/ qqq1 E "(jof, LL /'1".1l
~-1 ~ :){C}\ l .-r; t/ /\ _ f\ \I C'.f ~
.>/!; 9 rfJ.~
()s lE fL f] ~ 7T 19 9~ (oc-th//g/v,), . ' , ...
~L.'r>~ 9f1vf';--cr[2c.~
/ I~ /96
.
'?/PlEfe;A/rei) /9"7" rife:.
, .~/.;z..2/t?o /,~,v/'J/^J e~...,.
. ~e~#1
We the undersigned hereby ask the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to consider revoking or suspending Margarita Beach's
Permits for being a public nuisance, repeatedly disturbing the peace,
not abiding by the Law, and encouraging public Drunkenness.
Name: L)/a Y1 0. 1/117 C ~Yl_:r
Address: (0 C';)... 9 ;;; S 7'0... C I 0.. Sr
if ~ 1;1u.~.J1..
Name: \)n tJf\Ly
Address:_( 001q t9'1"A(/J!j
Name: ,,-It!) c- c4 /f-.I? C / 4-
36120 e /(-vn 1.3"e /ct'~ e- /f t/ e-
Address:A'.A7VC/./61 t!uC..-?'/?'Jorl bA t?4- 9/7gc)
,.
Name: f~..t c. I/I.JA LT 0 "-,
Address:<jfn/~ ~Jb11'J?~//)ke & 1/73lJ
Name:~~
Address: ~ Ib
r ALOEM
CNM.~ tl~t Av6 M- '1n~
Name: vjViltN NltNTROl<-f/ -Y~/I /1~__
or
Adilress:Soo1 (!frlYl8PjP~~ ,t}-I6. CA. o/J1!JO
/18 ---97
.. Name:' f'1/171 f;;7tP)0 .~ gut ~~~~.
. Address: 7rrtJ {!Mbf-,/A~[ I};Je~ !:,{?
Name: p~S '\ ((f ~,aw\ (l 1> ~t/\Y))C. ~yenD
Address: L~ 8 0 ~MD(i olje Ave. (( .r I ~31)
Name: IJ Ltif tt/ f1Lc~(c: t4 >""
Address: 77 77 C4#?gk'/~ /2//# 12 C.
'.
Name: 4.,./ -;<:./ c 4"/(./
I .,
Address: 7C170 Co.,."b,:cj.... Ave..
NameCP:>~~ rf\v..()~r'\
Address: 7C1C, -, C' AA/\."o- ~J..lL ~~
Name:_~\r~MUf1;;,\)y\
Address:~J{il () nWo'4 A~. (Z,C
Name: 1), C\. \'\-L Lufl \J CUAD
Address: ~q ~S- ~tr\A.-\.o\f"'\J~o O~ Q.@ qrZSn
Name: f\.. L
Address: IqS~
,~ Ve\) 0-. v\.;{)
~LUnl{'l&g-(? Ade
lCl C1 O"X)
I It - f&
. .
Name:
\r.,t\/J.]<An u")P}
LIJ"\s 0 \Q3(J
,
Address:
Name:
q~
Address: 7'1~ ct\M~JI)6& A'-I , . UNCl!-O ~N6A-1 C,(+.. q r730
,
...--;- "'
Name: 1//7(;1-- tJ/b/Y~
Address: 7Cf'1.) lCiMhrl ~-L lU{ J UZ. L.
Name: 3~W S;u."cle.~ :KLL
~/
Address: 79'1j Ct/nk/~0V'2 RC 9/7Jo
I
Name: M",~ 1r-p.p-eli>m-J
Address: 773cf ~ I.:-.Il~'( ~ (C...C, 0, 17 J,6
Name: .a..1i!J1AH1Y t)pp p t ('1 ~
Address: 7'(3 'f L......br:.& '10 five. 1!"'A d~ C v.--C.t>-.monyA cjJ, 9/'110
Name: iCdb:N $p :t.l,);,ioj
Address: 7r Jt./ C-""'I'l h ~:.J'j' '" /lV,. 1?OJ"lf' J.. tU.CuJVIOYly <L e/I. 'i'i>.Jc!>
Name7rAche112 To ~ ,
Address:-:p/~3 (;(/f VYlhy,dtfr Av~ (2{AYlIhoClALA""~f
. 0oe\\t R~(lUtL qrr~C)
10D20 <2~ ~.. ROf\CY\O ('uCCA(Y\OV\JGl
trf\ , 0\ \ 7~C
Ili---91
"("-,,/1"- ~"I\~)r
IOOrD ~{f~~ 5+, t"l\<;lto ('1t73~
/-J'izt ~h1 ;("(;2'
/tJtJ70 Elfeh S-I }2anDM~, q/73()
D-ebbl~ S lt1enS-t:.h
/009'0 ~d. 1/ C. (},q.Cj/7:Sv
abh Ch~is ;4rojpe,r>
100".:11 ~ Sf. R.c.' elf ""'fl-;"!.!'
'10' '.
'.
//8/IOb
,
EXHIBITS L, M, N, AND P
EXHIBIT C2
'Pc I J;3/0(
/lg'(IJ;
Ir~'~
L.AW OFFICES
WESTON. GARROU. DEWITT Iil WALTERS,
,JOHN H. WESTON':
CLYDE OEWITT,.4$
G. RANDALL GARRO.U'*
MARK P. BINOEA1:t -
A ....ATNI:RS...IP 0' lI>RO,.ItSS.ONAl.. BUSINESS ENTITies
0" COUNSel-
CATHY E. eAOSSONI~
... DALE MANICO""
JOSEPH P. WOHRLE'.
WIL.SHIRC BUNDY PLAZA
12121 WILSHIAE eOULEVARD. SUITE 900
LOS ANCELES. CALIFORNIA 90025-1168
FAX (~IOJ ........2-0e9S
(310) 442-0072
"..CAIDA O""ICE
L.AWAENCE G. WAL TEAS..
MARC oJ. AANOAZZAa..
,
'81 DOUOLAS AVENUE
ALTAMONTE SPRINOS. P''' 32'.....21588
,. AX 14071 7,....e'Sf
1...071 :'88"'1528
I .-cMmm'" c.roul'OANlA
1.frOMIT1I:DINP'LORIDt.
.3.-cMrnED IN INOUIHA
. oiIlDMlTTEO IN 1EXAS .
SADMnTmIN ~""-.-"ISEn8
* .. CllUl"OAN.... ~..ESSlOMAL COAPQAA1'ION
. AI"LOAIC>>. PAOI'I$SfONAl. ASSCIOA~
July 22, 2005
SAN OIEOO O,.....C.
1208 oJ STAEET, SUITE.
SAN OIEOO. CA 82101-'1&00
,. AX 18.81 238-'717
eele. 232-3288
i,:- ...',. ',.',::",:::'-.'>',:. :.
I 'Cc.'.J::itY,'~~ '
I . ...;.: :." ':..1 aClt .;.t.8m~:;. ..r.::~:' :.
i' ,':<.JmMarltm8n"
!, ,;' ':BJ"ad';Bu1J.er', ,
Oty Oerk for the Oty i' ".:;'1>elib1e:MaIIII!"
of Rancho Cucamonga ; :>:::J,01e,Schrader
10560 Ovic Center Drive I ':
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 9173D-3801 '
VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS
AIRBILL # 7911 4652 6403
'~;,
o,f:f"E,',81=D
i1ttWw .. V_
JUL 25 D
em' OF RANCHO Cl.JCAMONGf.
crrv CLERK
Re: ' Notice of Appeal from dedsion of City Planning Commission rendered on
July 13, 2005 adopting resolutions 05-50 and 05-51
Dear Oty Oerk:
UndersignedcoWlSel represent Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures, Inc.
d/b/a Margarita Beach, located at 9950 West Foothill Blvd. in Rancho Cucamonga, and
hereby file this Notice of Appeal to the Rancho Cucamonga Oty Council from the
dedsion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission adopting Planning"
Commission resolution nos. 05-50 and 05-51 at its meeting of July 13, 2005, and imposing
therein various new operational resbictions on our client's business. This matter
appeared on the Planning Commission's agenda of July 13, 2005 as item H under its
Public Hearings section, entitled "Conditional Use Permit 88-45 and Entertainment
Permit 91-03 -' Margarita Beach."
We have been informed that the required appeal fee is $1,764 and a check in that
amount is enclosed herein for that purpose.
This appeal is based upon numerous grounds, including, among others, factual,
legal, equitable, jurisdictional, and constitutional grounds.
This appeal is taken pursuant.to the procedural provisions of RCMC g 17.02.08D-B.
However, as that provision does not specify the details of the appellate procedure, we
are assuming that we will hereafter be provided an opportunity, following preparation
of the minutes and record for the Planning Commission's hearing of July 13, 2005, to
EXHIBIT 0
\ Cc
"
I' rJ'~ n.- \
I -- I -f..J J )
I' ~
//g /!c;l
LAW OFFICES
WESTON. GARROU 8 DEWITT
A PARTNERSHIP 0" PRO"ESSIONAL. BUSINESS ENTrTIES
City Oerk
July 22, 2005
Page 2
obtain a copy of that record and to thereafter provide the City Council with appellate
papers presenting all of the relevant factual, legal and other arguments upon which this
appeal will be baseq. Please advise as to whatever briefing schedule shall apply, ,
including the time for submission of any reply brief as well. '. '
Also, please be so kind to inform us, with as much notice as possible, of the time,
. date and location of any hearing to be held in connection with this appeal. Thank you
for your help in providing us with this informatiOn. " ,,'
",
. ,
Sincerely,
JOHN H. WESTON '
G. RANDALL GARROU,
, WESTON, GARROU,DEWI'IT & WALTERS
JAMES V. REISS "'
. REISS & JOHNSON /'
10535 Foothill Blvd., S' 410
Ran.cho Cucamon~ 91730
ON
for appellant
GRG:sb, ,
LRG6427.WP
, encl.
/;8 ,/ ? .,}..-
Sap-IS-ZOOS ,IZ:46pm From-
T-T43 P, OOZl004 F-ZZ3
\,.AW Of'FICE5
WESTON. GARROU. DEWITT Iii WALTERS
OI'"C:QU"'~
CATMY E. CROSSON":I'
A. DALE: ....ANICO...'
.Ig:;~"'''' p. WO~RIo.CI
"PARTI'tEASI1IP Of ..",Or'D.IONAl.. ",u~rHC;$& E...TITlI:S
WILSHIRe; BUNgy P~ZA
12121 WILSHIR~ BOUL~ARD. SUITE: 900
LOS ANCELES. CALIFOkN'A 90025-1168
F"AX (310) .....e.-Oeas
1~IQJ ......iI-QQ7a:
1"1.ORlgA OFFICE
LAW.:we:NCI: G. WALTERS..
""ARC; oJ. RANDAZZAC"
?Ol DOUGLAS AvENUE
ALTAMON"'~ $Pf'INGS. F'L ~Z714-2!S66
FAX 1_0" "+ems'
14071 3sg-4.$I!!Qo
.....0....,.. ". WC:;'TQ~'*
CLyDE C~WITT""S
G. RANQAlo.L GARROU'f
MAR"" P. SINO.:JillII.J
1~1"0lIUrtMW\l1A
zACfotlTl'E:DIN I'\DlInQA.
.) AQMITRD IN INDIANA
4~IN~
6.t.Qtot1'rTW1"~
* ,. CtoI,.IrQl'If'o~ ~~E:::5StQlol,ll&,. CORl'ORIIo1IOJt
. ,. ~ pqorg;s.o"""" A6&OOATlOfIf
September 15, 2005
5AN DIEGO Ofl'l"'lCC:
IZOS .J S'l"Alt~T. Glo,UT5 B
SAN DIEGO, CA Q!;lo...nOo
FAX IGI91 2.3l>1"'.7
IOlel Z3~-.3Z55
TRANSMlll1llJ ON nus DATE
VIA FAX TO: (909) 477-2846 and (909) 477.2847;
ORIGINAL SENT TODAY BY MAIL
Hon. Mayor William J. Alexander and
Hon. MemberS of City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.3801
Re: Appeal of Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures. Inc. dba Margarita Beach from
Regular Meeting July 13, 2005 of the City at Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission, Adoption of Resolution Nos. 05-50 and 05-51, New Conditions on
~ting Entertainment Permit and Conditional Use Pennit
REQllBSTFOR RESCHEDULING OF HEARING ON APPEAL PRESENTLY
SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 5, 2005
Dear Mayor Alexander and Council Members:
I write on behalf of our above-captioned client ("Restaurant Ventures") whom we represent in the
above-captioned administrative appeal to the City Council. SPECIFICALLY, I RESPECTFUllY
REQUEST A RESCHEDULING OF TIlE HEARING ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CITY
COUNCIL PRESENTIY SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 5.2005, UNTIL A LATER DATE
CERTAIN TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCn.., PREFERABLY FOR
NOVEMBER 16, 2005.
The notice of appeal was timely filed and requests for the record of the prior proceedings were timely
and properly submitted. I am informed and believe, and on that basis so srate, that prior cOllllSel for
Restaurant Ventures (my current co.counsel in this maner) received what we believe to be the last of
the record materials - the written record and recorded tapes of relevant proceedings - on or about
August 17dl. My office received the materials (which had wisely been copied to avoid the risk ofloss
of what otherwise would have been the only available copy of the record) on August 26m. Both since
receiving the record, and before, we have been quite diligent in our attempts to undersltand the
EXHIBIT E (cc ((-O;1-<JO
//~ 193
Sep-15-Z005 IZ:46pm From-
T-T43 P,003/004 F-ZZ3
L.AW OFF"IC:;E5
WESTON. G^RROU. DEWITT e W^LTERS
.. P6A'T"''iJtSl''llP OF' PROFESSIONAl.. BUSINess ~NTITI~S
Hon. Mayor William J. Alexander and
Hon. Members of City Council
September 15, 2005
Pa~e 2
complexities of the situation, attempt to craft a suitable approach to permit resolution of the matter
and, in the unhappy alternative, perfect and proceed with this appeal.
'.
In order to fully understand the underlying issues and properly address them in all re~pects, I
requested and was graciously afforded a meeting with City Planning Department sraff Planning
Department (Messrs. Buller, Coleman and Diaz) and Deputy City Attorney D. Craig Fox, on Augu.st
31, 2005, at Rancho Cucamonga City Hall. The meeting was extensive, wide-ranging and productive.
City staff were very gracious in responding to my inquiries and made helpful procedural and practical
suggestions. Amongst other things, staff requested that any written materials we plan to submit to the
City Council in connection with the appeal be presented [Q staff ten days before the hearing date, so
d1at staff could evaluate the materials and include a summary of and response to those materials in
the staff repOrt co the City Council, which must be flied the Wednesday before a City Council
meeting. We do intend to file written materials, which under the present schedule, in order to
accommodate staffs request, would have to be in staff's lk'1.Ild on or before Friday, September 23, 2005.
Staff made the excellent suggestion that we meet with the concerned residents in order to obtain both
[heir current perspectives on the situation as well as to obtain their feedback regarding various
amelioranve.,procedures and proposals we are consideripgcpwposing ro the City Gaunci!. WC9f
course agreed, but in order to conven general approaches intO sufficiently precise plans aud'
procedures such that the residents could properly evaluate them aDd. to give adequate notice to the
residents so that all those who wish to attend would be aware of the proposed meeting, we realistically
were not able co schedule it until Saturday, October I, 2005. While that date will give adequate time
for us to finalize our work and be able to give adequate notice to the residents, it will occur much roo
late to be able to report to staff and/or to fine tune any!:hing in response to the residents' input for the
October .5'h hearing. Notices co !:he residents will be distributed and/or sent this week.
It is obvious that this matter is of considerable importance both corny client and to the concerned
residents. It is equally obvious dlat Restaurant Ventures has taken this matter seriously and continues
to take it seriously - and has worked hard to endeavor to respond to the concerns in real and
constructive ways. It also appears to me that this is not a situation where the relevant business has in
any way ignored the complaints or in any way thumbed its nose at either the residents or the City.
Rather, the business has tried very hard to be responsive and to act as both a good neighbor and
corpora te citizen.
Iff '/9f
Sep-15-2005 12:46pm From-
7-743' P.004/004 F-223
LAW OFFICE:$
WESTON. CARROU. DEWITT a WALTERS
. ....AT,....~S'"'.p 0'" PPOPCES6tO,.",1.. BuS,,".E:SS I!:NTIT..E:S
Hon. Mayor William]. Alexander and
Hon. Members of City Council
September 15,2005
Page 3
The practical reality is that we cannot complete our w.sl( in time for an Ocwber Srit hearing. We see our
job as two-fold, ro attempt to harmonize the discotd and achieve a resolution of the situation, and
failing that, to represent our client in the appeal procedure. Neither need be hostile nor adversarial;
however, both must be thorough. It is obviously ro everyone's advantage, that we obtain relevant
input from as many concerned residents as possible, and then integrate those comments intO our
proposals. We then want to present our materials to staff suffiCiently in advance of the hearing, so
that staff can do its work and present its summary and report to Council well in advance.
Given the long history of this matter, the length of the prior proceedings, and the importance of this
matter to all concerned, I request that enough time be given us to be able to evaluate the issues, get
appropriate feedback from the residentS and City staff, and do our own legal and general analyses and
preparation of our materials - all in an effort ro craft or obtain a resolution of these issues.
In light of the above, and given that we were not previously involved with this matter, I respectfully
request that the hearing before the Council be rescheduled for November. I understand that there are
meetings scheduled for November 2 and 16.
Accordingly, and for all the foregoing reasons, we,respe,ctfully request a rescheduling of this,ma~r._ '
for November 16, 2005, or such later time as may be convenient for the City and the residents.
Please be assured that my diem and I are committed to making this work for everyone and that this
requested additional time is solely for the stated purposes and not for the purpose of delay. We thank
you in advance for your anticipated undemanding.
Respectfully submitted,'
,...."..,
WESTON, GARROU, DeWI'];f"& WALTERS
By
]HW:km
cc: City Attorney
Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner (via fax & e-mail)
Michael Paul Diaz, Senior Planner (via fax & e-mail)
D. Craig Fox, Esq. (via U.S, Mail & e-mail)
Client (via e-mail)
James V. Reiss, Esq. (1Jia e-mail)
K:IWPtlU\JW\200'\SIWDIJ4.L-M':'yOf and Cif)' COWIC;J.K:lIICho Cucmaap..dac'
Ilg'l9s
INTEROFFICE MEMO
r:d
DATE October 3,2005
FROM Paul Morrison, Sergeant
Rancho Cucamonga Station
TO Pete Ortiz, Captain
Rancho Cucamonga Station
PHONE (909)477-2800
SUBJECT MARGARITA BEACH CALLS FOR SERVICE 061005 -100305
"
The following is a breakdown of the 38 calls for service related to Margarita Beach from
June 10, 2005 through October 3, 2005.
Call tyoe Calls Reoorts
Bar check/pedestrianltraffic stops 14 0
Assaults 3 1
Drunk in publicI DUI 0 0
Disturbing the peace 15 1
Other 5 0
Total 38 2
Total calls initiated by police
approximately 14
, EXHIBIT F
~c 1/-0;2 -a::,)
/18 -1f{t.
Police Inc# #RC052130017
Page lof1
Detailed History for Police Inc# #RC052130017 As of 9/08/200517:16:43
Priority:2 Type:415 - DISTURBANCE
Location:MARGARIT A VILLE BAR,RCC at 9950 FOOTIDLL BLVD,RCC
LocCross' btwn RAMONA AVE and HERMOSA AVE
ICreated: 1108/01l200500:41:261IECI611G25691
IEntered: 1108/011200500:42:10IlECI61IG25691
IDispatch: 1108/0112005 00: 44: 0811EC0511c48021
IEnroute: 1108/01l200500:50:011IEc05I1c48021
IOnscene: 1108/0112005 00:50:011IEC051IC48021
IControl: 1108/01l200500:59:461IEc05I1c48021
IClosed: 1108/011200501:28:281IM197IIB7125!
PrimeUnit:llPl2 Dispo:RTF Type:415 - DISTURBANCE
lnf:CHP Phone: InfAdd:LEAH
Jur:RC Group:RC Beat:RC3 RD:RC030
Case #:RCR0510339 0 Detail
00:41:26 CREATE Location:MARGARITAVILLE BAR,RCC Type:415lnf:CHP lnfAdd:LEAH Group:RC
RD:RC030 TypeDesc:DISTURBANCE LocDesc:at 9950 FOOTHILL BLVD,RCC
LocCross:btwn RAMONA AVE and HERMOSA AVE Priority:2 Response: IP AT Jur:RC
Map:603 lA LocType:C
00:42:10 ENTRY Text:RP IS 97 ON 415, C4, MEDS ENRT REF SUBJ PUTTING ARM TURU A WINDOW
00:42:10 -PREMIS Text:OCC, PHZ, PPR, ALR
00:42:13 NOMORE
00:42:45 -SELECT
00:43:53 HOLD
00:44:08 DISP II S6 Operator:D0719 OperNames:DECECIO,ANTHONY,RC
00:44:08 -PRIU II S6
00:50:01 ONSCN llS6
00:59:46 OK 11 S6
01:03:46 BACKOS llP12 CalSgn:llS6 Operator:B7125 OperNames:SCOTT,HOWARD,RC
01:04:39 *CHANGE IIP12 Location:MARGARITA VILLE BAR,RCC->MARGARITA VILLE BAR,RCC
Type:415->415 CAS:O
11 P12 Case#:RCR0510339
11 S6 Text:INQillRY VEH,4CGG490"",,,,,,,
I1S6 Text:INQillRY VEH,4APG337""""",
11 PI2
IIS6 Case#:RCR0510339
IIPI2 Text:INQillRY SNS,CURRY ,MATTHEW,LLOYD,M"W,20"X,x,x""""
llP12
llPI2 Dispo:RTF Case#:RCR0510339 Text:AFTER STARTING A FIGHT SUBJECT
NEWTON, MICHAEL 052277 WAS PUSHED THROUGH A WINDOW...
01 :04:39 *CASE
01:15:20 *RFf
01 :15:35 *RFf
01:17:21 PRIU
01:17:24 CLEAR
01:17:54 'RFf
01:20:47 OK
01:28:28 'CLEAR
01:28:28 -CLEAR
01 :28:28 'CLOSE
--r?l l/t_~ P, A"-z..
, L/ (l11~ '
pLA"':>f.J {rJ~
(ec 1(,0)-0'))
EXHIBIT G
II~ '7??
9/8/2005
https://170.164.167 .228/PRD7 /Html/SystemDocs/CADInterface.aspx?IHQ+%23RC052130c...
14 .',
LAW OFFICES
WESTON. GARROU. DEWITT S WALTERS
JOHN H. WESTON'*
CLYDE: DEWITT""';
G. RANDALL GARROU'*
MARK P. BINDER1;
A PARTNERSHIP 0.. PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ENTITIES
01" COUNSEL
CATHY E. CROSSON1.31
A. CAL!: MANICD"'"
JOSEPH P. WOHRLE1
WILSHIRE BUNDY PLAZA
1212/ WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 900
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90025-1168
FAX (310) 442-0e99
(3101 442~0072
I"I.ORIDA OP'P'ICE
LAWRENCE G. WAL. TERS."
MARC .J. RANDAZZA2,.
781 DOUGLAS AVENUE
ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, 1"1.. 327/4-25ee
"AX '....071 774-61151
'4071 3ee-4S2lit
I ADMITTED IN c..&Jl'ORNlA
2AOMITTED IN I"LORICIIll
3 ADMI'TTED IN INOlNUIl
... ADMITTED IN TDAS
!5.-.oM1TTED IN MA55ACHUSC1TS
* A CALIFORNIA PROF"E$SJONAL CORPORATION
. of. F\..ORIDA PRO~sroNAl.. ASSOCIATION
SAN DIEGO OP'P'ICI!t
1205 oJ STREET, SUITE B
SAN DIEGO. eoi' lit210'-7500
"AX USlal 23lit-1717
18lgJ 232-3255
"
INVITATION
to
Margarita Beach Community Meeting
September 22, 2005
Re: Saturday, October 1, 2005, 2:00 p.m.
9950 West Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Margarita Beach Neighbor:
I am new counsel for Margarita Beach in connection with its relationship with the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, and indirectly, with you. I have been retained to deal with the recent
changes in Margarita Beach's conditional use and entertainment permits.
I have reviewed the file, and as part of the familiarization process, I recently met with several
members of the city's planning commission staff (including Brad Buller) and their Deputy
City Attorney. During the meeting, city personnel urged us to meet with the complaining
residents to discuss various approaches to resolving the situation which we are considering.
We enthusiastically agreed.
We considered meeting with the residents at the next regularly scheduled neighborhood
watch, which was sometime in early October. Unfortunately, the scheduling of the hearing
on our appeal before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council will not permit us to defer
meeting with the residents until then.
EXHIBIT H
(cc.. //-O;L~OS-)
/1~17'8"
Ie ."...
LAW OFFICES
WE5TON. GARROU. DEWITT !i WALTER5
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL. BUSINESS ENTITIES
Margarita Beach Neighbor
Re: INVITATION (Margarita Beach)
September 22, 2005
Page 2
Accordingly, we respectfully invite you to attend a meeting on Saturday, October I, at
2:00 p.m., at Margarita Beach Restaurant. I will conduct the meeting, and the purpose will be
to present various steps that my client is taking and proposes to take, in response to the
concerns which the residents have expressed.
I intend to discuss certain things with those who attend, and, even more importantly, I hope
to listen. The meeting will not be confrontational or antagonistic; we simply want to obtain
your input as we attempt to craft various proposals to resolve the present conflicts. You will
be treated with respect and dignity as we attempt to find common ground.
The meeting will also give you an opportunity to see the facility and sample its wares.
Snacks and beverages will be provided. I anticipate that the meeting will last until 3:00 or
3:30 p.m., although we'll continue as long as it is constructive to do so.
We are distributing this invitation to everyone we think will be interested; please feel free to
bring it to the attention of anyone else who you think is in that category.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to meeting you.
Please RSVP to my assistant, Kam Machado. Feel free to contact her via telephone
(310/442-0072) or e-mail (KamMachado@wgdlaw.com).
Respectfully yours,
By
JOHN . WESTON
JHW:km
cc: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
D. Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney
Mark Davidson
IC,\WP6O\1W\2005\MiIc\Marprin Beach\Marprita Beadl NtllJhbot.doc
1/8111
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0~0~W00~~00~000~=
. . ... ..... CD
~~=<m~~m~waww^<~:
I\) I\) 3 --a. CD CD 3 ::T::TI\) I\) -'-'1\)
.... a- a- (Q ~ =~ I\) ::1. OJ 3 3 ~'< 0 "1l
I\) ~ (Q ~ :::!~::T I\)c-
~ iii' ~ CD !!l. iil
I\) -.
:::!-
Z
DI
3
CD
~oowww~rcaa~~~w~~r
CD~~lIlllllllllll\)crIllIllOOCD~IIlIllDl
<00:::!:::!:::!....OCD33cc-3Oo~
CD:::!:::!~~~a.COJCDCD~~;O~~-
:::! CDCDCD:::!~....~a~~IIl:::! z
~ NNN~ 00 <<:::!CD DI
iil :::! :::! -. -. 3
CD
(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q~~~~~~~~
(Q~~~~~~(Q~OOOOOOOO
(Qoommm~(Q~~~WW~~~~
(Q~~(Q(Q(QO(Qo~~~~om~~
"1lmmmmmm~m~~~~~~~~
0~~~~~1Il0~1\)1Il1ll1ll1ll1ll1ll1ll>
a~ ~~~~!!l.a ~~'~'~'~.~'~'~'~'a.
~ooooom~o--------
-.-'-'-'-'-'0 _._.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a.
=1\)1Il1\)1Il1\)_=IIl>>>>>>>>~
~aaaaa~~a<<<<<<<<m
00000 OCDCDCDCDCDCDCDCD~
CCCCCCoCC:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!~
CD~~~~~CCD~cccccccc
< ~< CD CD CD CD CD CD CD CD
I\) III
a a
=It =It ~
~ ~
W Cll
~ 0 a.
iil
Ul
III
I\)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
III III III I\) III III III I\) III III III III I\) III III III III
:::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::! :::!
00000000000000000
::T::T::T::T::T::T::T::T::T::T::T::T::T::T::T::T::T
00000000000000000
000000000000000000
ccccccccccccccccc~
00000000000000000
III III III I\) III III III III III III 1\)1\) III III III III III
33333333333333333
00000000000000000
:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!~:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!:::!
(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q
III III III I\) III III III III III III III III III I\) III III III
aaooooooooooooooow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>~
S"
(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q(Q~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~1Il
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW_
OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOODl
0
0
a.
CD
we~g/I
. -
September 25, 2005
To: John H. Weston
Attorney for Mark Davidson/Margarita Beach
From: Surrounding Neighbors of Margarita Beach
Re: Request to Hold a Community Meeting in October for Margarita Beach
In regards to your request, we the following undersigned, see no basis or need for
holding this community meeting. The facts are that the Planning Staff on behalf of the
Planning Commission has prepared a package of recommendations to the City Council to
have the business become fmal1y what it was originally permitted-A 'Bona Fide Eatery'
with the incidental sales of alcohol and incidental entertainment as described in the
entertainment permit. Not only does the Planning Department's recommendations bring
the establishment back to what was first permitted, but places the business under city
control with periodic reviews and monitoring reports that ensure that the business is
operating in compliance with the CUP and the Entertainment Permits.
"
Thus, there is no reason for the neighbors to meet with you and Mark Davidson
since we do not have the authority to mitigate this situation; there is no need for a
community meeting.
ONLY the City Council can legally deal with the Appeals processes; they are the
Governing Body of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SEP 26 2005
RECEIVED - PLANNING
EXHIBIT' X
(cc.. /1-0:2-DS-)
118'-;;0/
.
. ~
N aiite Address
. 1. E.DtJA-A.1 d4AlC<k52:: '16'69 GS7J1-Cl;4 C:r~
2. Ve~G, y 'i;'~ f1cA~:r(.'l ~f'l-e(~ U-
3. Vt ~l~ S::t hcVt<:7~ q. Jfo0 Es -b1-(r~ (j-
4. Sa~ N.oUs.5/Ji/l." ~O;'d.. r} sl~ Ave
re
('
~tJ'~'
5. 6c(fl\ M1Jus,:z{v\,' ~03d- (t),-)h Av€-. <3--- ~
6.L.Thsr;:u?;4dC (ivi).d-'P+slro 1fV8- ~~~
7. A-+~ YJ\- ":E~ '(
8-cJ d--~ 'P +(j lrv ~ ~
8. ~~\ Q,.. \\ "'C\t<")'";-.. 6nlu, &<?,t t.. fj 11r
u. -...j
9. -( ~ '( \ _r-, ""',,'" e- ~rl\(,..., ~$,.'~ "',':) ~
10. C~7 {b~t2c~ ' -gDr1 PNJ(TD pJ~
l1.:.\hlj~ C~nEf(()cJ 80/7 !AS/TO NJr
12.~f~ ,^Jcd:k~I'IIIS q~f?O ~c;~e.'-tLC-{.
13.~ ~{f(J '1('l1 U"La d
14. CAfJ.,<.6n., ;2J 4999 ht-,,/j,JJ #/39
/ ;(' ///
jn$f)~r
"'~~"" s.. -
.
-=>
?~
'-
P3eJ~~ AZ.~
.
I t8"dO;)-
.... ,...
, . Name
. 15'P.-f 5fz~crN <;
I6.~;{~
Address
'799CJ f6CT \U 1~1
rrrr fiyf)11Jr'/! r3/uJ!GO
Si!!nature
~ 5'~~
Em;r )tt&,v
In)>",;,; fI"1 ,^D~ C.mby,~e Ave - , ~.;J r .
18. ~/ ~ ,~7J: 00; 1~~'7/ 1f1./-f'. ~__'~ mash"',
19. ~L~M 'In. E0-uk if 7ZL 6I'~
.
20. Jlf7\. () fsoV\ .5fRnS GSTA-Cu+ c-r-:- /5c
.
11
21.bA~fjA<Z~ Or/,vy-... qBos~ [riAI,/1l (1 ~ (, &LJJrl----
22.KuvI ~mflRN ~OIO r~$'"", A,,, "Ie ~"Llli.~
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
(18"d03
September 26, 2005
To: Mike Diaz
From: Ed Sanchez
Regarding: Request for meeting with Margarita Beach Attorney
Attached is a copy ofletter sent, via registered mail, to the Attorney for Margarita Beach.
I would like to have this included into the file that will be presented to the City Council meeting
Scheduled for November 2, 2005.
Letters from Margarita Beach's Attorney were placed in mine and several neighbors mail
boxes. These letters were put in the mail boxes by Margarita Beach Staff at 11 :00 P.M. on
Saturday September 24TIl without postage.
This act is a violation of Postal Regulations (See attached Regulations).
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SEP 2 6 2005
RECEIVED - PLANNING
!It--JDY
"
~
~
,.
o
..
..
1i
~
Ul
~
m
en
-l
o
Z
()
>
i"
o
c
(l:l
o
m
~
~
>
~
~
z
"
.
.
z
;;
o
,
.
.
o
,
"
.
.
o
z
~
.
c
.
i
"
.
.
"
z
.
.
;;
.
r-
o iii
'" -
III
~ ~
Cl r
m Ul
r- I
'" -
en D
. ~
~ g
t: ~
o ~
;Jl <
Z l>
_ D
>!l
'" Ul
o C
0-
III ..
U> ~
.l. 10
- 0
;;J 0
.~~
~~3:::-
::I 0.:-0 =-
n\C) :
::r rr1 -
o !r- Q.. =-
nSCIlf
!: (') E -
(') ..... I"!!' =
III III n =
S nif=-
o 0 N =
::l 0: :...
OQ'" -
.P' f-t :
~
\C)
.....
-.)
""'
o
'"
Co Treated as dead mail' If It has no return address. "
Original Postage. Postage stamps or meter stamps originaDy affixed to insufficiently prepaid mall.are
1.10 accepted in payment of postage 10 the amount of their ~ce value when I'w. ,'nan Is
, 'again prosented for maJ1lng. ' , . : ,:
. . ,....... .\.
Par~IS Contaj~lng ',;A~~ containing wrilIenmaller and su~~'tO'~e due is charged:
.' Wrl~n' MirttW.' . '... a; Al tht!First-Glass nite' fl the Item dohill~fr4IIlh~:o! FIrst-Class mll,lIer.
. 1.11 ,. .' ii At the following ra~iton1y a min~r ~k;:il'!iil~ iiOntenlS Is nonpermissible
. ',' "l,)"ltl~tfr~
written matter: . , . ,
, ,
. ';'J'
~. Bto!oiioiIn ", Pcltt8/lli DIlil"
l'Ji-&t:CI...,IlliIeIlll\lJl..,~d '!Cl!l!rgli!~'lP',' '. ',' ,""',
, i~'.sti.of.to'O.26' '. ~':~ljl";~ ;'~:" ',;!nli5ii~~fl. :,.' . ..; . .'t;:t~).l.~i~f?
: " ;. ::':.1 O~'26.to1.00~'~~FC':';'\I, b.,',: 'j. ,:it j;~Hl:t\I',. ), ~ J.... .: $ ,','.
'1;'::~:: ..~., ,'ft:,...:;:.~;!>~:.~f..1.'or",~':-'.:~.~'.;~...:.;"..~;:.;::,:q.....;:.:... . ". ......
"','" ,.,1" "'2;0'" 'r,i.A/~BLE'MA~ff:iN.~i1I)_\V~~MA't.:.REcEPTAci.Es
. ," '..... .:;1..... .0 ", ':'(.2",1;t}:, q;pj3h~l.Jr".'J~: r-:',~,. .... . ..
~~alt, . Whoever knowi~ 'arid ~Iifui~ ~Its any mailable, matter (~ as ~ments
. ",:", ,'" ", I" . :,":i!i":.i.o!".t..:""L\"\IiS"dfi-.o\i\er1lkemlitie~'dliwhictT''''\Postagelspaid,1n
' 2.1, a accounI,CIIWI""~'5Ml_DI ,..,... '''... ".ll" ",\7'" h
;"., . , "".. ,<:""'" 'Ietteibiii~ed';...' ",,' . }orac:ee~W~'~General!ort e
, .' ,; 'i ; 'f..;!' ~,. ~lPt or deililllif96'frTl#i ..,:,. ''';on.any rOUte~.v;fth'l~ JO avoid payment of
, .. ,~ .'::;,;,~~~~~ti;~i~ ~~iih.~;\le.f1ned not more than $300
.,.,.(fBU~l725).:, ';'.' . .;;....;.,,-;,,,,...,.',)'.1
L1abilityfol' p~!:i;~'~liIn~~~t1.~~~~,B,04~'(#~m~!.~llI1alIer.t1Otbealing
.' ,., ',I' 2.2..I':.pos"'....':tO\ihdiin........."~,....;.,.......rted:....'0fJ1ung'IrDl'n__man
~. " ~~~', , 'I"""~ ,~( , ' ""lnM~
. ::,:: ~eS:deiicii!li!(hiO:~1;'iS1iijbi#tiD'payinenfollhe same postage If carried
",' :-''''"byr1l8ili.to., 1" >:s~(~.f"'<"",'~'.l'~,.,.,'.:. ,",' I",'"
. .' :, I~ \ ", ,J: ';:'~" :'~"::J 'i,;,:~~' ~ "~I':;":i~I'~;" 'f; i~~ ;.;~.)'J'f;~::~;i')~.~<',:I',~.~~i ~;'.';, ,~. "~~:"
;" F'111ia1.DistJ:fbutlfji.; Iflhel'!l~~ll:f~ll,~'!i!iJJ,~ !!l.W~;M~~I..~ on a.route. Plec:e8 '
. . '. ; , , a~ r$l1'rll!C:' to,\t!~~!!W1Y: unK, fQr,.l!S!l,l,rJ ,co\IIP.Util)Q.~ p(IllIage due. FjJsl.crass
" . .MaD ratlls ~P.Pi!rl!Jil 'Io:n;mJterlhat~!!:,~"'m,f:i.I$/'-clllS!l MlII1 postage if
, ". mailed. ~r pth!!r:r'11a~r. if the pi~ ,wei9I!s ~'~n 16 OJJriiies, the appliceble
singre-piece A~:9!~ MilIl or Prio~ty~1 rate basecI on the weight of the piece
is applied, or an appl~e Package Services rate is appI'Jed, whichever is lower. If
the piece weigh~,W:9l!~or n;I?!'S. tf1e,~lil Services rate Is applied.
. ,
II there ~ a distri/;J!Jtio.rl.of identlcal:Pieces .to,.\III or substantially au addresses on a
route, only a, rep~ flul1)bl;lr l?f ~ is relllmed to the delivery UIlIl
Postage is compt!1ed as ~ In 2.3".: ;,,:'. ..
Known Dlstrlbutor If there is reasoii"iObeli~ lhat a';~~ ilili~,y firm or an fntflVldual within the
2.5 post o!Iice deliwry ale4 is responsible. for..lhe./klfivery, the local postmaster notifies
that PBm'of the number of pi~ and the postage due. If, within 5 days after
notice, the firm Or individual agrees to p8y the postage due. payment is accepted
anti, the pi~ are ~!Iverec.t to the .add~!Ml:.Jh!l party paying the postage may
chOdse to rederl)lBrthe Pieces rather than Have the 'USPS deliver them. If the
pieces. are fOund 10, have been removed lrom 'ir;C8ptactes improperly, they are
,derrvered wilhOOl postage charge.
'1. '
::':,1 "
'.
"
':1.
".
11\4
--"'~'-~.'" "'._,,~_..,"
, P.arment
I,',
~i)j!I'. ,,, '.
11('.\.,...... '
\~./ '
'. ,
,;.
...
')
DMM .... 58 (8-1H3l
\ "
1'01 U.3
fJiiII'.. '.
..
, . ..'
.
FUll Distribut/ort
2.4
~',~
':'"--J
. .
'. If the party responsible for deliWlry is not knowI:I Qr if tho !inn requested fails to JlIlY
the postage, the pieces are relU~ to the publisher or.manufacturer. postage due
and entIorsed to ,s,n,o/i they, ~,~ l\'lJ.rycf in, or!'Jlllhe atIdressee's mailbQlC withOut
postage. If a publisher'or manU!adfuier giVeS'the name and telephone number of a /
person to conlacl and guallln~oo' postage payment, the pieces are retlellvered to (18'-
the addressees. If the publisher Or manufacturer is unknown or refuses the pieoes, ;;0 ~
Unknown Dlstrfbutor
2.6
"
Information from Margarita Beach Attorney
Provided Under Separate Cover
EXHIBIT J
1/~-d07
CRY, INC.
876 N. Mountain Avenue, Suite 201
Upland, CA 91786
OASIS ** MARGARIT ABEACH
(909) 946-1600 . fax (909) 981-2868 . crvinc2000@earthlink.net
Advertising
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
c/o Debra Adams, City Clerk
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attn: City Clerk's Office
Re: Margarita Beach Advertising
To the City Council:
1 am the president and primary shareholder of Margarita Beach (MB). In regards to
questions about the content and style of MB' s advertising, this is an area that 1 am certain
is of concern. While 1 am aware the City cannot legally legislate in this area, 1 am certain
it remains very concerned about the "R" rated flavor of some of our prior ads. 1 am very
sensitive to the City's concerns and will agree to voluntarily address these concerns in-
house.
As we all know, this style of advertising, (I will refer to as shock or "R" rated advertising,
which consists of basically the use of sexually charged ads or pictures of women to get
the viewer's attention.) is very effective and is used worldwide by both large and small
companies. While 1 feel MB is more conservative in its advertisements than many other
establishments in our city, 1 will agree to change the ads 1 have used in the past. To
accomplish this, 1 will no longer allow my employees to place ads 1 have not previously
and personally approved. 1 also agree that 1 will be personally responsible for the style
and content of my ads in the future. Rather than follow the rather low standards set by my
competitors 1 will lead and set a higher standard. We want to be a good neighbor and
corporate citizen of Rancho Cucamonga - and we will gladly do this in that spirit.
Lastly, 1 believe the medium of advertising is not the issue; whether it is radio, TV, print
or the internet, the issue is the content, and in the.- future 1 will promise to limit our
~-advertisingtoaPG, 1J1:~~~, ~v--
MarkDavidso~m' ~
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
LAW OF"F"ICES
WESTON. GARROU. DEWITT 8 WALTERS
JOHN H. WESTONt:j:
CLYDE DEWITTI,4:j:
G. RANDALL GARROUI:j:
MARK P. BINDERI:j:
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL aUSINESS ENTITIES
FLORIDA OFFICE
OF COUNSEL
CATHY E. CROSSONI,3
A. DALE MAN!COMI
JOSEPH P. WOHRLEI
WILSHIRE BUNDY PLAZA
12121 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 900
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90025-1168
FAX (310) 442-0899
(310) 442-0072
LAWRENCE G. WALTERSZ",
MARC J. RANDAZZAZ,!S
781 DOUGLAS AVENUE
ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL 32714-2566
FAX {407) 774-6151
(407) 389-4529
I ADMITTED IN CALIFORNIA
2 ADMITTED IN FLORIDA
3 ADMITTED IN INDIANA
4 ADMITTED IN TExAS
5 ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS
:I: A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
'" A FLORIDA PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
November 2, 2005
SAN CIEGO OFFICE
1205 J STREET. SUITE B
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-7500
FAX (6191 239-17!7
(619) 232-3255
HAND-DELIVERED
Debra Adams, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Attn: City Clerk's Office
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: In re Appeal of Margarita Beach (a dba of Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant
Ventures, Inc.) from Planning Commission rulings of July 13, 2005 adopting
Resolutions 05-51 ami 05-51
Dear Ms. Adams:
Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned matter, please find an original and seven copies of:
Supplemental Exhibits (Past Resolutions) in Support of Written Submission by
Margarita Beach
Please contact me immediately if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
By
& WALTERS
WESTON, GARROU, De
JHW:km
Enclosures
. WESTON
K:\WP60IJWI200S\SlWOI76-L-City Clerk-Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures, Inc.doc
PRG6490.WP
ORIG1NA
1 JOHN H. WESTON
G. RANDALL GARROU
2 WESTON, GARROU, DeWITT & WALTERS
12121 Wilshire Boulevard
3 Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1176
4 (310) 442-0072
(fax) (310) 442-0899
5
6
7
8
9
JAMES V. REISS
REISS & JOHNSON
Attorneys at Law
10535 Foothill Boulevard
Suite 410
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 483-0515
(fax) (909) 980-7945
10 Attorneys for Margarita Beach
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL
In re Appeal of Margarita Beach (a dba of
Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures,
Inc.) from Planning Commission rulings
of July 13, 2005 adopting Resolutions 05-
50 and 05-51
Hearing Date: 11/2/05
Agenda No.
SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS
(PAST RESOLUTIONS) IN
SUPPORT OF WRITIEN
SUBMISSION BY MARGARITA
BEACH
Margarita Beach ("MB") submits the following supplemental exhibits in support
of its Written Submission:
1. Resolution No. 88-242, "A Resolution Of The Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 For The Sale Of Hard Liquor
For On-site Consumption In An Existing 2,160 Square Feet Restaurant On 4.05 Acres Of
Land In The Rancho Cucamonga Village Shopping Center Located At The Northeast
Corner Of Foothill Boulevard And Ramona Avenue In The Community Commercial
District" (attached hereto as Exhibit A).
2. Resolution No. 88-242A (adopted in 1991), "A Resolution Of The Planning
Commission Of The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving A Modification
13 DATED: November 2, 2005
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6490.WP
1 To Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 For The Expansion Of The Restaurant And Bar
2 From 2,160 To 3,240 Square Feet, Modification Of The Hours Of Operation, And To
3 Permit Live Entertainment In Conjunction With The Restaurant And Bar Located Within
4 A Commercial Center Is [sic] The Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) Of The
5 Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan Located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suites R & S"
6 (attached hereto as Exhibit B).
7
3.
Resolution No. 91-184, "A Resolution Of The Planning Commission Of The
8 City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving Entertainment Permit No. 91-03 To
9 Operate And Conduct Live Entertainment And Dancing For Skipper's Grill And Bar
10 Located At 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suites R & S, Within A Commercial Center In The
11 Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) Of The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan"
12 (attached hereto as Exhibit C).
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN H. WESTON
G. RANDALL GARROU
WESTON, GARROU & DeWITT
JAMES V. REISS
REISS AND JOHNS
s for Margarita Beach
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6490.WP
EXHIBIT "A"
Resolution No. 88-242, "A Resolution Of The Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission Approving Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 For The
Sale Of Hard Liquor For On-site Consumption In An Existing 2,160 Square
Feet Restaurant On 4.05 Acres Of Land In The Rancho Cucamonga Village
Shopping Center Located At The Northeast Comer Of Foothill Boulevard
And Ramona Avenue In The Community Commercial District"
EXHIBIT A
""....n coco U;:) U~:lt1a
.
.~
.
MHI<iK DAVIDSON
9099317555
p.3
RESOLUTION NO. 88-242
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING ClMUSSION
APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45 FOR THE, SALE
OF HARD LIQUOR FOR ON-SITE CONSUMPTIQN IN AN fXISTING
2.160 SWARE FEET RESTAURANT ON 4.05 ACRES OF LA/Il IN THE
RANCHO CUCAMOMOA VILLAGE SKOPPING CENTER LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOl1llLL BOUlEVARD AND RAMONA AVENUE
IN'llIE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. AND ~ING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF. - APN:, 1077-621-34..
A.Redta1s~
(f)S1m ,Garden Restaurant has filed an application for the'
fssuance of the COnditional Use Penlit NO. 88-45 as descrfbed, fn the tftle of
thfs Resolutfon. Hereinafter fn thfs Resolutfon. the subject Condftfonal,Use
Penuft request fs referred to ,as Dt/Ii! applfcatfonD. '
(ft I ()! the 14th of December. 1988. the P1 annfng COI1IIIfssion of the
Cfty of Rancho CUcalll(lnga conductl1d a dulynotfced publfc hearfng on the
applfcatfon and concluded safd hearfng,on that date.
(iff) All legal prerequfsftes to the adoptfonof thfs Resolution
have occ:urred.
B. , ' Resol utfon.
NOW. THEREFORE. it is hereby found. detenained and resol ved by the
Plannfng Commfssfon of the 'City of Rancho CUcamongaas fallows: .
, 1. This ConIIIfssfon hereby speCiffcallY ffnds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals. Part A. of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evfdence presented to thts Commfssion
durfng theabove-referenc:ed publfc hearfng on December 14. 1988. inel uding
written and oral staff reports, together', with publfctestilAOny. this
~fssfon here~ speciffcally' ffnds as follows: ,
(a) The applicatfon applfes to property located ,at' the
northeast corner of Foothfll Boulevard and Ramona Avenue with a" street
frontage of 632.22 feet and lot depth of 280.96 feet and fs presently fmproved
wfth a Commercfal/Retafl Center; and
. (b) The application is for the fncfdental sales of alcoholic
, beverages as IIIl!RU ftl!llls fn conjunctfon wfth the sales of food., '
, ecl The property to the north of the subject site 1s
resfdentfal. the property to the south of that sfte consfsts of a mobfle home
park. the property to the east fs comnerdal, and the property to the west is
comercfal. ,,' '
........., L.c. U;) U::J;c..,a
MHI<iK UHVIDSON
9099317555
p.8,
PLANN1Nti l..U'lPlj~.LU" I'\E;.")U~U' ..."'.. I.V. -- ---
CUP 88-45 - SIN! GARDEN RESTAURANT
December 14, 1988
Page 2
(d) The applfcation comtemplates the addftion of cCiCktafls to
the exfsting restaurant menu of oriental cuisfne and beer/Wine.; ,
'3. Based upon the substantfal evidence presented to thfs Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the speciffc ffndfngs of
facts set forth fn paragraph 1 and 2 above, this COnmfSsfon hereby finds and
concludes 'as follows:
(a) Thilt the proposed use is fn accord' with the
General Plan, the objectives of the Development
Code and Foothf11Boulevard Specfffc Plan, and
the purposes of the district in which the site
is located. ' ,
(b) That the proposed use, ,together wfth the
'eondftfons applicable thereto, will not be
detrfmental to the public health, safet,y, or
welfare. or IIIlIterially injurious to properties
or fmprovBlents fn the vicfnit,y. '
(c) That the proposed use, complfes witheae:h of' the
appl1cableprovisfons of the' DeveloJIIIIl!lt Code
and the Foothill Boul everd Specf ff c Pl an.
.
, '
4. This CClllDissfon here~ ffnds anc! eertffies that 'the project has, .
been revfew~ and consfdered in cDlllplfance with the CalffomiaE'nvironm!!lltal '
Qualfty Act of 197D and. further, thfs ConIIIfssion here~ issues a Negatfve,
Declaratfon. , , .' "
, 5. Based upon theffndfngs and conclusions set forth fn paragraph
,1. 2.3 and 4 above. this Comfssfon hereby approves the applicatfon subject
to each and ever,Y conditfon set forth below. '
Plannfng Dfvisfon
1. This approval shall apply to the servfng of alcoholfc bevera?es
only.
2. Approval of thls'request shal1 not waive complfance with all
sectfons of the Foothfll Specffic Plan, all applicableCf1;y
Ordfnances. Foothfll Fire Dfstrfct requireaents and Publfc
Health codes.
3. My'modfffcatfon, expansion or citherchange fnoperation will
requfre a revfsfon to the Condftfonal Use'Permft.
4. All sfgnage shall be' desfgned fn confonnance with. the
COmprehensfve Sfgn Ordfnance and applfcable Unfform Sfgn Progr~
and shalt requfre revfew and approval by the PlannfngDfvisfon.
.
.........11 c.c. U;:] U~: It:1a
.
'.~
.
MHI<iK DAVIDSON
9099317555
p."
. '
PLANNING Ca+tISSION RESOlUTION NO. 88-242
CUP 88-45 - SIAM GARDEN RESTAURANT
December 14, 1988
Page 3
,5. The servfng of alcoholic beverages must be in conjunction with
restaurant usage and the avaflability.' of full lfsted menu
ftems. The sale and serving of alcoholic beverages shall cease
when such menu items are not available to customers. '
6. The servfng of alcohol in conjunctfon with restaurant usage ~
operate between the hours of 11:00 a.lI. and 11:00 p.lI.
6. The Secretary to this ConinfSsionshall certify to the adoptfon
of this Resolution. '
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 198B.
PLANNING ,C ,$SION OF l1IE CITV OF, RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
ATTEST::
I, Ili"ad Buller, Secretary ,of the ,Planning COIIIII15sion of the City of Ranc:ho
Cucllllonga, do hereby certffy that the foregofng Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced. passed, and adopted by the Planning ClIIIIIissfon of the
. City !)f Rancho CucallOnga. at a regular meeting of the Planning CoIIIIIfssion held
, on the 14th dq of December, 1988. by the fallowing vote"'-to..wit:
AYES: COHMISSIONERS: BLAKESLEY, CHITI,EA. MC NIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: ClMIISSIONERS: ,NONE
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS: EMERICK
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6490,WP
EXHIBIT "B"
Resolution No. 88-242A (adopted in 1991), "A Resolution Of The
Planning Commission Of The City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia,
Approving A Modification To Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 For The
Expansion Of The Restaurant And Bar From 2,160 To 3,240 Square Feet,
Modification Of The Hours Of Operation, And To Permit Live Entertainment
In Conjunction With The Restaurant And Bar Located Within A Commercial
Center Is [sic] The Community Commercial District (Subarea 3) Of The Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan Located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suites R & S"
EXHIBIT B
""url ~~ U~ U~:~~a
MARK DAVIDSON
9099317555
p.7
RESOLUTION 110. 88-242A
.
A IlESOLIlTIOII' OF THB PLARNING COMMISSION OF TIll!: CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAl!.ONGA, CALIFORlfIA, APPROVING A HODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL OSB PBRMIT NO. 88-45 FOR TIll!: EXPANSION OF TIll!:
RESTAURANT AND BAR PJlOII 2,160 TO 3,240 SQUARIl FEET,
HODII'ICATIOII OF TIll!: BOOllll OF OI'BRATIOII, AND TO PBMIT
LIVB EHTERTAINMERT IN COIlJONCTION WITH TBB RE8TAURAHT AND
lIAR LOCATED WITHIN A COMMERCIAL CENTER'IS TIll!: COIlHUlfITY
c:oHN2RCIALDIS'lRICT (SOBARIlA 3) OF TIll!: FOOTHILL BOlJLEVAlU)
SPBCIFIC PLAN LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTIIILL BOULEVlIRIl, SUITBS,
R G8" AND JQJtING FINDINGS IN SorroR'!' THBllBOF - APN.,
1077-621-34.
A. Reci~~~..
(i) Fred and Urai Ne1eon ba,ve' 'filed an' application for a
modification to COndition~ Ose pe~t 11'0." 8S-45 as descr1bed in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in thi. ReSOlution, tbe modification to the
conditional Oae Permit requeet i. referred to aa "the application."
, . '
... .
, "
(ii) On' the 23rd day of October 1991" and continued to November 13,
1991, the Planning COIlIIIIiaaion of the City of Rancho cucamonga conducted a duly
noticed public bearing on the application and concluded said bearing on that .
date. '
(iii), All 'legal prerequisitss prior to the adoption of ,thiB Resolution',
have occurred.
B. Reaolui:ian.,;
NOW, THBREFORB, it is hereby found, determined, and, rsso1ved by ths,'
. planning coaunisBion of ,tha City of Rancho cucamonga as follows.
, ,1. This Conwissionhereby specifically finds thst al'l of tbe facts
set forth in the Recitala, 'Part A, of tbia Resolution ara'true and correat.
2. Based upon' substantial evidence presented to this co....i.lI.ion
during ths above-referenced public hearings on october 23, 1991, and November
13, '1991, including 'written and oral staff reports, together' with public
testimony, this CommiDsion bereby specifically finda as follows.,
(a) The application applie. to proPerty located at 9950
Foothi'll Boulevard with a etreet frontage of 632, fe.,t and lot depth of 278
feet and ia presently improved with one multi-tenant commercial building, :and
(b) The property to the' north of the subject eite is
apartments, the property to the south of ,the site consist.. of a mob.ile _home
park,' the property tci the east ia a commercial building, and the property to .
the weat ia a '.ervice station,.
vun ~c uo U~:l~a
MARK DAVIDSON
9099317555
p.5
.
PLANKING COMMISSION RESOLll'J'IOK, NO. 88-242A
CUI' 8S-45 - ,SKIppBR'S BAR & GRILL
November ~3. 1991
Page 2
(c) rhe 'application applieo to the expansion of an existing
restaurant, .siam Garden,. to be renamed .Skipper's Grill and B~,. and the
serving of alcoholic beverages frOlll 11.00 p.... to 2.00 a.lD.
(d) rhe application contemplatee the expansion of" the
reetaurant and bar from 2.160 to' 3.240 square feet including 'conetructi~ ~f a
bar, stage and'dance'floor.
(e) The application proposes to conduct li_ .ntertai......nt.
coneisting of small,band. disc jockey. and comedians, fr"""8.00 p.lD. to 2.00
a.ID.. sev.... daya a, _Ie.
3. Bassd upon the substantial evidence presented to thie commi.sion
during the above-referenced public hearing snd upon tha spscif~c findinga of
facts set forth in peragrapbs 1 and 2 a/:>OVe, thh ComIDiesion hereby finda and
concludes as followe. '
(a) rhat the proposed use i. ia accord with tha General Plan,
the objectiv..s of, the Developllsnt Code, and the purposea of the district in
which the aita ia located.
~,
"
(b) !1'hattha proposed "use, togeths,r with, the conditions
applicable thereto, ,wili not be detrimental to the pulIlic health, safety.' or
welfare or ID&tsrially injurious to propsrtisa Or impro..-z1ts in the vicinity.
(c)
provi.lIJ.onll of the
!1'hat the propoeed use camplie>> with.achof the applicable
Development Cod. and Foothill soulevard specific Plan.
4. Baaed upon the findings and conolue10ne, set forth, in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, thia Commission hereby approv.s the application subject to '
each and every conditiOD aet forth below I
sond.itional
1) rha serving of alcoholio beverages !DUn' be in
conjunction, with restaurant usage and the
availability of full listed menuit:elD8. The
sale ,and aerving of alcoholic beveragee ahall
ceass'when such menu it... are'not available to
custamerll.
2) rhe eerving ,of alcohol in conjunctio,n with
reetauran~. uaage may operate between the hGura
of 11.00 a.lD. and ,2:00 a.lD.
3)
All doora ehall remain closed during
entertainmen't for ~oise a't~.nuation purposes.
The rear (north) doors ahall be used only for
......rgencies frcca,8.00 p.lD. to 2:00 a',m. '
.
~un ~~ U~ U~:~~a
MARK DAVIDSON
9099317555
p.S
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A
CUP 88-45 -: SKIPPER: S BAR Ii GRILL
November 13, 1991
Page 3
.
'4) All customers shall use the front (south)
entrance/exit, 'and use of the rear (north)
parking lot sball be limited to employees.
S) All entertainment activities sball not create
any noiae tbat would, exceed an axterior noi.e
level of 60'dB during the bours of 10.00 p.D.
to 7.00 a.D. and,65 dB during tbe, bours of 7;00
a.D. to 10100 poD.
6), Approval of t:bie request sball not wai_
cCllllpHance witb all, sections of the FoOtbill
Boulevard Specific Plan, all applicable City
ordinanc.s, Foothill Fire District
requir_nt:s, and Public Bealtb codee.
7)
Any JIIOdification, expansion,
ClpezatLon will require a
Conditional 17.e Permit.
or other change in
revi.ion to" the
8) All si9JIsge shall be' designed !D conformence
with the comprehenaive si.gn ordinance and
applicable' Uniform si.gn Program and shall
require review and approval by t:he Planning
Diviaion. '
.
9) The dance floor inaximuD square footage 8hall
no~ exc..d ISO ,.quare ~eet.
10) If operation of the, facility causes adverae
effects upon adjacent business.. ,or operation.,
the COnditional 17.. Permit ahall be brougbt
before the Plsnning cClllDission for
consideration and 'possible, teD!lination of, the
UIIS.
II) occupancy of the facility sball JlS!!. cClllllDence
until sucb time as sll Uniform Building ,Code
and Uniform Fire COde regulations have been
complied witb. ' Prior to occupancy, plans ehall
bs suba1tt~ ,to tbe Rancho cucamonga Fire
Protection District and the Building and Safety
Division to sbow compliance. The building
shsll be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
5. The Secretary to'thls Commieeion shall certify to the,adoption
of this Resolution.
.
........11 c..c.. U..J u,,; l~a
.
,...
.
MHI<iK UHVIDSON
9099317555
p.6
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 88-242A
CUP 88-45 - SKIPPER' S BAR , GRILL'
N~vember 13, 1991
Page 4'
APPROVED l\IlIl ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NO\lEKllllR 1991.
PLANNING
IUIIICBO CUCAIIONGA
BY.
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning c:oaui.ieBion of the city of Rancho
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing RBBolution va. duly and'
regularly introdUCed, paBBed, and adopted by thB 'Planning Commie.ion of' th8
city of Rancho, CtIcamonga, at ,a regular ...eting' of the Planning Co_ie.ion held
on the l3~h day of November 1991, by the'following'vote-to-wlt.
AYllS.
COHMISSIOIiDB,
MaIl:llL! MBLCHBlI, TOLSTOY
CHI1'IEA. VALLETTE
NOBS.
COMMISSIONERS,
ABSENT.
COMMISSIONERS,
RONB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6490.WP
EXHIBIT "C"
Resolution No 91-184, "A Resolution Of The Planning Commission
Of The City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, Approving Entertainment
Permit No. 91-03 To Operate And Conduct Live Entertainment And Dancing
For Skipper's Grill And Bar Located At 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suites
R & S, Within A Commercial Center In The Community Commercial
District (Subarea 3) Of The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan"
EXHIBIT C
RESOLUTION NO. 91-184
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAHONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING ENTERTAINMENT
PERMIT NO. 91-03 TO OPERATE AND CONDUCT LIVE
ENTERTAINMENT AND DANCING FOR SKIPPER' S GRILL AND BAR
LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, SUITES R & S, WITHIN
A COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
(SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-621-34.
A.' Redtals.
(i) Fred and Urai Nelson has filed application for the issuance of
Entertainment Permit No. 91-03 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit request is
referred to as "the application."
(ii) On the 23rd of October 1991, and continued to November 13, 1991,
the Planning conunission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that
date.
(iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning conunission of the City of Rancho cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing on october 23, 1991, and November
13, 1991, 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 9950
Foothill Boulevard with a street frontage of 632 feet and lot depth of 278
feet and is presently improved with one multi-tenant conunercial building; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is
apartments, the property to the south of the site consists of a mobile home
park, the property to the east is a commercial building, and the property to
the west is a service station.
.t".1J.tiJ.'4n.L.L'4~ \"'Ov.........-J..oJoJ........... ..\..LI............................ .......
EP NO. 9l-03/SKIPPERS GRILL & BAR
November 13, 1991
Page 2
(c) Skipper's Grill & Bar is a full service restaurant serving
alcoholic beverages. The proposed entertainment will be conducted indoors,
Sunday through Saturday from 8:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) That the conduct of the establishment or the granting of
the application would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or
welfare; and
(b) That the premises or establishment are not likely to be
operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner; and
(c) That the applicant has not had any approval, permit, or
license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provision of
entertainment revoked within the preceding ten years; and
(d) That granting the application would not create a public
nuisance; and
(e) That the
interfere with the peace and
community commercial center;
normal
quiet of
and
operation of the premises would not
the surrounding residential uses and,the
(f) The applicant has not made any false, misleading, or
fraudulent statement of material fact in the required application.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to
each and every condition set forth below:
Conditions:
1) This approval is for small bands or individual
musicians.
2) Dancing is permitted on a dance floor area
which shall not exceed 150 square feet.
3) If the operation of this Entertainment Permit
causes any adverse effects upon adjacent
businesses or operations or residential uses,
the Entertainment Permit shall be brought
before the Planning Commission for the
consideration and possible suspension or
revocation of the permit.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 91-184
EP NO. 9l-03/SKIPPERS GRILL & BAR
November 13, 1991
page 3
4)
All doors shall remain closed
entertainment is being conducted for
attenuation purposes. The rear (north)
shall be used only for emergencies
B:OO p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
when
noise
doors
from
5) Hours of operation of the entertainment use
shall be limited to Sunday through saturday,
from B:OO p.m. to 2:00 a.m.
6) Entertainment shall be conducted inside the
building.
7) The Entertainment Permit shall not commence
until such time as all Uniform Building Code
and State Fire Marshall's regulations have been
complied with. Plans shall be submitted to the
Rancho cucamonga Fire Protection District and
the Building and Safety Division for review and
approval Drior to commencement of any
entertainment activity.
B) All customers shall use the front (south)
entrance/exit, and use of the rear (north)
parking lot shall be limited to employees.
9) All entertainment activities shall not create
any noise that would exceed an exterior noise
level of 60 dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m.
to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dB during the hours of 7:00
a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
10) Approval of this request shall not waive
compliance with all sections of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, all applicable City
Ordinances, Foothill Fire District
requirements, and Public Health codes.
11)
Any modification, expansion,
operation will require a
Conditional Use Permit.
or other change in
revision to the
12) All signage shall be designed in conformance
with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and
applicable Uniform Sign Program and shall
require review and approval by the Planning
Division~
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
EP NO. 91-03/SKIPPERS GRILL & BAR
November 13, 1991
Page 4
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1991.
PLANNING
ION OF THE CITY O~O
CUCAMONGA
BY:
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 13th day of November 1991, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
MCNIEL, MELCHER, ,TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
CHITIEA, VALLETTE
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
NONE
LAW OFFICES
JOHN H. WESTONI*
CLYDE OEWITT,,4*
G. RANDALL OARROUI*
MARK P. 8INDEFt'*
WESTON. GARROU. ,DEWITT S WALTERS
A ~AATNl!:"SHI" 0,. ..ROP'ES.IO......L eUSINl!:S5 ENTITIES
0... COUNSeL
CATHV E. CROSSON1,3
A, DALE ....ANICOM'
JOSEPH P. WOHRLE'
WILSHIRE BUNDY PLAZA
12121 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD. SUITE 900
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90025-1168
FAX (310) .........ii!-OB99
(310) 442-0072
"'LORIOA 0......1c:..
LAWRENCE O. WALTERS....
....ARC J. RANDAZZA..15
781 COUGLAS "'VENUE
ALTAMONTE SPRINGS. "'L. 32714-ZSae
"'AX (407) 774-81151
14071 388.....528
1 AOMmm 11'1 CALlI"OANIA
2 AOMmm IN PU:lAlDA
3 AOMITTED IN JNDlANoIto
4 AOMmm IN TClA5
15 AOMITTm IN r-.--'-aISErTS
! ... CAlJP'O,....... fORO..tsSIO......... COAPOR.ImON
... ... 1"LORlDt. PACWIlSSIONAL ASSOCIAnON
October 27,2005
SAN OIE(lO O.....ICE
IZOl5 .J STREET, SUITE II
SAN DIEGO. CA 82101-7500
P'...x U5181 23'1'-1717
(G191 232-321515
VIA MESSENGER
Debra Adams, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Attn: City Clerk's Office
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Re: In re Appeal of Margarita Becu:h (a dba of Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant
Ventures, Inc.) /Tom Planning Commission ndings of July 13, 2005 adopting
Resolutions OS-51 and 05.51
Dear Ms. Adams:
Enclosed for filing in the above-captioned matter, please find:
Supplemental Written Submission by Margarita Beach Summarizing Expert
Declarations
We will direcdy ttansmit a copy to the City Attorney, James L Markman, and have already faxed a
copy to Michael P. Diaz of City Planning Staff. Mr. Diaz has graciously advised us that he will
distribute appropriate copies to other relevant City officials.
Please contact me immediately if you have any questions.
Very truly yours,
JHW:km
Enclosures
& WALTERS
By
K:\WP60\JW\200~JWOI66-L-CiIy CIert.Rmcbo CucImoap Restaurmt VeatareI, b.doc
17
18
19
20 'witness declarations contained in its previously filed initial written submission. These
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
JOHN H. WESTON
G. RANDALL GARROD
WESTON, GARROD, DeWITT & WALTERS
12121 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1176
(31O) 442-0072
(fax) (310) 442-0899
JAMES V. REISS
REISS & JOHNSON
Attorneys at Law
10535 Foothill Boulevard
Suite 410
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 483-0515
(fax) (909) 980-7945
9
10
11
12
13
14 In re Appeal of Margarita Beach (a dba of
Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures,
15 Inc.) from Planning Commission rulings
of July 13, 2005 adopting Resolutions 05-
16 . 50 and 05-51 '
Attorneys for Margarita Beach
BEFORE THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL
Hearing Date: 11/2/05
Agenda No.
SUPPlEMENTAL WRI1TEN'
SUBMISSION BY MARGARITA
BEACH SUMMARIZING EXPERT
DECLARATIONS
Margarita Beach ("MB") submits this supplemental statement regarding the expert
23
22 Council, are highly significant as they provide critically needed objective information
declarations, found under Tabs 7, 8 and 9 of the blue notebooks submitted to the
24
25
26
regarding the primary complaints which triggered the challenged new conditions and
the effectiveness of the steps which MB has taken to address the various complaints
made by its neighbors during the course of the administrative proceedings to date.
Specifically, to assist the City Council in evaluating the necessity for any of the
27 . challenged conditions imposed by the Planning Commission, MB's attorneys retained
28 three independent experts, two of whom are retired police officers, and one of whom
PRG6487.WP
1 is a sound expert, to conduct a thorough investigation of the existing state of the subject
2 of the complaints and the effectiveness of and steps MB has taken to deal with occur-
3 rences in its surrounding neighborhood which its neighbors have attributed, rightly or
4 wrongly, to the operation of MB. These reports make clear that the steps already
5 implemented by MB have completely and effectively addressed all of its neighbors'
6 complaints.
7 For example, two of MB's expert declarants, Keith Gooselaw and William Rhetts,
8 are currently private investigators who worked as law enforcement officers for various
9 municipalities for a minimum of 15 years each (15 years for Mr. Gooselaw and 19 years
10 for Mr. Rhetts), both of whose law enforcement careers consisted, in large part, of
11 monitoring bars and restaurants in connection with the wide variety of issues that can
12 be related to such businesses, including noise investigatiol1B, Business and Professions
13 Code violations, exterior alcohol and beverage control violations, lewd conduct investi-
14 gations, loitering problems and parking problems, In short, both of these investigators
15 are highly trained neutral professionals with substantial sworn law enforcement
16 background.
17 Both Mr. Gooselaw and Mr. Rhetts spent four nights (each of them on different
18 nights for a total of eight nights) monitoring the operation of MB and each of the neigh-
19 boring areas surrounding MB throughout those time periods. On each night that they
20 were there, they conducted their investigations over a period of approximately five
21 hours, always choosing those hours when MB is most busy, starting at 8:30 p.m. (except
22 one occasion when Mr. Rhetts started at 9:00 p.m,) and typically going until 2:00 a.m.,
23 the closing time at MB.
24 Following their intel1Bive study, they both independently concluded that there
25 were no unlawful or unreasonable noises caused by the operation of MB, nor any
26 loitering problems on the surrounding streets and/or neighborhoods resulting from its
27 operation, nor were there any parking problems from MB patrons on any surrounding
28
PRG6487.11P
2
1 residential streets, They also observed that there were no violations by MB of any
2 relevant statutory and regulatory provisions applicable to such a business.
3 Moreover, they both read the Planning Commission's June 22nd Staff Report and
4 fOWld that MB "is compliant with all of the recommendations outlined by the Rancho
5 Cucamonga Planning Deparhnent, dated June 22, 2005,"
6 They additionally both found that "the procedures. . . which MB presently has
7 in place reflect extremely competent and professional management and are highly
8 effective and successful in maintaining control over their patrons and preventing patron
9 caused disturbances and intrusiveness in the neighborhood."
10 Lastly, they both concluded by stating their belief that no "additional steps or
11 conditions, beyond those presently in effect and/or contained in the. , , JWle 22,2005,
12 Staff Report to the Planning Commission, are necessary in order to maintain the present,
13 very acceptable level of patron non-disturbance,"
14 The other expert declaration submitted by MB was that of Martin Newson, a
15 forensic consulting engineer in acoustics (Le., a sOWld expert), Mr. Newson's curriculum
16 vitae is attached to his declaration and demonstrates his expertise in acoustical investi-
17 ,gation and analysis, Mr, Newson read the relevant provisions of Rancho Cucamonga
18 MWlicipal Code governing aIlowed exterior noise standards and then went out during
19 peak business hours on two nights in October (Thursday and Saturday) to measure the
20 sound corning from MB during peak hours as perceived from ten different vantage
21 points in the areas surroWlding MB. He concluded that "the general noise levels
22 generated from the operations and occupants of MB ' , , were consistently below the City
23 ,of Rancho Cucamonga noise limit and in most cases, well below the City's noise limit."
24 (Emphasis added,) He additionally concluded that to the extent that any noise from MB
25 was audible whatsoever from outside its building, it was, at best, "only faintly audible"
26 and in no circumstances was it ever "the dominant noise source in any of the locations
27 surveyed,"
28
PRG6487.WP
3
i.
r
f
f:
.'
I,
r
i:
,
, ,
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
PRG6487.WP
Based on the foregoing, it is abundantly clear, as determined by independent
investigators, that the additional conditions imposed on MB by Resolutions 05-50 and
05-51, which go beyond the specific conditions recommended by the Planning
Commission's Staff Report of June 22, 2005, are entirely unnecessary, and would not in
any way be remedial of any objectively identified problems, While they are effective if
the goal is simply to force the business to close, they are not effective or necessary for
any other purpose, In short, they are fatal overkill in the extreme,
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, MB respectfully reiterates its request that the
Council reverse the decision of the Planning Commission adopting Resolution Nos. 05-50
and 05-51, and instead, adopt the proposed conditions recommended by staff in the June
22, 2005 Planing staff report, along with such of the numerous other suggested changes
proposed by MB in its Suggested Alternatives document (enclosed herein under Tab 2),
which the Council determines may be warranted.
DATED: October 27, 2005
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN H. WESTON
G. RANDALL GARROU
WESTON, GARROU & DeWITT /
JAMES V. REISS
REISS AND JOHNSO
(
!
(
4
f
f
,
t--
I."
LAW OFFICES
WESTON. GARROU. DEWITT S WALTERS
OF COUNSEl-
CATHY E. CROSSON,,3
A. DAl-E MANICOM'
JOSEPH P. WOHRLE'
WILSHIRE BUNDY PLAZA
12121 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD, SUITE 900
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025-1168
FAX (3JO) 442-0899
(310) 442-0072
FL.ORICA OFFICE
LAWRENCE G. WALTERS2..
MARC J. RANDAZZA2,5
JOHN H. WESTON':!:
CLYDE DE:WITT,,4:!:
G. RANDALL GARROUI:!:
MARK P. BINDER':!:
A PARTNE:RSHIP OF PROFESSIONAl- BUSINESS ENTITIES
7BI DDUGLAS AVENUE
ALTANlONTE SPRINGS. FL 32714-2566
FAX (407) 774-6151
(407) 389-4529
I AOMITTEO IN CAUFORNlA
2 ADMITTI':D IN FLORIDA
3 ADMITTED IN INDIANA
4 ADMITTED IN TE<A5
5 ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSEtTS
t A CALIFORNIA PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
.. A FLORIDA PRQFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
October 26, 2005
5AN DIEGO OFFICE
1205 J STREET, SUITE B
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101-7500
FAX (619) 239-1717
(619) 232-3255
VIA MESSENGER
~'d:~c~rVlEfD)
Otl 2 6l;:E@
Debra Adams, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Attn: City Clerk's Office
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
-!i", ',' ;:P ~y\)~O CUCAI\':W:B.t\
~ '... , ,'" 1 '="'K
.. . ~~_.......n
Re: Appeal of Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures, Inc. dba Margarita Beach
Dear Ms, Adams:
Enclosed please find eight identical binders:
Appeal of Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures, Inc. dba Margarita Beach
from July 13, 2005 Decision of City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission, Adopting Resolution Nos. 05-50 and 05-51
Please file and distribute to City Council. We have sent two identical binders to James L
Markman, Rancho Cucamonga City Attorney, at his office in Brea. /'
Very truly yours,
By
JOHN
JHW:km
Enclosures
K:\WP601JW\2005\5JWOI63-L-City Clerk-Rancho Cueamonga Restaurant Ventures, Ine.doc
BEFORE THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL
ApPEAL OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA RESTAURANT
VENTURES, INC. DBA MARGARITA BEACH FROM
JULY 13, 2005 DECISION OF CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION, ADOPTING
RESOLUTION Nos. 05-50 AND 05-51
JOHN H, WESTON
California State Bar No, 46146
G. RANDALL GARROD
California State Bar No. 74442
WESTON, GARROD, DeWITT & WALTERS
12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90025
(310) 442-0072; fax: (310) 442-0899
and
JAMES V. REISS
California State Bar No. 128020
REISS & JOHNSON
Attorneys at Law
10535 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 410
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 483-0515; fax: (909) 980-7945
For Appellant
6)(17//;/; J
LAW OFFICES
WESTON. GARROU. DEWITT B WALTERS
JOHN 1-1. WESTON1t:
CL.YDE DJ;WITT'....t:
G, RANDAI..I.. GARROU't:
MARK P. B1NOER't:
.
0,. COUNS'I!:1..
CATl-lY E. CROS50N,.3
A. OALI!: MANICOM'
JOSEPH p, WOHRL.E'
WILSHIRE BUNDY PLAZA
12121 WILSHIRE BOUL.EVARD, SUITe::: 900
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90025-1168
FAX (310) 442-0899
13101 442-0072
P"LORIDA OP"FICS:
I..AWRENCE G, WAL TI!:RS2*
MARC ..J. RANOAZZAe..
181 DOUGLAS AVENUE
ALTAMONTE: SPRINGS, FL 32114.256115
FAX 1401J 774-8151
14071 389.....52'"
A PARTNERSHIP 01' PROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ENTITIES
, ADMITTED IN CALIfORNIA
2ADMmmfNI'"lDRlDoll
;) ~Nmm IN INDIANA
... ~""ITTED IN TDCAS
S AO....ITlD) IN MA55PCl-lU5ETTS
* A CAlIFORNIA PROF"ESSIONAL CORPORATION
.. A I'"t,DRIDlt. PROFESSfON.'lL. ASSOClAnON
October 26, 2005
S....N DIEGO OI"'I"'ICE
1205 J STREET, SUITE B
SAN DIEGO, CA 92101~7500
FAX 16191 239.1717
U'I~) 232-3.285
~; DElveD
,',," d . &;;
"
VIA MESSENGER
Or-r ()" "'~II:
l,1 r~'('4~
Debra Adams, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Atm: City Clerk's Office
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
. f.' :u.,~"}I\""l_~IJ' ,..., UO"''''!'ARIlli'''.t\
, : ."':'V V..:,"V{1fl~~j"~-
,. '-'" "'-"K
. '. .' ~-.:'; -\
Re: Appeal of Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures, Inc. dba Margarita Beach
Dear Ms. Adams:
.
Enclosed please find eight identical binders:
Appeal of Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures, Inc. dba Margarita Beach
from July 13, 2005 Decision of City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission, Adopting Resolution Nos. 05-50 and 05-51
Please file and distribute to City Council. We have sent two identical binde,rs to James L
Markman, Rancho Cucamonga City Attorney, at his office in Brea.
Very truly yours,
WESTON, GARROu6:WITI & WALTERS
JOHN
By
JHW:km
Enclosures
. K:\WP60VW\200SiSJWOI63-L-Ciry Clerk-Raocho Cucamonga Rcstauraol Ventures,lne.doc
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF APPELLANT MARGARITA BEACH
1. RESOLUTIONS 05-50 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT) AND 05-51
(ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT) WHICH MARGARITA BEACH IS
APPEALING
2. MARGARITA BEACH'S SUGGESTED ALTERNATIVES
3. PHOTOGRAPHS
4. DECLARATION OF MARK DAVIDSON (PRESIDENT OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA RESTAURANT VENTURES, INC. WHICH OWNS AND
OPERATES MARGARITA BEACH)
. 5. DECLARATION OF JONATHAN BIGGS (SECURITY GUARD AT
MARGARITA BEACH)
6. DECLARATION OF JACOB WHITE (A MANAGER AT MARGARITA
BEACH)
7. DECLARATION OF KEITIl GOOSELAW (PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR
AND RETIRED CALIFORNIA POLICE OFFICER)
8. DECLARATION OF WILLIAM RHE'ITS (pRIVATE INVESTIGATOR
AND RETIRED CALIFORNIA POLICE OFFICER)
9. DECLARATION OF MARTIN NEWSON (FORENSIC CONSULTING
ENGINEER IN ACOUSTICS AND TIlE PRINCIPAL OF MARTIN
NEWSON AND ASSOCIATES L.L.C.)
10. DECLARATION OF JOHN H. WESTON (MARGARITA BEACH'S
A'ITORNEY)
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
JOHN H. WESTON
G. RANDALL GARROU
WESTON, GARROU, DeWITT & WALTERS
12121 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90025-1176
(310) 44'2-0072
(fax) (310) 442-0899
JAMES V. REISS
REISS & JOHNSON
Attorneys at Law
10535 Foothill Boulevard
Suite 410
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 483-0515
(fax) (909) 980-7945
Attorneys for Margarita Beach
"
BEFORE THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY COUNCIL
In re Appeal of Margarita Beach (a dba of
Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures,
Inc.) from Planning Commission rulings
of July 13, 2005 adopting Resolutions 05-
50 ana 05-51
Hearing Date: 11/2/05
Agenda No.
WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF
APPELLANT MARGARITA
BEACH
18
19 SUMMARY OF PRESENTATION
20 Margarita Beach, a dba of Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant Ventures, Inc., has
21 operated at 9950 Foothill Blvd. since 1996 as a restaurant and bar duly licensed to serve
22 alcoholic beverages and present entertainment. At all relevant times it has possessed
23 both a Certificate of Occupancy ("CUP") to authorize its sale of alcoholic beverages and
24 an Entertainment Permit ("EP") to authorize its presentation of recorded entertainment
25 by a live disc jockey. Originally operating as "Margaritaville Bar and Cantina," its name
26 was changed in 2004 to "Margarita Beach." (Hereafter the business shall simply be
. 27 referred to as either "Margarita Beach," "MB," or "appellant".)
28
PRG6481.11P
.
.
.
PRG6481 . WP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Margarita Beach succeeded a similar business, known as Skipper's Grill and Bar
("Skipper's") which, likewise, was a restaurant and bar licensed to serve alcoholic
beverages and to present entertainment, and which was licensed to do so seven days a
week from 8:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m.
THE NATURE OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED
The present appeal arises out of problems first brought to ME's attention on
February 2, 2005 when a number of neighbors of the business appeared before the City
Council and informed it of certain problems they were experiencing and which they
believed were attributable to Margarita Beach patrons. These consisted primarily of
complaints that persons (presumed to be ME patrons) were parking their cars on Estacia
Court and Pasito (a small cuI de sac running off Estacia) on the weekend and causing
disturbance to the neighbors there. This body responded by directing the Planning
Commission to investigate the matter and make appropriate determinations. Mark
Davidson, ME's owner, appeared and indicated that ME had previously taken steps to
prevent such things and he had previously given his personal phone numbers to Mr. Ed
Sanchez, the neighbor who appeared to be leading the opposition to ME, asking Mr.
Sanchez to report any problems he observed, and that Mr. Sanchez had never called him
so that, up until this point, he had assumed his steps were adequate to prevent any
neighborhood problems.
MB's Responses To These Complaints
Because very few specifics were reported by the neighbors at the City Council
hearing (in terms of, e.g., dates and circumstances of alleged problems they believed had
occurred, whether the speaker had personally observed the complained of conduct or had
merely heard about it from others, etc.), and because no neighbor was subject to being
asked questions by appellant, much less was speaking under oath, it was impossible to
assess both the extent of the problems that the neighbors were complaining about, as
well as their causes. For example, with respect to an assertion that "public sex" was
2
. 1 occurring in their neighborhood, MB believes that many neighbors were merely
2 reporting a single incident they had heard of (which apparently occurred entirely inside '
3 a car), rather than separately reporting multiple separate similar incidents. Because
4 these statements were neither made under oath nor with any right for appellant to cross
5
6
7
8
examine the speakers, appellant had no mechanism for testing the veracity or reliability
of any of these statements.
"
MB believes that most of the problems reported by those living in the general area
surrounding Margarita Beach were significantly exaggerated by neighbors and, to the
9 extent they occurred at all, many were very possibly caused by persons who were not
10 patrons of MB, but were, instead, patrons of a nearby liquor store (Ramona Liquor),
11 patrons of two other nearby bars, patrons of two other nearby restaurants which also
12 sold alcohol, or guests of residents of a nearby apartment complex (to the immediate
13 North of MB)) which has consistently lacked adequate on-site parking to accommodate
. 14 its residents and their guests.'
15 In any event, shortly after the February 2, 2005 meeting where these complaints
16 to the City Council were first brought to its attention, Margarita Beach met with its
17 neighbors and, based on their feedback, and starting as soon as the very next day,
18 February 3, 2005, took numerous effective and proactive. steps to insure not only that its
19 own operation would cause no problems for its neighbors, but to reduce problems
20 caused by other potential sources as wel1.z
.
PRG648'.WP
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
, MB's investigators have determined that, on average, 6-7 cars park in the neigh-
boring Estacia Court neighborhood per night belonging to guests of or residents of the
neighboring apartment complex.
z A full list of these steps is provided in the accompanyin& declaration of Mark
Davidson. A partial list of the steps taken by MB includes: (1) haVIng its personnel walk
through the entire Estacia neighborhood a minimum of three times per day checking for
and removing litter (and much more often on busy days) regardless of whether that
litter was left by any MB patrons; (2) moving the position of its security guards from the
shoppin~ center's west parking entrance (at~amona) to further north on Ramona at the
intersection of Ramona and Estacia (allowing them to monitor all persons parking along
Estacia even before they get to the parking lot entrance leading to MB); and (3) approach-
ing any persons parked on Estacia making any loud noises (even if not MB patrons) and
(continu!?d...)
3
. 1 Substantially prior to the Planning Commission's first major hearing on these
2 matters (which took place on March 9, 2005), MB's owner, Mark Davidson, personally
3 went door to door to the house of every neighbor (reaching approximately half of them)
4 to find out if the changes he implemented (since the City Council meeting) had been
5 effective, and was told by nearly all the neighbors he spoke with that the measures were
6 entirely effective and that no further problems had been experienced by the neighbors.
7 These measures went beyond merely dealing with any problems that might have been
8 created by MB's own patrons, but additionally and pro-actively ameliorated the
9 problems caused by all of the other non-residents who parked in that neighborhood.
.
.
PRG6481.1IP
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nonetheless, the Planning Commission voted on March 9th to schedule a formal hearing
to determine whether to revoke or modify either MB's EP or CUP.
Even so, based on Margarita Beach's successful efforts to meet every reasonable
concern of its neighbors, the Planning Commission staff report leading to its hearing of
June 22, 2005, was a reasonable response, and suggested that MB's CUP be modified to
add six additional conditions to insure that the reforms instituted by MB would not be
short term. Appellant MB has no objections to any of those conditions. However, on
June 22, 2005, and based on the last minute introduction of unauthenticated photographs
asserted (mostly incorrectly) to have been taken inside MB, the Planning Commission
ignored the recommendations of its staff, reset the matter for one further hearing (on
July 13, 2005), and then, on July 13th concluded that the only appropriate result was to
enact resolutions imposing literally dozens of new and impossibly restrictive conditions
on Margarita Beach's permits, some of which (those which repeat the June 22nd
recommendations of staff) Margarita Beach finds unobjectionable, but many of the rest
2 (...continued)
warning them they'll call the police if they don't stop immediately. A summary of
many or these remedial steps was presented in a letter prepared by Mark Davidson,
datea March 1, 2005, which was nand delivered to the Estacia Neighbors' and was
thereafter given to Planning Commission Staff which attached it as one of the items
under Exhibit F to its Staff Report of March 9, 2005. The remainder are described in the
accompanying Declaration of Mark Davidson.
4
.
.
.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6481.WP
1 of which will cripple MB and force it to immediately go out of business if these new
2 conditions are allowed to go in effect. Indeed, the mere announcement of those condi- '
3 tions has already caused a 30% drop in MB's business. (See accompanying Davidson
4 Declaration.)
5 THE ASSERTED VIOLATIONS
6 The Planning Conunission made a variety of factual findings in Resolution OS-50.,
7 (revising the CUP) and Resolution 05-51 (revising the EP), but made very fe~ findings
8 of any actual violations of the prior conditions on either of these permits. The Planning
9 Conunission's findings of violations were most clearly set forth in Resolution 05-51,
10
11
12
13
14
which, in Part B (Resolution), 'lI 2-h found the following three asserted violations, and
no others:3
i. The business operation has caused adverse effects on the
adjacent residential uses such as regular, extended parking by Margarita
Beach customers in front of residences; excessive noise during late night/
15 early morning hours; and loitering of patrons within adjacent residential
neighborhood.
ii. On June 17, 2005, Mr. Davidson was convicted and fined for
violating a provision of the California Labor Code by permitting smoking
inside the business. Prior to issuance of a citation, Mr. Davidson was
given due notice and direction on how to achieve compliance.
iii. The operation of the business has changed from a restaurant
use with incidental entertainment to primarily an entertainment venue
with incidental food service, more along the lines of a nightclub, without
3 Most notably, and notwithstanding much discussion of whether certain indiv~dual
r,hotographs it reviewed constituted depictions of "Specified Sexual Activities" or
Specified Anatomical Areas," it did not make any finding that the business was either
an adult entertainment business or violated the City's adult entertainment ordinance by
operating as an illegally zoned adult entertainment business. Consequently that issue
will not be discussed herein except to categorically deny that MB has ever operated as
any type of adult entertainment Dusiness. See the accompanying declaration of Mark
DavidSon. , '
5
.
.
.
PRG6481.WP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
approved revision to the underlying Conditional Use Permit allowing a
restaurant use.
The wording of Resolution 05-50 (regarding the CUP) was far less clear but
appears, essentially, to assert the same violations, except that it specifically and addition-
ally found a violation of a requirement which it (incorrectly) attributed to Resolution No.
88-242A (the 1991 CUP) that the primary focus of the business must be as a restaurant
use deriving the majority of its receipts from the sale of food rather than alcohol (and,
indeed, it went further to suggest that the requirement under the prior CUP was that
"gross receipts for food sales [must] greatly exceed. . . gross receipts attributable to
alcohol sales." (Res. 05-50, part B (Resolution), 'lI 2-d, emphasis added.)
It also found that MB had violated one specific requirement of its prior CUP that
its full food service menu must be available to patrons at all times that it sells alcoholic
beverages. It made this finding based upon Mark Davidson's candid admission that MB
had only sold fresh and kitchen-prepared chips after 10:00 p.m. but that it had ceased
selling the bulk of the items on its full menu at that point.
RESPONSE TO ASSERTED VIOLATIONS
A. Response To Asserted Violation of CUP/EP With Respect To Prior Smoking
Violation
The circumstances surrounding the prior smoking violation are set forth in full
in paragraph 42 of the accompanying Davidson Declaration (found herein under Tab 1)
and make clear that this was a one-time violation and that prompt and permanent
remedial steps were immediately taken after the violation. Moreover, none of the
conditions imposed by the EP or CUP are responsive to this particular asserted ground
for the new restrictions, so it is hard to see what connection, if any, exists between this
asserted violation and the challenged new conditions. Mr. Davidson pled guilty,
accepted his punishment and has not been charged again. The challenged conditions
are unnecessary to address this issue, and the only proper basis for changing the
6
. 1 conditions of any CUP or EP is if the proposed changed condition is remedial of the
2 problem triggering the modification-hearing. Moreover, punishment is not an appropri-
3 ate justification for modifications of the conditions imposed by a CUP or El"'.
4
5 B.
6
7
8
Response To Asserted Violation Based On A, Change Of Use From That
Allowed By Prior CUP
1. The Violation Of Failing To Make Available The Full List Of Menu
Items Until Closing Time
9 MB has already acknowledged one minor violation of its existing CUP which it
10 has since corrected. It did not serve its full food menu after 10:00 p.m. on weekdays and
11 11 pm on weekends, even though it continued to serve alcohol. Although it did offer
12 chips and salsa which were prepared hot in the kitchen throughout the late night
13 hours,5 MB acknowledges that the 1991 CUP (Res. 88-242A) required that in order to
. 14 serve alcoholic beverages, there must be both a "restaurant usage"(which the sale of late
15 night snacks would arguably have complied with) and an "availability of full listed menu
16 iteITIS." However, as explained in fn. 1 of the accompanying Davidson Declaration, Mr.
17 Davidson was genuinely unaware of the CUP requirement on MB to serve its full menu
18 at all times while alcohol was served. TItis was for numerous reasons, including that
19 Skipper's, before it, and operating under that same CUP, had stopped serving food after
20 10 pm on weekdays and 11 pm on weekends, and he had erroneously assumed they
21 were doing so lawfully. Also, ABC regulations did not require restaurants to serve food
.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6481.WP
as long as they serve alcohol, and he had never heard of such a requirement ever having
4 This is not to say that no punishment of any kind could ever be imposed for a
violation of a CUP conoition. For example, since a CUP can theoretically be revoked as
punishment for a sufficiently weighty vlOlation, the Commission would presumably, in
appropriate instances, have the power to alternatively punish by the lesser sanctions of
a short suspension or a fine. 'What it does not have the power to do is to change
conditions (which are supposed to be remedial) as a form of punishment.
5 It should be noted that it did this entirely oblivious of any CUP requirement to
serve food at such times. It did this just because its customers liked this to be available.
7
.
.
.
PRG6481.11P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
been imposed on any other restaurant or bar in Rancho Cucamonga. As a result, he had
never checked his CUP to see if such a requirement existed.
As soon as the incomplete performance of MB's duties under the CUP was
brought to Mr. Davidson's attention (at the time of the March 9, 2005 City Planning
Commission hearing), he not only readily confessed his good-faith mistake, but took
prompt corrective steps to ensure no further violations. As indicated in the accompany-,
ing Davidson Declaration, MB's kitchen has, ever since, stayed open until 2:00 a.m. and
is available to provide the full list of its regular menu items of hot meals all the way
until closing time.
More significantly, this particular violation, like the smoking violation discussed
above, is not the type of violation which led to the neighborhood concerns motivating
these enforcement proceedings. While the failure to provide the full list of menu items
until 2:00 a.m. was contrary to the requirements of the existing CUP, fairly evaluated,
it did not cause any adverse effect upon the community. As proof of that, MB has
complied with this requirement fully since the violation was first brought to its attention
in March and the availability of full meals until closing has had absolutely no impact,
positive or negative, on anything or anyone. Consequently, once again, under a
reasonable "ladder of discipline" approach, some reasonably tempered sanction for this
innocent good-faith violation might be appropriate6, but certainly not a devastating
change in the fundamental conditions of its CUP and EP.
2. The Asserted Violation Of Not Operating Primarily As A Restaurant
The new restrictions seem to have been mistakenly based on the terms of the
original 1988 CUP which characterized the location as primarily being a restaurant and
which only allowed "the incidental sales of alcoholic beverages as menu items in
conjunction with the sales of food." (1988 CUP, Part B (Resolution), 'JI 2(b).) The
Planning Commission's finding that MB violated its CUP by changing the allowed use
was based on a misunderstanding of the changes in the CUP imposed in 1991.
6 See Margarita Beach's Alternative Suggestions, part C (found under Tab 2 herein).
8
.
.
.
PRG6481.~P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Specifically, the 1991 amendment of the CUP (embodied in Res. 88-242A)
completely re-wrote the applicable conditions and restrictions of the 1988 CUP and, by
design, did not reiterate or re-create the 1988 requirement that sale of alcohol could only
be done as "incidental sales of alcoholic beverages as menu items in conjunction with the
sales of food." In 1991, when Skipper's obtained an EP and a revised CUP, it was
because they were applying to change from a primary small restaurant use to a larger
and different type of use providing entertainment and alcohol (and not from a menu)
until 2:00 am. To accomplish this, it not only sought the initial EP for the location, but
also successfully sought permission: (1) to not only extend its authorized hours to sell
alcohol from 11:00 pm. to 2:00 a.m., but (2) also to be freed of the obligation to sell
alcohol only from its restaurant menu and only as an incidental aspect of its restaurant
use. It also obtained permission to expand from just one unit within the shopping center
into two adjacent units, large enough to hold this very different type of use.
Prior to the expansion, the location housed only a small restaurant with no
entertainment and which was required to stop selling alcohol at 11:00 p.m. In sharp
contrast, even the title of its 1991 CUP (see Resolution 88-242A) expressly referred to it,
for the first time, as a "restaurant and bar." (Emphasis added.) In fact, Skipper's full
name as it appears on both the 1991 CUP and EP is "Skipper's Grill and Bar." The
former space (authorized by the original 1988 CUP) was suitable for a restaurant, but
a CUP for the larger space (and the EP) was applied for in 1991 so Skipper's could
operate as a restaurant/bar which emphasized its entertainment features and derived
most of its income from the sale of alcoholic beverages (which it was then expressly
allowed to sell until 2:00 a.m.). It was, accordingly, no accident that the restriction to
sell alcoholic beverages only as "incidental sales" was then lifted. The only limitation
was that the serving of alcohol must be "in conjunction with restaurant usage." However,
nothing in the 1991 CUP continued to require the sale of alcohol to be "incidental" to the
restaurant usage.
9
.
.
.
1 Finally, further evidence that it was no accident that the term "incidental sales"
2 'did not appear in the 1991 CUP is reflected in the fact that where the Planning Commis- '
3 sion desires to perpetuate the terms of a pre-existing CUP and only add supplemental
4 modifications or conditions to it, it routinely includes language in the amending CUP
5 language stating that the prior CUP remains in effect except as superseded by the new
6 one. Such language appears, for example, in the challenged CUP (Resolution 05-50), in."
7 part D (Resolution), 'JI 2-J, which states: "The proposed use, together with tl:ze original
8 conditions, as amended to add new or modified conditions imposed by this Resolution,
9 complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code and the
10 Foothill Boulevard Districts." (Emphasis added.) Likewise, in part B (Resolution), 'JI 5,
11 of this same 2005 Resolution, it expressly clarifies that it is simply adding new and
12 additional conditions to the pre-existing 1991 Resolution (Resolution No. 88-242A), rather
13 than simply superseding that Resolution. That paragraph states, in pertinent part:
14 "Based on the violations identified above and in order to ensure future compliance with the
15 conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A, this condition hereby modifies
16 [the] Conditional Use Permit. . . by adopting the following conditions:"
17 Thus, it is clear that the 2005 Resolution simply added to, but did not eliminate,
18 the provisions of the 1991 Resolution. In sharp contrast, there is no comparable
19 language in the 1991 Resolution preserving any portion of the origina11988 Resolution,
20 Instead, all of the conditions set forth in the 1991 Resolution are stated as complete in
21 and of themselves and do not reference that they supplement or modify in any way the
22 prior conditions imposed in 1988 by Resolution No. 88-242. Accordingly, for that reason
23 as well, it is clear that the 1991 elimination of the term "incidental sales" was not
24 accidental, but that it was intended that the 1991 Resolution entirely re-state the
25 applicable provisions governing this location, and the Planning Commission could not
26 properly bootstrap superseded provisions from the 1988 Resolution as if they still
27 survived following the entirely new superseding Resolution enacted in 1991.
28
PRG6481.WP
10
.
.
.
PRG6481.WP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As a result, the Planning Commission unquestionably erred in requiring MB to
prove that the bulk of its sales came from food and not the sale of alcohol. Furthermore,
because the 1991 Resolution had no such requirements, the Commission abused its
discretion in enforcement of the 1991 CUP, by entirely changing the terms of that CUP
to prohibit the very things which that CUP allowed.
C. Response to Assertion That MB's Use Has Either Violated the Public Health
Safety or Welfare or Been Materially Injurious To Properties Or Improvements
In The Vicinity
Because, in the declaration of Mark Davidson, MB has set forth in great detail all
of the relevant facts and circumstances pertaining to the charges that it has either
operated in violation of the public health, safety or welfare, or been materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity, rather than reiterate all that discussion
herein, MB will simply refer the Council to that presentation. Based thereon, MB takes
the position that it has at all times acted responsibly and effectively in dealing with
every complaint registered concerning the operation of its business and its impact on its
surrounding neighbors. Consequently, if any further modifications of its CUP are shown
to still be needed (and no evidence of that has been established to this point), such
should be imposed only in a carefully limited way calculated to ensure a properly
measured response is taken recognizing that this is MB's first CUP or EP accusation, its
good faith throughout these proceedings, and the competing property rights here at
issue. MB will expand on this portion of its discussion substantially at the time of the
hearing before the Council.
D. The Due Process Issues
Because the Planning Commission has ordered severe modifications of MB's CUP
and EP that will unquestionably force the immediate termination of this business if
allowed to take effect, MB believes that it is constitutionally entitled to fundamental
procedural rights before so significant a property right can be taken from it. It believes
that, in such circumstances, it is entitled to: (1) advance written notification of the
11
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6481. WP
charges against it upon which any revocation/modification procedure is based and a
reasonable period thereafter in which to prepare defenses and respond; (2) the right to .
subpoena witnesses to appear at the revocation hearing; (3) the right to a proceeding
where the only evidence that will be considered against it is that which is sworn under
oath; and (4) the right to cross examine all adverse witnesses.
MB's counsel has contacted counsel for the City in advance of this hearinganq,
has made such a formal request, as it believes thatthis right should extend npt only to
the Planning Commission hearings, but should also extend to the City Council's
appellate consideration of this matter, based upon representations of the City Attorney
that the City Council may take in new evidence and has the power to redetermine the
relevant facts. The City Attorney has informed counsel for MB that these procedural
rights will not be available to MB at the upcoming City Council hearing and, according-
ly, for the record, MB formally objects that the findings of the Planning Commission
operated to deprive it of its property without due process of law, in violation of the 14th
Amendment to the United States Constitution and parallel provisions of the California
Constitution.
THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED BY THE REVISED CUP AND EP
PERMITS ARE THE EQUIVALENT OF A REVOCATION ORDER AS
THE BUSINESS WILL BE FORCED TO CLOSE IMMEDIATELY IF
THESE RESTRICTIONS ARE ALLOWED TO GO INTO EFFECT
The three most crippling such restrictions are: (1) a serious reduction in the hours
of operation of the business from those allowed by its existing CUP (which allows it to
remain open serving food and alcohol until 2:00 a.m.) to an 11:00 p.m. cutoff on its
allowed hours for serving alcohol, coupled with a mandatory closure of the entire
facility by midnight; (2) a serious reduction in the hours of allowed entertainment from
those allowed by its existing EP (which allows it to present entertainment from 8:00 p.m.
12
. 1 until 2:00 a.m.) to a midnight cutoff; and (3) a major change in the allowed operation of
2 the businesses, such that it may only operate if the primary use is as a restaurant (as
3 demonstrated by tri-monthly submissions of gross receipts), even though under the pre-
4 existing CUP, both Margarita Beach and its predecessor, Skippers, were allowed to
5 derive the bulk of their income from the sale of alcoholic beverages, so long as the
6 business remained open serving food throughout all times that it sold alcoholic
7 beverages.
8 These new restrictions, if given effect, will make it impossible for Margarita Beach
9 to compete with numerous other bars in its vicinity, the hours of operation of which
10 have not been restricted, and, as a result, would force it to close its doors immediately
11 if these conditions are given effect, essentially depriving Margarita Beach of all the value
12 of its pre-existing CUP and EP. See Declaration of Mark Davidson, '11'1113-14.7
13
. 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
PRG6481.WP
7 The foregoing discusses only the three most draconian sanctions, implementation
of which would unquestionably force the immediate closure of ME. However, ME
challenges and opposes all of the other proposed new conditions and, for the reasons set
forth in ME's Suggested Alternatives, Part A (found under Tab 2), urges that the
proposed conditions recommended by staff in the June 22, 2005 Planing staff report be
adopted instead, along with such of the numerous other suggested changes proposed
by ME in its Suggestea Alternatives document, which the Council determines may be
warranted.
13
9 DATED: October 26, 2005
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
2S
26
27
28
.
.
.
PRG6481. UP
1
CONCLUSION
2 For all the foregoing reasons, MB respectfully requests that the Council reverse.
3 the decision of the Planning Commission adopting Resolution Nos. 05-50 and 05-51, and
4 instead, adopt the proposed conditions recommended by staff in the June 22, 2005
S Planing staff report, along with such of the numerous other suggested changes proposed
6 by MB in its Suggested Alternatives document (enclosed herein under Tab 2), which the"
7 Council determines may be warranted.
8
Respectfully submitted,
JOHN H. WESTON
G. RANDALL GARROU
WESTON, GARROU & eWITT
JAMES V. REISS
REISS AND JO
By: ,
JOHN H.
Attorneys for Margarita Beach
14
.
.
.
<,
RESOLUTIONS 05-50 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT)
AND 05-51 (ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT) WHICH
MARGARITA BEACH IS APPEALING
1
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-50
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 88-45 FORA
RESTAURANT AND BAR WITH LIVE ENTERTAINMENT LOCATED
WITHIN A COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DiStRICT (SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD, SUITES R & S; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-621-34.
A. Recitals.
.
1. Conditional Use Permit 88-45 was approved in 1988 for Siam Garden Restaurant by
adoption of Planning Commission Resolution 88-242,
2. In 1991, the Planning Commission approved a modification of Conditional Use Permit
88-45 and Entertainment Permit 91-03 on October 23, 1991, by adoption of Planning Commission
Resolution No, 88-242A to expand the size of the restaurant and bar and to allow live entertainment
under the business name of Skipper's Bar and Grill.
3. In 1996, the business was obtained by Mr. Davidson and renamed Margaritaville. In
2004, the business name was changed to Margarita Beach.
4. At the February 2,2005, City Council meeting, 13 residents spoke on issues associated
with the Margarita Beach business that negatively impacted their residential neighborhood, and the
matter was referred to the Planning Commission for a review of the issues presented.
5, On March 9, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
determine whether substantial evidence existed to set a public hearing for a formal review of
business operations at Margarita Beach. At the hearing 17 residents testified as to how their health,
safety and welfare have been negatively affected by the operation of Margarita Beach. Testimony
included submission of letters, petitions, and photographs. Also included in the staff report was a
summary of Police calls for service.
6. Based on the testimony presented during the evidentiary hearing, the Planning
Commission found that a public hearing was appropriate and directed that before said public
hearing, the business owner, local residents, and City staff meet and discuss how the issues raised
regarding the business could be resolved.
7. On April 19, 2005, City staff met with the business owner and local residents to discuss
the issues, Representatives from the Police Department provided a breakdown of the calls for
service and responded to questions.
8, The Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on April 27, May 11,
June 22, and July 13, 2005 concerning the business operations and modification of CUP No. 88-45.
. B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-45 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 2
1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Planning Commission during the
above-referenced public hearing on April 27, May 11, June 22, and July 13, 2005, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, the Planning Commission hereby specifically
finds as follows:
a. The CUP modification applies to property located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard with a
street frontage of 632 feet and lot depth of 278 feet and is presently improved with a multi-tenant
commercial building; and
b. The subject property is surrounded by apartments to the north, a mobile home parK
to the south, residences development to the east and west, and a service station to the west; and
c. The CUP modification applies to a 3,440 square foot leased space that includes the
Margarita Beach restaurant and bar, dance floor, the serving of alcoholic beverages, live
entertainment, and is currently permitted to be open between the hours of 11 :00 a,m. to 2:00 a.m.
daily; and
d. Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A includes conditions of approval that
require the serving of alcoholic beverages to be limited to those hours when the full listed food menu
items are available. While the current operation of Margarita Beach continues to serve food, the
business is largely focused on the bar and entertainment as the primary activity as its
advertisements attest. In violation of Conditions 1 and 2 of Resolution No. 88-242A, the applicant,
at the March 9, 2005 Planning Commission meeting testified that they offer a full menu only until
10:00 p.m., such as steaks, fish, and chicken. Further, the business owner did not provide any
documentation that the restaurant use, as previously approved, is the primary focus of the Margarita
Beach business. Such documentation would include business records reflecting that the
percentage of gross receipts for food sales greatly exceeds gross receipts attributable to alcohol
sales, or business records reflecting that their expenditures for restaurant food menu items greatly
exceeds expenditures for the purchase of alcohol that will be resold; and
e. Based on public and staff testimony, site visits by staff, and a review of pictures and
advertisements for the business provided at the June 22, 2005 meeting, the four members of the
Commission (one absent) concluded that the nature of the current business operation had changed
from a restaurant use with incidental entertainment to a primarily entertainment venue (with food),
more along the lines of a nightclub; and
f. The findings made by the Planning Commission in their Resolution No. 88-242A
granting Conditional Use Permit 88-45 indicate that the use "will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity."
However, testimony has been received from numerous residents of the surrounding neighborhood
indicating a variety of adverse impacts associated with Margarita Beach's operation and its
customers including, but not limited to, regular, extended parKing by Margarita Beach customers in
front of residences, excessive noise during late night/early moming hours, and loitering of patrons
within adjacent residential neighborhood across Ramona Avenue; and
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-45 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 3
g. On June 30, 2005, staff visited the website of radio station X-103.9 and found
seven photographs identified as being from Margarita Beach. One of these photographs shows a
woman from behind who is pulling down her pants revealing the cleft and upper half of her buttocks,
an area that is included within the definition of "Specified Anatomical Areas" by the City's Adult
Entertainment Business Ordinance; and
h. One print advertisement states "XX every Friday Night at Margarita Beach"
including "$2.00 sex shots all night long." All of the advertising refers readers to ..www.ieparly.com"
for more details. The www.ieparly.com website featured numerous photographs allegedly taken at
Margarita Beach's Bunny Ball on March 24, 2005, including photos of a woman fondling the breast
of another woman, a woman squeezing and licking the breast of another woman, and a woman's
buttocks being fondled. The acts depicted in these three photographs are included within the
definition of "Specific Sexual Activities" set forth in the Adult Entertainment Business Ordinance.
The Adult Entertainment Ordinance defines a commercial business that provides "a place where two
or more persons may congregate, associate, or consort in connection with 'Specified Sexual
Activities' or the exposure of 'Specified Anatomical Areas' as a "Sexual Encounter Establishmenf;
and
.
i. The Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A also adopted a condition of
approval that stipulates that the business must comply with all applicable City Ordinances, and
Public Health Codes, On June 17, 2005, Mr, Davidson was convicted and fined for violating a
provision ofthe California Labor Code by permitting smoking inside the business. Prior to issuance
of a citation, Mr. Davidson was given due notice and direction on how to achieve compliance.
j. The proposed use, together with the original conditions, as amended to add new or
modify conditions imposed by this Resolution, complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code and the Foothill Boulevard Districts.
3. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this
Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality
Act of 1970, as amended, ("CECA") and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to
Section 15301 of the Guidelines. '
4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Commission during the
above-referenced public hearings, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1, 2
and 3 above, the Planning Commission finds that the business owner's violation of the Conditional
Use Permit, and/or the manner in which the business has been and continues to be operated, is
detrimental to the public health, safety and/or welfare, including that of the adjacent residential
neighborhood.
5. Based on the violations identified above and in order to insure future compliance with the
conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 88-242A, this Commission hereby modifies
Conditional Use Permit No. CUP88-45 by adopting the following conditions:
.
1) The serving of alcoholic beverages shall be in conjunction only with a
restaurant use and the availability of all items listed on the menu. The
sale and/or serving of alcoholic beverages shall cease when full listed
menu items are not available to customers. At all times, menu items
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-45 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 4
shall include full, hot "meals," as defined in California Business and
Professions Code Section 23038.
2) The primary use shall be a restaurant and "bona fide eating place" as
defined in California Business and Professions Code Section 23038,
with ancillary serving of alcoholic beverages. In order to establish
compliance with this condition, within 15 days of the effective date of ,
this Resolution, and every three (3) months thereafter, the business
owner shall provide the City Planner with satisfactory documentation
reflecting the percentage of actual gross receipts attributable to
restaurant food sales, and to the sales of alcoholic beverages, for the
first two quarters of 2005. Alternatively, the business owner may
provide satisfactory documentation of the business expenditures for
restaurant food menu items and for alcoholic beverages, for the same
period of time.
3) Within 15 days of the effective date of this Resolution, the applicant
shall provide the City Planner with an updated floor plan of the lease
space indicating the layout of the space and specific location and type
of tables and chairs, for review and approval. ,
. 4) The serving of alcohol in conjunction with restaurant usage may occur
only between the hours of 11 :00 a.m. to 11 :00 p.m. The restaurant use
may remain open until Midnight.
5) The business owner shall at all times fully comply with all applicable
regulations of the Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control
(ABC), including, but not limited to, those provisions regarding Attire
and Conduct and Entertainers and Conduct (specifically Sections
143.2, 143.3 of Title 4 of the Califomia Code of Regulations),
6) All business activities shall be conducted inside the building.
7) All doors shall remain closed during entertainment for noise attenuation
purposes. The rear (north) doors shall be used only for emergencies
from 8:00 p.m. to Midnight.
8) All customers shall use the front (south) entrance/exit, and use of the
rear (north) parking lot shall be limited to employees only.
9) No entertainment activity shall create any noise that exceeds an'
exterior noise level of 60dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m"
or 65dB during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m" or that otherwise
unreasonably interferes with the peace and quiet of any adjoining
property, The business owner shall not permit entertainment on the
. premises, except as authorized by a valid Entertainment Permit
10) The use of search lights, or flashing or otherwise light-animated signs
which contain or are illuminated by flashing or moving lights or lights
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-45 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
.UIY 13, 2005
age 5
which are intermittently on and off, change in intensity, orwhich create
the illusion of flashing in any manner, shall not be permitted,
11) The business owner shall be responsible for the clean up and general
maintenance of the areas in front and behind the lease space, and in
any and all parking lot areas occupied by its patrons, All collected
trash and debris shall be properly disposed in the trash receptacles
located on the site.
12) The business owner, and all persons acting on behalf of the business,
shall at all times comply with any and all local, state and federal laws,
rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, requirements ofthe
Foothill Boulevard Districts, all applicable City Ordinances, Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and Public Health Codes. The
business owner shall provide all employees with a copy of these
conditions and shall personally ensure that each employee
understands and is familiar with each condition.
13) Any modification to the floor plan, expansion, or other change in
operation shall require a revision to this Conditional Use Permit and
associated Entertainment Permit.
.
14) All signage, including window signs, shall be in conformance with the
Comprehensive Sign Ordinance of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the
applicable Uniform Sign Program for the center, and shall require
review and approval by the Planning Department.
15) The dance floor maximum square footage shall not exceed 150 square
feet.
16) In the eventthe business owner fails, at any time, to comply with all the
conditions of approval, as amended, or; the operation of the business
causes adverse effects generating complaints by nearby property
owners, or; the operation of the business generates a significant
number of requests for service by the Police Department, then the
Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning
Commission for consideration, including possible modification,
imposition of additional conditions, and/or revocation of the Conditional
Use Permit.
.
17) The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed permissible limits
under the building and fire codes. The maximum occupancy for the
use is 233 persons and shall be posted as determined by the Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or the City's Fire Prevention
Unit Department.
18) No adult entertainment, as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code Section 17.04.090, shall be permitted.
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-45 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 6
19) Uniformed security personnel shall be provided within the parking area
at all times during evening business hours (8:00 p.m, to Midnight) to
control parking and monitor crowd behavior. A minimum of one
member of the security team shall be continually present at all times.
When the front parking lot reaches 50 percent capacity, the number of
security personnel outside the establishment shall be increased to a
minimum of 2 persons monitoring the parking lot and directing patrons
not to park within the adjacent residential neighborhood. Security
personnel shall immediately report any observed criminal activities to
the Police Department.
20) The business operator and/or its employees shall not direct patrons to
park in the rear parking areas on the north side of the building, in any
of the adjacent residential streets, or other off-site locations, On site
parking signs shall be installed by the applicant to instruct patrons not
to park anywhere but within the parking lot. The number, location, and
language of said signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner.
21) The City Planner shall monitor the operation of the business and shall
bring back a progress report to the Commission for two successive
3-month reviews, beginning on the date of this Commission action.
The report shall indicate whether the business establishment has been
operating in compliance with all conditions of approval. Two
successive 6-month progress reports shall be provided to the
Commission beginning from the date of the last 3-month review,
22) The business owner shall work with the property owner to establish a
Business Watch program for the commercial center to address issues related to
crime prevention and personal safety.
6, The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 2005.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Rich Macias, Chairman
ATTEST:
Although signatures are not available. this is a
true and accurate copy of the original.
Brad Buller, Secretary
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 05-50
CUP88-45 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 7
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 13th day of July 2005, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL
COMMISSIONERS: STEWART
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-51
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA. MODIFYING ENTERTAINMENT
PERMIT NO. 91-03 TO OPERATE AND CONDUCT ENTERTAINMENT
AND DANCING FOR MARGARITA BEACH. LOCATED AT 9950 FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD. SUITES R & S. WITHIN A COMMERCIAL CENTER IN THE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 3) OF THE FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN; AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF -APN 1077-621-34.
A. Recitals.
1. On May 21, 1986. the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga adopted Ordinance
No. 290 providing for the regulation of entertainment.
2. On November 13, 1991. the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
adopted their Resolution No. 91-184 approving Entertainment Permit No, 91-03 for Skipper's Grill
and Bar allowing "entertainment," as defined in Section 5.12.020 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code. (specifically, small bands or individual musicians) and dancing in conjunction with a
restaurant use at the location as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution. the subject Entertainment Permit request is referred to as "the permit."
3. Skipper's Grill and Bar was approved as a restaurant serving alcoholic beverages. with
entertainment occurring indoors, Sunday through Saturday from 8:00 p,m. to 2:00 a,m.
.
4. In 1996, the Entertainment Permit was transferred to a new owner (Mr. Davidson) doing
business as Margaritaville. In 2004, the business name was changed to Margarita Beach.
5. At the February 2, 2005, City Council meeting, 13 residents spoke conceming the
Margarita Beach business and adverse effects that business has had on their residential
neighborhood. Thereafter, the matter was referred to the Planning Commission for a review of the
issues presented, as authorized by the City's Development Code.
6. On March 9, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing to
determine whether substantial evidence existed to set a public hearing for a formal review of
business operations at Margarita Beach. At the hearing 17 residents testified as to how their health,
safety and welfare have been negatively affected by the operation of Margarita Beach. Testimony
included submission of letters, petitions and photographs, Also included in the staff report was a
summary of Police calls for service.
7, Based on the testimony presented during the evidentiary hearing, the Planning
Commission found that sufficient evidence existed to determine that a public hearing was
appropriate and directed City staff to set a public hearing on the matter.
8. On the June 22, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the matter and after taking public testimony on the
operation of the business, the Commission continued the public hearing to July 13, 2005.
.
9. On July 13, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted the continued public hearing on the permit and concluded said hearing on that date,
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.05-51
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 2
1 O. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B, Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are ,true and correct.
"
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearings on June 22 and July 13, 2005, including written and oral staff reports,
together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. Entertainment Permit No. 91-03 applies to the business known as Margarita
Beach, located at 9950 Foothill Boulevard, Suites R & S, with a street frontage of 632 feet and lot
depth of 278 feet and is presently improved with one multi-tenant commercial building; and
b. Margarita Beach consists of a 3,440 square foot leased space that includes
restaurant facilities and a bar, and dance floor. Pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45 and
Entertainment Permit No. 91-03, Margarita Beach is permitted to serve alcohol and provide
entertainment, and is currently open between the hours of 11 :00 a,m. to 2:00 a,m. daily; and
c. Based on public and staff testimony, site visits by staff, and a review of pictures and
advertisements for the business provided at the June 22, 2005, the four members of the
Commission (one absent) concluded that the nature of the current business operation had changed
from a restaurant use with incidental entertainment to a primarily entertainment venue (with food),
more along the lines of a nightclub; and
d. The findings made by the Planning Commission in their Resolution No. 91-184
granting the Entertainment Permit 91-03, pursuant the standards established by the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 5.12.080, indicate that the use "will not be contrary to the
public health, safety, morals or welfare" and the "the premises or establishment are not likely to be
operated in an illegal, improper, or disorderly manner." However, testimony has been received from
numerous residents of the surrounding neighborhood describing a variety of adverse impacts
associated with Margarita Beach's operation and its customers; and
e. On June 30, 2005, staff visited the website of radio station X103.9 and found seven
photographs identified as from Margarita Beach. One of these photographs shows a woman from
behind who is pulling down her pants revealing the cleft and upper half of her buttocks, an area that
is included within the definition of "Specified Anatomical Areas" by the City's Adult Entertainment
Business Ordinance; and
f. One print advertisement states "XX every Friday night at Margarita Beach"
including "$2.00 sex shots all nightlong." All of the advertising refers readers to "www"eparty,com"
for more details. The aforementioned website featured numerous photographs allegedly taken at
Margarita Beach's Bunny Ball on March 24, 2005, including photos of a woman fondling the breast
of another woman, a woman squeezing and licking the breast of another woman, and a woman's
buttocks being fondled. The acts depicted in these three photographs are included within the
definition of "Specific Sexual Activities" set forth in the Adult Entertainment Business Ordinance. A
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.05-51
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 3
commercial business that provides "a place where two or more persons may congregate, associate,
or consort in connection with 'Specified Sexual Activities' or the exposure of 'Specified Anatomical
Areas' is defined as a "Sexual Encounter Establishment" by the Adult Entertainment Ordinance; and
g. The Planning Commission Resolution No, 88-242A approving the Conditional Use
Permit also adopted a condition of approval that stipulates that the business must comply with all
applicable City Ordinances, and Public Health Codes and;
h. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to the Commission during the
above-referenced public hearings, and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1
and 2 above, the Planning Commission specifically finds that violations of Condition Nos. 3, 10, and
11 of Planning Commission Resolution No, 91-184 have occurred since adoption of said Resolution.
The violations of the ~spective conditions of approval are as follows:
i. The business operation has caused adverse effects on the adjacent
residential uses such as regular, extended parking by Margarita Beach customers in front of
residences; excessive noise during late night/early morning hours; and loitering of patrons within
adjacent residential neighborhood
ii. On June 17, 2005, Mr. Davidson was convicted and fined for violating a
provision of the California Labor Code by permitting smoking inside the business. Prior to issuance
of a citation, Mr. Davidson was given due notice and direction on how to achieve compliance.
.
ili. The operation of the business has changed from a restaurant use with
incidental entertainment to primarily an entertainment venue with incidental food service, more along
the lines of a nightclub, without approved revision to the underlying Conditional Use Permit allowing
a restaurant use.
3. The business owner's violation of these conditions and conditions adopted pursuant to
Conditional Use Permit No. 88-45, and/or the manner in which the business has been and continues
to be operated, is detrimental to the public health, safety and/or welfare, including that of the
adjacent residential neighborhood.
4. Based on the violations identified above and in order to insure future compliance with the
conditions of Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-184, this Commission hereby modifies
Entertainment Permit No.91-03 by adopting the following conditions:
1) This approval is only for entertainment as an ancillary activity related to
the primary restaurant use. Entertainment is approved for small bands
or individual musicians, and a dance floor area. Any change of
intensity or type of entertainment shall require a modification to this
permit.
.
2) The dance floor shall not exceed 150 square feet.
3) The provision of entertainment is limited to between 8:00 p.m. and
Midnight, Sunday through Saturday. Any expansion of days and/or
hours shall require modification ofthis permit.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.05-51
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 4
4) No adult entertainment, as defined in the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, Section 17.04,090, shall be permitted at any time.
5) All entertainment shall be conducted entirely inside the building.
6) When entertainment is being conducted, doors and windows shall
remain closed for noise attenuation purposes. The rear (north) doors
shall be used only for emergencies from 8:00 p,m, to Midnight.
7) No entertainment activity shall create any noise that exceeds an
exterior noise level of 60 dB during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a,m" or 65dB during the hours of 7:00 a,m. to 10:00 p.m., or that
otherwise unreasonably interferes with the peace and quiet of any
adjoining property. The business owner shall not permit entertainment
on the premises, except as authorized by a valid Entertainment Permit.
,
8) Access to the lounge/entertainment area must be from the main
entrance to the primary use and not from a separate exterior entrance.
Other exits shall be for "Fire Exit" purposes only.
.
9) The applicant shall at all times fully comply with all applicable
regulations of the Department of Alcoholic and Beverage Control
(ABC), including those provisions regarding Attire and Conduct and
Entertainers and Conduct (specifically Sections 143.2, 143.3 ofTitle 4
of the California Code of Regulations).
10) In the event the business owner fails, at any time, to comply with all of
the conditions of approval, as amended, or; the operation of the
business while entertainment is being provided causes adverse effects
generating complaints by nearby property owners, or; the operation of
the business while entertainment is being provided generates a
significant number of requests for service by the Police Department,
then the Entertainment Permit shall be brought before the Planning
Commission for review, including possible modification, imposition of
additional conditions, and/or revocation of the permit.
11) The business owner, and all persons acting on behalf of the business,
shall at all times comply with any and all local, state and federal laws,
rules and regulations, including, but not limited to, requirements of the
Foothill Boulevard District, all applicable City Ordinances, Rancho
Cucamonga Fire Protection District ordinances, all conditions
contained in Resolution No. 91-184, to the extent not modified herein,
and Public Health Codes. The business owner shall provide all
employees with a copy of these conditions and shall personally ensure
that each employee understands and is familiar with each condition of
this Resolution,
.
12) The term of the Entertainment Permit is one year. The business owner
shall annually renew this Entertainment Permit per Municipal Code
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.05-51
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 5
Section 5.12.115. Renewal of said permit shall be based on full
compliance with all the conditions of this approval, as modified, and
those of the associated Conditional Use Permit for the premises.
13) The maximum number of occupants shall not exceed building and fire
codes. Unless revised by a change in or interpretation of any
applicable statute or regulation, the maximum occupancy for the use is
233 persons and the same shall be posted as determined by the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and/or the City's Fire
Prevention Unit Department.
.
14) Uniformed security personnel shall be provided within the parking area
at all times during evening business hours (8:00 p.m. to Midnight) to
control parking and monitor crowd behavior. A minimum of one
member of the security team shall be continually present at all times.
When the front parking lot reaches 50 percent capacity, the number of
security personnel outside the establishment shall be increased to a
minimum of 2 persons monitoring the parking lot and directing patrons
not to park within the adjacent residential neighborhood. Security
personnel shall immediately report any observed criminal activities to
the Police Department.
15) The business operator and/or its employees shall not direct patrons to
park in the rear parking areas on the north side of the building, in any
of the adjacent residential streets, or other off-site locations. On site
parking signs shall be installed by the applicant to instruct patrons not
to park anywhere but within the parking lot. The number, location and
language of said signs shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner,
16) The City Planner shall monitor the operation of the business and shall
bring back a progress report to the Commission for two successive
3-month reviews, beginning on the date of this Commission action,
The report shall indicate whether the business establishment has been
operating in compliance with all conditions contained in this Resolution.
Two successive 6-month progress reports shall be provided to the
Commission beginning from the date of the last 3-month review.
17) The business operator shall work with the property owner to establish a
Business Watch program for the commercial center to address issues
related to crime prevention and personal safety.
.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a, That the conduct of the establishment and the granting of the renewal of the
Entertainment Permit, together with the original conditions, as amended to add new or modify
conditions imposed by this Resolution, would not be contrary to the public health, safety, morals or
welfare; and
.
.
.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO,05-51
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 6
b. That the premises or establishment, together with the original conditions, as
amended to add new or modify conditions imposed by this Resolution, is not likely to be operated in
an illegal, improper or disorderly manner; and
c. That the applicant, or any person associated with him as principal or partner or in a
position or capacity involving partial or total control over the conduct of the business for which such
permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of any
offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show of any kind orof
a felony or of any crime involving moral turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license
issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment revoked within the
preceding five years; and
"
d. That renewal of the Entertainment Permit, as originally conditioned, and as
amended to add new or modify conditions imposed by this Resolution, allowing the business to
continue to provide entertainment, would n9t create a public nuisance; and
e, That the normal operation of the premises, as originally conditioned and as the
Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit have been amended to add new or modify
conditions imposed by this Resolution, will not interfere with the peace and quiet of the surrounding
commercial center and adjacent residential uses; and
f. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement of
material fact in the required application.
6. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project identified in this
Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act
of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuantto Section 15301 of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
7. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 2005.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
Rich Macias, Chairman
A TIES,.:
Brad Buller, Secretary
Although signatures are not available, this is a
true and accurate copy of the original.
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 RESOLUTION NO,05-51
EP 91-03 MOD - MARGARITA BEACH
July 13, 2005
Page 7
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 13th day of July 2005, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL
COMMISSIONERS: STEWART
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
.
"
.
MARGARITA BEACH'S SUGGESTED
ALTERNATIVES
.
2
Mar2arita Beach's Suggested Alternatives
.
A.
.
Margarita Beach appeals Planning Commission Resolutions 05-50 (Conditional Use Permit)
and 05-51 (Entertainment Permit) and the new operational conditions imposed pursuant to the
respective resolutions. Instead, Margarita Beach respectfully submits that the following new
conditions, which were proposed by PlanningDepartment Staff! in the June 22, 2005 Report (and
which are reproduced verbatim below), are fully adequate to address the legitimate concerns which
triggered the Planning Commission's review and should be adopted in lieu of those contained in
Resolutions 05-50 and 05-51:
1. No adult entertainment as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
Code, Section 17.04.090 shall be permitted.
2. Uniformed security personnel shall be provided within the parking area
at all times during evening business hours (9:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m.) to control
parking and monitor crowd behavior. A minimum of one member of the
security team shall be continually present at all times. When the front parking
lot reaches 75 percent capacity, the number of security personnel outside the
establishment shall be increased to a minimum of two persons patrolling the
parking lot and one person on Ramona Avenue directing patrons away from
parking within the adjacent residential neighborhood.
3. The driveway entries/exits on Ramona Avenue shall be closed each
business day no later than 1 :00 a:m. to direct patrons leaving the site to exit on
Foothill Boulevard, subject to approval by the City's Traffic Engineer.
4. The business operator and/or its employees shall not direct patrons to
park in the rear parking areas on the north side of the building, in any of the
adjacent residential streets, in any ofthe adjacent residential streets, or in other
off-site locations.
5. The City Planner shall monitor the operation of the business with a
progress report being brought back to the Commission for two successive 3-
month reviews, beginning on the date of this Commission action. The report
shall indicate whether the business establishment has been operating in
compliance with all conditions of approval and applicable City ordinances.
A follow up progress report shall be provided to the Commission one year from
the date of the last 3-month review. Failure by the operator to comply with all
the conditions of approval, as amended, at any time, or because of continued
.
I These proposed new conditions were arrived at only after significant input from the residents with
feedback also from Margarita Beach.
.
.
.
complaints from the public regarding excessive problems directly attributable
to the operation of the establishment, shall be cause for the possihle revocation
of the Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
6. The business operator shall work with the property owner to establish
a Business Watch program for the commercial center to address issues related
to crime prevention and personal safety.
B.
In addition to the foregoing, Margarita Beach proposes that the following additional
conditions be added:
1. The business operator shall cause its employees to inspect the
RamonaJEstacia Court neighborhoods within 250 of the RamonaJEstacia Court
intersection for litter (and remove any that is observed) at least three times
every day on which the business is open. One of the inspections must be within
30 minutes of the business' closing; one mnst be between 9:30 p.m. and
10:30 p.m.; and one must be between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m.
2. The business operator shall deny entrance to the business to any
person(s) reasonably believed to have parked on Ramona or in the Estacia
Conrt neighborhood.
3. The business operator shall install an additional nrinal in the men's
lavatory within the business.
4. The business owner shall cause speed bumps to be installed in the
driveway between the building and the north sound wall.
5. The business owner shall expend a minimum of $20,000 towards
promoting and expanding food sales. This money is to be spent on remodeling
the kitchen (adding a pizza oven (for gourmet pizzas), convection oven (for fresh
bread), additional refrigeration, and promoting food sales (thru coupons and
advertising). The business owner is to provide proof of the required sum's
being spent within 180 days.
,
c.
Margarita Beach strenuously maintains that the challenged resolutions inappropriatelymodify
its CUP and EP. Those changes are neither necessary to insure compliance nor in any sense
remedial. However, recognizing that its early tennination offood service and smoking violation do
constitute violations of its pennits, Margarita Beach acknowledges that some punishment may be
in order. Accordingly, it suggests that the City adopt a ladder of discipline approach to pennittees,
2
.
.
.
including Margarita Beach, which would permit imposition of graduated penalties for confirmed
violations. Margarita proposes the following ladder of discipline which is similar to that utilized
by the California ABC:
First offense - 5 day suspension of entertainment permit or fine equal to 20%
of revenues as defined by the State Board of Equalization for the 5 day period
of time.
Second offense -10 or 15 day suspension of entertainment permit or fine equal
to 20% revenues as defined by State Board of Equalization for the 10 to 15 day
period of time.
Third offense - 30 suspension of entertainment permit, no fine alternative.
Fourth offense - Revocation of license.
By adopting the foregoing approach, the City would have the ability to punish for confirmed
violations, while still being able to modify conditions for where chronic non-compliance or remedial
necessity justified such modifications.
If the Council determined that Margarita Beach warranted punishment, Margarita Beach
would not oppose application of this ladder of discipline in the present matter.
D.
Finally, although Margarita Beach is confident that its procedures consistently prevent its
patrons from entering, parking in or otherwise disturbing the Estacia Court neighborhood, it
respectfully suggests an additional level of insulation which the City could provide. It would
involve limiting parking in the designated area after 10:00 to those who live there and their invited
guests. The City could:
1. Prohihit parking in the neighhorhood after 10:00 p.m. every evening,
except for residents' vehicles whose license plate numbers are registered with
the Police Department. Residents could obtain temporary parking privileges by
calling in overnight visitors' license plate numbers.
2. Post signs indicating that there is to be no parking in the neighborhood
after 10:00 p.rn. every evening except by residents' vehicles which are registered
with the Police Department.
3. Issue citations to (and/or tow) improperly parked vehicles.
This approach would immediately eliminate all unwanted parking; it would be a source of
revenue for the City, and it would be minimally burdensome on the residents. They would be
required to do nothing more than write or phone their cars' license plate numbers to the Police
Department and then follow a simple phone-in procedure for guests' cars.
K:\WP6O\JW\2005\Misc\Marprita Beacb\Suggested Altcmativn.wpd
3
. PHOTOGRAPHS
1. North facing view of entrance to Margarita Beach (in Rancho Village
Shopping Center).
2. Southwest facing view of Foothill Boulevard from grass strip at southern
border of Rancho Village Shopping Center parking lot (The Pines in
background).
3. Southeast view down Ramona A venue from entrance to Estacia Court showing
driveway entrance to Rancho Villa Apartments, driveway to north of Rancho
Village Shopping Center, location of Margarita Beach security guard and
Ramona Market.
4. West facing view down driveway/parking spaces (back parking lot) between
Rancho Village Shopping Center and sound wall. Mosher residence behind
and to the right. Ramona Avenue at distant center of photo.
5. East facing view from driveway north of Rancho Village Shopping Center
. showing sound wall (to left) between Rancho Villa Apartments and Rancho
Village Shopping Center and concrete wall between Rancho Village Shopping
Center and Gilberto 's/Ken 's parking lot behind Mosher residence.
6. Southeast facing view ofGilberto 's (& Ken's) from slotted wood fence directly
behind Mosher residence.
7. Northwest long range view of Gilberto 's/Ken's parking lot showing slotted
wooden fence separating Mosher residence from parking lot and (to left)
concrete fence between Gilberto 's/Ken 's parking lot and Rancho Village
Shopping Center parking lot.
8. Northwest view of Gilberto 's/Ken 's parking lot showing slotted wooden fence
separating Mosher residence from parking lot and (to left) concrete fence
between Gilberto 's/Ken 's parking lot and Rancho Village Shopping Center
parking lot.
9. Extreme close-up of slotted wooden fence separating Mosher residence from
. Gilberto 's/Ken's parking lot.
.
.
.
e-=----' ~
"
North facing view of entrance to Margarita Beach (in
Rancho Village Shopping Center).
photograph 1
.
.
.
Southwest facing view of Foothill Boulevard from grass
strip at southern border of Rancho Village Shopping
Center parking lot (The Pines in background).
photograph 2
~:~- . ---
. ":.
'.
'" ~...
. f'-.
J,.
~'
r;.
t
"
.
Southeast view down Ramona Avenue from entrance to
Estacia Court showing driveway entrance to apartment
building complex, driveway to north of Rancho Village
Shopping Center and Ramona Market, and location of
Margarita Beach security guard.
.
photograph 3
.
.
.
West facing view down driveway/parking spaces (back
parking lot) between Rancho Village Shopping Center
and sound wall. Mosher residence behind and to the
right. Ramona Avenue at distant center of photo.
photograph 4
.:
.
.
<,
East facing view from driveway north of Rancho Village
Shopping Center showing sound wall (to left) between
Rancho Villa Apartments and Rancho Village Shopping
Center and concrete wall between Rancho Village
Shopping Center and Gilberto 's/Ken's parking lot behind
Mosher residence.
photograph 5
.
.
.
^~~._-'"'-"'--~--' ...-.... :c.... -- -.- >
~ ~~
c'"-.....;""--
,
i
,~,c.. ,,.. ,,'.'~' ,'~. i
!
Southeast facing view of Gilberto 's (& Ken's) from
slotted wood fence directly behind Mosher residence.
photograph 6
.
.
.
~------~--
'->.,----'--'--,..'~----l
"
Northwest long range view of Gilberto 's/Ken's parking
lot showing slotted wooden fence separating Mosher
residence from parking lot and (to left) concrete fence
between Gilberto 's/Ken 's parking lot and Rancho Village
Shopping Center parking lot.
photograph 7
.
.
.
Northwest view of Gilberto 's/Ken's parking lot showing
slotted wooden fence separating Mosher residence from
parking lot and (to left) concrete fence between
Gilberto 's/Ken's parking lot and Rancho Village
Shopping Center parking lot.
photograph 8
.
.
.
0--'
"
Extreme close-up of slotted wooden fence separating
Mosher residence from Gilberto 's/Ken 's parking lot.
photograph 9
.
<.
.
DECLARATION OF MARK DAVIDSON
(PRESIDENT OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
RESTAURANT VENTURES, INC. WHICH OWNS
AND OPERATES MARGARITA BEACH)
.
4
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.WP
DE CLARA nON OF MARK DAVIDSON
(C.c.P. ~ 2015.5)
I, Mark Davidson, hereby declare as follows:
L I am the president and majority owner of Rancho Cucamonga Restaurant
Ventures, Inc. (RCVI), which owns and operates a business known as Margarita Beach,
a restaurant licensed to sell alcohol and present entertainment, located at 9950 Foothill
Blvd., Suites R and S, in the city of Rancho Cucamonga, California. Except as stated on
information and belief, I have personal knowledge of each of the facts set forth herein.
I make this declaration to provide a sworn statement, under oath, in support of the
appeal of Margarita Beach ("MB") from the Planning Commission's rulings of July 13,
2005 adopting Resolution nos. 05-50 and 05-51.
2. My partner Jose Sambolin owns 40% of RCVI and oversees MB's
management team on a daily basis. We employ a General Manager, an Associate
Manager, a Bar Manager, a Kitchen Manager, Head of Security, as well as, a Day
Manager.' All of these individuals constitute the management team that I oversee. The
management team is responsible for the supervision and operation of Margarita Beach.
3. MB's management staff consists of Jose Sambolin, Brian Cook, Mario
Valencia, Jacob "Jake" White, Ricky Orantes, George Rogoff and Joan Shanks who have
served in such capacity since 1996. I will collectively refer to them herein simply as
"Management."
4. I delegate routine functions of operating Margarita Beach to Management.
However, I believe in inspecting the efforts of our management team, and as a result
I am at this location five to six nights per week.
5. Margarita Beach is located in a large, L-shaped shopping center (632 feet
long by 278 feet deep) on the north side of Foothill Blvd., with a vast parking lot to the
south and west of the L-shaped structure and smaller amounts of additional parking to
the north of the structure. An aerial photograph featuring both the shopping center,
Margarita Beach and relevant neighboring locations is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
.
.
.
PRG6485.UP
1 Relevant History
2 6. Margarita Beach (hereafter "MB") initially opened in 1996 under the name
3 "Margaritaville Bar and Cantina" which I changed to Margarita Beach in 2004. It is
4 located in a proper commercially zoned area on the busiest street in Rancho Cucamonga,
5 Foothill Blvd., and is in the proper area where the City's general plan says that such a
6 use should be located. There is one other bar in the same block as MB, Gilberto's, and
"
another, TwinS, 100 yards away Gust on the other - east - side of Hermosa). There
are also two additional restaurants serving alcohol in this same block, Restaurant
Satsuma (which is in our own shopping center) which stays open until anywhere from
11:00 p.m. until 2:00 am (depending on patronage) and which has both liquor and
entertainment, and Ken's, an oriental restaurant serving alcohol and open until 11:00
p.m. on Friday and Saturday nights. Ken's shares a common parking lot with Gilberto's,
which lot is immediately adjacent to the Mosher residence.
7. I acquired MB in 1996 from Skip Nelson who had operated a restaurant/
bar business there called "Skipper's Grill and Bar." I carefully studied the operation of
Skipper's before deciding to purchase it and personally observed that it operated as a
restaurant and bar, but with its primary income coming from the sale of alcohol. It had
3 pool tables, 2 dart boards, live entertainment with dancing, Kareoke, and possessed
both a City-issued Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and an Entertainment Permit (EP).
The CUP allowed it to serve alcohol so long as it also served food, but did not require
that it derive more income from the sale of food than of alcohol. Consistent with its
CUP, I observed and determined that Skipper's had pool leagues, dart leagues, and ran
tournaments 3-4 nights per week, and derived far more income from alcohol than from
the sale of food. As part of the "due diligence" for our purchase, Skipper's represented
to me via income statements that the liquor sales accounted for the vast majority of its
sales.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
B. I also observed that Skipper's EP allowed it to have customer dancing on
a dance floor not to exceed 150 square feet. Its EP allowed it to present such entertain-
2
.
.
.
PRG6485.WP
1 ment fram 8:00 p.m. to. 2:00 a.m. seven days a week. Mareaver, its CUP allawed it to.
2 sell alcahal, in canjunctian with the sale af faad, seven days a week fram 11:00 a.m. to.
3
4
5
6
2:00 a.m.
9. Lastly, part af my decisian to. purchase Skipper's was that the faregaing
manner af QperatiQn qualified it as a 'bQna fide eating establishment" as that term is
used by the State Department Qf AlcQhQlic Beverage CQntrQl ("ABC"). Like the 1991
7 CUP issued to. Skipper's, its ABC license likewise did nQt require that it aperate
8 "primarily" as a restaurant, and was silent regarding the ratio. Qf incQme attributable to.
9 fQQd versus alcQhQI.
10 10. I purchased Skipper's in reliance Qn the ABC license and the CUP and EP
11 that it passessed, and I established and develQped MB to. Qperate with a simi1arfQrmat,
12 and subject to. similar city rules.
13 11. MB has essentially Qperated similarly to. Skipper's except that it eliminated
14 2 Qf the 3 pool tables and bQth dart bQards, and has no. live entertainment except fQr a
15 disc jQckey who. plays pre-recarded music fQr custQmers. This entertainment is allQwed
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
by the pre-existing EP. (Skipper's generally offered live bands.)
12. MB prQvides a full menu Qf hQt meals (a CQPy Qf which is attached hereto.
as Exhibit B) during all hQurs Qf QperatiQn. Its kitchen remains Qpen until 2:00 a.m. to.
provide every item shQwn Qn Qur menu.'
1 PriQr to. the initial Planning CQmmissiQn hearing af March 9, 2005, I was entirely
unaware that the CUP we Qbtained frQm Skipl'er's required us to. keep Qur kitchen Qpen
prQviding our full menu of hQt meals until Closing time. CQnsequently, priQr to that
time we had always stQPped serving Qur menu at 10 pm Qn weekdays and 11 pm Qn
weekends. HQwever, when this CUP requirement was brought to. my attentiQn at that
hearing, I immediately cQnfessed my ignQrance and apparent viQlatiQn, and that very
day changed Qur Qperation so. that ITom that day Qn, we have served Qur full menu all
the way until 2:00 a.m. Also., realizing that I might have also. taken Qther things fQr
granted, I wenthQme that very night and fQund and read every line Qf the CUP and EP
I had Qbtained frQm Skipper's.
I admit that this ignorance on mYlart was unbelievably dumb, but, in my
defense, it was caused by the fact that I ha wrongly assumed that if we met the state
ABC requirements fQr a restaurant serving liquQr, that such cQmpliance autQmatically
meant iliat we WQuld be in cQmpliance with any municipal requirements fQr the service
, (continued...)
3
.
.
.
PRG6485.WP
1 Devastating Impact of New Resolutions On My Business
2 13. When I appeared at the February 2nd City Council meeting, I spoke'
3 proudly of the 1.8 million dollars in taxable sales that Margarita Beach generated on an
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
annual basis. Since that meeting, due to the adverse publicity surrounding our business
(specifically it having been reported on the front page of the Daily Bulletin that we were
now required to close at 11:00 p.m,) and the aggressive promotions by our competitors,
. i,
our business has decreased tremendously. We have declined over $10,000 pl;!r week in
sales. Also, we have spent in excess of $50,000 in legal costs to defend ourselves during
these proceedings. This impact is severe, but bearable.
14. However, the new resolutions, if enforced, will immediately put us out of
business and put our nearly 40 employees out of work (13 of whom are Rancho
12 Cucamonga residents). Our competitors in Rancho Cucamonga and in nearby
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
communities remain open providing entertainment and selling liquor until 2:00 a.m,
Without being able to remain open until 2:00 a.m., MB will no longer be able to operate
as a restaurant/bar with entertainment. Since its enlargement in 19912, this location is
not viable for restaurant-only operation, due to its location and size and, consequently,
, (...continued)
of alcohol. Obviously that assumppon was wrong. Also, I was familiar with the
operation of other restaurants in Rancho Cucamonga, and had never heard of a
condition requiring any of them to serve their full menu for as long as they served any
alcoholic beverages.
,Most significantly, however, the 10 pm weekday restaurant shutdown and 11 pm
weekend restaurant shutdown was how SKipper's itself had operated when I bought the
business, and it never occurred to me that it had been operating in violation of its CUP.
2 When Skipper's obtained an EP and a revised CUP in 1991, it was because they
were applying to expand from just one unit within the shopping center into two adjacent
units. Prior to the expanSIon, the location housed only a restaurant with no
entertainment and which was required to stop selling alcohol at 11:00 p.m. In sharp
contrast, the title of its 1991 CUP expressl)' referred to it, for the first time, as a
"restaurant and bar." (Emphasis added.) In fact, Skipper's full name as it appears on
both the 1991 CUP and EP is "Skipper's Grill and Bar. The former space (authorized
by the original 1988 CUP) was suitable for a restaurant, but a CUP for the larger space
(and the EP) was applied for in 1991 so Skipper's could operate as a restaurant/bar
which emphasized ItS entertainment features and derived most of its income from the
sale of alcoholic beverages, which it was then expressly allowed to sell until 2:00 a.m.
4
.
.
.
1 the challenged new requirement that MB must hereafter derive the majority of its sales
2 from food would independently force its immediate closure.
3 Summary of Asserted Problems and Responsive Steps Taken
4 15. To show the City Council the broad extent of ameliorative steps we have
5 taken, I will list below, in no particular order, each of the various types of complaints
6 rightfully or wrongly made against MB at any of the prior public hearings, and will then
7 describe the steps taken to make sure that such problems, if they were ever attributable
8 to MB at all, do not continue as any type of legitimate problem for the surrounding
9 neighborhood.
10 I
11 DISTURBANCES IN SURROUNDING ESTACIA COURT
12 NEIGHBORHOOD ASSERTED TO BE CAUSED BY MB
13 PATRONS
14
15 16. The bulk of the complaints of asserted patron misconduct have come from
16 neighbors residing to the west of MB, along Estacia Court and the cul de sac on Pasito
17 which branches out from Estacia Court, and involve allegations of conduct occurring
18 prior to the City Council Meeting of February 2, 2005. They consist of assertions that
19 MB patrons parked their cars on Estacia and/or Pasito, and that some such patrons
20 engaged in noisy behavior, drinking, public sex, urination, and/or vomiting. After first
21 hearing of these asserted problems at the time of the February 2, 2005 City Council
22 meeting, we took numerous and immediate steps to make sure that MB's patrons would
23 not cause disturbance to its neighbors. However, before I describe the many steps MB
24 has taken to insure that no MB patrons will cause such disturbance in the neighborhood,
25 I wish to first describe why I believe that none of these reports describe conduct by
26 individuals that were necessarily patrons of MB, and that it is possible, if not likely, that
27 the majority of these alleged incidents, did not in fact involve MB patrons.
28
PRG6485. UP
5
.
1
2 A.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6485.WP
.
.
Basis For Disputing Asserted Complaints.
Who Were The Persons Assertedly Causing The Problems?
a. First, the overwhelming majority of the complaints of asserted MB
patrons previously causing disturbances in the surrounding neighborhood came
from the neighbors to the west of MB on Estacia Court or on Pasito, the first cuI
de sac off Estacia west of Ramona A venue. For clarity and simplicity, I will refer
, '.
to this area as the "Estacia Neighborhood" and its residents as the "Estacia,
Neighbors." Basically, even the closest portion of the Estacia Neighborhood is
approximately 800 feet away from MB.
b. Second, to the best of my knowledge, none of the complaining
Estacia Neighbors ever stated' that they ever personally observed any of the
misbehaving individuals exiting MB before walking to their neighborhood, in
some cases more than 1,000 feet away. Instead, they merely assumed that the
individuals they observed came from MB.
c. Third, there is a large apartment complex to the immediate north of
MB, the "Rancho Villa" apartments, and it extends substantially to the west of
MB, going all the way to Ramona Avenue. (In contrast, the edge of MB nearest
to Ramona is approximately 700 feet away from Ramona). In short, apartments
in this complex are far closer to the Estacia Neighbors than is the entrance to MB.
d. Fourth, I have hired investigators to observe the parking patterns in
the Estacia Neighborhood and they have observed that it is a very common
practice for guests of the Rancho Villa apartments to park in the Estacia
Neighborhood, as there apparently isn't enough parking for guests on the
premises of that complex itself. I am informed that, on average, 6-7 cars
belonging to persons going to the Rancho Villa apartments park in the Estacia
Neighborhood per night. It is certainly possible that some of the problems
previously reported may well have been attributable to those persons spending
the evening at the Rancho Villa apartments.
6
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.11P
e. Fifth, there is also a liquor store (Ramona Liquor) right on Ramona
Avenue, directly west of Margarita Beach. To the extent one or more neighbors
asserted that they observed persons in their neighborhood "drinking:' it is far
'more likely that such persons had been patrons of Ramona Liquor than of ME as
ME does not aIlow patrons to take any alcohol outside. Also, our investigators
!:lave observed outside drinking in the Estacia Neighborhood by persons who are
<,
residents of that neighborhood. This is consistent with police records which
indicate far more acts of public drinking in the Estacia Neighborhood by its own
residents than by any non-residents who may have parked there.
f. FinaIly, ME investigators I hired recently reported the result of their
three-week observations of the non-resident persons parking in the Estacia-Court
neighborhood and have reported that many of those persons have informed them
that they are on their way to Gilberto's and Twins, two large bars which are
actually to the east of ME! Moreover, in the entire time these investigators were
there, they reported only 3 or 4 cars bearing persons attempting to go to ME, and
they were all turned back by ME's security guards.
g. For each of these reasons it is clear to me that to the extent the
events in the Estacia Neighborhood described by neighbors prior to February 2,
2005 actuaIly occurred, there is no way to determine how much of it, if any, may
have been attributable to patrons of ME.
B. The Extent of The Problems Was Greatly Exaggerated
17. Based on what I learned at the City Council hearing on February 2, 2005,
I assume that there may have been isolated disturbances in the Estacia Neighborhood
prior to that time and that patrons of ME, along with patrons of Twins, Gilberto's,
Ramona Liquor, Ken's, Satsuma, and guests of the Rancho Villa apartment complex may
all have been potential contributors to that. However, I also believe, based on my
subsequent investigation, that the claims heard at this Council's February 2nd meeting,
were undoubtedly significantly exaggerated. My basis for this belief is as follows:
7
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.WP
a. First, none of the neighbors' statements was given under oath nor
subjected to any type of close questioning or cross examination, nor provided
exact times and dates of the asserted occurrences.
b. To the extent the Estacia Neighbors reported public drinking and
various drunken acts (e.g., sex, urination, vomiting), MB does not sell any
alcoholic beverages in a form where they can be consumed outside the doors of
MB. However, as I mentioned above, there is a liquor store on the western edge
of the mini-mall in which ME is located, and it is far more likely that any persons
who were drinking in public would have been patrons of that liquor store, rather
than patrons of MB.
c. There has been a campaign spearheaded by one of the Estacia
Neighbors (Mr. Ed Sanchez) to coordinate his neighbors into making all possible
complaints against ME. For example, I am informed and believe, and on that
basis allege, that it was Ed Sanchez who organized the Estacia Neighbors to go
together to the City Council on February 2, 2005 to complain about MB.
Subsequently, he distributed flyers to advertise meetings he would hold to drum
up neighborhood opposition to MB, and to coordinate speeches and complaints
from neighbors. It is my belief that many neighbors had attended such meetings,
been informed that certain acts had occurred, and then, when pressed, simply
assumed that the problems they'd heard of were caused by patrons of MB, even
though they had no direct proof of where the individuals had come from or were
going to. Mr. Sanchez also distributed flyers urging neighbors to attend one of
the Planning Commission meetings and to be "Goin in with guns Blazin."
d. I have subsequently spoken with many neighbors of the main
complaining Estacia Neighbors (Le., neighbors of Mr. Sanchez, Ms. Scimone and
Mr, Olson), and they have informed me that they didn't see or hear the acts
complained of and doubted that they had in fact occurred. One such neighbor
is a Riverside County Sheriff, Jason Slover. Officer Slover sent me a letter, a copy
8
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.11P
, of which I attach hereto as Exhibit C, which indicates that he sleeps with his
windows open and was "never awakened or kept awake by excessive noise
coming from Margarita Beach." He also indicated that he was aware that some
of the disturbances that had been blamed on MB actually came from a house on
Pasito which "is home to some teenagers that have had several parties and
incidents which have been blamed on Margarita Beach." He went on to indicate
<,
that "[i]n one case a party-goer [at that same house] who was very intoxicated,
tried to enter another home, on Estacia Court, thinking they were entering the
above house on Pasito." It is my understanding that this is the break-in that
Ms. Scimone attributed, erroneously, to a patron of MB.
lB. Ameliorative Steps Taken. After hearing of the complaints of the
neighbors regarding disturbances by persons parked in their neighborhoods whom they
believed (even if erroneously) to be MB patrons, I have taken definitive steps to insure
that if any of these problems were ever caused in the past by any MB patrons, they will
not recur. These include the following:
a. At least one uniformed security person is continually present during
our entertainment hours (which run from 9 p.m. until 2 a.m.) in the parking area
located in front of MB to control parking and monitor crowd behavior.
b. When 75% of the parking lot is full, the number of uniformed
security personnel will be increased to two persons patrolling the parking lot and
one additional person is then stationed on our shopping center's property but
across the street from the Ramona Ave. entrance to Estacia Court with instructions
to direct MB patrons not to park within residential areas. This vantage point
allows that particular person to continually monitor parking on both Estacia and
Pasito, Specifically, following the complaints of February 2nd, I decided that
I should have just one security official assigned to this task rather than a weekly
rotation of persons assigned to this task. The reason for this is so that our
security person will gain a familiarity with the cars belonging to the residents of
9
.
.
.
1 Pasito. Then, if he sees any cars he doesn't recognize entering Pasito from Estacia,
2 his instructions are to walk down to Pasito and monitor the activities of the
3 persons who arrived in that vehicle, and take appropriate action; if they appear
4 to be walking towards Estacia, his instructions are to confront them and inform
5 them that they may not enter MB if that is their destination. Also, regardless of
6 their destination, if they are either littering or acting in any way to disturb the
7 peace of the neighborhood, his instructions are to confront them and warn them
8 that he will call the police to deal with them. He is likewise instructed to
9 similarly confront any strangers observed to be parking on Estacia.
10 c. Once our entertainment starts (at 9 p.m.) entry is denied to anyone
11 who is walking to MB from the Estacia Neighborhood, rather than arriving by
12 automobile and parking in our lot.
13, d; No patrons are directed to park at either Southwest Commercial
14 Center or at the gas station at the NW comer of Ramona and Foothill, and entry
15 to MB is denied to anyone who parks on either of those premises. (This gas
16 station is shown as item # 10 on the accompanying aerial photo, Exhibit A; the
17 Southwest Commercial Center is directly south of the gas station on the south
18 side of Foothill.)
19 e. We maintain logs listing all actions taken by the above uniformed
20 security personnel and make such logs available to city staff upon request.
21 f. To free up space for patron parking in our main lot, our employees
22 use only the shopping center's north (back) lot for their cars, and we do not direct
23 any patrons to park there.
24 g. At least three times a night (usually at 6 pm, 9 pm and 2 am) our
25 personnel now routinely go up Estacia and Pasito to pick up all litter that might
26 be left there by anyone.
27 19. The above proactive steps have been extremely effective in insuring that
28 no MB patrons enter the surrounding areas, let alone cause any problems there. They
PRG648S.WP
10
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG648S.WP
have also deterred potential problems that might otherwise have occurred caused by
persons having nothing to do with MB. Again, this is because our "Estacia/Pasito"
guard now routinely approaches any cars in the Estacia Neighborhood whose occupants
appear to be a potential source of either litter or disturbance. Consequently, virtually
every neighbor I have spoken with in the Estacia Neighborhood has indicated that
essentially all the problems previously complained of in that neighborhood disappeared
, ,
following the steps taken in response to the February 2nd City Council meeting. Indeed,
I have received laudatory letters from two Estacia Neighborhood residents who told me
that they were very happy with the steps we took and that they feel much safer in their
neighborhood and/or that they have noticed no problems in the neighborhood since we
took these steps. Copies of those two letters are attached hereto as Exhibits C and D.
II
SOUNDS ASSERTEDL Y COMING FROM WITHIN MB
ASSERTEDLY CAUSING DISTURBANCE TO
NEIGHBORS
20. At various hearings one or more neighbors has claimed that noise
assertedly associated with the operation of Margarita Beach has interfered with
neighbors' quiet enjoyment of their property. These complaints are of two types. The
first is with respect to noise assertedly originating from within MB itself, either heard to
the north or to the south. The second is with respect to noise assertedly made by MB
patrons in MB's back parking lot immediately north of the MB building. (I will discuss
the latter issue more thoroughly under Point III, below, entitled "Disturbances To
Mosher Residence At Back Of MB Premises Asserted To Be Caused By MB Patrons")
a. Noise Assertedly Coming Out The Front Door From Within The
MB Premises. Pat Stevens, residing at the Pines Mobile Home Park located at
9999 Foothill Boulevard #137, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 (directly
11
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.WP
across the street from MB on the south side of Foothill), filed a noise complaint
with the City at or around the time of the opening of the Business in 1996 or
1997. As a result of Ms. Stevens' complaint, a sound engineering test was
performed in 1997 and MB was found to be in complete compliance with the
65dB maximum ,noise level established by its CUP. Ms. Stevens nonetheless
continued to complain about the noise level after the test was performed.
b. Noise Assertedly Audible to Pines Mobile Home Park Coming
From Parking Lot and Front Entrance Area. To prevent the possibility of any
patron-generated disturbances in our main south lot that might be audible to
those in the Pines Mobile Home Park on the south side of Foothill Blvd, I have
increased the security in our front lot (as mentioned above) and have instructed
Management to carefully monitor the front parking lot and entrance area to insure
that these areas, do not become a potential source of noise disturbances.
c. Noise From Open Back Door There is a row of supplementary
parking spots running east to west behind (Le. to the north of) the shopping
center in which MB occupies two units. MB has two back doors which open onto
the shopping center's supplemental parking area (which we just call the "back
lot"). Inunediately north of that supplemental parking area is a sound wall
(which varies in height from 10 1/2 to 15 feet), and behind it are the stand-alone
garages of the Rancho Villa Apartment Complex, Behind that is a driveway
approximately 30 feet wide, and then, behind that are the actual apartment units,
Behind the far eastern edge of that sound wall is the Mosher residence. To the
extent Mr. Mosher has asserted that the sounds from within MB have disturbed
him, I describe that asserted problem and its solution extensively below in point
III. However, I do not recall having ever received any complaint of any type
from any residents of the Rancho Villa apartment complex and certainly no
complaints from such persons regarding any sounds originating from within MB.
Moreover, to ensure that no such problems can happen prospectively, recent steps
12
.
1
2
3
4
5
'6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.11P
, are described in Point III below which will prevent any possibility that any
sounds coming from within MB will ever be audible to these residents, much less,
cause any disturbance to them.
m
DISTURBANCES TO MOSHER RESIDENCE AT BACK
OF MB PREMISES ASSERTED TO BE CAUSED BY MB
OR ITS PATRONS
21. There is one single family residence to the north and east of Margarita
Beach (the Mosher residence), whose occupants have only recently (commencing with
the June 22nd Planning Commission hearing) mentioned that they have been disturbed
by activities they believe attributable to MB patrons or to MB itself. (The Mosher
residence is clearly designated on an aerial map of our neighborhood which I have
supplied as Exhibit A to this Declaration.)
22. For the most part, I believe that Mr. Mosher's complaints are dubious at
best. He first appeared at the June 22 Planning Commission hearing and complained
of noise from MB. He stated that he had called the police 6 times in the last two months
and had twice called me. I have never been contacted by Mr. Mosher nOT has any of my
staff. There is no chance that a complaint of this importance would not get forwarded
to me twice. Mr. Mosher offered no details as to whom he spoke with or what the
conversation was about.
23. Mr. Mosher also stated at the June 22nd meeting that he could prove his
calls through his cell phone records. After that meeting, I have been informed that both
Sgt. Paul Morrison and Capt. Ortiz attempted to contact Mr. Mosher. They have gone
to his house, spoke with his wife, left messages and he has never returned their
messages. Also, the Police department is required to respond to all calls. If there were
6 complaints that would be 6 times I would have been contacted by the Police. I have
never been contacted by the Police regarding any complaints regarding the rear of our
"
13
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.11P
building. For these reasons, and others given below, I absolutely do not believe he
I
made these contacts.
24. Mr. Mosher voiced several complaints regarding the back of the ME
property, ranging from hearing loud music, people singing, public urination, voices and
cars racing. He states that, as a result of this, he is often unable to sleep at night. To
the extent some or all of the events he described happened at all, it is not at all clear, at
least to me, whether they primarily involved any patrons of ME, as distinct from patrons
of Gilberto's bar or of Ken's restaurant (both of which are immediately south of the
Mosher's) or of Twins' Bar, the large overflow parking lot of which is identified as # 9
on the accompanying aerial photo (Exhibit A hereto), and which is audibly well within
range of the Mosher residence. Also, there is no solid wall between the Mosher
residence and that parking lot, let alone a 10' sound wall.
25. However, we have now implemented a number of effective measures to
reduce the possibility of any disturbances in the back of the ME building and to
eliminate the possibility that any disturbances in the back of OUI shopping center will
hereafter be even arguably attributable to any ME patrons:
26. First, as noted above, although we have our employees park in the
shopping center's back lot, we do not direct any of our patrons to park there. This not
only significantly reduces the chance that there will be any potential noise caused by the
racing of car engines by MB patrons in the back, but also reduces the possibility of any
noises or other disturbances that might otherwise be made by MB patrons.
27. Second, we employ nearly 40 people with about 30 people working on the
busy nights. OUr employees have been instructed to quietly take up all the parking
spaces on that lot nearest the Mosher house. By doing this it makes it physically
impossible for anyone else to park in that lot anywhere near his home.3
3 Obviously, since the back lot belongs to the shopping center and not to ME, ME
cannot prevent the shopping center's other patrons from parkin~ there. However, by
occupying all the parking spaces nearest to tile Mosher house, MB s employees minimize
the chance that tIlere will be any disturbance of the Moshers.
^
14
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
28. Third, the only other potential noise source from the back of MB would be
if either of the two back doors were left open (thereby allowing sound from within MB
to be heard outside) or if patrons would be allowed to go out either of those two
emergency exits (thereby allowing them to make their own potentially disturbing noise).
We have taken significant steps to prevent these possibilities as well.
29. For example, during our peak entertainment hours (i.e., whenever we have
'.
approximately 100 or more patrons inside MB) we have separate security guards posted,
inside each of the two back emergency exits for the purpose of ensuring that no patrons
use those emergency exit doors.4
30. Following Mr. Mosher's complaints that he observed two patrons singing
in the open doorway of one of those back exits on June 22nd, we have taken steps to
insure that if such a breach occurred, it will not recur. Specifically, we held a meeting
with all our staff, and our security personnel have now been very clearly instructed to
keep those doors closed at all times. We had found that some of them had briefly
opened the back doors in order to check the back driveway area for any patrons. They
16 didn't realize that by opening the door in order to go out to check the back lot, they may
17 have created part of the problem they were hired to solve. To further insure that our
18 security personnel will no longer be using either of those back doors, I now have had
19 signs installed on each back door reminding our personnel that the back doors are not
20 to be opened for any non-emergency reason at any time. The signs say "Do Not Open
21 Except In Emergency." We currently have temporary signs in place to this effect and
22 permanent signs with the same wording are on order.
23 31. Finally, I add the following with respect to my observations regarding the
24 likely source of most of the disturbances Mr. Mosher was reporting. Specifically, there
25 is a sound wall ranging from 10 1/2 to 15 feet high that separates Mr. Mosher's house
26 and our business center as well as large trees and foliage serving as a further sound
. 27
28 4 Even during non-peak hours, we always have at least one interior security person
monitoring those doors.
PRG6485.1lP
15
.
.
.
PRG648S.11P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
barrier between his home and MB. Mr. Mosher's home is not visible from our property
line and sets back quite some distance from the sound wall. Mr. Mosher's house is not
directly behind us, but somewhat to the north-east of us, east of the apartment complex.
32. In fact prior to Mr. Mosher's complaint on June 22nd, I had no idea there
was even a house there. Since Mr. Mosher's complaints, I regularly inspect the rear
alley area, and in the comer area of our center's north parking lot nearest his house, one
can clearly hear the sound of crickets. However, one can hear all of the noise issues
Mr. Mosher complains of: e.g., music, cars, loud talking and horns. They come from
Gilberta's. Gilberta's bar is on the eastern half of an adjacent lot immediately east of our
business center and it is likewise on the north side of Foothill. Its parking lot is
separated from our parking' lot by a north-ta-south running concrete wall and it shares
a common wall (running east to west) with Mr. Mosher. Unlike our 10-15 foot sound
wall, the wall separating the Moshers' property from Gilberto's is only a small open-
slatted wood fence that clearly has no effect on sound. In short, unlike the situation
with MB, there is absolutely no sonic barrier between the Mosher residence and either
the Gilberto's parking lot or Gilberta's front door.
33. This is highly significant as Gilberto's rarely closes its front door and
anyone outside can clearly hear the loud juke box music coming from inside its
premises. Further, people often stand outside Gilberta's front door (which is on the
north side of its west-facing wall, the side closest to the Mosher residence), smoking,
talking and laughing. The parking lot is also very large with plenty of room to race
cars. Whenever Gilberta's front door opens, a very loud sound emanates from within
and is readily audible specifically at the Mosher residence. I know this because I have
stood at the Mosher property line and listened to the sound whenever the Gilberto's
main door opens. In contrast, the Mosher residence is behind our building and off to the
side, .and also separated from it by a 10-15 foot sound wall.
34. Having personally gone to the Mosher property to listen, it is obvious to
me, and would be obvious to anyone that stands near Mr. Mosher's house, that the
16
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.WP
overwhelming majority of the very types of noise the Moshers are complaining of is
coming from Gilberto's, not MB. This makes it very difficult for me to understand how
Mr. Mosher can say that he has called the police several times due to MB and yet he has
never previously even acknowledged Gilberto's as a possible source.
35. Additionally, we hired two independent, ABC certified, former vice police
officers and current investigators to give us their opinion of Mr. Mosher's claims. Both
'.
investigators stated that they saw and heard virtually no evidence of Mr. Mosher's
claims at any time during the 10 days they conducted surveillance of our property. Both
investigators have submitted video evidence confirming Gilberto's as the source of
complaints and verifying only the sounds of crickets coming from our property.
36. They did however, make some recommendations. While no sound from
MB was audible at Mr. Mosher's house, some very low level amount of sound was
audible from directly in front of our rear doors, They suggested installing additional
sound proofing. Consequently, we recently filled the two back metal doors with
insulation and added an additional 3/4 inch of sound board and replaced the weather
stripping. This has essentially eliminated even this very low level of sound.
37. As further evidence that Mr. Mosher's complaints of our business are not
valid we hired a sound engineer to measure sound levels near his home, MB and
Gilberto's. The sound engineer's report will confirm our position that the noise that
Mr. Mosher hears is from Gilberto's, not MB.5 This expert, Mr. Newson, will separately
provide his own written statement to the Council.
38. Although, Mr. Mosher never contacted me, nonetheless, I would be pleased
to meet with Mr. and Mrs. Mosher either alone or with City Staff, and would appreciate
any prompt feedback they could provide me should our numerous proactive steps not
be effective in preventing any MB-generated disturbances.
5 The sound engineer, Mr. Newson, conducted sound tests on October 20, 2005, and
on October 22, 2005.
17
.
.
.
PRG6485. WP
1
2
3
4
IV
ANY OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ASSERTED PROBLEMS
39.
Security Guards Shining Flashlights in Windows. I had heard a
5 complaint that one of our Estacia Neighborhood security guards had shined his
6 flashlight into a residence. I am certain that if this occurred at all, it was unintentional.
7 I have since discussed this with our security staff to insure that regardless of whether
8 it happened even once in the past, it will not happen prospectively. However, I have
9 received from the Estacia Neighbors nearly unanimous feedback that our security
10 measures have improved their neighborhood significantly, and that they are highly
11 desirous that we keep it in place.
12 40. Asserted Admis!,ion of Nude or Nearly Nude Women I have instructed
13 Management to strictly enforce the posted rules regarding appropriate dress and conduct
14 while on MB premises. Moreover, MB has never operated as an adult cabaret business
15 as that term is used in the City's zoning code, because in order to qualify as such a
16 business under the municipal code, one must regularly present entertainment featuring
17 the exposure of specified anatomical areas,6 We do not present any live entertainment
18 whatsoever, much less adult live entertainment. Neither do we admit or solicit patrons
19 exposing any anatomical areas specified in the municipal code. Though this issue was
2~ raised at the June 22, 2005 Planning Commission hearing, the explanations we
21 subsequently provided to staff seem to have convinced the Planning Commission that
22 this would not have been a valid basis for any finding of a violation of the municipal
23 code. Neither resolution 05-50 nor 05-51 made any finding of fact that MB had at any
24
25
26
27
28
6 RCMC S 17.04.090B-5-f defines an "adult cabaret" as "a nightclub, bar, restaurant
or similar establishment durin~ which a substantial portion of the total presentation time
features live performances which are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
specified sexual activities or by exposure of specified anatomical areas and/or feature
films, motion pictures, video cassettes, slides or other photographic reproductions which
are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis upon the depiction or description of
specified sexual activities or specified anatomical areas for observation by patrons."
Absolutely no evidence was presented which might remotely meet this statutory
definition.
18
.
1 point whatsoever operated as an adult cabaret as defined in the Municipal Code.7
2 Consequently, since the Planning Commission itself made no such finding, I will not say
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
anything more in defending ME against such clearly erroneous charges. I do want to
make clear however that we have never presented any nude or other sexually oriented
entertainment. Nearby competitors have featured wet t-shirt contests; we do not and
never have.
"
41. Advertising of Asserted Sexually Oriented Activities I have discontinued,
use of the ieparty.com website and have instructed Management to comply with all
applicable laws and ordinances regarding advertising.
42. Patron Smoking The only violation of law found by the Planning
Commission involved one citation for a smoking violation, which was the first and only
such citation to MB. I was not present at the time of the violation. The citation was
mailed to my home. Ultimately, I pled guilty and paid a three hundred dollar fine.
. 14 Immediately thereafter, I was contacted by Code Enforcement and asked how I intended
15 to comply with the law in the future. I stated that I would not only comply with the
16 law, I would do more than the law asked. Whereas the law only required me to post
17 two non-smoking signs and ask people that were smoking not to smoke, I stated that
18 I would post individual signs on every table, that I would have every person that
19 entered sign a statement that they were asked not to smoke inside and that I would have
20 security personnel remove all violators of this law. The Code enforcement officer then
21 asked me to remove all ashtrays. I responded that I did not wish to do that due to the
22 fact that the ash trays serve as trash receptacles primarily for gum and trash. Gum
23 would be placed on the floor if there were no ashtrays. Upon ending this conversation
24 I immediately called Captain Ortiz and discussed the ashtray issue with him. During
.
25
26
27
28
PRG6485.11P
this conversation I agreed to remove all ashtrays immediately. He stated he would
contact Code Enforcement and make them aware of my decision. The period of time
7 While the July 13th staff report drew' that conclusion, the Planning Commission
did not make an}' such finding, obviously after carefully reviewing the provisions of the
municipal code defining adult cabarets.
19
.
.
.
1 that elapsed between these conversations was less than thirty minutes. Nonetheless,
2 staff has repeatedly faulted me for refusing to cooperate and remove the ashtrays.
3 43. Cigarette Butts Assertedly Left in Neighboring Streets By Security
4 Guards. There was a complaint that on just one occasion one of our security guards
5 who was then assigned to the street area directly in front of the house at the SW comer
6 of Ramona and Estacia Court, had left cigarette butts and sunflower seeds in the street
7 in front of that house. He was severely reprimanded and re-assigned away from that
8 location. I have heard of no further such complaints since.
9 44. Asserted Break-in At Home of Vicki Scimone By an Intoxicated Man.
10 Vicki Scimone is one of the three primary Estacia Neighbors opposing MB. She resides
11 at 8016 Pasito Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. At a prior hearing, she
12 said that an intoxicated man broke into her home, and that he was a patron of MB. This
13 is categorically untrue. I received a subsequent communication from a neighbor of
14 Ms. Scimone, a Riverside deputy Sheriff named Officer Jason Slover, who resided at 9837
15 Estacia Court, Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730. He personally stated to me that "he
16 has no problems in the last three years" and further stated to me that the incident
17 involving Vicki Scimone, residing at 8016 Pasito A venue, Rancho Cucamonga, California
18 91730, in which she claimed that an intoxicated man broke into her home, was not
19 related to a Margarita Beach patron. Officer Slover personally stated to me that the
20 intoxicated man who broke into Ms. Scimone's home was attending a party at a
21 neighbor's house and later became disoriented due to being intoxicated, with the result
22 being that he attempted to enter the wrong house. Officer Slover also personally stated
23 to me that "the residents are aware that the incident is not related to Margarita Beach."
24 A copy of a confirming letter which officer Slover sent to me is attached hereto as
25 Exhibit C.
26
27
28
PRG6485.WP
20
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
"
7 45. In January of this year Capt. Pete Ortiz contacted me and told me that Ed
8' Sanchez was very angry because someone had written graffiti on his work trailer, and
9 he assumed for some reason it was a patron of MB, and that he was going to go to the
10 City Council meeting and complain vigorously,
11 46. Three years earlier, Ed had complained about noise coming from persons
12 parking in the gas station behind his house (the gas station is at the NW comer of
13 Ramona and Foothill - he lives on Estacia just behind that gas station). We cured that
14 problem at the time and he has not mentioned it since. (He also complained about
15 excessive parking and litter on his street on Tuesdays. It was determined that the excess
16 parking and litter were from people attending a Bible study meeting held at the Rancho
17 Villa apartments near his home, and not the result of MB.)
18 47. In that same meeting three years ago, it was also agreed that we would
19 station security personnel in our lot to turn away anyone that walked from the Estacia
20 Neighborhood to MB. In hindsight the only problem with this agreement was that it
21 allowed people to park in the neighborhood unchecked. They would not be monitored
22 or told they could not park in the neighborhood until after they had left their car and
23 walked onto the MB parking lot. (In contrast, now our security officer literally works
24 in the neighborhood and stops potential problems even before they start.) What was
25 also not discussed in that meeting was any problems on Pasito. (As a result, it was not
26 until three years later, at the time of the February 2nd City Council meeting this year,
27 that I ever learned that such problems existed.) During the next three years I and my
28
V
FACTS AND RELEVANT BACKGROUND
INFORMA nON REGARDING THE HISTORY OF HOW
THESE ISSUES WERE RAISED AND PROCEDURALLY
ADDRESSED BELOW
.
.
PRG6485.WP
21
.
.
.
PRG6485. WP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
management team routinely checked Estacia and Ramona for problems. They were
minima!.
48. In that meeting three years ago, we also agreed to place a few traffic cones
on Ramona in front of the red curb to prevent parking near the house of Mr. Rodney
Trunnel which, as mentioned above, is the first house located right on the southwest
comer of Ramona and Estacia (at 9889 Estacia Court). It was further agreed that if there
were any further problems Ed would let us know and we would come up with
additional measures to solve the problem. Ed never called back to report any such
problems.
49. In any event, having heard that Ed was going to appear in front of the City
Council to complain about MB, I decided to appear and speak first. I told the Council
(at its hearing of February 2, 2005) that I had not heard a single compiaint from Ed or
any other neighbor in almost three years and I thought that this was not the way for
neighbors to resolve their problems. After I spoke, over a dozen neighbors, one after
another, slammed me personally and my business for wreaking havoc in their
neighborhood. The Mayor then refused to allow me to respond, said he was ashamed
of me and that he would close my business today if he could. I left the meeting
embarrassed, humiliated, and wondering how all this could have happened without my
knowledge.
50. I have always taken a great deal of pride in running my business, my pride
sometimes bordering on arrogance. I wondered if maybe my time had passed me by
and I was in fact a poor operator.
51. I immediately made changes to our security (already described above) and
also began to personally inspect the neighborhood several times per day. In my
inspections I did not see any evidence of the issues the neighbors complained about.
After 3 weeks I wrote a letter to all of the neighbors and hand delivered each one.
I described the changes we made, and gave them my home and cell phone numbers.
I asked them what their experiences were and for any recommendations as to what
22
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.11P
I could do to improve anything, To my surprise the majority of the neighbors stated
they had never experienced any problems with customers from my business. I found
that the majority of the problems were centered around the Pasito cul-de-sac. In
hindsight I do believe that many of the complaints that were made did in fact occur on
Pasito. Since I never had a complaint in 9 years, I never thought to check out a street
that far away from my business. For example, Vicki Scimone's house is approximately
<,
1,050 feet from MB. While Pasito is far away from my business it is the closest place to
park for privacy from heavily travelled Foothill Blvd.
52, Most of the neighbors thanked me for the additional new attention we gave
to their neighborhood, including Pasito, and said they would call if there was a problem.
As of today I have never received a single call from any neighbor.
53. While I was canvassing the neighborhood I spoke again to Ed Sanchez on
his front lawn. Ed stated "that he had not had any problems recently but that was not
the issue any longer". He further stated that he objected to my "TYPE of business" in
his neighborhood and that if I "was still in business this summer he had failed".
54. After that, I went to the March 9th Planning Commission meeting feeling
that we had resolved all the complaints in the neighborhood. I was surprised to hear
that some of the Estacia Neighbors continued to mention pre-2005 incidents, even though
we'd already effectively solved all their problems. However, at this meeting I was even
more surprised to find that the neighborhood complaints no longer seemed to be the
main issue; the new problem asserted for the first time at this meeting was that there
were apparently 412 calls for service by the police department somehow related to my
establishment over a three year period running from January 2002 through February
2005. Based on this, the Planning Commission then voted unanimously to hold a
hearing to determine if my permits should be modified.
55. Once again I was shell-shocked by the verbal barrage from the neighbors
and the apparent evidence of approximately 134 calls for service per year. I went to
work to find out how I could have this many calls for service and not be aware of them.
23
.
.
.
1 56. I then spent 4 hours in a basement below the police department with
2 Sergeant Paul Morrison. During this time he reviewed every call for service in the last
3 three years for my business. What I found out was that numbers and statistics can be
4 very misleading. I discovered that of the 412 calls for service, 210 (over half) were
5 officer-initiated, with most of those attributable to mere drive-by bar checks. For
6 example, it was a relatively common occurrence that an officer would drive down
7 Foothill Blvd. and pull into our parking lot just to make a routine "bar check" (i.e., not
8 one based on any prior complaint or observation of any unusual activity) and the officer
9 would then log his or her activity of having made such a bar-check. The logging of this
10 "bar-check" is recorded as a "call for service" counted in the reported 412 "calls for
11 service" mentioned to the Planning Commission.
12 57. Of the remaining 202 calls over this three year period, over 60 of them
13 were for lost cell phones. This is because phone companies require a police report
14 before replacing the phone. There were zero reports of any serious criminal activity in
15 the last three years, i.e., no reports of any drug crimes, rape, prostitution, assaults with
16 a deadly weapon, etc., nor even of any public lewd conduct.
17 58. The most significant things though are: (1) even during this three year
18 period, the frequency and severity of calls for service related to MB were comparable
19 to that of many surrounding bars, and particularly so when comparing the sizes of MB
20 and these surrounding bars and the average number of patrons (e.g., MB had no more
21 calls for service than Twins, which is only open four days a week - compared to seven
22 for MB - and which has far fewer patrons per week than does MB); and (2) since the
23 February 2nd City Council meeting first put me on notice of any potential problems, we
24 have implemented measures resulting in a drastic reduction in calls for service, and,
25 basically, have received very favorable reviews from the Rancho Cucamonga Police
26 Department. I have attached hereto as Exhibit E each of the two subsequent Police
27 Department Interoffice Memos reflecting the calls for service: first from February 2, 2005
28 through March 21, 2005; and second from March 22, 2005 through June 7, 2005.
PRG6485.11P
24
.
.
.
1 ,59. What I also discovered while reviewing calls for service at the Police
2 Department with Sergeant Paul Morrison, was that in the last 3 years there was not a '
3 single police call for service inititlted by or related to the Estacitl Neighbors that was directly
4 connected to an MB customer. Of the over 100 calls for service in the Estacia
5 Neighborhood, the vast majority of them were directly attributed to their own neighbors.
6 There were only 6 or 7 incidents that even might have been attributed to an MB
"
7 customer, but zero police reports were filed actually so finding.
8 60. Upon seeing all this evidence I began to think the neighbors had an agenda
9 that did not include fixing the problems but did include putting me out of business.
10 61. Since viewing this record of police calls (just after the March 9th Planning
11 Commission hearing) we have met with the police department on a monthly basis. The
12 result of these meetings has been substantiaL There has been over an 80% reduction in
13 calls for service and reports, As Commissioner Stewart noted at the Planning
14 Commission hearing o( June 22, 2005, "the reduction is significant and shows the
15 business is going in the right direction".
16 62. As part of the hearing process, planning staff organized a meeting (which,
17 to the best of my recollection, was in May of this year) with the neighbors, myself and
18 the police department which took place at City Hall. The meeting appeared to be more
19 a venting opportunity for the neighbors. At the conclusion of the meeting it was'
20 determined that the neighbors would get together to decide what they thought was a
21 fair solution and would then meet with me again to tell me what they proposed.
22 However, instead, they bypassed meeting with me and unilaterally sent planning staff
23 their own letter outlining what restrictions they would like imposed on MB, with no
24 concern for whether they were reasonable, realistic, or necessary. Their
25 recommendations included that I not be allowed to advertise on the radio or the
26 internet, that I not be allowed to do any promotions or drink specials, and they would
27 require three security guards at each driveway! I was astounded that anyone would
28 even think to request such conditions that were obviously illegaL
PRG6485.WP
25
.
1
2
3
63. During the review process with the Planning staff, we enacted all of their
then-proposed conditions prior to the June 22nd hearing, and we have routinely
enforced them since that time. We believe that the June 22nd staff report was fair,
4 balanced and an effective way to deal with all of the parties' concerns.
5
64.
Heading into the June 22nd Planning Commission meeting, armed with a
6 very positive staff report, a positive police report and the admission by the neighbors
7 that there had been no incidents in the neighborhood, I once again felt very confident
8 we would prevail.
9 65. However, having done everything asked of us at the March 9th hearing,
10 at the time of the June 22nd Planning Commission hearing, we were once again assailed
11 with previously undisclosed charges. Specifically, during this hearing the neighbors'
12 expressed concern again switched, this time to "morals." The neighbors submitted letters
13 showing our flyers and specials, questioning the morality of our type of business, and
14 describing Has a business which sells "cheap liquor to our youths". (Ironically the
15 neighbors all spoke in support of the Ramona liquor store which openly displays and
16 sells XXX rated movies and sexually explicit magazines, They were told in a meeting
17 with Planning by Brad Buller "not to go there," that the city was not going to legislate
18 morality.)
19 66. They were also allowed to show pictures taken from multiple web sites
20 from various bars, and were allowed, without challenge or cross examination, to
21 erroneously represent that all the pictures had been taken at my MB location and then
22 to also describe these pictures inaccurately. There was not even an opportunity at the
23 hearing for me to look at the photos or to show them to others in MB's employ to get
24 a sense of whether they were in fact taken at MB. The assistant City Attorney gave an
25 opinion that he has since not restated and has not explained. He stated that we had
26 crossed the line and were now operating as an adult entertainment establishment.s The
.' 27
28 B The significance of this is that, if true, our site would be illegally zoned as it is not
in one of the areas in Rancho Cucamonga zoned for adult entertainment uses.
.
PRG64SS.WP
26
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485. lIP
neighbors then went on a major offensive accusing Brad Buller, Planning Staff, Captain
Ortiz and the police department of being biased towards me. In my opinion the
Planning Commission succumbed to the pressure and ordered staff to come up with
stricter conditions. However, they at least ordered staff to work with me to come up
with these conditions, to "engage me in conversation". They specifically stated their
desire to not condition - or put - me out of business.
<,
67. Since I had never seen the pictures that were shown, I called the city the ,
very next day (which was Thursday, June 23rd) and requested copies of them, so we
could determine which, if any, were actually taken at ME. Planning staffer Mike Diaz
said I could pick them up on Monday since City Hall was closed on Friday. Upon
picking up the pictures on Monday, I was told that I had until 4:00 pm on Tuesday
(June 28th, the very next day) to file a response to the pictures if I wanted my response
to the pictures included in the staff report for the next (July 13th) meeting. Even though
that meeting was still some two weeks in the future, Mr. Digz told me that staff's July
13th report was already completed and ready for submission to the Planning staff. It
was then clear to me that they intended to ignore the Commission's instruction to meet
with me before preparing their staff report and recommendations.
68. I subsequently sent 4 emails (copies included herewith as Exhibit F) to staff,
called twice and appeared in person, in hopes of having communications with staff that
would be reflected in the staff's July 13th report. There was no response to any of my
emails, my phone calls went unreturned, and when I appeared in person Mike Diaz told
me he was to busy to talk to me.
69. In my emails I asked why the city was not involving me in the process;
I offered a variety of solutions for staff to consider. Obviously staff had no interest in
talking to me because the report had already been completed and Brad Buller had gone
on vacation!
70, Having been blind-sided several times I now decided to make a thorough
presentation at the next meeting. In order to be thorough, and fearing that we may'
. .
27
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.11P
again be denied an adequate opportunity at the time of the hearing to present all our
responses, my lawyer, Mr. Reiss, sent a letter to Mike Diaz on July 5, 2005 which was
included in the materials to be considered by the Commission at its July 13th hearing.
This letter cataloged and described each of the photos that had been submitted by the
opposition at the time of the June 22nd hearing and explained why they were riot any
competent evidence that MB was operating as an illegally zoned adult entertainment
business. Since the Planning Commission did not find MB to be operating as an adult
entertainment business, I am not sure whether that issue may even properly be
considered in support of the challenged Resolutions which the Planning Commission
enacted. However, if this "issue" is properly one the City Council may consider,
I simply reference Mr. Reiss' letter to the Council so it can find it in the record and
review it if it deems it relevant. Again, that information was submitted in advance of
the hearing because our concern, based on our lack of an opportunity to review the
evidence at the prior hearing, was that there may not be an adequate opportunity to get
before the Planning Commission all our responses and defenses at the time of the July
13th hearing. As events developed, that concern proved prophetic.
71. At the conclusion of the June 22nd hearing, and after some considerable
discussion, the Planning Commission voted that it would unqualifiedly reopen the
hearing and adjourn it to July 13th, rather than reopening it and limiting it to new items
only (as had been advocated by assistant City attorney Ennis). Consequently, we
believed that at the time of the July 13th hearing, we would have a full opportunity to
respond to the new charges made at the June 23rd meeting. Unfortunately, that did not
happen. When the July 13th hearing commenced, Chairman Macias informed the
Commission, contrary to the Commission's vote taken at the end of the June 22nd
hearing, that the hearing would take place such that no one would be allowed to
comment except to address the new conditions contained in staff's new July 13th report.
The Commission then followed the Chairman's incorrect procedural summary, and
enforced it strenuously against our witnesses.
28
.
.
.
1
72.
I lined up a number of people to present evidence on our behalf. This
2 evidence was intended to demonstrate to them that there was no need for the conditions
3 recommended in staff's report of July 13th because the existing proactive steps had
4 effectively solved all problems. Pursuant to the Chairman's operative, but incorrect,
5 procedural ruling, my witnesses were repeatedly cut short by the Commission before
6 they could finish their presentations. Most significantly, one of my security guards,
"
7 Ramie Aram, was cut short when he was right in the middle of attempting to explain
8 to the Commission all the ameliorative steps we had taken and their effect. I do not
9 know how the Commission could properly decide if new and more drastic conditions
10 were required without listening to all the evidence of what had happened since MB first
11 learned of the asserted problems back on February 2, 2005.
12 73. Some of my witnesses had intended to discuss other topics as well, such
13 as unequal enforcement,9 but they were too intimidated by repeatedly getting cut short
14 in their presentations, and much of that evidence was not submitted as a result.
15 Hopefully the City Council will provide a full opportunity for such presentations as they
16 are highly germane to the exercise of the Council's discretion in taking action on MB's
17 license.
18 74. During the July 13th hearing, the primary "issue" amazingly changed yet
19 once again, The adult entertainment allegations seemed to have been forgotten; now the
20 asserted "issue" was that we were never permitted to operate as a restaurant and bar
21 with entertainment. The staff report repeatedly stated that we were only permitted to
22 have "live entertainment incidental to the restaurant". They relied on this wording to
23 justify their proposed condition not allowing us to serve liquor after 11 PM. They
24 further used this phrase to justify requiring us to sell more food than liquor and to
25
26
27
28
9 I.e., that multiple other bars in Rancho Cucamonga were violating their permits
but were not facing CUP enforcement-proceedings. For example, I am aware that
topless women have frequently appearea at Twins competing in regularly scheduled
contests they call their "$1,000 Hottest Girl Contest" and their "$500 Bikini Contest". I
am also aware that various establishments in Rancho Cucamonga are providing
entertainment without any permits whatsoever, and will discuss these in my oral
remarks at the time of the City Council hearing.
PRG6485.11P
29
.
.
.
PRG6485.WP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
operate as primarily a restaurant only. Mr. Buller, upon my raising this issue during
my speech, again stated staff's position that we were only permitted to have "incidental
entertainment". I was shocked! I have read the two resolutions creating both my CUP
and my entertainment permit word by word and nowhere in either of those resolutions ,
does the phrase "incidental entertainment" appear. In fact my permits specifically state
that I am permitted to have "entertainment in CONJUNCTION WITH the bar and
restaurant." Obviously anyone with a basic understanding of the English language or
a dictionary understands that there is a huge difference between the meaning of the
words "incidental to" and "in conjunction with". I have requested many times for staff
to explain where they came up with the words "incidental entertainment". Finally, they
answered me by stating that since I had retained two law firms they had been advised
that they could not answer this question. I guess that means the answer may hurt them
in court.
75. At the July 13 meeting I was the last to speak. After several meetings at
which I had repeatedly been insulted, embarrassed, humiliated, and lied about, I was
angry. As I began to speak, Commissioner Macias told me I was limited to 5 minutes
to make my response. I informed Macias to "go ahead and arrest me now because I was
going to respond to these allegations and I could not do so in 5 minutes". He said OK
"I'll give you 10". I felt I gave a very strong argument as to why I was being
"railroaded" by this process. I reminded the commissioners that they had told staff to
involve me in the process. That they had told staff that "I had earned the right to be
part of the process". The commissioners then chastised staff calling their own staff
"negligent, and incompetent." Chairman Macias stated that he was a Planner in another
city and these types of actions would not fly in this other city.
76. At this point I was convinced that the Commission would send this back
to staff for further discussions, but something incredible then happened. Chairman
Macias stated that he didn't believe any discussions would make a difference and that
this was obviously going to go to the City Council. He then motioned to vote for the
30
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG648S .WP
new staff-prepared resolutions and let the City Council resolve this. His actions and the
actions of the Planning Commission put me in the position that I now must get a
majority of the City Council to overturn their decision. Their passing of the buck in
effect has now put the burden of proof onto me (as it requires a majority Council vote
to overturn a Planning Commission decision).
77. Additionally since it has been agreed that Mayor Alexander will recuse
<,
himself due to a conflict of interest, I must now get 75% of the Council to vote in my ,
favor to overturn this decision. Brad Buller emaiIed me the day after the meeting and
apologized for not including me in the process and said there was still time for
discussions prior to the appeal. However, because of advice Brad Buller subsequently
received from the city attorney, those discussions never occurred.
78. On August 31, 2005, at a meeting with Planning staff and a City Attorney,
which my own attorney had requested, staff suggested that we meet with the neighbors
one more time. I remained highly desirous of doing this and reaching a reasonable
compromise solution. As a result" my attorney then sent each of the neighbors in the
Estacia Neighborhood a very nice letter offering for us to meet with them, a copy of
which I attach hereto as Exhibit G. However, the neighbors flatly rejected the meeting
(sending me a letter specifically rejecting the Commission's suggestion that we all meet,
a copy of which I attach hereto as Exhibit H).
79. Essentially, the neighbors relied on staff's faulty premise that MB was
never authorized to operate except as a primary restaurant with incidental alcohol sales
as an excuse to not attend our staff-requested meeting. They stated that since we were
never permitted to operate in the first place there was no need to meet with us.
80. To date I have never had a meeting with any neighbor since, nor has any
neighbor ever attempted to contact me about a complaint.
81. At the time that my attorney and I last appeared before the City Council
(on September 21, 2005) requesting a continuance of the current hearing, I was very
disturbed and troubled when I heard Estacia Neighbor Vicki Scimone tell the Council
31
.
.
.
PRG6485.WP
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 that our system was not working because she said that she saw someone park in her
2 neighborhood and she followed them to MB and saw that they were allowed to enter.
3 82. After the meeting we spoke with Ms. Scimone and learned the details
4 about this event, and, having heard them, it does not appear that they evidence any
5 breakdown in the effectiveness of our neighborhood security system or cause for concern
6 whatsoever. Specifically, Ms. Scimone told us that the incident occurred at
7 approximately 8:30 p.m. on a Sunday night. This is a time of night when our parking
8 lot is generally nearly empty. The incident is bizarre in that there would appear to be
9 very little reason one would park on Pasito, over 1,000 feet away from MB if the front
10 parking lot at MB had an abundance of available parking spaces. The reported incident
11 was certainly an odd and isolated event and not one indicating the need for any further
security measures.
83. Precisely because we have no significant parking issues until our
entertainment begins (which always starts at 9:00 p.m.), our security measures don't start
until 9;00 p.m., and there have been no disturbances ever reported occurring earlier than
that which would suggest any need to review that starting time. Indeed, Ms. Scimone
did not even hint that this individual she tracked had done anything other than merely
, walk quietly from his car to the MB site.1o
84. At this point, I feel overwhelmed by a process that I feel has been
horrendously unfair to me from start to finish. I've been a longtime business owner in
this city and an even longer time resident. My business has never before been the
subject of any disciplinary action by the City, or for that matter, the ABC. MB has bent
over backwards to take every conceivable reasonable step to eliminate every problem
10 I subsequently learned from one of our managers, Jacob White, that the incident
in question occurred on Sunday, September 18, 2005, at a time when there were only a
total of 10 patrons in MB. White told me that an MB cook, Joshua Angle, approached
him (White) to say that a neighbor had come to the front of MB and complamed that a
customer hadJ'arked on her street. White then identified the customer ana insisted that
he go out an re-park his car in the MB lot, which then in fact occurred. He also
observed that there were, at that time, plenty of available parking spaces in the MB lot.
32
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
PRG6485.\IP
that has been brought to its attention, and has been a model business in terms of trying
to work constructively to address all the concerns of its neighbors.
85. Yet, in the face of this first time situation, I was continually denied notice
of what I was up against, confronted by moving targets, elusive, unverifiable
accusations, and shut out of any real participation in the process to look for solutions.
86. Ultimately, the result was basically to put me out of business (rather than
<,
to adopt a process that would have permitted graduated responses, and only if problems
which were verifiably attributable to my business remained uncorrected). This has now
brought me to the point of having to fight for the very survival of my business.
87. I have always tried to be a good neighbor and good corporate citizen and
a proud and supportive resident of this city. I would never want to be crosswise with
the city which is my home, but here, I feel like I have no choice. As a small business
owner how can I fight or compete against a citY the size of Rancho Cucamonga? They
have so many recourses and so much power, I often feel like Don Quixote fighting the
wind mills of big dty government. As a 25 year resident of Rancho Cucamonga myself '
I feel wronged by this process, and although I will hate to do it, I will pursue all of my
legal remedies with the top attorneys in this field, if necessary, to right what I know in
my heart to be a terrible wrong.
88. In closing I want to reiterate that all I am asking for is fairness. I do think
that whatever rules MB is asked to comply with, fairness dictates that these rules be
applied equally to all like businesses within our city. Judged by that standard, the
additional conditions imposed by the Planning Commission beyond those recommended
in the staff report of June 22, 2005, are unfair and go far beyond those imposed on any
other business in Rancho Cucamonga. Lastly, and most importantly, they are the
absolute and certain equivalent of an outright revocation order as MB could not survive
33
-
(>>
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
-14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.26
27
28
1 a single day should these conditions be allowed to take effect. Thank you for your time
2 in considering this.
3
4 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the state of California that
5 the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 26th day of October, 2005
/' ----,
-- ..---
I ,/ /' _,/, ./
<7 / ~/ . / /
,/ P,'~J(~vt~
&' Matk Davidson
,
~A
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
) 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6485.WP
'.
EXHIBIT "A"
Aerial map and vicinity of Margarita Beach
,~4~~I; !I~/;'" ~
~.^ -' "', -^ ,. '
~,..:.,.,,1\:.':-"~e'! ':' /'"
"\,:,,'L. , ,. ;
'L,..,";"l,.,,'t .
~ A '~""'! ..~
't'- i....,~- '.. ~.
. -' ..l ~"
II ~r.~:'.-.
~ ~
d 8.
,I II
~ii~~
~GlCfoj
lllmlll~
5 .~ ~~ Sj
~ ~'6lS:i
&!~j~c7J
"=NM~ui
Cl
2l ,!;;
c .Q~
Q) L ~ co
"C-,!!~a.c
'ill m ~~.B
~ .<11 :2 d'l ~
.!~<II<IIQj
19 ~ ~~ ~~ ~
~C1F-F- '
l.d"':tOgj~
,
) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
) 14 EXHIBIT "B"
15
16 Margarita Beach's Restaurant Menu
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6485.WP
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
) 27
)
)
28
PRG6485.WP
EXHIBIT "e'
Letter from neighbor Jason Slover, a Riverside County Sheriff,
stating that he never witnessed any problems with Margarita Beach
Jason SIO\'Cr
11917 GreenblufT Way
Yucaipa, Ca 92399
(909)79tJ.4557
October I. 2005
To whom it may wnccm:
My name is Jason SIO\'cr, I am a DepUIy Shcrilfwith the Riverside Counly Sheriff's Department. I am
writing this letter as a way of giving a statement regarding the problems with Margarita Beach and thc
surrounding neighborhood in which 1 ronnally lived, My last place of residency was 9837 Estaeia 0"
Rancho Cucamonga. Ca 91730, 11i\-ed in that house rrom January 2002 until March 2005.
I would like to say that I never witnessed or experienced any inappropriate or illegal acli\ities that others
living in the same neighborhood have been wmplaining of. We never had problems with patrons of
Margarita Beach using our house to park in front of, I witnessed Margarita beach' s securily staff being
very diligent by nol allowing patrons to park on Estacia CI. and walk 10 Margarita Beach. In one case my
own Brother-in-law was 10Id to park in our dri\e way and nol on lhe street,
In regards to wmplaints about the noise", We often slept with our windows open during warm monlhs
and were never awakened or kept awake by excessive noise wming Iiom Margarita Beach.
)
When I attended a Neighborhood Watch meeting the San Bernardino Counly Sheriff representative was
made aware of wmplaints rrom other households thai came Iiom a house on Pasito at the top of the cui.
de-sae. This house is home to some teenagers that have had several parties and incidences which have
been blamed on Margarita Beach. In one QISC a parIy-goer who was very inloxicated, tried to enler
another home, on Estacia CI, thinking they were entering the above house on Pasito, This house has also
had many calls for service by thl a, ucamonga Police, ror noise, and disturbances. In the three
years that I lived on ESlaeia Ct. I and/or bottles in my parkway on only 2 ocCasions. I do not
know for a fact that they came Iiom ne going or wming Iiom Margarita Beach.
I want express lhat I never relt inconvenienced or disturbed in anyway by patrons of Margarita Beach. I
believe they have done many things 10 address complaints from neighbors and have been open 10 work
with reasonable requests, My opinion is that these efforts are goini unrecognized and unhappy residence
are unwilling 10 see the positive changes and deal with lhe busil4ses that are close 10 Ihrz~;;:::PI ~
~:;;~, Slover
) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
) 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6485.WP
EXHIBIT "0"
Letter from Estacia Resident Tavarra Jones stating that
she has had no problems with Margarita Beach and reels much
safer due to the terrific job the security are doing
)
)
TAVARRA JONES
9810 ESTACIA CT.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 81730
(908)331-7213 CELLM
1010!I05
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
MY NAME IS TAVARRAJONES.I LIVE AT 9810 ESTACIA CT. THE CORNER OF RAMONA
AVE AND ESTACIA.I LIVE ON THE CORNER HOUSE. I WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT
ABOUT MARGARITA BEACH. I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WHAT SO EVER WITH MARGARITA
BEACH. THERE SECURITY GUARDS ARE DOING A TERRIFIC JOB. THEY MAKE SURE
THAT NO ONE PARKS ON OUR STREET AND THE SURROUNDING AREAS. THEY ALSO
PICK UP TRASH THAT OTHERS THROW DOWN. I SIT OUTSIDE AND OBSERVEI
SINCE THE SECURITY GUARDS HAS BEEN PRESENT THERE
HAS BEEN NO PROBLEMS. THE NOISE HAS EVEN SEIZED. CARS THAT PARK ON
ESTACIA CT BELONGS TO THE RESIDENTS AT 8033 RAMONA AVE RAMONA VIllAS
(MULTl-FAMILY).
I CAN HONEsn Y SAY SINCE THE SECURITY GUARDS ARE
SECURING THIS AREA I FEEL ALOT SAFERII HAVE BEEN LMNG HERE SINCE MARCH
2004. I ADMIT WHEN I FIRST MOVED HERE I HAD A PROBLEM WITH MARGARITA BEACH.
THAT WAS IN THE PAST. THE PROBLEMS HAS BEEN CORRECTED. IF NO ONE HAS
COMPLAlMED (THE NEIGHBORS CLOSER TO RAMONA AVE). THEN WHATS THE BIG
DEAL?
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS PLEASE CONTACT ME" THE ABOVE"
SINCERELY,
TAVARRA JONES ,
) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
) 14 EXHIBIT "E"
15
16 Margarita Beach Police service calls after February 2, 2005
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
) 27
28
PRG6485.WP
I~EROFFICEME~
"ATE March21.2005
FROM. Paul MorrIson, Sergeant
Rancho Cucamonga Station
TO Pete Ortiz, Captain
Rancho cucamonga Station
PHONE (909)477-2800
SUBJECT MARGARITA BEACH CALLS FOR SERVICE 020205 .032105
'.
The following Is a breakdown of the 25 calls for service related to Margarita Beach from
February 2,2005 through March 21, 2005.
Call tv". Call. ,ReDO'"
-
Bar check/pedestrian/traffic stops 18 0
Assaults 3 2
Drunk In publici DUI 2 2
. DIsturbing the peace 1 0
Other 1 1
Total 25 5
Total calls Initiated by police approximately 21
.
~
I~EROFFICE ME~
.DAT~ JUNE 9, 2005
FROM' Paul Morrison, Sergeant
Rancho Cucamonga Station
TO Pete Ortiz, Captain
Rancho Cucamonga Station
PHONE (909)477-2800
I:iJ
SUBJECT MARGARITA BEACH CALLS FOR SERVICE 032205.060705
The following is a breakdown of the 6 calls for service related to Margarita Beach from
March 22, 2005 through June 7, 2005.
Csll tvD. Csll. ReDo'"
-
Bar check/pedestrian/traffic stops 2 1
Assaults 0 0
Drunk In publici DUI 1 1
- Disturbing the peace 2 0
Other 1 0
Tota' 6 2
Total calls Inltfated by pollee approximately 4
No calls forseNice related to Margarita Beach were recorded Iii the'suri'ouiii:l/rig .
neighborhoods.
.
~
~
) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
) 27
28
PRG6485.WP
EXHIBIT "F"
Emails to Mike Diaz of City staff repeatedly requesting opportunity
to meet and provide input before completion of July 13th staff report
Diaz. Michael Paul
.
From: MarkDavldson369@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 6:00 PM
To: ' Diaz. Michael Paul
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Mike.
I do not understand why you have not even responded, to my last email. Maybe you don't have an answer yet.
I am obviously concerned that planning department is going to attempt to condition me out of business. While I "
will agree to any conditions that address adult entertainment since I am not in the adult cabaret business. I
would prefer that if you are going to condition me out of business by limiting my hours of operation that you
would simply recommend revocation of my CUP the results will be the same either way.
As an alternative I would like to offer a couple of suggestions. I would do this in person but it appears that you
don't have the time to meet with me prior to your staff report be turned in. I would be willing to commit $20,000
towards promoting and expanding food sales. This money would be spent on remodeling the kitchen (adding a
pizza oven (for gourmet piZZas), convection oven (for fresh bread), additional refrigeration. and promoting food
sales (thru coupons and advertising), We would provide proof of money being spent within 180 days of this
agreement Two. requiring us to lengthen our hours of operation, to be open for lunch on a daily basis. This
too would increase our food sales, Three a restriction from charging a cover charge for admission (only night
clubs have cover charges), These are multiple conditions that would all promote food sales a restaurant
environment and allow us to remain in business.
As always I remain open to cooperation and suggestions: Please let me know your opinion on these
. suggestions,
Mark Davidson
PS Please forward a copy of this letter to all planning commission members.
.
:- 2820();
Page 1 of 1
Kam Machado
.m: MarkDavidson369@aoLcom
Sent: Wednesday, June 29. 2005 1 :50 AM
To: MPDiaz@cLrancho-cucamonga,ca,us
Subject: Re: FW: (no subject)
Dear Mike,
Do you really think that is a fair amount of time for me to respond? Why is this being rushed to the point that I am given one
day to respond in writing, I have stated that several of the pictures are not even from Margarita Beach, does anyone care
about that fact?
I would like to request a meeting with planning department to review these pictures and a continuance of the next meeting to
allow me time to respond to the latest allegations in writing,
Thank you
Mark Davidson
.
.
7/22/2005
Page 1 of 1
Kam Machado
R:
MarkDavidson369@aol.com
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 10:29 AM
To: mpdiaz@cLrancho-cucamonga.ca,us
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Mike,
In reviewing the pictures, several of them are not even from Margarita Beach and others were grossly misinterpreted, example
there was no picture of anyone serving liquor between their legs.
Y,.,
Will we have a meeting to discuss these pictures and the changes in conditions or will it be done without my input?
I met with Capt. Ortiz who agrees that while the pictures are definitely in poor taste they do not constitute adult entertainment.
We intend to present evidence of the repeated lies and gross exaggeration by the neighbors, and would like to request an audio
tape of the meeting,
I am sorry to take up so much of your time with these requests, but I'm sure you understand that I have no choice.
Thank you,
Mark Davidson
(909) 437-8778
.
.
10/24/2005
J. 05'" 1 Vi 1
Kam Machado
.....om: MarkDavidson369@aol.com
Wnt: Monday, June 27, 2005 10:17 AM
To: mpdiaz@cLrancho-cucamonga.ca,us
Subject: Margarita Beach
Dear Mike,
I am going to meet with Cap!. Ortiz today at 3:00, Since I have never seen the pictures that were presented at the last
meeting I would like to pick up a copy of all pictures. It is my understanding that many of those pictures were from other
locations, they were from a Halloween costume party, and that they were misrepresented by Ms. Sanchez. (I was told no
one served liquor between there legs). It is obviously important that I see these pictures to be able to rebut or explain them.
Further I would like to request or I can have my attomey office do it copies of all the CUP's in Rancho Cucamonga that have
entertainment permits attached to them.
Thank you,
Mark Davidson
.
.
7/22/2005
) 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PRG6485. WP
'.
EXHIBIT "G"
Letter of September 22, 2005 on behalf of Margarita Beach
inviting each of the neighbors in the Estacia Neighborhood to a meeting
.
.
.
LAW OF'F'"ICII!:$
WESTON. GARROU. DEWllT 8 WALTERS
,JOHN H. WE5TON'*
CI..YDE DlfwITT'...,..
G. !'tAN OAl-L. GARROU'*
M....RK P. SINDER'"
A PARTNERSHIP 0" "ROl'"E5SIONAl. BUSINESS ENTITIES ,.LOAICA O....'CC
WILSHIR!: BUNDY PLAZA l..AWREI'4CE O. WAl.TERS."
12121 WILSHIRE BOULEVARO, SUITe: 900 MARC oJ. RANDAZZA2..
01'" COUNSEl.
CATHY E. Cl'tOSSON'"
A. CALE MANICOM'
.JOSEPH P. WOHRLE'
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90025-1168
FAX (310) 442-0899
(3101 ....42-0072
781 DOUGLAS AVENUE
AI..TAMONTE SP"'N05, 1'"1.. 32714-25ee
,. AX 14071 774--eISI
14071 38e-4528
SAN DIEGO O.....IC.
1205 ,J STREET, SUITE 8
SAN DIEGO, CA 8Z101-71500
l""'X lfSllilol 23liH717
ISI&t) 232-32115
IADMrtTED'N-C/lUnlIItNU."
ZAQMITTl;JJINn.oAI~
3AOMrtTI:D IN ,_
.._mmrfol1'Dtoll5
II ADMrTTED IN MASSo/lCMUS~
I ... c;:AUFORNIA PI'tOt'ESSIO-. CORJ"ORll,f1ON
.. A f'l.ORIOA PROP"ESSIOHAL ASSOC\AnON
"
INVITATION
to
Margarita Beach Community Meeting
September 22, 2005
Re:
Saturday, October I, 2005, 2:00 p.m.
9950 West Foothill Blvd., Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Margarita Beach Neighbor:
I am new counsel for Margarita Beach in connection with its relationship with the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, and indirectly, with you. I have been retained to deal with the recent
changes in Margarita Beach's conditional use and entertainment permits.
I have reviewed the file, and as part of the familiarization process, I recently met with several
members of the city's planning commission staff (including Brad Buller) and their Deputy
City Attorney. During the meeting, city personnel urged us to meet with the complaining
residents to discuss various approaches to resolving the situation which we are considering.
We enthusiastically agreed.
We considered meeting with the residents at the next regularly scheduled neighborhood
watch, which was sometime in early October. Unfortunately, the scheduling of the hearing
on our appeal before the Rancho Cucamonga City Council will not permit us to defer
meeting with the residents until then.
.
.
LAW OFFICES
WESTON, GARROU, D,WITT 8 WALTERS
/It, PARTNERSHIP 0" PROFESSIONAL IlIUS,,..ltSS ENTITIES
Margarita Beach Neighbor
Re: INVITATION (Margarita Beach)
September 22, 2QOS
Page 2
Accordingly, we respectfully invite you to attend a meeting on Saturday, October I, at
2:00 p.m., at Margarita Beach Restaurant. I will conduct the meeting, and the purpose will be
to present various steps that my client is taking and proposes to take, in response to the
concerns which the residents have expressed.
I intend to disc.uss certain things with those who attend, and, even more importantly, I hope
to listen. The meeting will not be confrontational or antagonistic; we simply want to obtain
your input as we attempt to craft various proposals to resolve the present conflicts. You will
be treated with respect and dignity as we attempt to find common ground.
The meeting will also give you an opportunity to see the facility and sample its wares.
Snacks and beverages will be provided. I anticipate that the meeting will last until 3:00 or
3:30 p.m., although we'U continue as long as it is constructive to do so.
We are distributing this invitation to everyone we think will be interested; please feel free to
bring it to the attention of anyone else who you think is in that category.
Thank you for your consideration, and I look forward to meeting you.
Please RSVP to my assistant, Kam Machado. Feel free to contact her via telephone
(310/442-0072) or e-mail (KamMachado@wgdlaw.com).
Respectfully yours,
By
WESTON, GARRO ,
]HW:km
cc: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
D. Craig Fox, Deputy City Attorney
Mark Davidson
_ K:\Wf'WoJW\ZOO1\Millr\Marpfllll !lElldl\MllrlPfln Bt..h Nriafabllf.doc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
) 27
28
)
)
PRG6485.WP
'.
EXHIBIT "Hit
September 25, 2005 letter from the neighbors in the Estacia Neighborhood
rejecting the Commission's suggestion that there be a meeting
.
September 25, 2005
To: John H. Weston
Attorney for Mark Davidson/Margarita Beach
From.: Surrounding Neighbors of Margarita Beach
Re: Request to Hold a Community Meeting in October for Margarita Beach
In regards to yoUr request, we the following undersigned, see no basis or need for
holding this community meeting. The facts are that the Planning Staff on behalf of the
Planning Commission has prepared a package of recommendations to the City Council to
have the business become finally what it was originally pennitted-A 'Bona Fide Eatery'
with the incidental sales of alcohol and incidental entertainment as described in the
entertainment permit. Not only does the Planning Department's recommendations bring
the establishment back to what was first pennitted, but places the business under city
control with periodic reviews and monitoring reports that ensure that the business is
operating in compliance with the CUP and the Entertainment Pennits.
.
Thus, there is no reason for the neighbors to meet with you and Mark Davidson
since we do not have the authority to mitigate this situation; there is no need for a
community meeting.
ONLY the City Council can legally deal with the Appeals processes; they are the
Governing Body of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
.
Name Address
.1. Ef)lJA~ ~#I}~ 7'J169 E5~ 0-.
2.~ce<"o y ~~ncik~z:.. L(Y(/l ~~ela. C:t-
3. '\Jt ctoLlCl ~ hcOt~~ cr J~A Es ft1.CICt CI
4. Savtil. fttoUs$(/'t" <gO~~ (bsih, Ave ~ p~~
5. ,Sc['fl\ M1)us$v\,' ~03d- a:~-)h Ave. S- ~
6. L. 'JJus 7/;u (;~l( (Jvif-d- ?7f-J/ro I/-~ c;;ZJ;;)~ ~
7 .A~-Q V-4 '6k '(
.
8. ~~\ Q~ \l~~
8V d-J.. ?>ts i'rv ~ ~
en/(P !iC!,./ /.,., /j IJP
9. {~~\ _r-,,,,,,,,,,,l2..
~r)\(.., R.s:.,~ ~'''~
10. C~j2I:? (b~~G~ 1DI1 PNJ17D f'Jf
11.:\h~10i-- C4f7b((]~ 80/7 lAS/TO il)c
12.'
1(" q ~[(O f~~ +tt.~; "- c..,.
" ~ttt(J t-lfiJO{ L~L~~ c-l
13. '
.4. ~AAJ~6n., ;l~ 4999 "c<MI/.J/1I/39
/ /
'''~
,. ~ .-/, .~,
J'''e "/~;+t/''''''
.'\:"- ~. ~
-=>
r
,..
?~
'-
/Z",$J .A' /t2.. ~
.
Name Address ~nature
. 15.fA-I _\-f~vcmJ <:, ~99'l f60t ~~J I ~'l (6:*- Jl1~,"
16.&f cJ~ rrrr fno -rIll'! / e h,J"760 En; ir ,if[ &" Y
17.t?..,,j 1f"1 . <gD?!, C..b~~, Av... , ~-;Jr
18. to<'- ,LL g,71. 0. I., 7/ iW__. e.-- . IYJ 0 s h " .
;J / -,
19. ~L~I($ "In. E0-wh Cr. 72(. ~t...
I -
20.-.J:i", t) 150'(\ saos GSTA-C,A- c~ f'L, ~ Q)S{.I-_
21./;h~6A<ZJ4 (Jr,\fr--. 0BC'::: ["(At/Ii (1 ~ ~ 61IJl--j(G..~
<;:'010 r~SIT<> Ao" 12<:. ~~lJkR
.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
.8.
.
.
.
DECLARATION OF JONATHAN BIGGS (SECURITY
GUARD AT MARGARITA BEACH)
5
.
.
.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
DECLARATION OF JONATHAN BIGGS
(C.C.P. ~2015.5)
11
I, Jonathan Biggs, Declare;
I. I was hired in February of this year at Margarita
Beach as a security person and continue to work there
currently. In the last nine months I have ,worked a majority. o~
Tuesdays and Sundays and almost every Thursday, Friday, and
Saturday night in addition to some holidays. My specific area
of respon.sibility is the residential area starting at Estacia
and Ramona and leading west to the cul-de-sacs. I am
physically positioned at the rear exit of the Margarita Beach
shopping center facing Ramona looking directly down Estacia.
2, My responsibilities are as follows:
(a) Trash: Inspect and clean up all trash in the
entire residential area every night at the start of my shift
regardless of the origin of the trash. I re-inspect the area
at the end of my shift (at about 2: 30 a.m.) to ensure the
"
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19 entire area is clean.
20 (b) Parking: I note any parking in the residential
21 area at the start of every shift. I monitor any additional
22 parking during the night to ensure no Margarita Beach customers
23 attempt to park and walk across. Anyone who might attempt to
24 do so is instructed they cannot park there and attend Margarita
25 Beach. Anyone who parks there and does not attend Margarita
26 Beach is noted on my security log.
27 (c) Noise: I also instruct any walk-up customers to
28 Margarita Beach from Ramona that walk-ups are not allowed and
.
10
11
12
13
14
. 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.
~
1 that they have to park in our lot if they want to come inside.
2 This prevents the noise that could occur during their exit.
3
3.
It is my goal to accomplish these responsibilities
4 with as little inconvenience to the neighborhood as possible.
5
4.
I have been instructed to help the neighborhood
6 regardless of the source of a problem.
On one occasion there
7 was a parking problem on Estacia involving a resident of the
8 apartment complex, Margarita Beach personnel called the police
9 to assist the neighborhood.
5. In the month of August I had zero cars that had to be
instructed not to park in the neighborhood.
6. In the month of September I had a total of two cars
that I had to instruct not to park in the neighborhood.
7. In the month of October through the 19th, I had a
total of one car that had to be instructed not to park in the
neighborhood.
22
8. It is my firm belief that Margarita Beach does not
negatively impact the residential area.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 25th day of October, 2005, at Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
23
~ IO~5-06
JONA B1, larant.
24
25
26
27
28
.
.
.
"
DECLARATION OF JACOB WHITE (A MANAGER
AT MARGARITA BEACH)
6
.
.
.
DECLARATION OF JACOB WHITE
(C.C.P. ~2015.5)
I, Jacob White, Declare;
1. On the evening of Sunday, September 18, 2005, I was
the manager on duty at Margarita Beach. At approximately 8:30
p.m. my cook Joshua Angle came to me and told me that a
neighbor came to the front of our building and complained that
a customer had parked on her street. I identified the customer
and told him that he would not be allowed inside until he moved
his car.
He left, and a few minutes later I came outs~ge and
saw the customer park his car in the parking lot.
There were
only about 15-20 cars in the front parking lot at the time and
there were plenty of places to park.
There were approximately
10 customers inside at this time. We did not have any security
personnel outside at that time because security is not
scheduled to start until 9:00 PM.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
state of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed this 25th day of October, 2005, at Rancho
Cucamonga, California,
cf)
Y--6 u1 /cJ/;4S,k-
JACOB WHITE, Declarant.
.
.
.
"
DECLARATION OF KEITH GOOSELA W (PRlV ATE
INVESTIGATOR AND RETIRED CALIFORNIA
POLICE OFFICER)
7
.
1
DECLARATION OF KEITH GOOSELAW
(C.C,P. !l2015.5)
2
3
I, Keith Gooselaw, Declare;
4
1.
I am a private investigator and independent contractor
5 retained by The Dillon Agency, a professional investigative
6 company, located at 7108 Katella Avenue, Suite 437, Stanton,
7 California 90680, (714) 317-5317.
8
2.
I have been employed in the law enforcement field for 15
9 years in the County of Riverside.
I was employed by the City of
10 Perris, California, Police Department from 1985 to 2000, from which
11 I subsequently retired. During my law enforcement career, I worked
12 in various capacities which included unlawful and unreasonable
13 noise investigations, business and profession code violations,
14 exterior alcohol and beverage control violations, lewd conduct
15 investigations, penal code violations, loitering problems and
. 16 investigations concerning restaurants, bars and surrounding
.
17 neighborhoods, parking problem investigations and worked in concert
18 with other law enforcement agencies throughout the County of
19 Riverside concerning many of these same types of matters, including
20 noise abatement, alcohol and beverage control violations and
21 business and professions code violations.
22
3.
I have previously testified in Superior Courts in the
23 County of Riverside as an expert witness in the field of VICE
24 enforcement, noise abatement, alcohol and beverage control
25 violations.
26
4.
I was retained by counsel for Margarita Beach to review
27 file materials, applicable Municipal Codes, applicable conditional
28 use permits, applicable entertainment permits and relevant
1
.
.
.
1 recommendations contained in the June 22, 2005 Staff Report from
2 the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, concerning the operation
3 of Margarita Beach, and to then perform investigation and
4 surveillance of Margarita Beach and its surrounding areas in order
5 to render professional opinions concerning the lawful operational
of Margarita Beach as it relates to the following areas:
(a) Unlawful and/or unreasonable noises;
(b) Business and Professions Code violations;.
(c) Exterior alcohol and beverage control violations;
(d) Lewd conduct;
(e) Penal Code violations;
(f) Loitering problems of surrounding streets and/or
6 aspects
7
8
9
10
11
12
"
13 neighborhood;
14 (g) Parking control
15 5. I performed the following investigation and surveillance
16 at Margarita Beach and the surrounding areas on October 8, 2005
17 from 8:30 p.m. until 2:00 a.m.; October 12, 2005 from 8:30 p.m.
18 until 2:00 a.m.; October 14, 2005 from 8:30 p.m. until 2:00 a.m.
19 and October 15, 2005 from 8:30 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. The
20 surveillance and investigation included personal visual and
21 auditory observation of the establishment and roving pedestrian and
22 vehicle patrol, investigation of the surrounding neighborhoods to
23 the east, west, north and south of the Margarita Beach location.
24 6. I have formed professional expert opinions based upon my
25 professional and practical experience as a law enforcement officer,
26 my review of the relevant file materials and information obtained
27 from the above referenced investigation and surveillance.
28 7. I have formed the following professional expert opinions
2
.
.
.
1 that during my observations:
2 (a) There were no unlawful or unreasonable noises caused
3 by the operation of Margarita Beach;
4 (b) There were no business and professions code
5 violations resulting from the operations of Margarita Beach;
6 (c) There were no exterior alcohol and beverage control
7 violations resulting from the operations of Margarita Beach;
8 (d) There were no lewd conduct or any penal code
9 violations resulting from the operations of Margarita Beach;
10 (e) There were no loitering problems on surrounding
11 streets and/or neighborhoods resulting from the operations of
12 Margarita Beach;
13 (f) There was no illegal or excessive parking by patrons
14 of Margarita Beach on any surrounding residential streets;
15 8. I have further formed the professional expert opinion
16 that Margarita Beach operates its business within the applicable
17 conditional use permit, applicable entertainment permit and within
18 all of the relevant requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
19 Codes and is compliant with all of the recommendations outlined by
20 the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, dated June 22, 2005.
21 9. Based on my professional training, experience and
22 personal observations of the surrounding neighborhood as previously
23 noted, I believe that the procedures in which Margarita Beach
24 presently has in place reflect extremely competent and professional
25 management and are highly effective and successful in maintaining
26 control over their patrons and preventing patrol caused
27 disturbances and intrusiveness in the neighborhood. Further, I do
28 not believe that any additional steps or conditions beyond these
3
.
.
.
8 California.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1 presently in effect and/or contained in the proposed conditions
2 recommended in the June 22, 2005 Staff Report to the Planning
3 Commission, are necessary to maintain the present very acceptable
4 level of patrol non-disturbance.
5 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
6 of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
7
Executed this
ho Cucamonga,
<,
...
Declara
4
.
.
.
'~"
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM RHETTS (PRIVATE
INVESTIGATOR AND RETIRED CALIFORNIA
POLICE OFFICER)
8
.
.
.
1
DECLARATION OF WILLIAM RHETTS
(C.C.P, !l2015.5)
2
3
I, William Rhetts, Declare;
4
I am a private investigator and independent contractor
1.
5 retained by The Dillon Agency, a professional investigative
6 company, located at 7108 Katella Avenue, Suite 437, Stanton,
7 California 90680, (714) 317-5317.
8
I have been employed in the law enforcement field for 19
2.
9 years in the Counties of Riverside, San Bernardino and Los Angeles.
10 I was employed as a police officer with the City of Fontana, State
11 of California, from 1981 to 1986.
I was employed as a police
12 officer with the City of Los Angeles Police Department from 1986 to
13 1997.
I was employed as a police officer with the City of
14 Riverside Police Department from 1997 to 2000 from which I
15 subsequently retired in May of 2000.
16
During my law enforcement career and working experience
3.
17 I
have
completed
investigations
concerning
and
unlawful
18 unreasonable noise investigations, business and profession, code
19 violations, exterior alcohol and beverage control violations, lewd
20 conduct investigations, penal code violations, loitering problem
21 and investigations concerning restaurants, bars and surrounding
22 neighborhoods, parking problem investigations and worked in concert
23 with other law enforcement agencies throughout the Counties of San
24 Bernardino, Riverside and Los Angeles, concerning many of these
25 same types of matters, including noise abatement, alcohol and
26 beverage control violations and business and professions code
27 violations.
28 / / / / /
.
.
.'
1 4. I have previously testified in the Los Angeles County
2 Superior Court as a vice Investigator in the field of VICE
3 enforcement, noise abatement, alcohol and beverage control
4 violations.
5 5. I was retained by counsel for Margarita Beach to review
6 file materials applicable Municipal Codes, applicable conditional
7 use permits, applicable entertainment permits and relevant
8 recommendations contained in the June 22, 2005, Staff Report from
9 the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, concerning the operation
10 of Margarita Beach, and to then perform investigation and
11 surveillance of Margarita Beach and its surrounding areas in order
12 to render professional opinions concerning the lawful operational
13 aspects of Margarita Beach as it relates to the following areas:
14 (a) Unlawful and/or unreasonable noises;
15 (b) Business and Professions Code violations;
16 (c) Exterior alcohol and beverage control violations;
17 (d) Lewd conduct;
18 (e) Penal Code violations;
19 (f) Loitering problems of surrounding streets and/or
20 neighborhood;
21 (g) Parking control
22 6. I performed the following investigation and surveillance
23 at Margarita Beach and the surrounding areas on September 30, 2005
24 from 8:30 p.m. until 1:30 a.m.; October 1,2005 from 8:30 p.m.
25 until 2:30 a.m.; October 5, 2005 from 9:00 p.m., until 2:00 a.m.,
26 and October 7, 2005 from 9:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. The
27 surveillance and investigation included personal visual and
28 auditory observation of the establishment and roving pedestrian and
2
.;
.
.
1 vehicle patrol, investigation of the surrounding neighborhoods to
2 the east, west, north and south of the Margarita Beach location.
3 7. I have formed professional expert opinions based upon my
4 educational background and professional experience as a law
5 enforcement officer, my review of the relevant file materials and
6 information obtained from the above referenced investigation and
7 surveillance.
8 8. I have formed the following professional expert opinions
9 that during my observations:
10 (a) There were no unlawful or unreasonable noises caused
11 by the operation of Margarita Beach;
12 (b) There were no business and professions code
13 violations resulting from the operations of Margarita Beach;
14 (c) There were no exterior alcohol and beverage control
15 violations resulting from the operations of Margarita Beach;
16 (d) There were no lewd conduct or any penal code
17 violations resulting from the operations of Margarita Beach;
18 (e) There were no loitering problems on surrounding
19 streets and/or neighborhoods resulting from the operations of
20 Margarita Beach;
21 (f) There was no illegal or excessive parking by patrons
22 of Margarita Beach on any surrounding residential streets;
23 9. I have further formed the professional expert opinion
24 that Margarita Beach operates its business within the applicable
25 conditional use permit, applicable entertainment permit and within
26 all of the relevant requirements of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal
27 Codes and is compliant with all of the recommendations outlined by
28 the Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department, dated June 22, 2005.
3
.
.
.
1 10. Based on my professional training, experience and
2 pers'onal observations of the surrounding neighborhood as previously
3 noted, I believe that the procedures in which Margarita Beach
4 presently has in place reflect extremely competent and professional
5 management and are highly effective and successful in maintaining
6 control
over their patrons and preventing patron caused
7 disturbances and intrusiveness in the neighborhood. Further, I 40
8 not believe that any additional steps or conditions, beyond those'
9 presently in effect and/or contained in the proposed conditions
10 recommended in the June 22, 2005, Staff Report to the Planning
11 Commission, are necessary in order to maintain the present, very
12 acceptable level of patron non-disturbance.
13 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
14 of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
15 Executed this 25th day of October, 2005, at Rancho Cucamonga,
. 16 California. {:atAt41 0 ffl71J-
17
WILLIAM RHETTS, Declarant.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
4
.
"
.
DECLARATION OF MARTIN NEWSON (FORENSIC
CONSULTING ENGINEER IN ACOUSTICS AND
THE PRINCIPAL OF MARTIN NEWSON AND
ASSOCIATES L.L.C.)
.
9
.
.
.
1
DECLARATION OF MARTIN NEWSON
(C.C.P, ~2015.5)
2
3
I, Martin Newson, Declare;
4
1.
I am a Forensic Consulting Engineer in Acoustics and the
5 principal of Martin Newson and Associates LLC, 2001 Wilshire
6 Boulevard, Suite 301, Santa Monica, California 90403,
A copy of
7 Mr. Newson's Curriculum Vitae is attached hereto and incorporated
8 by reference.
9
2.
I have previously been qualified and have testified as an
10 expert witness providing expert witness testimony and evidence at
11 public hearings and planning commission hearings in the City of
12 Beverly Hills, City of Santa Monica, Magistrate Court of England
13 and have been a key note speaker at numerous meetings of ASHRAE and
14 the American Society of Plumbing Engineers.
15
3.
I was retained by counsel for Margarita Beach to review
16 applicable Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Codes and exterior noise
17 standards and to perform acoustical testing and a sound measurement
18 survey and provide expert analysis and opinions.
19
4.
I reviewed Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section
20 17.02.120 D - Exterior Noise Standards and Section 17.08.080 D and
21 performed the acoustical testing and sound survey on October 20,
22 2005 and October 22, 2005 at Margarita Beach and its surrounding
23 neighborhood areas.
24
5.
The sound survey was completed by obtaining sound
25 measurements from the hours of 10:00 p,m. to 2:00 a.m. on October
26 20, 2005 and from 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m. on October 22, 2005. I
27 obtained sound measurements at various times on the above
28 referenced dates at the following locations:
.
.
1 (al On Estacia, on the sidewalk near 9870 Estacia.
2 (b) On posito on the sidewalk near 8017 Posito.
3 (cl In the Apartment building complex to the rear of the
4 site, in front of Building 8.
5 (dl In the corner of the alley behind Margarita Beach
6 adj acent to residences.
7 (el In front of The Pines at 9999 Foothill Bouleva:r:;d
8 close to Foothill Boulevard property line.
9 (f) In front of Kinder Care, in next block of Foothill
10 Boulevard on the same side of the street as The Pines.
11 (gl In The Pines, four properties away from Foothill
12 Boulevard property line.
13 (hl 9941 Stafford Street, one block further behind
14 Margarita Beach than the apartment complex.
15 (il In the area of the parking lot of Ken's Japanese
16 Restaurant, located between Margarita Beach Bar and Gilberto's.
17 (j) 10019 Estacia Court directly behind the alley behind
18 Margarita Beach.
19 6. I have formed professional expert opinions based upon my
20 educational background and professional experience, my review of
21 relevant City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code sections and the
22 completion of the sound survey on October 20, 2005 and October 22,
23 2005.
24 7. I have formed the professional expert opinion that the
25 general noise levels generated from the operations and occupants of
26 Margarita Beach, which have been measured at ten locations
27 referenced above, were consistently below the City of Rancho
. 28 Cucamonga's noise limit and, in most cases, well below the City's
2
.
.
.
1 noise limit, Further, any noise at the measured locations which
2 was attributable to Margarita Beach was only faintly audible, but
3 was not the dominant noise source in any of the locations surveyed.
4 Where the City noise limit was exceeded, it appears that this was
5 due to road traffic and other sources other than Margarita Beach.
6 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State
7 of California that the foregoing is true and correct.
8 Executed this 25th day of October, 2005, at Rancho Cucamonga,
~o~ (y~
MARTIN NEWSON, Declarant.
9 California.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
.
.
.
MARTIN D. NEWSON
Consulting Engineer in Acoustics
EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE
Martin Newson has been working for eighteen years in the field of acoustics, noise and vibration
control. A graduate in Engineering Acoustics, the early part of his career was spent in England,
firstly at Trox Brothers Ltd., manufacturers of air conditioning equipment, where he performed
acoustical tests on products. He then took up a position with Hann Tucker Associates, a major
English acoustical consultancy. In his five years with the company, he project managed many
significant buildings from conceptual design to OCCUpancy.
"
Three years were then spent at Paul Veneklasen and Associates in Santa Monica, California as
project manager for many of the company's largest and most complicated projects.
Mr. Newson is Principal of Martin Newson & Associates LtC, a highly respected acoustical
consulting company in Southern California. Throughout the years, he has personally performed
numerous inspections and acoustical testing on many types of residential and commercial
buildings including assessment of overall and specific acoustical conditions, problem diagnosis
and required recommendations.
Mr. Newson uses current precision sound testing equipment as well as laboratory test data in
establishing criteria for presenting his worle.
Mr. Newson's expertise in the inspection and testing industry has been retained for cases
involving construction defects. Another service that can be provided is giving expert evidence at
public hearings and planning inquiries. Martin Newson has given evidence at the City of Beverly
Hills Planning Conunission, a City of Santa Monica City Council Meeting and at Magistrates
Court in England.
Martin Newson holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering Acoustics and Vibration from
the Institute of Sound & Vibration Research, Southampton University, u.K. and is a member of
the affiliations listed below:
Chartered Engineer
Member of the Institute of Acoustics (U.K.)
Member of Acoustical Society of America
Member of Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Member of National Council of Acoustical Consultants
Member of ASHRAE
American Institute of Architects, Professional Affiliate Member
.
.
.
Martin Newson has served as the chairman of the Southern California Chapter of ASHRAE's
technical committee on acoustics.
Cases on which Mr. Newson has worked include the following:
Evergreen Country Villas vs. FDIC
Valencia Villas vs. Westcreek
15500 Sunset
Rancho Santa Fe vs. Peto Company
La Paloma vs. Houck
Spring Oaks II, Las Vegas
Palmer Warner Center vs. Barrera Landscaping
La Quinta vs. Hallmark Properties
Canyon Country Villas VB. Superior Grading
Canyon Sierra Apartments vs. ABC Products
lllig v. Scottsdale, et aI.
17161 Alva Road vs Zanderson, me., et aI.
Mar Canyon Torrance LLC vs. Millie and Severson me
Yount vs. Auto Club
4128 Wilshire Plaza me. v. Wilshire Plaza LLC, et al.
Law firms that have utilized Martin Newson's services include:
Wood Smith Henning and Berman, LLP
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker
Spray, Gould & Bowers
Law office of Michael Hearn
Parnell & Associates
Law Office of Pi co and Mitchell, Ltd.
Vannah Costello Canepa Wiese & Riedy
Fierstein & Sturman
Irell & Manella
Richardson & Harman, LLP
Summers and Shives
Morrow and White
Speaking engagements include:
Los Angeles Chapter of ASHRAE
Orange Empire Chapter of ASHRAE
Los Angeles Chapter of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers
San Diego Chapter of the American Society of Plumbing Engineers
'.
'.
.
DECLARATION OF JOHN H. WESTON
(MARGARITA BEACH'S ATTORNEY)
.
10
. 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
. 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
. 28
DECLARATION OF JOHN H. WESTON
I, John H. Weston, declare and state as follows:
1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I am a
partner in the law firm of Weston, Garron, DeWitt & Walters.
2. I represent Margarita Beach in connection with its pending appeal to the Rancho
Cucamonga City Council, and in that capacity, I sought and participated in a meeting with
various Rancho Cucamonga officials regarding the subject matter of the appeal. On August 31,
2005, along with co-counsel James V. Reiss and Margarita Beach's Mark Davidson, I met with
then (now former) Planning Director, Brad Buller, (now Acting Planning Director) Dan
Coleman, Michael Paui Diaz and Deputy City Attorney D. Craig Fox. During the meeting City
staff suggested that Margarita Beach principals and I meet with the complaining neighboring
residents in order to discuss with them and ascertain their responses to proposed alternative
conditions which we hoped would satisfy their expressed concerns. It was suggested that we
do this in the context of the regularly scheduled Neighborhood Watch meeting.
3, We immediately enthusiastically and unhesitatingly agreed and set about trying
to implement the meeting. Unfortunately, because of scheduling issues, having the meeting ,in
conjunction with the Neighborhood Watch meeting would not have worked. Accordingly, we
determined to invite the neighborhood residents to a meeting at Margarita Beach on October 1st
at 2:00 p.m., for the purposes suggested by City Staff. I personally wrote a descriptive and
invitational letter to the residents; the letters were delivered on or about September 24th.
A true copy of a letter is attached as Exhibit G to the accompanying Mark Davidson
declaration,
4. Unfortunately, we received only one reply to the letter invitation, in the form of
a letter signed by 22 recipients, declining to participate. Although we were extremely
disappointed, we accepted the declination to participate, and given that there were no
affirmative replies from people wishing to participate, we did not hold the meeting. A true
.
3
4
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
. 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
. 28
1
copy of the neighbors' rejection letter is attached as Exhibit H to the accompanying Mark
Davidson declaration.
5. The entire Margarita Beach team and I were terribly disappointed, because we
had in good faith intended to discuss the issues, ascertain the then current level, if any, of
ongoing concerns, and obtain feedback from the neighbors to our alternative proposals, about
which we had given considerable thought. I was very sorry for their decision, because
I thought we had an lost a real opportunity to further ameliorate their articulated concerns.
I really thought we could resolve the matter, and we had an worked very hard to try to make
that happen. Unfortunately, we never had the chance.
I declare under penalty of petjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
this 26th day of October 2005, at Los Angeles, California.
2
W ton, Garrou, DeWitt & Walters
12121 Wilshire Boulevard
Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Telephone: (310) 442-0072
Facsimile: (310) 442-0899
K:\WP60\JW\2005\Misc\Marprita BeadI\WeltoD DccLdol:
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED ON JULY 13, 2005,
REGARDING MARGARITA BEACH
(Revised Cover Sheet 11-2-05)
> Approved Planning Commission Minutes from July 13, 2005
> Petition to Support Margarita Beach - Provided by Ms. Brinca an employee of
Margarita Beach.
> Margarita Beach Menu - Provided by Mark Davidson
> Noise Log - Provided by Mr. Mosher residing at 8026 Cambridge indicating his record of
dates and times when noise/disturbances were experienced by him and his wife.
> Security Pictures - Still shot images from video shot (but not presented at July 13th
meeting) by Mr. Mosher showing alleged patrons of Margarita Beach in alley behind the
business.
> Letter from Jim Olson dated July 13, 2005. - indicating support for proposed draft
resolutions up for consideration by the Commission that evening.
> Margarita Beach Purchasing Receipts - provided by Joan Shanks, employee of for
Mark Davidson, indiCating expenses for food/supplies purchased for the business.
> Margarita Beach Advertisements and Internet Pictures - provided by unknown person
reported to have been taken from MB website. Pictures have no date or location
indicated.
> Residential Security Log - provided by Romeo Raum appellant's security officer
> Pictures of Residential Properties at Ramona Avenue and Estacia Court - provided
for reference to indicate proximity of center to local residences.
First Page:
Top Photo - SWC of Estacia Street and Hermosa
. Bottom Photo - Ramona Avenue Looking SW to Existing Gas Station
at Foothill Boulevard and Ramona Avenue
Second Page:
Top Photo - Ramona Avenue looking north. Apartment Complex behind commercial
center where Margarita Beach is located is visible on right.
Bottom Photo - Ramona Avenue looking west to intersection with
Estacia Court directly west of commercial center/margarita Beach
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED ON JULY 13; 2005,
REGARDING MARGARITA BEACH
)> Approved Planning Commission Minutes from July 13, 2005
)> Petition to Support Margarita Beach
)> Margarita Beach Menus
)> Noise Log
)> Security Pictures
"
)> Letter from Jim Olsen dated July 13, 2005
)> Margarita Beach Purchasing Receipts
)> Margarita Beach Advertisements and Internet Pictures
)> Residential Security Log
)> Pictures of Residential Properties at Ramona Avenue and Estacia Court
Commissioner Fletcher confirmed that the homes to the north of Mr. Shulfer are hi
homes to the south of Mr. Shulfer will be lower.
Jary Cockroft commented that Mr. Shulfer's home is to the north of the KB project. He said the n
homes to the south of Mr. Shulfer's house would be lower than his.
Mr. Cockroft said that is correct and that there will be a retaining wall betwe heir properties. He
said he has agreed to meet with Mr. Shulfer and to walk through the gr g together.
Commissioner McNiel confirmed that no water/runoff will be depos. on Mr. Shulfer's property and
that his water/runoff will continue to drain off properly.
Mr. Cockroft said he is unsure as to how Mr. Shulfer's perty drains at the present time and
therefore that will be part of what they discuss because wants to be sure his property does drain
since KB nearly surrounds him to the north and the uth.
Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Stewart commented that e "raised the bar" with the concept of 360 degree
architecture in their project design.
Commissioner McNiel commented at hours for construction are in place in the Development Code
and are also in the Resolution 0 pproval. He suggested that if he experiences further problems
with that, that he call City Hall d it would be taken care of. He directed Mr. Cockroft to not only
meet with Mr. Shulferbut a with staff from the Engineering Department to be sure the grading
issue is addressed.
Commissioner Fletch commented that there is good contact/relationship already established, that
the project is an en ncement to the area, and he supports the project.
Chairman Mac. said it is a good project and that Engineering has already taken note of the
potential gra . g issue.
oved by Stewart, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolutions of approval as amended
pment Review DRC2004-00822, Tentative Tract Map SUBTT16643, Conditional Use
Perm. RC2004-00825, and Variance DRC2005-00186 and to adopt a Mitigated Negative
ration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote:
S: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, STEWART
ES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABST
*****
-It
H. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 88-45 AND ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-03 - MARGARITA
BEACH - A public hearing to examine the business operation to ensure that it is being
operated in a manner consistent with conditions of approval or in a manner which is not
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties in the
vicinity. The Planning Commission will consider modification or revocation of the approved
Conditional Use Permit and Entertainment Permit. (Continued from June 22, 2005).
Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that Chairman Macias did not attend the previous hearing held on
June 22, but that he was provided with the audiotape of the meeting, the staff report, and the various
exhibits and materials provided at the meeting. He commented that it is at the discretion of the
Planning Commission Minutes
-4-
July 13, 2005
..
Chairman as to whether he feels prepared to participate in and act upon the review of the Margarita
Beach business operation. He noted that at the previous meeting, the public hearing was continued
with the intention that the hearing would be reopened tonight. He noted that Vice Chairman McNiel
was clear, that the hearing would be reopened primarily for the purpose to allow the Commission,
the applicant and the residents to respond to the modified conditions being presented in the draft
resolutions of approval and the information being presented by staff in the staff report. He reported
that Mr. Mosher called earlier this evening and said he would like to present a video recorded since
the last meeting. Mr. Buller commented that it would be at the discretion of the Chairman as to
whether he will allow new exhibits or evidence to be presented this evening.
Chairman Macias reported that he was present at the first meeting in March, that he is well aware of
the issues, he has reviewed the tapes, he has read the minutes and various transcripts ofwhattook
place at the June 22 meeting and therefore, he feels comfortable to fully participate in the meeting
tonight. He noted that he would open the public hearing tonight with a request for cooperation, that
we are here to only address new information in the staff report and the new conditions contained in
the draft resolutions. He commented that based upon the previous meetings, the Commission is
well appraised and well aware of the impacts on the community and on the situation and he asked
the Commissioners to support this approach.
Kevin Ennis, Assistant City Attorney, reported that the hearing would take place in this fashion: Staff
will present the report, any new information contained in the report, and the new conditions. He said
that the Commission would then have an opportunity to ask questions of staff and hear their
subsequent answers. He said the public hearing would then be opened for the applicant to
comment with respect to the new information/conditions followed by the public. He asked that the
comments be limited to information presented by staff and the new conditions.
Chairman Macias asked counsel to clarify what the public should do. He asked if this procedure
fully complies with the Brown Act.
Mr. Ennis stated that they should limit their comments to only the information that staff presents
tonight and the new conditions that staff is recommending tonight. He confirmed that we are in full
compliance of the Brown Act. The applicant and the public have been given full opportunity to
adequately voice their comments.
Mike Diaz, Senior Planner gave the staff report. He noted that the modified conditions are found in
the agenda packet on pages H-92 through H-104, beginning with the Conditional Use Permit
Resolution conditions on page H-94. He noted that modifications have been made to Conditions
No.s 1, 2, 3, 4, S, 7, 10, 1S, 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21. He highlighted each change as follows: No.1)
gives a more specific intent for the serving of alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant use; 2) a
scheduled requirement for the applicant to provide evidence supporting his intent as a "bona fide
eating place," as identified by the California Business and Professional Code, 3) provision of an
updated floor plan which confirms the primary use as a restaurant, 4) new hours in which the
business may serve alcohol in conjunction with the restaurant use, S) requirement for conduct as
required by the ABC, 7) requirement to keep rear doors closed for noise mitigation and a time
modification for the business to close at midnight, 10) specific restrictions for outside lighting/ search
lights, 1S) dance floor size restricted to 1S0 square feet, 17) occupancy levels not to exceed 233 per
Fire District, 18) compliance with Adult Entertainment section ofthe Development Code, 19) security
and crowd control in the parking lot, 20) security posted in parking areas to monitor parking ,limiting
it to the parking lots, 21) introduces timelines for periodic reviews. He commented that the
conditions in the Entertainment Permit are modified to be consistent with the conditions in the
Conditional Use Permit and therefore the language is similar. He added that Condition 20 also
requires some parking lot signage that reminds the patrons of their responsibilities.
Chairman Macias asked for clarification on the review period.
Planning Commission Minutes
-S-
July 13, 200S
.
'.
Mr. Diaz said there would be two consecutive 3-month reviews followed by two, 6-month reviews.
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing at 7:37 p.m.
James Reiss, 10535 Foothill Boulevard, Suite 41 0, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is legal counsel
for Mr. Davidson. Mr. Reiss stated he believed the directive from the Commission at the last
meeting was an unattainable time schedule. He said he tried to hand deliver all the required
documents by the July 5 deadline. He noted that there was no give and take exchange with staff
that was directed by the Commission. He said it never took place. He said they (he and Mr.
Davidson) understood that they were going to have an opportunity to review the modified conditions
and to comment and they were never given the opportunity to respond. He remarked that the
operator (Mr. Davidson) might not like the conditions that would be put into the conditions and
therefore he (Mr. Reiss) believed that Mr. Buller had a pre-ordained idea of what he was going to put
into the modified conditions. He said this is the starting point, "the first brick," and the record will
dictate if this "case" goes to court. He said what is in the record is what the Commission would rule
on. He said we heard 32 complaints, 13 at the first meeting (City Council) and 19 at the second. He
noted that the operator (Mr. Davidson) had made great strides in solving the problems and things
seemed to be moving forward and then the tide of the meeting was turned to advertising and
marketing with Ms. Sanchez when she displayed the photographs, and the community voiced strong
opinions about those photos. He contended that the photos must have foundation of the complaint
but the problem is that the photographs are not related to the Margarita Beach location. He
commented that Mr. Ennis made a learned opinion and evaluation about what the Code says about
adult entertainment but that he is assuming the photographs are linked to Margarita Beach. Mr.
Reiss emphatically retracted any link to the Margarita Beach location, that the association is untrue
and the photos are not from them (Margarita Beach). He said they have no foundation, and there is
not one live witness to prove anything different. He said the new photos from the FX103 website
were all taken at the San Bernardino location. He took exception of Mr. Ennis' opinion in that it
takes a "leap of faith" that any of the individuals depicted in the photos are performing a substantial
portion of the presentation. He said no employee nor anyone being paid by the operator is doing
anything related to adult entertainment. He added the Commission could consider that in their
consideration but they would lose all day, and if the City is sued, they will lose all day and that the
issue of adult entertainment is a "red herring." He "vehemently" denied that any such activity is
going on. He said he realized what the intent was of the entire location, that in 1988, Siam Garden
was opened with no license for alcohol and then about a year later they applied for a beer and wine
license. He said there is an issue with the language stated "incidental" vs. "in conjunction with." He
reported that when 'Skipper' took over the restaurant in 1991, he asked for dancing, a bar, DJ's, rock
bands, and other acts related to entertainment. He said they had pool leagues and pool teams and
they were open until 2 a.m. every night. He said he (Mr. Davidson) bought Skipper's in 1996 and at
that time, 90% of his gross revenue was alcohol sales, not food. He reported that the business now
has about an 80-20% ratio offood to alcohol sales. He commented that if you believe Skippers was
just a restaurant with no alcohol and a couple of people waiting in the back, you are mistaken. He
added that if this case goes to the City Council and then to court, this point is a critical analysis error.
He said that if you go back to 1996, you have basically the same operation. Mr. Reiss contended
that the only difference is that Mr. Davidson and his partners just did a better job building the
business and he is being criticized for increasing the business. He said Mr. Davidson has not come
to the Commission in 9 years for any changes to the conditions. He suggested that the Commission
is going backwards because of the Internet photos. He stated that with the changes shown in the
resolutions, such as limiting his hours to serving alcohol until only 11 :00 p.m. would shut him down
and close his business. He commented that the City is buying them significant litigation and that
they are not allowing due process. He said the Commission is denying him his right to due process
as stipulated in State law. He said the City would be discriminating against Mr. Davidson if the City
imposes these new conditions. He reported that he did an analysis of other Conditional Use Permits
in town that are allowed to stay open until 2:00 a.m. He said that you have to do the same for
Planning Commission Minutes
-6-
July 13, 2005
,
everyone. He suggested that if we treat Mr. Davidson differently, "then you must have evidence in
the record and that we do not have that." He said missing from the record is documentation for
intervention from Police, Fire, Code Enforcement, and ABC. He said undoubtedly the same kinds of
things are occurring in other bars, that people are unruly, but we do not see the Commission taking
any action against them. He said the driving force is 15 residents. He commented that the problem
is he (Mr. Davidson) is not breaking the law. He said his employees are embarrassed when they tell
people where they work. He reported that people voiced their belief that the employees serve drinks
without their shirt on. He said the employees say, "I don't do that, this is a neighborhood bar." He
said he is submitting for the record a petition signed by the patrons of Margarita Beach stating they
will abide by every requirement, but that they already follow the requirements and they are following
the law. He said they already addressed the problems in the neighborhood, but that was not good
enough. He reported that Mr. Davidson proposed to add money to his kitchen, open at noon and
make it more of a lunch place. He said if they close at 11 :00 p.m. it will end his business. He said
you have to have a ladder of discipline. He said this is not a ladder of discipline and that we know
that the bar business depends upon hours of operation. He stated that "if you want Rancho
Cucamonga to be an 11 :00 p.m. closing time then do it, but you better do it for everybody." He
remarked, "if you treat Mr. Davidson differently that it is against the law, that this is not due process
and you do not have the evidence in this case."
'.
Briane Brinca 25715 Van Leuven, Loma Linda, stated she is an employee of Margarita Beach. She
read into the record the premise of the petition signed by 600 patrons of Margarita Beach supporting
the business operation. It reads, "Petition to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission. I
sign this petition in support of Margarita Beach. I urge the Planning Commission to work with
Margarita Beach and not to revoke or restrict their permits to operate. I personally agree to support
Margarita Beach by only parking in the Margarita Beach parking lot, to exit quietly when I leave and
to never park or drive in the nearby neighborhood. I have never witnessed any activity at Margarita
Beach that could be considered Adult Entertainment as defined by the Development Code - Adult
Cabaret -A nightclub, bar, restaurant, or similar establishment during which a substantial portion of
the total presentation time features live performances which are distinguished or characterized by an
emphasis on "specified sexual activities" or by exposure of "specified anatomical areas"...(it
continues) Margarita Beach is not a strip club. It is a Bar & Grill that offers clean fun, dancing, good
food and drinks in a safe environment. She stated she is a graduate of Cal Baptist University and
has been an employee of 3 years. She stated her job at Margarita Beach helped her get through
school. She said over half of the females employed at Margarita Beach are college students and
2/3 of them are single moms. She said the company has had a positive influence in their lives. She
continued at length, giving examples of the lives of employees and their personal pursuits made
possible by their employment at Margarita Beach. She said without Margarita Beach, many people
would lose their main source of income. .
Chairman Macias interrupted Ms. Brinca and asked her to address the issues brought before the
Commission tonight and on the conditions being reviewed. He directed comment to Mr. Reiss that
her presentation is just part of his (Mr. Reiss') continued presentation for the applicant, noting that it
is just simply public testimony and if that is the case, he might as well just opening the public hearing
for general testimony.
Jim Reiss, legal counsel for the applicant, said that the critical component of the resolution is an
hour change that would result in the closure of the business, and that he believes the public,
including the employees, should be able to testify to its impact.
Chairman Macias asked that it be specific in regard to the impact, that the Commission is not
concerned with her background or her education, but in her comments regarding the new
conditions.
Mr. Reiss replied that the person is just trying to elicit who they are.
Planning Commission Minutes
July 13, 2005
-7-
-
Chairman Macias replied that could be done by giving their name and a few sentences and to get
specifically to the issue at hand, which are the new conditions and the staff report.
Ms. Brinca said she is trying to show the opportunities and things that have come about as a result
of her employment at Margarita Beach. She thanked Mr. Davidson for the opportunities there and
has been a fair owner, an active member of the community and she has seen his generosity to his
family and considers him a friend.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if she is currently employed there, what her position is and what a sex
shot is.
Ms. Brinca said she currently works there as a bartender. She reported that it is a mix of ingredients
including vodka and peach, it is a drink.
Commissioner Fletcher asked how it is served.
Ms. Bianca replied that the glass is placed on the bar, it is not poured or anything like that.
Chairman Macias said the public hearing is open including the continued presentations of those
testifying for Margarita Beach.
Joan Robinson Shanks, 547 West 13th Street, Upland, stated she has been an employee for 9
years and has worked for Mark Davidson for 16 years. She remarked that she finds the reference to
Margarita Beach as a strip club, offensive (from a newspaper article). She mentioned that "Pat," a
resident of the mobile home across the street, who offered testimony at the prior meetings, was
offered double pane windows by Mr. Davidson to mitigate the noise. She said she went over to her
mobile home to assess the noise factor. She said Mr. Davidson is fair and honest. She said her job
has helped her to raise 6 children. She said this is how she has earned her living and raised her
kids for 16 years. She presented materials from their food supplier to the secretary for the file.
Chairman Macias again reminded those testifying to focus on the issues at hand.
Romeo Raum, 8990Alta Loma Drive, said he has worked for Mr. Davidson for41/2 years. He said
he began as a bouncer, and then became a bartender, then a manager, and now he is a co-partner
at the San Bernardino location. He continued with his family background. He said Mark has been
"slammed" personally and he is not as he has been portrayed. He said he has never witnessed as a
manager the allegations of urination, sex, loitering and ice chests on the neighbors' lawns (for the
last 1 1/2 years). He said it is part of his duties to walk the neighborhoods at the beginning of the
night and the end of the night. He said as a manager he has never had a complaint from the
neighbors. He noted that he finds the allegations of the business being an adult cabaret or strip club
offensive and that the article published in the newspaper was insulting and embarrassing. He said
"we are a restaurant and bar," there is no stage with a stripper pole, they do not give 'lap dances',
there is no stage." He presented the manager's checklist which indicated his daily routine for
checking the premises: 1) inspect front of building and back lots and residential area for trash, 2)
8:00 doorman checks front and back lots, front of the building, and the residential area and also
places orange traffic cones on Ramona Avenue. He said no cones are placed on Estacia Court.
He presented photographs indicating where the cones are placed in front of 8990 Ramona
Boulevard and in front of the gas station and Ramona Market. He said these are placed at the
request of "Rodney" and Ed Sanchez, both residents in the neighborhood.
Chairman Macias asked Mr. Raum to make his concluding remarks because of the 5-minute time
limit.
Planning Commission Minutes
-8-
July 13, 2005
~
~
Mr. Raum presented the residential security log that indicates another check of the neighborhood, a
list of acceptable non-patron cars in the parking lot and a list of any cars that were turned away on a
nightly basis for the last 3 months. He noted that in the case of potential fights, the doormen are
trained not to place themselves in the middle of a confrontation. He reported they are trained to
notify the person that they cannot park in the residential area and if they do, "they will not be
admitted to our club." He said when they ask people to leave it is usually the people that live in the
apartments.
Chairman Macias again reemphasized that the Commission is aware of all the issues including
parking, regulations and attempted enforcement. He said that the concern is about the new
conditions. He added that everyone here is a good person. He said we have already had full public
hearing on all these issues; the Commission is well apprised of those issues from both sides. He
asked those testifying to limit their comments to the new conditions being presented tonight. '.
Wesley Hall, 11680 Mount Sterling Court, Rancho Cucamonga, said he has worked with ,Mr.
Davidson for 3 1/2 years as a partner at one of his venues and that he oversees all the
entertainment for all 3 locations run by Mr. Davidson. He mentioned that he worked at Black Angus
as an entertainment coordinator for 8 years.
ChaIrman Macias asked how much time he spends at the Margarita Beach location on a weekly
basis.
Mr. Hall indicated that he does not spend any time there, that he oversees the marketing and
promotions for the location and he produces the flyers and works with the website. He produced
promotional materials from other businesses in the area that he alleged are in violation of their
entertainment permits. He asked if the Commission is going to condition all the other businesses to
go out of business on their first violation or if they are going to go in that direction. He presented
typical flyers of several restaurants and bars including Carlos O'Brian's, Bobby Magee's, The
Branding Iron, Coconuts, etc. and that each depicts a girl and a drink special and that they serve
food and have entertainment. He said Mr. Davidson is very conservative.
Commissioner Macias asked what Mr. Hall's point is.
Mr. Hall said "a girl, the drink special, the visual; you guys are making mention of adult
entertainment, this is just the standard in the business." He remarked that, "this is how everyone
promotes their business."
Commissioner McNiel asked of the flyers presented, how many are located in Rancho Cucamonga.
Mr. Hall replied, "one, Twins." He said Dean's is in Rancho and has no entertainment permit but
they have Karaoke; Hide Awhile has no entertainment permit but they have Karaoke. He said in
reference to something mentioned atthe last meeting. He said because they have a picture of a girl
in a bikini on the flyer does not mean that you would walk into the club and see girls in bikinis. He
added that the business called Knockers, although they use the word 'knockers,' does not mean you
will go in and see women's knockers. He showed a flyer from Twins, which indicated a "Pimp and
Ho" party, and "Bikini Tuesdays." He said their campaign is aggressive. He commented that they
were voted the number one club in the "I.E." and they are a restaurant and a bar. He said these
flyers are distributed throughout the community. He said you see a ton of boobs and G-strings on
these flyers.
Chairman Macias asked if he is presuming of the circulation of these flyers in the community.
Mr. Hall said yes, he presumes they are all over and that the one for Twins came from 24-Hour
Fitness.
Planning Commission Minutes
-9-
July 13, 2005
-
<
Chairman Macias stated he goes there everyday and has never seen them. He then asked if
Mr. Hall's point is that this type of advertising is the industry standard.
Mr. Hall said yes and it is local, here in Rancho.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if it is specifically with bars and nightclubs.
Mr. Hall said yes bars, restaurantlbars, yes.
Chairman Fletcher asked if he means bars and nightclubs that serve food.
Mr. Hall said restaurant/bar/nightclub, yes, absolutely. He admitted, "Two wrongs don't make a
right." He asked if there is a ladder of discipline of what the Commission does when a business
violates something on their permit.
Chairman Macias said he did a good job of demonstrating what everybody in the industry is
practicing, and in some cases, here in Rancho.
Jose Samboline stated he is the co-owner and business partner in charge of marketing, advertising
radio and the website. He said Mr. Davidson is not involved in this aspect of the,business. He said
he contracts out the design and oversees the process. He said people need to put the photos and
flyers into the proper context. He said the new conditions are based upon this perception. He said it
is a question of what the materials mean and how they are perceived. He indicated that much of
what is shown on the website, LE. Party.com, focuses on the late night portions of 3 separate
businesses. He said the goal is to advertise events. He said they draw traffic from the photos and
most are very generic. He claimed that the offensive photos presented to the Commission are only
a handful of many photos, most are of just friends. He said the photos were chosen to give the most
negative impression. Mr. Samboline said photo #1 just shows a girl dancing in her Halloween
French maid costume and that she does not appear that way everyday. He said they are pictures of
isolated events that only happen periodically. He continued and said picture #2 depicts a tongue
near a girl's breast. He admitted it is in bad taste and shows poor judgment allowing them on the
website, but it is not adult entertainment. He added that picture #4 shows two girls kissing, he
responded with, "so-what"! It is nothing associated with adult entertainment. He said pictures #5,
#6, and #7 are in bad taste, but they are just "hamming it up" for the camera. He noted pictures #8
and #9 are taken of girls in "booty shorts," and contain no nudity, the pictures focus on the girl's rear
end, it is in bad taste and poor judgment and isjust "locker room humor." He admitted it is offensive
to some but taken out of context. He added pictures #14 and #15 are of people just hamming it up
for the camera. He said picture #16 is the "pasties" picture. He commented that this was her
Halloween costume and he did not know how she came in the door. He suggested that perhaps
she was covered with a jacket, shirt or a boa when she came in. He said he would not try to justify
the picture, and this picture is wrong, it should not be there, but he said it is important to understand
the context in that it does not depict a daily occurrence, only a slight bit of nudity. He said #17
indicates a smoking violation and it was cited and paid and the situation is rectified. He admitted
that some pictures are in bad taste and are poor judgment and locker room humor, but it is not
illegal or adult entertainment. He said most of the pictures did not occur at the Rancho location. He
noted that for the 9-year anniversary party they did advertise with an a'ggressive drink special. and
that is only to create business at slower times of the day. He commented that just because the
advertising shows a bikini clad girl does not mean the customer expects to see a bikini clad girl
inside the business when they go inside. He commented on the flyer that mentions a "sex shot." He
said that in the staff report Mr. Davidson has not identified sex shots. He said it is slang for a drink
called "sex on the beach." He said this drink could be ordered at many restaurants. He said no
nudity is involved; there was no simulated sex act and no interaction between employees and
patrons. He said there is much double entendre for the names of drinks with sexual overtones, and
it is very common. He said Margarita Beach has a history of cooperation and willingness towards
Planning Commission Minutes
-10-
July 13, 2005
---
working with the City and the neighbors. He said they are trying to solve the problems. He noted
that closing the. business at midnight essentially shuts it down for good. He said the revenue
created after midnight would be the difference between success and failure and if the hours are
reduced, it reduces their ability to create income and to stay alive. He asked the Commission to
reconsider the harshness of the restrictions and to return to the more reasonable conditions
proposed at the last meeting. He commented that the activity of the business next door (Twins) is
overlooked and it is more negative than what Margarita Beach is doing. He asked where the equal
enforcement is and that this is clearly a "borderline case." He added that it really is not that bad, it is
being taken out of context.
Mr. Davidson approached the lectern at 8:33 p.m.
Mark Davidson, 9950 Foothill Boulevard (owner of Margarita Beach) stated this is his fifth meeting
regarding the operation of his business. He said he understands this is a continuation of the
previous hearing, but that he feels the Commission is cutting everyone short. He claimed he has
been "trashed" for almost 10 hours and he requested the courtesy to not cut him short. He said the
initial strategy was to focus on correcting the problems and to stay positive. He said he is being
given 5 minutes to be positive. He asked where the due process is, that he is confronted by
neighbors who lie and make up stories and then he was not allowed to see the evidence in advance,
that most of the incidents were isolated incidents, the accusers made gross statements, that he
cannot rebut and that he only has 5 minutes. He said he was given less than 24 hours and 18 hours
to respond. He asked for due process. He said the Planning Commission did not ask one question
of Pete Ortiz (Police Chief) who knows what he has done in the way of improvements. He noted Mr.
Buller was directed to have dialogue with him and Commissioner Stewart said he had earned the
right to that. He claimed he sent four e-mails and none were answered. He referred to Mr. Buller's
remark at the previous meeting in which he stated there would come a time when "he would
engage" Mr. Davidson and that did not happen. He said Mr. Buller went on vacation and Mike Diaz
was too busy to talk to him. He said Planning Staff changed the wording in the Conditional Use
Permit. He stated that in the Entertainment Permit, the term "incidental" does not exist. He asked
for the ladder of discipline i.e., where is the punishment or fine. He asked if the goal was to work
and solve problems. He asked what it says to the business community. He remarked that he was
willing to cooperate, to address the problems. He said he did address them and then it would
change. He said there is no evidence from the Police and that all the neighbors said things have
gotten better. He commented that he has been under a microscope for 5 months. He noted that the
Police calls for service has been cut down to 2 and that he "did a helluva job" taking care of the
problems and then it turned into a moral issue. He said his opponents threw a bunch of stuff on the
wall to see what would stick. He said they are not engaged in adult entertainment, that there is no
substantial amount of time engaged in those activities and they do not hire performers. He claimed
the Conditional Use Permit has been re-worded to say the entertainment is incidental to the
restaurant and bar...He noted, "Nowhere does it say that." He said he had a conversation with Mr.
Sanchez in which Mr. Sanchez said it is not about the problems in the neighborhood, but about the
nature of the business. He said Mr. Olsen said it is his goal to put Mr. Davidson out of business. He
asked how he should respond to that. He remarked that the neighbors never acted in good faith
and that they have caused irreparable harm to his business in his attempts to meet their moral
standards. He said Mr. Olsen would keep fighting to close him down that he is not going away. Mr.
Davidson said he would fight forever for his business. He said the neighbors are extremists, and
liars, and the flyers are on the street. He said the 14 suggestions submitted by Ed Sanchez are
extreme and some are not even legal. He said we should make it the same for everyone. He. said
he tried to be nice, "but what did it get me?" He said he is being conditioned out of business. He
read an e-mail sent to the City into the record. He said he would be willing to do 3 things to improve
his business: 1) put $20,000 into remodeling the kitchen to promote food sales, 2) lengthen the
hours of operation to help make it more of a lunch place and 3) add a restriction that does not allow
a cover charge. Mr. Davidson said he would challenge the neighbors to make their statements
Planning Commission Minutes
-11-
July 13, 2005
'.
-
,
under the penalty of perjury. He said he would challenge the City to charge him with operating an
adult entertainment business. He said staff failed to follow the instructions of the Planning
Commission, that they were told to work out the conditions and that Mr. Buller had an obligation to
talk to him. He said Mr. Diaz never responded to his e-mails. He set out a challenge for staff to
explain the difference in the words in the entertainment permit and the CUP/incidental
entertainment. He offered a suggestion of a fine or suspension. He said he is angry and upset and
that his employees are in danger of losing their jobs.
The record indicates that Mr. Davidson spoke for 20 minutes.
Jim Olsen, a neighboring resident, commended the Planning Commission's recommendations and
said they would force compliance from Mr. Davidson and the enforcement of the City. He said he
still has concerns with the Entertainment Permit, that Mr. Davidson has not complied with either the
Conditional Use Permit or the Entertainment Permit and that he has behaved badly in regard to the
smoking violation. He said the City should revoke the Entertainment Permit and the Conditional Use
Permit as stated in the Municipal Code 5.12.100.
Ed Sanchez, 9869 Estacia Court, said there is a consensus among the neighbors that they do not
have a problem with the modified Conditional Use Permit but they do have a problem with the
Entertainment Permit. He stated that Mr. Davidson is still holding promo events. He asked that in
regard to the website, what would a "reasonable person" think in viewing those photographs. He
said he wants the Entertainment Permit revoked.
David Mosher said he lives behind Margarita Beach.
Chairman Macias said he has been made aware of the material Mr. Mosher wishes to present.
Commissioner Fletcher asked when the video was taken.
Mr. Mosher said a few weeks ago around 2:00 a.m.
Commissioner Fletcher asked why was he taping, and if he was being disturbed.
Mr. Mosher said he heard loud noise and that he did call the police on June 22 because of a
disturbance.
Chairman Macias asked if on the night he took the video and again on the 22nd, did he call the
police and did they come.
Mr. Mosher said he called and they did not come. He said he spoke to dispatchers Amy, Ed, and
Tina. He reported that he also called on July 10, at 12:00 midnight, 12:40 a.m. and again at 2:30
a.m. He said he called the police three times. He submitted a noise log and still pictures taken from
the video.
Chairman Macias reiterated that our purpose for this hearing is to address the conditions in the
resolutions and that his testimony is redundant.
Chairman Macias asked Sergeant Morrison to address the Commission.
Sergeant Paul Morrison said it is the department policy to respond to any call at any time. He said
he went to his house, gave him his card, asked him to call if he had any problems and he never
received a call from that family. He said that he had to check as to recent calls for service.
Commissioner McNiel asked what reports he has on hand.
Planning Commission Minutes
-12-
July 13, 2005
.;.-
Sergeant Morrison said he had breakdown reports dated March 17, and February 2,2005 and a
report that covered the period of March 22 through June 7,2005. He said he did not have anything
more current that that.
Commissioner Fletcher asked if there are any other locations in town that bother or disturb the
residents or experience this many problems.
Sergeant Morrison said there are several that could cause disturbances in this town. He said there
are some similar type businesses that do.
Jean Mosher, 8026 Cambridge Avenue, reported that on the same night as the last Planning
Commission meeting (June 22), they experienced a lot of noise coming from the open back door of
Margarita Beach. She said the police came several days later. She said the officer assumed she
was lying although he was friendly and nice. She indicated she is reluctant to call the police if it is
not a life-threatening situation. She said they experienced the same thing a few days later.
"
Chairman Macias asked if this is a common occurrence.
Mrs. Mosher stated it is.
Chairman Macias asked if she thought the modified conditions would make the situation better.
Mrs. Mosher said no because of the nature of the business, they are drunks and you cannot control
them.
Chairman Macias asked if the disturbances have continued.
Mrs. Mosher said they have and she called the police recently at about 2:00 a.m. and spoke to a
dispatcher. She said she asked the dispatcher how to file a formal complaint and the police never
came.
Vicky Scimone, 5016 Pasito Avenue, said she read the report and agrees with the limitations on the
business. She said although the Commission stated this is the first time this was brought to their
attention, that is not true. She said this is no surprise to Mr. Davidson. She said she is sorry about
how this may affect his employees. She said she only cares about what happens in front of her
house, not what goes on inside the building. She said she was previously a waitress at Red Robin.
She commented that they have a bar and it was never advertised in that manner and this is not what
a normal restaurant does.
Chairman Macias closed the publiC hearing. He commented that we have heard the numerous
issues and both sides.
Brad Buller referred to page H-11 and H-12 ofthe agenda packet where the reference to incidental
sales is made. He said in section B.2.(b) of the Resolution on page H-11, the original Conditional
Use Permit Resolution of Approval 88-242 states, " The application is for the incidental sales of
alcoholic beverages as menu items in conjunction with the sales of food." He said that was the
original intent for the approval. He said Mr. Davidson correctly identified the term in the conditions
"in conjunction with." He added that the original approval also stated the closing time would be
11 :00 p.m. He said the following modification expanded the hours and the entertainment. He
remarked that we went back to the original use on the property. Mr. Buller apologized if there was a
lack of dialogue between the applicant and staff. He stated it was his intent there be dialogue. He
remarked that at the previous meeting he indicated that there would come a point that we had a time
line to get this ready to bring back to .the Commission and discussion could have gone on and on
but that regardless of the time issue we should have made some contact with Mr. Davidson.
Planning Commission Minutes
-13-
July 13, 2005
,
,
Mr. Ennis responded to some of the comments made by Mr. Reiss in regard to his belief that the
City is acting against the law. Mr. Ennis commented that it is not discriminatory or a violation of due
process to impose restrictions on his hours of operations. He said Mr. Reiss contends that if other
businesses can operate beyond these hours then it would be discriminatory to limit Mr. Davidson's
hours of operation. He noted the many hours oftestimony/comments regarding the impacts on the
community, specifically the late night impacts. He said the Commission could weigh the evidence,
believe or reject the evidence in part or in its entirety presented based upon the assertions and the
denials made by the applicant. He said regarding due process, that the issues before the
Commission have been presented over the course of several public hearings and that there have
been multiple opportunities for the applicant to present information and for rebuttal. He noted that
between he and his attorney and their representatives, they spoke for approximately 1 hour and 15
minutes. He said the agenda packet contains a letter from the applicant in which the applicant
responds to the information presented at the last meeting. He added that he does not believe the
proceedings or process has not violated their due process rights, and that the Commission has
given them a fair and adequate opportunity to respond. He said regarding a "ladder of discipline,"
he said there has been information regarding official intervention and official response to incidents
occurring at the sight such as the code enforcement smoking violation. He commented that the
applicant has indicated that there is nothing in the record to support the conditions imposed or
proposed by staff. He noted that there is much testimony and evidence in the record and that the
Commission should weigh the validity of the evidence and that they have adequate evidence on
which to base their opinion. He reported the conditions being imposed merely require the business
to comply with existing law as it pertains to adult entertainment. He said this business has a specific
type of license that requires it to be a bona-fide eating establishment and certain restrictions for
attire for both customers and employees as outlined in ABC law. He noted the conditions ensure
they comply with those laws already in existence. He added that the questions and issues were
raised as to whether this is being operated as an adult business. He said no conclusion or
determination has been made. He commented that if the City's Code Enforcement believes it has
risen to that level, and then they will proceed. He said although the applicant denies that the
photographs are from this location, there are conflicting statements in relation to that. He noted that
Mr. Reiss acknowledged that 9 of photos are from the Margarita Beach location. He said the co-
owner at one point made comments that there is no evidence that they came from this location and
then conflicting comments were made stating they were of some special events at that location.
Commissioner McNiel noted that counsel clarified many of their concerns. He re-stated their
purpose in dealing with the neighborhood problemslimpacts. He remarked that the advertising
presented by Mr. Davidson and Mr. Hall remarkably is the industry standard. He asked what it says
about us (inferring the City as 'us'). He noted that Mr. Reiss indicated there is no evidence and that
it is a "red herring." Commissioner McNiel indicated there is substantial evidence upon which a
judgment can be made. He referred to Mr. Samboline's remarks regarding the website photos and
responded that "bad judgment" is something you correct and "locker room humor" is something that
should stay in the locker room. He said he read the conditions and he supports them as presented
by staff. He added that the Commission is charged with the "maintenance of community" and that it
is important that they do that. He remarked that they have not done much with the ''Twins'' operation
because they have not received a lot of complaints about them, but he suggested they start that
process.
Commissioner Stewart asked Mr. Buller for clarification regarding any dialogue that may have taken
place concerning the conditions in the draft resolutions.
Mr. Buller stated he was out of the office for two weeks and was not privy to the conversations that
may have taken place prior to the report being sent out. He deferred to Mr. Coleman and Mr. Diaz
to respond.
Planning Commission Minutes
-14-
July 13, 2005
-----
>
Michael Diaz stated that Mr. Davidson is correct in that he sent several e-mail messages that were
in turn forwarded to other staff members. He stated he also had several phone conversations with
Mr. Davidson's' attorney in which his requests for an accounting of all similar Conditional Use
Permits and Entertainment Permits be provided. He said it took a considerable amount oftime to
pull up those permits for their review. He noted that the same request was made by the residents.
He apologized that the e-mail referred to by Mr. Davidson did not get into the report with the many
other exhibits. He said there was some dialogue going on in the midst of preparing the report and
communicating with the attorney.
Commissioner Stewart asked if there was any interaction with Mr. Davidson specifically related to
the proposed conditions related to the hours of operation or anything else in the resolutions. She
asked if he had input, or if he had a "say" in those conditions.
Mr. Diaz said specifically regarding the conditions, "no." He said they were writing them up until the
last minute prior to the packets being produced and that it would have been premature to discuss
things that had not been written yet. He commented that the residents had asked for the same
information and that they also did not receive anything because staff was still preparing the
resolutions. .
'.
Mr. Buller stated he communicated with Mr. Coleman and Mr. Diaz prior to his absence from the
office. He remarked that there was no preconceived idea as to how these conditions would evolve
after their two-week dialogue. He instructed them to work closely with the attorney's office. He said
it would have added another two-week continuance or more to send it out again to both sides and to
again wait for their response. He said there was time for either side to bring suggested modified
conditions prior to tonight's meeting for their consideration.
Commissioner Stewart commented that she has found staff to be comprehensive and responsive in
the past. She noted that she had evaluated all the calls to the police. She said that although the
residents state they have had problems for 9 years, she is working from the proceedings that this
body (the Planning Commission) has been involved with and that these hearings are the first time
this Commission has dealt with this issue and that she can only address that, not other meetings,
incidents, and/or conversations that may have taken place prior to these meetings. She commented
that the Conditional Use Permit allows residents to come and voice their concerns. She said this
dialogue is unique to this bar that has become problematic to the neighbors. She said the issue is
whether or not this business has been injurious to the public and if it can be corrected through
actions/mitigations. She said she believes they can. She remarked that the resolutions go a long
way toward that start point. She said regarding a "ladder of discipline," this is the first step toward
that in imposing some rules and regulations that will help get control. She said she has a problem
with Mr. Davidson not being given an opportunity to respond to and offer suggestions to the
conditions in the resolutions. She said she disagrees with Commissioner McNiel in that she feels
the restriction of the hours could be problematic and would impose difficulty for this type of business.
She said most of the conditions are appropriate. She commented that if the only issue is the hours
of operation then they could discuss it and move forward tonight. She said otherwise she believes
Mr. Davidson is owed the opportunity to respond and correct the habits of his business. She said
these things can be mitigated. She noted that the people testifying tonight that made the complaint
have indicated things have gotten better. She said it is not her goal to shut the business down but to
mitigate it and to make it a working productive business in the community. She said if there are
other significant issues that need to be addressed then it should be brought back after another two-
week period or longer so that the conditions can be looked at and open dialogue can take place.
Commissioner McPhail commented that she appreciates the thoughtfulness of her collegues. She
said the Commissioners are not a law enforcement body and that they appreciate the service of
those who are. She also thanked the Planning Staff for their informative package. She said the
Commission is there to address the land use and that they are not an enforcement body. She
Planning Commission Minutes
-15-
July 13, 2005
.'
emphasized that they are to determine what is in the best interest of the community. She said the
question is not one of morals, but only to determine if that business is appropriate in that location.
She said it is not reasonable to have cones in driveways and calls from the neighbors. She said she
is not convinced that operating under the present conditions is appropriate. She said closing the
business at midnight is not unreasonable for a restaurant venue. She said the changes in the
conditions would mean changing some things in the business but that it could be done in a
management savvy way. She echoed Commissioner Stewart's concerns regarding the lack of
dialogue. She said she would consider another shot at dialogue but that she appreciates the
resolution with the conditions as presented.
Chairman Macias asked for clarification and if she is suggesting a continuance.
Commissioner McPhail said she would not want another public hearing with a continued rehash of
the dialogue.
Chairman Macias asked if she would support it if it were just with staff and the applicant.
Commissioner McPhail said she would if there was a revised set of conditions or not if the rest ofthe
Commission is open to that.
Commissioner Fletcher said simply that this business is disturbing the neighbors. He noted the
activities shown in some of the pictures is not normal activity found in a restaurant but is normal
activity for a bar in Cabo (San Lucas) or a spring break promotion. He said he has nothing morally
against a promotion but that when people get drunk it is going to be a problem for the neighbors
when they leave the bar and go outside. He said the main issue is that the CUP is not for a
nightclub or a bar. He said he is not out to close down the business or destroy Mr. Davidson's
livelihood. He said if the residents having a right to peaceful enjoyment of their property has to be
weighed against an individual's right to run a business that is objectionable or is causing the
residents a problem, then the residents will always win. He said it is up to Mr. Davidson to temper
what goes on at this location or condition it to what it used to be which was a restaurant with
incidental entertainment that serves liquor. He said we do "not have revolts and upset citizens
coming out on the other businesses. He remarked that we look at one permit at a time. He
mentioned that it was disturbing to hear that Mr. Davidson was asked to voluntarily comply with the
smoking ordinance and to move ashtrays outside and he refused. He reported that he looked atthe
website prior to the pictures being presented to the Commission. He said the impression he got
from reviewing the site was that the pictures shown represented what one would see at the
Margarita Beach Rancho Cucamonga location. He said it was insulting to a normal person's
intelligence and that as Commissioner McNiel pointed out, borders on false advertising. He said the
hours of operation in the new conditions are a problem for him. He said none of the conditions
changes what goes on at the business, the owner will have to change that. He asked for
clarification on the hours of operation.
Mr. Buller clarified that staffs position is that alcohol would not be served after 11 :00 p.m. and that
the business would close entirely at midnight. He explained that the restaurant and entertainment
could remain until midnight and stop the serving of alcohol at 11 :00 p.m. He said this would be
something the Commission could dialogue about. He remarked that if it is opened up to Mr.
Davidson he would have one idea and the residents would have another.
Commissioner Fletcher said he still has some concern about the hours of operation. He remarked
that he does not believe it will make a difference. He said the CUP is for a restaurant but essentially
what he has is a nightclub. He said his promotions are consistent with a nightclub and that he felt it
needed to revert back to the original intent. He expressed concern that the owner was not given an
opportunity to discuss the hours.
Planning Commission Minutes
-16-
July 13, 2005
.
7
Chairman Macias stated that he does not have an issue with the marketing schemes but that it is an
industry standar~ for a certain type of use and that it is likely to invite that kind of clientele. He said
he fully believes that it is a nightclub and not a restaurant. He commented that he believes staff was
negligent in their duties in that they did not fully pursue the direction that Planning Commission gave
to have dialogue. He commented that his board would not have accepted what he heard tonight.
He said that he does not believe that anything would have changed even with dialogue and that if it
was opened up for more comment, that we would have heard more of the same. He said he
believes staff made a legitimate attempt to mitigate the situation and that the resolution attempts to
do that. He said the Commission has 3 months to review the situation and that we can change
things if needed at that time. He suggested they act upon the new conditions that they have. He
remarked that there is enough community concern to warrant what staff has proposed. He said he
fully supports what they have proposed. He asked for a motion.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by McPhail, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No.s
05-50 and 05-51 modifying the conditions to Conditional Use Permit 88-45 and Entertainment Permit
91-03 as presented. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FLETCHER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL
NOES: STEWART
ABSENT: NONE - carried
'.
****
The Planning Commission recessed at 10:08 p.m. and reconvene a
****
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW - DRC2004-0
CECIL CARNEY - A request to develop eight industrial buildings totaling 48,048 squ eet on
3.35 gross acres of land in the General Industrial District (Subarea 2), located on south side
of 9th Street, east of Lion Street - APN: 0209-013-48. Related File: Tent. Parcel Map
SUBTPM16899. Staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of environ ntal impacts for
consideration.
I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCE P - SUBTPM16899 -
CECIL CARNEY -A request to subdivide 3.35 gross acres ofl into 8 parcels in the General
Industrial District (Subarea 2), located on the south side 0 th Street, east of Lion Street -
APN: 0209-013-48. Related File: Development Review C2004-00981. Staff has prepared
a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for sideration.
, stated he is representing the applicant and is available
Louis LeBlanc, Assistant Planner presented the sta
Chairman Macias opened the public hearing.
Steve Wheatley, 10300 4th Street, Suite
to answer any questions.
Hearing and seeing no comm , Chairman Macias closed the public hearing.
Motion: Moved by St rt, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the resolution approving Development
Review DRC2004-00 and Tentative Parcel Map SUBTPM16899 as presented with the adoption
of a Mitigated Ne e Declaration of environmental impacts. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: FL HER, MACIAS, McNIEL, McPHAIL, STEWART
NOES: E
ABSENT. ONE - carried
July 13, 2005
/
.
,'<
Petition to City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission
I sign this petition in support of Margarita Beach.
I urge the Planning Commission to work with
Margarita Beach and not to revoke or restrict their
.
permits to operate.
I personally agree to support Margarita Beach by
only parking in the Margarita Beach parking lot, to
exit quietly when I leave and to never park or drive
in the nearby neighborhood.
I have never witnessed any activity at Margarita
Beach that could be considered Adult
Entertainment as defined by the Development Code.
ADULT CABARET
A nightclub, bar, restaurant, or similar establishment
during which a substantial portion of the total
presentation time features live performances which
are distinguished or characterized by an emphasis on
"specified sexual activities" or by exposure of
"specified anatomical areas"...
Margarita Beach is not a strip club. It is a Bar &
Grill that offers clean fun, dancing, good food and
drinks in a safe environment.
i .
,
NAME &ADDRESS
? { . f$;)flftJL s~(-.:::
S' a.
3.~ ~~~ - ~7TIl
4. ~te.( D ~~ ~2d")MlIVV{r>~1 (7J? d
5. )fI.w i ~y (jL~ ~c.<.1! 'f h?d
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
II.
12.
13.
14.
15.
.,16.
17.
18.
19.
. 20.
i , ,
,
"
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9. '
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Si na ure
,
On,
11 & d/3 /;ollc,r~ L, M t-dM?<
12 ~o 0 H.U (I
_ " - ~ L ft1ef K:V~)(,rt I. n u
14.rv roo//. ~t. G..
15. T~ltc~/C4)q
" 16. :+201--1 \Xl Ap-1J '22lYD 42,Ve:aJJOe- k 0 Nr: \ ~tA,u.~ b 3
17. tYlfl3 c~HI ;;/~~ 0. ,9; IA f/.fi&/E OJ- 9/m
18. A~At'l r..,oi2~E:LL 4C{(o~ ELD0J2/U)C) l>~. LAUE/2~JJ;. qnso
19. rY1/{rm ,~1i2f-f'Y /71;0 r;~/~ Ae{. (l i(
20 /l A _'J O/1..,L.)1"'e,c
.l...:::;;AI't...( /:;), 5/77/ ~# d.-3c:;,") S. {A "A! kP/" ;:jv.p ePf, 91 /V,!
. , I
,
"
Sif~ature/l
2.
3
4. .
5.
6.
7.
8.. 15~ '5 T lJJt-NP U/f-
9. 1b I ~U uf1;8NO~
1 . l)~A1A'j--:~~A./ '2q~o ?~J~ S-j~
11.~- \t--rL-\JA\e..~o'.1/A C~ '7/nd
12. W fiY-erCI~~ --1b'1 N'~~fl;{B ~flW
13. 90 t-aR-Ci ,:, .
14.
15..
16.
17.
18. ,
,
19. r
20.
NAME &ADDRESS
u
q)7\f~
~
,
Signature
1.
2.
3.
4.
NAME &ADDRESS
:;2 .3S"" <
'-
1'7
c
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
~
:I"'t/PtJ J./,,~r~ ~_e, 1/73::>
L g" {/ r;-K/Vv "
,
,
NAME &ADDRESS
~ - ~.I ~, ftPJ flJ!vcf f17~oer
l DG s;: - ~, V\.. ~
~
6.
7.
8. rn,Ut- ", -('I r.{f!;(' ? 3t7cr.
9. ';:::::.., t~1 /1,,4- 2- C( G. , "
10.()A~ ~~
.
11. '{}t>n7a
12
13.
14.
15.
16. j;;:i I
17
18. .,
19. .
20.
8r&Lt CDn:1M.
(){-
cO\. fVVO(J(/ P s rq r~
J-f,! (\ Ilk W. 'YZ. C "'\ "ul
Col)) -tJP
IIV ~.
/LfI{lo lA~ ~~,
t'~70 lYia M
,.
1- W
9. t:J'P.A G(jIt3(;>r eJAPL60rl fJA q l-"gO
10.~~c;V\q\oAltM~ ~Mrdt~
11. R/CJ1A-RD,joN6>1orO/ 1/\/04- ST A/JrLAAJTO
12. "JUJt1J1UiBrus \6~ 81 (.,I.>!J lLU_ C4- .
13. Q\(~) f G~!l'i:llie!b lWiO fJ fJO Rtf. W fA q~srv
14:- (..,.,;fiA./ ~ .1r1(...e~ ~70 (':~t:'W t",/,vj-crz...b;(:2>r'
15. 15i'~ t,rt(/!I ~)I. 0 (-
, 16. PNJ!;. ~3{(
17. SID S:4Mf l/f,,-/1'
18. k("n''j b~r"\~ /0 3V\ c. >{c.\ec\,~ ~"\
19. ()Q W,\I\ 'JJ \
. 20. . () J:1(;.bl'- t/J-J /~ 't.I~e.J. <;177'7/
NAME &ADDRESS
;~ .~ ~
~
Si20ature
1.
2.
3.
f:e9
~ ~
.. ~~
'5'11'- C-oF:8LZ- uJ. ItfT J4 IYYI JeIJLOjM~q(7"f.
/ .. JI- oAt!
r!AW
-
,
I
5. (
6.
7.
v' q, 73D
Si nature
1. f)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11. M.o...J~ sha CC\. S \-v-o ,?,(). ~o (( (0 lit Ot:lI.MI',.JWq,;ld'~
12. G ~16~?lO Uff3 \oJ. Il~,.,6. gr ~ ~b C.+ tf~ 10
13f~~<v (/1-1.111.(' (001'( LM(t'lb /Ii&--.~ c>f
14JA(r. I()Vr u/lAk j)~~~
15. ____ r
16. Ctrt^L-l- etrkr 7'#73 f? V.tI1Cr. ~s
17. ~-v-,~ ~~~""Z-. ?~3?~a'"<.-.; f .--="3"'/ ~~
18. \Lov~a. ~.) -'UOC) mckutrllti1\L~ t:W..{> a~
19. ~OS(PJ.f le~ ~~ ,k/c._~-~'-( /ar,,, t{'. c.
20. rfU-~ \<.y :p\ () ~ EflI~ky f~{ci> ~eV\~. CerYl
NAME &ADDRESS
,
a011~ ~
\
:\'
~ ~e
. 15. rJennLfry' (yi! $50_10 .~ ffr:0 ~1wJt-{/f.. 9Z31fL
',16. ~f/1-~ ~fUlt~!dhrQ~$fd-37(
17. Ch riSn f'.1 ~k'l t1 ~ 2\11'" ge~ ~ Covik/(, U. Cf f 72'"
18. jtraat IrrdlMJO Ilqtl}cMhir~ ~1.NrJTtU~lft OfooJO
. 19. ,;&cPt'e: ~rr 7. ?/6'> JJ~ A-ve. N tRi::o..-o,
20. ~'t ~ \\'\J . \\MQ ~ Q{'r ~
NAME &ADDRESS
r ,.-.,. Dn- .~-r3 .\-.\..,0.(' ~ ..:r---.J . ~ <'h ,'-( <,........
t.(~4 (?;4c..ccc-lt-.- T l..-A 900 l7-
1)/ ;v- ~A(JtC ~
~ Lti.v"\f.P't j,..t '" P 1""-<
Signature NAME &ADDRESS
1. ' . 2(, '5 ~ 1;~ (kv. Ca,Pt04 CtA
2. htt'f ;e/lA.r~ ~~ ~J{(,VINtJ qt/~
3. \77-S '-3; t\J.L~ ~ <5,-B ltA... qz</I
4. (cJ5j . j. () n/ft.. LffiClJ1J y(
5. rY\'o~\ C{ \AQ l?tA Jotjg ~::;;?4 ~ ~ ~ \ h O\ttnV (' j<I- C( 17 (p <...
6 -. .
. .. 6
7 - VlV\J'ood~ ~2-:o31-
8 . (Avo 11 '1lf-. q!1L/
9.
10
11
12.
13.
~~:.~~I~J~~t~j~E~'ur;2~~~tr
16.~.lt~ ~5,)..:')1) Dv.~S~4 t~\'\D ~ Q, IIto.\
17. .. t-
18. ;5)
19~..
20
,
Si nature
1.
2.
3.
4.- <-th::7~.<:-' C-4 qt::J~
5 . :z;r.ft!? ,.f/Cf{ffl !-vUlJ .l!lll.f.
.tAb/1.~ . !M/rrfFtRlq,f..~~A'<' u4.. 0/27''''7'
6.(\O.cKl<r }Goxda (OQl3 GVQf]t- Cl1LV/C)rCA,q litO
7.Y~ ~A- 7~ ~1~ ~r H"fV'1~~
[\).....-."C.-\ A.Q...-z-./...... 7?"t(,"'I ")).."-Cove Ave. To--A.......... /{A-
9. ~~ - QJS3
10. b-~
11.
12.
13.
.
14. qt '1- '1Bl!J/ 'Uso- 11II1p.
15. 01' ~ W -I g,J \Cp(;tI IL Gc(;c..t:
'. 16. ~~v"- tJ.oJJ. 1b l <;. c-~ \)~[\rt'\:p A~~rq~1 () .
1 7. ~ &1 7... ( eoo l: -fo/1AJ.f P $T. j?v(;j/( c.k 717~'J
18. }A~.\A. G{)M~7 \\C,D ?ICtCz.r---~J-.~.c LACjJI~)>
19 :t. . I . '- .L/;9' CL "-'~ ~ "~ '7/7 G'S
. 20. ~ ( qf.:,uS' o5e{..JP'OC( )-1- rr1(y1(, 4;/vi! .
q /.;L6.5
NAME &ADDRESS
Wt~Jl~<--
I "1
L-~~Ea7J/J~ .~~~
)
<1,;)11':;
NAME &ADDRESS
Si nature
1.
2.
3. 1
4.
5.
~ftl~S. .
G
I (/
UtJ t- f3,L.v ( ,.... () lJ foJT]t. I rJ W A'I .
CLklL I-'lt>~r c. 1
c;C-z - %;;r'7 -:Z6~/
NAME &ADDRESS
7.
8.
9. 42/f/l~~
10. rVf"{<g::J ~~wlA.r .
11.'. ! ~ I
12. ~ct:-~ .
~~:~~oW
15..~
" 16. 0:; N
17. hN '~C ~
18.
19.
20.
[
W1f HA-~+b..tFlA II (
c;t~ s. 8 W2{to.'i::t- C~.CAqCX)ta
. ~~
{Olla Q,havch s-t #22D r2cl 0 G.u,1}'1~"
. ;I
f?- -6 c ' 9"b-L- rs(J~
r: a - 8 ~ ~<.. N (jeGC
I?I 7P
ftl/j71J1Y'Alm/d ar/c/ ~ f!aI"..a.#1t#2J
~ .
c <
qf.l{61 fYVvnZu1I17/1e>1 Dr- fJJWfrt't CA
{ (
&fo ~ ~f?-o A:vL ~ Vu.MJ. CJ\ ql15i
l~~ .CtL--lAlkuv.tA q'11t
l D~o~ f;.f(m <of- ~Q11u Quca ~ n q r7~
~S~tl At0 R.C.
'\ f \.1 ft l
(frt8 FafI,; J (
NAME &ADDRESS
r;: <&~ll VI
~ JCf r ~cA-1. '1
;; e:::::-~/q / ~~
1
, 1 .
1 ~
20. Qt-(,i\)-C G,~ , 0' '"
.....
. 'fH'.
.f(9? JL~fV1V"4 41Je P..rJ' fYc:1J730
!jC / .--~
283S) 6e IUrlf I/t'~ v~ {
,. 4V'1' c"""""--';
q tJ } '; .i: 8o}!iiJfl1l. f3J /l , CJl "I f '7 ~ ~
5Z-I ' t5U-z0
6
Jr~r <"J r~ .
of! cv~ c--l\
q 'fib
NAME &ADDRESS .
~r;() 1
Ie 51 ;: '2'
? ? 11 e- ..4
)
-;
~
<4
9/~
~
(Ir
"\ \
Bf"\~
/1
:). \ , \ '\ '\.
/ ((" r(" ,/.
~. (( ))
I 0${<)V V\, \ ~.J-~\"t 1 . f6/J.S 'E
"11 <=t ~- S.;;3 ~r2 ?ch. ~ce
17.
18.
19.
20~11~ ~'fr(J e.~~~~.0
&n/i,..,
Si nature
1.
2 .(;<-- qt.-:
3.
4.
5. b~~-Sf~
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
1 .
12.
13.
14.
15. '"- "'- c
. ,,16'~~0vrrt(i-" . Zo~ ~jf1/" . I:~( ~ut/
17.~ C;~4~~ ~~ C?tJS/~
18. ~~~ hJ ~~ \ . 1fK q ~llkt~ ~VL ~Nt- ~J,.
19. ~ M~ C:r?r-~ . N~n. 4- ~
20. 4zfY7 ~-(tO( frAuJ1 Gt. C!+rAJo
~
~
~V\../( ~Ctt'l'.
<:: ~
,
i:1n(;
7~77 jVl;Ak::,;"/J,( .~_
l()Ift- 1/lJ, V~\r"QD P v~'e,<<.{/..:> ~
.
J J)~ 4- '/ ~ 72e.0U CA- 7Z. !:,J~
. '{ /}tl1- I/J ~ .
U(()l-3( ~~ktt{ )~j; QCSS3
I :.t
Li4 tII17~
"
NAME &ADDRESS
~k ATf!-Y
17616 ,
.1ftJ
.173.3;; u: ~
~ vlf (It: /,
t1~( 5"
~~t;: /;~:~
CA.
r-
4'3.;'? ft.A-hst-a 0NT c:A 9/7:'2-/2-
->v+-~ <;{ 4[ , L.A i >-X{
~
IV
;br..
Signature
1."
2.
NAME &ADDRESS
- Mr)S{:A
. 3.5TG-v-c AVlcI~rJ~;v 6G.e-;3 R(I'SS4C PI AITc..{6......~cA '1(73"
4 .C0vfs C,,~;-nA.d 01 _ f f ,/3 lSr(S';" c PI ItH< I~~. <-'/-''''''
5.V:v~ I-t"LA-~~/Z- Ci:0-c=- r/ !vl-5 {--V~
6 \ I . n_n/_^ /\ 1 COl['2.~2.C;
. v~Ilj\.f. \MlWL1 ~t((} ;')~~ hit Upl~"o qJ7~1;J
7. ~b5 ScJ,..a.!L alt> W ArrOw \Zk C- ~7~" .
8. --46.c..-~ C JJ7vu) 1217;;)-80 C(~+ q/7-f;::2
9. I r' 6~~ 1"7~
1 O. ZZ~2 lo C1.2
11. '~l1. S 5'78' AJ'i"H' .Y 0
12. S W~ I{SO
13. ~01& {~(DJ W{flA.lU-Iv", 0/. (f-v'CJ4 7;2-31)'
14.~J AA44~.
.
15~
'. 1
17. e-
18.~
I .
19. .
20.
r
~A\6~
~t~
() . a,
{7Ll S/Hu~;,- ,(Jtft--~z, CJ~ ~(JJ- ~f
-'t c....
tQIUlo L~. fV< (q~
qSN 1SI- 0IJ;
. .
Si2nature
1.
NAME &ADDRESS
d57-71
t?.-( I
IAI ~'^--V ~ C4""
1Od-:5'0 Dv..,^", d
.
e:
20.
'. .
Signature NAME &ADDRESS
1. tv't.&. _ ~---"" ~~-
2. k.e\ an'
3.
. .
NAME &ADDRESS
/f1JSrr;J N (JftAJ-JD C'A ria
82h I/fJS(1 J - IV tJj>t.-J(tJb c A-? j 1
Si nature
1.
2.
3.
4.
-=>-=-..C: //
(p
,~
LA~
,
l J...-..ko
9( fft, -
ViVl CA
01 ti- 2--G 1
.S-tt)"'5".:3(,v"\. ~~ C;Yt.. M~
1<J'ICl A.,.ch ~ h",,11 Jlv"jtY4 AI t""k.v..cA .
. '111"r
. .
1 .
1
15.
" 16.
17
20
l (
NAME &ADDRESS
~ CU, AtJfJ L- [,t\LiVVl-eSJt 1l3LU
4.
5. .1:
6.
7.
8.
9.
1 .
II.
1 . .;? f3Mf.J-0-7
,
13. 60JT
14
15
16.
17
1
19.
20:?=-~ 9--:7-Fr-eJ FfoY~
~
~(jU
.. _ ~~* v I~ qrc-rg
t~Ob "A7~?L "e ~c. (4 c:r ()1:
17t)/ A,Aal+e tv ~f. ~wr7)He.. (/I- 1')7",
17:;1) /~57 /~ h;"v~ lA ~?'67
o l."u l~ €4
J~
~
VAL ~11 1tw~ t..~ ~V!r>lYtw
7"301 Dot r,h-Ylc>vr'--'
c.. (.., '-C'I W)O 11 ~ ""l GA- .
oz t7~
. .
NAME &ADDRESS
Si nature
1.'
2. U
3.
4.
5.
6. I ~
7. '5r iA-vtJl; J]1/effcrn b CV)"7
8. tuY\ W-Lc-cL(
9. D(a '1)~.
-
10.. /.
11.
12.
13.
14. G-
IS.
. '. 16
17.
1 .
19.
20.
JDD -tS. Co.c5oVl
511 j)6AJA
/~.r "",<'0/.
I'r
rr
I I
Ii
I (
.~ 60)( bcr1 6-iJ(e.3) WI1~
'6 Ll 0 Z> -0~ f1'r- 0 ~
I rn 57 L ~ fill ~lll ~:#1{) I AiI-~ I~
'.' -
Sign~ NAME &ADDRESS
. 1. ~~~)-0 '1?']~t ~ ~j~ f (lNlU ~(IJ( }
2. tfI2 .;U rY9/ ~ (;T#J... (;;Jt./h\J/) 1 1,~
3. 8?fO tlNYi C"- r2( c/t o/Ir>()
4. ;1.%-
. --"
5.
7.
8.
9. d/
1 .
1 .
1 '.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20. ~
1t..
loge> LV, 7arc57~-1ftol G-(J'f'I?gct,;
" 'P- f:.
~I (bow~/O'// 1M
1
Si nature
NAME &ADDRESS
I 12 . ZU?i)
--l18Lf ~{ti PrJ e WY\tU')cA cA
\ 3> ~uJ 1QtJb.
~,l. v,- tt fh~. ,~
S(go SA-Rrf-\J.~~. -:;;-t ALrA-~A;. ( ~
131ft S:/..(Xfff~.;tfc3 tvdi~('o" (lfr /1/lYf
L' ; ~
~Co)t /S'ffPrv...vSCPrJt $. H~{}edA CZ L~ Y.T
. \~~o ~~~Or C;-soS-O
~ _ . ~ +h ~-\-v-ee .. n
,
. .
NAME &ADDRESS
(}{~ ~
.
qnero
. 1. ~SS
9/710
:!:5Z Msr/ J j,-../ tJj'L-~b
. I ~BC> Lv oo'r"LLL-lWl.i7=Wa
l:fa C;k \l{~I'M cA (/\2-Qff-
t;t:(dc'fo
.~ Cr-\ '1')- ~ '5 u
,
. . >
Si nature
1.
\CY...
.
- .
NAME &ADDRESS
~ 9/7>..:
,
~
,
{
7/.3D ('DI~ r A- Cf J. '17 7
.?2<:c, ....V5"T7JJ :/M{ ()k;4..0D ~ ?/7~c:;,
"33l{ L- ~~ ( /..,,- ~ u+61t 'l7Cf
IOg/~ shtvo-ri -4 e1 Cc,.
.$"~ ~ 10)i "l1cRJeH J7~
;(C(f;~ 4.1. s~
1\ {~e7o - (?4'P;li
~1~". .
f),e..,.,----- <IV- b~ e.. ~""Ot1 Ave..
d, A<-rl4 f..,...., eA ? 170 I
?7#t.?(dc5 c:!rm""yt~.... J~? & v<&..ri A/t/o~ Ac_fC
~ ~ /&/3 5 ~,..d/~hf41.
l.t1.(~1 J '1-. G4 010
3300 w. ~(UDb H1lLS (lit
8"z. ~ l...>
~<C-'IV C-v~v4~
.
,
Si nature
I.
2.
3.
~ ./
~
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.~
10
II.
1
13.
14.
1 .
16
17.
18.
19.
20.
NAME &ADDRESS
2 S
<". "'\.o C. Ut.OI....\)I\\.~
enwtlf'.lw
hl.lfJo-#''(
I
~
k~ c
3320 clover . (
-'1.
<",rrr; e:.~,^,,-
,
,
~(J(/", 1~.Ji/
~. - Cd 9e:;;f9 0"0 .
,;:210 N.
IClKE,,1 DI< .e a/6jle-S; is
'9. C/
~
~
,,:
fB{
~
,','-':"i'
,",'o-C
Ii
".
'j,'>
HEINEKEN
SAM ADAMS
ROLUNG ROCK
SMIRNOFF ICE
BASS ALE
GUINESS
""'"
....
.~~~
TRADITIONAL . CADILLAC . STRAWBERRY
MANGO . PASSION FRUIT . KIWI
BANANA . BLUE HAWAIIAN . RASPBERRY
APPLE . BLACKBERRY . BLUEBERRY
CHERRY . COCONUT . WATERMELON
LEMON . ORANGE . PINEAPPLE
GREEN PEPPERMINT
~''''I/lI<.'' ""01,01 '..
~" :>'in,i.. . ,~O,) 113.,200
--
~~
BUD
BUD UGHT
COORS UGHT
MGD
MILLER UTE
MICHELOB ULTRA
O'DOULS (NON-ALCOHOUC)
~~
BUD
BUD UGHT
COORS UGHT
NEW CASTLE
HEFEWEIZEN
I
~~
CUERVO GOLD' CUERVO 1800
TEQUILA ROSE . CHINACO SILVER
SAUZA CONMEMORATIVO
SAUZA HORNITOS
SAUZA TRES GENERACIONES
PATRON SILVER
CAZADORES . EL TESORO .
--~
~~ .
--~ ~ . ~
~ ~~.MixedGrl<""". Tomatoa...... g@o
_ Oliva. Mushrooms. Onions 4 Chua
__" ., I~-~. ~ixl<d Gr""ns. Diced Ham and...~o~
'~'.,;; ~T",rk"Y. Tomatoa 4 Ole......
~<~ ~
~ ,,~~~Ixed Greens. Diced Chicke.n......~O
.. ""n~~~~ma~~~~a~!':"~~,~e ~~
" '" - .~tal;;;... Blue a.......... Rand!. .,.".
I. \ ~ ~ Mustard _,
'?!I.'~->'.
. i'" \
· 7@.{f()[J@J(j@f$ .
~ trti", ~1t.L . ~o~ ~
.:!=,!2l'b/l!J~;(~'ll. 6az Ch.cken B....ast..... ~
, ISmothered In BBQ Sau<< with A"",rican
_ o.ee", u.ttuce 4 Tomato . ~
I~T.Bacon. u.ttuce. Tomato w/Maya ~o
on Toasted White Bread (w/Ch""se add 5Q4:)
""~.d','nl~>'''''' '_11,_- r.iI8~
a '3rJ'j'~INJ 1~/liJSJ\ot8JiJQ........".............,............"..~
60z Chicken Breast Marinatl<d In
Terlyakl sauce with Maya, Swiss,
Tomato. u.ttuce 4 Pineapple :fI1J
Tu~'l. Sliced Turkey with ....................... ~
AmerIcan Cheese. Lettuce, Tomato 4 Mayo
served on a Hogie Roll ~
.elll};} @M~~27J. Chicken Breast ............ ~o
topped with Moyo~ Bacon. Swiss. .
.~ A,V~cada, Lettuce ~nd Tomato .. ' o~
...:hIiEJ- Turkey, Ham.J~~con. u.ttuc:c.......~.
Tomato, Moyo. AmeriCClll'(I"':'-~w~.OI!-,,:roastl<d
. White Bread DOubl'"Deckir:;St)Ile,f',:,,'I.. . ,~...
:?~~~a~i:~~741~~~~~~~f I:
~~. ~'.'~"'~'''-'''-;:''Jl'::' ^~.. .
~":i:;''-:.~.'" Po, ._~~~~,i:.~i'
-
~~
. @[/(J:!j;:!J[1f~~;~2~"~;;;" ~:";::~~-<~:*;';;;';;,:~;;':~m~n,;!:~:.,;
~
. ~~
~t: t "#;'" I... Q . "." o.
~Wl ~2~~}wJ .................
60z Chicken B....ast topped with BBQ Sauce.
A""'rican Cheese. Bacon Bits 4 Gr""n Onions
. ~.ml
j),' .e.-.... "',., ;/.::1, . .. ',Q ".; ~
~~~/f~~ ~lG~~J .................
60% Chic....n Breast topped with SwIss.
Bacon. Avocado 4 Tomato .
~
. ~
,,,- ,':" ell-, ,,-::;;:l,... ' , Q 0.,,"
T~~~ ~lG~ ...................
60% Chicken B....ast Marinated In Terlyakl sauce
with Swiss Cheese 4 Pineapple Rings
T.~b'll:2 ~~Q.......................~~
Coo....d ta your Desire
~~
~..~";""'''''''''''''<<'''''''''~. .' .
.,"""' "'''';:ij1''''''''~~'~''-~. " ~. ~'" ,
~;ot:;oII;'~iW%'';;'.s.''')!;. .~
..~~~.'
aI. o~
_!~~2;J '?i-J ~r-1~.....u.....'......... a;N ~
; j T~~!i . qqlo~
( '. ................................... ~ ~
..~ ~.i''''.".. "'. qgo
"...~ =~ ................................ <:;ow ;gfffJ
1~~~~i~i..I:..................... 0iJ 0.
NOISE LOGS
J
c.~_-;;"
.
NOISE LOGS
--------------------
--------------------
Margarita Beach
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Wednesday June 22,2005
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
'.
Disturbance:
,
Loud pounding Music being heard from back of Margarita Beach, Yel
ling, Cheering.
Began at: 12:30 PM
Ended at: 1:10 AM
Action Taken:
------------------------
Wife Called Police, I Videotaped evidence of loud Music.
Thursday June 23,2005
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Disturballce:
Loud pounding Music being heard from back of Margarita Beach.
Began at: 2:20 PM
Ended at: 1:30 AM
Action Taken:
-------~----------------
Tried to Videotape evidence but noise stopped before
I could gather evidence, or call Police.
Friday June 24,2005
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Disturbance:
Loud yelling, cheering, Laughing, heard from back of Margarita Be
ach,
also witnessed 4 individuals urinating in the back alleyway,
one wearing a nice expensive-looking suit, he was urinating
Page 1
.~~
NOISE LOGS
.
on the East wall of the building.
Began at: 1:49 AM
Ended at: 2:15 AM
Action Taken:
Called police, I did see them shortly afterwards.
Saturday June 25,2005
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Disturbance:
Loud yelling, cheering, Laughing, heard from back of Margarita Be
ach,
also witnessed 3 individuals urinating in the back alleyway,
one with a green haturinated against my back wall.
Began at: 1:42 AM
Ended at: 2:32 AM
Action Taken:
Called Police @ 2:21, Spoke to dispatcher "Jennifer", I also Vide
otaped the individuals
before they urinated on my back wall.
* Tuesday June 28, 2005
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
Seargent Morrison's Visit (5:49pm)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I hung up the phone and the door bell rang @ 5:49pm.
Sgt.Morrison was at the door introducing himself. He left
about 15 minutes or so later.
He was in uniform, but not in a patrol car, which was
a smaller car, darker blueish color with a bit of
green tone I think.
Friday July 1,2005
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Disturbance:
Page 2
NOISE LOGS
- ,~,;V ...
Loud yelling, cheering, Laughing, heard from apartment in
back of Margarita Beach.
Called and spoke to Dispatcher Tina @ 12:19am
Saturday July 10,2005
-----------------------------
-----------------------------
Disturbance:
'.
Loud yelling, Talking, arguing, heard from back of Margarita Beac
h.
Witnessed Female talking on Cellphone after she loudly said "They
locked me out"!
Then two guys were loudly talking and in the back alleyway for ab
out-15 minutes.
Called and spoke to Dispatcher ED? @ 12:40am
noise continued after police stopped by until 1:20.
Another disturbance 1:27am
Called because of car horns repeatedly honking from Margarita Bea
ch Parking lot,
* loud music that can be heard because someone keeps opeing and cl
osing the back Door
(The Emergency Exit)
was on hold for a while and didn't get connected to a Police Disp
atcher.
Another disturbance 1:45am
My Wife called again to complain about loud yelling, cheering, an
d cars peeling out
of the parking lot, she asked to file a formal complaint against
Margarita Beach
and Dispatcher "Amy" told her that officers would come over to wr
ite up the report,
they NEVER came over, and the noise continued until about 2:30.
Page 3
i:",- ~
i P j
ri1gt: 1 U1 1
,
<,
file://C: \ WINDOWS\Desktop\Margarita%20Beach%20Pics\Guys4.jpg
7113/05
-~... ....~ ,
~ p -~
.... -0- ~ ~- ~
file://C: \ WINDOWS\Desktop\Margarita%20Beach%20Pics\Guys 1.jpg
7/13/05
July 13, 2005
Planning Commission:
I would like to commend the Planning Department on their evaluation and recommendations (Resolution
05-50) made since the last meeting of the Planning Commission. The proposed recommendations will force
compliance with the Conditional Use Pennil issued for Margarita Beach. Furthennore, Ihere are severe
consequences for non-compliance. The Conditional Use Pennit for the business was and is for a restaurant
with incidental sales of alcohol. The recommendations from the Planning Department will force both strict
compliance by Mr. Davidson and stringent enforcement by the City. I strongly urge passage of these
recommendations found in Resolution 05-50 by the Planning Commission.
The Planning Department also provided proposals and amendments to the Entertainment Pennit
(Resolution 05-5\). I have serious concerns in regards to the renewal ofthe Entertainment Pennit. Mr.
Davidson has had a long history of violations and non-compliance with both the Conditional Use Pennit and
the Entertainment Pennit for MararitavillelMargarita Beach. He has been unable or unwilling to comply
with the basic tenets of one, let alone both pennits. As previously demonstrated through both testimony and
evidence, Mr. Davidson has behaved rather badly in recent years. The latest example of this is his blatant
disregard for both City Codes and State Laws regarding smoking. Bad behavior should not be rewarded. In
fact, there should be severe consequences for his bad behavior. In this case, the entertainment pennit must
be revoked. As I stated at the June 22, 2005 Planning Commission, according to the City's Municipal Code
(5.12.100 Suspension or Revocation of Pennit) both pennits should be considered for revocation. Under
Section 4, suspension or revocation ofa pennit should be considered if the pennittee has "violated any rules,
regulations or conditions adopted by the planning commission or city council relating to the pennitee's
business or pennit." Furthennore, Section 5 states that suspension or revocation of a pennit should be
considered if Ihe pennittee has "conducted a pennitted business in a manner contrary to the peace, health,
safety and general welfare of the public." Once again, violations of both of these Sections have been
demonstrated through testimony and evidence. The Planning Department's Staff Report and Resolutions
05-50 and 05-51 found this to be true. As a result of these findings, I strongly urge the Plamiing
Commission to revoke the existing Entertainment Pennit for Margarita Beach. If Mr. Davidson can prove
himself as a responsible businessman and comply with the Conditional Use Pennit, then perhaps he can re-
apply for an Entertainment Pennit at some future date.
Thank You!
Ttm Olson
r I j
,
.._t
\
A & A
FOOD SERVICE COMPANY
1370 W. 9TH STREET
UPLRND, CALIFORNIR. ~17BE-5719
. OFFICE (9091981-2980 (8001458-6736 rnx z909,~~E"23q~
INVOICE
+-CIJ s t f.J:J~tl.- +---.1 n 'v' 0 i. C~! +'~'Pc:.\Q E --+-..Rt ti.-....
Bill To: 610 2694!1 I: 10 I
+---.-.----.---,--..--.--.--+-~Term5-----+
MRRGRRITR BEACH I MCiiHHLY !
876 N. MOUNTRIN ;:,lJt~.. #2tZ'J "...._.()a~e...-'.-.+.
UPLAND, CA. 91786 07i~5/2005 I
Deliver To:
MRRGRRITA BERCH/R. C.
3950 FOOTHILL BLVD
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
I Item 1* I Qty, I Unit.,;
201 ~, 12
.".: ... -..t:
22S-"k .-4
5 751' 4
332 '1
504 I
515 I
6070 I
1221 I
1468 I
I
9649 I
8352 I
1200 I
1
1
2
4
HEADS
BUNCH
BAGS
FLAT
CARTON
CARTON
TUB
10# BOX
CASE
'. 1
CARTON
CARTOi'!
BOX/20#
.j..-.,-,. .',_.,-'-., .-.-- ----..'T
DesC"r..i pt i on
f.' -';" ,t" i :: ,j t, e!isi on I
2
.j
~
1
2
2
GREEN LEAF LETTUCE
GREEN ONIONS/SCALLIONS
MINI CORN TORTILLA/5 DOZ.
TOMATOES/4X5 SIZE
LEMONS/95 SIZE CHOI CE
LIMES/LRRGE SIZE
5 LB TUB SOUR CREAM
HAMBURGER PATTIFS-3/1 FRZ
CHIX BREAST-SKI~CESS16 02
9 POUNDS '
PLATE/9" UNLAMINATED FO,lM T
PINEAPPLE JUICEIl2 4<:' 02
GROUND BEEP-2/10 LB
1 _ j~~ O::t I
: ;:~~ id:~, !
'-J). !~4
1.76
1. ';:"j.:;
Eh if'
.:~3.45
.:::.3,87
~::::5. 9~)
17. '3~1
5.65
17. r:Jli1 I
lB. 615
. 18. 95
i .~
18.65 I I
C,7.90.:>1
7c;.40 'I
2:t). :20 I
. .
-----------------------------------------,------.---..---.------------,.-------,---.-------
Sub Tot,?l:
.34('. 75
'-r ..".- --,-----,,------1-
TaXc?ble~~ 18.65 Hi11~e~ 7."i'"~i: T;:..:"~
Milk e,'ates del. ~_.;"/U~~-)_-.~..-..-.~-- )",,01"" -: uC"d:~. ..::~::~.._~~_.+
Signature: X . ;7"/") ~) __________..-c.___
Time 0(.EY7'Y: ~:..O:L ant (1~
Past due a<count~~~ubj'ct to intere,t c~rge of l-I/~ per lonth, .a.ilul 18~ per annul. Soyer a9~'es to pay rea,.nahle
collection eo,t,; rea,onable attorney's fees an4 actual court co,ts, if any, for collection of this account.
i" 4~
,
OFFICE
A & A
FOOD SERVICE COMPANY
1370 W. 9TH STREET
UPLAND, CALIFORNIR. 91786-5719
(909)'381-2980 (800) 458-6738IE f'A;.; (';)0-3)946--.:::84.'1
INVOICE
+-1;:'1..:. s t Nl.!1TI .-+--- I n v 0 i c~..;.--C'"i,:o'\g e - +-....Rt #.-.+.
Bi 11 To':iili" I 51121! ,::57297 i ;0 i
+-----.------.--.------+--Ter'ms------+
I MONTHL.Y I
+- -- -- Dat e---.--+
I 06/ 1 ~~/2005 I
;---.-..--- _.._------._-~-
MARGARITt;\ BE~H
87G N. MciJNTAlN AVE.
UPLAND, CA. 91786
.
#.:::211
Deliver To:
MARGARITA BEACH/R. C.
9950 FOOTHILL BLVD
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
-------------------------------------------------.------_._.._----~._----_._------_._.__..-
I Item # I Qty I Units
De scri pt i on, .
P}'ice I E~tensicn I
------------------------------------------------------.----.,--------..---.-.--.-.---.----
I 201 I 12 I HEADS GREEN LEAF LETTUCE 1. 1214 12. 1~8 I
I 676 I 3 I 8AGS MINI CORN TORTILLA/5 DOZ. 1_ 53 4.5.3
I G78 I 10 I BAGS THIN CORN TORTILLAS/5 DOL 1. '.'3 i4.90
I 332 I 1 I FLAT TOMATOES/4X5 SIZE 18.35 1 E.L '~5
I 436 I 1 I 80(. AVOCADOS/CALIF LARGE SIZE 4121.95 4 -~
-J
I 507 I 1 I CARTON LEMONS/140 SIZE/CHOICE 27~95 27,.'35
I 515 I 2 o' I CARTON LIMES/LARGE 81 ZE If'. '35 35.. t":j(!.:
I 8352 I 1 I CARTON PINEAPPLE JUICE/12 '+G 07 18.35 " 1 - S5
2192 I 1 .\{ROZEN 'WESl'ERt~ STEAK F.RY I.. 13~' E5;_ 13.85 i
5608 ! 1, I:..~ LB.. -1212\' CT SLICED, AM~R C~EESE I 1 !.. '38' 11. (98
5611 1 1 .r .-J LB t SU'CED 8W I SS ff:HEIlSE/120 C 11. '38 11. :;'8
7855 I 1 I GALLON BUFFALO WINGS HOT SAUCE 1 c~. 35 1 ~~:. 95 i
7885 I 1 \ I BOX DILL PICKLE CH I 1='5-4/1 GAL 15.45 J 15..45
--------------------------------------------------------.-------,--.-------------------
Mi lk crates del. [_J p/u [_J
Time
-.---..-"....--
illvoice Total~' 240.88
"'.-- ---.--.. --'_._--l~
S i gnat ur.e: X
____.____ am pm
'ast due accounts, subject to intere.t charge of 1-1/21 per lonth, laxilul 18~ per annul. Buy~r agr~e. to poy reasonable
,011ection costs, ftasonabb attorney'. fu. and actual court costs, if any. .for collectIOn of this aceour,t.
~
'-
-~ '.z....-
~.
.;~
..::.. -.
"'h--.,_
,.
Our Business Is Savin~
Your 8usin~!ij Muney.'"
~51'\ \
Smart&Finat
The Smaller Fosler Warehou$e Store
CLUB HANAGE~ ROBERT COTTER
( 909.)1476 - 9259
Fox ond Purl, (909)476-9183
ONTA~IO. CA
07/0B/05 17:49 3592 6619 016 1156
X HEHBE~ 101-65098111701
THANK YOU I {) A
OASIS HARGARITA BEACH ~
.
285344 FOLGERS
285344 FOLGERS
326038 ORNKING WTeR
389127 CRY
326038 DRNKING WTER
389127 CRY
326038 DRNKING WTER
389127 CRY
4 I 6.71
780081 DRANGE JUICE
612101 ENERGY DRINK
331009 CRV-RCKSTR
667093 SPRITE 32CN
671905 CRY
667086 COKE CF CN /
671905 CRY i
151084 3 HOLE PUNCH
667072 COKE 32PK CN
671905 CRY
667072 COKE 32PK CN
671905 CRY
741232 HAGIC 3 PK.
6 I 5.77
659957 BIC RS GRIP
826018 SEEDED KNOT
826018 SEEDED KNOT
826018 SEEDED KNOT
111314 EN~ AA-32
626031 BATTERIES
SUBTOTAL
1052 EGGS
8 I 13.68
929187 IQF WINGS
798920 H.H. WHITE
719460 713N LCD
932109 E-WASTE FEE
900593 2. LOWFAT
900593 2. LOWFAT
900593 2. LDWFAT
825167 HLD CHO~ CHS
825167 HLD CHDR CHS
825167 HLD CHDR CHS--
52348 CHEESE HOZZA ."
52318 CHEESE HOZZA
52348 CHEESE HOZZA
SUBTOTAL
SUBTOTAL
SU8TOTAL
TAX 1 7.750 X
TOTAL
CHECK TEND
CHANGE DUE
. ITEMS SOLD 56
it*'#r Welcome To Our Ro.lid10 CU(i;,il'Gns" ~~#r
Store Ii 467
*.*.............~..~.~~...........w.~..
See Us On The WEB \:,I\{":,Snlf',I'tandfir,e:i ,e')l1l
Cashier: Christa
'.
7.17 N
7.17 N
3.94 N
1.28 N
3.91 N
1.28 N
3.94 N b
1.28 N
26.96 N
27.B8 T
0.96 T
7.88 T
1.28 N
7.88 T
1.28 V
T
1.28 N b
7.88 T
1.28 N
DATE 07/08/05
n"IE ;;:52:50
40010223<106
Smart M';antag.
N~IEl RICK /J ~
NAME2 MARGARI'AVILLE ~~
AOORESSl 9950 fOOTHIll BLVO STc S
CITYIST RANChO CUCi>~IOr;CA 91730
TAX.IDl SREH99873716
COUNTY SAN BERI1ARDItlC
PLAIN SALT 4151235445
RED fD TRAY 80169833232
RED fD TRAV 601696332,2
REO FO TRAY 80169633232
RED fD TRAY 80169833232
fRUIT JUICE CS 30511
+CRV CS 10231
EASY Off 62338740~7
RAID flYING 4650G01660
EASY Off 62338740~1
MANGOBAV AIR 75213200473
MANGOBAY AIR 75213200473
MANGOBAY AIR 7521320[47,
RAID fLVING 465000166C
EASY Off 6233874017
RAID FLVING 4650001660
RAID fLYING 46,0001660
SCRUB SPONGE 415127898S
MANGOBAY AIR 75213200473
EASY Off 6233874017
ALTOIDS 5928020155
6 @ 4.99
TIKI TORCH
tl
8680101037
SUBTOTAL
SALES TAX
TOT AL
618.25
648.25
30.55
678.80
678.80
0.00
Pe rsona 1 Check TENDER
Acct # *~~*..*w...~*ft.~w~w~1406
CASH CHANGE
4.99 f
4.49 TO
4.49 TO
4.49 TO b
4.49 TO
9.99 fO
.96 f
".39 TO r
T flC-
.:J
3.39 TO
~
3.39 TO J
3.39 TO
4.49 TO pIC-
4.39 TO S
4.49 TO PIc...
).
.4.09 TO
3.39 TO
4.39 TO
7.35 fO
s
29.94 TO
124.36
7.83
132.19
132.19
.00
TOTAL NUMBER Of lTEf.IS THIS '11$[1--'. 26
TC' 6505 1102 8393 0813 2662 6
111111I1 IIUJI IIlIIIJI 11111I1 1111 1111 11111111111 IIHJIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 111I1111I1111 IJIIIIIII
16:5&:02
OP# 107173
07.'08/0,
c+".'.::..z 1J.>;7
i
'.
,.,.~;,. '
"-'A fl.. A .
FOOD SERV I CE COiY~j::''-=:lr.-l-.
1370 W. 9TH STREET
UPLAND, CALIFORNIA.. 317A6-5719
(9(/l9) ')81-2980 (800)458-6738
INVDICE
OFFICE
Deliver To:
MARGARITA BEACH/R. C.
9950 FOOTHILL BLVD
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
,
~:-,:'L/
(tilll':.t; '3ij.t:. ...,~:::.:~.~,
Bill ,,,:
... . '.'t.lS. \- t'-,Illf: H"" - In "i Q 1 ce~~.np::,. Q (~..+"' Rt #-.+
F,~1{1 2FJ3E'''~'+! '~;Ll I
+----..-----'----'...--.---
MARGARITA BEACH
876 N. MOUNTAIN,RVE. #21211
YPLAND, CA. gt785
i Item # I Gty "I Units
-------_.._~. -_._------_.~.__._--_. -"---_._-- ---.----.---'-..-'':'""''- -..... - ..' ,---". .
De set-. i pt i on
---------.------------------------------------.--.----....--
203 ~ .-, HEADS
.i.c.
l~~ " BUNCHES
""
21211 I ' -. :1 HEADS
H:
225 1 :, BUI~CH. ,
584 I 5 I, BAGS
I 1.'
578 ~ 1121 BAGS
I I
504 1 1 CARTON
515 I .~- .~ CARTON
2192 2 ,. FR!;l:tEN'
C-~...~
630 " ' POUNDS
638 ~ POUNDS
.J
5609 1 CARTON
8352 '~ CARTON
..
7855 1 GALLON
,
LETTUCE
CIL.ANTRO
GREEN LEAF LETTUCE
GREEN ONIONS/SCAU YO,'J:"
6" SNACK SIZE FL TORTILLq
DOZEN PACK .
THIN CORN TORTILlRS/5 DO~
LEMONS/95 SIZE CH(]I'~:E
LIMES/LARGE SIZE
"WESTERN STE,AK FRY ,
"CARROT STiCKS ~",
CELERY ST! CKS
REAL CREAM TOPPING
AEROSAL CANS-12/14 OZ
PINERPPLE JUICE/12 46 07
BUFFRLO WINGS HOT smiCE
,
Pi'}O-P.
t?l.7'3
1/}.5.1..!
~. . Oit
11.1. :}.+
C'. ~g
1 . /01"-)
~',:':. 'J~S
1 o~ ;~'(:: !
..13.:E~
,- 1 .:;S''li
1..13 i I
24.95
:
j B. '35
.______.__._____.__________.______..__.____._____~..,.__.._.____'.__ _,_"' ..__...... .' _ .___'_ ....'_.... ___ n_.__.
1 ,? '~~,
'Milk c","ates del. [___J p/;"J. C__J In',-"-I~~C:i'1 Tnt,::"i:!
-- kLl .
C:::--;r? ( j.-'--- .-.--. ,
Slgnahlt'e, x__~ >-~~ . ' ._~,...------_..-...
Time of o"{fivery: ~'_ 'am pm
-j.. -", :'!t-I\I!:'...... .._-i-
I t~ini'< 'j"'HL '{
. <_:'at .,:_'d' ._._~
i Vle..I ~::~.~/ i::~l.~l21~:; }
..,--..-'.-." '.' .- - '.. .,..'+
[7....~~eil~]Qft I
'~i. 4 E'
:='. ~ ~--
1 ,'::. '.~ E.
1 .' ,~;2
f;. ':-'5
:. 1-1 , '~:! :l~ l
~::.,:.~. 'jS
:::;::. L,<'
;;:7 ~ 7Q1
..t. :}0
':1. 5~::i
~~:Lt. '35
.37.. r:H!)
1. ~~'. '~,:5
221 .;I:;J
._.~........ . .. _. - ;.
Past due accounts, subject to intertst charge of 1-1/~ pet~ lonth, IEnd.ul lE\~ per annul. BIJ\I~I' a9tet'~ to pa~' ncliuM.bls
colhctien costs, nasonable attorney's hes and actual c.:llJrt costs, if ~nv, for C"~11ectior. A tliii aC'counL
,
.,
\.
\",
\ .
l
A & A
FOOD SERVICE COMPANY
1370 W. 9TH STREET
UPLAND, CALIFORNIA. 91786-5719
+CustDmer-Number+
I 610 I
+ForPeriodEnding+
I 05/31/05 I
+Bill Per-+Page-+
, M ,. l' ,',
+--Terms--+-----+
'Due by Jun 15thl
--------------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
I Date I Type I Ref # I Chat'ges i' COD'S I Payment/Credit I
--------------------------------------------------------------+---------------+
I 05/05/05 I Order I 262890 I 197. 17.,j I . I I
I 05/05/05 I Order I 262939 I 14.S4v1/1 I I
, 05/11/05 I Order I 263581 I 278.21 ~ ' , I
I 05/19/05 I Order I 264489 I 261.32'/' I ,
I OS/20/05 I Order I 264649 I I I I
I OS/23/05 I Payment I 15657 I J ' I 909.09 I
I OS/24/05 I Order I 265031 I 114.59 I , I
Statement of Account
Deliver To:
Bill TD:
~ARGARITA BEACH/R. C.
3950 FOOTHILL BLVD
~ANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
MARGARITA BEACH
876 N. MOUNTAIN AVE.
UPLAND, CA. 91786
#201
Statement Column Totals:1
866. 13
0.00
909.09
Current
30 days
60 days
90 days and over
Total Due
-----------
-----------
614.38
0.00
0.00
0.00
614.38
'. "
<..
"'\
A &\ f~
FOOD SERVICE COMPANY
1370 W. 9TH STREET
UPLAND, CALIFORNIA. 911B6-5J1S
OFFICE (909) .381-298(Zl (81Z10) 458-C;13." ,IX .: ':;.,\'3) '-.'.:::" ,:::L,'.':.
I ",va I CE
....
+.-c: .l,:t;,.jU:I~
M - -). ~.r \' c: i ;~..~ ~. .r~; :Uj!' - -1' .-.Pt 4-....;..
2S~655 10
De 1 ive\' To,
Bill TD: fi0
"----..
....- i ,..- ~.. /"It '~: -......-. ~- .~.
MARGARITA BEACH/R. C.
9950 FOOTHILL BLVD
HANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
MARGARITA BEACH
876 N. MDUNTAIN AVE. ,t,e:.jj
UPLAND, CA. 91786
;>.l(\NTHL'r'
.'.... ......Ih\l eo"' ~ _.._.~.
~ elf:,,/ lZi,'3 I ~~0!~r::4; !
7" --....~ _ .,..- _4 _. ..,_. .-' ...../.
_.._______.____________________.____~._____M__._ __~_ _ _.._ __,._ _..M'M'_ __._ _M_' ____M4 _..,_ ..'.__ _,__ _..., ... _ ____.___
i It " m II I Qt Y
I Units
Description
P'''''lO::4'~ I E~i:en5ion I
___..______________________.__________________~_.___..~_'___ _~_.,~. __ .___,_.'40 _.'..4 __.___ .___...__.~ ~_._ ,.._
252 10 POUNDS JALAPENO CH 1 LI S
2155 1 FROZEN POTATO SI{INS/200 CT.
265 1 BOX POTATOES/50 SIZE RUSSETS
8354 1 CARTON TOMATO JUICE/12-4G 81
8352 1 CARTON PINEAPPLE JUICE/12 46 OZ
I 8085 I 1 I CAN SLICED .JALAPENOS/#a) cmJ
I 538 I 5 I POUNDS CELERY STICKS ._-... 1.9, c:;.55 J
.;;;;-;~;;;;-;;;~~~ifiJ~-t/...... ... ....;:;:....;;;;;; .....;;;:;~::
( ].:_-r.:,-;;:Ih (, '< .____.__
--- .-:::. . V.. \ ,1/'
Time of Dt1i'Jet'Y: _~I
(~. ':.~0
9~ Ql~?:
3i:~. '37
.32.3i
! r:;.... 9:::'~
~ E.. 3:j
3~35
~
J. .j. _~ ~_,
..:;. .' ~j ~
,- re- '
\ '. C/..' ,
i. r:,~ '3~.:.:
Signature: X
am ;Jm
Past due accDunts, subject to interest charge of 1-1/CS per tonth, la~ilul \8% per .nn"~. Buy!r .gr!!' t~ p.y re.,onahle
cDlltction'cosht reasonable attorney's fees and actual COln"t cosh, if any, f6f C'olJ~C'ti{Jn of t-I;i~ atC!:llJf:t.
.~-
'""
........
A & A
FOOD SERVICE COMPANY
1370 W. 9TH 8T~EET
UPLAND, CALIFORNIA. 9173S-S719
OFF ICE (909) '381 --2'380 (800) 458-G 736 f" ': "w.,-~, '-0:;.-,;,:, :::6-':,':,
INVC)]:CE
Deliver To:
Bili To:
t. -,.:.~.; I,.'. s t; N U.r'i! -. j-' ....-. :: ;-: '.' ':: 1 C f~ +---;-,),;, D ~.' - ';' ,.. ~~ t "* .- -j-
b ~ fi ._:-:(;6:5;:':-. t, t t ~,
MARGARITA BEACH/R. C.
'3950 FOOTHILL BLVD,
RANCHO CLiCAI'10NGA, CA 91730
+-.,-..- .'--~, -.--..-.
~1ARGAR ITA BEACH
876 N. MDlIN1AJN (.V)E:. ;L:-'l~'j
UPLAND, CP. '3172,~:
...,.;...
...Tp"':t:
- .
'. -.........,-.,.-...
:''1i.');''li"Hi Y
~-r,2I. +; f\ .H" - .- +
:f~'~,:''-1')7 " ,~:Ql\t\S ,4.~
.~. . -_...,..-,--_'''~ .....-..-+
------------------------------------------------------._-,----_._~-_._--_.----_.-._---_.,-
------.-------.---------------- ~~------_._-'-_.__.,-_._.- -_..- ...... '.'. ._...-.-. ... ..._. ,-~..- .--. .,. .'- -..." ...-
I Item # I Qty
I Un its
De sc,':l pt i on
f='1" i L:'P ! :::.:){t; €'~.';;:i i on :
203 12 HEADS LETTUCE
155 5 BUNCHES CILANTRO
225 4 BUNCH GREEN ONIONS/SCPLL lCH\IS
215 5 POUNDS LARGE MUSHROOMS
507 1 CARTON LEMONS/140 SIZE./CHDICf
515 2 CARTON LIMES/LARGE SUE
2192 1 FROZEN IrJESTERN STEAK Fi-lY
6007 1 BOX r,At~CH DRESSrrm/4--1 ~3r:rL.
1221 1 I 10# BOX H~1MBURGER PATT I ES--<:;/ 1 ;::'PZ
8352 I 'it' (j)'j. ,.CARTON P I \~EAPPLE JUICE/12. 'ff, OZ
7810 ,. 1 T'.#j0 CAN SPAGHETTI IWHlIWARA <-:)".:.U~;E
1468 I ;3 i CASE CHIX BREAST-SKI~ll_ES5!b 0,:
I I .3 POUNDS
1354 I 1 I BOX BACON/KRUSEC14-1S1 ~~~j LL\'~'i
2I.7':i
!{l.:':;':"
l(), .:..-4-
1" 31'.\
::~l"e,
:..,~_ .35 I
t .~~'" n~3
J. c:i.~ I
t. 7f~ I
~.:~)
::."""1' '::::i~'1 I
~~.-::.', '33
!. :~;~ f,:.:. t
3~.50 3~.50 I
1 -,i. r~I!.1 1 ..0? ";:Jm-::,.I
,1~.'~....G!~_~.''': ;,.7,/7. -7.',' ;..:,h71,.. I
__ '--;.]. 'r <, -~': _..._'iI"""":"".t' ,
[~. 9~., I
'''1. :;1 I
':', ').t:;
,~<:; f-:t.
".J:). ':::':..;
i.'.:::~,. i?-:~
--------------------------.-------------.---.---.--'---.-
Signatllr'e' X
'!' '., ...' ..:' i. ;~' (,. r u '. .' .
.; --:'';. ..,' ',:~
~,! ,,- '..'.' , -'
Milk crates del.
~ ..._._..._....,',". ....,......1.
. -"/r2~..
..-'
'7'--;'-0- j(..J.
~ 3,7.1/-'
Time of De ivery'
--
arti ~;tTl
Past due accounts, subject to interest charge of 1-1/21 per lonth, oaxh',. 18~ per annul. Buyer ogr..s to pay "a",nable
collection costs, reasonable attorney's f..s and actual court costs, if any, for coll'CllO~ ,f this acc~"nt,.
,
,
A & A
FOOD SERVICE COMPANY
1370 W. 9TH STREET
UPLAND, CALIFORNIA. 91786-5719
OFFICE (9091981-2980 (8001458-6738 FAX \9091946-28~S
. IN""'~ICE
Deliver To:
..
+-,.Cu s t. !"';dW-'..!~--'- In'.' i..l:i ~ f";. ..-r>iig f:'- +--Rt .p:-+
Bill To: 61'21 ~~G587i:: i l 1\21 1
MARG~tITA B~~~~----- --- -------.--.----+.-r~~~'~:I~ \:------~
876 N. MOUNTAIN f..J1,.!E. #i:::~~'1 +... ..." -Dcit P.-'.'- ---..+
UPLAND, CA. 91786 ; 'liE,/1Z11/2005 1
+_.~-_. - -- ----.-.- -- i.
MARGARITA BEACH/R. C.
9950 FOOTHILL BLVD
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
---------------------------------------------------------------------..----------
I Item II I, Qty 1 Unit5
'Description
t:'.('ice I Extensiori I
------------------------------------------------------.-..---.--..----.,-.....---------------
201 12 I HEADS GREEN LEAF LETTUCE 1. "VI
225 2 I BUNCH GREEN ONIONS/SCALLIONS 0. i". I
507 1 1 CARTON LEMONS/140 SI'ZE/CHOICE 28.45
515 2 I CARTON LIMES/LARGE SIZE 1~.95
6043 1 1 GALLON BLUE CHEESE ,DRESSING 7.85 I
8294 1 I CARTON DICED TOMATOES 6/10 17.'35
7855 1.' I GALLON BUFFALO WINGS HOT SAUCE 12~ g~J 1'2.95
1221 1 110# BOX HAMBURGER~PqFIES--311 FRZ 17.''30 I 17.90
-~---------~-- --------7------- ----,------r--~---._- ~- ----.- -- - .,- -. -- -- -.. - d'._, --- - ~- -- -, - --. -:~ - -- - - ._-.-
Mi lk crates del. r - __l-__p/u r · Ln'.'fn,,!' T.:.t,,]:: I:':B.3G I
.,~
.Time
----
~!- -, _.'._---,- -.- --_.~}
Signatm'e: X
.
---
ani pilI
Past due ~ccounts, subject to intere charge of 1-1/21 per lonth, laRilul 18~ per annul. B"y.r agr..~ to ~ai reason.ol,
collection costs, reasDnable attorn ~!' fees and actual court costs, if any, Tor c~11ectian of this account.
K"
"
;:~..
'I
,~.~-
,,~. '~
-:.~
Deliver To:
A & A
FOOD SERVICE COMPRNY
1370 W. 9TH STREET
UPLRND, CRLIFORNIA. 91786-5719
OFFICE (909)981-2980 (800)458-S738F~X (90Sl3~6.2B49
INVO:l:CE
+-CustNuru-~---InvclcE+-Page-+-8~#-+
B i 11 To: I 1,:; llJ. .26512l31! 1 I 10 I
~.____,_.______,__._.~______._+__-re~ms___-__+
MRRGARIT~ BEACH/R. C.
9950 FOOTHILL BLVD
RRNCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
~RGARITR BEACH
876 N. MOUNTRIN AUE. *201
UPLAND, CA. 91766
! MONTHL.V
.....- ----vat F. ..__,___f- ,4,
1 0:::/~'::"4/2\Z1Q\5 i '
+-.--..-. .-_.. ';""- .-----..+
-------------------------------------------------.----.-.,.-..--.------.---.-.-------------.
I It em # I Qt Y I Un its
Description
Pr'lce I Extension I
-------------------------- --------------.----- .------.-- ..--- --.- -.- -- - - -_. -- - - _.~----- ----
I. ~03 12 HEADS L.ETTUCE 0.7'3
I '. 225 4 BUNCH GREEN ONIONS/SCALLIONS 0.44
J 678 10 BAGS THIN CORN TORTILLASJ5 DOZ 1. 49 i
I 630 5 POUNDS CARROT STI CKS 1.50
I 638 5 POUNDS CELERY STI CKS l. ':31
I 1221 2 10# BOX HAMBURGER PATTIES-3f1 FRZ 10.75
1 8352 -:> CARTON PINEAPPLE JUICE/12 46 OZ i3..95
~
---------~------------------------------------------_.--.-.-------.-.-------.--------
Mi lk ct'ates del. "t..-!_J p/u C_J
Invoice Total:! 114.59
+~__..___'__._._.___ i-
Signat'Jre: X
WE WILL CLOSED MONDAY, MAY 30TH F.uR Mi:MORH,L DAY.
AL. THOUGH WE WILL BE CLOSED, WE IHU.. E'E IN THE
O"'~'_MONOA' ,'.0' TUCSr.A'S D'l mms.
of Delivery: ____.____ am pm
NOTICE" NOTICE"
Time
Past due accounts, subject to interest charge of 1-1/2j per lonth, laxilUI i8~ por annul. Buy.r aGr.., to pay r..sonabl.
coll.ction costs, reasonable attorney's fees and actual court oosts, if any, for collection of this accou~t.
~
ISI <0 (
Uur Husint'ss I. S;l\ling
Yuur Husint'ss Munty."
~.-:~
· U~
~.~
l...~
ClUB PlANAGER ROBERT COTTER
( 909 ) "'76 - 9259
Fex end Pull' (909)416-9183
I ONTARIO. CA
.fU01/OS 17:32 1667 6619 016
'IHE.BER 101-65098111701
THANK YOU,
,/ OASIS HRRGARITR BEACH U
900593 21 lOWFAT
900593 21 lOWFAT
900593 21 LOWFAT ii
326038 DRNKING WTER .
389121 CRV J
326038 DRtIl(lNG WTER .
389127 CRY
326038 DRNKING WTER
389121 CRY
326038 DRNKING WTER
389127 CRY
326038 DRNKING WTER
389121 CRV
23556 .ARGARINE 51
633073 'OZZ STICKS
8Z5167 OlD CHDR CHS
825167 'lD CHDR CHS
825167 KlD CHDR CHS
5Z348 CHEESE HOZZA
523'8 CHEESE HOZZA
52348 CHEESE HOZZA
4230 lERIPER 2PK
633073 'OZZ STICKS
615596 INlS SKNlS
615596 8NlS SKNlS
82601 B SEEDED KNOT
826018 SEEDED kNOT
8Z6018 SEEDED K'OT
385535 XTRALIFE 60W
91254 DELI ROllS
SUBTOTAl
TAX 1 7.7601
TOTAl
CHECK TEND
CHRNGE DUE
I ITEMS SOLD 30
.18
.18
2.18
3.9'
1.28
3.94
1.28
3.94
1.28
3.94
1.28
3.94
.0
9.87 N
9.73 N
9.73 N
9.73 N
9.17 .
9.11 H
9.17 N
4.58 N
9.87 N
13.88 N
13.88 .
1.88 N
1.81 N
1
".88
1
0.38
156.78
156.78
. 0.00
TCI om 9276 7000 4960 8777 7
I~IIIIIII~~I~IIIII~II~II~II!~I~IIIIIII~IIIIIIIII~~~I
w. Ar, Open On ThI- 4th 0' JuJyl
?" 07/01/05 17:34'07
-'<:5," 0 fAl2.) h",d. _ /18. I B
K
16111
Smart&Finat
The Smaller Fosler Warehouse Sfore
*** WelCOMe To Our Rancho CucaMongl ***
Store # 467
**~**.*.************...................
Cashier: Christa
See Us On The WEB vvv.smartandfin41.com
DATE 07/01l0S
1195
b
SlIIut Advantage
NAMEI RICK
NAME2 'AROAR lTAVILlE
ADDRESS I 9950 fOOTHill SlVO STE 5
CITY 1ST RANCHO CUCAMONCA 91730
TAX.IDI SREH99873716 ./J ^
COU'TY SAN SERNAROINO K..~
6 IN ROllS 7304001352
OISPOS-SONl 4151280067
DISPOS.BOWL 4151280067
DISPOS.BOWL 4151280067
TABASCO 1121000038
TABASCO 1121000038
TABASCO l1ZI000038
RAID fUNGTOR 26474Z
*** S.art Advantage Discount
RAID fUHGTOR 284742
.*. SlIIart Advantage Discount
RAID flYING 4650001660
N02 PENCILS 7206714401
N02 PENCILS 7206714401
RAID fUMGTOR 4650001529
... Sqart Advantage Discount
RAID fUNGTOR 4650001529
*.* S.art Advantage Discount
RAID fUNGTOR 4650001529
**. Smart Advantage OJ scount
RAID fUNOTOR 45500015Z9
.** Surt Advantage Discount
RAID rUNGTOR 4650001529
... SIIlArt Advantage Discount
RAID fUMGTOR 4650001529
... SlIart Advantage Discount
RAID fLYING 4650001660
400102Z3405
E,
F
5USTOTAl
SALES TA)(
TOTAL
TINE 18,Z5,43
3.09 fO
5.69 TO
~
5.69 TO ,)
6.69 TO
5.Z9 fO
5.29 TO \?
5
10.99 TO
.1.00 A
10.99 TO 'Of(.,
-1.00
4.49 TO
1.99 TO rf
1.99 TO
10.99 T
..';0
10.99 TO jc..
.1.00
10.99 TO
-1.00
10.99 TO
-3.00
10.99 TO
-1.00
10.99 TO
-1.00
'.49 TO
131.91
8.75
140.55
Personal Check TENDER ~
Acct # ....*........*......1406
CASH CHANGE .00
TOTAL NUMBER Of ITENS THIS VISIT h> 19
SaVings from Sllart Advantage.......> 8.00
TOTAL SMART ADVANTAGE & COUPON SAVINGS
THIS VISIT .........n........> 8.00
YOUR TOTAL SAVINGS THIS VISIT.> 8.00
THAT IS A SAVINGS Of 6%
..................................*.*...
18,Z8,15 OP# 107173 07/01/05
1el"ll:4 Trans # 256 Store # 467
Ouestfons about your SlIartAdvantage
card? Call 866 411.SMART
1 (909) 9'8-5366
.f Ie 1.)39 JlQ.I-lI 46', II
(; /S.8"1- cl-C-- 4. cJq
(}\;r t-j ~ t- <is
Our UU~Ilt.'h II> S,l~iIlG
YlIur lIu:.illt"SS Muney/'
o,c'la'''''~-A~~
b-5"1.'1"- ~~~
c_ S.:;l.8,33 IVv __.\
,... l'i os'-\- ~.-
-. SA"'S a.ua
ClUB "ANAGER ANGR VAlDEZ
[ 909 ) 796 - 1505
fAx end Pull' C:f0,,176-1115
SAN BERNADINO. CA
06/16/05 18:41 2404 6624 001
X HE'BER 101-6609B111701
1111
THr' . . / .fA
OASIS ~_..... f 1- ..c....~ .a-'9'
Vl
4 11.28
389995 CRY
900593 21 lOl/FAT
6 I 13.88
6155516 BNl$ SKNLS
961290 CLEAR FRY c:
51612510 CLEAR FRY
51612510 CLEAR FRY :r
275715 CO"ET 6f'K
986619 .AYOHRISE 3.90 .
13151~2 kETCHUP '10 2.42 N
9083 WORT SCE GAl 5.16 N
357070 CLASSIC 8ill ? 8.46 N
04602517 CHEESE SAUCE ~.81 N
160297 CHEESE SAUCE '.87 N
'60297 CHEESE SAUCE 4.17.
'60297 CHEESE SRUCE 4.87 N
160297 CHEESE SAUCE '.87 N
1602511 CHEESE SAUCE N
283797 'ENS SHIRT ov' 14.8 (d
778048 21" FAN '0 '2.87
256658 BEEF FRANkS N
25E658 aEEF FRANkS ~ 14.irt N
227726 '-1 lB BRCON 8.76 .
227726 4-1 lB BACON 8.7
T80081 ORANGE JUICE 6.74 .
780081 ORANGE JUIce '0 6.71 N
780081 ORRNGE JUICE 6.14 N
780081 ORANGE JUICE 6.7' .
5 I 14.68
929187 IQF WINGS 3.40
5 I 10.84
6751911 THIGH FIlleT 54.20 N
2 I 2.0<1
230104 HOT DOG BUNS 1.08 N
230,",0,", HOT DOG BUNS " 2.Cl-4 N
B26018 SEEDED KNOT 1.88N
. 826018 SEEDED KHlJT 1.88N
826018 SEEDED KNOT 1.88 .
230,",01 HOT DOG BUNS 2.01 N
826018 SEEDED KNOT 1.88 N
979004 CHED/'ONT Jl( 10.14 N
979004 CHEDIHONT Jl( 10.11 N
571929 SCOTCH 8RITE ::f
'33103 SCOTCH BRITE 7.82 T
290612 BEEF
290642 8EEF 11.90
29'038 SIRlOI. PTV 12.88
29'038 SIRLOIN PTY e- 12.88
291038 SIRLOIN PTY 12.88
29'038 SIRLOIN PTY 12.88
2 I 5.88
172616 0" TURKEY 5" 11.16 N
150265 PAH SPRAY 6.19 N
2491 lAWRY'S SEAS U8N
6175 R-l SRUCE
3 I 5.77
659992 BIC RS GRTP 0
7' ~
. . ~~
. -
-.--.......
I ITEMS SOLD
TCI 3050 1883 06'8 0101 05 3
111111~1I1~1 "1""I"llllllm~~mll~II~IIIIII~"1 11~lil~I"~
W. Ar. Open On Th. 4th or Julw
06/16/05 18'53.51
~~. .'
l4-q.3; '~~
)_~ 1"0'"
: -3'i'1.';<<...j. l
r ^. ,~. CLUI HANAGER RGIERT COTTER
I ,.", ./I."~ 909 1 ~16 - 9259
hx end Pull 1(909)176-9183
ONTARIO. CO
06110/05 17:<5 1159 6619 011
X HEHIER 101-65091111101
THANK YOU, n~
oms """GARITR }ER~ ~ KC-
/ SUBTOTAL ~
31922lNGED TRAY I ~6 t
3 1 2.15 . b
9D059 2' lOWFAT 6 ~5 N
519.81 .
633073 HOZZ STICKS .
12930 WESSON OIL ~9.35 N p:
~91 19 PAlHDlIVE 66 N
~9119 PAlHOlIVE ......
9~59 MAYDNNAISE .J .
2~3553 Tpj,/ Ji8
~ 1 5.11
1126D2 DH TURKEY HE
6 1 3.9~
3Z6031 DRNKING WTER
6 I I 21
319121 CRV '
~ I 1~,68
929181 IQF WINGS
3 I 9.17
5Z3~8 CHEESE HDZZA
S . 9.88
825167 /'1l0 CHDR CHS
285344 FOLGERS
2153~~ FDlGERS
6 11'3.88
615596 INlS SKNlS
1293D WESSDN DIL
702~68 PLASTIC WRAP
",02830 FORKS 500 CT
~0283D FDRKS 5DD C7
3 1 11.18
3~2632 NAPKIN
310766 STEAll RDllS
191920 H.H. WHITE
~ 1 1.77
826018 SEEDED KNOT
198920 H.H. WNITE
SUBTOTAL
315535 XTRAlIFE 60W
385535 XTRALIFE 60W .t..
306~63 nCT PENCil e> .
306<63 nCT PENCil
111321 ENR 9V-8 /
~ 1 5.TL/
659957 IIC RS GRIP e,
~138~8 ENERGIZERI2P
626D3~ 8RTTERIES
11131 ~ ENR RA-32
TAll SUI TOTAl
I 7.150'
TOTAl
CHECK TEND
CHANGE DUE
~{S~~&J
Our Busint'ss I, Sa~ing
Yuur Busintn Money.-
1258
83.28
5.66 N
13.87 T
5.59 T
5.69 T
33.5~ T r
2.68 N r
2.58 N
7.08 N
2.58 N
23.08 T
9.88 T
9. 8 T
5~5:3&
12.82
558, 17
558. 17
0.00
I ITEMS SOLD 71
TCI 38~1 3635 9~~~ 839~ ~~57 5 .
1IIIlllllllllllllilmlllll~lllllllllllllrulilll~II~111111III~III~~~
Ii_ AI" Open On Th. 4th Of Jul I
06110/05 17:5~:53.
THE
SALE
1O<XXX140
RUTH CO &.0ID1
/
10.68
23.&4
11.45
22.90
4.58
1.31
173.82
11.98
4.&8
12.91
218.01
21.55
$299.62
299.&2
TA
\111\\\\11 1\\\\\11\\\\1\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ 1\\\\\\1\
0&81 15 &1118 0&/01/2005 &551
KEEP VOUR RECEIPT fOR fASTER RETURNS
SHOP ONLINE AT .......HOHEOEPOT .COM
VOU CRN DO IT. lIE CRN HELP
**********************.*...~****...**..
~lD:1'-E> .\JE:~
e.e:b~3,{:~S'--
ClU8 MANAGER R08ERT COTlER
( 909 I ~16 - 9259
FIl. Ilnd Pull . (909~'6-9183
ONTARIO. CA
06/2:;/05 11 :53 9"'61 6619 016 1165
X HEH8ER lDI-650981117Dl
l~~~~AR&~H~CH tc
9~" HAYoNijRi~
6 I 1~.68
929187 IQF WINGS
96692 FUel 12 P~
3~2632 NAPKIN
~ 8 6.7~
780081 ORANGE JUICE
633073 HOZ2 STICKS
633013 HOZZ SlICKS
900593 21 lOWF~T
900593 21 lOWFAT:
28534~ FOLGERS '
2853~4 FOLGERS "
5813.881
615596 BNlS SKNlS .
6 I 3.9~
326038 DRNKING lITER'
6 I 1.28
389127 CRY
3811.99
961290 CLEAR FR'I
26692 EGGS 5 DOZ.
SUBTOTAl
TAX 1 7.7601
TOlAL
CHECK TEND
CHANGE DUE
e,
~
2.15
2.'5N e,
7.~1 N
7.47 N
~f=
~.6~ j vs
7.68
~.97 F
~ N
32<.6
1.76
326.35
326.35
D.OO
I ITEMS SOLD 10
TCI 1332 0497 3262 6552 1999 9
\\\\\\I~~I\\\\\\~\I~I\\II\I\\\\~~II\I\\I~llil\II\\~I\m\I~I\I~~
W. Art Op.n On The "th or Julyl
1'1"/73/06 11:56:21
DATE Co/18/es
?
r !I'E :6:')9: ~:;
s~'" (~ :f.r}, -^TtlSt ~r:'o1, . ,h. .
tiAMEl RICI( ~
NAME2.. MAR~AR!;'A\~I_~
AODRe:i~l 99SC rOUT~" ,,"'.
CITY/ST RMlCHO ,~,,(;;~.:~\~ :.Jt 5
lAX 10' ...... "'''", -,')7]--'
, . . S~.Eh39B7~"~t. ... "
COUt;TV S..V'l5ER!.;;':1I"
N~)(T IT""" .1,...
~ .-..' lA.X fJ:[i.fPTED ,,,~ ".,-'.
~1At. WRAF " "I~.;>,;..E ~n~"h
NEXT TTE. T' _, .n.51219'-':;:/ ~;;, 99 r.
. ,,)1. E;\I'I~r.'tY ._" ' ... (,
WAX ~iRAP .',' r..,~ ~:>,,,~ . ~.... t'
8( (Me ri\STG -L~';21,,:~t' Q D
BC Cti( fRST~ !oC::::~7"i:' >:.')5 F(;
Be CIiC fRST(, ~1:.i(;O;':lii:: 1:.65 f:; eX.
Be C!iC fRSTlJ i~,GO~ :;;';: c.65 fe .~
Be C lo':''Jt17.7}C- 5 55 fD
AK~ ~I)( l&nnr'~-'.
BTH OPENER "'~~,~.v ,.. :::'.25 F!} .
6C C.itKF" NIX _.l:io(i'i)~'oV 5':j TO 't~
NEAT ITE~I ;AX D.Erprc' i~::::!;~l~ [jiJ.2S Fe- f
CUP fIlST 50 . v ~~ "'_....t..L~ ~,.n~.." ~
1 '4.t.r..-,- n 4-
OLIVES ._,)t.,JC, 8.5':' C .
DRESSING ~_~:i:j-lj"i r, ~
fH liL('VE ~:;.:J:::~~:: ,J. E. i"C (1
I.En ITEM TA); Etl'jl? "r;oJt)~. J..':'~ :.99 ro) "('""
01 OZ - [J flJ!\ ." ,"l J
SOUflt ..-...- ~
NEXT ITEM T AX EXf~lr ,(._" ~~:t~O:~5~ 5.99':
PORT (UP LID ~,':fI~~C....lt
NEXT ITEM T A), ," ":ilJdO~'1) i
EXEt~?,U.' fOR. "'.,":-
PORT CiJP '10 .,Ur,.r_
NEXT ITf.'4 rA)I.-E' ,~:c-..4::02~C\.;01
2 01 SOUflE \E,4 'L'.' '..Ii! ;;c.:;,,,-I.[
SCRUB SPONGE 4~5:~J;2S1
NEXT' ,4:5~.::78r:P~
~ .TEM TAX [jE~~TEe fO~ "E::;~
t ilZ SOUfLE ). .~-
4~~E?'.:'!~:'
SCRUB 5P(lNGE ... 5~ 'J ," '"
NE.T 'TE. . .2 0;,.1;'.
, . 14 TAX EAEN?7t:~. C I;; ;;;t: .,.'.
4 (11 SOUFLE
NEXT ITEl4 TAX E,flolio'l'E ':;.: ~::~;,~S:_
CUP fLST 501 ,<: ,,~~'''LE
NEXT ITEM 1.'), EXEr:,O"[/ ~ I~"; ~ ;;~~~-
CUP PLS! 501 ,'~. ,.t
NEX. lTP'1 fAX r:-'E.J-'-' J.., '...:.::);::
h ...'.l.
eup PLST jar
EASY Off
EASV Off I)n)6'1~)'
EASY err 52J381..'E7
STAP'_EIi. o2jj!l7"O~;
7<l1I161i!Ot:
STAP~E~ 747' 1'.,~"
BTE CPEtIEt( _.. .:_tU'l!2
'2,'~/f. :i-r-
BTH OPENER .,.,.. . .", :.t:.~
F:AHi ' ,oeI5';J.::V~
u" FiJNGTOR 4&58::01'-""
Smart Advllnt,ge Cisct':,nt h~
u* RAID fljMGTOR 46::;C.j15/0
Sll~rt Ao::h'ant C' U 9.99 T
R ag<rt 1 ~{;.Jl''''
IOU sAID fUI4GTOR ;65;~':l'lj;;~
Mart Advani:llS'" [:;SCO...,.. .
RAID FUMGTOR ."
"..* S li,SC.:JO'j :?.:;
R~'JOrt Adv4nta3'" Disrtur.t .--
"FUMGrOR -,
....* SlIart Adv ,4~5CvOJ~2?
antag9 D' ~CQU"'~
RAlO FUMCiTOR " ' ,~"
...... S ..6:;.0')',),0",.,-
lIIart Ad'oa'li:ai'!l D1~nl,j"". --.
fRUIT JUICE ~s' ~ ~: 'r ,..
...CRV 3"'>,,
CS tC2:'!
fRUIT JU:CE CS ;05:;
...CRV CS 10231
JJ.l5 : f
~"R'" "
1.05 r:
'0
, ,: ~ '~~: ~ ('i
loG:)
9.99 ~
1.00
S.gg T
1.00
9.99 i
1.00
':1.~9 T
.l.00
QIL
SUbTOt.....L
SALES T.t},
rOTAl
210.91
8.15
~;9.0!)
Personal Cl1edc.
Account Nwnbar
CASH
! ::r~~~;;
:?:.'S.D6
:~J6
~'HjI.r-1GE
.00
TOTAL HUMI:Si::]t or :"t.l'lS
. ":~ >' :',
"
."
; ,:\1
~ \".0
Smart&Final.
The Smaller Foster Warehouse Store
~.. Welcome To Our Rancho Cucamongl ...
Store II 467
..........**....****...**..............
See Us On The WEB wwv.smartandftnal.coa
Cuhl er: Sophia
DATE 05125/05
TIME 17:49:25
,
S.art Advantage 40010223406
NAMEI RICK J7 II
NAME2 MARGARITAVlllE 1--'-
ADDRESS I 9950 rOOTHIll BLVD STE S
CITV/ST RANCHO CUCANONCA 91730
TAX.IOI SREH99B73716
COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO
CHI X ORMETTE 415120235B
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358
CHI X ORMETTE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358
CHI X DRMETTE 4151202358
BITl OPENER 72787507260
61TL OPENER 7~787507260
Be CAKE MIX 353502
Be CAKE MIX 353502
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529
RAID FUMGTOR 4650001529
RAID fUMGTOR 4650001529
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529
6. 4.29
EASV orr 6233874017 25.74 TO
*** Slart Advantase Discount -1.80
SUBTOTAL
SALES TAX
TOTAL
154.50
6.90
161.40
Personal Cheek
Account Number
CASH
TENDER
1406
CHANGE
161.40
.00
TOTAL NUMBER or ITEMS THIS VISIT--. 22
I
Savings Fro. 51art Adv.nt.g......._> 1.80
TOTAL SMART ADVANTAGE & COUPON SAVINGS
THIS VISIT ______h...nn___~> 1.80
YOUR TOTAL SAVINGS THIS VISIT->
1.80
THAT IS A SAVINGS OF 1%
........................................
TIME 17:52:23 DATE OS/25/05
Tenl:4 Trans' 174 Store II 467
Ouestions about your SmartAdvanteg.
card? Call 866411-SMART
C 44~9~(t48~~L .;lc:>. '5""0
0_5,-:;8 1"1<:..'10.38
-K16Cot3
Smart&Final.
The Smaller Faster Worehov.se Store
... WelcoDe To Our Rancho CucaMon3a ...
Store # 467
......~................................
S.. Us 011 The WEB \iW.slllarhndflnal.colll
Cashier: Eltse
DATE 05/06/05
TIME 17:31:03
f
S.art AdvantA
NAMEI CK
NANE2 RlTAVI
ADDRESS I 9950 rOOTHIll BLVD STE S
CITV/ST ~ANCHO CUCAMONCA 91730
TAX-IOI SREH99873716 .
COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO !'--
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED FOR RESALE ,.....~ '
WAX WRAP 4151279748 10.99 0
... Sftart Advantage Discount .1.00
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED FOR RESAl ......
NAPKIN 17X17 4151239532 9.55 0
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED FOR RESALE ......
NAPKIN 17X17 4151239532
RAID FLYING 4650D01660~ 4.49 TO
RAID fLYING 465000l66g 4.49 TO
RAID rlVING 4650001661 4.49 TO
RAID FLYING 4650001660 49 T
EASY OFF 6233874017 4.29 TO
EASV orr 623387401 4.29 TO
RAIO,FUMGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TO
RAID FUMGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TO
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TO
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TO
RAID FUMGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TO
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TO
RAID FLYING 4650001660 4.49 TO
RAID FLYING 4650001660 4.49 TO
AlTOIOS 5928020156 7.35 ro
f
SUBTOTAL
SALES TAX
TOTAL
131.90
7.40
139 . 30
Persona 1 Check'~'
Aeeount NUMber
CASH
TENOER
1406
CHANGE
139.30
.00
TOTAL NUMBER OF ITEMS THIS VISIT--> 18
Savings Froll SlIart Advant4ge-uh--> 1.00
TOTAL SMART ADVANTAGE & COUPON SAVINGS
THIS VISIT n_____nh_~______> 1.00
YOUR TOTAL SAVINGS THIS VISIT-> 1.00
THAT IS A SAVINGS Of 0%
........**..............................
TIME 17:35:18 DATE 05/06/05
Tel'D;4 Trans # 254 Stcre II 467
Questions about your SlIlartAdvantage
card? Call 866 411.SMAAT
I (909) 948-5366
~_31.<.kJ .fl~ q8; ",0
. ~-<1,30
df
ISc,qo
Smart&Final.
The Smaller Foster Warehovse Store
.*. Welco.e To Our Rancho'CucaDonga ...
Store II 467
...........................~.....
:::h~:r:nE:~: WEB .~~co.
DATE 06/09/05 TIME 17;35:47
40010223406
SlIa rt Advantag.
NAMEI RICK
NAME2 MARGARITAVIllE
ADORESSI 9950 rOOTHIll BLVD STE S
CITV/ST RANCHO CUCAHONCA 91730
TAX.IOI SREH99B73716
COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO
SESAME BUNS 4151202843
SESAME BUNS 4151202843
SESAME BUNS 4151202843
JALAPENO 7538604978
TRASH CAN 2002703101
TRASH CAN 2002703101
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529
RAID FUMGTOR 4650001529~
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529\'
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529
RAID FUMGTOR 4650001529
EASV orr 6233874017
EASY OFf 6233874017
AlTOIOS 5928020156~
RO ANT KIlLR 4650001714
RAID rlVING 4650001660
RAID FLYING 4650001660
RAID rlVING 465000166d\
RAID fLVING 4650001660i
RAID FLYING 4650001660
RAID rlVING 4650001660
100\11 SFT WTE 4316848672 3.09 T
7SW EXl SF 8 43168486711" 3.09 T
'MANGOBAV AIR 75213200473 3.39 TO
MANGOBAV AIR 75213200473 3.39 TO
LVSOl.FRESH 3624104~ 4.79 TO
..'" Saart Advantage Oiscount , ..40
lVSOl-fRESH 36241046 4.79 TO
... S.art Adventage Oiscourt -.40
~VSOl-FRESH 3624104675 4.79 TO
... Slart Advantage Discount -.40
lYSOl-fRESH 3624104675 4.79 TO
... S.art Advantage Discount -.40
?
2.09
2.09 FO
2.09 ro
5.99 ro
0.99 TO :5
30.99 TO
9.99 TO
.99 TO
9.99 TO
9.99 TO
9.99 TO
SUBTOTAL
SALES TAX
TOTAL
210.72
14.81
225.53
Personal Check
Account NUlllber
CASH
TENDER
1406
CHANGE
225.53
.00
TOTAL NUMBER OF ITEMS THIS VISIT--> 30
Savings FrOI SMart Advantage--.-...> 1.60
TOTAL SMART ADVANTAGE & COUPON SAVINGS
THIS VISIT _____u____________> 1.60
YOUR TOTAL SAVINGS THIS VISIT.> 1.60
THAT IS A SAVINGS or
O.
........................................
TIME 17:39:14 DATE 06/09/05
rera:4 Trans # 261 Store # 467
Questions about your S.artAdvantage
card? Call 866 4l1-SMART
.J 16037
Smart&Final.
The Smaller Foster Warehouse Store
~.. W.lcoGe To Our Rancho Cuca.onga ...
Store II 467
.......................................
- Us On The WEB wllw.nartandf1nal.colll
". L. .1" ,....
\-1-1:-. ~- '1".....
ClI.shhn Adria.nna
om 05/13/05
TINE 16:38:13
40010223406
SlIIart Advantag8
ttfo,MEl RICK
NAME2 MAAGAR IT AVlLl.E ~
~ORESSl 9950 fOOTHILL BLVD 51
CITV/S1 RANCHO CUCAMOHCA 917
T~X-I0l SREH99873716
COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO
Bt (He fRSTG 1600017710
Be cAKE MIX 1600018310
BC CAKE NIX 1600018310
Be C.uE lUX 1600018310
CHI X ORNETTE 41S1202358
CHIX ORNETTE 41512023S8
CHIX DRNElIE 4151202358
CHI X DRNElIE 4151202358
CHIX ORNETTE 41512023S8
CHIX DRNElIE 4151202358
N[XT ITEN TAX EXENPTEO fOR RES~LE
BIRTH CANDLE 1117919052
OJqNf~r. .'!T 3624':.74828
RAIOfLVI"& 4650001660
R~IO fLVING 4650001660
RAID fLVING 4650001660
DISINfECTANT 3624174828
LVSOl DSNfCT 3624176075
RAID FLYING 4650001660
RAID FLYING 4650001660
LVSOL OSNfCT 3624176075
RAID FLYING 4650001660
RAIO rUMGTOR 4650001529
R~IO fUNGTOR 4650001529
R~IO fUNGTOR Q650001529
RAID rUMGTOR 4650001529
RA.10 fU~GTOR 4650001529
.~IO fUNGTOR 4650001.29
SUBTOTAL
S~LES TAX
TOTAL
Personal Check
\ Account NUllber
CASH
TENDER
1406
CHANGE
.6. fO ..x
10.2S fa fY
10.25 fO
10.25 f
7.49 f
7.49 f (
7.49 f Y
7.49 f
7.49 f
7.49 f
191.97
8.22
200.19
200.19
.00
T~T~L NUNBER Of ITEN. THIS VISIT..> 27
fI q3 ",I
1-liJ<.l_..j().'1'l fie. .",S'"
1101 .,,40,42 Jq.J\-..JO. O~TE 05/13/05
Trans # 164 Sto~.' 4Al
lue;t Ions about your Slla rtAdvantas& ..
card? Celt 866 41~.SMART
t:-L.J4.cN 1 (9091 948-5366
I
-dVl ~G!L--
OUt Husillt"SS I~ S.dvinG
Yuur lIusinrss Mont"y....
~ /Jit..'
-- \!!"'~)
~~U"\
\ -
~
CLUB MANAGER . .
( 909 ) .76 - 9269
Fex end Pull . (~0~)~16-'1a3
ONTARIO. CO
OB/13/05 17;23735066" 016 1232
f
X IlEIt8ER '01-110981,6\..
!tle~~8ErJlX~
8260U SEEOE XNOT"
87..... $ SEEOE RNOT
826",18 SEEDUI KNOT
626018 SEEDED RNOT
13911 HOAGIE 12 PK
386635 XTRRlIFE 60W
111321 ENR:'9V-8
'612'0 CLEAR FRY
961290 CLEAR FRV
6' 3.9'
326038 ORNKING WTER
4' 1.2'
389127 CR~
172602 OM~URREV lIE
172602 OM URREV lIE
172602 OH; URKEY HE
In 9.81
633013 MO~Z STlCRS
900593 21 ~OWFAT b
900593 2xLOWFAT .
26692 EGGN 002. ,c:
'9119 PALMOLIVE , j,.. 8 8 E\ 1"
SU8TOTAl sr.oo~
TOTAL 152.43
CHECK TEND 152.-43
CNANGE DUE 0 . 00
CIGARETTE PERMIT' 91206062 'I d-
~-lqiT~HSbSot~'3;
1.17. N
1.77 N ...
1.77 N IJ'
1.17 N
8
U E
11.84 E
12.36 N
\llED b
I:J
5.88 N
5.88 N rc
5.88 N r
TC8 8749 0704 4838 9048 2116 1
I ~I~ IIIIII II! ~III~IIIIII ~I~ II! mllll~11 ~IIIIIII ~II~ I~IIII~II ~I ~II
I ~, Art OPt" On 1l.lIlorJel De,,1
If 3'f 05/13/05 17'27'32
fn~\ 1D.>-IT-S-.:"-"
:tt ;56'6/
Smart&Finat
The Smaller Foster Warehouse StO(tJ
""'''' Welcolllil To Our. R4ncho Co.iCalliOnllll!l "'''''''
StorQ ;; 467
."'''''''''''''''''''...~'''''''''''''''P''''''.''''''.'''''''''.....*.*''''''w'''
SQ.. Us On ThQ WE~/lndfinaJ.co.
Cashier: 6Qrard~
DATE 05/19/05
TIME 17: 16:30
~
r
Slilut Advll!llltll!l~e .;0010223406
t~AME1 RICK
NAME2 MARGARITAVIllf
ADORESSl 9950 fOOTrltll BLVD STE S 4,
CITY/ST RANCHO CUtAHONCA 91730
I~X-IOI SREH99B73716
COUNTY S~N BERNARDINO D ~
IlEXT HE'" TAX EXDIPTEO fOR. RESALE ..."....,
TAXABLE 123462.
RAID flJNGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TD\
RAID flJNGTOR 4050001529 9.99 TO
RAIO fUNGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TO
RAID fUMGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TO
RAID rUWGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TO
RAID fUHGTOR 4650001529 9.99 TO
NEXT ITEH TAX EXEMPTED fOR RESALE'" "'.
CUP PlST SOl 7450610502
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTEO fOR RESALE hU",.
CUP PlST 50l 7450610502 8.65 0-
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMrTlU fOR RESALE .",~~",,,,
CUP PlST 50l 7450610502 9.65
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED fOR RESALE ~~....
CUP PlST SOl 1450610502 B.6~
PLAIN SALT 4151235445 .99
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202359 fD f
BTTl OPENER 72787507260 9 T \?
CHIX DRNEITE 4151202358 7.49 fO
CH!X ORNETTE 4151202358 7.49 fO
CHI X DRNETIE 4151202358 7.49 fO
CHIX ORNETTE 4151202359 7.49 fD (
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202359 7.49 fO
CHIX ORNfTTE 4151202358 7.49 fO
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358 7.49 fO
CH!X ORNETTE Ql51202358 7.45 fO
CHIX ORNETTE 4151202358 7.49 fa
CHIX DRMETTE 4151202358 7.49 fO
SUB TOT Al
SALES TAX
TOTAL
IB9.10
4.85
193.95
Person41 Check
Account Nuraber
CASH
C 193.55:::::>
TENDER
1406
CHANGE
.00
TOTAL NUMBER Of ITEMS THIS VIS!T-.~ 24
TlWE 17:20:03 OATE 05119/0~
Tirll:2 Trans Ii 119 Stor& Ii 467
OUQstlons about ~our S~artAdvantagil
eoi'd? Call 866411-SMART
01 1 (509) 948-'366,1"-' 4:S-
'I C. <t>q. S:S 10- T:>'
~ -r9,.q
,C/{{C)(;' l:.:i 5(2; [)
:;:tt:F
Our BLlsillen I~ Sa~ing
Your 8USI1I!!Sll Monry."
~-<<J
b_8a",3 ~~' \.-\)~
I- -iC>1.3! \ 0 J
oU- "4. ,3 - "\,,.',+-1.. 4-1-
__ , ~. ClUB ""NAGER pr't-' .
IT>CU--V.'I.' 909 I H6 - 9259
IX end Pull . (909)~76-9183
01116/05 15'3gN;~:~066~ 016
X HEHIER 101-l109Bl11701
THANK y~
HARGARITA BEAt ~
6 .
326038 DRNKING WTER
319127 CR~ · 1. 28
100759 ClgR~l"
52311 CHEESE HOZ2A
52318 CHEESE HOZ2A
52318 CHEESE MOZ2A
125167 IILD CHDR CHS
IZ5167 IILD CHDR CHS
825167 IILO CHOR CHS
826018 se:D:O 1 .77
961290 ClEA Y
761Z90 C FRY
7 .- 1 . 6.71
80 ORANGE JUICE
23 56 ""RGMINE 5.
19177 FOIL 2. PK
900593 2. LOWFA7
900593 2. LOWFAT
900593 2' LOWFAT
610900 FOLGERS
6040900 FOlGERS
26692 EGGS 5 DOl
385535 XTRAllFE 60W
306163 72CT PENCIL
111321 ENR 9V-8
111311 ENR AA-3Z
11311. ENERGIZER
6260318ATTERIES'2P
210511 POST-ITS
SUBTOTAl
SU8TOTAl
TOTAL
CHECK TEND
CIGARETTE PERHIT~HANGE DUE
. 91206062
1228
~
n. N
n'N
9.81 N
9.97 N
:B7 N r
B.97 N '
'.85 N
12.36 N
lZ.36 N
I
.1
'1.11 E
10.18 E
9.11 E
B.18 E
7.17 E
2 .
262.00
262.00
262 . 00
0.00
r:f
# ITEHS SOLD 16
J~I~~tiil~i!~WII~mlljfflmllill~iillillll~11
OPln for BU'ln... dHBa:t."" tint.,. HOIl1
0"/16105 ." ,,.. 7AM Hen-S.t
15:31:53 .
UA/>;(./~
. (f5$ "S
Our BU5Uless hi Sa\lifll; 7
Your 8usintSll Mont-y..
1 052 EGGS
.. ,. 5.n
659957 IIC RS GRIP
6 . 1.88
387m COI CORN
6 I 8.71
41162901 DRUli , THIGH
372086 CAKE
6. 3.91
326038 DRNKING WTER
31.,27 CR~ I 1.28
710756 ADD ROllS
102830 FORKS 500 CT
392114 STAPLER
392111 STAPLER
385535 XTRAlIFE 60V
1 I 11.23
395727 PLATE 6 7/8
319062 HINGED TRAY
3B2111 STAPLER
701077 TERIYIlKI
1911 B PALHOlIVE
"'9119 PALMOLIVE
3 I Z.37
B00586 HOMOGENIZED ~ b
108710 8ULLSEYE IIG
1087~0 8 SEVE 81G :.:: N P
. SUI TOTAl .
. TOTAl 307:"
CHECK TEND 307 "
CHANGE DUE 0 . DO
CI~ETTE '91206062 4~-lq,9'>
r- Il.i1. q'l 5 -I't. 8s .
_# ITEHS SOL~5.1
~IU~!J!illli~!~~~~~~ill!III!~Irll;lrulil;~
at SAHSClUB.CDH
01/07/0& 15' 28 , OZ
~- '\
.....-~ .~
. 1"_O~\.-U~
.. \ J
'" .-
ClUI HANAGER STEVE TROLl
( 909 l 176 - 9259
FIX end PuU I (909)476-9113
ONTRRIO. CA
01/07/0& 15'21 6111 661B 016
X IIEHIER 101-11098111701
ANI\YO
""ROARITA 8EACH
tt72
@?-
~b
G;J9. 1="
52.44 N
.. iI'll:.f-
23.S4
7.61 N b
7
.69 f.
~
o
F
1:" E 1"
I'.;j(.~
-. (sssi
Smart&Final.
The Smaller Fader Warehouse Store
... Welco.e To Our R6ncho Cucamon~a ...
Store' 467
..--...............................-...
See Us On The WE8 wwv.s.lrtandf1nal.eom
Cashier: Saul
DATE 04/08/01
TINE 17,I6,Z6
51illrt Advantasr
....EI CK
N...E2 GARITAVlllE
ADDRESSl 9950 fOOTHILL 8LVD SIE S
CITV/Sf RANCHO CUCAMONCA 91730
TAX-IDI SREH99873716
COUNTY SAN 6ERNARDINO
CHIX DRMETTE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 415]Z02358
CHI X DRMETTE 4151202358
CHIX ORNETTE 4111202318
BC CAKE MIX 1600018310
BC CAKE MIX 1600018310
MAHG08AV AIR 75213200413
NANGOBAY AIR 71Z13200473
N"'GOBAY AIR 71213200473
MANGOBAY AIR 71213200473
MAHG08AV AIR 75213200473
'ANGOBAY AIR 71213200473
PLTX lATEX 7830006475
PlTX lATEX 783000647S
1 OTV....
fLASHLIGHT 754002 1.14 TO
--- YOU SAVEO -> $ 3.45 t?
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED fOR RESAl ......
TAXABLE 1Z3462 4.59 D
.49 fD
7.49 fO f
7.q9 fO r
.49 fO
0.25 fO IA\.
10 fO r-
),39 TO
3.39 TO
3.39 TO
3.39 TO
3.39 TO
3.39 TO
1.99 TO
1.99 T
SUBTOTAL
SALES TAX
TOTAL
88.00
1.97
89.97
Personal ChIck
Account NUllblr
CASH
TENDER
1406
CHANGE
89.97
.00
TOTAL NUMBER Of ITEMS THIS VISIT~~> 17
TOTAL SMART ADVANTAGE & COUPON SAVINGS
TOTAL "BUV MORE AND SAVE" SAVIHGS-> 3.4~
YOUR TOTAL SAVINGS THIS VISIT-> 3.45
THAT IS A SAVINGS Of 3%
*****.***..**.***........**...*......*..
TIME 18:00,21 DATE 04/08/01
Ttn:2 Tnns II 104 Ston II 467
QUlstions about your S.artAdvanta99
card~ Ca\l 866 411-SMART
1 (909) 94B-S366
",.~.~ '
~~
q$"o 1".0'" j
~~\~<;::"'3 l j 1-\+--.;4.).1-
-{be rl ~ClUB tIIINRGER . .
o 30.~"" ( 909 ) 476 - 9259
Fa. and Pull' (909)476-9183
t1NTRRIO. CR
04126105, '1'5 2255 6619 016 1072
X IlEKB7.',.'10Hl09Bl11701
KRRGARITR BErc~~ . ,'}
~~" ..
2' 6.05 i'l
472200 ZIPLOCK SAND fi' .
~"6' KAVONNAISE !'.,!
702503 KRRKER PRCf
659957 BIC RS GAIIt.i!,
659957 BIC RS GRI ..
68B383 SUGRR PACKE
4 1 6.74
7BOOBl ORRNGE JUICE
6052 SWEET N lOW
23556 tIIIAGARINE 5'
6.0900 FOLGERS
5234B CHEESE KOZZA
52318 CHEESE HeZZA
52348 CHEESE K02ZA
825167 KLD CHDR CHS
825167 KLO CHOR CNS
825167 KLD CHDR CNS
3 1 14.68
929187 IDF WINGS
3112.97
753414 TRIKKED BRST
385535 XTRALlFE 60W
661819 EXPO KRKASST
96692 FUel 12 PK
3 1 5.88
400759 ClORDX
111321 ENR 9W-'
19119 PALMOLIVE
.26011 SEEDED XNDT
'26018 SEEDED KNDT
306463 72CT PENCIL
900513 21 LDWFAT
900593 21 LOWFAT
SUBTOTAl
SUBTOTAl
TOTAL
CHECK TEND
CHANGE DUE
CIGARETTE PERKIT: 91206062
^
,
~1"IS'5 "214
Our Busillt'u Is Saving
Your Busin~s~ Money....
r::
{
(Y\
o
C.
~
f
B
I ITEMS SOLD 39
TC' 91GB 1183 5353 0863 8660 ,
I ~III~ II1111 Iii ~[I ~~I ~~ II ~ IIIIIIII~I ~~IIIIIII~IIIIIIII~ I ~IOO ~ ~
SRKS CLUB Tire end Bett.I''' C.nter Now
OPln '01'" BUIJnl" ",,,b.,,, 7M Hon-S.t
04126/05 16:49:00
*\S(~~ \
Smart&Final.
The Smaller Fasler Warehouse Store
*** Welcome To Our Rancho (ueamanga -*-
Store /I 467
***************************************
See Us On The WEB ~.s.artandflnal.co.
C..hlm Sophie ef4Jd\o
DATE 04/17/05
TIME 18:29,38
40010223406
SlIut Advantage
NANEI RICK
NANE2 MARGARITAVILLE
ADORESSI 9950 fOOTHILL BLVD STE5
CITV/ST RANCHO CUCAMONCA 91730
TAX-lOt SREH99873716 Ie...
COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO , f
RAID fLYING 4650001660 3.89 TO
RAID fLVING 4650001660 3.89 TO
RAID fLVING 4650001660 3.B9 TO
RAID fLVING 4650001660 3.89 T
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED fOR RESALE ......
6. .99 ~
B-DAV CANDLE 1117901915 ~.94--n--,
6' 9.99 D1
RAIO fUNGTOR 4650001529 '59.94 TO
fH GLOVE 7632560100 .99 TO
fH GLOVE 7632560100&> 9.99 TO
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED fOR RESALE ..._--
CUP PLST 50Z 7450610502 8.65
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED fOR RESALE _**w_.
CUP PLST SOZ. 7450610502 8.65
NEXT ITEN TAX EXEMPTEO fOR RESALE ...... '0
CUP PlST SOZ 7450610502 8.65
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED fOR RESALE ._._--
CUP PLST 50Z 7450610502 8.65
NEXT jTEN'TAX EXEMPTED fOR RESALE' .
CUP 'LST 50Z 7450610502
Be eHe FRSTG 16000177~, 6.65 fD
BC CHC fRSTG 16000177tO'
CHIX DRNElIE 4151202358
CHIX DRNElIE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358
CHIX DRNElIE 4151202359
CHIX DRNElIE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202359
CHIX ORNETTE 4151202358
CHIX DRNElIE 4151202358
CHI X DRMETTE 4151202358
CHI X DlNETTE 4151202358
7.49 fD
7,49 FO
7.49 fO
7.49 fO
7.49 fO
7.49 fO
7.49 fD
7.49 f
7.49 fD
7.49 r
SUBTOTAL
SALES TAX
TOTAL
2 2.87
7.40
240.27
Personal Check
Account Number
CASH
TENOER
1406
CHANGE
240.27
.00
TOTAL NUMBER Of ITEMS THIS VISIT--> 35
TIME 18134:11 DATE 04/17/05
T8nu2 Trans II 195 Store II 467
Ouestions about your S.artAdvantage
card? Clll 866 4It-SMART
r qb(909) 948-S~ ( ., $:'
J-- 1<1e. -.J!'l-...r-<>'-I.
(YI.lL~- ,a,.~4 6AL_4~."'O
f' Ie... _ '16'. cD
Smart&Finat
The Smaller Foster Warehouse Store
~~. Welcome To Our Rancho (uta_onsa ..~
Store Ii 467
.....~..~~~.....~~.....~.....w~.~~...*.
See Us On The WEB vvv.smartandfinal.COM
Cashier: Dlvld
DATE 04/26/05
TIME 17:49:18
SMart Advantase 406
NANEl R n c-
NAME2 M GARITAVILLE ~
ADDRESSI 9950 FOOTHILL BLVD 5TE S
CITV/ST RANCHO CUCAMONCA 91730
TAX-IOl SREH99873716
COUNTY SAN BERNARDINO
BC CAKE MIX 1600018310 '
BC CAKE MIX 1600018310
BC CAKE MIX 1600018310
SPONGE 7148513312
SPONGE 7148513312
SPONGE 7148513312
SPONGE 7148513312
CHIX DRMETTE 4151202358
CHI X ORMETTE 4151202358
CHIX DRMETTE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358
CHI X ORMETTE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358
CHIX ORMETTE 415120235817.49 F01
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358 7.49 FOj
CHIX ORMETTE 4151202358; 7.49 FO\
CHIX DRMETTE 4151202358 ~ 7.49 FaI
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED FOR RESALE ~
3 1/4-40Z LD 4151103129 . ~
STEAK KNIVES 4151201380 6.99 TOI
STEAJ( KNIVES 4151201380 6.99 TO)
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED FOR RESALE ....
1 1/2-20I LD 4151203123 .35 01
DINNER F~RK 4151201C95 2.29 TO Ii
PRL ON KNifE 4151201097 2.29 TO.'
OESSRT SPOON 4151201096 2.29 T
SCRUB SPONGE 4151278989 4.09 TO
RED FD TRAV 80169833232 . 9 TOi
RED FD TRAV 80169833232 4.49 Toi
RED fO TRAV 80169833232 4.49 Toi
REO FD TRAV 80169833232 4.4 TO I
FLASHLIGHT 7419600363 6.95 TD\
lEMON OIL 7698532019 Tm
BC CHC fRSTG 1600017710 6.65 fDI
DRV ERASE MR 7170924411 7.39 TO\
BRASSO 2660005315 18.39 TO'I
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED FOR RESALE .
4 OI SOUFlE 4151239256 5.99 0
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED fOR RESALE ...~~
4 OI SOUflE 4151239256 5.99 D
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED FOR RESALE ......
2 01 50UfLE 4151239253 3.99 0
NEXT ITEM TAX EXEMPTED FOR RESALE .~....
2 OZ SOUfLE 4151239253 3.9 D-
EASY Off 6233874017 4.29 TO
EASV OFF 6233874017 4.29 T~
6' 9.99
RAIO FUMGTOR 4650001529 ~9.94 TO)
SUBTOTAL
SALES TAX
TOTAL
376.34
17.33
393.67
~.67 "')
Personal Check
Account Number
CASK
TENOER
4406
CHANGE
.00
TOTAL NUMBER Of ITEMS THIS VISIT.-> 48
TUtE 18:02:15
DATE C~/26/0~
T.........a
T....... .,.,.,.,
c:........... IIC"
.
a;;..- { I {,l- ., 71:1"'-'.10
,lOur Business I~ S4lViIlC
Yuur Uusine~!i Muney....
"..'
~~J
{.--38'S":"S3~
~~ ST. S-S- \.-J
Or:- - d~. g 8sAH';-ClUB
. CLUB HANAGER ANGEL VALDEZ
( 909 ) 796 - 1506
Fax end Pull I ('0')1'6-1115
SAN BERN CA
16,~ 009 ID7B
lOll
lEACH
6 I .
615596 BNlS SKNlS
6 110.1~
67991~ THIGH FIlLET
~ I H.6B
929117 IDF WINGS
801087 HOZZ STICKS
326031 DRNKING WTER
319m CRY
326031 DRNKING lITER
389127 CRY
326031 ORNKING WTER
319m CRY
227726 ~-1 II IACON
227726 ~-1 II IRCON
"'301 LIQUID FRY
96130~ lIDUID FRY
96130~ llDUID FRY
96692 FUEL. 12 PK, .
912167 PHONE -'1- P
29~03B SIRLOIN PTY
900593 2' lOWFAT
616961 BLUE STK PEN
392~1~ STAPLER
125170 ATLANTPENCIL
SUBTOTAl
SUBTOTAl
TAX 1 7.760'
TOTAl
CHECK TEND
CHANGE DUE
. I
~.20 N F
1.72 N
5.13
1 :21 N
3.9~ N b
1.28 N
3.91 N
UIN
1:76 N r-
12.79 N r
12.79 N
12.79 N
1.36T
TCI 1121 1600 H6~ 1312 5' 6
I illl~ II1111II1II1I ~III ~~ ~I~III ~~ II~ III1IIII i 1II!11
Shrt urnlnl WI to 21 ceah ba ,
Appllil For SlUt'S CLUB Dbcovlr todewl
05/12/06 17,53,~1
"f?~
227726 ~-1 LB BACON
227726 ~-1 II BACON
523~1 CHEESE HDZZA
~6~321 CRNADIANSTK
115136 )(EROX
~16136 XEROX
150266 PAN SPRAY
'87081 PEPPERPDUCH
615951 IlUE STX PEN
615951 IlUE STK PEN
615'51 BLUE STK PEN
319223 HINGED TRAY
'61290 CLEAR FRY
119608 ONIONS lOll
309231 FORM PLATE
7100Bl DRIlNGE JUICE
710011 ORANGE JUICE
710011 ORANGE JUICE
710011 ORANGE JUICE
~60290 CHEESE SRUCE
160290 CHEESE SAUCE
~60290 CHEESE SAUCE
~602'0 CHEESE SRUCE
~602'D CHEESE SRUCE
~602'D CHEESE SAUCE
326031 DRNKING WTER
3111 27 CRY
3Z6031 DRNKING WTfII
319127 CRY
326031 DRNXING WTER
311127 CRY
326031 DRNXlNG WTER
381127 CRY
12601 I SEEDED ICNllT
126011 SEEDED KNOT
230~0~ HOT DOG IUNS
230~D~ HOT DOG IUNS
2'06~2 IEEF
311705 T-IDNE STEAl(
319706 NONE STEAl(
21<031 SIRLOIN PTV
31'705 T-IDNE STEAK
67'" ~ THIGH FillET
679"~ THIGH FILLET
679'1~ THIGH FILLET
6799H THIGH FIllET
67'" ~ THIGH FILlET
929187 IDF WINGS
929117 IDF WINGS
'2'187 IDF WINGS
'211 17 IDF WINGS
929117 IDF WINGS
'211 17 IQF WINGS
9211 17 IQF WINGS
129187 IQF WINGS
SUITOTAl
TAKl 7.7501
TOTAl
CHECK TEND
CHANGE DUE
1 :75 N
2.M N
2.M N
5.52 N
6.1' N
V 23.21 N
12.11 N
2U5.
10.1~
10.1~
10.'4
10.1~
lD.I~
1".68
H.61
1~.61
lUI
lUI
1~.61
lUI
11.6'
5r.n--
3.20
~62."
"162.96
0.00
. ITEMS SOLD 55
TCI 67n 2579 7925 5<27 3327 2
IIIIIIIII~I mllll~II~~IIIIII~lmllllllilllllmllllllillllll~
SAMS CLUB TIre Ind Battery C,nt.r Hov
"'-en 'or BUIJn... M."b.r. lAM HonwS.t
0~/26/05 16, 6~, ~~
,y~~
\.! ~o. \ ._J
\\j~ , \ SAH\ ~UI _.-
lI\j"" CLUB MANAGER . .
( 909 I 796 - 1505
Fax and Pull I (909)196-1115
SAN BERNADINO A
01/01/0618:17 1908 6 012 9"
102811
102823
172200
191559 C
19119 PALH
615958 BLUE 5T
657820 JUHBO CL
615'51 IlUE STK
61!\%8 BLUE S1KI
27b115 COMET 6P
111311 ENR AA-
111311 ENR AA-
626031 BATTERI
319705 T-50NE
3U70S T-BON
319105 T -BON
319670 GROU
319670 GROU
.319670 GRO
29~031 SI
29~031 'SIR
291038 SIR
198920 H.H. HITE i
230~0~ HOT IUNS I
230101 HOT 0 ,BUNS
230101 HOT DO NS I
826018 SEEDED J
826018 StIllED Ie
826018 ~~fDFD IeNQ
2~'1 lAWRl.S SEAS
2191 LAWRY I S SEAS
221126 1-1 LB BACON 1
227726 ~-1 lB BACONI
227726 ~-1 II BACON
227726 ~-1 lB BACON,
1102~ CHEESE 51 All'
1102~ CHEESE 5. ANI
900593 21 lOWFAl
97900~ CHED/HONt. JX'
193312 RANCH DRS5NGji
~93312 RANCH DRSSNG
6628 HOT SAUC GAl:
9083 WORT SCE IlAl
193312 RANCH DRSSNG
Vl ~93312 RANCH DRSSNO
319223 HINGED TRAY
309651 FOAH PLATES
.986619 HAYONAISE
7319~2 KETCHUP .10
7319~2 KETCHUP 110
16259 OLIVES 55 OZ
72'~5 OLD WOPI 0
4. t. 14
180081 ORANGE JUICE
101017 HOZZ STICKS
B01017 HDZZ STICKS
801081 HOZZ STICKS
SUBTOTAl..
111UI
929' 17 IDF WINGS
67991~ THIGH FillET
679911 THIGH FILLET
61991~ THIGH FILLET
67991~ THIGH FillET
11317 SALT 25 LBS
961290 ClERR FRY
961290 CLEAR FRY
961290 CLEAR FRY
961290 CU;.AR FRY
326031 DRNKING WTER
3B9127 CRY
326038 DRNKING WTER
3B9127 CRY
326038 DRNKING UTER
389121 CRV
326038 ORNXING WTER
319127 CRY
326031 ORNXING WTER
3111 27 CRV
. I 7.73
1326~ WEINERS 5 lB
6 I ~.16
160290 CHEESE SAUCE
SUBTOTAl
(:
1.811
.7 T
~.16 T 0
~.76 T
.76 S
10.11 T ....
10.11 T ...
'.11
27.98
23.05
13.15
13.17
13.'3
12.11
12.11
12.88
2.51
2.0~
2.0~
2.01
1.7&
1.75
1.15
~.II
1.88
8.76
1.76
1.76
1.76
10.21
10.
~
N P
1.
5.53 N
5.53 N
7.1~ N
5.16 N
5.53 N
5 . 53-N
1.12 T
6.53 T f:-
3.19 N
2.~2 N
2.~2 N
1.39 N
5.11 N
15.13 N
15.~3 N
1 ~3
<65.
~
F
111.11N
10.1~ N .....
10.81 H 1
10.81 N
10.1~ N 1_
.'6 V
F
12.51 N
12.6~ N
1
.91 N
1.21 N
3.91 N
1.21 N \_
3.9~ N U
1.21 N
3.9411 N
1.21 N
3.9~ N
~
c
.
,. I
~
MaY~JI. LVV:J J:V~YM
~~
,
3-18. s--S-
, IWIt- 1.81 N ,
(ooJ-- ~{,.J:R -.mlT '.81 N r:
4 HOT. DOG lUNa 2.04 N
2J~HOTI7OD'ElQ- _ 2.04 N . "
'19Om "JEEF 11.01 N ~.I/
0+ 2'0642 aEEP 17.12 N . .
I'U~ _ 29'4031 SIl!UllH JlTY 11.81 H
~- '2'401' SIRLOIN PTY 12.81 N
741601- IlNIONlI<<'1- 3,.41 N
.....2.4'l'
'8626. mE' . 2 '0
.4 I&'.ft
. 1'41186 'WHIl' iDJlI>ING
'7'004 CHED/NONT JK
. moo", CHEll/MONT JK
?11~. CHED/MDNT JI(
1lS004- CHEMlGHf- Jlt-
.~-MHt(flIlI'1mlI
n"l? CRY -..
!26&Jt- ORNKINU lIT!Ir
- - 3nl~1 t,j..~
""04 LIQUID ~RY .
mm UQun F.Y
'TI~ll ORANOE JUICE
710011 ORaIIGE-.oIUlCE.
.?BDDil.JIRANGE .,jUICE
780011 DRRNOE JUIe!.
6UUHNlt-lllNts' . IS:" N
..... 6IUII' INll-rKNlS
61 'IP' INlS SKNJ.S 11.11 N
1t&&KlNlr'Jl(NJ.S U...8IM p
-nmnRll1KNLS 13,81 N
. '2t1'7. IQF 1I1IIGI, 1+.6Ill
J2J1I7 ~~ 1'4~1 N
'28187 IaF WING' 14.61 N
'UIIT;~W_ ff.6I N'
-141ft, '1lmlST 2J.1~ N
111661 OHKH IRERIT 2L.64 .II- ..~
. 1",1t CIOOf IREIl.T I.UN
,.6nMICIi11liAST 2J.64 N . .
I l UIf 6 -
&ll.2U...tuP -JOZ-Cl.Il . .. -." ..'
". 900Bn 2' LOWFRT
I~PAll-PM'I- 7;'311 V
"'H'+l~ ~ ,"",.,;... '. ',",
.,
SUITOTAL 4 .~" '
TRlt"t Tom I , 1:.0. "
TOTAl. 412,69
CHECl mID- ,,11
.,.:lJ8lIG.E.- . ..00
I IJEHS
,
. . , ,
;. +-
mVl~~
Our Business 15 S;t~illg
Yuur Business: Muney."
cLV
1t- ~.~
4g/~UBKAkR .. -
( 909 ) ~76 - 9259
Fax and Pull 1 UIOU476-9183
ONTARIO. CA
06/02/05 15:15 "1359 6619 003 1211
X KEKBER 101-60098111701
THANK YOU.
KARGARlTA 8EACH
~ 8 3.9!
326038 DRNKING l: i 1:'11
" . 1 ~A': .
389121 CRV '-'7
~02830 FORKS 500 CT
309231 FDRI1 PLATE
19119 PflLHOLlVE
m17 SALT 25 LIS
961290 CLEAR FRY
961290 CLEAR FRY
9fi 1290 CLEAR FRY
7~9608 ONIONS 10lB
SUBTOTAl
1 ~2186 lLICEO HAll
83266 8ACON 3 l8S
83266 8ACON 3 l8S
32~79~ REDUCED ITEK
32"119"1 REDUCED ITEK
32~79~ REDUCED 17flI
2906~2 BEEF
2906~2 BEEF
SUBTOTAl
97900~ CHED/KONT .JK
979DO~ CHED/KDNT .JK
"11313 SDURCREAH 3'
2<91 lA~RY' S SEAS
1~12 GARLIC
900593 21 LOWFAT
900593 28 lOWFAT
5793~ SUGAR
5U8TDTAl
B26018 SEEDED KNO~
mOl! SEEDEO KN
m858 IIJT DOG B ..
3T~858 IIJT DOG 8
~93312 RANCN ORSSNG
9~3003 OlIVES
SU8TOTAl
661819 EXPO KRKASST
626D3~ BATTERIES
657820 JUKBD ClIP
11131~ ENR AA-32
11131"1 EHR AA-32
111321 ENR 9V-8
615958 BLUE STK PEN
615958 BLUE STK PEN
719086 10X13 ClASP
SUBTOTAl
TAlI 1 7.750 I
TOTAl
CHECK TEND
CHANGE DUE
:~5.T' . 6
5.12. e.
5.69 T f
9.23 T
5.21 ,
2.86
12.23
12.23
12.23
2.79
83.<1
6.36
6.67
6.67
20.72
21.91
23.15
1~.57
1~.72
19B.21
11.2~
11.2~
3.88
~.8B
3.56
2.15
2.15
3.5~ N
2~0.85
1.77 N
,'I" 77 N
1'...:'83 N
H83 N
5.53 N
5.32 N
258.90 ~.
8.UTer-:
9.BB T"1,;f"
1.16 ToR..
10.18 T1
10.18 T
11.11 T
~.76 T
~.76 T
8.76 T
331.55
7.20
338 . 75
338.75
0.00
I ITEMS SOLD 47
TC8 3~33 3299 3052 <990 8376 7
IIIIII~ 1IIII11I1 ~IIIIII~ III ~IIIIIIIIIII ~lllllll ~llllllllllll ~I ~IIIIIIIIIII mil
Stlrt eornlnl UP h 21 cuh back.
Applv far SAK'S CLUB Discaver tadav!
06/02105 15'20'36
i
,
~
;~.'(-C-"-~~-'-'''~ r"',"",r~'':''''':;:~''
it ''-i fi.' c=:0J. II :
, I, ,
" ,,---",I...-.J~ ,',,,___
:[ "rl..U----' . ~n. ~~
i i 'Ji;i 'l "",., 11 J
,="'=c. .,~. U-,ururL,:,.,
~, .
ll~"
~ ,-'1
, . 'U'
'.
i
, ,
;;.1
"
, J f!JNi!!
"i;;-':;;!is:~';.J/f}j ft\,&S;t;:;;(:,,(;.""G7
, iI'
.I
r(j
):7'''1'
, .
j
I
I
.... '"
~
", Resi.ntial ~ecurit_Log
~;te~-' ~ l,D I O~ . Security: ,S(\{\ , , . Manager: ~ - \..
I ,...,) . I
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. 6d~ /L.~11 suV' 6.
2. s)1ue! (/h1~J. YniYtrr 7.
3. J,~rO /01 fJr./"" S 1J Ll i 8..
4. 't,ll\U ('jp--<b/ c~ 9.
Jl
5. '10.
<,
~{ .
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
ij
Y6 ~J( , 8:dg<, fc.Yl
, 6
\' .
) .
j 7.
:~
:.j
1.
.2.
3.
; 8.
4.
.:~ 9.
5.
10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURINGiSHIFT
1.
6.
.2.
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
.
5.
10.
.'\--i JJ<OV .
V\ Clean Check Start
'01
2.rOD
Clean Check End
,e Date:
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. ~1'ArJ OIrY&1 6.
2. 9,}b.tef Ok;v t%-1Yv7.
I ,.,
3. ~ r 1\ K./' mrt-ou...111 f/L 8..
4. f::,ll ~ (b~ t1- e tV) 9.
5. Silt te/, IJodfl-' f{ <, Nt 10.
,..
'1- "
.
. .I.'
.
Resieential Securit_ Log
'=l~g
Security: bt="D.{24.) E
Manager: ~ f'lN" J 8:\l,.e 'di,
'"
Ii]
''7.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
...~. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
. CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
~161 jV) ~ '7c{t':'l5Yh~ 6. (i;1
cC~ef)nll/mc, /Vf11C(7.
3. " ~J (i;u/ /6P'2-P.f 8.
tl3(UC . Wt.P ~k
fA Cft4J 3Uburh~r10.
Cj,'W
Clean Check Start
1.
2.
4.
.
5.
4
9.
M 2.J1f) ,
. il . Clean Check End
I'
;, f" .'
.- - ...
Resi.ntial Securit. Log
, 'I'
'.
Date: 1- --=t
.
Security: be ()\LLJt
Manager:~, J I J
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1.
{Sit Jf ~ I?talY? 6.
8rtA/~ ckt '/t)t;1ro. 7.
0J 'h)e,/' fYJlf~, ,mIL 8.
011lxY /?;vIe J< 9.
2.
3.
4.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. s/J1~ ~. Prm 6.
2.
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
I
;
. 2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
f /&J ~ ,
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
660 66.'t<.
<,
, Resi~ntial SecurityILog . ,II
'~~ '7; Secu,;ty' ~ I) Manager. r lGh , v "
Da~'
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
. , t'
1. S\~--r N))S~{\
2. ~ \~e;(' n\ ?DJ "
6.
7.
3.
8..
4.
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
,
(\ 7.
2.
;
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10. 8.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
2. \ 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
. 5. 10.
-0 M 7~
Clean Check Start Clean Chec:k End
Resi*ntial Securit.Log
Oate: ?-- 7-- 0(; Security: ~() "^ t-J Manager: "rJ~'?f
,
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. SIIve-r.n/'5Y:;() 6.
2. 3{/tfl:(' ~J6pf 7.
,3.-B?Je_ fiyr/ ~cn~-w 8.,
4. [;ifJ K/ (lt1t"cN, 9.
5. ~ f--knk.. 10.
<,
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1.
.2.
3.
4. 9.
5. 10.
, CARS TURNED AWAY DURI SHIFT
I .
I
I 1.
6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
Ar /30 2.'
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
-'Resi*ntial Securi~Log ~
Date: '410' Security: _llFtJ\2{ J'S Manager:_'E:, I :\ , 'Y \,
- . .
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1.
. .cj /UfJ . r7 is~n
.
, C h,r\~k1 S(())(F
6.
2.
7.
,'.-
3.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
. 2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
,
~',
-~~
'::
....~
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT'
"
1. 6.
I
2- 7.
~,- .
3. 8.
4. 9.
. 5. 10.
d1 9)),'0 ~ Z~~6 ./
Clean Check Start Clean CheckiEnd
Resi4iential Securit.Log
D~,e1'-~ ~ , '. , Security: ~Pt'F- Manager: ~ !~
. 'RS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT' .
1.
SJ1l/if I7,Js c 11 .
.' ~r/A;e7 chrysler-
~.~ ~ CK(J~8.
6.
2.
7.
<,
,3.
4.
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. Nile, ()od(j_ l1offL. 6.
~ ~
a ~
~ ~
~ 1~
. CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. f1~J U61-k~ 6.
"- .-------
7. .- ,
2. .
\
3. 8.
"
..-r'~
4. 9.
/
5. 10.
1p / ? 3() ~ "Zi0V
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
'.
,'\ Resitlential Securit. Log
1
Date: . 4? ! 1. )( Security: Manager:BI2i!"\'N
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1.
g/~11/5.5qY}
Ye/I~~/ (}/~\-\Cn- 7.
6.
2.
3.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. (3)(/f ~[)~ 6.
2. 7.
;'
3. 8.
4. . 9.
\
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
/f ?)J3d ~ 2. ;0fl
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
Resi*ntial Securit.Lo"~rH
co ' vr-N'-.
Date> oS Security: Manager:~
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. 0/1l}fLJ oh~fk1 6.
2.~t)\rV .~JIS'YAy\ 7.
, 3. 8.
,
4. i
i 9.
1
5. 110.
,
<,
.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
jl~~ttJr~Yl ,
!
1. 6. .
,
2. 7.
"
3. 8.
..
4. 9.
5. "'10.
_ . CARS TURNED AWAY DURING .SHIF
1. 6.
2. .7.
3. ' 8.
4. 9.
. 5. 10.
rt Z::!Y)
Clean Check End
"', li.eSllenllal ~ecurnl LOg ,
Dale:' 6- if:-tf) Security: Mi4f-f- Manager: i3~/AJ
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. b/C{ft
2. G/lfe
r -O/Y'P Z ~A/(ZS() 6.
{hPJe
tQJ1J 7/!11<5,/ . 7.
t..r 1-
3.
8.
4.
9;
: 5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1/' '
1.~/ (5~ a.fl1~J)' I {fef 6.
,
''''. 2.f>-(~er _.EII-HClC 3f'a1J~pll''/..." 7.
3.5.1.J f/-e/' ~elJJ1lh:J 8.
... .: ~.<t
4.
9.
5.
10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.f!;ve !iOf7r}q ~4(/
, !.
2.~iVf/' ~Hct
3. ~
6.
7.
8.
4.
9.
\.
5.
10.
,,-
~_....,_...
Clean Ch
nd
i<
/
ResiCential Securit_ Log
, ,';:'./ \
.; Date: ,s.ll..1-' 1-4 . 2:.00.0 ~ecurity:. ,.... 'io ,.... t-..l ,-agel: ,"'S-t>. \Lt"
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. ~1r/2~fnrd explore/' , . a.
,
8, It? r A.t~ 1\ \
\
2. '1.
8ftlfr&;r'v/e3~ .<
3. ..
- /
4. g.
5. ~..
1.
IJ 2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
.
_ 5.
0/'
ACCEPTABLE PARKING .URING SHIFT
(511ut~ AJ1.f1 <j c. 6.
/J/~ . .AI~Yl_ 7.
.bv(
~
9. .
10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
Gr:!' 75ytHz. 7(vvJ~ 6.
/fed '71Jyfl-- (}rd!)t>-., 7.'
B}(YA 161'0+-, Coroll~ 8.
i<,/oc / fOrd t1Gnr:rr 9.
a r-cer1 el1eJ-.. :Jfn
cr,'(XJ ~ Z:"oO
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
Resi*ntial Securit.Log
Date:JQ/ :1:: ~I rr; Security: -b fl){2t) F Manager: J I' j
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. ~dve/' cfii'-;~k1
2. 3/~ff AJ/SS~(\
3. (31 ~ OOdif />a rY\
6.
7.
8..
4.
, 9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
,:i!. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
i
,
I
5. 10.
,
I
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT.
1.
,6.
2.
7.
8.
3.
4.
,9.
5.
10.
or
Clean Check Start
2, :f()
Clean Check End
.
.......
i
.
.
'.
.
.
ft
e"bate: if /21
. ,
,
Resieential Securit_Log
Security: bev J2...bp
Manager: ,J~ J1'ft:D/'...J
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
, 3.
6.
\,) V\,~
2.
7.
<,
4.
5.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
6.
1.
.2.
7.
3.
G/~€Y) Porrft>~(
i
I
l 8.
4.
9.
5.
.10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
~ ~ :'00 qr /: I Cj
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
Resi*ntial Securit_Log
Date: ,)t'l7f /q 7.~o$
Security: l~t:t,/
Manager:
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1.Pkk cht>Llj1/iArOllo
2. ~I({e, cnOyP (fP-t ..
3. JiI C1e HJufl.if P //1 t7
6.
7.
8.
4.
9. .
._- 5.
10.
._ ._.JL--~._,. .
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. stAler ,A/t'5'5Orj qr'~r!'1 6.
2.Si'Jr/t'r cr!~fler 5ebl'v-'n;) 7.
& a
~ ~
~ 1~
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
2.
3.
4.
10.
Clean Check End
Clean Check Start
Resi*ntial Securit. Log
''1' Security: 'tb/ Manager: f3()GYJ
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. 6.
2. 7.
8.. <
3.
4. 9.
5. 10.
ING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
. 2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
.5. 10.
# ,:W # 7'~
Clean Check Start ' ean Check End
.
, ,
. Resi.ntial Securit_Log
~"
_/ lo~O~
Date: Security: bID~:e Manager: 1S )01:)
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT)
1. . ,S/Iu::/ /1/ l5AVI 6.
2. jr / JV cfJ(1.ljkf l o/l))f~-i
I
3. ;;zlvt- .~Gj\Gh~\ 8.,
4. 9.
5. 10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. -W ,'k-.. (\3~~Yn 6.
!: . 2. 7.
. .-
3. 8.
., 9.
4.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
, .
2. 7.
3. 8.
,
,
4. 9.
.5.
10.
Jf
~ / O()
Clean Check Start
M l: DO
~ Clean Check End
,.
Resi"ntial Securit}8Log
"D~t~: LV' lIlt, Security: b~bt::=' Manager:~ON
. .
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1.~ " Do~~yV\
~1l .
2.
'3. -liLt" N; QY'J\
4'~~1 clJe1 SJotN'bc'q 9.
6.
7.
<
8..
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
. 2. 7.
3. 8.
0
4. 9. ,
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
6.
2.
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
i
......~--(f;~~-~~:c~sta~
o
Clean Check End .
Resi*ntial Securit_Log
Date: lo-t-B
. .
1.
2.
~, ..
3.
4.
5.
1.
.2.
3.
4.
5.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
,$'
.
Security:
Manager:-=:?' l,j""
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
S;J(p/ ph,,/sk/ GPmrd 6.
"S /IUif/J7/ftx), 0;/0(f7.
&/ocA ;fJej(foM 8.
9.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
I:k tbf &JLJ . 6.
JI/tff~ SJhurKAx 7.'
~{d HCJr0J~ (l\r i 8.
9.
10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Ji! /2 = L{0
Clean Check End
900
Clean Check Start
.
Resieential Securit_Log
l .
Date:~05 Security: -.Jch~
. CARS ON STREE{ AT START OF SHIFT'
Manager: 'OlZ..l/>..."-.\
1. S/ltk/ /hrblJ~ f/1i'fc.r
2. 5flvQ (fJ,YjW ~
A
6.
7.
, 3.
<,
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 5J!,;er ~ ."f'IO
~ Ieft.-. . 1L PJ4/Y1
; 6.
. 2.
'I
j 7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
6.
,7.
3.
8.
4.
\9.
,
I
. 5.
~ /,'J()
Clean Check Start
10.
~ --/;2I~
ean Check End
Res.ential Securi. Log
Date:~ D-O~
Security: 1'o'^ t.... )
Manager: ~IC-E
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. . S j AuC/;rj5)f1C::n:-'Yf?"j~ 6.
2. y/u:rml-J;~{), /h/rrf \,7.
3. J//tJe/ ~~ E"';(eflo! 8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
u./Pj fmcf 7fJIJrokybivt/ 6.
1.
. 2.
3.
7.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DUR~NG SHIFT
1. ~/~ Rord &p 1Ofe/ 6.
2.
7.
3.
8.
4.'
9.
Oi7
~t~
. 5.
10.
, '
r)i{)\:;O Q.,.".~~V lX)~ '1f7l'
, . Clean Check Start C$~e 'I
2:-; 2<J
Clean Check End
.
.
~
"
.' INCIDENTREPORT
Ct~{~: -f'~~";1eJ ()\J~\f
~~i{ ; K \--\",,',,\c(\ "\'_
:IU~~
J\;' '-'e . .,)
If' _ -
<,
"
--Ltfl%'r-~~/~If~~
-
.
';
I
I
Cc,{") (1\~. ~ %r'fV :
. X :)?,c,/\ Ched" fJ~ :2)0
I 'r ,;,..-'
V '~l.r,.. nI.1r.., k /i '7'"70
,.. ',,- tLI \ l." I ;.t~. i'~ c:.....'t.,' t:..--' .... /y
.
~t'I>r~$
.
t dif ..,.,.;
D.A): ~~\"'Y~y
f COUNTS' ~
lOPM
HPM-
, TZPM"
lAM
FINAL
TOTAL
. TYRNE)).AWA\!
STARTING
STATIONS
DE>0R
PATIO
, DJ.
HALL
LOT
.' LO'f 2
ROVER
L
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10,
:pATE 5-:l:;-o4-
REFUSAL LOG
DUTIES
SHOT GIRtS rOPM 12'AM
TRASH EMP'l'JEBo WPM- _ l-2AM
LOTCLEAREU ANUSwEPT
PAno CLEANED
TAASltCANS' IN: HALL
BOXES BROKE DOWN
PJ}])'AR& LOT CHECKS
1.
2,
J.
.,___.4.
,.
.
4
'.
INCIDENT"REPORT
. ... .
~a(~o~ ~rL~ 0t<<n
.
.
..... .."'-"
.
, ,Ii,
" \
"
'.
.
J4CCt>f}e.hk. (Jqrl~l -~ ~. '
. J:fIf :;:};1k mfArff-'
I.
('!1{3 -k JfflCC( (}1,\-1a.'j ~
14
~~J:../ee,y1 r:heJ::. Jl-~(EL71'(}J ,'>((/ec;j/l cne/;)( ~oJ -e': #,J
Reswential ~Securit. Log
Date:
Security: --J:]l\ !
Manager: -bfGV\
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1.
. StJ/tt" ~ /lJ~ J !1Z1({6C- 6.
2.
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
Jot&ria 6.
1.
\. .I
2.
7.
3.
8.
4.
, 9. '
, 5.
----g-'1 :~ .
'\ - Cle.n Check Start
10.
\,[f
L~y) ,.
Clean Check End
.
Res.ential Securi. Log
Date: 06/ rJ3 Security: \)Q.V\ Manager:_Qx\<\~
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. '3ilmr (f/J1-Sfj, fVlJ'r~ 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
~ a
~ 1~
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1.
6.
I 2.
3.
7.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
frARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
6.
2. '
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
_ 5.
"
J41
10.
9 : '}()-
Clean Check Start
2~
Clean Check End
/ .....
ReswentialiSecuriltl Log
Date: CS/IlJ..!a5 Security:,\[)'/\ Manager: !2Je'lo.lI\
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. nl( RI m!ts(}, (/11(~",-j
2. 4j fhj{f HerfJ '7.
3. f6~)f.. ~y ~/()
4. t!J0cf., 1-Iorzd.<1 G7 j t'Z,
5. 5;/( K/ /6/Jde. CIUI(" J
.
6.
8.
9.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1.-l~fhk (I/JtJIv/ 8-/6 6.
,
2. ?Jr/W r?iJMkr I
, 7.
W
3. ~ '~ '1f1)?K 8.
t
4. 3flt'rf f.-/oy;p /C{ (YI/V{ L 9.
5. 10. ,
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. tjI/Lef A//J3Vf1fr(Jr11fe-I 6.
2., i67GtP--\ .-wrrl ~o)t~ 7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
. 5.
~
10.
9;-;k) m
Clean Check Start
~..
2~)
Clean Check End
e
Res.ential Securite Log
Date: c:,/ts715 Security: \\W Manager:--!b {) <",y\
J I
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
,
1.
6.
2.
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
. 2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10. ,
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
,. b II /0 r:;:Jr '~ (> /1lP/1 if'.. 6. { .\>
2. ~) Ilk{ Cfp~)J ~ 7 (:{ ,7.
11 'f ..- iT,,! '
3. Iry"c.-17()f~1 /Jpyrr:/y,
! r J ,'~.
(' n', ' '1/ 10 1'/:,., .'.
4. ~" "( )\.. <~ ~.:1? V'-\~_, .v.V '.~ ./
. 5. ~<iif 1(~)1k" nrm'):;", 10.
~--~
,- J
''- ,""./ -
- (r II ."J<"F
. ,. l c
9.
Clean Check Start
"'T
~'
;/ q <1:f)
?-<# I
Clean Check End
,
Reswe~tiaISecuri_ Log
Date: ::; Ad !(')S 'Security: JoA Manager:_Br"l1f"1
~
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. ,5IA,k/ mrkv, /I7/re.~: 6.
2. S/W .xhr1113 7.
3. , 8.
4. 9.
5. ' 10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
. 2. , 7.
-'!
(
\ 3. 8.
4. 9.
, .
,
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
2. ' 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
~ 5. 10.
T'1:1{) ~. z :-~) "
, Clean Check Start
Clean Check End
.
Resi4ential Securit. Log
Date: VSjiD!O &) Security: lloo Manager:_f)(nlf ,
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. Sliver M/lslJ, f11 t'rc.{J< 6.
2. C;dlfr l' 5~b/Jf1J 7.
3. 8. ,
i
I ,
d
, 9.
4.
5. 110.
"
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. t1r~ Or4- ~ 6.
')
i
I
. 2. ,'I 7.
,
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. ~(lilS<) h/o{l:< , 6.
,
,
2. ' .,i 7.
3. 8.
,
4. 9.
. 5. 10.
It' L'j{J 0
t
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
.
.
Resi*ntiaf Securit. Log
Date: 5/"2/05 Security: ~OALManager: ~\~.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. sliver rfJ/tsv- (fJ/((Jl(j(/ 6.
2. 7.
.
3. ! 8.
,
4. I 9.
:
~ '1 1~
I
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
S~ ~ '" . ,
, I' . I. ,\
1. ~ / V /' I A VI~ C"I 6.
40hrk 1Jodr:- Ak<nl
. 2. 17.
i
3.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
6.
2.
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
.5.
~
. 10.
c; .' 36 . - .'
Clean Check Start
D
Clean Check End
,
-
ResiC1enti~" Securittt Log
Date: 5:/-'/06 Security: .IN+711~ Manager: \:;IJt- ~i. -.J1f~
I '
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. ,")/!ur:f rJIJf$() , flIll{a~ 6.
2. Al}f ,Oc;dff -' ((r;fY/ 7.
,
3. 8. ,<
4. 9.
0
,
.f
5. J 10.
,
^t
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
,
1. ,! 6.
,
j ,'.
2. 7:
. ,
"~
3. i 8.
;
,
4. 9.
o'
._0:,
,
" 10.
5. I
I
t
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
.,.,
si4~, Sfurn :..
t:
1. 6. ,
- ~,
.
2. i 7.
i
J
, '
,
3. I 8.
d
,
4. 1. 9.
f
.-,
. 5. 110.
I
Ct];v , i
~ , 0
i,
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
,
,
, Res.ential Securit9 Log
-,
Date: 5jq07 Security: -cbr\ Manager: --03\~
I CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. ' 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
I
2. 7.
Ie 3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.J.!hrk (!fRAY ~~' 6.
2. A/cd, G (q (/0, fr J'X 7.
3. )/)4 I/onc/&z IT~ 8.
-
4.8/~ f7p,dJ ~US 9.
e 5. 1;1# Ifn hi 10.
..Fn--r::5()un---~-- . . ~ --------.----- _...~--_. - -----
0
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
Res.ential Securittt Log
'Date:~ . 5 f "3> / ()5 Security: ~ ()Y\ Manager: 0 q.JL
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. /J)UL fkr6c W~ 6.
2. ~/~!tr 1111i&-J, tfr'7V(U1~- 7.
3.
8.
<,
4.
9.
5.
. 10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURIt,tG SHIFT
1.
6.
. 2.
7.
3.
8.
4. d<<",.f;oi {S('(Jrp
9.
5.
"10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING?SHIFT
1.
6.
2. '
, 7.
3.
8.
4.
.5.
~
, ..i 9.
10.
~
~\-:xr
Clean Check Start
o
Clean Check End
Res.ential Securitr Log
..~
Date: -s J \ a J () S S~~~~itY: ~o ~
.
- .' Manager:J) (lIl f'
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
10.
6.
7.
8.
9.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
~ 2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
5.
_~n
'. b1
' /Ij--l
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
6.
2.
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
10.
~/L~
, Clean Check Start
.
JZ1
~'.\\J
Clean Check End
/
j/ .........
/" ...........-
, . ~c,
Date:~ 1';)Cf, /(JS . ,,~,
Security: -\0 -A'~ Manager: \)" liE
.
- CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
-c-
1. 6(( p (Inft/Y! :5 VD 6.
2. 5/lUt:i 1f1ib.l m/r'Yf' 7.
3. 8. <
,
4. 9.
5. 10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. tf{ r.rJ /In ndc. Clel/'S 6.
~ 2. 7.
\, .,f'-~
3. 8.
4. 9.
-
.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
2. 7. ,
..
3. 8.
4. 9.
\. 5. 10.
4J ~4 ' 30 Af z:06
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
Resi.ntial Securit.Log
'"A.l" -'11~'(~Res.ential Securit. Log
Date: 'I./Z~I/!3 Security: ~ Manager:-.D0~
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
"
1. ~
2.~.1fp1w. t11i(~' '7.
,.MilL cl;ry4eL~J 8.
6.
4.
9.
5.
:z' 10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
. '
.
..~
1.
6.
2.
7.
3.
'I
";i
"
; 8.
.
4.
~ 9.
;1
~.
5.
10.
t!:if;. .
tr:',~-:..-.
,.;).
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
6. '
2. '
7.
3.
8.
5. ,"
\
,~ 9.
,.J10.
4.
'. """."...
Clean Check Start
I
!
!
I
Res.ential Securi'- Log
Date:
Security: --(~~
.
Manager:-=:D1'>.. \! ~
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
.
1. Iru.cJ..... 6. I" ~
j
j
2. N-f'\N 7. -.j t
1
i
3. ~~, 8. < f
I
4. c...A..-i 9.
'\ 5. "S ~eR 10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
CARS T~RNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
6.
7.
8.
9.
'.
, 10.
'\
4
2. '
3.
4.
. 5.
--~..
~.
. Clean Check Start,,,, '
.. -1Iif:
..'
-_..._--~---- ---~
!~!!.'.,'.:.... .. .
. Clean Check End
..p
~
Res.ential Securit_Log
Date: 5rJ "/-').'1
Security:---S-()II~ Manager: ~,(J~
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. 6.
2. 7.
3. 8. -\~:
4. 9.
5. 10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
. 2. 7.
3. 8. .,
4. 9.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.(9r1~ ) ;1j~)qr7 .41~y 6. .'
, /
2. ' 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
.5. 10.
~ 7,'J(j 0
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
Resil'entialSecurif4f Log
Date: Lf(1/L( 07 Security: UOn Manager{)o.rJP-,
\. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1._(fJ/ue) DIJ~_,f1;(t'<<\ ;~ 6.
2. (s/JJfflfYIj'hv~ lYli",~5f.L 7.
* f U-
3.
i 8.
1
!
i 9.
I
,
1
4.
5. '
~ 10.
\
l
ACCEPTABLE~~~I"NJG OOa""fG SHIFT
1.
'f, 6
~~ .
!
\
;} 7.'
2.
.
q 3.
--,;,
8.
,~
4.
, 9
i .
5.
10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.OJh\~),~1 fo.VV1f)5 6.
2.{1Jh~ Cbf~rvl fV1 ?Jl~ 7.
3~lut~ ' ~ 8.
(6/vr) CI1CJ.^j ) v]D 0; 9.
.1(~<-;3~' .. ._;~
W Clean Check Start
~-~~:
10.
o
Clean Check End
Res"ential Securiw Log
Date:~ - ~\ - (')~ Security: .)n(\ Manager: U"'\fC
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. 01{N 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. ' 10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1~B Juej D(Jd(f-l~rtfVl
.2.
3.
6.
7.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
6.
2. '
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
1_ 5.
-{~~ -. ,
~ Clean Check Start
10.
-0: }. ~ 3D
Clean Check End
Res~entic:iI Securi'- Log
Date:~'- \o.-b c:;
Security: ~ \c'^
, Manager:JJC).\(F
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1.jjrJeut/ 31u (uiSlvL0)
I
2. Oorfry j~ap1 (/3/ UVJ 7.
3.MJv~ Mlr~~ (5/11!if) , 8.
v - "I
4. fWd fjOCcl.J~~/5/Ju(/),~ 9.
I _ ~ t11J-
6.
5.
10.
!
,
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
2. 7.
\
. 'j
1
3. " 8.
,
f
,
4. :I 9.
1
5. 10.
"
J
FI
t
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
oi
.'!
6.
'.~
!
,j
7.
2.
i'
,
I
'~
i 8.
f
J
1 9.
I
j 10.
J rti ~:}c> ,'---
, Clean Check End
~,-
3.
4.
5.
'. ~~
- rzJ. '""1',' ~~
Clean Check Start
'. !"~
~
Res.ential Securi. Log
Date:~ "'1 {p' - () C) Security: _'\ N\ Manager: n n. V I'-
I CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. (b/(,~ J ch(hLY SLO 6.
~ ~
3. 8.
~ ~
~ 1~
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6. :? ,
I 2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
, ' ':v2 \j'
1. 0
2. (S rfJlil) l-/onr/6. C/U/( 7.
3. (4~ IOjo--f.CA 7(j/)lrq 8.
4. -(6/Cj( k )-1)IeVY --;qfr/)~ / 9.
I 5. . , 10.
CZJ
~~~o
Clean Check Start
,6 1(0:I~
a'ean Check End
Res.ential SecuriteLog
Date: Security: UM Manager:l'\:JL
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. (~f(f() CVP,Jj/ 6)~ 6.
. I
2. 7.
3. 8. <
4. 9. ,
5. 10.
.' .
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. ~I A~) (rJ,i+:5J ' rnif~~_ 6.
. 2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9. ,
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. (cj \'J\J) \Jd~, ((#~, 6.
2.$nc~f-15cJ ' .
7.
3. i6JCi (k} D DdW . hQyY\ 8.
4.~b\q0\)^)\~SC1\ .y1m{P( 9.
,~ 5.cwY\i~ AWo I
10.
[2f ~ '1 )() 0 ;;J 1 r~
, \ '\
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
Res.ential Securif4t Log
Date:.:] / l'f 10 r;- Security: , ) (J I!\ Manager: l~o 1/ F:..
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. Ch~v\J SID (h1oe) 6.
2. W\\~\~. W\l~q4L~ 7.
3.fXJd(g- ~cx'M ~fbh" s.
4.
9.
5.
10.
, ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
I 2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
. 5. '. 10.
~ rzJ ~', ~ () 'JZf d\'S
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
Res~ential Securi'- 'Log
Date:~/OS
Security: _ ~ () tI\
Manager: Do.. ,I F
.
CARS ON STREET AT START QF SHIFT
1. I" vel ) ,tv" 1t11} (U\ .0 6.
2.' (txLK-) elk,!\( Sil:J 7.
3._(J~A~~IJ~~ CcJ(Oil~ 8.
4.~k~) . .
<,
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. vq-ec!) /\H5~n-.lYonff\ L' 6.
2.[W htk) Ch~/ S//tJej(l/~ <)7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
_ 5.
0'--1: ~ a '
/ Clean Check Start
10.
,0/0 ,~ J f (~" '
[ ~Iean Check End
Resi~ential Securit. Log
Date: L-\: / ~ In.s
Security: _ ') 0 V\
Manager: _I~ r. 1/ f
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. C htv\/ ~l() (~Ik?) 6.
2. 7.
a a
~ ~
~ 1~
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. (JI!u-er)lfll15(Jo /J1/rc,~ 6.
. 2. (bluiJ fJod(f Moll'] J 7.
3. C6I \J f)~~ lJrd ~ 1 ! larrl-tA 8
4.
9.
5.
.-
10.
.'
CARS TUR _', ,A,WAY DURING SHIFT
5//(Xr; 5i!1~!" 6. (~IIUl
J _ i .
2. (\r-1 'n \4-.L) bnn d ~ Ci \) I G 7.
,
U\ y, ,~ 8.
1.
C-
3.
9.
4.
.5.
10.
~:)o
)Zl. Clean Check Start
[] J:I~
--Clean Check End
.
. . Re"ential 'S~curi. Log
,
.
Date: 4 / / I 0:::; Security: ,) n 1\ Manager: IJo.V(
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. (GllK) cn~\ji ~'VO 6.
2. 7.
3. 8.
4. '9.
"
,
5. 10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1._(S/US)OrdEl ~0w) 6.
. 2. (9/lKf) 1Y1;,~)u ~ mi(o;c 7.
'-
3. 8.
. ---
,
-
4., 9.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. (0kL~\) N/)5~n fI1 (tiirYVq. 6.
2. (r/ / (/f v' j 161O-lc. CfJrtJ//~ 7.
3. (S//!Jf/) 0yrJfq InfOrno. 8.
4. 9.
, 5. 10.
JZI ~:'\D JZJ ~ .( ! c:s
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
Res.ential Securi. Log
Date:3 / ') / () 5'
Security: ) 0 '^
Manager: D ()..y~
.
<0;:....
CARS ON S. REET AT START OF SHIFT
. /) f.
1.
2.~\t) cnevy
J M\~<A
5]0
6.
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
2. ' 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
. 5. 10.
0 0
Clean Check Start Clean Check End
, '
.
Res_ential Securit. Log
, Date:-$ It ["let; Security: Manager:1JQ V(
· CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1.__( f\\t~ ,Gfet 6.
2. ~ 7.
3. f Di' d ~t\ '" ~f.. ~_J--^~~ ~ 17 8.
4.
9.
5.
\.......
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1. 6.
. 2. 7.
3. 8.
4. 9.
.' '
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
6.
2. '
7.
3.
8.
4.
9.
.
, 5.
10.
I2l -10 ',00
Clean Check Start
I;z1 'd.' , 0 CJ
Clean Check End
,
Res~ential Securite Log
Date:,g / Ol fo')
Security: j n f'\
Manager: \-:J1l v,
. CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
10
2. \jZ\ h~\f 51 () 7.
3. S'\\~~( MA-;u- M1f~1- 8.
4. 5\\~[----rGiO+O Cn(ol1~ 9.
1.
5.
6.
'<,
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
/ I
6. L51/w ~e)(u
70. Uc .. eftv' lif1ClC
1.
8.
9.
o
Clean Check End
. .
Res_ential Securiw Log
Date:L-1 -1- os sec~rity: ""\()f'\ Manager: [)n..V(
'11
I !
.
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
1. 'Sh..~\,^~ (~otc'J '\
2. (\J', r Gre'l ( rc.>lI\~a\
3. \S \ \>- f -tt td~ k. (<;, \ ()'\
4. t,{'(,-( fr1\ +'~II. (f'\~ tt\::/" \
6.
7.
8.
9.
5.
10.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT
1.
. 2.
3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
I
6.
1. . Civ', \4 {
"-
2. ,(G f{e~ Wortb C\\JJ('
3. .;;. 16 0 ,
, 4.01<:-(,;) fafd C)l If 9.
. 5. V8lrx) 01Jdqr2- ()ah()~' 10.
8.
0~:)o '
Clean Check Start
1ZI~~1(j
Clean Check End
ResifJential Securi_ Log
Date, '7/5 V DL/ Se,"';ty, 0ma--fh 0(\ Mana.e,,_Lhv,
CARS ON STREET AT START OF SHIFT
· 1. de,^! "'1 /Diblvu. 6.
2(6 ue c~e0 ,\if (<;; 7.
M; 5 UbjjhLl'7//(E().
SI( 9.
5 u V{Mhik 10.
,,;
.,
3.
<,
4.
5.
ACCEPTABLE PARKING DURING SHIFT I
1. 6.
2. 7.
. 3. 8.
4. 9.
5. 10.
CARS TURNED AWAY DURING SHIFT
1.
6.
2.
7.
3.
8.
, 4.
9.
5.
10.
1,. q',?-,O
fiI. '
Clean Check Start
IYJ ~'. \0
Clean Check End
-
~ ~
.
.
"
;
"
I
[".'.
- "~-"-'-'---" -..-....------"
--
::"
~/;,.
.
.
,.
~-_._-
"'--~~ ~~,'.~
':,
*"i'_
.,i;.:C',,l;.
.~
"
. .
"
,
THE
[
RANCtlO
CITY OF
CUCAMONCA
Staff Report
DATE: November 2,2005
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Dan Coleman, Acting City Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO INITIATE MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT - QUALITY
PROJECT COORDINATING DRC2005-00829 - A REQUEST TO AMEND THE
TITLE 14 SIGN ORDINANCE, SECTION 14.20.100 PERMITTED SIGNS _
COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES, TO ALLOW SUBTENANT WALL SIGNS
FOR A BUSINESS WITHIN A MAJOR ANCHOR TENANT OCCUPYING LESS
THAN 50,000 SQUARE FEET IN FLOOR AREA.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council deny the request (maintain
current standards).
BACKGROUND: In 1997, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 586 to allow subtenant
signs in commercial and office zones. The Ordinance established specific criteria for when
subtenant signs may be allowed in particular:
. Major or anchor tenant must occupy a floor area in excess of 50,000 square feet.
. Subtenant must occupy a minimum of 400 square feet.
· Only one subtenant sign is allowed.
ANALYSIS: Verizon desires an exterior wall sign at their location on the northwest corner of
Foothill and Day Creek Boulevards promoting their "in-store" location within the new Circuit City.
Under the current regulation, Verizon is not eligible because Circuit City is 32,899 square feet
and Verizon occupies 150 square feet of space (less than 1/2 percent) inside Circuit City.
Subtenant is defined as "a business that is owned or operated by the major or anchor tenant,
and/or franchisee or subsidiary of the major or anchor tenant; and whose operation is separate
from, unrelated to, and different from the major or anchor tenant." An example of a qualifying
subtenant is the McDonalds inside Walmart. Ordinance No. 586 was specifically drafted to
allow major anchors as small as a typical size grocery store to have an exterior wall sign for a
significant subtenant. Many grocery stores now offer the convenience of "one stop shopping"
by including Starbuck's, banks, postal stores, photo processing, and movie rental; however,
these are typically far less than 400 square feet each. The grocery store that prompted
Ordinance No. 586 included a bank subtenant greater than 400 square feet.
117
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DRC2005,00829
November 2, 2005
Page 2
The applicant proposes lowering the major anchor threshold to 30,000 square feet and lowering
the subtenant threshold to 100 square feet.
Dan 0 eman
Acting City Planner
DC/ge
Attachments: Exhibit A - Request
Exhibit B - Ordinance No. 586
Exhibit C - Circuit City Letter
Exhibit D - Proposed Amendment by Applicant
/dt;
~~UALlTY
PROJECT
, COORDIN~TING
BUILDING PERMIT SERVICES
September 5, 2005
Mr. William Alexander, Mayor
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Dr.
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729-807
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SEP 1 3 2005
RECEIVED - PLANNING.
Dear Mayor Alexander:
I would like to request your consideration in the following matter.
Recently, a submittal was made by Verizon Wireless to intall a sign
on the Circuit City building located at 12260 Foothill Blvd. The request was
denied as Circuit City does not have the required 50,000 sq ft. floor
area for subtenant signage. They have 34,000.
Verizon Wireless would like to request a text code amendment to allow
their signage to be installed. Verizon Wireless occupies 150 sq ft space
inside the Circuit City manned entirely by Verizon Wireless employees.
Verizon Wireless would like to request your approval to proceed with the
text code amendment
Included in this package, you will find:
1. Site plan
2. Floor plan of Circuit City floor area, as well as Verizon Wireless floor area.
3. Elevation drawing showing existing Circuit City signage and proposed
Verizon Wireless signage.
Should you have any questions or require further information, please do not
hesitate to contact me.
Thank you for your anticipated consideration and cooperation in this matter.
Q;U)~~
Joyce Sehi
Quality Project Coordinating(permit expeditorfor sign contractor-Grid Sign
Systems)
949-305-2889
EXHIBIT A
RD. BOX 2653. COSTA MESA, CALIFORNIA 92628-2653 . (562) 494-0430
(d/
ORDINANCE NO. 586
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN
ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97"{)3, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD REGULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR
THE IDENTIFICATION OF SUBTENANTS OF A MAJOR OR
ANCHOR TENANT WITHIN SHOPPING CENTERS WITHIN,
SECTION 14.20.100 PERMITTED SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND
OFFICE ZONES.
A. RECITALS.
1. On the 12th day of November 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the
above-referenced Sign Ordinance Amendment. Following the conclusion of said
public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 97-59, thereby
recommending the City Council adopt Sign Ordinance Amendment No, 97-03.
2. On the 17th day of December 1997, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing
prior to its adoption of this ordinance.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. ORDINANCE.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 14,20,100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones
is hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2: The Council hereby finds and determines that the proposed
amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
State CERA Guidelines.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause
the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least
once in the Inland Vallev Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general
circulation in the City of Ontario. California. and circulated in the City
of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
EXHIBIT B
/J-~
Ordinance 586
Page 2
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of January, 1998.
AYES: Alexander, Biane, Curatalo, Gutierrez, Williams
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAINED: None
,,-'_.
/
ATTEST:
~9cM~~
I, DEBRA J. ADAMS, CITY CLERK of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia,
do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Council
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 17th day of December, 1997, and was finally passed
at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held on the 7th day of
January, 1998,
Executed this 8th day of January, 1998, at Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia.
~~c~~
1;)3
-'
..
::J
;?g
"'..
"CD
...'"
C/l
c::
.2:
III
~
....
o
....
::T
III
"0
a
<
Iii'
1:r
:::J
Ul
!a:
III r
!=!-
,
--l
::T
III
0-
~
:r
co
C/l
<C.
:::J
C/l
3
III
'<
cr
III
"0
III
3
i
a.
:r
....
::T
III
8
3
3
III
..,
(>
iir
III
:::J
a.
o
:!l
~
N
o
:::J
III
C/l
-127
2"~."Si'g'
-/D g Oi (II
l~jU n
~illl~ li >
a::J ~~ en
~l.ip rJJ
~pi
Ii
5'
.,
~ ~ rJJ
Co =_
~ Gl
" Z
. ~
~ 'C
- m
H fH;::
~1ii n ~
3; . 32" ;::
9.il 9." c
~- :iii';::
1ii if ~ i" Z
ii iJd f
S" _Ill III OJ
.. m
~ ;c
.-
N ;K 0 3:
i H?<
. -1t-
: lS2" ~
!l .ll-;::
, !li
_. en
oil _
U ~
. )>
a ;c
s ~
~.Z
if ~itg;:
o l!l ,,,r )>
OJ B'1:I ><
iI' ~ll.<l ~
- . il c
::3l(Do ~ s::
11'8'8' :I:
[,,~ m
1D'g.!:f Gi
iJ e CD :r::
!i"~~ -i
"
94'5 7-:Jf'/wv'qd10 JI(J~
!"
!;.SCD
a..
"..
Hi
g~!".
s.li'
!'p
--..
, ".
g
~
u
. ~
~
~
;'~l
l!~ 0
~.ii
~p
'1.[
u~
~.il
~~
~;.
~;;
i~
~i'
o.
JSli
.0.
ii~'
for
-Il
"
g
o
~
~
.
i
I
'fF
. ll.i
, :r
= fill.
tid
~UI
il~ii!
s.!!.
. s
.
~
CD
~.Z
oii2
15'0
"~
H-
~.il
2.tlIG1
!;ig
ll" ~
"" -
iirl
. "8
.-
a
~l:tg I
.. ~-
l !S
.......
~ ~:r~
,f!C~n
rH
il"~
aii
;c
m
;::
)>
;C
^
en
.
~i>
~~g
..,.<3
Q1~ 5l
" "
~o..
g~g
:l>>Q,
Hi!
m3E
'H
o.a
::.
~it
i ~
. -
",.-
Ga.
6!~
~3
g.!!
.8'
h
o~
"
li'~
. -
.0-
".
2. a"
o~
8'~
go.
H
o.
.3
....
<3
S'.
5'.0
. ~
li'.
< 0
. .
0'=
~g
.
" .
-~
!
"
~
a
H
. .
ita
i~'
=.
il;
o..
< ~
.
~g
~i
iH
"
~.g
.0
....
~-<
"a
. "
.
5'il
"
~i
~il
.
g:g>
~~g
0.<3
...
g.... 5'
~H
.. a
mE
- g
~ .
3 ~
'1."
::~
<ira.
a <
~;
g'g
.
l~
00'
",.
..
" .
~.a.
"
~
.
.,.
"
.
.
.
~:
II
o
.
.
.
5'
.
~
'"
.
"
o
fj
o
a
"
.
"
"
Po p
'!: o~ "C 0.0.)1-
0.-- ..~
-1!,~ ilJlaS
~..." .."" a
e. i: '2. ~ ii'~!!l
g "oil ~t-"-'
.. a -. ..
lU Ii ~ :) 0
'~i it!;
= go.ll.!
Q, 5-1lIg:
~ !fs:~
o . ~ :i"g
1:' t:S"l!!.
CD 3!l~
i~~
0[.
;c.t)I
=-~~
..0.
~OVl
il ~ ~
. g ~
o~iil
.. en.
Q Sa
~
~
~ ~ ~ ~
il' ~ !!..., ~lo. ~ I ~ Ii
~I JS! 3 i ~ c:
I.. oI!. .., - ::s
m :J~ ~ilrJ~~ !!.~
~ !~ ~i.~~ t.~
~ [; ~HH ~
-Ii U ha~& '9
': ~~ ~Jiit!:: 1:1
~ 11" S~!l-..3
f ~~ I. ~.. 1l.1i!
ii'~ ~"e..
... .. ~ il 3 i
~ i~ ,9:~ll: t~
~ ~~ !hs~!;
"'" a, III Q,~~!l IIlt'l
....il r'~" ~~
! fs iii {*
i' 'fi~ ..H& H
l!L J! di!" !s
!a. I; 9.a:s: ro-.
~
"i~
g
.
..
n
~.
~
.
~
.
i
,
~
!
i
I
~
i
,..
~I
i
~
i
I
.
a
~
3
I
!l
'P
~U
I s: III
il~3
'H
~.
"I
il.
~~
..il
:r..
Ii
.
~~
~s.
~~
g.
j~
d
1oC.",<:E.Fiicl>;lln:15ol'l,"'lA
.\l'\i~
."'$$t~'11Vi~ ~~@,f.ia@r.:- COnsv.Jc',jon
el1'~t City $~ree., J!'IO.
mo Mall:ll'tCl Dnve
Rjg!mcnc', w.. m>>
(BD.ll; 5:27ol1\OOOXe711
MnL~cifCui~-~If'/.
october 19, 2005
Oty Of Ranchc Cucamonga
10500 Civic center Cr.
P.O. Box 807
Rancho CUCllmonga, Ca. 91729-0807
To Whom It May Concern:
Subject: ~lon of VerizOn Wireless sign to Orc:ult aty building
PleaSe be advised that CIrcuit CIty Is In full wpport of verlzon Wireless' request: to add
an Identll'icatlon slgn to the exterior of the existing Circuit CIty building Ioarted at 2260
Foothill Blvd. verl%On Wireless Is a subtenant of OU~, OCCUpying 150 sq.ft Inside our
space. Their space Is manned by their own emplOyees, thus their reQUeSt to identify
themselves.
Should you need anything from us relative to approving this request. please contact
LI50
J
We appreciate all consideration you give lD this appl'O\l8l.
S~) ,
Kent RIchardson
As$IStant Vice President, Constructlon
CIrcuit City
-
exH (f)rr c.
IdS
<:::1 ~J~
1el
o
n
S'
i
..
~
~
~
co
Ut
""i
=
-
(')
o
CI.
CD
~
3
CD
::J
CI.
:I
CD
~
-
(')
:r
III
:l
Q
CD
'f
.$I
C
:
-
!!
ll:lI
~
~
"'0
CD
If
;i
ai
:J:l
-
f
!!.
a
C
a
z
C
a
i
..
o
:::s
CD
1
..
1/1
C
1:1"
lit
i
a
!
!!.
a
c
3
'"
C
:l
,..
i
...
OfDI:I"O-l
~ac"o
!;ifr
s..,.::s...-
o"lQo~
...1>>;,~2.
i~2ai
llI~a~o.
iillllllCDIl
a t1 III
.!!. :I 11
OC ::L
..;
:::llh)n:;Z ;s=
~OlDCDO III
- III ...
"';rCD::!,.:!' !!.
:rCD gg ;
&::ia" c
Q(J:rIllO ;
;I a.aa'l' :a:
CI. :so n CD
. CD-" -
. ..:s'" c
!f!g' ;!:
! ~
f
i
lD
!
lD SI."''' n"OlD
:l g.ii':::I.o:'"
!;olD If n IfIQ :r
o:l:J~::L;lCD
".!!.lD:>lDaC
i~;a~3~
I>>O_Q!;SlDO
iil..I....;'C~
Q I!!
III I:I"Q
_:J
i"
:r
';;;I.OllllD~OllllDl:l"Ol:l""-l:l"
l!lii CD,,:l:S 1Il"::S:l'C ~ C Ill'
lD....l CD Cl.n fD 9::<'>> =:1 1;1I =,..
::I !a:! iIl:s: 5'!fC 0 6. s,ii ""
,.o-=:r..~.... lIi"-C
..!gilf~a:ifS'a~.lDlf
;~-CDiOii'::Sifos:;.=
n fD ::I".:H~':!"i!.lDlD
6' - 0.. ~,.. - :!
~:f .....CD.e--
CD III lit ""
0.
tel
..
(II"CS (II Ill::llO. n
EaJ:l~on~'
::l~lilll~2g.>
:lQ.;:":5!~a
III III _ ~ _.~.!!!.
. (II!fg,:~Ill~
c ~ Cot _.ID ::s
!l..O::SIll!O
..~o ......
i~ g
~
..
..
;:!!,Z3ap-
gs:;a.i>
..lIIa-(II
1~~gC
. -ocl
- ... -a il
o ... oc: _
....o.-=.
o
aii:"' 'ilfi!~!D
glll::l~ ~i""!lO
910$1 ;!fil~l.;
_ t.l:s li::E...o
::s ct. a.=.il=
- 0:1 (II-::SQID
.0=- -an....
E::Ja 'glll::r..
::s .. .. 0
.:r. eo"
_0< !II
"
(II ::s ):0 -i" · ID
CO"'i ..c'
1;1"..... Oao
lfna:!.~lf::J
::sO 3 0Q.::J.:;r
;.i~;;l!.
lia.::r".-a
. CD 5'1ii'i III
i:li"i~::S
S i' If a.