HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/02/07 - Agenda PacketCITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MEETINGS
1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m.
February 7, 1996
Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
City Councilmembers
William J. Alexander, Mayor
Rex Gutierrez, Mayor Pro Tem
Paul Biane, Councilmember
James V. Curatalo, Councilmember
Diane Williams, Councilmember
Jack Lam, City Manager
James L. Markman, City Attorney
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
City Office: 989-1851
City Council Agenda
February 7, 1996
NI item submitted for the City Council Agenda must be in writing. The
deadline for submitting these items is 6:00 p.m. on the Tuesday prior to
the meeting. The City Clerk's Office receives all such items.
1. Roll Call:
A. CALL TO ORDER
Alexander Biane , Curatalo
Gutierrez , and Williams __
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIONS
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City
Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue
not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive
testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are
to he limited to five minutes per individual.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and
non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time
without discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or
roamher of the audience for discussion.
Approval of Minutes: December 20, 1995 Joint Meeting
Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 1/10/96 and 1/17/96; and
Payroll ending 1/11/96 for the total amount of $2,316,006.99.
Approval to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (CO 96-004)
for outfining building permit issuance relating to the retrofit of a flood
wall for Tract 13566-3, located south of Wilson Avenue adjacent to
the San Sevaine Basins, submitted by Gentra Capital Corporation.
Approval to execute an agreement (CO 96-005) with Acts Concerts
to provide a concert series at the Epicenter during Calendar Year
1996.
,
Approval to execute Improvement Agreement, Improvement
Securities and Ordering the Annexation to Landscape Maintenance
DistriCt No. 7 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 7
for CUP 94-07, located at lhe southeast corner of East and Highland
Avenue, submitted by W.S.D.C. Inc.
9
10
11
City Council Agenda
February 7, 1996
RESOLUTION NO. 96-008
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
APPROVING AN IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT
AND IMPROVEMENT SECURITIES FOR CUP 94-
07
RESOLUTION NO. 96-009
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 NO. 1 AND 7 FOR
CUP 94-07
Approval to authorize the City Engineer to file a "Notice of
Completion for Ellena Park Phase I Improvements.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-010
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR
ELLENA PARK PHASE I AND AUTHORIZING THE
FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR
THE WORK
13
14
17
18
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first
reading. Second readings are expected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time
without discussion. The City Clerk will read the title. Any item can be
removed for discussion.
No Items Submitted.
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public
hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the meeting to receive
public testimony.
CONSIDERATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION BY COLE
SCHAEFER AMBULANCE TO PROVIDE BLS AMBULANCE
SERVICES IN RANCHO CUCAMONGA (Continued from January
3, 1996)
19
City Council Agenda
February 7, 1996
CONSIDERATION OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-26 - SAM'S
PLACE- Consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision denying a request to serve distilled liquor in conjunction with
a restaurant and billiard hall, located at 6620 Carnelian Street, in the
Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 59, 60, and
61.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-011
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION IN
DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 95-
26 FOR THE REQUEST TO SERVE DISTILLED
LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING
RESTAURANT AND BILLlARD HALL, LOCATED
AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
- APN: 201-811-56, 59, 60 AND 61
CONSIDERATION OF A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE
SCHEDULE - Including and amendment which will establish facility
rentals and related fees for the Adult Sports Complex, adjust
recreation program fees, and establish geographic information
system fees.
RESOLUTION NO. 96-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
ESTABLISHING A NEW COMPREHENSIVE FEE
SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES
PROVIDED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT AND THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
POLICE DEPARTMENT, BY MODIFYING
CERTAIN FEES ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION
NO. 94-091
21
47
49
50
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements.
The Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony.
No Items Submitted.
City Council Agenda
February 7, 1996
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
The following items do not legally require any public testimony,
although the Chair may open the meeting for public input.
No Items Submitted.
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
The following items have been requested by the City Council for
discussion. They are not public hearing items, although the Chair may
open the meeting .for public input.
DISCUSSION OF RESIDENT'S REQUEST FOR FRONT YARD
LAWN MAINTENANCE (Oral Discussion)
DISCUSSION OF RESIDENT'S REQUEST TO DISCUSS LISA
SUN'S (ETIWANDA HIGH SCHOOL) WASHINGTON D.C. TRIP
(Oral Discussion)
3. REPORT FROM CABLE TELEVISION SUBCOMMITTEE ON
MARKS CABLEVISION
4
83
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
This is the time for City Council to identify the items they wish to
discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be discussed at this
meeting, only identified for the next meeting.
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the City
Council. State law prohibits the City Council from addressing any issue
not previously included on the Agenda. The City Council may receive
testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments are
to he limited to five minutes per individual.
L. ADJOURNMENT
MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS
PROPERTY NEGOTIATIONS PER GOVERNMENT CODE 54956.8,
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BLVD AND
ROCHESTER AVENUE; VALLEY BASEBALL AND JERRY FULWOOD,
DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, NEGOTIATING PARTIES, REGARDING
TERMS OF PAYMENT.
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my
designee, hereby cerlify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda
was posted on February 1, 1996, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting
per Government Code 54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
December 20, 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meetin~
A. CALL TO ORDER
An adjourned meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council and the Planning Commission was held on
Wednesday, December 20, 1995, in the Td-Communities Conference Room of the Civic Center, located at
10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The meeting was called to order at 4:10 p.m. by
Mayor William J. Alexander.
Present were Councilmembers: Paul Biane, James Curatalo, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williams, and Mayor
William J. Alexander.
Present were Planning Commissioners: E. David Barker, Larry McNiel, John Melcher, and Peter Tolstoy.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; James Markman, City Attorney; Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment
Director; Jan Reynolds, Assistant Redevelopment Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director;
Brad Buller, City Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Robert Dominguez,
Administrative Se~ces Director; Chief L. Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District; Diane
O'Neal, Management Analyst II; and Debra J. Adams, City Clerk.
Absent was Planning Commissioner: Heinz Lumpp.
B. ITEM OF DISCUSSION
B1. DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF ACCEPTING THE COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY
Brad Buller, City Planner, gave an introduction for the purpose of the meeting. He stated the City Council and
Planning Commission had before them responses about the study including additional information from other
outside sources pertaining to the study. He went through the meeting objectives as outlined.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public comments. Addressing the City Council and Planning
Commission were:
Peter DesForges, Wohl Investment Company, referred to his correspondence dated December 13,
1995, presenting some of the highlights contained in the document.
Shant Agajanian, consultant, responded to many of the items that were brought up at the previous Council
meeting of December 6, 1995, which are also outlined in the memo from Brad Buller dated December 14,
1995. Mr. Agajanian also responded to many of the questions in Mr. DesForges' letter dated December 13.
Councilmember Gutierrez pointed out that the study is information that was provided to the City to consider as
a guideline.
City Council/Planning Commission
Joint Meeting Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 2
Councilmember Curatalo pointed out that the study is to serve as step I for this process and that the
information would be considered.
Commissioner McNiel stated he felt the City needed to make sure that they don't plan for too much commercial
development.
Chairman Barker pointed out that this is only the beginning to develop policy recommendations. He felt the
Coundl should direct the Planning Commission to draft policies to be used for commercial use to be included
in the General Plan for the community.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he felt there was clear direction in the study, and that Foothill Boulevard
should be the main focus.
Bred Umansky, Grubb & Ellis, felt the study should be used as a marginal tool and that he dldn~ think
you could make any clear recommendations from the study.
James Axtell, Mission Land Company, stated they concur with the findings of the study. He stated they
would like to move forward as Chairman Barker recommended.
Lee Fairman, Economic Research Associates, stated Mission Land Company asked them to look at
the study. He stated he felt the study was informational and agreed with it. He also referred to
information from Mr. Axtell dated December 19, 1995.
Bill Bowman, V'~,e President Seally Company, commented on the Foothill and Fourth Street corridors.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff is asking that the Council accept the report to establish policies for their
consideration for the future. He stated any changes to the General Plan would come back to the Council for
approval.
Councilmember Biane stated he did not agree with the study where it states there is too much commercial in
the City. He did not feel the City had the information it needed to give it to the Planning Commission to make
recommendations.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the report is to act as a tool, and that this information and other input will be
developed into recommendations to be presented to the Council.
Coundlmember Biane stated he has problems with policy direction coming from the study. He stated he would
be comfortable with it if all testimony is considered when developing policies.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, asked that Councilmember Biane vocalize his concerns to
staff and the Planning Commission so that the information can be used when developing future policies.
Councilmember Williams wanted to make sure the information contained in the study is only used as a tool
when making policies. She felt there was depth missing from it. She added she hesitated in accepting the
recommendations made in the study.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he would agree with what Councilmember Williams has stated. He felt the
consultant did a good job and that he did what the City requested.
Councilmember Curatalo stated he is comfortable in accepting the report.
City Council/Planning Commission
Joint Meeting Minutes
December 20, 1995
Page 3
MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Alexander to accept the report and pass it on to the staff and
Planning Commission to go forward with the process to review and draft future policies.
Chairman Barker stated he felt the Commission understood what the intent of the Council is with regards to this
report and what the process will be for the future.
Councilmember Williams stated she cannot accept the report and vote for the motion.
MOTION: Moved by Curatalo to accept the report as informational report and to pass it on to the Planning
Commission and Planning Department to continue as a first step in preparation of a final document.
Brad Buller stated ifthe word accept is a problem you could say "receive and file the report and forward to the
Planning Commission for their consideration in developing recommendations to the City Council on commercial
land use policies for the City."
MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Alexander to receive and file the report and forward it to the
Planning Commission and Planning Department for their consideration in developing recommendations to the
City Council on commercial land use policies for the City. Motion carried unanimously 5-0.
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communication was made from the public.
MOTION:
D. ADJOURNMENT
Moved by Gutierrez, seconded by Biane to adjourn. Motion carried unanimously. The meeting
adjourned at 6:10 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Debra J. Adams, CMC
City Clerk
Approved by Planning Commission: January 24, 1996
Approved by City Council:
%
Z
Of
_J
)-I
N
Z ZZ
U w ~
N
Z
w
,J
,Zm..ItU,
a.~LJW
/
%
l
C3
(J310
(,.)e,'I
.r'e
.J
I-'
b4 IL
dl(I
°I'I
WZII
I: ·
Ill
·
· ·
I ·
II ·
· ·
· ·
·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
i,.~.11
I;-el
It--I
I~1
lull
· ·
liJJI
· ·
I I
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I I
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· ·
· ·
· ·
1
· I
itul
I I
IuJI
· ·
J
Z I I O~
I,-I
I,-i-4e, el--
,JerX (~ ZuJ C3e,~
,JMJtu ee ,-4
k.4OCZ · Zl-I t,~ · 'J ·
--, ,...~..,..,.,, , ~_~,-..== ,:
3~'~,JWOk~ W;.J'W:2OgZi"IO:Z:~'D I
%
W
Z
I~ZO
I--~1:
,J
I-- c2
I-I
o~oo~oo~~~oo~oooo~oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~oo~
°~ ~ ~ z ~
t I I · I II I · I
Ze
Z
~Z
~>mUUwZZZZZZ4m~J~w
J
~-- c3
U
|;
ooo~oo~oo~oo~oooooooo~~oo~
~
%
v~
Z
(.)Z~.-
IL.v'Juj
.J
I-,
0 0
0 0
· ·
v)
C)
c2
hr
C~
I--
UJ
Z
Z
UJ
·
Z
~ Z
I"' ·
(~
¢k. I
C~J,.4Ob
,J
0
~ · ·
)NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN
0
UZI.-
ikv~uj
.J
· ·
I ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· ·
ml ·
I ·
I ·
· ·
I ·
ee I ·
~1 ·
· I
I~1
~1~1
eel ·
· ·
~1 ·
I~1
· ·
· I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
·
I ·
I I
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I I
· I
IZl
I~1
I~1
I~1
I~1
· I
I~1
I~1
I~1
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
· I
I ·
I ·
I ·
I ·
I ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
I ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
I |
· I
I i
· ·
I I
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
IZl
I
I~1
I~1
I ·
)NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN~~
O~
0
V
V
V
ii
tu
~ Z ~U
O~
(3
(JZIz-
~)~1
-r ·
u
I ·
· ·
· ·
· I
I ·
· ·
· ·
.4. · ·
· ·
· I
· ·
· ·
-- · ·
ujI I
( I ·
h · ·
· ·
I1--1
~'1(I
% · ·
-- · ·
UJI ·
I"l I
( · ·
· ·
ZI ·
:21 ·
~1 I
:'1
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
I ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I I
IZI
II,-I
I~.1
li,.,41
i,,vl
· ·
II,-.I
· ·
·
· ·
· I
· ·
I ·
· i
· I
I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· I
· I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· al
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
i~1.1
I ;
i,~,,.i
IC211
· I
~000000000000000000000000000~00
°°°~°°°°°°~~2~oo~~
N
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
February 7, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVAL OF MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING AGREEMENT FOR
OUTLINING BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE RELATING TO THE RETROFIT OF
A FLOOD WALL FOR TRACT 13566-3, LOCATED SOUTH OF WILSON AVENUE
ADJACENT TO THE SAN SEVAINE BASINS, SUBMITTED BY GENTRA CAPITAL
CORPORATION, A DELAWARE CORPORATION.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the attached Memorandum of Understanding Agreement
and authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign the same.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
As a condition of approval for the design review of Tract 13566-3, Gentra was conditioned to retrofit the
existing flood wall along the westerly boundary of the tract. Gentra currently has a bond for this work.
The MOU provides for a substitution of this bond. Also, the MOU provides Gentra to continue with the
development with the deposit of $115,000 to secure the retrofit.
The MOU is on file in the City Clerk's office.
Respectfully submitted, - t
William J. O'Ncil
City Engineer
WJO:DJ:dlw
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
FEBRUARY 7, 1996
TO:
Mayor and City Council members
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONTRACT FOR CONCERT SERIES AT THE EPICENTER
RECOMMENDATION
Approve entertainment contract between Acts Concert and the City of Rancho Cucamonga for
Acts to produce a minimum of six concerts at the Epicenter beginning with calendar year 1996.
BACKGROUND
Acts Concerts wants to produce a concert series annually at the Epicenter beginning with
calendar year 1996. The promoter will produce six to twelve concerts annually. Acts Concert is
aware that the stadium is not available for concerts on many dates reserved under a lease
between the City and Valley Baseball Club, Inc.
Acts will be responsible for all expenses related to producing concerts at the Epicenter, and Acts
shall follow all City procedures and policies. The City will grant Acts a three-year rolling
exclusive agreement. The agreement will end if a minimum of six concerts does not occur during
any calendar year or if Acts does not comply with terms of the agreement.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
R2 ~pect bmttte~t
~ry B. Fulwood ~
~~anager
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
February 7, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer
APPROVAL OF IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT, IMPROVEMENT
SECURITIES AND ORDERING THE ANNEXATION TO LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7 AND STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE
DISTRICT NOS. 1 AND 7 FOR C.U.P. 94-07, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF EAST AND HIGHLAND AVENUES, SUBMITTED BY W. S. D. C.
INC.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolutions approving C.U.P. 94-07
Improvement Agreement and Improvement Securities, ordering the annexation to Landscape
Maintenance District No. 7 and Street Lighting Maintenance District Nos. 1 and 7 and authorizing
the Mayor and the City Clerk to sign said agreement.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
C.U.P. 94-07, located at the southeast comer of East and Highland Avenues, in the Low Residential
District of the Etiwanda Specific Plan, was approved by the Planning Commission on July 27, 1994.
This project is for the construction of a 3,840 square foot temporary multi-purpose building on a 5.0
acre parcel.
The Contractor, W. S. D. C. Inc., has submitted an Improvement Agreement and Improvement
Securities to guarantee the construction of the off-site improvements in the following amounts:
Faithful Performance Bond:
Labor and Materials Bond:
$11,200.00
$5,600.00
_J
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
C.U.P. 94-07 - W.S.D.C. INC.
February 7, 1996
Page 2
Copies of the agreement and securities are available in the City Clerk's office.
A letter of approval has been received from the Cucamonga County Water District. The Consent
and Waiver to Annexation form signed by the Developer is on file in the City Clerk's office.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. O'Neil
City Engineer
Attachments
WJO:WV:dlw
RESOLUTION NO. q(.~7 "' d~[Z)~/
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT AND IMPROVEMENT
SECURITIES FOR C.U.P. 94-07
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California, has for its
consideration an Improvement Agreement executed on February 7, 1996, by W.S.D.C. Inc., for the
improvement of public fight-of-way adjacent to the real property specifically described therein, and
generally located at the southeast comer of East and Highland Avenues; and
WHEREAS, the installation of such improvements, described in said Improvement
Agreement and subject to the terms thereof, is to be done in conjunction with the development of
said real property as referred to as C.U.P. 94-07; and
WHEREAS, said Improvement Agreement is secured and accompanied by good and
sufficient Improvement Securities, which is identified in said Improvement Agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
That said Improvement Agreement be and the same is approved and
the Mayor is authorized to execute same on behalf of said City and
the City Clerk is authorized to attest thereto; and
That said Improvement Securities are accepted as good and
sufficient, subject to approval as to form and content thereof by the
City Attorney.
RESOLUTION NO.
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 C.U.P. 94-07
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Califomia, has previously
formed a special maintenance district pursuant to the terms of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972", being Division 15, Part 2 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, said
special maintenance district known and designated as Landscape Maintenance District No. 7, Street
Lighting Maintenance District No. 1 and Street Lighting Maintenance District No. 7 (hereinafter
referred to as the "Maintenance District"); and
WHEREAS, the provisions of Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the "Landscaping and Lighting Act
of 1972" authorize the annexation of additional territory to the Maintenance District; and
WHEREAS, at this time the City Council is desirous to take proceedings to annex the
property described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this referenced to the
Maintenance District; and
WHEREAS, all of the owners of property within the territory proposed to be annexed to the
Maintenance District have filed with the City Clerk their written consent to the proposed annexation
without notice and hearing or filing of an Engineer's "Report".
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1: That the above recitals are all true and correct.
SECTION 2: That this legislative body hereby orders the annexation of the property as
shown in Exhibit "A" and the work program areas as described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto to the
· Maintenance District.
SECTION 3: That all future proceedings of the Maintenance District, including the levy of
all assessments, shall be applicable to the territory annexed hereunder.
EXHIBIT 'A'
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 7
STREET LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NOS. I AND 7
C6/~' .~g- d~7
~ STREET L/CSI/T I
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO
.~,....~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA 5"U~ .~4'- O Z
STREET LIGHTS:
Dist.
S1
S7
EXHIBIT "B"
WORK PROGRAM
PROJECT: C.U.P. 94-07
NUMBER OF LAMPS
5800L 9500L 16~000L 22,000L 27,500L
--- 1 .........
LANDSCAPING:
Community
Equestrian
Trail
Dist. D.G.S.F.
L7
Turf Non-Turf Trees
S.F. S.F. Ea.
...... 1
ASSESSMENT UNITS:
Assessment Units
By District
Parcel Acres S 1 S7 L7
N/A 5 10 10 10
Annexation Date: February 7, 1996
Form Date 11/16/94
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
Febmary 7, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager,
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
Cathy A. Becker, Public Works Inspector II
AUTHORIZE THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A 'nOTICE OF COMPLETION"
FOR ELLENA PARK PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve the Ellena Park Phase I Improvement Project, located
within the Victoria Vineyard South Villiage at the northwest comer of Base Line Road and
Rochester Avenue, and authorize the City Engineer to file a "Notice of Completion."
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The subject project has been completed in accordance with the approved plans and specifications
and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase II improvements are to be completed prior to the
issuance of the 451st building permit, within the Victoria Vineyards South Village, per the Victoria
Community Plan amendment 94-01. Currently 401 building permits have been issued.
Respectively submitted,
William J: O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:CAB:sd
Attachment
RESOLUTION NO. q (.~ -- {~)/(D
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR ELLENA PARK, PHASE I AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF COMPLETION
FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Ellena Park, Phase I have
been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion is required to be filed, certifying the work
complete.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
resolves, that the work is hereby accepted and the City Engineer is authorized to sign and file a
Notice of Completion with the County Recorder of San Bemardino County.
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 7, 1996
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
CONSIDERATION OF PERMIT APPLICATION BY COLE-SCHAEFER
AMBULANCE TO PROVIDE BLS AMBULANCE SERVICE IN RANCHO
CUCAMONGA
The City has received an application from Cole-Schaefer Ambulance Service to
provide Basic Life Support (BLS) service in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. BLS
service is non-emergency service and the ambulances are staffed by Emergency
Medical Technicians (EMTs) rather than paramedics.
In reviewing Cole-Schaefer's application, the staff has found it to be complete.
However, if a permit were to be granted it would have to exclude all parts of the City
east of Rochester Avenue, as Cole-Schaefer does not have a County permit to provide
services in that area. A County permit is required as a prerequisite to obtaining a
City permit.
While Cole-Schaefer is not permitted by the County to provide paramedic services and
can only operate BLS transport west of Rochester, the City Council could still issue a
permit. However, in addition to considering the completeness of their application,
the City Council can also consider the need and necessity of having an additional
ambulance provider in the City. Section 8.18.060 B. (4) of the Municipal Code states
that the City Council may deny a permit if "...there is insufficient need for such
additional ambulance service within the city, provided that the sole fact that there is
an existing prorider or providers shall not constitute sufficient proof that the
condition exists." In other words, the fact that we already have a permit issued to
MedTrans (Mercy Ambulance) is not sufficient cause to deny Cole-Schaefer's permit.
However, should the City Council find that services currently provided are adequate
to meet the needs of the community as far as BLS is concerned or that the addition of
another permittee could be detrimental in some way to the health and safety of
residents, then they would have grounds to deny the permit.
In addition to the above factors, the Fire Chief has reviewed this application. The
Fire Chief's concern is for maintaining the City Council's and Fire Department's goal
of providing the very best public safety services in the community. Our current
ambulance provider serves the City from five locations in the City and all
ambulances are staffed with paramedics to provide ALS services. The Fire Chiefs
preference is to have all ambulances operating in the City permitted and staffed with
paramedics and capable of handling Advanced Life Support emergencies. His
rationale for this preference is to insure that the ambulance company is better able
to handle a call that might deteriorate from a BLS call to one requiring ALS services.
For this reason, the Fire Chief would prefer the City permit only those companies
able to provide the highest level of service to our residents.
CONSIDERATION OF AMBULANCE PERMIT
February 7, 1996
Page 2
After considering the above and the testimony to be given at the public hearing, the
City Council will need to direct staff to issue the permit or to deny the permit based on
community need and necessity. Based on the City Council's decision, the staff will
prepare the necessary follow-up.
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
February 7, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-26 - SAM'S PLACE - Consideration of an appeal
of the Planning Commission's decision in denying a request to serve distilled liquor
in conjunction with a restaurant and billlard hall, located at 6620 Carnelian Street
in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 59, 60, & 61.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission's
decision in denying the Conditional Use Permit and deny the appeal. A Resolution of Denial is
attached to this report for Council action.
BACKGROUND: On December 13, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
to review the Conditional Use Permit for the serving of distilled liquor and the related Entertainment
Permit for having entertainment. At that public hearing, the Commission received testimony from
the applicant as well as from residents who spoke in opposition to the two permits. Citing
incompatibility of the proposed uses with the adjacent residential neighborhood, the Commission
denied the two permits with a unanimous vote· On December 18, 1995, the City received an
appeal for the Conditional Use Permit. The appeal did not include the Entertainment Permit·
ANALYSIS:
A Conditional Use Permit is required for a bar that serves beer, wine or distilled liquor in the
Neighborhood Commercial District. In reviewing the Conditional Use Permit application, the
Planning Commission discussed and deliberated on the following issues:
Location. The business is within a neighborhood shopping center, which is immediately
adjacent to single family homes to the west. This is not the first hearing for this business site
relating to neighborhood impacts. Various mitigations have been implemented in an attempt
to allow similar type requests back as far as 1978. Sound attenuation measures such as the
sound wall at the west property boundary and sound buffers in the interior of the business
premise have not solved the nuisance problems. The Commission found that the site is not
suited to having a bar because of its close proximity to the existing single family
neighborhood to the west.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-26 - SAM'S PLACE
February 7, 1996
Page 2
Nature of the Proposed Use. The Commission found that most restaurants with the
incidental serving of beer and wine usually have a closing time of 10 p.m. for weekdays and
11 p.m. for weekends. Therefore, such uses in a neighborhood shopping center have been
found compatible to and harmonious with adjacent residential use. The Commission found
that most restaurants that have full bars (the serving of beer, wine or distilled liquor), would
usually extend their hours of operation for the bar as late as 2 a.m., which is allowed under
the Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) license, even though the restaurant side might be closed
by 10 or 11 p.m. Because of the nature of the proposed use, the potential for nuisance
problems, such as noise and loitering activities in the parking lot, etc., exist. The
Commission felt that previous limitations and restrictions placed on this business location,
when it did have the permit to serve distilled spirts and entertainment, did not completely
alleviate the nuisance problems and, therefore, found the nature of the proposed use not
compatible with the adjoining neighborhood.
Historic Information. The Commission also discussed the history of nuisance problems
dating back to December of 1978. Between the period of December 1978 and through 1983,
where a previous business owner (Boar's Head) had the bar and entertainment, the
Commission had to address complaints from adjacent residents and consider appropriate
control measures. When the business hours were restricted to 11 p.m., and live
entertainment was eliminated, the City did not receive complaints between the period of 1985
through 1988. When the business reopened in 1989 and 1990 as a restaurant (Stratton's)
with those restrictions in place, the City again did not receive any complaints. When the
applicant took over the business, extended the hours of operation and added entertainment,
the City received complaints. The Commission concluded that given the close proximity of
the business to the residential neighborhood, and because the residents had experienced
nuisance problems, adding the proposed use would not be compatible.
Public Safety Concerns. The Commission found that their concern of an increased need for
police service was confirmed by the police records. Between April and September of 1994, .
a 6-months period where Sam's Place had a full bar service, there was a total of 17 service
calls· Between October of 1994 to the present, a 15-months period, when the business did
not have a full service bar or entertainment, there was a total of 8 service calls. It dropped
an average of 50 percent in a 6-month period.
FACTS FOR FINDING: Before approving a Conditional Use Permit, the City Council must make
the following findings:
The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development
Code, and the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
3. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-26 - SAM'S PLACE
February 7, 1996
Page 3
CONCLUSION: Based on the public testimony and the identified concerns, the Commission
concluded that the proposed use, the serving of beer, wine or distilled liquor as a bar, would not
be compatible to the adjacent single family residential use and would not be in accord with the
goals and objectives of the General Plan because it would create nuisances for the adjacent single
family residences. The Commission recommends the Council uphold their decision. Attached for
the Council's reference are copies of the December 13, 1995 Planning Commission minutes and
staff report.
BB:NF:sp
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" Applicant's Appeal Letter and a Resident's Letter of Opposition
Exhibit "B" Planning Commission Resolution 95-60
Exhibit "C" December 13, 1995 Planning Commission minutes and staff report
Exhibit "D" - Police records
City Council Resolution of Denial
_. ~JOHN D. MANNERINO
"8AL BRIGUGLIO
MITCHELL ROTH'
December 18, 1995
HAND DELIVERED
'THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
· CITY COUNCIL'S OFFICE
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Conditional Use Permit 9.5-26 7 Sam's Place
DEC 18 1995 .,-
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMON~/-~ ":
CITY CLERK
Council Members:
Fir. and Mrs. Sam Pellegrino dO hereby appeal to the City Council
the decision of the 'Planning Conunission on December 13, 1995, on
the hereinafter·stated agenda item: The denial of Conditional Use
Permit 95-26; permission to serve distilled spirits.
The purpose of this appeal is to allow review of this decision by
the City Council. We enclose the appeal fee of $126.
Should further information or documentation be required:in order'to
begin this appeal process, please contact the undersigned
in~ediately. Thank you for your anticipated courtesy and
cooperation in this matter.
Very truly yours,
,7.& BRi7 io
BYM/ f~.'~~/~ ino ~~
e~/e~st
9333 BASELINE ROAD. SUITE 110 / RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
TEL (909)980-1100 / FAX (909)941-8610
December 6, 1995
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729
Attention City Planner
RECEIVED
DEC t 1 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm your opposition to the conditional use
permits, 95-26, for hard liquor, and 95~01, entertainment -- Sam's Place.
Our first question is, how many times do we have to fight for our right to have
the peace and quiet that can be expected of a residential neighborhood?
The second question is, why is it that the dty requires the parks to close at
10:30pm each evening because they adjoin residential axeas, and still consider a
bar and dance hall activity to operate in the same residential neighborhood?
This owner has not proved that he could be a good neighbor and comply with
any of the regulations in the past. His lack of compliance led to many
confrontations with the city, including a physical confrontation with coed
enforcement personnel.
Over the years the continual uncontrolled noise and disturbances caused by the
patron activity associated with this business has been very annoying to us
property owners that live adjacent to this business center.
Those of us that have to get up early in the morning to start our commute to
work every day would like to be able to get a good night's sleep. This means
going to bed early and being able to sleep through the night without the
disturbances that are constantly going on in the parking lot.
As home owners we would like to be able to enjoy the privacy and quiet that one
ordinarily expects to have when they buy a home. Most evenings this was not
possible because of the activities going on in the parking lot during the hours of
operation of Sam's Place.
The noise abatement techniques that were suggested provided only minimal
relief. This is not the type of business that caters to a quite clientele. The city has
made a significant effort in its attempts to integrate this business into the
neighborhood and it simply did not working out very well.
",AZ' 1
December 6, 1995
made a significant effort in its attempts to integrate this business into the
neighborhood and it simply did not working out very well.
As home owners we have made significant investments in our homes, and we
would like to be able to enjoy the full benefits of those investments. Also, we do
not wish to suffer any further loss of resale value because of the activities of this
business. As home owners we feel that the city has been very generous in trying
to help this business succeed. Now it's the home owners turn to receive city
support to protect our investments.
For the above reasons, we adamantly oppose the grating of both the liquor and
entertainment permits.
Lets' keep residential areas residential and keep commercial business areas for
businesses.
Thank you all once again for dealing with this very sensitive matter.
fJoe Fabis 6611 Topaz
Alta Loma, Ca 91701
"A
RESOLUTION NO. 95-60
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 95-26 FOR THE REQUEST TO SERVE HARD LIQUOR IN
CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND BILLlARD HALL
LOCATED AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 208-811-56, 59, 60, & 61.
A. Recitals.
1. Mr. Sam Pellegrino has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit
No. 95-26, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th day of December 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on December 13, 1995, including written and oral staff repods, together
with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 6620 Camelian Street and is presently
improved with a shopping center.
b. The property to the nodh is vacant and planned for a future freeway, the propedies
to the south add east are shopping centers, and the propedies to the west are single family homes.
c. The proposed use is for the serving of hard liquor within an existing restaurant and
billlard hall with a leased space of 4,200 square feet. A related proposed use under separate
application is the proposal to offer entedainment, consisting of a disc jockey and a 3 to 4-piece live
band. The hours of operation for the full bar are 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. The hours for entertainment are
9 p.m. to I a.m., daily.
d. West of the shopping center are single family residences. They have been
adversely impacted by nuisance problems such as, loitering activities and loud noise within the
parking lot in the late evening and early morning hours before by the same business that previously
had a full bar service.
e. Because of the nuisance problems and non-compliance with conditions of approval,
the City conducted revocation hearings in 1991 and 1994. On October 5, 1994, the applicant
relinquished his Conditional Use Permit for the full bar.
,P7
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-26 - SAM PELLEGRINO
December 13, t 995
Page 2
95-60
f. The City did not receive complaints from the adjacent residents after Sam's Place
stopped serving hard liquor.
g. The nature of the business will have the potential for nuisance problems such as
loud noise and loitering activities within the parking lot in the late evening and early morning hours.
These types of nuisance problems will adversely impact the adjacent single family residences.
h. The Commercial Section of the Development Code states that the intent of a
Neighborhood Commercial District is to have uses that are compatible to and harmonious with the
character of surrounding residential area. Also, one of the goals of the General Plan is to avoid
creating nuisances among adjacent land uses. Because of the potential for nuisance problems, the
proposed use will not be compatible with the adjacent single family residential use.
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. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to propedies or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each o~' the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the application identified
above in this Resolution is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder,
pursuant to Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby denies the application.
The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF DECEMBER 1995.
P~IO OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: . .
· ATTEST: ~
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-26 - SAM PELLEGRINO
December 13, 1995
Page 3
95-60
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
cedify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 13th day of December 1995, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
Exhi'bF L
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed with Chairman Barker.
Commissioner Melcher asked if the conditions would still be included.
Mr. Hanson felt the conditions would still apply.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to approve Large Family Day
Care 95-04 with modifications to indicate that the action was being made under
protest and a statement that the Planning Commission finds that such action is
detrimental to public health and safety and the welfare of the community. Motion
carried by the following vote:
AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
ABSTAIN: MCNIEL
- carried
Mr. Hanson observed that the staff report recommends that a letter be sent to the
Department of Social Services expressing the City's concerns with the safety of
the facility at this location and recommending that the Department deny the
permit.
chairman Barker directed staff to send a letter to the Department of Social
Services regarding the Commission's findings. He requested that the letter
indicate the Commission is talking about this one specific site and one specific
problem and not opposed to child care centers in general.
, , , , ,
CONDITION~T. USE PERMIT 95-26 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to serve hard liquor
in conjunction with an existing restaurant and billiard hall, located at 6620
Carnelian Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56,
59, 60, & 61.
Ce
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to offer entertainment
consisting of a disc jockey and live band in conjunction with an existing
restaurant and billiard hall, located at 6620 Carnelian Street in the
Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 59, 60, & 61.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and stated an additional
letter of opposition had been received. She said she had also received a call
from another resident who could not attend this evening's meeting and wished to
voice his opposition.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
John Mannerino, attorney, 5333 Baseline Road, #120, Rancho Cucamonga, stated the
application was not a new issue and the Planning Commission had addressed the
matter with this owner and previous owners· He said that Mr. Pellegrino had
indicated he wanted to expand his operation by selling distilled spirits and
having limited entertainment. He acknowledged that the staff report reflects the
entertainment requested by the application, but said that Mr. Pellegrino had
advised him he was actually seeking a lesser level of entertainment. He observed
that the applicant had surrendered the entertainment permit over a year ago. He
stated there had been no complaints over the past year although he acknowledged
that staff had now received a letter of complaint· He thought it would be an
error to assume that the lack of complaints is merely because of the demise of
the sale of distilled spirits and entertainment. He felt those assumptions do
Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 13, 1995
~Xh|'bl'+ "5~~ ~
not give credit to the fact that security is now provided at the door, the
sidewalks and and back area are being patrolled to prevent lingering outside, and
parking is prohibited behind the establishment and against the wall. He thought
those actions were as significant as the demise of the sale of distilled spirits
in perciptating no complaints for over 13 months. He stated that at the time the
Conditional Use Permit was surrendered there were no live bands. He commented
that Mr. Pellegrino had asked him to indicate that he had listened to the
Commission and made the changes they recommended. He observed that the
establishment was enlarged by 70 percent four months ago over what it had been
when it was last before the Commission. He noted there is a kareoke permit for
Wednesday nights and, at times, the crowds have been larger than the crowds which
troubled the neighbors in the past. He believed that showed Mr. Pellegrino is
now running the establishment effectively. He requested that the Commission
consider the Conditional Use Permit separately from the Entertainment Permit
application. Mr. Mannerino said the menu has been expanded and he felt distilled
spirits are an important part of dining. He thought the sale of distilled
spirits raises different issues from those which are connected to entertainment.
He felt it would be irrational to say that it would be more difficult to control
people drinking distilled spirits than it would be those drinking beer and wine.
He noted that most of the restaurants in the area have some sort of
entertainment. He acknowledged that the concern is with the proximity to the
adjoining residences. He felt the neighborhood is not a quiet One and noted that
in the future a freeway will be constructed less than 200 feet away. He
requested that the matter be decided upon the issues, not by newspaper coverage.
He asked that the Commission consider the changes Mr. Pellegrino has made in the
operation of the establishment. He stated that the crowds are larger now and
there have been no apparent disruptions in the neighborhood. He asked that the
Commission consider each application separately and consider if some sort of
entertainment would be acceptable if the Commission feels the entertainment
requested is not acceptable.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated it had been his understanding that the permit for the
billiard hall had been granted to Sam Pellegrino's son.
Mr. Manerino replied that Tony Pellegrino, Sam's son, is one of the owners of the
premises. He did not think that Sam Pellegrino had abandoned his ownership as
a condition of approval for the billiard hall.
Commissioner Tolstoy only recalled that Tony Pellegrino had made the application
and the City had been told that Sam Pellegrino was going to move his business to
a new location.
Mr. Mannerino said the liquor license for beer and wine remains in Sam
Pellegrino's name.
Sam Pellegrino, 6620 Carnelian, Street, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he is still
involved.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked who runs the business.
Mr. Mannerino said that it is run by Tony Pellegrino.
Commissioner McNiel asked Mr. Mannerino to expand upon his comment that there is
a discrepancy between the entertainment requested and that noted in the staff
report.
Planning Commission Minutes
Exhl'b l'+ "56°
-7-
December 13, 1995
Mr. Pellegrino stated he would prefer to have a deejay rather than a band. He
said he would like to have a band perhaps once or twice a month, but he would
like a deejay five times a week.
Chairman Barker asked if the request was for both bands and a deejay.
Mr. Pellegrino said he would be willing to give up the bands, but he would like
one once or twice a month.
Commissioner McNiel stated there have been multiple meetings regarding the
problems and he questioned why the recommendations were not put into place until
the Conditional Use Permit was canceled.
Mr. Pellegrino said he had made a mistake and he apologized.
Commissioner McNiel stated he has been a patron and he felt that Mr. Pellegrino
runs a nice bar. He said management promptly deals with any patrons causing
problems inside the bar; however, the problems happen outside. He noted there
had been many threats by the City before anything was done and he feared the same
pattern would develop.
Mr. Pellegrino said he would be more careful and put more security outside. He
thought his son will probably do a better job than he had done.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if there is now a security person in the parking lot.
Mr. Pellegrino replied that they have about three security people on weekends
with one being in the parking lot. He said they have always had security, but
the security had not been as strong on the outside before the City Council
indicated they would pull the permit.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if there had previously been a distilled beverage
license.
Mr.' Mannerino replied that there has been and still is a license from Alcohol
Beverage Control for distilled beverages, including beer, wine, and distilled
liquor but he does not have a conditional use permit to sell distilled spirits.
Commissioner Lumpp asked if there had not been problems as a result of the sale
of the distilled spirits.
Mr. Mannerino felt the problems had not been as a result of selling distilled
spirits versus the beer and wine which can now be sold. He thought the problems
existed because they had not dealt with the proper way to ensure a quiet
departure from the premises, including the shopping center. He stated there is
no question that any establishment which sells alcohol for consumption creates
more of a risk than a flower shop. He said it is a question of moderation and
control. He felt the argument fails in attributing problems to the sale of
distilled spirits versus fermented and brewed spirits. He did not feel it is the
sale that causes a disruption, but rather the nature of how the patrons are
overseen as they depart the premises.
Commissioner Lumpp noted that a marked improvement was seen subsequent to the
surrender of the permit for the hard liquor. He asked what has changed so that
the City should now allow reinstitution of the permit.
Mr. Mannerino said the manner in which the establishment is operated has changed.
He said it is up to the Commission to assess the credibility and trust but he
Planning Commission Minutes 8 December 13, 19959
noted there had been no complaints for 13 months even though patrons still had
the ability to consume alcohol. He felt that proves the bar can be run without
causing problems for the neighborhood. He stressed that entertainment is a
separate issue. He agreed that allowing bands may be a legitimate concern to
people in the neighborhood and he felt that request should be handled separately.
Joe Fabis, 6611 Topaz, Rancho Cucamonga, stated his property immediately borders
the parking lot. He said he has appeared before the Commission as often as the
applicant has. He indicated he was one of the original residents who initially
signed a petition to allow Mr. Pellegrino a chance to sell hard liquor. He said
there are a number of things about the application which are not consistent. He
noted that the application indicates staff has been reduced from 24 to 12 people
because the business has decreased. He thought the decreased business would be
why there is less noise than previously. He stated that he cannot play tennis
on a City court after 10:30 at night because it is too noisy for adjacent
residents. He felt that part of the City's philosophy is that residential areas
should be residential areas. He thought the request is inconsistent with that
philosophy and would be contrary to the image the City has tried to promote. He
said he has submitted letters of complaint back to 1992 addressing the problem.
He felt the problem has always been the way the facility and business is operated
and managed. He said there had been many promises as to what would be done, but
he felt the noise cannot be mitigated without a 20-foot high wall. He noted that
a comment had been made that a freeway will be constructed in the area and he
said the State spends a lot of money to mitigate the noise from freeways. He
stated part of the problem is the noise in the parking lot from motorcycles,
rewing of engines, loud radios, and loud discussions. He said he has to get up
at 4:00 in the morning to commute to Los Angeles and he does not like being
awakened at 2:00 a.m. He commented there had been efforts for four years to
address the problem. He stated that Mr. Pellegrino is on probation for
confronting a City employee who was trying to investigate compliance with some
of the requirements and he felt the City should not necessarily believe things
will change. He felt Mr. Pellegrino had been given a fair chance and he blew it.
He said he was tired of coming to the City to argue for rights of the residential
neighborhood and he thought the matter should be permanently put to rest.
Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Fabis was opposed to both applications.
Mr. Fabis stated that anything that will increase the traffic volume will
increase the nuisance potential, whether it is a band, disc jockey, or hard
liquor. He said he does not care what goes on in the building if it would stay
in the building, but he objects to the noise from the inside when the doors are
left open and from patrons in the parking lot.
Commissioner Melcher asked Mr. Fabis his opinion of the level of disturbance in
the time since Mr. Pellegrino had voluntarily surrendered his conditional use
permit and stopped serving distilled spirits.
Mr. Fabis said it is tolerable because people are leaving earlier.
Commissioner Melcher asked if he had been aware of any increase in business by
the addition of the 1,500 square foot billiard hall.
Mr. Fabis said the applicant's letter indicates business is down almost
30 percent and he had not noticed an increase.
Hugh Hairston, 663 Topaz Street, Rancho Cucamonga, concurred with Mr. Fabis. He
said he was surprised the matter was once again before the Planning Commission.
He indicated he attended the meeting where the conditional use permit was
Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 13, 1995
canceled and had thought Mr. Pellegrino was going to move his operation
elsewhere. He said he was surprised the billiard hall expansion had later been
approved. He thought that even if Mr. Pellegrino is a good manager, the world
does not revolve around bars. He felt that people who are drinking distilled
spirits become loose and rowdy and security is required. He felt that drinking
leads to loud, sometimes profane discussions and loud radios. He commented that
he lives across the street from Mr. Fabis and the noise disturbs the
neighborhood. He apologized that he had not complained over the past year when
he was awakened by the noise and felt he should make it a point to complain more.
He stated he was hereby registering a formal complaint. He thought it had been
determined that this type of establishment was not compatible with the General
Plan designation of his area. He said it was his understanding that a
neighborhood shopping center is supposed to cater to the neighbors but the bar
attracts patrons from all types of communities because Mr. Pellegrino is well
known since he advertises on television. He feared that if the permit is
granted, Mr. Pellegrino would want to expand even further or others would want
to copy the success and perhaps add a bar in the Vons center across the street.
He agreed that a lot of money will be spent to construct sound barriers to
nullify the effects of the freeway. He said he and his wife agree that Mr.
Pellegrino's request is not compatible with the community, as the business
creates a disturbance.
Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McNiel stated that he knows Mr. Pellegrino and while the operation
is well run inside, the problems exist outside. He said problems have existed
at that location since the City first allowed the Boar's Head to go into the
center' as a restaurant and it then transitioned into a bar. He was troubled by
the question he had asked Mr. Pellegrino regarding why it took such strong
actions by the City before changes were instituted. He felt the freeway issue
is unrelated and that un-attenuated noise from one location does not mean that
noise from another location is acceptable. He noted that the application
indicates that employment is down from 24 to 12 people but Mr. Mannerino
indicated the crowds are bigger than they were before on Wednesday, Friday, and
Saturday evenings and he felt there was a disparity there. He thought the
situation is currently acceptable because of previous actions, but he feared it
would lead to a return of previous problems if the application to sell distilled
spirits is approved. He indicated he was not sure about allowing disc jockeys
because problems had been created in the past with live bands with the back door
being left open. He said he could not find a good reason to approve the
applications.
Commissioner Tolstoy said he had been thinking about what a neighborhood center
is and noted the City has tried over the years to make such centers compatible
with surrounding neighborhoods. He did not feel that bars belong in such centers
mainly because residents in the area tend to go to bed early and such businesses
tend to produce loud noises such as playing of radios, revving of motorcycle and
vehicle engines, and squealing of tires late at night. He thought he would vote
against such uses in any neighborhood shopping center, regardless of who the
applicant is.
Commissioner Melcher stated he had supported Sam's in the past. He thought the
problems seemed to have been solved when the conditional use permit was
surrendered and he did not feel the City should approve a request to reinstate
the permit.
Commissioner Lumpp agreed with the other Commissioners. He said the information
provided by staff seems to indicate that the situation improved after the
Planning Commission Minutes -10- December 13, 1995~
cessation of the sale of hard liquor. He noted the applicant now wants to go
back to doing the same things that caused the problems in the past. He recalled
that one of the reasons the back door had been left open in the past, was that
it gets hot inside. He thought it might be a help if the applicant had control
of the building and could install enough air conditioning units so the door would
not have to be open. He thought it might also make a difference if the applicant
controlled the property and could build a higher sound attenuation wall. He did
not feel the applicant has such control of the property; and he feared that if
the permits were now granted, the applicant may again be appearing before the
Commission in the future apologizing that he had made a mistake in not
controlling the situation. He felt other uses are more compatible in the center.
He said he could not justify telling the neighbors that the applicant deserves
another opportunity to disturb the neighborhood and he could not support the
application.
Chairman Barker recalled when the Boar's Head was allowed in the center in the
early 1980s because it was a restaurant but in time it evolved into a bar with
a minimum menu. He felt the Planning Commission and C~ty Council have
traditionally gone out of their way to work with whoever owns a property in order
to salvage business. He noted that the wall to the west of the property is a
sound attenuation wall which was installed in an attempt to mitigate the sound.
He noted that readings were taken on the outside and there were concerns about
the type of door and it was changed. He said planters and chains were installed
in the early 1980s in an effort to prevent parking next to the wall, but none of
those measures worked. He did not feel a bar and entertainment center works in
that location, regardless of who the owner/operator is. He said that when enough
people are attracted to the business to make a profit, they end up in the parking
lot late in the evening and they make noise which disturbs residents who live in
close proximity. He said that, regardless of the applicant, he could not support
a conditional use permit or entertainment permit for such uses in that center
because he did not feel such uses belong in that location.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution denying
Conditional Use Permit 95-26. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE - carried
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by McNiel, to adopt the resolution denying
Entertainment Permit 95-01. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE - carried
, , , ,
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
D. CONSIDERATION OF A REOUEST TO FENCE OFF SERENA PLACE, A CUL-DE-SAC STREET,
AT ITS CONNECTION TO LEMON AVENUE (Continued from November 8, 1995)
Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that none of the residents who had appeared at
the November 8 meeting were in the audience tonight. He asked if the Commission
wanted to go ahead and act. He noted that the two adjacent property owners had
spoken at the last meeting and knew the matter was continued to tonight's meeting
so that Commissioner Tolstoy could be present.
Planning Commission Minutes -11- December 13, 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF RF, PORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
December 13, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-26 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to serve hard
liquor in conjunction with an existing restaurant and billiard hall, located at 6620
Carnelian Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 59,
60, & 61.
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 95-01 SAM'S PLACE - A request to offer
entertainment consisting of a disc jockey and a live band in conjunction with an
existing restaurant and billiard hall, located at 6620 Carnelian Street in the
Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 201-811-56, 59, 60, & 61.
BACKGROUND: Sam's Place previously had a Conditional Use Permit (Conditional Use Permit
78-03) for a full bar and an Entertainment Permit (Entertainment Permit 91-02) for a duet consisting
of a singer and a guitarist. Because of nuisance problems and noncompliance with conditions of
approval, those two permits were brought before Planning Commission and City Council for review
between November of 1993 and October of 1994. At the conclusion of the public hearing process
on October 5, 1994, the applicant, Mr. Sam Pellegrino, relinquished his Conditional Use Permit and
Entertainment Permit. Since that time, the applicant has continued his restaurant business including
the serving of beer and wine, which is permitted by right. On April 25, 1995, the applicant expanded
his business by taking over the vacant unit next to his restaurant and obtained a Conditional Use
Permit (Conditional Use Permit 95-07) to operate a billiard hall. A total of 6 Coin-operated games
and 10 pool tables were approved for Sam's Place.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-26 & EP 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE
December 13, 1995
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
Proposed Uses: The applicant proposes to have a full bar service and offer entertainment for
his patrons. The proposed entertainment consists of a 3- to 4-piece live band on Friday,
Saturday, and Sunday, and a disc jockey Monday through Saturday. The hours for
entertainment are between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. The hours of operation for the full bar are
between 11 a.m. and 2 a.m. The stage for the disc jockey and the band is located to the far east
side of the unit as shown in Exhibit "C." Attached for the Commission's review is the
applicant's letter requesting the full bar and the entertainment.
B. Response to Applicant' s Letter:
Applicant stated his business has been subjected to limitations on their growth potential
because of a previous owner's negligence. The review of a Conditional Use Permit or
an Entertainment Permit application is based on the General Plan, the zoning, the site's
location, the compatibility of the proposed use with the surrounding land use, and any
other identified issues. Each application stands alone and is on its own merits. Through
the permit process, mitigation or limitations are imposed to ensure a proposed use will
operate in a manner compatible with surrounding uses. The mitigation imposed on
Sam's Place previously was to address the specific problems identified for the site and
the business so that it could be a good neighbor.
Applicant stated other comparable businesses have not faced the opposition nor have
been denied the potential opportunities. As mentioned above, each Conditional Use
Permit or Entertainment Permit application is subjected to the same review process. The
issue of whether other businesses have more or fewer restrictions are directly in response
to the severity of the problems or issues identified for each case.
Applicant stated he was informed that his applications would be denied by the Planning
Commission. In reviewing any application, staff will inform an applicant of any
identified issues prior to the hearing. Staff did inform Mr. Pellegrino that the
compatibility issue is still a serious concern.
Applicant questioned whether it is customary for staff to canvass the neighborhood.
Staff does not and has not canvassed the neighborhood. Surrounding property owners
were mailed the required public hearing notice. Staff has received letters and/or phone
calls from residents who have responded to public hearing notices.
Applicant questioned why the City allows Jack's (formerly Bob's Big Boy) to serve beer
and wine if alcohol suggests "negatives." Jack's is a restaurant similar to Sam's Place.
The incidental serving of beer and wine in conjunction with a restaurant is a permitted
use.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-26 & EP 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE
December 13, 1995
Page 3
C,
Compatibility of use: The Commercial Section of the Development Code states that the intent
of a Neighborhood Commercial District is to have uses that are compatible to, and harmonious
with, the character of the surrounding residential area. This intent is to implement one of the
goals of the General Plan which is to avoid creating nuisances among adjacent land uses.
The main concern staff has in reviewing the proposal to add a full bar and entertainment is the
compatibility of the use to the surrounding land uses. The business premise is within a
neighborhood shopping center, which is immediately adjacent to single family homes to the
west. The tenants within the center consist of a mixture of retail shops, a karate school, a
restaurant, a bank, a takeout food user, and office use. The addition of the full bar and the
entertainment should not adversely affect the surrounding businesses in the center, but may,
or has in the past adversely affected the adjacent residential neighborhood.
Since Sam's Place stopped serving hard liquor and offering entertainment, from October of
1994 to the present, staff has not received complaints from the adjacent residents. Because
of the nature of the proposed use, the potential for nuisance problems, such as loud music from
the entertainment, noise and loitering activities in the parking lot, etc., exist. Limitations,
restrictions, or mitigation can be placed on the business to reduce and alleviate any nuisance
problems. The City has experienced the ineffectiveness of specific mitigations placed on
Sam's Place under pi'evious permits for this same site. Therefore, staff questions the
appropriateness of allowing the full bar and entertainment for Sam's Place because of the close
proximity of the use to the existing single family homes.
Public Safetv Issues: A concern with the full bar and entertainment use is the potential for
an increased need for police service. According to a representative from the Police
Department, they responded a total of eight times to this address between October of 1994 and
the present. He stated that considering the type of existing business, a restaurant with the
serving of beer and wine, the number of calls is not excessive. However, he stated that the
addition of a full bar and entertainment will generate a greater number of police service calls.
Environmental Assessment: The proposed use is categorically exempt per Section 15301 of
the California Environmental Quality Act.
FACTS FOR FINDING:
Before approving a Conditional Use Permit, the Planning Commission must make the
following findings:
The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development
Code, and the purpose of the district in which the site is located.
2. 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-26 & EP 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE
December 13, 1995
Page 4
The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development
Code.
Based on concems listed in the analysis section of this report, staff finds that the proposed use
will not be compatible with the adjacent single family residential use. It would not be in
accord with the goals and objectives of the General Plan because of creating nuisances for the
adjacent single family residences.
To consider the Entertainment Permit, the Commission must hear and determine all the facts
and evidence relevant to the applicant and the supervisory employees, as well as the
entertainment proposed, including the nature and location of the proposed entertainment. The
Commission may approve the permit if it finds and determines the following, or may deny the
permit if it finds any of the following:
The conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would not be contrary
to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.
The premise or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal, improper, or
disorderly manner.
The applicant or any other 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 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 had any approval, permit or license issued in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or
the provision of entertainment revoked within the preceding five years.
4. The granting of the application would create a public nuisance.
,
The normal operation of the premises would interfere with the peace and quite of any
surrounding residential neighborhood.
The applicant has made a false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the
required application.
Based on the above identified concerns, staff finds that the granting of the proposed
entertainment will interfere with the peace and quite of the westerly adjacent residential
neighborhood, and will be contrary to the public health, safety, and welfare
Exhib :/' " p--4"--- (ca,
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-26 & EP 95-01 - SAM'S PLACE
December 13, 1995
Page 5
CORRESPONDENCE: Both items were advertised as public hearings in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the site and the surrounding properties were posted, and notices were sent to the
adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project site and the tenants in the shopping center.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Commission deny Conditional Use Permit 95-
26 and Entertainment Permit 95-01 through the adoption of the attached resolutions.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:NF:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter dated November 22, 1995
Exhibit "B" Site Plan
Exhibit "C" Floor Plan
Exhibit "D" - Police Report dated October 1994
Resolution of Denial for Conditional Use Permit 95-26
Resolution of Denial for Entertainment Permit 95-01
ixhibff
o
RECEIVED
Sam's Place
6620 Carnelian Street
Alta Loma, CA glTO1
November 22, 1995
NOV 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission
Civic Centre Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Attn: Nancy Fong
re: CUP - entertainment/liquor
MEMBERS OF PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF:
As you are aware, ~e are applying for the reinstatement
of full liquor privileges, and an entertainment license.
Ms. Fong has requested that I submit in ~riting a re-
cap of the reason(s) I am requestin~ the entertainment
permit.
We are a respected, well established business located in
the Rancho Plaza for the past six (6) years. Me. have been
subjected to limitations on our growth potential because
of concerns regarding a previous owners O~g..Lig~nqe - that
particular busin~_g~O~r bas--not-_been-in-ex-i-s~emce--f_oc_ten
(lO)__yeaC~ .... bowever ...... !__a.~_.~!~_.su~eEi.ng_~Epq._b~.~__mis-
management
We have honored all city by-laws, and take pride in our
business ethics. I feel strongly that you "give back" to
the community that supports you; and am very active in
numerous charitable organizations, women and childtens'
nee'd'groups, and sponsor several ball teams in our city.
The point I am making is that we are not a "fly by night"
callous business, but one that chooses to remain in a good
community and participate in its' growth.
The limits that have been imposed on me have caused great
financial hardship; and that hardship began with press re-
leases after meetings with the City for licensing issues.
We have had to continually re-assure our customers that
our doors are NOT closing, that ~e have not telorated, and
that our employees have job security. Ne previously em-
ployed twenty-seven (27) people, and have been forced to
reduce our working staff to twelve (12) members.
I do not believe any other comparable business (ie: Final
Score, Shelley's, Skippers, Coffee Clutch, Zendela's or
Peppers) have faced the opposition, or have been denied the
potential opportunities that SAM's has experienced.
41
RECEIVED
SAM'S Place N0V o ,~ 1995
Page 2
CityofRa~ho Cucamonga
my application(s) would be denied by the'planning commissi~a~ing Division
and our meeting isn't even schea. uled until December i3th.
Any negatives that are in place certainly are not there
as a result of the vast culture of residents that are Sam's
customers - the regulars include police personnel, fire- '
fighters, attorneys, doctors, clerical and blue collar
workers.
Z would also like to address the residents of Topaz Street-
there have been no complaints from these residents (we have
routinely followed up on this) and the two former complaints
were received after your dPp~rtment "walked" the neighbor-
hood asking if any problems were caused by Sam's. Zs it
customary to-_c_anvass neiqhborho.o_ds_ on each permit request -
from each business owner? If the "negatives" are suggested
because of alcohol, and you believe we are located in a
residential locale, why would your accept the fees for an
application from Jack's (formally Bob's Big Boy) -fear beer
and___~~Z am NOT opposed to the application process, but
I find irony in the logic of the explanations I have re-
ceived from your department.
In direct response to the entertainment permit, I would
like to address my concerns as this: I do not approve
of hard rock/heavy metal or reggaee bands; and that style
of music will never be performed at Sam's Place; however, I
need the opportunity of allowing musicians to perform at
SAM's on a limited basis. I am more interested in the
performance of a "DO" five (5) evenings per week. This
allows me to join the other comparable businesses in our
area, and does not restrict my services to our customers
or cause an undue hardship on my business. I want the
flexibility of the live music as needed to ensure
satisfaction to our loyal customers.
In closing, I would ask that you not have pre-conceived
opinions'on the issuance of permits to our establishment,
that you allow pro-growth in our City to respectable
businesses; and that all related businesses are treated
with equality.
Thank you for your consideration,
SinceTelY~D
Sa~(~~
× .:::}
.,GL
iI-i
LLT,T ~
Z:
.<
..o
E:,.
, ',;
/
I,-
i.
(,'--. o
I .'.
I
-z.,:"'~ "'7o
r~-
C~]]m for ~erv~c~ 6
/~04/06/94 WED 415S
04/14/94 THU WA_RARR
04/15/94 119404671 FRI 242R
04/17/94 119404711 SUN 242
05/05/94 119405570 TBU 242R
05/17/94 119406023 TUE 488
05/20/94 119406162 FRI 10853R
05/24/94 TUE 459A
05/27/94 FRI PKGVIO
05/29/94 SUN SUSPER
06/04/94 SAT 459A
06/04/94 SAT ALARM
06/06/94 MON 459A
06/08/94 WED PUBSER
06/10/94 FRI 470
06/13/94 MON 415F
06/14/94 TUE PUBSER
06/19/94 SUN 459A
06/21/94 119407426 TUE 148R
06/23/94 119407529 THU 470R
06/26/94 SUN 459A
07/04/94 MON 459A
07/04/94 MON 459A
07/10/94 SUN 459A
07/11/94 MON 459A
07/30/94 119409053 SAT 459
08/06/94 SAT 459A
08/11/94 THU 245R
08/22/94 M0N COUNTR
08/31/94 119410353 WED 459
09/02/94 FRI INC
09/05/94 MON 459A
09/05/94 MON 653MR
09/10/94 SAT 242R
09/12/94 119410793 MON 242R
09/14/94 WED 415F
09/23/94 FRI 211S
lo/o9/94 sUN 459A
10/11/94 119411993 TUE 488
FRI 459A
12/02/94 FRI 415
12/11/94 SUN SUSCIR
THU INFO
01/05/95 THU 166.4R
01/10/95 TUE WELCK
01/12/95 119500532 THU 242R
01/18/95 WED 459A
01/23/95 MON 211S
01/24/95 119501122 TUE 459CR
02/09/95 THU 459A
03/07/95 119503070 TUE 488R
03/14/94 119403280 MON 488R
03/16/95 119503442 THU 459CR
03/19/95 119503575 SUN 242R
03/20/94 119403509 SUN INC
03/21/95 TUE 1179
03/25/95 SAT VEHCK
03/29/95 WED 459A
04/03/95 119504246 MON 484E
04/28/95 FRI 459A
05/11/95 119505765 THU 594R
05/22/95 MON UNKPRO
05/27/95 119506369 SAT 459C
05/29/95 MON 4158
06/19/95 MON 459A
06/28/95 WED 459A
07/07/95 119507918 FRI 459
08/01/95 TUE 415S
08/16/95 WED INFO
09/21/95 119510824 THU 10851R
09/30/95 SAT M3LNGUN
10/14/95 SAT 459A
10/16/95 MON 459A
10/16/95 MON 647F
11/19/95 SUN 415
25 calls
600 - 6670 C~rne]~n St. 4/1/
SUBJECT DISTURBANCE 940960246
WARRANT ARREST 941040281
ASSAULT REPORT 941050346
ASSAULT 941070012
ASSAULT REPORT 941250315
PETTY THEFT 941370113
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF TO VEHICLE 941400341
AUDIBLE ALARM 941440092
PARKING VIOLATION/PROBLEM 941470255
SUSPICIOUS PERSON 941490115
AUDIBLE ALARM 941550095
OTHER THAN 459 & 211 & AUDIBLE941550231
AUDIBLE ALARM 941570016
PUBLIC SERVICE 941590007
FORGERY 941610195
FIGHT 941640245
PUBLIC SERVICE 941650129
AUDIBLE AIaLRM 941700094
RESISTING PEACE OFFICER REPORT941720008
FORGERY REPORT 941740107
AUDIBLE AL/LRM
AUDIBLE kLARM
AUDIBLE ALARM
AUDIBLE ALARM
AUDIBLE ALARM
BURGLARY - INPROGRESS
941770068
941850148
941850203
941910238
941920026
942110044
AUDIBLE ALARM 942180204
ASSAULT W/DEADLY WEAPON REPORT942230097
COUNTER REPORT 942340143
BURGLARY - INPROGRESS 942430265
INCIDENT/MISC.' LAW ENF CALL 942450156
AUDIBLE ALARM 942480138
OBSCENE PHONE CALL REPT 942480089
ASSAULT REPORT 942530091
ASSAULT REPORT 942550114
FIGHT 942570220
SILENT ROBBERY ALk~M 942660141
AUDIBLE ALARM 942820135
PETTY THEFT 942840226
AUDIBLE ALA2M 942870067
GRAND THEFT REPORT 943160157
DISTURBANCE 943360109
SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES 943450036
COMMERICAL BURGLARY REPORT 943620031
INFORMATION REPORT q4~6~0017
VIOLATION COURT ORDER REPORT 950050136
CHECK THE WELFARE 950100171
ASSAULT REPORT 950120094
AUDIBLE ALARM 950180074
SILENT ROBBERY AL/~M 950230078
COMMERICAL BURGLARY REPORT 950240186
AUDIBLE ALARM 950400007
PETTY THEFT REPORT 950660139
PETTY THEFT REPORT 940730146
COMMERICAL BURGLARY REPORT 950750045
ASSAULT REPORT 950780013
INCIDENT/MISC. LAW ENF CJLLL 940790007
TC WITH MED AID RESPONDING 950800137
VEHICLE CHECK 950840004
AUDIBLE ALARM 950880246
FRAUDULENT CREDIT APPLICATION 950930103
AUDIBLE ALARM 951180050
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF REPORT
UNKNOWN TYPE PROBLEM
COMMERICAL BURGLARY
SUBJECT DISTURBANCE
AUDIBLE ALARM
AUDIBLE ALARM
BURGLARY - INPROGRESS
SUBJECT DISTURBANCE
INFORMATION REPORT
GRAND THEFT AUTO REPORT
MAN WITH A GUN INnPROGRESS
AUDIBLE ALARM
AUDIBLE ALARM
DRUNK IN PUBLIC
DISTURBANCE
951310181
951420148
951470049
951490198
951700119
951790032
951880037
952130238
952280143
952640016
952730255
952870135
952890117
952890248
953230029
94 thr~ I I/19/9~
GOA 6620 CARNELIAN ST
ARR 6620 CAa/qELIAN ST
RTF 6620 CA/LNELIAN ST
RTF 6620 CAR/qELIAN
RTF 6620 CARNELIAN
RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST
CAN 6642 CA2NELIAN ST
FAL 6658 CARNELIAN ST
CAN 6620 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6642 CA/%NELIAN ST
FAL 6620 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6612 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6612 CARNELIAN ST
UNF 6644 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6612 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6620 CARNELIAN ST
ARR 6620 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6620 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6620 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6658 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6612 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6620 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6638 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6620 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6652 CARNELIAN ST
ARR 6670 CARNELIAN ST
CAN 6644 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6644 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6638 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6620 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6620 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6620 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6644 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6622 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6612 CARNELIAN (NV)
RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST
OA~ ~19 CARMET,TAM
NAT 6660 CARNELIAN ST
CAN 6626 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6620 C~LRNELiAN STY"
FAL 6638 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6644 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6660 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6652 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6620 CARNELIAN STY
RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6620 CAJLNELIAN STw/
RTF 6620 CAR1N'ELIAN STv
NAT 6612 CARNELIAN ST
CIT 6630 CARN (NV)
RTF 6644 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6660 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST
NAT6620
CAN 6622 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6612 C ELIAN sT
RTF 6612 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6638 CARNELIAN ST
SER 6660 CARNELIAN ST
RTF 6620 CARNELIAN
UN? 6620 C_ARiqELIAN ST/
FAL 6644 CARNELIAN ST
FAL 6622 CARNELIAN ST
CAN 6612 CARNELIAN ST
NAT 6620 CAR/~ELIAN ST/
32.4% Of calls.
for service out of 77 calls are for Sam's Place.
-
E
0
0 0 0
x~ C~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING
THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION IN DENYING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 95-26 FOR THE REQUEST TO SERVE DISTILLED
LIQUOR IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING RESTAURANT AND
BILLlARD HALL LOCATED AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET, IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-81 '1-56, 59, 60, & 6'1.
A. Recitals.
1. Mr. Sam Pellegrino has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit
No. 95-26, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th day of December 1995, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and following the
conclusion of said public hearing, adopted Resolution No. 95-60 thereby recommending to this City
Council that said application be denied.
3. The decision represented by said Planning Commission Resolution was timely appealed
to this Council.
4. On February 7th, 1996, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted
a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced
public hearing on February 7, 1996, including written staff reports, the minutes of the above-
referenced Planning Commission meeting, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution
No. 95-60, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 6620 Carnelian Street and is
presently improved with a shopping center.
b. The property to the north is vacant and planned for a future freeway, the properties
to the south and east are shopping centers, and the properties to the west are single family
homes.
c. The proposed use is for the serving of distilled liquor within an existing restaurant
and billlard hall with a leased space of 4,200 square feet. The hours of operation for the full bar
are 11 a.m. to 2 a.m.
'/'7
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-26 - SAM PELLEGRINO
February 7, 1996
Page 2
d. West of the shopping center are single family residences. They have been
adversely impacted by nuisance problems such as, loitering activities, and loud noise within the
parking lot in the late evening and early morning hours before by the same business that previously
had a full bar service.
e. Because of the nuisance problems and non-compliance with conditions of
approval, the City conducted revocation hearings in 1991 and 1994. On October 5, 1994, the
applicant relinquished his Conditional Use Permit for the full bar.
f. The City did not receive complaints from the adjacent residents after Sam's Place
stopped serving hard liquor.
g. The nature of the business will have the potential for nuisance problems such as
loud noise and loitering activities within the parking lot in the late evening and early morning hours.
These types of nuisance problems will adversely impact the adjacent single family residences.
h. The Commercial Section of the Development Code states that the intent of a
Neighborhood Commercial District is to have uses that are compatible to and harmonious with the
character of the surrounding residential area. Also, one of the goals of the General Plan is to avoid
creating nuisances among adjacent land uses. Because of the potential for nuisance problems,
the proposed use will not be compatible with the adjacent single family residential use.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing, including written and oral staff reports, this Council hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, or the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable
detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare and materially injurious
improvements in the vicinity.
thereto, will be
to properties or
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Council hereby denies the application.
6. This Council hereby provides notice to Mr. Sam Pellegrino that the time within which
judicial review of the decision, represented by this Resolution, must be sought is governed by the
provisions of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
7. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed to: (a) certify to the
adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified
mail, return-receipt requested, to Mr. Sam Pellegrino at the address identified in City records.
8. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
February 7, 1996
TO:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director
BY:
Joan Kruse, Purchasing Agent
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE
Recommendation
Staff recommends the adoption of the attached resolution which will amend facility rental fees at
the Adult Sports Complex (Epicenter), adjust existing recreation program fees, establish a fee for
geographic information system information and incorporate as a section within the document
library fees adopted by the Library Board.
Background/Analysis
Refinements to existing fees at the Epicenter to include a skybox and a cafe area rental rate are
part of this resolution. As the Epicenter is increasingly being used for photographic sessions and
commercial photography, rates for these sessions are added. Recreation fees include adjustments
to field rental fees and drag line costs.
The City now has the ability to produce maps through the Geographic Information System which
recently became operational. Other jurisdictions having this capability have been charging for
similar services. Fees for map production are included and are costed on the basis of time and
materials.
In an effort to contain all City fees within one document, the fees recently established by the
Library Board are included in this document. Fire District and Police Department fees have been
a part of this comprehensive fee schedule.
Re ectfull submitted
Encl.
- /
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A NEW
COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE FOR PERMITS AND SERVICES
PROVIDED BY ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS, THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT AND THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTMENT, BY MODIFYING CERTAIN
FEES ESTABLISHED IN RESOLUTION 94-091
A. Recitals.
(i) The Government Code requires that prior to levying a new fee or increasing an
existing fee or service charge, local agencies shall hold a public meeting at which oral or written presentations
may be made; and
(ii)
Notice of the time and place of the hearing has been properly provided; and
No valid request for mailed notice is on file with the City, and
(iv)
Copies of the required data were made available in the City Clerk's office to the
public on January 17, 1996; and
(v)
All legal prerequisites to adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby resolve
that the following fees are established:
Section 1.0 Building and Safety Fees:
1.0 A fee for each building permit or service shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth
in the following Schedule of Fees:
Total Valuation of Work
Fees
$1.00 to $1,000.00
$25.00
$1,001.00 to $2,000.00
$25.00 for the first
$1,000.00 plus $2.00 for each
additional $100.00 or fraction thereof,
to and including $2,000.00.
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00
$45.00 for the first
$2,000.00 plus $7.50 for
each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof, to
and including $25,000.00.
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00
$ 50,001.00 to $100,000.00
$217.50 for the first
$25,000.00 plus $5.50 for
each additional $1,000.00
of fraction thereof, to
and including $50,000.00.
$355.50 for the first
$50,000.00 plus $4.00 for
each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof, to
and including $100,000.00.
$100,000.00 and over
1.1 Plan Review Fees:
$555.00 for the first
$100,000.00 plus $2.50 for
each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof.
(a)
When the valuation of proposed construction exceeds one thousand dollars, and
a plan is required to be submitted, a plan review fee shall be paid to the Building
Official at the time of submittal of plans.
(b)
Plan review fees for buildings and structures shall be equal to seventy-five percent
(75%) of the building permit fees set forth in Section 1.0 herein.
(C)
Plan review fees for electrical, mechanical and plumbing work shall be equal to
25% of the total permit fee as set forth under the pertinent Section 1.7, 1.8 and 1.9
herein.
(d) Plan review fees for grading shall be as set forth in the following schedule:
Quantity of Cut and Fill
Fee
50 100 yards $ 50.00
101 500 yards 100.00
501 1,000 yards 200.00
1,001 - 2,000 yards 250.00
2,001 - 3,000 yards 300.00
3,001 - 4,000 yards 350.00
4,001 - 5,000 yards 400.00
5,001 - 10,000 yards 500.00
10,001 - 50,000 yards 600.00
50,001-100,000 yards 700.00
100,001 - And up 900.00
The sum of cut and fill yardages shall be used in computing grading permit and plan checking fees.
(e)
Additional Plan Checking made necessary due to changes in plans or incomplete
plan submission, $55.00 per hour for the estimated time of checking revisions.
5/
1.2 Compliance Inspections/Reinspections
Inspections to determine compliance of existing construction with applicable codes when
not included in an active, valid building permit or inspections made necessary due to work
not being ready at time specified, or work not corrected after prior written correction
notice ..................................................................................................................... $30.00
1.3 Change of Occupancy:
Change of Occupancy Inspection ..........................................................................$50.00
1.4 Relocated Buildings:
Fees for inspection of a structure to be relocated into or within the City, shall be $100.00
when located within 25 miles of City offices, plus $2.00 per mile, round trip, when located
more than 25 miles from City offices.
1.5 Appeal of Abatement Notice:
An appeal of a notice to abate a substandard or dangerous building
............................................................................................................................. $100.00
1.6 Inspection for Temporary Utility Connection or Temporary Occupancy:
Inspection .............................................................................................................$ 30.00
1.7 Inspections outside of normal business hours (minimum charge four
hours) ...................................................................................................... $50.00 per hour
1.8 Inspections for which no permit fee is specifically indicated (minimum charge one-half
hour) ......................................................................................................... $50.00 per hour
1.9 Electrical Permit Fees:
(a) Permit Issuance:
For issuing each permit ................................................................................$15.00
For issuing each supplemental permit ...........................................................$ 4.50
(b) System Fee Schedule:
(NOTE: The following are in addition to permit-issuing fee.)
New Residential Buildings:
The following fees shall include all wiring and electrical equipment in or on each
building, or other electrical equipment on the same premises constructed at the
same time.
For new residential buildings not including the area of garages, carports and other
noncommercial automobile storage areas constructed at the same time, per square
foot ............................................................................................................... $ .035
For new garages, carports and other minor accessory buildings constructed in
conjunction with a new residential building per square foot ............................. $ .02
For other types of residential occupancies and alterations, additions and
modifications to existing residential buildings, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE.
Private Swimming Pools, Spas:
For new private residential, permanently installed spas, hot tubs or swimming pools
for single-family and multi-family occupancies including a complete system of
necessary branch circuit wiring, bonding, grounding, underwater lighting, water
pumping and other similar electrical equipment directly related to the operation of
a swimming pool, each ............................................................................... $ 30.00
For other types of swimming pools, spas and alterations to existing swimming
pools, use the UNIT FEE SCHEDULE.
Carnivals and Circuses:
Carnivals, circuses, or other traveling shows or exhibitions utilizing transportable-
type rides, booths, displays and attractions.
For electric generators and electrically driven rides,
each ............................................................................................................$15.00
For mechanically driven rides and walk-through attractions or displays having
electric lighting, each .................................................................................... $ 4.50
For a system of area and booth lighting, each ..............................................$ 4.50
For permanently installed rides, booths, displays and attractions, use the UNIT
FEE SCHEDULE.
Services:
For services of 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in rating,
each ........................................................................................................... $ 18.50
For services of 600 volts or less and over 200 amperes to 1000 amperes in rating,
each ........................................................................................................... $ 37.50
For services over 600 volts or over 1000 in rating,
each ...........................................................................................................$ 75.00
Temporary Power Service:
For a temporary service power pole or pedestal including all pole or pedestal-
mounted receptacle outlets and appurtenances, each ................................ $ 15.00
. For a temporary distribution system and temporary lighting and receptacle outlets
for construction sites, decorative light, Christmas tree sales lots, firework stands,
etc.,
each ............................................................................................................. $ 7.50
(c) Unit Fee Schedule:
NOTE: The following are in addition to permit issuing fee.
Receptacle, Switch and Lighting Outlets:
For receptacle, switch, lighting or other outlets at which current is used or
controlled, except services, feeders and meters. First 20, each .....................$ .75
Additional outlets, each ..................................................................................$ .45
NOTE: For multi-outlet assemblies, each 5 feet or fraction thereof may be
considered as one outlet.
Lighting Fixtures:
For lighting fixiures, sockets or other lamp-holding devices. First 20,
each ..............................................................................................................$ .75
Additional fixtures, each ................................................................................$ .45
For pole or platform-mounted lighting fixtures, each .....................................$ .75
For theatrical-type lighting fixtures or assemblies,
each ...............................................................................................................$ .75
Residential Appliances:
For fixed residential appliances or receptacle outlets for same, including wall-
mounted electric ovens; counter-mounted cooking tops; electric ranges, self
contained room, console, or through-wall air conditioners; space heaters; food
waste grinders; dishwashers; washing machines; water heaters; clothes dryers; or
other motor-operated appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt
(KW), or kilovolt-ampere (KVA), in rating, each .......................................... $ 3.00
NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances
having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus.
Non-residential Appliances:
For non-residential appliances and self-contained factory-wired, non-residential
appliances not exceeding one horsepower (HP), kilowatt (KW), or kilovolt-ampere
(KVA), in rating including medical and dental devices; food, beverage, and ice
cream cabinets; illuminated show cases, drinking fountains, vending machines;
laundry machines; or other similar types of equipment, each ..................... $ 3.00
NOTE: For other types of air conditioners and other motor-driven appliances
having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus.
Power Apparatus:
For motors, generators, transformers, rectifiers, synchronous converters,
capacitors, industrial heating, air conditioners and heat pumps, cooking or baking
equipment and other apparatus, as follows:
Rating in horsepower (HP), kilowatts (KVV), kilovolt-amperes (KVA), or kilovolt-
amperes-reactive (KVAR):
Up to and including 1, each ...........................................................................$ 3.00
Over 1 and not over 10, each .......................................................................$ 7.50
Over 10 and not over 50, each ...................................................................$15.00
Over 50 and not over 100, each .................................................................$ 30.00
Over 100, each ...........................................................................................$ 45.00
NOTE:
1. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer, heater,
etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used.
2. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats,
relays and other directly-related control equipment.
Busways:
For trolley and plug-in-type busways, each 100 feet or fraction
thereof ......................................................................................................... $ 4.50
NOTE: An additional fee will be required for lighting fixtures, motors and other
appliances that are connected to trolley and plug-in-type busways. No fee is
required for portable tools.
Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees:
For signs, outline lighting systems or marquees supplied from one branch circuit,
each ........................................................................................................... $ 15.00
For additional branch circuits within the same sign, outline lighting system or
marquee, each ............................................................................................ $ 3.00
1.10
Miscellaneous Apparatus, Conduits and Conductors:
For electrical apparatus, conduits and conductors for which a permit is required but
for which no fee is herein set forth .............................................................. $ 11.00
NOTE: This fee is not applicable when a fee is paid for one or more services,
outlets, fixtures, appliances, power apparatus, busways, signs or other equipment.
Plumbing Permits:
(a) Permit Issuance:
For the issuance of each permit ....................................................................$ 15.00
For issuing each supplemental permit .........................................................$ 4.50
(b) Unit Fee Schedule (in addition to issuance fee above):
For each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water,
drainage piping, and backflow protection therefor) .................................... $ 6.00
For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer ...............................$15.00
Rainwater systems --per drain (inside building) ...........................................$ 6.00
For each cesspool (where permitted) .........................................................$ 22.50
For each private sewage disposal system .................................................$ 45.00
For each water heater and/or vent ..............................................................$ 7.50
For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent,
excepting kitchen-type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps ......... $12.00
For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping and/or water-treating
equipment, each ........................................................................................... $ 3.00
For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each
fixture ........................................................................................................... $ 3.00
For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including backflow protection
devices therefor ........................................................................................... $ 9.00
For atmospheric-type vacuum breakers not included in lawn sprinkler system:
1 to 5 ............................................................................................................$ 7.50
over 5, each .................................................................................................$ 1.50
For each backflow protective device other than atmospheric-type vacuum
breakers:
1,11
2 inches and smaller ....................................................................................$ 7.50
over 2 inches ...............................................................................................$15.00
For each gas piping system of one to four outlets .......................................$ 3.00
For each gas piping system of five or more, per outlet ................................$ 0.75
Swimming pool or spa piping including water heater (not including gas
piping) ......................................................................................................... $10.00
Mechanical Permits:
A fee for each mechanical permit shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth
in the following Schedule of Fees:
(a) Permit Issuance:
For the issuance of each permit ................................................................$ 15.00
For issuing each supplemental permit ........................................................$ 4.50
(b) Unit Fee Schedule (In addition to issuance fees above):
For the installation or relocation of each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or
burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance, up to and including
100,000 Btu/h ............................................................................................... $ 9.00
For the installation or relocation or each forced-air or gravity-type furnace or
burner, including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000
Btu/h ........................................................................................................... $11.00
For the installation or relocation of each floor furnace, including
vent .............................................................................................................. $ 9.00
For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed wall heater
or floor-mounted unit heater ........................................................................ $ 9.00
For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and
not included in an appliance permit ............................................................. $ 4.50
For the repair of, alteration of, or addition to each heating appliance, refrigeration
unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption, or
evaporative cooling system. including installation of controls regulated by this
code ............................................................................................................. $ 9.00
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including three
horsepower, or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu/h....$ 9.00
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over three
horsepower to and including 15 horsepower, or each absorption system over
1.12
100,000 Btu/h and including 500,000 Btu/h ................................................$16.50
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower
to and including 30 horsepower, or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu/h
to and including 1,000,000 Btu/h ................................................................. $ 22.50
For installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower to
and including 50 horsepower, or for each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu/h
to and including 1,750,000 Btu/h .................................................................. $ 33.50
For the installation or relocation of each boiler or refrigeration compressor over 50
horsepower, or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu/h .................. $ 56.00
For each air-handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute, including
ducts attached thereto ................................................................................. $ 6.50
Note: This fee shall not apply to an air-handling unit which is an integral portion of
a factory assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler or absorption unit
for which a permit is required elsewhere in this code.
For each air-handling unit over 10,000 cfm ................................................$11.00
For each evaporative cooler other than portable type ..................................$ 6.50
For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct ......................................$ 4.50
For each ventilation system which is not a portion of any heating or air-conditioning
system authorized by a permit ...................................................................... $ 6.50
For the installation of each hood which is served by mechanical exhaust, including
the ducts for such hood ................................................................................. $6.50
For the installation or relocation of each domestic-type
incinerator ................................................................................................... $11.00
For the installation or relocation of each commercial industrial-type
incinerator ................................................................................................... $ 45.00
For each .appliance or piece of equipment regulated by this code but not classed
in other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code..$ 6.50
Grading Permit Fees:
A fee for each grading permit shall be paid to the Building Official as set forth in the
following Schedule of Fees:
Quantity of Cut and Fill
50 cubic yards or less
Fee
$15.00
51 to 100 cubic yards $22.50
101 to 1,000 cubic yards -- $22.50 for the first 100 cubic yards plus $10.50 for
each additional 100 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
1,001 to 10,000 cubic yards -- $117.00 for the first 1,000 cubic yards, plus $9.00
for each additional 1,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards -- $198.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards, plus
$40.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
100,001 cubic yards or more -- $562.50 for the first 100,000 cubic yards, plus
$22.50 for each additional 10,000 cubic yards or fraction thereof.
1.13 Application for Plan Duplication
Application for duplication processing ............................$ 30.00
Section 2.0 Business License Fees
Fees for business licenses are found within Title 5 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, Business Taxes, Licenses and Regulations and contained in Chapters
5.04, 5.08, 5.12 and 5.16, thereof.
Section 3.0 City Clerk Fees
Municipal Code
Supplements to the municipal code
will vary in cost and will be billed
accordingly.
$150.00
Variable
Section 4.0 Copying Rates, Media and Subscription Fees:
Fee Activity
Photocopies
Microfilming
M icro~che jackets
Audio Tape
Computer Diskettes
Subscriptions:
]0
Fee
$ .25/page*
$ .25/page*
$1.00/plan page
$1.00/sheet
$10.00/ta pe
$ 5.00 diskette
Council Agenda
Minutes
$118.00/yr.
$145 00/yr.
Planning Commission Agenda
Minutes
$ 43.50/yr.
$160.00/y r.
Historic Preservation Comm. Agenda
$ 9.00/yr.
Engineering Plans and Specifications
per set cost
Mailing Costs (Overnight) for above
$Variable
$15.00
Research Requests- All Departments
Time spent beyond 1/2 hour will be
billed in increments of 1/4 hr. at:
First 1/2 Hour No Charge
$ 25.00/Hr.
*There will be a minimum charge of $1.00 for 1-3 pages
FAX Requests - All Departments
A maximum of 6 pages may be requested.
If material requested is more than 6 pages,
material will be mailed and billed at rate
established by this Resolution.
No Charge
Section 5.0
5.1
Engineering Fees
Applications
Tentative Parcel Map
Initial Study
Tentative Parcel Map Appeal
Time Extension - Tentative
Parcel Map
Certificate of Compliance
Lot Line Adjustment
Amending Parcel Map and
Modification of map conditions
Reapportionment Map
(A two-sheet parcel/tract
Street Vacation
Subordination Agreement
Release of Lien Agreement
map;
Fee
$2,514.00
$ 225.00
$ 251.00
$ 549.00
$1,190.00
$1,190.00
$1,190.00
$ 600.00
$30.00 for
$1,156.00
$ 298.00
$ 298.00
each additional sheet)
5.2
5.3
Certificate of Correction
Flood Hazard Letter
Bond Substitution
Private Street Designation
Reimbursement Agreement
Storm Drain
Street and Utilities
Traffic Study Review (Dev. Proj.)
Map and Plan Checking Fees
Property Legal Description
Map Checking
Residential Parcel Maps
$ 256.00
$ 314.00
$ 420.00
$ 495.00
$2,227.00
$2,827.00
$ 751.00
$ 584.00
$1,370 + $180 per Parcel
Tract Maps and Non-Residential
Parcel Maps of 10 lots or less
Tract Maps and Non-Residential
Parcel Maps over 10 lots
Improvement Plans
Widening of existing streets
Interior Streets 1-2 sheets:
3-5 sheets:
6-10 sheets:
11 or more:
Storm Drain Plans -
Hydrology Study:
Drainage areas up to 150 acres
Drainage areas over 150 acres
Landscape and irrigation plans
for City-maintained areas
$2,070.00
$1,720 + $35 per parcel or lot
$1.35 per LF + sheet charge for interior
streets
$1,370 per sheet
$2,740 + $1,200 per sheet over 2 sheets
$6,340 + $1,095 per sheet over 5 sheets
$11,815 + $1,025 per sheet over 10 sheets
Same as for interior streets
$1,370.00
$2,740.00
$ 400.00 persheet
For maps and plans checking, the fees for rush checking, when approved by the City Engineer,
will be 50% greater than those listed above.
]2
The fees for checking the revisions to approved
plans will be on the basis of actual costs at hourly rates as determined by the City Engineer with
a minimum fee of $100.00.
5.4 Public Works Construction
Permit Fee:
5% of Improvement Cost to $25,000; Min. $50
4.5% of Improvement Cost next $75,000
4% of Improvement Cost over $100,000
The improvement cost of a project shall be based on the Engineer's Cost Estimate as shown on
Surety Bond and as approved by the City Engineer.
NOTE: Development Impact Fees may also apply and are addressed under separate
resolutions.
5.5 Oversize Loads
*Single Permit $15.00
*Repetitive Permit
$70 initial fee + $15
per month renewal fee to
a maximum of 6 months
'*Annual Permit
$70 per year
*These fees are based on the provisions of the California Vehicle Code Section 35795 and
Caltrans Fee Schedule.
Section 6.0 Fire Protection District Fees
(These fees have been adopted by the Fire Board)
6.1
Plans Checking and Inspections
6.1.1 Start-up fee for commercial, industrial or multi-
family dwelling units (paid prior to TRC) ..................................................$
6.1.2 Plan review: building and/or system(s)inspection
A.
B.
C1. Tenant improvements per suite or floor ............................................$
(per hour cost, one hour minimum)
78.00
Single family residential (per tract or phase) ......................................$125.00
Non-Residential development and multi-family
Residential dwelling ............................................................................$ 645.00
83.00
C2. Plan review/inspections of plans not otherwise
identified, e.g., aisle, access, hose racks,
seating, etc.(One hour minimum) Per hour cost ..................................$
C3. Minor plan reviews not requiring a District
inspection (e.g., parking lot sales, demising
62.50
walls, and other activities where fire regula-
tions do not apply -. .......................................................................No Charge
D. New Sprinkler Systems or over 10 heads .........................................$ 156.00
Ten heads or less (alteration only) ......................................................$ 88.00
E. Fixed fire-extinguishing systems (i.e. carbon
dioxide, potassium bicarbonate, halon, etc.) .......................................$ 140.00
F. Fire Alarm Systems.% ..........................................................................$ 146.00
G. The charge for any revision of a previously approved plan or a change request
(form FSD-2) for any of the above, shall be $85.00 per hour for the estimated time
spent in review but not less than 25% of the original fee ......................... $ 88.00
H. Failure to keep consultation or field inspection
appointment without notification (one hour minimum) ...............................$ 62.50
I. Division consultation fees not otherwise stated (except
phone consultations) (one hour minimum) .............................................$ 130.00
J. Fire flow test (one hour) .....................................................................$ 83.00
K. Consultant plan check fee shall be paid by the developedcontractor or owner,
and shall be paid prior to plan approval (per hour) ................................... $ 42.00
L. Field inspection requiring more than the initial inspection, plus one follow-
up ............................................................................................................. $ 104.00
M. Field inspection of self-inspection occupancies who have refused to conduct
their own inspection .................................................................................. $ 56.00
N. Underground Tanks
1. Original application/plan check/tank inspection (per tank) ............$ 140.00
2. Tank removal (per tank) ................................................................$ 120.00
3. Inspection(s) resulting from leaks of unauthorized
discharge (per tank) ........................................................................$ 62.50
O. Hazardous chemicals: application/plan check/inspection
(storage, handling or use as a solid, liquid or gas, other than underground tanks)
1.55 gallons corrosive liquid ..............................................................$ 83.00
2. 500 pounds oxidizing material ........................................................$ 83.00
3. 10 pounds organic or inorganic peroxides .......................................$ 94.00
4. 500 pounds nitromethane ................................................................$ 94.00
5. 1,000 pounds ammonia nitrate or fertilizer mixture
(any amount of highly toxic material, pyrophoric,
hypergolic, cryogenic material, poisonous gas or
14
Section 6.2
I.
radioactive material) ..........................................................................$ 94.00
Any reactive, unstable or other hazardous
material not herein classified (extent or hazard
and allowable amount to be stored to be
determined by the Fire Marshal) ......................................................$ 130.00
P. Explosives and blasting agents: Application/plan check/inspection
1. Manufacture, possess, store or sell .................................................$ 99.00
2. To use explosives or blasting agents .............................................$ 146.00
Fumigation and thermal insecticidal fogging when toxic ~ammable fumigant is
used: application/plan check/inspection .......................................... $ 114.00
Permit Fees
Permits (initial/single issuance or as otherwise noted)
A. General Use Permit shall be required for any activity or operation not
specifically described below, which in the judgment of the Fire Chief is likely to
produce conditions hazardous to life or property. (UFC
Art. 2.4) ................................................................................................$ 78.00
B. Storage of readily combustibile material (U FC Art. 11 ) ...........................$ 109.00
C. Places of Assembly (except churches and schools) (UFC Art. 25)
1. A-3, 50-299 without stage ...............................................................$ 89.00
2. A-2.1,300 or more without stage ................................................:...$ 140.00
3. A-2, 999 or less with stage .............................................................$ 161.00
4. A-l, 1000 or more with stage .........................................................$ 213.00
D. Bowling alley and pin refinishing (UFC Art. 26) ...................................$ 78.00
E. Cellulose nitrate plastic (Pyroxylin) (UFC Art. 27) ..................................$ 78.00
F. Combustible fibers storage and handling exceeding 100cubic feet (UFC Art.
28) ......................................................................................................... $ 78.00
G. Garages
Motor vehicle repair (H-4) (UFC Art. 29) ..............................................$ 78.00
H. Lumberyards (over 100,000 board feet) (UFC Art. 30) ..........................$ 78.00
I. Tire rebuilding plants (UFC Art. 31) ....................................................$ 125.00
J. Auto wrecking yards .............................................................................$ 78.00
Junk or waste material handling plants (UFC Art. 34) .
K. Flammable finishes ............................................................................... $ 78.00
Spraying or dipping operations, spray booths, dip tanks, electrostatic apparatus,
automobile undercoating, powder coating and organic peroxides and dual
II.
component coatings (UFC Art.45) (per spray booth)
L. Magnesium (more than 10 pounds per day) (UFC Art. 48) ..................$
M. Oil burning equipment operations (UFC Art. 61 ) ..................................$
N. Ovens (industrial baking and drying) (UFC Art. 62) ...............................$
120.00
78.00
78.00
O. Mechanical refrigeration (over 20 pounds of refrigerant) .......................$ 109.00
Compressed gases (store, handle or use exceeding 100 cubic feet) (UFC Art.
74)
1. non ~ammable over 100 cubic feet and up to 5,999 .........................$ 114.00
2. non fiammable 6,000 to 12,000 cubic feet .......................................$ 135.00
3. non-fiammable over 12,000 cubic feet ..............................................$ 203.00
4. fiammable over 100 cubic feet and up to 1,999 cubic feet ...............$ 78.00
5. fiammable 2,000 to 6,000 cubic feet ...............................................$ 130.00
6. fiammable over 6,000 cubic feet ....................................................$ 130.00
Q. Cryogenic fluids (storage, handling or use) UFC (Art. 75) .....................$ 78.00
R. Dust-producing processes and equipment (UFC Art. 76) ........................$ 83.00
S. Flammable and combustible liquids (storage or handling or use) (UPC Art. 79)
1. auto fueling station (B-l) ...................................................................$ 94.00
2. inside storage, less than 60 gallons ................................................$ 83.00
3. inside storage, more than 60 gallons .............................................$ 120.00
4. outside storage, more than 5000 gallons UFC 79.402) .....................$ 120.00
T. High piled combustible stock (UFC Art. 81) ..........................................$ 95.00
U. Liquified petroleum gas (store, handle, transport or use more than 120 gallons)
(UFC Art. 82) .......................................................................................... $ 78.00
V. Matches (more than 60 Matchman's gross) (UFC Art. 83) .....................$ 78.00
W. Welding and cutting operations to conduct welding and/or cutting operations
in any occupancy (UFC Art. 49) ............................................... $ 78.00
X. Alarm company permits (to install units within Fire District) annual
permit .................................................................................................... $ 99.00
Special Services
A. Board of appeals fee (to file an appeal and requiring a special
meeting) .............................................................................................. $ 234.00
16
B. Excessive or malicious false alarms causing response of fire apparatus
1. Code 3 response due to "failure to notify" fire department when working on
testing sprinkler or fire alarm system
$146.00 per hour per piece emergency apparatus responding 1/2 hour
minimum
2. Trouble alarm Code 2 response due to failure to notify fire department when
working on or testing system
$73.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding 1/2
hour minimum
3. Malicious false alarms
$146.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding with 1/2
hour minimum
4. Alarm system malfunction resulting in Emergency Code response
$146.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding to all
false alarms in excess of 2 false alarms in 30 days with 1/2 hour
minimum
5. Alarm systems malfunction resulting in a trouble alarm Code 2 response
$73.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding to all
trouble alarms .in excess of 2 in 30 days with 1/2 hour minimum
6. Code 3 response to false alarms due to negligence, tampering with system
construction or modification of building
$146.00 per hour per piece of emergency apparatus responding with
112 hour minimum
C. Response to mitigate extended hazardous chemical and material incidents
beyond normal service request (this includes response to railroad properties,
freeways, and aircraft crashes)
1. Hazardous incident, per hour
$244.00 per hour per piece of apparatus
2. Company Response
$99.00 per hour per piece of equipment
3. Squad Response
$78.00 per hour
4. Company with Battalion Chief
$146.00 per hour
5. Hazardous materials or major transportation incident response due to
negli~!ence
$1 56.00 per hour per piece of equipment
6. Response to mitigate major transportation incidents (may include but not be
limited to jetliner crash, railread derailment or collision, or maior freeway
collision with extraordinary circumstances)
$156.00 per hour per piece of apparatus
D. Special Activities -- One time events (combination of plan check. fire permit,
field inspection. These events may need the services, at permittees expense,
of one or more standby tiremen).
1. Fireworks--public display (CCRT. 19)
$78.00 plus $146.00 per hour per piece of apparatus
2. Specialty public displays and/or sales (i.e. Christmas tree lots, pumpkin sale
lots) .................................................................................................. $ 47.00
3. Conducting any blasting operation (for each four hour period or fraction
thereof)
$104.00 plus $146.00 per hour per piece of apparatus
4. Special events (public assembly, stage productions, exhibits, previewing
stands, grandstands and bleachers, trade shows, concerts, banquets, etc.,
other than tents and air supported structures)
a. Less than 30,000 square feet at an occupant load of 2,000, whichever is
more restrictive ........................................................................... $ '130.00
b. 3,000 square feet or more, but less than 60,000 square feet or an
occupant load of more than 2,000 but less than 4,000, whichever is more
restrictive .................................................................................... $ 172.00
c. 60,000 square feet or more, but less than 90,000 square feet or an
occupant load of more than 4,000 but less than 6,000 whichever is more
restrictive .................................................................................... $ 208.00
d. 90,000 square feet or more with an occupant load of 6,000 or more,
whichever is more restrictive ................................................... $ 244.00
5. Tents and air-supported structures (UFC Article 32)
a. Less than 400 square feet ................................................................$ 78.00
b. 401 to 1500 sq. ff ............................................................................$ 104.00
c. 1501 to 15,000 sq. ft ........................................................................$ 135.00
d. 15,001 to 30,000 sq. ft ...................................................................$ 166.00
e. over30,000 sq. ft ............................................................................$ 198.00
Section 7.0 Geographic Information System Fees
REQUEST FEE
PARCEL DATABASE:
(Digital format)
$10,000.'00
There are 8 layers included in this database: Lotlines, rights-of-way, ownership, situs addresses, Assessor
Parcel Numbers, street names, street centerlines, and assessment districts.
Zoning Map 34 X 44" color $30.00
(2 "E" size sheets)
Zoning or General 8-1/2 X 11" b/w $1.00
Plan Map (Vicinity)
Zoning or General 8-1/2 X 11" color $5.00
Plan Map (Vicinity)
General Plan Map 34 X 44" color $30.00
(2 "E" size sheets)
Flood Plain Map 34 X 44" color $30.00
(2 "E" size sheets)
Land Available for Poten-
tial Development Report
Citywide
Report $25.00
Land Available for Poten-
tial Development Report
Residential
Report $15.00
Land Available for Poten-
tial Development Report
Com/Ind
Report $15.00
Land Available for Poten-
tial Development Report
Specific Plan
Report $15.00
Land Available for Potential
Development Citywide
Special Reports and/or Maps
34 X 44" color
(2 "E" size sheets)
$50.00
Time and Materials with a $500.00 deposit
Section 8.0 Library Fees
(These fees have been adopted by the Library Board)
FINES:
Fines are based on item rather than patron. A child borrowing adult materials will be assessed an adult
overdue fine.
Per Day Maximum Fine
Borrowing thresholds
Overdue Fine: adult $0.25
Overdue Fine: children $0.10
Overdue Fine: video $2.00
Overdue Fine: magazine $0.10
$10.00 $5.00
$ 5.00 $5.00
$10.00
$1.00
FEES FOR RENTAL
Charge
Loan Period
Limit of Items
Video Cassette Loan Fee $1.00 7 days
Business Video Series $2.00 per tape 3 days
Best seller videos $0.25 per tape 3 days
Audio Cassette Fee $0.25 per tape/S2 max 14 days
CD Fee $0.25 per CD 14 days
Best Seller CD $0.50 per CD 14 days
Read Alongs $0.25 per cassette 14 days
Best Seller Rental Books $1.00 7 days
4 video titles total
4 cassette titles
4 CD titles
4 CD titles
4 Readalong titles
4 books/no reserves
FEES FOR SERVICES
-Charge
Interlibrary Loan
Reserves
Marketing Library Card
Lost Library Card
Collection Fee:
Test Monitoring Fee:
Access to on-line magazines
Single sided disc:
$2.00
$0.50
$3.00
$2.00 for regular card; $3.00 for marketing card
$15.00 per account
$10.00 per test session
$35.00
$0.50
FEES FOR RESEARCH/
BUSINESS SERVICES
Business Locator Services:
Brief Business Profile:
Business Lists on Demand:
$5.00 per business, no charge if business not located
$10.00 per business, no charge if not located
Each additional profile $6.00
$0.05 cents per record, $10.00 minimum
20
On line Data Base searches: Cost of online connect time plus $5.00
LOST MATERIALS Cost of Item
Processing Fee
Books Original Cost $5.00
Media Original Cost $6.00
Paperback Books Original Cost $2.50
Magazines Cover Price $1.50
DAMAGE FEES Charge
Bar Code Removed $2.00
Books: List cost in computer
Cover damaged $5.00
Plastic cover damaged $2.00
Page torn $1.00 per page
Compact Discs: List cost in computer
Broken Jewel Case
Singles $1.50
Doubles $3.00
Loss of liner notes $5.00
Loss of book/pams $5.00
Video Cassettes: List cost in computer
Shell replacement $5.00
Storage case damage $5.00
Audio Book Cases
Double $5.00
4 Storage $6.00
12 Storage $7.00
Cassette boxes $1.00
OTHER Charge
Test/Deposit Books: $20.00 refundable deposit charge; checks allowed
21
Rancho Fast Facts:' lnformation on demand for Rancho Cucamonga Business
All information faxed to requestor or trasnferred to disc with the following options:
Picked up by requestor or mailed to requestor at no charge or delivered by overnight courier at cost.
Products and Services
Company Information
Business Locator Service
Brief Business Profiles
(Price for each additional profile)
Business Lists on Demand
Per Record charge of $0.03
Price
$5.00
$10.00
$6.00
$10.00 minimum
Section 9.0 - Planning Fees
9.1 Applications
Those charged as a base fee, plus a per unit or per acre amount, with a maximum
set at 3X base fee.
Application Base Fee
Tentative Tract Map $2,987
Conditional Use Permit $2,921
Dev/Des Review Res $2,851
(5 or more)
Dev/Des Review - Comm/
Industrial $2,851
Initial Study $225
General Plan Amendment $2,866
Spec/Comm Plan Amend.* $2,866
Dev Distr Amendment* $2,866
Per Unit Fee
$60.00 per d/u
$292.00 per acre
$57.00 per d/u
Maximum Fee
$8,961.00
$8,763.00
$8,553.00
$285.00 per acre
$22.00 per acre
$287.00 per acre
$287.00 per acre
$287.00 per acre
$8,553.00
$ 675.00
$8,598.00
$8,598.00
$8,598.00
9.2
*Should be charged at half rate if filed in conjunction with a General Plan Amendment.
Applications
Those charged on a time-and-materials basis with a deposit taken up front.
Application Deposit Amount
22
7!
9.3
EIR Review- Sensitive
Development Agreement Review
Mitigation Plan ~ Complex
Annexation
Development Agreement
New Specific/Community Plan
EIR Preparation
Other Application Fees
Application
Non-Construction CUP
Uniform Sign Program
Minor Exception
Dev/Design Review: 4 du's or less
Variance
Variance: 4 du's or less
Use Determination
Preliminary Review
Minor Development Review
Time Extension
Minor Time Extension
Sign Permit
Hillside Development Review 5 or more du's
Hillside Development Review 4 or less du's
Temporary Use Permit
Temporary Use Model Home
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$1 000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$ 435.00
$ 580.00
$ 170.00
$1,027.00
$ 871.00
$ 291.00
$ 315.00
$ 325.00
$ 296.00
$ 549.00
$ 136.00
$ 51.00
$1,462.00
$ 244.00
$ 68.00
$ 219.00
23
EIR Review Only $2,370.00
Landmark Application $ 728.00
Residential and Small Business No Charge
Landmark Alteration $ 835.00
Residential and Small Business No Charge
Mills Act Application $ 724.00
Residential and Small Business No Charge
Mitigation Plan (Simple) $ 719.00
Mitigation Plan (Complex) See 7.2
9.5 - Appeal Fees
Appeal of a City Planner Decision
Appeal of a Commission Decision
in Connection with an Application
Appeal of a Tract Map
9.6 - Other Fees
Entertainment Permit
$ 62.00
$ 126.00
$ 251.00
$ 571.00
Home Occupation Permit $ 53.00
Large Family Day Care Permit $ 170.00
Recycling Facilities Permit $ 296.00
Status Map Application $ 15.00
Tree Removal/New Development $ 432.00
Tree Removal/Existing Development $ 72.00
NOTE: Planning Division fees for documents, which are individually priced, are contained
in the Document Price List
24
Section 10.0 - Recreation Fees
Following are current fees for recreation activities and rentals. All consumable costs are
to be recovered.
Definition of classes of fees by groups.
Group 1: City of Rancho Cucamonga sponsored and co-sponsored events; other
governmental agencies serving Rancho Cucamonga residents.
Group 2: City resident not-for-profit, civic, athletic, social organizations whose
management is not paid and organizations sponsoring a public forum or candidate's night.
Group 3: City resident not-for-profit, civic, athletic, social organizations which has paid
management.
Group 4: City resident private party activity, City resident employee organizations, City
resident political candidate use for fund misers; City resident college organizations and
committees; work parties and social events.
Group 5: City resident commercial, business, profit-making and religious organizations,
non-resident not-for-profit, civic and social organizations, non-resident colleges, their
organizations and committees, non-resident private party activity, non-resident employee
associations.
Group 6: Non-resident commercial, business, profit-making and religious organizations.
Neighborhood and Community Park Lighted Sports Venue Fees
Commencing September 1, 1993, each user group shall be charged fees equal to
seventy-five percent (75%) of the costs of electricity used to provide light to that user group based on the most
recent rates published by Southern California Edison (SCE). Commencing September 1, 1994, fees will be
charged at one hundred percent (100%).
Upon acceptance by the City of new parks in Rancho Cucamonga, a use fee of 100% of
the full light costs shall be implemented. This fee shall include electrical usage and demand charges as
outlined by Southern California Edison (SCE) rate policies. This use fee will be updated annually or as rate
policies by SCE are amended.
Classes/VVorkshopslPrograms
Classes and workshops shall be structured on a cost-covering basis, and fees shall be
set based upon the market rate of similar programs provided in the cities of Chino, Fontana, Ontario and
Upland.
Non-Resident Charge: A $5.00 fee shall be paid by each non-resident, each class, each
team, each season to participate in City-sponsored classes. Said fee is payable at the time of registration.
Does not include one day activities or any trips sponsored by the City.
Facility Rentals: Hourly fees for Monday through 5 p.m., Friday use as follows: (Friday,
5 p.m. and later, Saturday, Sunday and holiday use will be charged the 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. rate.)
25
Building Rentals Hourly Fee
GROUP
ROOM TIME 1 2 3 4 5 6
SIZE
Small 8am-5pm None $ 3.75 $ 7.50 $15.00 $15.00 $30.00
Small 5pm-8am None $ 7.50 $12.00 $25.00 $25.00 $50.00
Large 8am-5pm None $ 5.00 $10.00 $29.00 $25.00 $50.00
Large 5pm-8am None $10.00 $15.00 $35.00 $35.00 $70.00
Kitchen (Flat Rate)
Small None $10.00 $15.00 $20.00 $25.00 $30.00
Large None $20.00 $25.00 $30.00 $35.00 $40.00
Other Fees
The facilities rental fee shall be charged for fund raisers, plus ten percent (10%) of the gross and, if additional
City staff is required, $7.50 per hour for the staff time. When a damage/security deposit is required, the
charge is $200.00.
Per Day Charges
Coffee Pot (small) $ 2.00
Coffee Pot (large) $ 5.00
Small Stage $10.00
Large Stage $50.00
T.V. W/video player $20.00
Microphone $ 5.00
Small PA system $40.00
Slide Projector $10.00
Professional Style Lights $ 3.00/light
Piano at RCNC $25.00
(The piano is tuned by the City twice a year. If the piano does not meet the standards of the user, the City
will arrange for tuning at the user's sole expense. Tuning fees will be added to rental cost.)
Community Amphitheater: The following are rental fees for amphitheaters. The
first hour of monitoring is included in the stage rental for Groups 2 and 3.
GROUP
USAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6
Stage-fiat fee None $25.00 $40.00 $72.00 $80.00 $95.00
Sound Monitor/hrly None $10.00 $10.00 $26.75 $26.75 $35.00
26
Equestrian Center Fees and Charges will be as follows:
USE GROUP
1 2 3 4 5 6
Hourly Room Rental*
Small 8am-5pm None $ 3.75 $ 7.50 $15.00 $15.00 $15.00
Small 5pm-8am None $ 7.50 $12.00 $25.00 $25.00 $50.00
Daily Snack Bar/** N/C $ 5.00 $ 5.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00 $ 7.00
Kitchen
Lights***
Annual Shared N/C
Storage Fee
100% ACTUAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION Effective 1994-95
$75.00 N/A N/A N/A N/A.
Storage: For City Community Centers and Public Facilities, no storage will be provided to groups on an
ongoing basis without the approval of the Community Services Manager.
*Includes use of P.A, System.
**A deposit may be required for this use. (See Equestrian Usage Policies.)
***The small arena will have a coin metered box for electrical cost recovery.
The large arena will recover electrical cost via direct billing for actual use.
Epicenter Stadium Complex Tournament Fees
Rental Fees Per Field
Group III thru VI
Group I & II
Field Rental* $120.00 $240.00
Deposit 75.00 75.00
Infield Lining Actual Cost Actual Cost
Light Fee Actual Cost Actual Cost
*Includes initial field dragging and watering. The deposit will be applied to the total rental fee.
When additional City staffing, equipment and material is required for tournaments and/or special event
programs scheduled at the Adult Sports fields, the applicant is required to pay all event-related expenses.
Park Tournaments: A $50.00 non-refundable deposit is required to reserve fields.
Said deposit shall apply to final field rental totals. Should there be a need for City staff to oversee and
coordinate activities, the fee is $11.00 per hour.
The applicant shall meet all comprehensive public liability insurance requirements for usage of facilities and
provide additional equipment needed to hold the tournament at their own cost.
27
GROUP
USAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6
Per Day None $20.00 $30.00 $70.00 $70.00 $125.00
Drag & Line* Groups I-VI Actual Costs
*Drag and Line fees include staff costs and are for one drag and line per field.
Bases* Groups I & II $20.00 per field
Groups III - VI $40.00 per field
*Bases are available only when renting the fields for a tournament.
based on per field, per day, basis subject to availability by City.
Fee is
Snack Bar: For City-owned snack bars located in City Parks.
GROUP(S)
USAGE 1 2 3 - 6
Seasonal None $450.00 N/A
Other non-profit groups bringing in snack bars (i.e. trailers) will be charged a fiat $300.00 seasonal permit fee,
unless group is participating in a City sponsored event.
Storage: For City-owned storage located in City parks
USAGE 1 2 3- 6
SEASONAL None $ 75.00 N/A
Non-Resident Charge: A $5.00 fee shall be paid by each non-resident, each
class, each team, each season to participate in City-sponsored classes. Said fee is payable at the time of
registration. Does not include one day activities or any trips sponsored by the City.
Epicenter Stadium Complex Fees
Ticketed N on-Ticketed
1. Stadium Facility Events* Events
a. Stadium Rental Rate $1,500 per day $2,000 per day
plus 10% of gross
ticket sales
b. Sky Box Rental Rate
c. Cafe Area Rental Rate
d. Event Expenses
$50.00 per hour
$50.00 perhour
$70.00 per hour
$70.00 perhour
Applicant is required to pay all event related expenses
including personnel, equipment and materials and other
related costs.
2. Parking Lot Events (Refer to Exhibit A)
28
77
a. Stadium On-Site Lots
Ticketed Events*
Non-Ticketed
Events
i. Rental rates for $500.00 per day
Parking Lots A, B, C plus 10% of gross
ticket sales
$670.00 per day
ii.
Parking Lots D, E, F
$250.00 per day
plus 10% of gross
ticket sales
$ 335.00 per day
b. Expanded Parking Lots
i. Parking Lot #1
$500.00 per day
plus 10% of gross
ticket sales
$ 670.00 per day
ii. Parking Lot #2
$250.00 per day
plus 10% of gross
ticket sales
$ 335.00 per day
iii.
Parking Lot #3
or
$1,500.00 per day
plus 10% of gross
ticket sales
$2,000 per day
Each Quadrant
(A-F)
$250.00 per day
plus 10% of gross
ticket sales
$ 335.00 per day
c. Event Expenses
Applicant is required to pay event-related expenses including
personnel, eqdipment and materials and other related costs.
Parking Rates**
a. Baseball Events $2.00 per car; $15.00 per bus
b. Concerts and
Special Events
$3.00 to $5.00 per car; $5.00 to $10.00 VI P per car, $15.00 per bus,
depending on event
c. Parking Lot Events Option to charge $2.00 to $5.00 per car
Concessions
a. Food & Beverage 20% of gross sales
b. Merchandise and
Novelties
25-35% of gross sales to be negotiated -- books,
tapes, CD's, programs, T-shirts, etc. '
Miscellaneous
a,
Commercial Filming Minimum of $1,000.00 to $3,000.00 per day, depending
on filming requirements, plus actual costs for City services.
29
Commercial Filming
in Parking Lot
Minimum of $500.00 to $1,500.00 per day, depending
on filming requirements, plus actual costs for City
services.
Commercial
Photography
Minimum of $500.00 to $1,500.00 per day, depending
photography requirements, plus actual costs for City services.
Audio Broadcast $ 300.00 per performance
Recording Fee $ 500.00 per performance
Taping - TV $1,500.00 per performance
Location Credit Required
Deposit
Minimum of $500.00 to $2,500.00 per day,
depending upon e,vent/rental requirements.
Additional Move-in/50% of daily event rental rate.
Take Down/Move-Out
Days
Tent/Canopy Main-
tenance Reserve
Fee
Minimum of $300.00 to $1,000.00 per event.
* Based on Provisions of Municipal Ordinance.
** Exception to Parking Rates apply to vehicles entitled to occupy the preferred parking area (lot
A) delineated in lease with Valley Baseball Club, Inc.
Section 11.0 - Rancho Cucamon~Ja Sheriff Department Fees
Description
Fingerprinting
Criminal Reports
Traffic Accident Reports
Traffic Accident Reports - Mail
Criminal History Letters
Bicycle License
*Special Event Jobs
Costs associated with towing and releasing
stored or impounded vehicles
Fees
$ 10.00
$ 20.00
$ 20.00
$ 20.00
$ 10.00
$ .3.00
No Charge
$ 75.00
on
30
7¢
**Citation proof of correction
Public Information Clerk - Hourly
Station Clerk - Hourly
Station Clerk Supervisor - Hourly
Secretary - Hourly
Secretary II - Hourly
Forensic Specialist II - Hourly
Community Services Officer - Hourly
Deputy Reserve- Hourly
Deputy II - Hourly
Deputy III - Hourly
Sergeant- Hourly
Lieutenant - Hourly
Captain - Hourly
Vehicle Cost - Hourly
*There is no fee for special events.
$ 15.00
$ 14.00
$ 16.00
$ 18.00
$ 17.00
$ 19.00
$ 35.00
$ 20.00
$ 31.00
$ 57.00
$ 58.00
$ 64.00
$ 74.00
$ 82.00
$ 85.00
However, if security services are required for the event such
as regular or reserve officers, or private security, these fees are separate.
**This fee will not apply to persons residing or working within the City of Rancho Cucamonga or
citations issued by the Rancho Cucamonga Police.
Section 12.0 - Miscellaneous Fees
Amendment to tax statements for prepaid assessments $ 20.00
Bingo License $ 50.00
Calculation for 1915 Bond Act Assessment Districts $ 7.50
Dog Ucensing See Resolution 81-79
Filming Permits
Business License Tax
Application Fee (Planning Fees)
Basic Fee for each day of filming
Investigation Fee
$ 20.00
$ 129.00
$ 132.50
$ 110.00 per
filming day
Fire Department
*per hour for each 3-man piece of equipment
Police Department** (See Sheriff Fees)
**Number and type of personnel is determined
by the station commander after reviewing plans
for the event.
Home Park Rent Mediation - Filing Fee $ 15.00
Home Park Rent Mediation - Appeal Fee $ 300.00
Industrial Bond Development Bond Application
A fee of 1/4 of 1% of the established maximum
amount of the proposed bond application and
not less than $1.250.00
Massage Establishment Application $ 225.00
Massage Technician Application $ 178.00
Massage Outcall Service $ 90.00
Renewal Massage Establishment Appl. $ 111.00
Renewal Massage Tech. Application $ 90.00
Renewal Massage Outcall Service $ 45.00
School Fees - Please refer to Ordinance
Nos. 69-C and 74 regarding these fees.
Solicitor (Non-profit) identification badge $ 5.00 each
Taxicab Service Application $ 95.00
Taxicab Driver's Permit Application $ 120.00
Taxicab Service Application Renewal $ 45.00
Taxicab Driver's Permit Appl. Renewal $ 60.00
c. Effective Date:
This Resolution shall become effective with its adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7th day of February, 1996.
AYES:
NOES:
$ 100.00 per Hr.*
32
FEBRUARY 7, 1996
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
THERE IS NO PAGE 82
(SKIPPED)
MICROFILM
AS IS
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
February 7, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF MARKS CABLEVISION
The Cable Television Subcommittee has met on two occasions to discuss Marks
CableVision. The focus of the discussion was on two primary areas. The first area was
the possibility of providing a senior discount for cable television. The second area
was on customer service standards. In addition to these two areas, the subcommittee
reviewed the status of pending federal telecommunications legislation and the status
of implementing phase two of the City's PEG Channel.
In discussing the concept of providing senior discounts, the staff found that no other
neighboring city had senior discounts for cable television. Also, staff calculated the
cost of providing a discount to be approximately $40,000. These costs would come
from franchise fee revenue. However, this revenue is used to support general fund
activities and something else would have to be cut or adjusted to accommodate a
discount. In essence, the discount would be subsidized or supported by everyone else
in the community. Just as the federal government is wrestling with this issue, the
question of equity came up. If the goal is to help those who can least afford cable
service, then shouldn't the discount be based on income or need. This then creates
the difficulty of administering a way to test for need in order to determine who
qualifies for a discount. In considering this additional expense, in a time of trying to
provide more services for less money, it was decided that the idea of providing a
discount didn't provide as much benefit to the general public to justify the expense.
The Subcommittee also discussed imposing customer service standards on Marks.
Staff reviewed the FCC customer service standards and found Marks to be largely i n
compliance with those standards. These standards, attached as Exhibit A, include
providing toll-free telephone service to subscribers 24 hours a day and seven days a
week; performance standards for answering the phone; performance standards for
service installations and appointments; standards for communicating information to
subscribers on services offered and changes in service; and basic guidelines for
billing, refunds and credits.
If the City wanted to adopt these standards or stricter standards, they have the ability
to do so. In adopting stricter standards though, it should be noted that any costs
borne by Marks to meet the stricter standards could be passed on by Marks to the
customers. The Subcommittee was concerned with this prospect yet still urged Marks
CableVision to continue efforts to improve service to the community.
The Subcommittee also reviewed the status of pending federal legislation which could
have an impact on this entire discussion. However, at the writing of this report, the
legislation was still being considered in the joint conference committee. The final
legislation was promised before the holidays so it is anybody's guess as to when a
final bill will be available for the President to consider.
Finally, the subcommittee reviewed progress toward implementation of phase two of
the PEG Channel. Phase two is the introduction of prerecorded videos to the RCTV-3
line-up. Videos would include such topics as crime prevention, fire safety and other
videos of general public interest. To accomplish this phase, Marks has had to install a
direct line to City Hall. That has been accomplished. We are now making
arrangements to have the line brought into the building to the room that will house
the computer, character generator and video decks. As of the writing of this report,
Marks was still scheduling a date to accomplish this task. Staff hopes to update the
City Council during the meeting with the date that the installation will be completed.
As the City Council is already aware, the various levels of regulation involved in the
cable television industry make action by the City Council limited. This at times can be
frustrating because it is the City that appears on every bill as the Franchise
Authority. While we have very little real authority, staff continues to use the
resources available to it to help insure, with the cooperation of Marks CableVision,
that customer service problems are resolved.
Duane A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
attachment
§76.309 Customer service obligations
(a) A cable franchise authority may enforce the customer service standards set forth In section (c) of
this rule against cable operators. The franchise authority must provide affected cable operators ninety
(90) days written notice of its intent to enforce the standards.
(b) Nothing in this rule should be construed to prevent or prohibit:
(1) A franchising authority and a cable operator from agreeing to customer service requirements
that exceed the standards set forth in section (c) of this rule;
(2) A franchising authority from enfoming, through the end of the franchise term, pro-existing
customer service requirements that exceed the standards set fodh in section (c) of this role and
are contained in current franchise agreements;
(3) Any State or any franchising authority from enacting or enforcing any consumer protection law,
to the extent not spedtic, ally proerupted heroin; or
(4) The establishment or enforcement of any State or municipal law or regulation concerning
customer service that imposes customer service requirements that exceed. or address matters
not addressed by, the standards set forth in section (c) of this rule.
(c) Effective July 1, 1993, a cable operator shall be subject to the following customer service standards:
(1) Cable system office hours and telephone availability.
(i) The cable operator will maintain a local, toll-free or collect call telephone access line which
will be available to its subscribers 24 hours a day. seven days a week.
(A) Trained company representatives will be available to respond to customer telephone
inquiries during normal business hours.
(B) After normal business hours. the access line may I~e answered by a service or an
automated response system, including an answering machine. Inquiries received after
normal business hours must be responded to by a trained company representative on
the next business day.
(it) Under normal operating conditions, telephone answer time by a customerrepresentative,
including wait time, shall not exceed thirty (30) seconds when the connection is made. If the
call needs to be transferred, transfer time shall not exceed thirty (30) seconds. These
standards shall be met no less than ninety (90) percent of the time under normal operating
conditions, measured on a quadedy basis.
(lit) The operator will not be required to acquire equipment or perform surveys to measure
compliance with the telephone answering standards above unless an historical record of
complaints indicates a clear failure to comply.
(iv) Under normal operating conditions. the customer will receive a busy signal less than three
(3) percent of the time.
(v) Customer service center and bill payment locations will be open at least dudng normal
business hours and will be conveniently located.
(2) Installations, outages and service calls. Under normal operating conditions, each of the following
four standards will be met no less than ninety five (95) percent of the time measured on a
quarterly basis:
(i) Standard installations will be performed within seven (7) business days after an order has
been placed. "Standard" installations are those that are located up to 125 feet from the
existing distribution system.
(li) Excluding conditions beyond the control of the operator, the cable operator will begin working
on "service interruptions" promptly and in no event later than 24 hours after the interruption
becomes known. The cable operator must begin actions to correct other service problems
the next business day after notification of the service problem..
(Ill) The "appointment window" alternatives for installations, service calls, and other Installation
activities will be either a specific time or, at maximum. a four-hour time block during normal
business hours. (The operator may schedule service calls and other installation activities
outside of normal business hours for the express convenience of the customer.)
(iv) An operator may not cancel an appointment with a customer after the close of business on
the business day prior to the scheduled appointment.
(v) If a cable operator representative is running late for an appointment with a customer and will
not be able to keep the appointment as scheduled, the customer will be contacted. The
appointment will be rescheduled, as necessary. at a time which is convenient for the
customer.
(3) Communications between cable operators end cable subscribers.
(i) Notifications to subscribers.
(A) The cable operator shall provide written information on each of the following areas at
the time of installation of service, at least annually to all subscribers, and at any time
upon request:
(1) Products and services offered;
(2) Prices and options for programming services and conditions of subscription to
programming and other services;
(3) Installation and service maintenance policies;
(4) Instructions on how to use the cable service;
(5) Channel positions of programming carried on the system; and.
(6) Billing and complaint procedures, including the address and telephone number of
the local franchise authority's cable office.
(B) Customers will be notified of any changes In rates, programming services or channel
positions as soon as possible through announcements on the cable system and in
writing. Notice must be given to subscribers a minimum of thirty (30) days in advance of
such changes if the change is within the control of the cable operator. In addition, the
cable operator shall notify subscribers thirty (30) days in advance of any significant
changes in the other information required by the preceding paragraph.
(it) BIlling.
(A) Bills will be clear. concise and understandable. Bills must be fully itemized, with
itemizations including. but not limited to, basic and premium service charges and
equipment charges. Bills will also cleady delineate all activity dudng the billing peded,
including optional charges, rebates and credits.
(B) In case of a billing dispute, the cable operator must respond to a wdtten complaint from
a subscriber within thirty (30) days.
(lit] Refunds. Refund ct~ecks will be issued promptly, but no later than either-
(A) The customers next billing cycle following resolution of the request or thirty (30) days,
whichever is earlier, or
(B) The return of the equipment supplied by the cable operator if service is terminated.
(iv) Credits. Credits for service will be issued no later than the customeFs next billing cycle
following the determination that a credit is warranted.
(4) Definitions.
(i) Normal Business Hours. The term "normal business hours" means those hours dudng which
most similar businesses in the community are open to serve customers. In all cases,
"normal business hours" must include some evening hours at least one night per week
and/or some weekend hours.
(ti) Normal Operating Conditions. The term "normal operating conditions" means those service
conditions which are within the control of the cable operator. Those conditions which are not
within the control of the cable operator include, but are not limited to, natural disasters, civil
distumances. power outages, telephone network outages, and severe or unusual weather
conditions. Those conditions which are ordinarily within the control of the cable operator
include, but are not limited to, special promotions, pay-per-view events rate increases,
regular peak or seasonal demand perio,cls, and maintenance or upgrade of the cable system.
(iii) Setvice Interruption. The term "service interruption" means the loss of picture or sound on
one or more cable channels.
§76,309 Reference
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 7, 1996
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O'Neil, City Engineer ~ ~'~ t,-~JO
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM D-6. APPROVAL TO AUTHORIZE
THE CITY ENGINEER TO FILE A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR
ELLENA PARK PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS
Staff requests that the above item D-6, Approval to Authorize The City Engineer to File a Notice of
Completion For Ellena Park Phase I Improvements, be withdrawn from the agenda.
The improvements at Ellena Park were expected to be completed and ready for acceptance at this
City Council meeting. Due to weather and other delays, the facility is not ready for acceptance.
Staff will be working with Lewis Homes to ensure that all improvements are completed, and will
be bringing this project back to City Council at a later date.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 7, 1996
Mayor and Members of the City Council ,
Jack Lam, AICP, City manager ~'~.,
Debra J. Adams, CMC, City Clerk ~
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-26 - SAM'S PLACE
I received a telephone call this date from Mr. Hugh Harrison regarding the above subject on tonight's
Council agenda. He is hoping to be at the meeting tonight to express his opposition to this. He asked
that in case he is unable to attend, please note that he opposes granting the appeal for this item.
/dja
Brad Buller, City Planner
_d
January, 31, 1996
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
P. O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729
Attention City Planner
RECEIVED
FEB 0 5 1996
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
The purpose of this letter is to reaffirm our opposition to the conditional use
permit, 95-26, for hard liquor, -- Sam's Place.
The California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control lists one of the
grounds for protest against the issuing of a alcoholic beverage license as:
"The premises are located in a residential area, and the normal operation of the
licensed premise would interfere with the quiet and enjoyment of their property
by the residents of the area".
We have had to fight for our right to have the peace and quiet that can be
expected of a residential neighborhood for almost four years. At last we have
reached a point were the level of nuisance noise is down to a tolerable level.
This business started out exactly were it is today, serving beer and wine. Then it
went to hard liquor, and then to entertainment, then live entertainment, and then
to extended hours of operation. All of this added up to a significant nuisance for
the residents in the immediate area.
This owner has not proved that he could be a good neighbor and comply with
any of the regulations in the past. His lack of. compliance led to many
confrontations with the city, including a physical confrontation with code
enforcement personnel.
Over the years the continual uncontrolled noise and disturbances caused by the
patron activity associated with this business has been very annoying to us
property owners that live adjacent to this business center.
We see absolutely no mason to start all over again with the same players.
Mr. Pellegrino has not changed, and we do not expect that the operation of the
business will be any different then it was in the past. This is just the beginning of
the problems that occurred during the past four years and we would rather not
repeat that.
January 31, 1996
Those of us that have to get up early in the morning to start our commute to
work every day would like to be able to get a good night's sleep. This means
going to bed early and being able to sleep through the night without the
disturbances that are constantly going on in the parking lot.
As home owners we would like to be able to enjoy the privacy and quiet that one
ordinarily expects to have when they buy a home. Most evenings this was not
possible because of the activities going on in the parking lot during the hours of
operation of Sam's Place.
The noise abatement techniques that were suggested in the past provided only
minimal relief. This is not the type of business that caters to a quite clientele.
The city has made a significant effort in its attempts to integrate this business into
the neighborhood and it simply did not working out very well.
As home owners we have made significant investments in our homes, and we
would like to be able to enjoy the full benefits of those investments. Also, we do
not wish to suffer any further loss of resale value because of the activities of this
business. As home owners we feel that the city has been very generous in trying
to help this business succeed. Now it's the home owners turn to receive city
support to protect our investments.
For the above reasons, we adamantly oppose the granting of both the liquor and
entertainment permits.
Lets' keep residential areas residential and keep commercial business areas for
businesses.
Thank you all once again for dealing with this very sensitive matter.
o bis
· 6611 Topaz
Alta Loma, Ca 91701
2
'~emembering Those Who Gave"
California Peace Officers Memorial Foundation
1100 Corporate Center Dr. · Suite -:201
Monterey Park, California 91754
To: City Council
Rancho Cucamonga, California
To: Whom it May Concern
I am ve~' supportive of Sam's Place getting a full liquor license. I have
been a resident of AIta Loma most of my life. I have been a friend of
Sam for many >'ears, as well as a customer. It has been a nice enjoyable
establishmint. i~' my position as Director Of the California Peace
Officers Memorial Foundation and as an appointee of Governor Pete
Wilson I am well aware of the necessary standards of operating a
profitable and safe business.
I am a Peace Officer and in my opinion Sam's is an asset to the
community. Sam's has been zealous in assuring only legal age people
enter the establishment. I strongly urge that Sam be granted Full
approval for a Full scale operation.
Sincerely
Thomas L. Marich
Director CPOMF of Califo.~:nia .~
cc: Sam's Place
TL}I: tm
/-
~l! VI liAi.:i
i}1:;! l{li{II I (}1{::
(909) 799-1600., FAX (909) 799-1615
Main Office: 2505 Steel St., San Bernardino. CA 92408-3913
RO. Box 8458, San Bernardino. CA 92412-8458
January 31, 1996
To Whom It May Concern:
Re: Sams Place
Gate City Beverage Distributors established an account with Sams Place m
September 1991. During this time, Sams Place has maintained an excellent
rating with Gate City Beverage.
Gate City Beverage has held a number of promotions throughout this time,
including the appearance of Miller Spokemodels. This occurred without
incident.
i/, .:
Sincer , ? : /
d
Key Account Manager
Branch: P.O. Box 1287, Indio, CA 92201-2251 · (619) 345-2679
Dr. Douglas Johnson
2345 West Foothill Bbd., Suite 10 · Up[and, CA 9].786 · Telephone: (909) 981-334].
january 22.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10510 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga 9 1730
Concerning: Sam's Place
6620 Carneliar, Ave
~lta CA 70
~ Loma. 91 i
To Whom I[ May Concern:
I have operated a dental practice at.. 6626 Carnelian Ave., Alia Loma,
CA For over 15 years. Sam's Place is located in the same business
complex as our office. Over f. he years, we have had no problem with
Sam or his customers. I see no reason why Sam's Place should not
be granted the licensing they are seeking.
President
DON-A-VEE Jeep Eagle of Placentia
Araerica's Leading Jeep Eagle Dealer
Established 1961
01-18-96
RE:
SAM ' S PLACE
6620 CARNELIAN
ALTA LOMA CA
91701
DEAR CITY. COUNCIL
AS A RESIDENT OF OUR "FAIR "CITY I WISH TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY
INFODI YOU OF MY SUPPORT TO "' SAM'S PLACE " AS A BUSINESSMAN I WORK
OUT OF THE AREA AND AFTER A LONG, HARD DAY I WOULD LIKE TO END THE DAY
WITH AN OPTION OF EITHER A COCKTAIL OR BEER, I ENJOY THE ATMOSPHERE OF
THIS ESTABLISH~LENT IT'S QUIET, RELAXING AND I DON'T FEEL THE PRESSURE
THAT OTHER ESTABLISHHENTS ENTERTAIN.
AS A RESIDENT OF THIS CO~TONITY I BELIEVE MY VOTE DOES COUNT I HAVE
SPOKEN TO MY NEIGHBORS TO GET THERE VIEW AND WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW
YOU FEEL YOU SPEAK FOR AN ENTIRE CO~D~UNITY ON YOUR JUDGEMENT PERTAINING
TO THIS ESTABLIShPENT.
WITH THAT SAID I WANT SAM' PLACE RESTORED TO IT'S ORIGINAL CONCEPT
SO I DO~ OUT OF MY WAY TO ENJOY " ONE " DRINK.
BOB HARRIS
SALES ~NAGER.
777 W. Orangethorpe Ave., Placentia, CA 92670 · (714) 879-5337 · (714) 528-Jeep · Fax (714) 528-7001
F/rst Federal
January 30, 1996
To Whom it may Concern:
Sam Pellegrino, owner of Sam's Place, has been a good customer of
Pomona Fir~ Federal for many years. I have known Sam for eight
years.
His place of business has never been a problem for Pomona First
Federal or interfered with our business.
The issue of live entertainment and/or alcohol in addition to beer
and wine sales does not cause any concerns either for myself or my
place of business.
If you have any questions, please contact me at 909 989-8561.
:..~3Sincerel~
Branch Manager
Rancho Cucamonga Office: 6644 Cameban $L · PO, Box 157 · Rancino Cucarnonga. Cahfotnia 9T 70l-0159 · (909) 989-8561 .
To: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council,
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca.
January 251h, 1996
Regarding: Sams Place
I would like to take a moment to address the members of the City Council
regarding the matter of Sams Place which is before you tonight. I am a concerned
member of the community. I live in Rancho Cucamonga because I feel the area
provides a superior environment for the residents.
I feel the establishment known as Sams Place serves a need within the
community. It is a neighborhood restaurant and bar currently serving beer and wine.
I live less than a mile from Sams and frequent it often, as many of the local residents
do. I feel the addition of hard liquor to the establishment can only enhance it's appeal
to the residents of the area. Those of us who live in this general area above 16th. St. have
no choice but to drive miles away to either Foothill Blvd. or to Upland if we choose to
have a cocktail with dinner or meet someone for a drink .I would prefer to remain close to
home which only makes sense.
We have an extremely diverse community with many needs. The clientele of Sams
ranges from business professionals to young adults. I hope the City Council will recognize
the need to have a neighborhood establishment that has a full bar.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
.;
Sincerely, .
Bill Hainey ~/
6416 Sunstone Ave.
Rancho Cucamonga Ca.
D
R A N C H O C U C A M O N G
0 LI C E D ED AD T ~E
A
T
December 27, 1995
Sam's Place
6620 Carnelian
Alia Loma, CA 91701
(909) 941 - 1100
Whom It May Concern,
We are writing to thank you for your generous donation to the Rancho Cucamonga Police
Department's Christmas Party. Your generosity helped to make our event a complete success
· and the donation; Four Bottles of Liqour, was greatly appreciated by the lucky recipient.
Thank you for _>'our support.
Sincerely,
..... ,.-,~
Spring Gontl~er-Martinez,
Community Service Officer
Rancho Cucamonga Police Department
10510 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 477-2800
10510 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE · RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA 91730 · (909) 989-6611 · FAX (909)
Lenny Maxwell
8399 Via Ladera
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909) 982-2869
January, 22, 1996
City Council
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
To Whom it May Concern:
I support Sam's Place in its attempt to be allowed to sell liquor.
I am a proud veteran of the United States Marine Corps. I sewed two tours of combat
VietNam.
As a Marine, I never thought I was defending freedom of choice. But I expect it and I want
it.
I never th'ought I was defending capitalism. l just expect to find businesses doing their best
to make a living without oppressive and limiting regulations.
I never thought I was defending the pursuit of happiness. In this one situation. happiness is
being able to walk into Sam's Place and ask for a gin and tonic.
I have visited seventeen countries in the world, lived in four different states. and visited 28
others. Sam's is one of the nicest neighborhood bars I've found. It is the type of place to
which you want to return.
I'm primarily a beer drinker. I do, occasionally like to have a cocktail. A Manhattan..gin
and tonic, or martini tastes especially good at certZain times. In most areas of the couritrv
and even the world, I have that option. You've taken that option away from me.
Sam's has a friendly atmosphere with a civilized clientele. The establishment is clean and
environmentalIv conscientious. He supports local sports teams and is. generally. a good
neighbor.
I have heard the argument that the area is too residential. The intersection of 19th and
Carnelian, where Sam's Place is located, has a commercial center on each of the four
corners. In contrast, the intersection of Archibald and 19th, where Pepper's is located. has
a commercial center on only one corner, yet Pepper's is allowed to sell hard liquor.
Page
Sam's Place has a ten foot block wall separating it from the residential area in the back. On
the side, there is about forty feet of parking, a twelve foot block wall. a planted area with a
tree line, and a six foot block wall. Pepper's has a six foot block wall on top of an eight foot
bank. ~
Both Sam's and Pepper's have empty lots behind them.
While I understant you must, in the end, vote your own conscience, I ask that w~u consider
the outpouring of public support for Sam's Place when you decide this matter. I, as a vnter
and taxpayer, ask that you consider my feelings and my desires when you vote.
Bob Carson
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 9173 7
January 22. 1996
Ciw Council
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
To Whom it May Concern:
I am a disabled Viet Nam veteran. I am medicallv retired and occasionally find it relaxin~
to have a drink in the afternoon with friends. Because I don't drive I walk'most of the time.
Sam's is the only place in walking distance from my home.
Without Sam's Place, I would be lost.
I didn't go to Viet Nam to protect our way of life and save the world from communist
aggression. I went there because it was my job and mv boss said to go.
I didn't consider myself a defender of freedom. I never thou_q. ht I xvas defending the
American way of life. These are things I simply take for granted.
I don't normally drink hard liquor, but I would like the freedom of makim, my own decision.
I am from Boston. the heart of American freedom. Now that I live in Rancho Cucamon,.za.
I find myself refighting the battle for those freedoms won so many .'.,ears ago.
I have been to Pepper's and find their location more residential..',mailer. less friendlv. and.
generally, not as welcoming.
Please remember the words of James Freeman C'larke:
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesrnan. of the nart generation.
Be statesmen and consider the freedom and rights of this and future generations and
support Sam in his attempt at being allowed to sell liquor in addition to beer and wine.
Respectfully,
,"---'~.~ ,.7's-."
RADIO SHACK
6612 CARNELIAN STREET
ALTA LOMA CA 91701
RE:
SAM'S PLACE
6620 CARNELIAN STREET
ALTA LOMA CA 91701
TO WHOM IT blAY CONCER~,
THIS LETTER IS IN REFERENCE TO OUR NEIGHBORS AT
SAM'S PLACE, ON THERE BEHALF WE WISH TO EXPRESS TO YOU
OUR SUPPORT TOWARDS THIS ESTABLISHMENT. WE HAVE BEEN
NEIGHBORS AND HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED IN THIS COMMUNITY
FOR MANY YEARS AND TO OUR PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE HAVE NEVER
BEEN WITNESS TO ANY CONFLICT OR DISTASTE FROM OUR
COMMU N I TY.
IN OUR PERSONAL OPINION WE REGARD SAM'S PLACE TO
BE A FRIENDLY, NEIGHBORHOOD BAR AND GRILL,WHO CATERS
TO A WIDE VARIETY OF CUSTOMERS,WHO AGREE WITH US THAT
WE ENJOY HAVING THIS ESTABLISHMENT AND THESE OWNERS
AS OUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS.
AS EMPLOYEES OF RADIO SHAiCK, WE AS MEIGHBORS AND
PATRONS, AND FRIENDS WE SUPPORT HIM IN HIS BATTLE TO ONCE
AGAIN RECLAIM HIS RIGHTFUL STATUS IN THIS COMMUNITY.
REGARDS,
~.IASH, HE~IRY, CLEO
CHAEFER
MBULANCE
ERVICE
COLE
SCHAEFER
MB ULANCE
February 5, 1996
Mr. Jack Lam, AICP
City Manager
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Dear Mr Lam:
On February 7, 1996, the city council will be considering
our application for an operating permit.
Cole-Schaefer Ambulance service has operated in what is now
the incorporated area of your city west of Rodchestor ave. since
1970. We have had a business license in your city since shortly
after its incorporation, except for a short period in the late
1980's early 1990's when your $4,000,000 insurance requirement
made it economically not viable for us, until our insurer
changed, allowing us to procure the larger sum at a reasonable
cost. We have since been licensed by your city for each year
beginning in 1993. Our permit request is coming to the council,
and we were not aware of this requirement until we secured our
contract with the Quakes organization last year. We initiated
the application process as soon as it was called to our
attention.
It is our intent to continue to operate in Rancho Cucamonga
at the basic life support level in order to honor our contractual
commitment to various HMO, PPO, and managed care health
providers, many of which have members residing or working in your
city.
We are a locally family owned and operated business founded
in 1932. We wish to continue to compete in every market in which
we have done business over the years.
Brian Scott,
Regional Manager
324 NORTH TOWNE AVENUE, POMONA, CALIFORNIA 91767 PHONE (818) 3334534 · (909) 622-1273 FAX (909) 622-2708
SAS-5
-:';":-~/~"i:' ~-~'~=;"-' '~ ,,'. -- ' ~ ........... EXPIRATION DATE
Z
'~ -,-'_--T; ---= -, - DECEYBER
~ ' _: T-' ": ,;->~--,-. ' ': .... .
C ' ' _ , -. ' ' - -,':~ -
O "' ' ~ ...... "' :' ' '
c .' -_CO'LE SCHAEFER ANBULANCE SERVICE ' '
C-031g4-L
31,1981
' · : ,.' ~ 'i i " '
0
m --.---4" ; ' J--, ..... --- --' "':' ~ "~, ,~ ~ .... ~"' "~~
~ Ei~_';_C~cICE~~BU~kNCE-~iSE"~C~~-=-~--~ - -_.
~-'--: =8Or'- NT--'GA'REY-'-='===-' ,_-,'=-~zf~-~':~'=:2'::''=='''' ...... "~ .......'=' ~
_ r-_=. :PO~[]NL~C'~'~ ?~'t:" ..... ' ..................... 12 BUSINESS NUMBER
n --" -"- J';-W=-S tT-H~EFER~=I)R ES'''''''==;:'' ' ..... ------- ..... '(:;-03194- L
O ., -~_ .- _:---._:--:_r ;z__-- '__-T__,----~-~--~--.--'~ -' ~-:'-:-."--:'--':'--'= ..----_-'~!-:T- :--.L;:-- _ .- EXPIRATION DATE
..............
Z "-.-: ....................................
....... _===-~-=-_=--=- .....==DECENBER 31,1983
~ ;<?:=.2-<22<'_;:.: ..-'.-.~=._. :-'~s;_ ,=_.-"<. :-,--~-':=-=----==:-- =- - - ....---;:.=:=_-7
O .= --=_- '_ :_r .... : ..... ':~"-""":"-="--:""" '="=""""==":"':':"' ....... 2Z, 31 . 2, i 22 .......
c~'~ RXNcm::) Cu~,~oNc~ - T,,,,o,.
of' ~uant to the pr~i~ Of the City B~in~ U~n~Or~i~t~ t~ ~
o -, ~ ·
-COLE--*SCHAEFE~ aNEULANCE
BUSINESS LOCATION'
809 N G.aREY
PCMC!%4 C~ g1767
BUSINESS OWNER
J W SCH.~EFER, PRES.
SERVICE i:,_~'-';'TT"
BUSINESS NUMBER
C-031SA-L
EXPIRATION DATE
DECEMBER 31,1984
COLE SCHAEFER AMBULANCE SERVICE
NOT TRANSFERABLE
O
C:
(j~
.-~
C)
City of RANCHO C UCAMONGA
BUSINESS CERTIFICATE
C3::-.:'<i"'L:!:i:!"~AE!:'EF' AFf!.z;UI.,AN(]E
.................... " ........ I Ci:' ~
aus~ass cOC~T~ON 11)2 ,.> ~',. ?:' l:';j>il.'{! r:~'>.,T<~ ~
F' (3 !'~ :i' !'-! A 212 A 9' ii 7 ,(:, 7
............... ! I.'.' E N T
BF: l[ ,"r.'ll'.l <::' ""
THE =ERSCN. FIRM. OR CORPORATTCN NAMED 9ELOW ;S GRANTED TH1S
CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO THE ;ROVIStCNS OF THE CITY 9U~NNESS UCENSi AND
TAX ORDINANCES. iSSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE IS NOT AN ENOOMEMENT NOR
CERTIFiCATTON OF COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER ORDINANCES OR LAWS.
THIS
CERTIFICATE IS NOT TRANSFERABLE AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO REFUND.
t BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER
EXPIRATrON DATE
4,527 .F.~Et')~F:L',~
TYPE OF BUSINESS
--I
f"FI
o
Z
0
n'l
rn
'1:1
rn
:).
o
Z
City~of RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BUSINESS CERTIFICATE
THE PEFL~ON, FIRM, OR CCRPORAT10N NAMED 8ELONV IS GRANTED TNA8 B~JSINESS
CERTIFICATE INRBUANT TO THE PROVI,SION8, OF ~ CITY BLtSII~SS ~CENBE AND
TAX ORCINANCEe,. ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE IS NOT AN ENO4318EM~NT NOR
THIS
CERTIFiCAtiON OF COMlel. IANCE WITH OTHER ORDINANCE~OR lAWS.
CERTIFICATE IS NOT TRANSFERABLE AND II NOT ~,IIJECT TO
COLE-SCHAEFER AMBULANCE
8US|NE88 NAME SCHAEFER AMBULANCE SERVICEt -INC,
BuS|HESS LOCA~ON 324 N · TOWHE AUE
POMONA CA
BusiI(~owNERJAMES H, MC HEAL PRESIDENT.
BRIAN SCOTT
:
I
COLE-SCHAEfER N~BULN~CE
'SCHAEFER AMBUI/dICE SERUICEt
4~27 BEUERLY BLUD o
LOS AIIGELES C,~ 90004
OF 8~
BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER
00026550
~PIRATION DATE
11/30/95
AMRIff-ANr-tR-HnN-RMRR~.Rk~..y PATTTNT TR/iiRi:'fl;~ATTiaeI
C
Cit~r of RAI~!10 CUCAM'OIIGA
BUSINESS-. CERTIFICATE
~ (F t,l.,'lT, .fr._ II 16F All i~:t~FA&'NT G
CERTIFICATE II NDT is./.tlf _.Z'fe t II NOT ~ 1~ ~
COLE-SCHAEFER AMBULANCE
SCHAEFS~ A~ULANCE SERVICE,
'4627 BEUERLY BLVD,
-LOS ANGELES CA 90004
BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER
00026550
~pI~TiON DATE
11/30/96
ISSUED TO: seautn l~B~,
DOING BUSINESS AS: coLR-scm~gtga ~BL~c~ snv~c~
LOCATED AT: 324 I. m A~., ~, ~ 91767
is authorized b~ the Board of Supervisors to operate an ambulance seaice in the Count~ of
San Bernardino from ]ul~ 1, 19 ~5 to ~une 30, 19
SERVICE AREA ~ · ~ NUMBER OF VEHICLES
SCHAEFER AMBULANCE SERVICE
APPROVED AMBULANCE RATES
FOR
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
CHARGE
CODE
PICK UP IN:
AREA CODE:
EFFECTIVE:
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
20
JANUARY 1, 1995
01
05
06
07
09
BASE RATE:
BLS
PARAMEDIC
CRITICAL CARE
Mileage-per mile
Night Charge (1900-0700 hrs)
*Emergency (code 3)
Oxygen
Waiting Time
(ea 1/4 hr. over 15 min)
$217.00
$350.00 (4)
10.25
50.00
59.75
35.00
25.23
SPECIAL CHARGES
19 Obstetrical Kit
29 NeonaCe1 Transport
32 *EKG
43 Backboard Splints
44 Traction Splints
50 Dr7 Run--BLS
--Paramedic
--Critical Care
$ 26.50
$104.50
$ 45.00
$ 27.50
$ 49.00
$217.00
$350.00 (1)
61
63
66
57
71
91-
92
*IVAC Pumps-each" Hedic Team Transport
--per mile
Extra Crew
Registered Nurse
--Ist 3 hrs.
-- each additional hour
Respiratory Therapist --let 3 hrs.
-- each additional hour
Volume Ventilator
Pulse OxhneCer
$ 10.25
$217.00
$180.00
$ 40.00
$180.00
40.00
$150.00
$100.00
NOTES:
(1) RaCe plus the nurse or ~espiracory therapist initial charge
(4) This is an "All Inclusive" rate which includes-all charges
marked *
DEPARTMENT OF CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL
NON-TRANSFERABLE LICENSE
LICENSEE NAME AND PHYSICAL ADDRESS (only if different kern below)
SCHAEFER AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC.
DBA: COLE-SCHAEFER AMBULANCE
324 N. TOWNE AVE.
POMONA, CA 91767
L!CENSE NUMBER
106130
CHP CARRIER NUMBER
ISSUE OA,'EE
12-8-95
LOCAT!ON
E~PEC~,VE ~A~
12-10-95
L_, Du~icale
~ Ini~al
CA-- 525
The person or firm named has ben licensed
OPERATION OF:
XX~ Emengency Ambulances F'] An~.ored Cars
[] (IRIS) Inspection & Mainlenance Station, File Code Number
[] School Bus Contractors I.,ic, ense
~ursuanl to the Californi Vehicle Code Ion
u,I
LICENSEE NAME AND MAILING ADDRESS
COLE-SCHAEFER A~BULANCE
4627 W. BEVERLY BLVD.
LOS ANGELES, CA 90004
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS TRANSPORTATION
(HMX} Explosive subject to Division 14, Vehicle Code, Materials subject
L.j Section 31302, Vehicle Code, and other hazardous materials.
f L..J (HMO) Other Hazardous Matenals.
(HMW) Hazardous matenals in certified waste hauler vehicles only (fee exemptl;
Pro Med
ADMINiSTR I C
Januaxy 23, 1996
Mayor Bill Alexander
City Council Members
· City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Cole-Schaefer Ambulance Senrice
Dear Sirs and Madares:
On February 7, 1996, you will be considering an application for a dty operating permit for Cole-Schaefer
Ambulance Service. ProMed Health Care Administrators fully supports and endorses this application.
Cole-Schaefer Ambulance is a preferred provider for ProMed Health Care Administrators. As such, we
utilize theIn for amb,,hnce transportation services require~t by any of the 42,000 members enrolled in the
Independent Practice Associations (IPAs) we manage. This includes any who work or live in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga.
We have found that it makes good business sense to utilize our contracted preferred proriders to the largest
extent possible. The reg-lar working rehtionship is good for our members and avoids corffusion for our staff.
Our desire is to maintain such relationships in each area where we have a member presence. When we are
unable to do this, we cannot ensure that our members receive the level of service provided in our contracts
with our preferred providers. Cole-Schaefer's ability to provide ambulance senrice in your city also reduces
the use of non preferred providers which is neither good for us nor our members.
It is our hope that the City Council will approve the operating permit for Cole-Schaefer Ambulance Sentice
on February 7, 1996.
Sincerely,
Sheri R. Ruiz
Contracts Administator
xc: Jack Lain, City Manager
January 30, 1996
Inter Valley Health Plan
"Fulfilling the Promise"
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 805
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RE: Cole-Schaefer Ambulance Services
Each Member, City Council:
It is our understanding that on February 7, 1996, the City Council will have on its agenda, a
request for a city operating permit from Cole-Schaefer Ambulance Service.
Cole-Schaefer has been under conlract to Inter Valley Health Plan as a Preferred Provider since
1979. We have enjoyed an excellent relationship wi~ them over the years. Cole-Schaefer has
always been responsive to our needs and those of our members throughout our service area.
Inter Valley Health Plan has many members who reside or work in the City of Rancho
Cucarnonga. When it is necessary to transport any member to one of our facilities by ambulance,
we utilize the services of Cole-Schaefer when the 911 system is not necessary to be involved.
We support Cole-Schaefer's application for a permit This will allow Inter Valley Health Plan to
continue to serve our members in the most effective and cost efficient manner.
Sincerely, -
ackie Cay~..st
Provider Services
cc: File
A Federaa~ Qualifw, d/'NO
300 South Park Avenue · Pomona, Califomia 91766
(909) 623-6333 * (800) 251-8191 * Fax (909) 622-2907
February 1, 1996
Mr. Brian Scott
Regional Manager
Cole Shaeffer Ambulance
324 N. Towne Ave.
Pomona, CA 91767
Dear Brian:
I want to take this time to thank you for the professional services you provided the Quakes during
the 1995 baseball season and express interest in working together for the upcoming 1996 baseball
season. We found your service to be superior to previous years, at a more competitive rate. I
respect the fact that your staff was well trained and very knowledgeable in their field. Cole
Shaeffer always had staff on premises who were very proactive to treating any potential incidents.
I appreciate the fact that I always had somebody within easy contact. Also, the fact that copies of
all incident reports were made available to us for our files is extremely beneficial.
In addition, I always knew who my contact person was with your organization which made it
easier to gain information or make specific requests. Again, I look forward to a successful 1996
baseball season with Cole Shaeffer providing medical attention on site.
Director of Stadium Operations
Rancho CucamonCa Quakes Professional Baseball Club * 8408 Rochester Ave * P.O. Box 4139 * Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Administration (909) 481-5000 · Ticket Office (909) 481-5252 · Fax (909) 481-5005
January 23, 1996
Mayor BLII Alexander
City Council Members
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Cole-Schaefer Ambulance Service
Dear Sirs and Madras:
On February 7, 1996, you will be considezing an application for a dty operating permit for Cole-Schaefer
Ambulance Service. ProMed Heakh Care Administrators fully supports and endorses this application.
Cole-Schaefer Ambulance is a preferred provider for ProMed Health Care Administrators. As such, ~ve
u, ili~e them for arab-lance transportation sendices required by any of the 42,000 members egolled in the
Independent Practice Associations (IPAs) we manage. This includes any who work or live in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. _..
We have forrod that it makes good business sense to utilize our contracted preferred providers to the largest
exxent possible. The regular xvorking relationship is good for our members and avoids confusion for our staff.
Our desire is to maintain such relationships in each area ~vhere ~ve have a member presence. When we are
unable to do this, we cannot ensure that our members receive the level of sen,ice provided in our contracts
with our preferred proriders. Cole-Schaefer's ability to provide ambulance service in your dry also reduces
the use of non preferred providers which is neither good for us nor our members.
It is our hope that the City Council will approve the operating pegit for Cole-Schaefer Ambulance Sentice
on February 7, 1996.
Sincerely,
Sheri R. Ruiz
Contracts Administrator
xc: Jack Lain, City Manager
. /
'1
RANCHO CUCAMON~A CITY
COUNCIL
FEB R UAR Y 7, 19 9 6
City Manager, Jack Lain
Submitted by MedTrans San Bernardino County
Table of Contents
1
Opening Letter
2
Overview
3
QA/QI overview
4
Community
Services
5
Conclusion
~'~AVE:ITWr READY INDEX",' iNDEXING SYSTEM
MedTrans
San Bernardino County
7925 Center A 're
Rancno Cucamonga
Catifornta 91730
800-826-2729
909-948-9039 FAX
February7,1996
The Honorable Jack Lam
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
91730
Dear Mr. Lam:
We have been informed that Cole-Schaefer Ambulance has requested to be granted a permit to
operate Basic Life Support Ambulances "BLS" within your city. We also understand that
through the permit granted by the County of San Bemardino they are currently allowed to
operate in a portion of Rancho Cucamonga.
We would like to supply the Council with some additional facts, that we feel will help the
Council in their consideration of the application from Cole-Schaefer.
· CareLine Ambulance (MedTrans) has been the permitted provider in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga for both ALS and BLS for over 20 years.
· Within the City of Rancho Cucamonga, CareLine has an operations center and 5 post
locations.
· Every call that CareLine responds to in the City of Rancho Cucamonga are done by
Advanced .Life Support Ambulances "ALS".
· Currently the citizens of Rancho Cucamonga experience a high level of patient care through
the teamwork of both CareLine and the Fire Department.
There is a potential that if another provider is granted a permit to operate "BLS" ambulances
in the City, that their ambulances would not be properly equipped to handle calls that require
a higher level of care such as "ALS" type calls. This would create a unnecessary delay in
the response of the Fire Department and CareLine.
Page 2
City of Rancho Cucamonga
February 7, 1996
Non-Emergency transports help fund uncompensated EMS service calls. Taking only
compensated non-emergency calls out of the system makes it harder for the fully equipped
"ALS" provider to put resources on the road.
· With the lack of significant numbers of medical type facilities in the City, we see no need for
another permitted provider in the city.
The merger of Med-Trans and CareLine has produced the largest ambulance provider in the
state and the largest provider of.health care transportation in the nation. Subsequently, our
companies have managed care contracts in place both locally and nationally with all of the
primary care groups. If there are "lives" in the City of Rancho Cucamonga that are enrolled
in these managed care groups, we probably already service their needs.
We hope that the above information will be helpful to you in your decision to deny or grant the
permit to Cole-Schaefer Ambulance. CareLine requests at this time that the City Council deny
the permit application by Cole-Schaefer. Thank you for your time and consideration in this
matter.
,. Cude
Managing Director
MedTrans San Bernardino County
:I
(') 0 ~
(I.).0 a3 Go
~ r~ ,.~~.o
cO~ cO o~
CONTRACT LIST
2/7196
Al~-,-ln, a Co...^~,,~.;~, Hospital
Encino-Tar--~_, Medical. Crater
~e-dsle Advmlis~ Medical Cedar
~ Lnk~ Hospi~-I
Bay Siusres Medical Group
Blue Cross of C-Nfo-,;-
Blue Cross dSo~*-~
BrommMedi~Cm=
~ ~ Ho~
H~khCa-~ Pann~rs
Holy Cross Hosl~ial
::: V
Fsizvi~v Sure I-Iospit~l
FLIP, Inc.
Cvard~u Grov~ Medical ~
Hsrrimn-I~u M~lical Group
Hos8 Memorial Medical C~
HunfinSton Beach Medicsl C~ater
Inter County Meidcal Group
~ Pennfrieze
Ls Palma Inm~r--~y Hospital
Manh Lufher Hosp~
McDmmdl-Doulhss
MulJlth M~Sta~e
OnnSe Comny Voucher
Saint Joseph Medical Group
S~. Jude Medical Ce~er
UnkedHeakhPhn
VA Medical Cen~er Lc~ Beach
Yorba Pad: Med~tl Groul~
Ake~'a~ve Heslth Care
Buena Vswora Medicsl Crmic, Inc.
Cv,,~'uo Stste Hospitsl
Chsad Idnd Surgicd Center
Casxter Hosphl dlbussnd Osks
Coas~ hdividusl Praaiener Assodatioa
Los Robks ler8~..,.,~ Medical Center
PeaksHealrYaPlm
Smm Pauh M~ ~
S~ V'~w Me~=l Group
St. Johu's Pleasant ViIIc~ Hoslld
TakeCare o£ Calffomh
United Health Plan
Vista Del Mar Hospital
Westlake Co,., .... ~Hospital
Arcadit Methodist Hosp~
Cecltr SksiMedical Ca~
~ · s Hospt~ of'Los
O~,p, Hotlt Phas
Gtn~ Valley Het~ Parreefs
Ci~yofHopeMedic~ICeuter
Combked MtnaZmm~
co,-,.- ,..~ty Hospice Car~
· Foot~-'n Presbytesin Hosltal
Health Net
HealthCare Partners
Hospice East San Gabx~ Va!ley~,,,t~Zton Memozitl Hospital
Kaiser
Las P,,,'~,u Hospital
mne~ ~nc.
Quem o~ttxe Valley Hospital ..
VNA- East SO Vs/ky
Aettta
Blue Cross of Southern C-llf_omia
CaLPoly. Pomona
Casa Colina Convale, w, ent
Charter Oaks
Citrus Valley Health Partners
Corn~mlty ~,7~at~o Ceatet
corm vane>, co ....... ,,.~y ~xoa, i~
Dootor's Hosptial Wesz Coyins
UnkedHultPlm
East Bmtin~on Vaney Hospital
Foothill Pr~ Hospital
Heal~ Care Aamlnietrators
H,-,~r~n P~ovider
Menrm~ ~hy Hosp~ta]
West Cov~ Mcdicd (:::bi~t~l*-4 Me&a] C5~
Whittier Hos~tial Medical Center ..
.,, i
Blue Crou orCalibmb
Chiuo t~.e;t,~o. for ~eu
c~;,,o InstiNt/on for Womm
Chiuo Valley Modical Center
Ka~er~eu~
Loma I. bda Uuivetsky Medica Center
Riverside Co~,m,,,,ity Hospital
H~Hi J. MCKENZIEJR.
CHEFO~STAFF
GINA RUTHERFORD
LEC_dSLATN[
JANICE MOtNAR
ADMII$1RATWiAS$6TANT
SENATOR
BILL LEONARD
February 24, 1994
Mercy Ambulance ·
c/O Soroptimist International of the Foothills
Ontario, California 91764 .:
It is my sincere pleasure to congratulate you on being
presented with Sotoptimist International of the Foothills,
Corporate Community Award,
COMMITTEES:
~TRU~ P_q. AT~ONS
V~C~C~U~MA~
~F~
You have set a fine example for others to follow. YOu are an
-encouragementto your peers and a validation of what. hard work
and determination can bring; l'am'proud of your' achievement, and
I ampleased you'are being recognized for it. Keep up the good
work.
Again, congratulations and best wishes for future success.
BL:gy
Sincerely, '. ::/.
BILL Tm'ONARD
P.O. Box 942848, Sa~amento. CA 942480001
(916) 44~3688 · FAX (916) 327-2272
400 Norlh Mountain Avenue, Suite 109. Upland, CA 91786
(909) 9464889 · (800) 404-3131 Toll Free · FAX (909) 982-1197
stand the real problems o'f tl~e Russian
people today."
That means Clinton should rise above
the usual we-can-be-allies-again rheto-
ric. And he should not offer money he
observers at polling places.
-Russians axe worried about eco-
nomic security. We went through a
depression with 25 percent unemployed.
Government helped flee enterprise get
died. After the
suitable. Pull out
~} William Sa~rt
column for the Arc:
The Daily Bulletin welcomes letters to the editor on subjects of public interest. Letters
must be signed and a daytime phone number included for the paper's records only. The
· ediwr reserves the right to edit eclch contribution for xpace or clarity. Send letters to
The Daily Bulletin, Letters to the EdiWr, P.O. Box 4000. Ontario, Calif. 91761.
The Daily Bulletin 's ,
only in its editorials.
in guest editorials. cc
cartoons are those of
when we humbly turn to him and seek
his face.
We have an opportunity on May 4,
the National Day of Prayer, to join in
prayer for our country. Each of us boars
some respousibility for the wickedness
and destruction we see encroaching
from every quarter. Do we dare con-
tinue in prideful unrepentance and risk
pres-mlng upon God's graciohsness?
Abraham Lincoln in 1863 declared a
day of fasting and prayer in the wake of
ever-worsening news from the battle-
front of the Civil War: 'It is the duty of
nations as well as of men to own their
dependence upon the overruling power
of God, to confess their sins of trans-
gressions in humble sorrow yet with
assured hope that genuine repentance
will lead to mercy and pardon."
Let ns together on bended knee hum-
bly and honesfly seek God's face. Let us
together acknowledge our sinfulness,'
and beseech Almighty God to mercifully
pardon ns that we might be renewed in
our walk through the pages of his story.
God keeps his promi-~es,. as we have
seen all through history. He has prom-
ised to hear the prayer of the humble
people who seek him and tufa from
their wickedness. He promi~,s to for-
give them and to heal their land. Let us
join where ever we may be and take him
at his word.
JUJ, F. MrlX)SCH
Ontario
concerned with Michelle's well-being
and providing anything that would
make her feel better.
We concur that beth Rhonda and
Sandy went out of their way to provide
the best care possible, and if this is the
normal care given to every patient, then
the service provided by San Antonio
Hospital is unparalleled. Our tbanl~
and praise to the 911 operator (who vol-
unteered to stay on the phone until
paramedics arrived), Rancho
Cucamonga firetighten, Careline para-
medics and San Antonio Hospital.
BRYON AND MIC!~TIJ.E KELLY
Rancho Cue~onga
Too many large ads
worsen newspaper
I have been a subscriber to the Bulle-
tin for 50 years and so disturbed at the
deterioration of this paper in the past
few years. The March 20 issue is an
excellent example. Page 3, Section A,
nearly full-page Stater ad; last page,
Part A, full-page Secure Horizons.
Please start issuing a paper that gives
the customers their moneys worth. This
newspaper is really not worth reading
at this point.
WINIFRUD SMITH
Pomona
Thank you for help'',, Firetighters proved
during emergency,..merit in Oklahoma
On April 15, Michelle experienced a
complication in the 34th week of her
pregnancy. A frantic call to 911 resulted
in Rancho Chlcamonga fire and ~e
aramedic persounel arriving at our
Rouse within minutes. A determination
was reached that she needed further
· mecli-.xl treatment and she was trans-
: potted to San Antonio Hospital.
The nurses that were working that
night and next day (namely Rhonda and
.Sandy) provided the moat professional
.service that we have ever seen by medi-
~:cal persound. They were always
fighters' overtime bffi a needle~s~
Ontario costs (Daily Bulletin, April 23),
perhaps you need to see things from a
different perapective.
· This country's recent tragedy in Okla-;
homa sent death, pain and sorrow to the;
victim.% their familieS and to people;
throughout the world. Firefighters were
dispatched immediately to the scene'
and are still there combing through the:
rubble in the hopes that more survivors
will be found. Do you know what it is
like to have someene hand you a little
baby and plead w~
her life? Fire~ghx
feeling is like!
Do you feel th:;
Oklahoma City ar;
Realise"that a tra
Oklahoma could h,
edly. I think you
wrong tree. I don't
Of this community
the saving of them.-
You also have th
ing. This nation's
undoubtedly end t!
those rescue wor:
here locally havc
careers of some of
women. Think abm
the picture (Dafiy
famillarly called
aroand the world.~
WTLLT~LM ROZIN
Rialto
Fancy titles
for address
The Constitution
states the '1~/o titlc
granted by the UnU
Nobility is define
sons forming a clas~
cial tifles.
I have written:
congressmen over t"
taught me to begin
Honorable.'
: My father told
! wrong, and for
addressed letters
representative or s
office has deliverec
ters to the right
The. House, dun
tract with Areeric
makes Congress
apply to the priva~.
How nice. If ne~
representatives i~
misdemeanors-
6~.
A.P, pAWLUK
Pomona
MERCY AMBULANCE COMPANY
dr/, ~o,'zo,c CO]~ Receiving The
COMMUNITY AWARD FOR HEALTH SERVICES
Presented by
SOROPTIMIST INTERNATIONAL OF THE FOOTHILLS
and ~atc
Ontario, California
February 2~t, 199q
o[ ti~7dt,~t,V
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
· aunt~ af J~an ~ernarbina
Certificate af d predatian
MERCY AMBULANCE
!!
SOROPTIMIST THE FOOTHILLS
"HAVE A HEART" ~WARDS
NMD INDUCTION BN~IQUET
: ': -. -.RED UON mN
\ ;--~ 't" :;:~ ,~ ;'. ' FEBRUARY 24, 1994
. .. ,. ,';:f/I d:",-~.).k,4 -.~,'. '. .- .'
~: . -.....,, "..-.-,~:.7..- '. ,...:!:.;,._.:.
,:-.-*-'-' *" ;! ";-"-:'z. ,'~.~.-.: ..' . ;,:':: ';
" /,':":' C)>.;::"-':':Y:~:::: 's "'/':;i':, .'~-' . ·. m.=~,,
'5 ~% ~'-i '.- :;:".'.:' ;~.,'-::."$:~<:' ~ ;.' ':-~' ~'~J 'DateFebruary 24, 1994
~-','-: !i, ::: "-:";:', ,
· , ~, ........~/~l .... .-~ _ ...... . .
..... ~' ~""~;-~t'4""~'.~-"~'~Pt~'-;.~.~-'~'4~P-~"-~"~-'~'~-'~-'' ' - ' - ' --
· ~!;. i'~ ://.~.'i'~ ~.. ,' i~.~'..: .
Sotoptimist Intentional of the Foothills
Feb~~~ 1994
,-
.....a,~ co,.e.° ~
0
(b
0
c~
I I
I I
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
DREIIOBICY MEOICAL IIIWICE$ A01NCY
184 Hoehdty Lee, lulte 4A , le Be-,,tJbs, CA 9241E-0080 ,
I9011 818-7611
THOMASJ. P~,Jr.,M.D.,M.p.H
Interim Direotor of Public Health
February 7, 1996
Teryl M. Cude
McdTran
792~ Center Avehum
Ranclio CucamonS~ CA 91730
Dear Mr. Cudc:
I am in receipt of your l~er of Febru S, 1996, in regards to perfifth and adding BLS
response to an area that already has ALS as a first response.
Ismes reGardin8 exclusive operatin~ zones and the County ElVfS and transportation plan
should be directed to the County Public Health Officcr. In regards to Colc-Schacfer's
permitted operating ar~, I believe it cover, only part of tho City ofRancJ~ Cucamonga
and not all of it. Therefore, only llrt ofth~ City would be covered. Thb, however,
~muld be contimed and clarified by the Public Health Offi~-r. In g to adding BLS
to an ~rca ~hcrc tl~r~ i~ alrudy u AI~ ~ it a;qgan that this is an inefficient and
a poor use of resources. You sre correct in statinS that if a BLS unit had a patient who
required ALS care would have to be Nmed over to an ALS unit. This could cause a delay
in the patient receivin8 the care he needed.
I hope this answers your question. Please feel free to contact me at (909) 387-7760.
Sincerely,
ConmdSalin~
Medical Director
CS:ss
cc: Diane Fisher, EMS
~nk.ktd ,,~t SUpervisOr&
I I
O, '(I.) GO
0
..-..I
0
(1.)
GO
0
..--.I
I I
U, O3:LUO
c~ O
- I
I
Presentation:
MedTrans Presents
Community Education Course
Information
911: An Overview of Emergency Medical Services
General information about local paramcdic services; education and training of M~rrans paramedics and cmerg,zncy medical technicians;
scope-of-practice; roles & responsibilities; fleet services; communications; safety progrants. Lecture, display and handouts available.
Time flame: 30 min.- 2 hours
Early Access to 911/Vial of Life Program
General information about local emergency medical services. This program xcvi~ws signs and symptoms of cardiac emergencies, the
importance of early entry into the emergency medical care systran to receive e.~riy de~bri!lafion and advanced life support.
Emergency preparedness materials available.
Time flame: 30 min.- 1 hour
Dial 911/Make the Right Call Program
911 System education for preschool to adult age. This program reviews how to identify an emergency and the how-to's and when-
to's of accessing healthcare services through 911. Lecture and literature available.
Timej~ame: 15 rain. - I hour
Ambulance Demonstrations
Demonstration of non-dedicated ambulance and equipment Presentation based on availability of ambulances not on active
~on calls.
Time flame: 30 min.-! hour
Career Presentations
Literature and lectur~ available on careers in emergency medical services.
Time flame: 30 rain.- I hour
DNR: The Do Not Resuscitate Patient
Educational information via handouts and lecture dealing with the potential transportation or care by prehospitai pmviders of the
tenninaily-ill patient This class also covers the laws and scope-of-~ce pertaining to the parmnedic and the emergency medical
twJmician.
Time flame: I hour
Baby-Sitter's Program
Course designed for anyone age 12 yrs. + who deals with children from birth to 10 yts. ofsge. This course covets the developmental
stages of children, identification & management of common childhood problems, sitter safety, accessing 91 l, I-rescuer infmt and child
CPR, handling the choking child and infant, safety and childhood injury prevention. All participan~ receive a copy of the MedTrans
Baby-Sitter's Guide Checklist with instructions for use. Upon successful course completion, all pffticipimts receive an American Heart
Association Pediatr/c CPR Recognition Card and a MedTrans Baby-Sitter's Program Certificate of Course Completion.
Time flame: 6 hours
CPR
· Adult Heartsaver
l-rescuer adult CPR; adult foreign body sirway obstruction maneuvers.
Meth~: Lecture, demonsm~ons, ~ practice, skills test
Time flame: 4 - 6 hours
Heartsaver
i-rescuer adult, child and/or infant CPR; foreign body airway obstruction maneuvers.
Method: l.~cture~ demonstration, reading. skills pnnice~ skills t~c
Time flame: 4 - 6 hours
Health Care Provider Level
1- and 2-rescuer adult and child CPR, !-man infant CPR; foreign body alnvay obstruction maneuvers; mouth-to-mask.
Method: Reading lecture~ demonstration. skills practice~ skills and writtea testing (rain. passing score nf84%).
Time.l~ame: 6 - 8 hours; RocerL - 4 hours
Presentation:
· Pediatric BLS
I-rescuer child and/or infant CPR (ages birth - 8 yrs.); foreign body airway obstruction maneuvers; safety and a~cident prevention
information.
Method: Lecture, demonstration, skills practice, skills testing.
TimeJ~ame: 4 hours
Drowning Prevention Program
This program deals with prevention and safety measures to be taken to avoid this unfortunate cause of death in children.
Method: Lecture, reading, and audiovisuals.
TimeJ~ame: I hour
Earthquake Preparedness (Provider) Course
This American Red Cross program provides the participants with information on the history of earthquakes, and what to do before,
· during and after an earthquake. Preparedness materials available.
Method: Lecture, audiovisuals and reading.
TimeJ~arae: I - 2 hours
10.
Medic First Aid/CPR
This program provides the student with a two-year recognition card. The students are tnught practical skills ~ in an emergency; i.e.,
patient assessment, airway management, ! -rescuer adult CPIL bandaging splinting shock of management and treatment medical.
Method: Lecture, demonstration, skills and reading.
Time flame: 8 - 9 hours
11.
Medic First Aid Care Initiator Course
Includes scene survey, CPIL managing the choking adult patient, primary care and assessment of life thr~__t_-cMng problems; i.e., bleeding
and sho~k management Successful course completion gives the student a recognition c~rd in Medic First Aid Initiator Course for adult
CPR, choking maneuvers, and primary circle offare skills.
Method: Lecture, demonstration, skills and reading.
Time flame: 4 hours
12.
Pediatric Medic First Aid
Emergency based pediatric first aid (priorities of care, injury and illness ~ent and care, medical mergeholes, environmental
emergencies, bandaging, splinting CPR, choking maneuvers, safety, and prevention. This is an excellent program for anyone dealing
with children; i.e., baby-sittea, mlr. hers, parents, gnmdparents.
Meth~: Lecture, demonstration, skills and reading.
Time flame: 8 - 9 hours
13.
California Daycare Course
Includes daycare facility preventative health practices and emergency preparedness. Meets California law requirements for daycare
provider~
Meth~: Lecture, reading, discussion and writing.
Time flame: 7 - 8 hours
14.
Pediatric Care Initiator Course
Includes scene survey, infant & child CPR, managing the choking pediattic patient, primary care and assessment of life ltr~__t_ening
problems; i.e., bleeding and shock managemenL S~ course completion gives the student a recognition card in Pediatric Care
Initiator Course for pedlattic CPPs cholrin~ maneuven, and primary circle of ~ skills.
Time flame: 4 hours
T H E C
RANCHO
C
I T Y
U-C A
M
F
A
September 29, 1993
Mr..Brian Scott
Division Manager
Cole-Schaefer Ambulance Service
324 N. Towne Avenue
Pomona, CA 91768
Dear Mr. Scott:
It has come to the City's attention that Cole-Schaefer Ambulance has been
taking calls within our City limits. I would like to take this opportunity to
inform you that the provision of both BLS and ALS ambulance services are
regulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
'The City's regulations in this matter arc quite clear in that any company
providing ambulance services must first obtain a permit from the City. At this
time, Cole-Schaefer Ambulance does not have a permit from the City to provide
ambulance services in Rancho Cucamonga. Until such time as Cole-Schaefer
has an ambulance permit from the City we must ask you to refrain from
providing ambulance services in Rancho Cucamonga.
I have enclosed a copy of our ambulance ordinance for your reference.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter please feel free to call
me-~at (909) 989-1851, extension 2006. Thank yon for your' cooperation.
Sincerely,
Duane A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
Jack ~, ~, Q~ Mmgcr
Jc~ Fulwo~, ~uty City M~agcr
Dennis Michael, R~ '~ief
SupeHisor Jan MikeIs - County Board of Supe~bo~
Mayor Do~ L. ~t C~~ W~m J, A~xonde
MoV~ Pro-T~ Cho~ J, Buq~t II C~n~~r D~no
J~k LQm. AICP. Ci~ Mono~er Counc~t Rex G~ff~
10500 Civic Center Drive
· P.O, Box 807 Rancho Cucarnonga. CA 91729 · (909) 989-1851 · FAX (909] 987-6499