HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995/02/15 - Agenda PacketCITY CSUNCIL
AGEN}A
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MEETINGS
1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m.
February 15, 1995
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 Willjams, Councilmember
Jack Lam, City Manager
James L. Markman, City Attorney
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
City Office: 989-1851
City Council Agenda
February 15, 1995
PAGE
All items 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 be limited to five minutes
per individual.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine and non-
controversial. They will be acted upon by the Council at one time without
discussion. Any item may be removed by a Councilmember or member of the
audience for discussion.
Approval of Minutes:
December 7, 1994
January 4, 1995 (Curatalo absent)
January 18, 1995
Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 1/25/95 and 2/1/95; and Payroll ending
1/12/95 for the total amount of $1,945,160.63.
,
Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of January 31,
1995.
Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off Sale Beer and Wine (20) for 7-Eleven
Store ~2171-13979, Southland Corporation, Indnesh P, Singh and Pengkie
Kaur, 9464 Base Line Road.
o
Approval of the sources of payment for the Rancho Cucamonga
Redevelopment Agency's share of the State budget deficit reduction
(Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund) for Fiscal Year 1994/95, totaling
$1,112,926.67.
15
17
City Council Agenda
February 15, 1995
PAGE
2
,
Approval of a Resolution Approving the issuance by the Redevelopment
Agency of the City of Rancho Cucamonga of its adjustable rate Multi-family
Housing Revenue Bonds (Rancho Verde Village Apartments) 1995 Series
A.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-014
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE ISSUANCE BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA OF ITS
ADJUSTABLE RATE MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (RANCHO VERDE
APARTMENTS PROJECT) 1995 SERIES A
Approval of a Resolution of Intent - Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bond
Program.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-015
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA,
AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA
DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE TO PERMIT
THE ISSUANCE OF QUALIFIED MORTGAGE BONDS
Approval of a Resolution indicating the City's desire to participate in San
Bernardino County's Implementation of SB 2139 (Auto Thefts).
RESOLUTION NO 95-016
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, INDICATING
THE CITY'S INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN THE
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO'S IMPLEMENTATION
OF SB 2139
Approval of the Environmental Initial Study, Parts I and II, for the proposed
Base Line Road Temporary Widening and Rehabilitation Project and
Issuance of a Categorical Exemption therefore.
19
2O
22
24
26
27
28
City Council Agenda
February 15, 1995
PAGE
10.
11.
12.
13.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-017
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE
OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE
PROPOSED BASE LINE ROAD TEMPORARY WIDENING
AND REHABILITATION PROJECT
Approval of a Summary Vacation of a portion of a storm drain easement,
located west of Buckthorn Avenue and north of Manzanita Drive (9010
Manzanita Drive - APN 1062-125-25).
RESOLUTION NO. 95-018
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, SUMMARILY
ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF A
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT, LOCATED WEST OF
BUCKTHORN AVENUE AND NORTH OF MANZANITA
DRIVE
Approval to execute a Reciprocal Fee Agreement (CO 95-004) with the City
of Rancho Cucamonga and Cucamonga County Water District.
Approval to execute a Professional Services Agreement (CO 95-005)
between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and U.S. Guards company,
Incorporated for providing security at the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink
Station for the amount of $46,000.00 per year for the next two years.
Approval to accept Improvements, Release of Bonds and Notice of
Completion for portions of Tract 13565, located on the northeast corner of
Wardman Bullock Road and 24th Street.
Release Faithful Performance Bond
Wardman Bullock Street
Wardman Bullock Floodwall
TR 13565-1
TR 13565-3
TR 13565-4
$ 302,000.00
148,000.00
103,000.00
246,000.00
160,000.00
Accept Maintenance Guarantee Bonds:
Wardman Bullock Street
Wardman Bullock Floodwall
TR 13565-1
TR 13565-3
TR 13565-4
$ 30,200.00
14,800.00
10,300.00
24,600.00
16,000.00
29
41
43
46
48
51
City Council Agenda
February 15, 1995
PAGE
4
RESOLUTION NO. 95-019
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING
THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13565-1,
13565-3, 13565-4, WARDMAN BULLOCK STREET AND
THE WARDMAN BULLOCK FLOODWALL AND
AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A NOTICE OF
COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
52
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time of first reading.
Second readings are expected to be rouUne 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.
CONSIDFRATION OF AN APPEAL OF MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PF:RMIT 91-24 - MASI - An appeal of certain Planning
Division conditions of approval for the Modification to Conditional Use Permit
91-24 for a 27-acre center located at the southwest comer of Rochester
Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the Industrial park Distdct (Subarea 7) of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan -APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through
28.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24,
A REVISION TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
FOR A 27-ACRE CENTER LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHVVEST CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK
DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA
SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, AND 26
THROUGH 28
53
105
City Council Agenda
February 15, 1995
PAGE
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND
IN DUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMEN DMENT 94-04 - CUCAMONGA
COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - A request to add Extensive Impact Utility
Facilities as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 17 of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan.
ORDINANCE NO, 539 (first reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 94-04, TO ALLOW
EXTENSIVE IMPACT UTILITY FACILITIES AS A
CONDITIONALLY PERMITrED USE IN SUBAREA 17,
AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
109
130
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have no legal publication or posting requirements. The
Chair will open the meeting to receive public testimony.
1. CONSIDERATION TO AMFND FACILITY RENTAL FEE FOR THE
EPICENTER
RESOLUTION NO. 94-091D
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 94-091A PERTAINING TO THE
FACILITY RENTAL FEE FOR THE EPICENTER
133
133-1
H. CITY MANAGFR'S STAFF RFPORTS
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.
City Council Agenda
February 15, 1995
PAGE
,
,
o
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE SENIOR AND COMMUNITY
PROGRAMS CONDUCTED AT THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER AND LIONS EAST COMMUNITY CENTFR
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO PREVENT
CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBERIES AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES
DISCUSSION OF PROGRAMS USED BY CITIES AND INTERESTED
PARTIES IN OFFERING AND MAINTAINING A REWARD PROGRAM
DISCUSSION OF POSSIBILITY OF RE-ESTABLISHING A PUBLIC
SAFETY COMMISSION AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES
DISCUSSION ON POSSIBILITY OF HOLDING A JOINT MEETING WITH
CHAFFEY COMMUNITY COLLEGE TO DISCUSS ITEMS OF MUTUAL
INTEREST (ORAL REPORT)
RECOMMENDATION FOR SELECTION OF ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK
FORCE ALTERNATE (ORAL REPORT)
UPDATE REPORT ON ROUTE 30
134
145
150
151
155
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
This is the time for City Council to identity 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 am to be limited to five minutes
per individual.
L. ADJOURNMENT
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, or my designee,
hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on
Februaq/9, 1995, seventy-two (72) hours pdor to the meeting per Government Code
54954.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
%
O( I-I
,i
I-I
O Z
V V V V ~ w ·
~O~wZ~w~W
~l~w~w ZWW
· Z Z~ Z
L
,J
I,-
e:~,,I k'1
~'el-,
I,~vJ ~44t,.4vI "eZ3E:iu
.,i
I l
! ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
i ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
uJ · ·
wm,rl
'~, I ·
~1 el
0121
I
· ·
,v · ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
II ·
· ·
· ·
IC31
eo.i
IUJB
i,-,~1
· ·
It-el
· ·
; B
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I
·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
m4 I
· ·
BC~I
· ·
5
%
Z
M,v'iuJ
_j
,-e
·
·
·
·
·
·
I
I
A
A
A
0
Z Z Z Z ~ · ~ J Z ~ ) Z" Z
Z~
Z
6
%
.r ·
ZIL,~
.J
).
I.-
I-I
I
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
· I
· ·
·
wI ·
4 · ·
~. · I
I ·
· · ·
%, · I
reel el
· ·
,. · ·
lu I I
l- · ·
,-~ · ·
· ·
Zl ·
} · I
~ · ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· ·
· I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
It-el
I1,..I
i~,1
I~1
IMJI
· ·
~ ·
· ·
: I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· ·
I I
· ·
· ·
· I
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
: I
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
i~,1
IZI
i:),1
· ·
I
I
I
I
I
I
·
I
w Z ~ ZZ Z 'E ~ ~
C~
W
I-,
.,,I
,z. er
~W
e,,4ma,
'.r ",
.J
I,-
I
·
·
·
·
·
I
· ·
· ·
· ·
-- · ·
I ·
I~1
~1~1
%1 ·
~1~1
%1=1
0131 · I
·
41 ·
~1 ·
· ·
ZI ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· I
· ·
I~1
I~l
I~1
I ·
I~1
· ·
· I
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· I
·
· ·
· l
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
· ·
I
I~1
· ·
I
I
·
I
· ·
I
I
·
I
·
·
eeeeeeee
A A
~ A A
V v ~ ~w ~W
,I
.4
im
1-
41.
41.
8
02/07/1995
CITY OF RANCliO CUCAMONGA
PORTFOLIO MASTER SU)U4ARY
JANUARY 31, 1995
CITY
CASH
AVEPAGE ---YIELD TOMATURI~---
PERCENT OF AVEPAGE DAYS TO 360 365
INVESTMEF[S B(I)K VALUE PORTFOLIO TERN MATIIRITY EQUIVALI~{T ~UIVALENT
Certificates of Deposit - Bank ...............$
Local Agency Investment Funds ................$
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon ...............$
Treasury Securities - Coupon .................$
Treasury Securities - Discount ...............$
Nort~age Backed Securities ...................$
Small Business Administration ................$
11,919,566.50 25.10 367 163 4.416 4.478
17,217,038.78 36.25 1 1 5.452 5.528
11,540,759.38 24.30 689 538 6.722 6.816
482,996.24 1.02 774 536 5.766 5.846
3,349,805.89 7.05 361 100 4.861 4.9~
1,885,680.88 3.97 1,591 796 6.7~ 6.823
1,101,562.50 2.32 9,131 6,018 8.184 8.298
TOTA.L ~TMEIFIS and AVERAGES ............. $ 47,497,410.17 100.00% 568 356 5.5761 5.654%
Passbook/Checking Accounts ...................$
(not included in yield calculations)
Accrued Interest at Purchase .................$
TOTAL CASH and PUIUCHASE IRTEREST ............. $
378,097.24
118,750.23
1.973 2.000
496,847.47
TOTAL ~ aid ~TMENTS ................. $ 47,994,257.64
TOTAL EARNIN~
C~rrent Year
MONTH ENDING FISCAL
JANUARY 31 YEAR TO DATE
$ 216,031.38 $ 1,237,542.36
DATE
I certify that this report accurately reflects all agency pooled investments and
is in comformity with investment policy adopted July 20, 1994. I copy of this
investmeat policy is available in the Finance Division of the Administrative
Services Department. The Investment Program herein shown provides sufficient
cash flow liquidity to meet next month's estimated expenditures.
9
02/07/1995
CITY OF RANCliO CUCA!~GA
I~ESTMI~ PORTFOLIO DETAILS -
JAI~ARY 31, 1995
CITY
CASB
INVESTIGi'T
NUMBER ISSUER
PURCHASE
DATE BOOK VALUE
STATED --- Tfi4 --- ~TURITY DAYS
FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE MATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK
00928 BANK OF AMERICA
00929 BANK OF AMERICA
00888 FOOTHILL INDEP BANK
00884 GREAT WESTERN
00885 GREAT kTSTERN
00886 GREAT WESTEPJe
00891 GREAT WESTERN
00898 GREAT WESTERN
00915 GREAT WESTERN
00918 GREAT kT, STERN
00927 GEEAT WESTERN
00894 SANWA
00924 SANWA
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES
LOCAL AGENCY
00005
00804
I~ESTME~T FOIDS
EOCAL AGD~Y INVST FUND
[XEAL AGEK"/ZFfST R]!)
SOBTOTAlS and AV]IAGES
FEDERAL AGENCY ISSUES
00895
00896
00897
00922
00925
00921
00926
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FEDERAL FARM CREDIT BANKS
FEDERAL BONE LOAN BANK
FEDERAL HOE LOAN BANK
FEDERAL NATL NTG ASSN
SOBTOTALS and AVEMAGES
TREASURY SECURITIES - COOPON
00904 TREASURY BILL
00903 TREAS~Y KYrE
SOBTOTALS and AfiIAGES
TREASURY SECURITIES - DISCOUNT
00892 TREASURY BILL
00907 TREASURY BILL
SUBTOTALS and AVERAGES
01/30/95 127,921.00
01/31/95 1,791,645.50
03/15/94 500,000.00
02/15/94 500,000.00
02/22/94 500,000.00
03/01/94 500,000.00
03/29/94 500,000.00
05/12/94 2,000,000.00
11/15/94 500,000.00
11/15/94 5(M),O00.O0
01/25/95 500,000.00
01/04/94
04/29/94
12/28/94
127,921.00 127,921.00 2.800 2.800 2.839 03/02/95 29
1,791,645.50 1,791,645.50 2.800 2.800 2.839 04/04/95 62
500,000.00 500,000.00 4.430 4.430 4.492 03/15/95 42
500,000.00 500,000.00 3.750 3,750 3.802 02/15/95 14
500,000.00 500,000.00 3.750 3.750 3.802 02/22/95 21
500,000.00 5(X),O00.O0 3.750 3.750 3.802 03/01/95 28
500,000.00 500,000.00 3.750 3.750 3.802 03/29/95 56
2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 4.600 4.600 4.664 08/14/95 194
5(M),O00.O0 500,000.00 6.000 6.000 6.083 11/27/95 299
500,000.00 500,000.00 6.000 6.000 6.083 11/27/95 299
500,000.00 500,000.00 6.900 6.900 6.996 01/25/96 358
1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 3.150 3.150 3.194 02/08/95 7
2,000,000.00 4.250 4.250 4.309 05/02/95 90
1,000,000.00 7.250 7.250 7.351 12/28/96 696
11,919,566.50 11,919,566.50
11,919,566.50 4.416 4.478 163
16,104,038.78 16,104,038.78 16,104,038.78 5.528
1,113,000.00 1,113,000.00 1,113,000.00 5.528
17,217,038.78 17,217,038.78 17,217,038.78
5.452 5.528
5.452 5.528
5.452 5.528 1
04/29/94 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 5.850 5.770 5.850 04/29/96 453
05/05/94 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,500,000.00 5.160 5.089 5.160 05/01/95 89
05/05/94 1,996,250.00 2,000,000.00 1,996,250.00 5.850 5.870 5.952 04/29/96 453
12/19/94 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 8.030 8.030 8.142 12/19/97 1,052
12/28/94 1,065,134.38 1,065,134.38 1,065,134.38 6.360 7.683 7.789 09/19/96 596
12/21/94 1,981,250.00 2,000,000.00 1,981,250.00 7.050 7.564 7.669 10/10/96 617
12/29/94 1,998,125.00 2,000,000.00 1,998,125.00 7.700 7.752 7.859 12/10/96 678
11,540,759.38 11,565,134.38
11,540,759.38 6.722 6.816 538
06/07/94 210,151.24 217,000.00 210,151.24 4.600
06/08/94 272,845.00 277,000.00 272,845.00 6.141
482,996.24 494,000.00 482,996.24
04/13/94 1,913,085.56 2,000,000.00 1,913,085.56 4.370
06/30/94 1,436,720.33 1,515,000.00 1,436,720.33 5.389
4.720 4.786 02/09/95 8
6.571 6.662 0~8/31/97 942
5.766 5.846 536
4.518 4.581 04/06/95 64
5.317 5.391 06/29/95 148
3,349,805.89 3,515,000.00 3,349,805.89 4.861 4.929
10
02/07/1995
CITY OF RANCHO ~UCA~3NGA
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - INVESTMI~TS
JANUARY 31, 1995
CITY
INVESTMENT PURCHASE STATED ---YTM--- MATURITY DAYS
NUMBER ISSUER
DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES
00071 FEDERAL ]]OI4E LOAN BANK 02/23/87
00203 FEDERAL MATE MTG ASSN 09/21/87
00899 FEDERAL MATE MTG ASSN 05/12/94
00002 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASRi 07/01/87
00069 GOVERNXENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 07/01/87
S~TC)Txu~ and AVERAGES
~ BUSINESS A/)IIINISTRATION
00004 SMALL ~SINESS AI)NIN
74,086.45 76,060.64 442,907.10 8.000 8.336 8.452 01/01/02 2,528
156,488.24 169,405.40 612,753.80 8.500 9.557 9.689 09/01/10 5,693
1,485,000.00 1,500,000.00 1,485,000.00 3.790 6.136 6.221 02/24/95 25
134,969.59 136,851.30 663,389.28 8.500 8.631 8.751 05/15/01 2,297
35,136.60 34,443.68 84,710.58 9.000 8.515 8.634 03/15/01 2,236
1,885,680.88 1,916,761.02 3,288,760.76 6.729 6.823 796
07/25/86 1,101,562.50 I,O00,O00.GO 1,065,142.39 9.125 8.184 8.298 07/25/11 6,018
TOTAL IlfiZESTMENTS and AVEPAGES
$ 47,497,410.17 47,627,500.68 48,864,069.94 5.576% 5.654% 356
11
02/07/1995
CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO DETAILS - CASH
JANUARY 31, 1995
CITY
CASH
INVESTMEIfr PURCHASE STATED --- YTM --- MATURITY DAYS
NUMBER ISSUER DATE BOOK VALUE FACE VALUE MARKET VALUE RATE 360 365 DATE TO MAT
CHECKING/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
00180 ~ OF AMERICA
378,097.24 2.000 1.973 2.000
Accrued Interest at Purchase
TOTAL CASH
49~,847.47
TOTAL CASH ~nd INVESTMENTS
47,994,257.64
02/07/1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAJK)NGA
PORTFOLIO MASTER INVESTMENT ACTIVITY BY TYPE
JANUARY 1, 1995 - JANUARY 31, 1995
CITY
CASH
STATED TRANSACTION FORCHASES SALES/MATURITIES
TYPE INVESTMENT J ISSUER RATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITHDRAWALS BALANCE
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT - BANK
00916 BANK O[ AMERICA 2.800 01/31/1995
00923 BANK O[ AMERICA 2.800 01/30/1995
00928 BANK O[ AMERICA 2.800 01/30/1995
00929 BANI< OF AMERICA 2.800 01/31/1995
00882 GREAT WESTERN 3.350 01/25/1995
00927 GREAT WESTERN 6.900 01/25/1995
00878 SAMWA 3.150 01/04/1995
SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE
127,921.00
1,791,645.50
50O,0O0.0O
2,419,566.50
BEGINNING BALAI{CE:
1,791,645.50
127,921.00
50O,00O.0O
1,000,00).00
3,419,566.50
12,919,566.50
11,919,566.50
I/3CAL AGENCY INVESTMENT ~
00O05 LOCAl, AGENCY INVST FUN1) 5.528
00804 lOCAL AGENCY INVST { 5.528
SUBTOTALS and ENDING BALANCE
2,680,284.49
2,680,284.49
BEGINNING BALANCE:
14,536,754.29
0.0O 17,217,038.78
UNG/SAVINGS ACCOUNTS
0O18O BANK OF AMERICA
1,563,00O.00
BEGINNING BALANCE:
2,439,000.00
1,254,097.24
378,097.24
FEDERAL AG~CY ISSUES - ~N
BEGINNING BdU. Jd{CE: 11,540,759.38
11,540,759.38
TREASURY SECURITIES - COUPON
BEGINN1]IG BALAMCE:
482,996.24
482,996.24
TREASURY SECURITIES - DISCOUNT
BEGINNDIG BAlddICE:
3,349,805.89
3,349,805.89
MORTGAGE BACKED SECURITIES
00071 FEDERAL HOME LOAM BANK 8.000
00203 FEDERAL NATL MTG ASSN 8.500
00002 0OVEIUIMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 8.500
00069 GOVERNMENT NATIONAL MORTG ASSN 9.000
SUBTOTAlS and ENDING BALANCE
01/17/95
01/25/95
01/15/95
01/04/95
BEGINNUiGB~,LAMCE:
1,933.87
627.52
1,114.20
274.89
3,950.48
1,889,631.36
1,885,680.88
lS
02/07/1995
CITY OF RANCliO ~CAMONGA
PORTFOLIO MASTER INVESTMENT ACTIVITY BY TYPE
JANUARY 1, 1995 - JANUARY 31, 1995
CITY
CASll
STATED TRANSACTION PURCHASES SALES/MATURITIES
TYPE INVESTMENT ~ ISSUER MATE DATE OR DEPOSITS OR WITHDRAWALS BALANCE
SMALL BUSINESS AI~INISTRATION
TOTALS BEGINNING BALANCE:
BEGINNING BALANCE: 1,101.562.50
1,101,562.50
$ 47,075,173.40 6,662,850.99 5,862,516.98 47,875,507.41
]4
'COPY
· AINKJCAfiON FOR ALCOHOLIC lEVEllAG! UCINSI(S)
.
Tot De~t of AlcohoBc Beverage Control
Se:ramento, Collf. 95818
The undefined hereby apldles for
Iker~es described m followst
2. NAME(S) OF APPLICANT(S)
Sound CorJ~rat~n0 The
' rag:, Pangkit
a. Net of Business
... 7-twillart SCore e 1171-13979
~.. '' 5. L~on ~ S~n~s~um~r a~ ~e~
Cl~ and Zip C~de
ila~cho Cucamonga, CA 91701 Sa, bernardlno
· If ~1~ LIckS,
~w Ty~ of Ltcen~ 20-2~4~20
8. M~llng ~dress (if different from
~ ~ 2245, are~. CA 9~6J~-~245
k Nee Write Ahwe IldeLbe4er Nmmdq,m~eere he Omly
I. TYPE(S) OF LICENSE(S) FILE N~3675
RECEr l ?76
GEOGRAPHICAL
Off Sale 8e,r ^,a t;! .... CODE 3~15-07
(~o}
Date
Temp. termit
Effective Dales Effedive Date:
3. TYPE(S) OF TRANSACTION(S} FEE tiC.
$
Per tn POT SU.0U ,0
. AnnUL1 Fee 34.09
04.00
fl'ee~) (term)
10. Have you e~er violated any of the provisiofi~ of the Alcohollc
lres, Boutbland Beverage Control Act or regulations of the Department per-
reining to the Act? Nnf lnc~n~'~h P. Si:~,]h&PP,~gkiQ
I1. Explain o "YES" answer to items 9 or 10 on on attachmerit whk:h shall be deemed part of this application. !',aur
Ooc~nt on rile in Sacr~.~.e~xt.j Office
12. Appllconl a~fees (o) that any ma,oger eraplayed in on-ale lice,wd premises will hove all the qvoli6cotio, s of a llcensee. and
(b) ll~t he will not violate or cause or permit to be violMad say e~ the Fovi-~ons ot the Alcohalic &everDee ContrD! Act.
13. STATE OF CALIFORNIA Caun~/'am ur ,ca" ~ h ....
- . . ""i .................. 7 ........... 7~=~l~--r,r~ ...... T"'
&~)mlCATION BV
iS. STATE OF CALIFORNIA taunt/~ ...... _'_ ....._'____"___~_____m~____'!_nq!___D~ee_Ze_v~_~_~_r_l_2~___t/}_e__4 ....
Joseph L. Prologo
~rol L. Prologo
18. License Number(s)
20-214620
19. Location Number and Street
2171-~,3979 9464 mtR,,-I ~. ,- -
· Do Not Wrtle Below This Line; For Department Use
!Attached: [:i]laecorded notice,
[] Ile~'Plte_
[] Renewal: Fee of ..... ,Paid at .....
City and Zip Code County
:CORES/VIAlLED __
O Wt~m on ............... .let. wipe ~ .......................
15
16
DATE:
TO:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director
FROM:
Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Manager
BY:
Olen Jones, Senior Redevelopment Analyst
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF THE SOURCES OF PAYMENT FOR THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY'S SHARE OF THE STATE BUDGET
DEFICIT REDUCTION (EDUCATIONAL REVENUE AUGMENTATION FUND)
FOR FISCAL YEAR 1994/95, TOTALING $1,112,793.96.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the sources of payment for the Redevelopment Agency's share of the State
Budget Deficit Reduction, and authorize staff to inform the County
Auditor/Controller, pursuant to State requirements.
BACKGROUND
The 1993 Budget Act for the State of California requires every redevelopment agency
in the State to pay into the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF), to
reduce State support of local education. Statewide, redevelopment agencies are
required to pay $65 Million into the ERAF, to support schools and community
colleges. Rancho Cucamonga's total liability is $1,112,793.%.
The budget act legislation requires that each redevelopment agency notify the
County Auditor/Tax Collector by March 1, 1995, as to how it intends to fund its
obligation.
ANALYSIS
The Agency will make its payment to the ERAF from the following sources on a
proportional basis:
Fund 25/Fire Facilities Fund
Fund 13/Central Park/Library
TOTAL PAYMENT
Tax Increment
Bond Proceeds
834,567.96
278,226.00
$1,112,793.96
This is the final year of the two year requirement adopted by the State (Fiscal Years
1993/94 and 1994/95), resulting in a loss of revenue totaling $2,225,587.92 for these
,,,two years. This $2.2 Million ERAF payment will bring the total contribution
towards reducing the State's budget deficit by the Rancho Cucamonga
17
February 16, 1994
Staff Report - FY 93/94 ERAF
Page 2
Redevelopment Agency to over $5.6 Million over the three year period. It is
uncertain whether the legislature will exact further "contributions" from
redevelopment agencies in order to continue to balance their budget.
Respectfully submitted,
Litida D. Daniels
Deputy Director
18
/-
DATE:
TO:.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, Executive Director
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECY:
Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Manager
Olen Jones, Senior Redevelopment Analyst
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY .OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA OF
ITS ADJUSTABLE RATE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING REVENUE BONDS
(RANCHO VERDE VILLAGE APARTMENTS) 1995 SERIES A.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the attached resolution, and authorize the Redevelopment Agency to issue the bonds.
BACKGROUND
In August, 1993, the Agency provided a loan to Southern California Housing Development
Corporation (SCHDC) to assist in the acquisition of Rancho Verde Village, a 240 unit apartment
complex located at Grove Avenue and 8th Street. As consideration for the loan, SCHDC agreed
to provide 40% of the units as affordable to four targeted income groups. for a minimum of 30
years. The seller of the property, Essex Corporation, provided short-term financing for the
acquisition.
In February, 1995, the City held a public hearing, as required by the Tax Equity and Fiscal
Reform Act of 1982 (TEFRA), to take public comment on the financing.
ANALYSIS
SCHDC has arranged for a tax-exempt mortgage from Home Savings to replace the short-term
financing, and reduce their debt service payments, thereby reducing the project's operating
expenses. Under federal guidelines, such a mortgage qualifies technically as an issuance of tax-
exempt bonds, and therefore requires that the City and Agency follow the procedures as if such
bonds were being sold. The mortgage is a "conduit financing," meaning that proceeds will be
used by a non-governmental borrower (SCHDC) for a public purpose (in this case, the provision
of affordable housing). The mortgage will be secured by Rancho Verde Village, and will not
impact the Agency's ability to issue future bonds when needed.
TEFRA also requires that the legislative body adopt a resolution approving the sale of the bonds
by the Redevelopment Agency. The attached resolution satisfies the TEFRA requirements.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda D. Daniels
x,_Redevelopment Manager J
19
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA APPROVING THE ISSUANCE BY THE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA OF ITS ADJUSTABLE RATE MULTIFAMILY
HOUSING REVENUE REFUNDING BONDS (RANCHO VERDE
APARTMENTS PROJECT) 1995 SERIES A
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga (the "Agency") is authorized pursuant to Section 33750
and following the California Health and Safety Code (the "Act") to
provide assistance in financing multifamily residential housing
developments within redevelopment project areas; and
WHEREAS, the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the "City") and
the Agency have determined that it is in the best interests of the
City tomaintain the supply of affordable rental housing within the
City through the issuance by the Agency of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Adjustable Rate Multifamily Housing
Revenue Refunding Bonds (Rancho Verde Apartments Project) 1995
Series A (the "Bonds"); and
WHEREAS, the proceeds of the Bonds, if any are issued,
will be loaned to Southern California Housing Development
Corporation, a California public benefit corporation (the
"Company"), for the purpose of financing the acquisition of a 248-
unit rental housing project known as the Rancho Verde Apartments
located at 8837 Grove Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, California (the
"Project"); and
WHEREAS, as required by Section 147(f) of the Internal
Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, this City Council has heretofore
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on February 1, 1995, with
respect to the proposed issuance of the Bonds and financing of the
Project, such notice being published in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, DETERMINEDAND ORDERED BY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, as follows:
Section 1. Approval of Issuance of Bonds and Making of
Loan. The issuance of the Bonds by theAgency pursuant to the Act,
the making of the Loan with the proceeds of Bonds by the Agency to
the Company and the financing of the Project are hereby approved.
This approval is made in order to meet the public approval
requirements of Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code, as
amended.
Section 2. Effective Date.
effect upon adoption.
This Resolution shall take
JRR2505r1
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga this day of , 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
Mayor
City Clerk
JRR250571
-2-
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECY:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Linda D. Daniels, Redevelopment Manager
Jan Reynolds, Assistant Redevelopment Analyst
CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING
AN APPLICATION TO PERMIT THE ISSUANCE OF
SINGLE FAMILY MORTGAGE REVENUE BONDS
RECOMMENDATION
Approval of the attached Resolution authorizing staff to submit an
application to the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC)
to permit the issuance of Single Family Mortgage Revenue' Bonds.
BACKGROUND
The City Council has expressed strong interest in programs to assist
first time homebuyers in the purchase of a home in Rancho
Cucamonga. Because of the restrictions on the Redevelopment
Agency's 20% setaside funds, staff has been exploring alternative
funding sources to assist first time buyers in homeownership.
ANAI,YSIS
The California Debt Limit Allocation Committee has invited cities and
counties within the state to submit an application for a portion of the
state's qualified mortgage bond pool. Applications must be
submitted no later than March 15, 1995. The minimum bond pool
allocation has been set at $20 Million.
Single Family Mortgage Revenue-bonds are private activity bonds
issued by the state and are secured by Ginnie Mae or Fannie Mae
pool securities. The term of the mortgages will 30 years with rates
which are determined at the time of the bond sale. Under terms of
the program, applicants must be first time homebuyers, with
Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds
February 15, 1995
Page 2
incomes restricted to a maximum of $46,400 for I to 2 member
families, and $53,360 for 3 plus member families. The home
purchase price is limited to $160,249 for existing units, and $149,599
for new. Since there is limited new housing stock which would meet
the program criteria, the Rancho Cucamonga program will be directed
more heavily towards existing units.
Redevelopment Agency staff, along with underwriters, Stone and
Youngberg, and bond counsel, Jones, Hall, Hill and White, have held
two meeting with local mortgage lenders and developers to discuss
the feasibility of applying for a portion of the bond pool. The local
lenders and developers indicated a desire to see other cities included
within this bond program; namely, Ontario, Chino, and Fontana. Staff
has contacted these cities to discuss their possible participation and
all three cities have indicated an interest in further discussions. Once
a commitment has been obtained from any or all of the cities,
formation of a Joint Powers Authority for the purpose of issuing the
bonds will be presented to the City Council for consideration.
There is no direct cost to the City for participation in the bond
program. Prior to submission of the application. each lender, or
developer, will be required to deposit with the City not less than 1%
of their requested allocation. Should the City be unable to obtain the
necessary deposits from the lenders, the application will not be
submitted.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda D. Daniels
Redevelopment Manager
RESOLUTION NO. (~-~' C) / -,~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION TO THE CALIFORNIA
DEBT LIMIT ALLOCATION COMMITTEE TO PERMIT THE ISSUANCE OF
QUALIFIED MORTGAGE BONDS
WHEREAS, there is a shortage in the City of Rancho Cucamonga (the
"City") of decent, safe and sanitary housing, particularly of housing affordable
by persons in the lower end of the purchasing spectrum, and a consequent
need to encourage the construction of homes affordable by such persons and,
otherwise, to increase the housing supply in the City for such persons (a
"Housing Program"); and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of the foregoing, the City wishes to provide
for the issuance of qualified mortgage bonds pursuant to Part 5 of Division 31
of the Health and Safety Code of the State of California by the City or by a joint
powers agency ((the "Authority") to be established by the City with another
dty or other cities desiring to participate in a Housing Program; and
WHEREAS, Section 146 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code"), limits the amount of qualified mortgage bonds that
may be issued in any calendar year by entities within a state and authorizes
the legislature of such state to provide the method of allocating authority to
issue qualified mortgage bonds within such state; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 11.8 of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government
Code of the State of California governs the allocation in the State of California
of the state ceiling established by Section 146 of the Code among
governmental units in the State having the authority to issue qualified
mortgage bonds; and
WHEREAS, Section 8869.85 of the Government Code requires a local
agency to file an application for a portion of the state ceiling with or upon the
direction of the California Debt Limit Allocation Committee ("CDLAC') prior
to the issuance of qualified mortgage bonds; and
WHEREAS, CDLAC procedures require an applicant for a portion of
the state ceiling to certify to CDLAC that the applicant has on deposit an
amount equal to one percent (1%) of the amount of allocation requested;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Rancho
Cucamonga, as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Manager of the City, or his designee, is hereby
authorized, on behalf of the City or on behalf of the Authority in cooperation
with any city participating in the Housing Program, to submit or cause to be
submitted an application, and such other documents as m~iy be required, to
CDLAC pursuant to Government Code Section 8869.85 for an allocation of a
portion of the state ceiling (as that term is defined in the Government Code)
in an amount not to exceed $20,000,000 for application toward the issuance of
qualified mortgage bonds by the City or the Authority on behalf of the City, as
applicable, the final determination of the amount to be so applied for to be
determined by the City Manager or his designee.
SECTION 2. An amount of not less than one percent (1%) of the
requested allocation is hereby authorized to be placed into an escrow account,
and the City Manager of the City, or his designee, is authorized to certify to
CDLAC that such funds are available.
SECTION 3. The deposit referred to in Section 2 shall, with respect to
the application to CDLAC for qualified mortgage bonds, consist solely of those
amounts hereafter deposited by developers and lenders with the City or the
Authority for such purpose and, in the absence of such deposit, such
application shall not be made to CDLAC.
SECTION 4. The officers and employees of the City are hereby
authorized and directed to do any and all things necessary or advisable in
order to effectuate the purposes of this resolution, and all actions previously
taken by such officers and employees in connection with the establishment of
the Housing Program and the issuance, sale and delivery of qualified
mortgage bonds are hereby ratified and approved.
SECTION 5. This Resolution shall take effect from and after its
adoption.
ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga at a
regular meeting held on February 15, 1995, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor
City Clerk
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
RESOLUTION INDICATING THE CITY'S INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN
THE COUNTY'S IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 2139 (AUTO THEFTS)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution which
indicates the City's interest in participating in San Bernardino County's
implementation of SB 2139.
BACKGROUND:
The State Legislature enacted SB 2139 to allow counties to add $1.00 to vehicle
registration fees to fund auto theft apprehension and prosecution efforts. The
Board of Supervisors are considering enacting this fee.
If adopted by the County, the City would not automatically be entitled to a share
of the funds. To participate in the program and receive funds for local efforts
to combat auto theft, the City must adopt a resolution declaring its intention to
participate in the program. The attached resolution accomplishes this task.
This program, if ultimately enacted by the Board of Supervisors will provide
much needed funds to fight a growing problem. For this reason, staff is
recommending approval of the attached resolution,
Respectfully Submitted,
/.,
Duane A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
sot. 95- C9 /
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, INDICATING THE
CITY'S INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN THE COUNTY
OF SAN BERNARDINO'S IMPLEMENTATION OF SB 2139
WHEREAS, the State Legislature adopted SB 2139 authorizing counties to
enact an additional $1.00 fee on vehicle registrations to fund auto theft
apprehension and prosecution efforts; and
WHEREAS, then County of San Bernardino is considering implementing
this legislation to combat auto thefts in the County; and
WHEREAS, to participate in this program and receive a share of this
funding, the City must indicate its intention through this resolution; and
WHEREAS, once adopted by the County, the City will work with the
County to insure that Rancho Cucamonga's efforts to combat auto theft will
receive its fair share of funds from the implementation of SB 2139.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga hereby indicates its interest and intention to participate
in San Bernardino County's implementation of SB 2139 and its efforts to
apprehend and prosecute auto thieves.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~Neil, City Engineer
Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVAL OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY, PARTS I AND II,
FOR THE PROPOSED BASELINE ROAD TEMPORARY WIDENING AND
REHABILITATION PROJECT AND ISSUANCE OF A CATEGORICAL
EXEMPTION THEREFORE
RECOMMENDATION:
It is hereby recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting and
approving the Environmental Initial Study, Parts I and II for the pwposed Base Line Road Temporary
Widening and Rehabilitation Project and issuance of a Categorical Exemption therefore and direct the
City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
BACKGROUND/ANAI ,YSIS
This report presents an Environmental Assessment Initial Study for the proposed Base Line Road
Temporary Widening and Rehabilitation Project.
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act and State Guidelines, the attached
document has been prepared to penit construction of the above mentioned improvements.
Said project entails the widening of Base Line Road to facilitate four lanes of traffic. New A.C.
pavement and A.C. overlay will be used to obtain a uniform cross section.
It is the Engineering Staffs finding that the proposed project will not create a significant adverse
impact on the environment and therefore recommend that these improvements be classified as
Categorically Exempt.
Respectfully submitted,
City Engineer
WJO:sd
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE OF A
CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION FOR THE PROPOSED BASELINE
ROAD TEMPORARY WIDENING AND REHABILITATION
PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has reviewed all available
input concerning the proposed Base Line Road Temporary Widening and Rehabilitation Project; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Assessment Initial Study has been prepared pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act, as mended.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council ofRancho Cucamonga hereby approves the Environmental
Assessment Initial Study and issuance of a Categorical Exemption for the propOSed Base Line Road
Temporary Widening and Rehabilitation Project.
SECTION ?: The City Clerk is directed to file a Notice of Exemption pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION FORM
PART I - INITIAL STUDY
General Information
,
Name and address of developer or project sponsor: City of Rancho. 10500 Civic Center Drive.
Rancho Cucamonl;a. CA 91730
Address of project: Base line Road fi'om Day Creek Channel to Victoria Park l,ane
Name, address, and telephone number of person to be contacted concerning this project: City of
Rancho Cucamonga. 10500 Civic Center Drive. Rancho Cucamonga. California 91730.
Contact: Mike Olivier. (909) 989-1862. extension 2330
Indicate number of the permit application for the project to which this form pertains: N/A
,
List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project,
including those required by City, regional, State and Federal Agencies:
City Council approval
6. Existing zoning district: N/A
7. Proposed use of site (Project for which this form is filed):
Rehabilitation and temporary widening' of Base line Road
Project Description and Effects:
,
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Site Size: Approximately 7 acres
Square Footage: Approximately 180,000 square feet (street widening)
Number of floors of construction: N/A
17.
18.
Street closure permit and
Amount of off-street parking provided: N/A
Attach plans. N/A
Proposed scheduling:
Associated project: N/A
Anticipated incremental development. N/A
If residential, include the number of units, schedule of unit sizes, range of sale prices of rents, and type
of household size expected: N/A
If commercial, indicate the type, whether neighborhood, city or regionally oriented, square footage of
sales area, and loading facilities: N/A
If industrial, indicate type, estimated employment per shift, and loading facilities: N/A
19.
If institutional, indicate the major function, estimated employment per shift, estimate occupancy,
loading facilities, and community benefits to be derived from the project: N/A
20.
If the project involves a variance, conditional use or reasoning application, state this and indicate
clearly why the application is required. N/A
Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects? Discuss below all items checked yes (attach
additional sheets as necessary).
21.
Change in existing features of any bays, tidelands, beaches, hills or
substantial alteration of ground contours.
Yes
No
22.
Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or
public lands or roads.
X
23. Change in pattern, scale or character of general area of project.
X
24. Significant amounts of solid waste or litter.
X
25. Change in dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in vicinity.
X
26.
Change in ocean, bay, lake, stream or ground water quality or
quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns.
X
27. Substantial change in existing noise or vibration levels in the vicinity.
X
28. Site on filled land or on slope of 10 pement or more.
X
29.
Use of disposal of potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic
substances, flamables or explosives.
X
30.
Substantial change in demand for municipal services (police, fire,
water, sewage, etc.).
X
31.
Substantially increase fossil fuel consumption (electricity, oil,
oil, natural gas, etc.).
X
32. Relationship to a larger project or series of projects.
X
Environmental Setting: See at~-_ched
33.
Describe the project site as it exists before the project, including information on topography, soil stability,
plants and animals, and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects. Describe any existing sinaerates on the
site, and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of the site. Snapshots or polaroid photos will be
accepted.
34.
Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and animals and any cultural,
historical or scenic aspects. Indicate the type of land use (residential, commercial, etc.), intensity of land
use (one-family, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc.), and scale of development (height,
frontage, set-back rear yard, etc.). Attach photographs of the vicinity. Snapshots or polaroid photos will
be accepted.
31
Certification
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and
information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and
information presented are tree and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. I further understand that
additional information may be required to be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the
Planning Division.
Date: \-- 1. ~, - ~ ~' Signature:
Title: ~c. C._.~.
PART I ATTACHMENT
Project Description and effects Nos. 13, 25, 27, 32, 33, and 34
13.
The proposed "Base Line Road Temporary Widening and Rehabilitation" Project consists of new A.C.
pavement, removal and replacement of existing A.C. pavement, cold plane, A.C. overlay and restriping
for four lanes. The length of the project is approximately 2600 feet. Construction is tentatively
scheduled for May 1, 1995.
25. & 27.
Noise, vibrations, dust and odor will increase at the project site during construction. After project
completion, all noise, vibrations, dust and odor caused as a result of the project will cease and
will return to their normal levels.
32. This project will be the last in a series of projects that have widened Base Line Road to at least two traffic
lanes in each direction through the entire length of the City.
33. & 34.
The project is located on Base Line Road from Day Creek Channel to Victoria Park Lane. With
the exception of the Victoria Self Storage property, the north side of Base Line Road is
undeveloped. The south side contains a Christmas tree farm and a winery complex. The general
topography of the project site consists of a slight north to south incline with a sudden grade
change just north of the road. The proposed project will not have a substantial impact on plants,
animals or land resources. There are no obvious historical, cultural or scenic aspects.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PART II - INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
I. BACKGROUND
II.
Name of Proponent City of Rancho Cucamonl;a
Address and Phone Number of Proponent 10500 Civic Center Drive.
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 Contact Mike Olivier (909) 989-1862. extension 2330
Date of Checklist Submitted February 15. 1995
Agency Requiring Checklist C il~' of Rancho Cucamonga
Name of Proposal, if applicable Base l .ine Road Terrlporary Widening & Rehabilitation
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanation of all 'yes' and 'maybe' answers are required on attached sheets).
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
YES MAYBE NO
Unstable earth conditions or in changes in
geologic substructures?
X
b,
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
over covering of the soil?
X
C,
Change in topography or Found surface relief
features?
X
The destruction, coveting or modification of any
unique geologic or physical features?
X
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site?
X
Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,
or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion
which may modify the channel of a river or stream
or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake?
X
g,
Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards
such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides,
ground failure, or similar hazards?
X
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
Substantial air emissions or deterioration of
ambient air quality?
X
b. The creation of objectionable odors:
C,
Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate, either
locally or regionally?
Water. Will the proposal result in:
a,
Changes in currents, or the course of
direction of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b,
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and mount of surface
water runoff?.
c. Alterations to the come or flow of flood waters?
Change in the mount of surface water in any
body of water?
Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration
of surface water quality, including but not limited
to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations?
h,
Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water supplies?
Exposure of people or property to water related
haTnrc~ such as flooding or tidal waves?
Plant I fie. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops and aquatic plants)?
be
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants?
Introduction of new species of plant into an area,
or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of
existing species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Animal l .ife. Will the proposal result in:
ao
Change in the diversity of species, or numbers
of any species of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and shell-fish, benthie
organisms or insects)?
Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of animals?
Introduction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration or
movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat?
Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Iight and Glare. will the proposal produce new
light or glare?
l .and Use and PIning Considerations. Will the proposal
have significant results in?
A substantial alteration of the present or planned land
use of an area?
A conflict with any designations, objectives, policies,
or adopted plans of any governmental entities?
An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
consumptive or non-consumptive recreational
opportunities?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
A risk of an explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to oil,
pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event
of an accident or upset condition?
b,
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
X
X
X
11.
12.
Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the human
population of an area?
Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing
or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for
new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement
of people and/or goods?
e. Alterations to water-borne, rail, or air traffic?
f. Increases in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists
or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas?
a. Fire protection?
b. Police protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
15. Falgzl~. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources
of energy, or require the development of new
sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities?
a. Electric power?
b. Natural or packaged gas?
c. Communications systems?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
37
d. Water supply?
e. Waste water facilities?
f. Flood control structures?
g. Solid waste facilities?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
18.
19.
a,
Creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards?
Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any
scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the
quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a,
Will the proposal result in the alteration of, or the
destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure,
or object?
Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
d,
Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area?
2 1. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
Does the project have the potential to achieve short-ten
to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
{A short-term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time
while long-term impacts will endure well into the future).
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
III.
Does the project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may
impact on two of more separate resources where the
impact on each resource is relatively small, but where
the effect of the total of these impacts on the environment
is significant.)
X
d,
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either
directly or indirectly?
X
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAl, F. VAI ,UATION
(Narrative description of environmental impacts.)
The widening of Base Line Road will cause some regrading of the existing soil north and
south of the traffic lanes.
e,
A slight increase in wind or waster erosion of soils will occur during construction., Measures
to mitigate or minimize the erosion will be employed.
a.&b.
Construction equipment along with A.C. pavement and A.C. overlay will temporarily
increase air emissions and/or objectionable odors.
Noise
a.
Existing noise levels will increase due to equipment operation during consu'uction hours. The
public living or working near the project site may be disturbed.
Page 11
13. Transportation/Circulation
a.&b.
The widening of Base Line Road from one traffic lane to two traffic lanes in each
direction will greatly facilitate flow through the area. It will also eliminate the present
traffic bottleneck when existing double traffic lanes outside the project area must now
merge into a single traffic lane within the project area.
IV
.DETERMINATION
(To be completed by the Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
X
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find the proposed project CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT per Article 19, Section 15301,
Class 1 C, of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Title
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~,Ieil, City Engineer
Willie Valbuena, Assistant Engineer
SUMMARY VACATION OF A PORTION OF A STORM DRAIN
EASEMENT, LOCATED WEST OF BUCKTHORN AVENUE AND
NORTH OF MANZANITA DRIVE (9010 MANZANITA DRIVE -
APN 1062-125-25)
RECOMMRNDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution ordering the
summary vacation of a portion of a storm drain easement, located west of Buckthorn
Avenue and north of Manzanita Drive and authorizing the mayor and the City Clerk to
record same.
BACKGROUND/ANAl ,YSIS
The City has received a request from the property owner, Emil Stache, to vacate a
portion of an existing storm drain easement on the easterly portion of his property, west
of Buckthom Avenue and north of Manzanita Drive. The area to be vacated is 30 feet
wide and 182.94 feet long. The easement was dedicated through a separate inslxument,
recorded in July 19, 1976. As a condition of the requested vacation, the property owner
has been required to construct a channel on the adjacent property to the east within the
remaining portion of the easement. The affected property owner has agreed to the
construction of the channel on his property. The plans for the channel are nearly
complete. The vacation resolution will not be recorded until the channel construction
is completed.
41
CITY COUNCIL STAFFREPORT
V-129-APN 1062-125-25
February15,1995
Page 2
On September 14, 1994, the Planning Commission determined that the vacation
conforms to the General Plan and recommended the vacation occur.
The property owner is now requesting that the vacation occur and will incorporate the
vacated area into his yard. Section 8333 (c) of the Streets and Highways Code states
that local agencies may summarily vacate a public service easement being superseded
by relocation and there are no other public facilities located within the easement.
Respectfully submitted,
Wiln~m J. OrNeil
City Engineer
WJO:WV:dlw
Attachments
RESOLUTION NO. ~.~ - 0/~
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, COUNTY OF SAN
BERNARDINO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SUbIMARILY
ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF A
STORM DRAIN EASEMENT, LOCATED WEST OF
BUCKTHORN AVENUE AND NORTH OF MANZANITA
DRIVE
WHEREAS, by Ch_apter 4, Article 1, Section 8333(c), of the Streets and Highway
Code, the City Council of the C~ty of Rancho Cucamonga is authorized to summarily vacate
a portion of a storm drain easement hereinaf[er more particularly described; and
WHEREAS, the City Council found all the evidence submitted that ' of
the storm drain easement is no longer required provided an improved ~a~°~ to
accommodate the drainage is constructed.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
SECTION 1: That the City Council of the City ofRancho Cucamon a hereby
makes its order vacating that portion of storm drain easement on Ma V-129, on ~le in the
office of the City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamon a, which has~een .flirther described
in a legal description which is attached hereto, marked exhibit "A", and by reference made
a part thereof.
SECTION ?: That from and after the date this resolution is recorded, said portion
t
of the s orm drain easement, located west of Buckthorn Avenue and north of Manzanita
Drive, no longer constitutes a public storm drain easement.
SECTION 3: That the subject vacation shall be subject to the reservations and
exceptions, if any, for existing utilities on record.
SECTION 4: That the City Clerk shall cause a certified cop of this resolution
to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of San Bernardino ~dunty, California.
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VACATION OF DRAINAGE EASB}4ENT
A.P.N. 1062-121-25
Emil Stache
The easterly 30 feet of that portion of Parcel 4 of Parcel
No. 1843, as recorded in Book 22 of parcelmaps, page 44.
Except the North 174 feet thereof.
Also, as shown on doctment recorded in Book 8971, page 974, official records.
The above legal description was prepared by me.
SANDERSON-GUTIERREZ
Civil Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc,
10002-A 6th St, Ph, (909) 980-1211
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
)B
SHEET NO.
CALCULATED BY
CHECKED BY
SCALE
OF
DATE
DATE
Iu: I00m
f
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~leil, City Engineer
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
APPROVAL OF A RECIPROCAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the subject agreement with the Cucamonga County
Water District and authorize the Mayor to execute the same.
BACKGROUND/ANAl ,YSIS
In late 1992, the City of Rancho Cucamonga approached the District with a request for a reciprocal
fee agreement between the two agencies waiving all development fees which would normally be due
to the other agency for building and construction of City or District projects. At that time, the City
was near completion of its new Sports Complex and the District was pursuing the development of
a new warehouse and office building. As a result, both paxties tentatively agreed that a reciprocal
fee agreement would be beneficial to each agency and the public they serve.
Through several meetings and cost analysis of the fee exchange, staff of both agencies concluded
the agreement preparation. The District at its Board meeting of December 13, 1994, approved the
reciprocal fee agreement.
SlIMMARY AND ANAI,YSIS OF AGRF, RMF, NT
The agreement states that it is the mutual intent of both agencies that the fees which would normally
be due to the other party for building and couswuction of the District and City facilities, including
the District's office and warehouse facilities and the City's Sports Complex, be waived. It further
states that the agreement be made solely between the District and the City, and the terms of this
agreement shall be for a period of 10 years, but may be terminated at any time upon 90 days written
notice.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CCWD - RECIPROCAL FEE AGREEMENT
February 15, 1995
Page 2
The agreement also specifically states that facilities as to which this agreement will apply shall
include only those facilities that are directly owned by the District or the City and are for the direct
benefit of the general public. It shall not include private commercial facilities which are owned or
funded in whole or part by the City's Redevelopment Agency.
A provision is also included in the agreement which provides each party with the ability to question
whether the building or facility proposed for review and approval is eligible for the waiver of fees.
Of an immediate benefit to the City is the waiver of the Sports Complex fees owed to the District.
These fees are in excess of $400,000.
CONCI oUSIONS:
The agreement thoroughly addresses all of the issues and concerns raised by each agency regarding
the details of how and which fees will qualify to be exchanged. These stipulations will serve to
ensure a level of equability relative to the amounts waived by each agency so that all will remain
fmancially equal and neither will be faced with a loss.
The agreement results in cooperative effort by both the DisWict and the City of Rancho Cucamonga
to substantially reduce the amount of fees paid by each agency. It thereby lessens the financial
impacts on each of the agencies and ultimately on the residents and businesses 0fthe community in
which we serve.
Respectfully submiRed,
City Eugineer
WJO:DJ:dlw
f
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
February15,1995
TO:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
William J. O~Neil, City Engineer
BY:
Mike Olivier, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT:
APPROVAL TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND U. S. GUARDS
COMPANY, INC. FOR PROVIDING SECURITY AT THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION FOR THE AMOUNT OF $46,000 PER
YEAR FOR THE NEE TWO YEARS
RECOMMF, NDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve and execute Professional Services Agreement
between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and U. S. Guards Company, Inc., for providing security at
the Rancho Cucamonga Metrolink Station.
BACKGROUND/ANAl ,YSIS
In October of 1994, the City successfully opened the Metrolink Station on Mi!!iken Avenue and the
Metrolink line. Since the inception, the station has been well utilized. In the first week alone over
three hundred and fifty cars were utiliTing the site. Since that time usage has tapered off somewhat
however, the station is still extremely popular and we expect increased use as more people become
aware of the station location.
As with all Metrolink sims, the City will need to provide security for our patrons. In this regard,
staff sent out RFPs toquali~ed security consultants. Of the eleven RFPs sent out we received eight
responses. Each company was requested to review the site and propose additional sentice that might
be advantageous. Request for Proposal included "Post Guard Instructions" and the following basic
information:
Being present before the first train in the AM and after the last train in the PM
Assisting riders when needed; train times, train stops, and points of connection to Los
Angeles and San Bemardino
Being visible at all times
Observing suspicious vehicles and/or visitors
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
RANCHO CUCAMONGA METROLINK STATION
February 15, 1995
Page 2
Noting license numbers of suspicious vehicles
Reporting to base offices and/or law enforcement agencies violaitons of law or in cases
of vandalism, to City Public Works Maintenance.
The RFP also required the security officer to be unifored and have at all times:
Radio contact to the company base office
Portable telephone equipment to contact law enforcement agencies
Dally log
Flash light
The security officer shall be trained in the use of pepper spray or mace and shall carry
sanle
The proposals were evaluated by staff and the City Police Department. It is the consensus
recommendation that U. S. Guards Company is the best qualified for the security at the Metrolink
site. U. S. Guard is the only company that provide guards with certificates from the Red Cross in
CPR and first aid along with county sheriff training in mace and baton usage.
SANBAG will be providing funding for security and maintenance of the site forthe first two years
of operation. One Hundred Thousand Dollars a year has been allocated for this cost. The proposal
of U. S. Guards budget is estimated to be $46,000.00 per year.
Respectfully submiFed,
William J. O%leil
City Engineer
WJO:MO:dlw
Attachment
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
January 18, 1995
TO:
Joe O~eil, City Engineer
FROM:
Ronald W. Bieberdorf, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: METROLINK SECURITY GUARD PROPOSALS
I have reviewed the proposals that you provided subject to selecting a vendor to provide security
services for our local Metrolink Station. I agree with your assessment that the proposal submitted
by U.S. Guards, Inc. appears to satisfy required needs.
I have also contacted the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Deparlrnent and sought their input pertaining
to security services. L.A.S.D. regularly deals with Metrolink and axe familiar with most of the
security fm-ns that serve Metrolink. L.A.S.D. also confamed your assessment and indicated that
U.S. Guards would be an excellent choice.
RB/JH/jh
f CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Larn, AICP, City Manager
William J. O~Icil, City Engineer
Steve Gilliland, Public Works Inspector II
ACCEPTANCE OF IMPROVEMENTS, RELEASE OF BONDS AND NOTICE OF COMPLETION
FOR PORTIONS OF TRACT 13565, LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
WARDMAN BULLOCK ROAD AND 24TH STREET
RRCOMIVlENDATION:
The required street improvements for Tract 13565-1, 13565-3, 13565-4, Wardman Bullock Sweet and the Wardman
Bullock floodwail have been completed in an acceptable manner, and it is recommended that City Council accept said
improvements, accept the Maintenance Guarantee Bonds in the amounts of $30,200; $14,800; $10,300; $24,600;
$16,000, authorize the City Engineer to file a Notice of Completion and authorize the City Clerk to release the Faithful
Performance Bonds in the amounts of $302,000; $148,000; $103,000; $246,000 and $160,000.
BACKGROUND/ANAl .YSIS
Tract 13565 - located on the northeast comer of 24th Street and Wardman Bullock Road
DEVELOPER:
Standard Pacific
1565 W. Mac Arthur Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Accept Maintenance Guarantee Bonds:
Wardman Bullock Wardman Bullock
SWeet Floodwall
$30,200 $14,800
TR 13565-1
$10,300
TR13565-3
$24,600
TR13565-4
$16,000
Release Faithful Performance Bonds:
Wardman Bullock Wardman Bullock
Street Floodwall
$302,000 $148,000
Respectfully submitted,
WiilJ.~O~e5~
City Engineer
WJO:SMG:sd
TR 13565-1
$103,000
TR13565-3
$246,000
TR13565-4
$160,000
51
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING THE
PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOR TRACT 13565-1, 13565-3, 13565-4,
WARDMAN BULLOCK STREET AND THE WARDMAN
BULLOCK FLOODWALL AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF
A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE WORK
WHEREAS, the construction of public improvements for Tract 13565-1, 13565-3,
13565-4, Wardman Bullock Slxeet and the Wardman Bullock Floodwall 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 Bernardino County.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
Brad Buller, City Planner
Beverly Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner
APPF. AI. OF MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAl. USF. PERMIT 91-24-MASI-
An appeal of certain Planning Division conditions of approval for the Modification
to Conditional Use Permit 91-24 for a 27 acre center located at the southwest comer
of Rochester Avenue and Foothill Boulevard in the Industrial Park District (Subarea
7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 227-011-10,19,21, and 26 through 28.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review each request and uphold the Planning Commission's
action.
SUMMARY
The modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-24 was approved by the Planning Commission on
January 25, 1995. The applicant requested the modification in order to have the Planning
Commission reconsider eight of the conditions of approval that were part of City Council Resolution
No. 92-240 which approved the project on September 2, 1992. The Planning Commission modified
some of the conditions and upheld others. The Planning Commission staff report and minutes of the
meeting are attached.
ANAl ,YSIS
The applicant is appealing the action of the Planning Commission regarding .the following
conditions:
Condition No. 8: The developer shah contribute $10,000 to the Chaffey-Garcia Barn project,
which will be used to develop a museum/cultural center depicting and exhibiting the
agricultural heritage of the area. The City Council may, upon the input of the Historic
Preservation Commission, allocate funds to another similar type of preservation project
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
APPEAL OF MOD. TO CUP 91-24 - MASI
February 15, 1995
Page 2
including, but not necessarily limited to, the Historic Preservation Site and Land-Banking
Fund, depending upon the timing of the compliance with this mitigation. This contribution
shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits of any phase of the Masi Commerce
Center.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission upheld the final action of the City
Council and did not approve the modification of this condition as requested by the applicant. It
should be noted that the monetary contribution was discussed on two different occasions by the
Historic Preservation Commission (September 5, 1991, and August 6, 1992) and on two separate
occasions by the City Council (September 18, 1991, and August 19, 1992). The minutes from the
City Council meeting of August 19, 1992, clearly indicate that the monetary contribution is to be
applied to the Chaffey-Garcia Barn project or the Historic Land-Banking Fund.
Applicant's Appeal: The applicant requests that this requirement be waived since they believe the
historic Vintner's Walk goes far beyond what was required by the Historic Preservation Commission.
They plan to use the money for another piece of artwork that will compliment the Vintner's statue.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's action. This would not only be consistent with the City Council's past actions and the
past actions of the Historic Preservation Commission, but consistent with the condition placed on
and met by the Foothill Marketplace project as well.
Condition No. 9: Landscaping along the entirety of Masi Drive from the sidewalk out to the
curb face shall be completed prior to occupancy of the last building for Phase I.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission upheld the final action of the City
Council and did not approve the modification of this condition as requested by the applicant.
Applicant's Appeal: The applicant requests that along the south side of Sebastian Way, south of
Building 10, that landscaping be provided only after the buildings are constructed.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's action. This condition is consistent with conditions which have been placed on Terra
Vista Town Center, Term Vista Town Square, Foothill Marketplace, and the Bixby Business Park.
The condition is also necessary to ensure a complete and attractive streetscape for the public road
which bisects the project.
Condition No. 15: Unless the applicant submits an alternate design for the P!aning
Commission's review and approval, there shall be provision for the following design features
in the trash enclosure to the satisfaction of the City Planner:
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
APPEAL OF MOD. TO CUP 91-24 - MASI
February 15, 1995
Page 3
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
g)
Architecturally integrated into the design of the center.
Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors, to include a
self-closing pedestrian door.
Large enough to accommodate two trash bins.
Roll up doors.
Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of enclosures and designed
to be hidden from view.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission modified the original condition to give
the applicant the flexibility to design their own trash enclosure detail, since they were opposed to
the current design guideline which is consistently applied to all commercial projects.
Applicant's Appeal: The applicant requests that items b, d, e, f, and g be eliminated. They are
willing, however, to utilize the trellis on the retail component of the project.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's action. The reworded condition provides the applicant with the flexibility to develop
their own standard for trash enclosures. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting reflect
the willingness of the Commission to review any concept that the applicant wishes to propose.
Condition No. 20: A Uniform Sign Program shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to the issuance of building permits.
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission upheld the final action of the City
Council and did not approve the modification of this condition as requested by the applicant.
Applicant's Appeal: The applicant requests that the Uniform Sign Program be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner prior to certificate of occupancy for any building.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning
Commission's action. The requirement of approval of a Uniform Sign Program prior to issuance of
building permits is consistent with every project which has been approved within the City. There
is no justification or precedent to allow the approval of a Uniform Sign Program to be postponed
until occupancy in this isolated case.
CORRESPONDENCE
This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Dally Bulletin newspaper, the
property has been posted, and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of
the project site.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
APPEAL OF MOD. TO CUP 91-24 - MASI
February 15, 1995
Page 4
CONCLUSION
All of the requirements which the applicant is appealing are consistent with the City's policy and past
practices and conditions placed on similar projects within the City. The City Council is requested
to hold a public hearing and provide staff and the applicant with appropriate direction.
City Planner
BB:BL/jfs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter of Appeal
Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Minutes for January 25, 1995
Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Staff Report for January 25, 1995
Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Resolution of Approval 95-08
Resolution of Approval upholding Planning Commission Action
Jack Masi
Masi Commerce Center Partners
5416 Electric Avenue
San Bernardino, Ca. 92407
(909) 882-4592
January 26, 1995
Debbie Adams, City Clerk
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729
Re:
Appeal of City Planning Commission Ruling - Modification
to Conditional Use Permit 91-24
Dear Ms. Adams:
On January 25, 1995, the Planning Commission reviewed our request
for the modifications of certain conditions of CUP 91-24.
Modifications to items 8, 9 and 20 of the conditions were denied.
Modification to item 15 was denied in the form proposed by the
applicant.
The relevant portions of each of these conditions appear below
(items 8, 9, 20 and 15) along with the applicant's requested
modifications. We formally appeal the decision of the Planning
Commission in regard to these items and request ,.that the City
Council grant us the modifications to these conditions as proposed
by the applicant below. Specifically:
Item 8:
The developer shall contribute $10,000 to the Chaffey-
Garcia House barn project ..... This contribution shall be
provided prior to the issuance of building permits of any
phase of the Masi Plaza Center.
Request:
We want this condition waived due to the fact
that the historic Vintner's Walkway goes far
beyond what was required by the Historic
Preservation Commission. We will use the
money for another piece of artwork that will
compliment the vintner's statue.
Item 9:
Landscaping along the entirety of Masi Drive f.rom the
sidewalk out to the curb face shall be completed prior
to occupancy of the last building of phase I'.
Request:
Landscaping along the south side of Masi Drive,
starting from below building 10, shall be
provided only when the buildings south of Masi
Drive are constructed.
City Clerk/Masi Commerce Cen~er Partners
Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of January 25, 1995 -
Modification to Conditional Use Permit 91-24
January 26, 1995
Page 2
Item 15:
Trash Enclosures
b)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Separate pedestrian access that does not require
opening the main doors, to include self-closing
pedestrian door.
Roll-up doors.
Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from
blowing out of enclosure and designed to be hidden
from view.
Request:
Eliminate b, d, e, f and g. Replace with
standard city trash enclosure requirements.
We are willing, however, to provide the trellis
in the retail/entertainment component of the
project (that part of the project bounded by
Masi Drive, Rochester Ave. and Foothill Blvd).
Item 20:
A uniform sign program shall be reviewed and approved at
Planning Commission workshop prior to issuance of
building permits. (This was later amended on appeal to
City Council stating that it must be approved by city
planner, rather than at Planning Commission workshop.)
Request:
Uniform sign program for building signage
location to be approved by City Planner prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
any building. It will not be required that
the monument sign program be approved prior to
any issuance of building permits or
certificates of occupancy.
If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 882r4592 or
Michael Scandiffio at (818) 846-2070.
Sincerely,
·
_.
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
C. MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAT, USE PRRMIT 91-24 - MASI P~RTN~RS - A request to
amend specific conditions of approval relating to the project's development
and infrastructure phasing, design review processing, waiver of $10,000
historic preservation mitigation contribution, and design of the trash
enclosure for a 27 acre center located at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7)
of the Industrial Area Specific Plan - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, and 26
through 28.
Chairman Barker noted that the previous Planning Com~iesion's approval of the
project had been appealed to the City Council.
Beverly Luttrell, Associate Planner, confirmed that certain conditions had been
appealed.
Chairman Barker asked if this application sought to modify any of those
conditions.
Ms. Luttrell responded that some of them had previously been discussed at City
Council.
Chairman Barker questioned if the Planning Con~nission has a right to modify
conditions applied by the City Council.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that when the original conditional use permit
was appealed to the City Council, the Council only reviewed certain conditions.
He said that although the City Council took the final action, modifications to
the conditional use permit would still be within the purview of the Commission.
He said the applicant still has the due process right to appeal the decision to
the Council.
Chairman Barker felt the Commission might be overstepping its bounds by making
changes to conditions which had been imposed by the City Council. He questioned
if a project can just be bounced back and forth between the Planning Commission
and the City Council.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, said an applicant is entitled to request
changes. He said it is assumed that most applicants want to build, so they would
not continually bounce projects back and forth between the Commission and the
Council.
Chairman Barker asked that Ms. Luttrell indicate in the staff report which
conditions had been reviewed at City Council.
Ms, Luttre11 presented the staff report. She reported that Conditions No. 7, 8,
and 20 had been reviewed at City Council.
Mr. Buller noted that a non-construction conditional use permit for Building 25
for an indoor batting cage had been approved at the City Planner's Hearing on
January 24, but noted the applicant was not in attendance.
Commissioner Melcher stated he had recently noticed that Lewis had changed the
color of awnings on a housing project on the east side of Millikan Avenue north
of Rochester. He questioned if such a change is processed through the City.
Planning Commission Minutes
January 25, 1995
Mr. Buller responded that technically such changes should be approved by the
City, but he had not been aware of the change mentioned by Commissioner Melcher.
Commissioner Melcher noted that McDonalds had also recently repainted their
building on Foothill Boulevard and he asked if that change had been approved by
the City.
Mr. Buller replied negatively.
Co~enissioner Melcher re~rked that because the City seems to have little control
after the fact, he thought it would be adequate to have the City Planner approve
color locations for the canopies.
Mr. Bullet stated that some of the Commissioners may recall instances in the
recent past where the City required repainting back to originally approved
colors. He said colors and materials approved for a shopping center stay with
the center unless a request to modify is processed. He observed that Kragen
Auto, Unocal Gas, and Stop and Go are three projects that were repainted without
approval and were required to either request a modification or rapsine the
building consistent with the colors approved for their respective shopping
centers.
Commissioner McNiel stated he was offended by some of the requests made by the
applicant. He said the Commission and staff have gone to great lengths to
process the application and satisfy the applicant through many changes, none of
which have been coordinated with one another. With respect to colors, he felt
that the Planning C~mmnission has been criticized in the past regarding colors and
he did not feel that staff should have to take that heat. He thought the colors
should be approved by the Cumnission on a consent calendar basis. He said he did
not doubt staff's capabilities or tastes, he merely wanted to shield staff from
criticism.
Chairman Barker asked if the wording that staff recommended regarding Condition
7 is consistent with the intent of what City Council approved.
Mr. Bullet felt that was a judgemane call. He thought it was the intent of the
Council that the improvements be done in a reasonable time in a reasonable
fashion and he agreed that the applicant had a valid concern regarding potential
vandalism of art items placed there prior to active buildings.
Commissioner Lumpp thought the Commission had recently discussed deleting the
requirement for a self-closing pedestrian door on trash enclosures. He said it
was his understanding that staff would review trash enclosure design criteria
when time permits. He commented that Condition 9 was written long before that
discussion, but he suggested that it be changed.
Chairman Barker felt the Commission had agreed that trash enclosure designs
should be reviewed, but he did not think agreement had been reached.
Commissioner Melcher recalled that in the past, building pads being held in
abeyance for future development were landscaped for aesthetic reasons as well as
erosion and dust control.
Mr. Buller responded that was correct and noted that landscaping has been
required on some pads which are not within the mandatory dust control area.
Chairman Barker also recalled that there had been centers where interim pad
landscaping was required because it was anticipated that pads would not be used
Planning Commission ~inutes
January 25, 1995
for a number of years and it was felt that allowing those pads to remain
unlandscaped would detract from the area. He opened the public hearing.
John De Frenza, project architect, 20301 S.W. Birch St., Suite 101, Newport
Beach, agreed with staff's reco~ended changes to Condition 2. He said they had
no objection to staff's obtaining input from the Commissioners regarding the
colors. He said they were only interested in expediting the process. He
supported staff's recommended changes to Condition 7 requiring submission of
final detail plans for the public art be prior to occupancy for either Building
5 or 6 and installation of the Vintner'e Walk prior to release of occupancy for
either Building 5 or 6. With regards to Condition 8, Mr. De Frenza said he is
philosophically opposed to spending money to assist a separate parcel and he
thought the money should be spent toward historic preservation on site. He said
the money is requested to mitigate demolishing a building that was located in the
right of way and would have had to have been torn down anyway.
Michael Scadiffio, 1510 Riverside Drive, Burbank, stated that any mitigation fees
that go off site are bad for project financing, whereas money spent on site can
be capitalized into the project. Me said they would like to spend the $10,000
on additional sculpture on site.
Mr. De Frenza showed a layout of the area in which they would like to delay
landscaping along the south side of Sebastian Way. Me said the ice rink and
Buildings 25 and 26 are to be constructed in that area and they were requesting
that they not be required to put in the landscaping until the buildings are
constructed because they felt the landscaping would become damaged during
building construction. He thought the end results of the Commission's desire to
soften and create a more attractive appearance for trash enclosures within
centers has gone beyond the intended solution. He requested that they not be
required to apply the overhead trellis where the trash enclosure is in the rear
portions of the site.
Chairman Barker noted that the Quakes Stadium is located south of the project,
and he asked if ballpark patrons would be looking at those enclosures.
Mr. De Frenza said patrons would not be able to see the enclosures.
C~mnissioner McNiel said the trash enclosures would be in parking space between
the buildings, visible from Masi Drive.
Mr. Scandiffio stated the trash enclosures with the roll-up doors are not
practical.
Mr. De Frenza said that the chain link screen on top of the structure to prevent
trash from blowing out is not necessary because all of the commercial trash bins
in the City have counter-weighted lids; therefore, trash would not blow out. He
said that in order to place the chain link screen on top of the walls, the walls
and chain link must be 8 feet high to permit opening the lids on the trash bins.
He thought the intent of the Commission to minimize and soften the trash
enclosures within the complex has been countered by the request to place the
overhead screen. He said there has been some discussion by the Commission
regarding the separate pedestrian access. He felt the separate pedestrian access
had been requested because roll-up doors are required. He thought the roll-up
doors were requested as a result of the struc=ure's being so tall and the desire
to be sure that gates are not left open. He suggested that a proper gate would
be hinged so that it would self-close. He thought that roll-up doors receive
more damage than a gate and a metal gate with horizontal, beveled louvers would
hold up well. He expressed concern that the roll-up doors will be left open,
Planning Commission Minutes
January 25, 1995
someone will live within the pedestrian areas, or someone will enter the
pedestrian access area and light a fire which would ignite the wood trellis on
top. He questioned if the design would no= be a habitable structure because it
wouldbe completely enclosed and have a separate "mandoor." Mr. De Frenza stated
they had requested modification to Condition 16 because they were concerned that
light bollerda or potted plants may be indiscriminately required. He said they
felt they could work with staff but they wanted to make sure the condition is not
intended to ask for every-increasing quantities of such items.
Chairman Barker asked if they would prefer to go to the Commission for approval
or work with the City Planner.
Mr. De Frenza said they felt comfortable working with staff but they were Just
concerned with the number of fixtures.
Chairman Barker suggested they look at other projects within the City.
Mr. De Frenza said they intend to follow suit with those design directions.
Mr. Scandiffio said they were concerned with the requirement to obtain approval
for the uniform sign program prior to the Assdance of building permits. He said
they had budgeted to prepare the uniform sign program with the financing they are
now obtaining and several of the tenants will soon be ready to pull building
permits. He stated the sign program is complicated because of the mixed use
nature of the projec~c and requiring that the program be approved prior to pulling
building permits may delay the project.
Camnissioner Melcher thought that most sign companies will write a uniform sign
program at virtually no cost to the applicant.
Mr. Scandiffio stated they feel the sign program will be referred up to the
Planning Congnission as the theater and ice/roller rink propose innovative,
creative signs. He said they are concerned with moving forward with Jack in the
Box.
Chairman Barker noted that the sign program issue had previously been appealed
to the City Council.
Mr. Scandiffio responded they had previously appealed the requirement to have the
Planning Commission approve the sign program and the City Council had determined
that the City Planner could approve the progrim. He said they are now asking
that they be permitted to pull building permits prior to approval of the program.
He felt that because of the graphic, innovative signs they will be proposing,
there may be elements of the proposed sign program that the City Planner needs
additional time to analyze or discuss with the Coazaission. He said they only
recently acquired the unique tenants and that was why they had not finished their
sign program.
Chairman McNlel asked if they are requesting monument signs.
Mr. Scandiffio said monument signs will be pan of the overall package.
Mr. De Frenza said they were asking that the sign program be tied to cez~cificate
of occupancy and that is necessary so they can pull permits for Jack in the Box.
Mr. Scandiffio said they were requesting that the condition be changed to require
approval prior to cer~ificate of occupancy for the first building.
Planning Commission Minutes
9
January 25, 1995
Commissioner Melcher noted that on another commercial site, the developer told
the Commission it must consent to modifications to an approved sign program so
that the developer could live up to his lease commitments to his tenants. He
asked if signs are addressed in =heir leases with their tenants.
Mr. Scandiffio said the theater and the rink people want to be involved in the
process of the sign program approval. He said they intend to submit a draft of
the proposed program within a couple of weeks.
Commissioner Melcher asked if Jack in the Box knows it will be subject to a
uniform sign program.
Mr. Scandiffio responded affirmatively.
Mr. De Frenza said the signs on Jack in the Box are within conformance with the
guidelines of the City. He said they realize that a uniform sign program must
be approved prior to their permit being pulled and they would like to allow Jack
in the Box to pull their permit and start their 10 weeks of construction.
Chairman Barker asked if Jack in the Box is willing to start construction without
knowing what type of sign will be permitted.
Mr. De Frenza said they need to discuss that with Jack in the Box.
Mr. Scandiffio said the matter is covered in their lease agreement and Jack in
the Box has the right to cancel their lease if the developer does not perform.
He said there are three or four other first phase buildings which are also
affected.
Mr. De Frenza said they supported staff's suggested revisions to Condition 18.
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:56 p.m. to 9:04 p.m.
Hearing no fur=her testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
It was the consensus of the Commission 3-1-1 (McNiel no, Tolstoy absent) to
modify Condition 2 to allow approval of color locations for the canopies by the
City Planner.
Chairman Barker suggested that staff may wish to run the colors by Commissioner
McNiel.
Mr. Buller said that if he had a concern, he would forward the matter up or the
applicant could appeal.
It was the understanding of the Commission that the proposed modifications to
Condition 7 were in keeping with the intent of the City Councll] and with that
understanding, =he Ccm~niseion concurred 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent} ~ha~ ~he proposed
modifications were satisfactory.
Co6~nissioner Melcher asked for an update on the status of the task force that was
working on the historical mitigation fee plan.
Mr. Buller responded that the ma~ter had been placed in abeyance because of the
change in City Council membership and a lack of staff resources. He stated that
Principal Planner Larry Henderson had been working on the matter the past few
weeks and he would be reporting back to the Commission in the near future.
Planning Commission Minutes
10
January 25, 1995
Commissioner Melcher said that for the past 2-1/2 years he has wanted to
formulate a policy on historical mitigation. Re stated that he and Commissioner
Tolstoy had been workedwithMayor Pro Tem Gutierrez on the question, and he felt
there had been little interest on the part of the Council. Re felt it hard to
go along with an arbitrary sum of money. He noted that when the condition was
adopted in Sel~cember of 1992, the Council included three people who are no longer
on the City Council. He suggested that the Commission refer the matter up to the
Council.
Commissioner McNiel commented that the procedure is legal in California, there
are precedents on the issue, and the amount had already been reduced for this
applicant from $25,000 down to $10,000. He saw no reason to change the
condition.
Commissioner Lumpp also felt the condition should not be changed and stated he
did not feel comfortable changing a condition which had been set by the City
Council, even if it was a previous City Council.
Chairman Barker agreed. He noted that the condition had already been appealed
once and said he was not comfortable with the applicant's appealing an appeal.
Mr. Buller noted that the current condition provides that the Historic
Preservation Commission may recommend allocation of the $10,000 for another
historic project. He said the applicant did not want to merely pass by the
Commission in taking the matter back to the City Council. He asked if the
Commission supported the allocation of those funds for a project other than the
Chaffey-Garcia Barn.
Chairman Barker felt the Commission did not have any input specifically relating
to another type of preservation project.
Regarding Condition 9, Camaissioner Melcher noted that another developer had been
permitted to create approximately 1/3 mile of on-site street without landscaping
on either side, trusting that the area will be landscaped as the project
develops. He stated this is a public street and the requirement could not be
enforced if the proper~y were not under one ownership. He said the Commission
has been looking for an integrated design along the 600-foot frontage of the
building and he was sympathetic to the applicant's request to defer the
landscaping.
Commissioner McNiel stated that landscaping is complimentary to the buildings,
but an integral part of the streetscape. He said the street will be constructed
and generally when streets are constructed, some landscaping is installed, even
if it is an interim modified plan. He commented turf will be required on the
unfinished lo~s and he felt that some form of landscaping should go in as barren
ground would be unacceptable.
Chairman Barker asked what the applicant was requesting.
Mr. Buller stated that the sidewalk is to be installed but the applicant is
requesting that the landscaping between the sidewalk and the street be deferred
until the buildings are constructed.
Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing.
Mr. De Frenza stated they were proposing that the landscaping be deferred because
it will include small trees which would be destroyed during construction, as
Planning Commission Minutes
11
Januaz7 25, 1995
would the irrigation supporting the trees. He therefore requested that they be
permitted to landscape in front of each building as it is constructed.
Chairman Barker questioned if that meant that there will be small bits of
landscaping with dirt in between.
Mr, De Frenza felt the area could be hydroseeded.
Mr. Scandiffio stated that most likely all three buildings would go in at the
same time.
Chairman Barker said he hoped that would be the case, but there are no
guarantees.
Coemissioner Lumpp felt the condition should stand as As and if the streets are
going to be open to the public, they should have landscaping even if there are
no buildings.
Commissioner Melcher felt the City does not hold itself or other developers to
the standard of requiring landscaping just because a street is open to the
public. He remarked that Millikan between Foothill and Arrow Route and the Lewis
frontage on Foothill Boulevard are examples. He felt it is reasonable to
withhold the landscaping until construction of the buildings.
Chairman Barker stated he was concerned because there may be scattered buildings
with nothing but dirt between the sidewalk and the street for perhaps several
years. He said the area is a planned community of sort. He did not feel trees
should necessarily be required until the buildings are in place.
Commissioner Lumpp stated that if the sidewalk is installed, it will also
possibly be damaged by construction and will have to be replaced. He felt
sidewalk is more costly than the landscaping and irrigation.
Chairman Barker stated that because he did not feel the buildings will all be
constructed at once, he wanted some sort of landscaping.
Camnissioner Melcher agreed with Mr. De Frenza that the trash enclosures do not
meet the intent. He preferred the older trash enclosures built prior to the
recent standards. He said the developers are now constructing shabby little
structures with cheap woodwork and overhead doors. He noted that the roll-up
doors are frequently left open. He said he has personally gone into a number of
the trash enclosures aid has seen them used as bathrooms and rubbish dumps. He
suggested that the applicant be permitted to submit a design for Planning
Commission approval.
Commissioner McNiel cmnted that the trash enclosures of today, although big
and sometimes awkward looking, are the result of an evolutionary process based
on conditions such as wind aid a desire to make them aesthetically pleasing. He
agreed they may have gro~n beyond what is an attractive enclosure. He camsanted
that at the office where he last worked, the trash enclosure had'self-closing
doors that were rarely closed and weighted lids which were left propped open.
He said the doors hung open aid large debris was thrown on the floor between the
dumpstars. He said the landlord even locked the gates aid gave the tensits keys,
but within a week the locks were gone. He was not sure the current policy is the
right solution, but he noted it is a solution that is applicable to conditions
that exist in the City. He agreed the enclosures are not attractive, but stated
he did not feel the policy is a failure. He said he would be interested in
seeing something better.
Planning Commission Minutes
12
January 25, 1995
Commissioner Lumpp stated that the City's objective is to create a decorative
treatment around the trash enclosure while providing an easy avenue for the
people who deposit the trash so that the enclosure stays relatively complete
during the time it is not being used by the trash company. He felt the
pedestrian access should not have a self-closing gate because it creates more
problems. He questioned the wisdom of requiring a roll-up door and thought the
Commission should reevaluate the intent of the enclosures. He felt something
could be designed which be workable but less cumbersome. He suggested allowing
the applicant to present a reasonable alternative.
Mr. De Frenza stated he would accept the challenge of developing a new trash
enclosure design.
Chairman Barker felt the option was that the applicant could design trash
enclosures which meet Condition 15 or propose an alternate design.
Mr. De Frenza stated they would be willing to meet the standards of what is at
the front counter of the Planning Division of what a standard trash enclosure is
required to be.
Mr. Bullet stated Mr. De Frenza was referring to a standard trash enclosure which
is permitted in industrial areas, not in c~m.ercial areas. He said it is simply
three walls and a solid steel gate.
Mr. De Frenza stated that the handout does not specify that it is for industrial
use only.
Mr. Buller stated that all ccn~ercial developments within the last three to four
years have been conditioned to build trash enclosures per what is stated An
Condition 15.
The Commission provided direction that 'the following design features are
necessary for any alternative design which may be proposed.
a) Architecturally integrated into the design of the center.
b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors, with
walls to screen the trash enclosure.
c) Large enough to accoem~date two trash bins.
d) Steel, industrial strength, self-closing, view-obscuring doors.
e} Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
f) A design that ensures debris is controlled.
It was the consensus of the Cosmission 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent) that Condition 15
be changed to provide that the applicant may design an enclosure incorporating
the design features listed in Condition 15 to the satisfaction of the City
Planner or, as an alternative, subnit a design for Plannl~4 C~mnission review and
approval.
It was the consensus of the Coe~lssion 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent) that Condition 16
not be changed.
Regarding Condition 20, Co~issioner Lumpp felt the sign program should be
required prior to issuance of building permits and noted that the applicant has
the right to request modifications to a sign progrin.
Chairman Barker agreed. He noted that all other applicants have the same timing
imposed.
Planning Commission Minutes
13
Januar~ 25, 1995
Commissioners Melcher and McNiel agreed the condition should remain as written.
Cummissioner McNiel suggested that monument signs be included in the application
so they would not have to reprocess.
Regarding Condition 18, Commissioner Lumpp felt the language should be changed
to indicate that the temporary seeding and irrigation is for aesthetic reasons
as well as for erosion control.
Ccxmnissioner Melcher also thought the condition should be changed to require that
the temporary landscaping be maintained in good condition. He said the City has
had uneven experiences with other centers.
Mr, Scandiffio asked if it is appropriate for the Commission to add to a previous
condition.
Chairman Barker stated the proposal was to change the verbiage to clarify that
the interim landscaping is for aesthetic as well as erosion control purposes and
to be sure that the landscaping is maintained, so that it is not planted and then
merely allowed to die. He commented that maintaining the landscaping would also
assist in leasing or selling the property.
Mr. Buller said that when an item has been opened, any condition can be modified.
He noted that an earlier project approval on this site contains a condition that
if the buildings facing Sebastian Way are built prior to the buildings facing
Foothill Boulevard, then the pads along Foothill Boulevard shall be landscaped
not only with groundcover, but also with shrubs and trees in order to screen the
backs of the buildings along Sebastian Way.
Mr. Scandiffio stated the purpose of the irrigation and hydraseeding was for dust
control. He felt that if they have to provide landscaping for .aesthetic reasons
on the big superpads in the back, the cost would be prohibitive.
Ccmmnissioner McNiel stated the Commission was talking about hydraseeding grass,
irrigation, and mowing.
Mr. Scandiffio stated there are some groundcovers which are very low and do not
need mowing that would keep down the dust. He felt using that ty13e of product
would cost about $40,000 to $50,000 while turf would cost about $250,000.
Commissioner McNiel stated the intent is for aesthetic purposes. He gave Tetra
Vista Town Center as an example of what the Commission wants. He felt the open
pads may sit there for several years and they should not look like vacant,
abandoned lots.
Mr. Scandiffio said they would maintain lots along Foothill Boulevard a little
bit better. He thought they should not have to make lots in the back of the site
aesthetic, as the irrigation costs would he enormous. He said the erosion
control they are now dealing with in connection with their grading is expensive.
Chairman Barker asked what the developer proposes to do where the lots have
already been stripped.
Mr. Scandiffio said they want to temporarily seed with a thin ground cover with
shallow roots which does not need mowing. He said it may not he considered
highly aesthetic, but it is green and keeps the dust down. He fell aesthetic
should not be a criteria.
Planning Commission Minutes
14
January 25, 1995
Commissioner Melcher agreed that on major streets frontages, upgraded interim
landscaping has been required but he noted that other treatments have been
permitted on other large undeveloped pads, such as the back side of Tetra Vista
Town Center, which is still being used as a construction yard. He noted the
perimeter of the Terra Vista office park site is landscaped, but most of the
parcel is unlandscaped. He suggested the Commission look at the phasing plans
and perhaps require that undeveloped pads along the major street frontages of
Foothill Boulevard and Rochester have a well cared for appearance once
development is begun within a phase. He did no= feel the pads on the south side
of Sebastian Way are that important. He felt it reasonable to require, and the
applicant would want, keeping the major street frontages looking nice. He felt
dust control measures could be utilized in other areas and they could be screened
from view.
Mr. Buller suggested that the pads north of Sebastian Way be landscaped and
irrigated with a drought tolerant lawn which is maintained in good condition and
the pads south of Sebastian Way be landscaped and irrigated with alternative
plant materials for e~mple erosion control. He agreed that would be consistent
with what has been permitted in other industrial and commercial sites.
Ca~nissioner Lumpp thought the City and the developer have different definitions
of aesthetic as opposed to erosion control. He felt the interim landscaping is
being requested for aesthetic purposes as well as erosion control.
Commissioner McNiel cited the pad adjacent to Edwards Theater noz~ch of Spires
Restaurant as an example of what the City does not want and why conditions are
applied. He noted that pad has erosion control because the weeds are so deep.
He said conditions had not been applied to that project and the City wants to be
sure that does not happen again.
Chairman Barker noted that the City is not requesting a putting green.
supported Mr. Buller's suggestion.
He
Mr. Scandiffio stated that the requirement for a lawn will kill the project. He
said the hydroseeding they want to use is a ground cover that is like a tentacle
on the surface, keeps the dust down, and is green from a distance.
Mr. Buller said that under the original wording of the condition he would have
required a drought tolerant lawn, especially for those pads facing Foothill
Boulevard.
Mr. Scandiffio supported the wording being left as originally etated in the
resolution. He said the only pads along Foothill Boulevard are the restaurant
site but they do have 20 acres north of Sebastian Way.
Commissioner Lumpp suggested the condition be left to require City Planner
approval and noted the developer could appeal to the Ccm~ission if things can not
be worked out.
Mr. Buller noted that the phasing plan seems to constantly change and timing of
phases would affect the requirement. He felt he understood the Commission's
desires.
It was the consensus of the Commission 4-0-1 (Tolstoy absent) to make no changes
to Condition 18.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by McNiel to adopt the resolution approving
modifications to Conditional Use Permit 91-24 with modifications to permit the
Planning Commission Minutes
15
January 25, 1995
applicant to provide an alternate trash enclosure design to the satisfaction of
the Planning Commission and to retain Condition 18 as originally approved.
Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES= COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: TOLSTOY
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCNER
- carried
Planning Coe~ission Minutes
16
January 25, 1995
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
January 25, 1995
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Beverly E. Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner
MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAl. USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI PARTNFRS -
A request to amend specific conditions of approval relating to the project's
development and infrastructure phasing, design review processing, waive of $10,000
historic preservation mitigation contribution, and design of the trash enclosure for a
27 acre center located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester
Avenue in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan
- APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, and 26 through 28.
RACKGROUND
The original Conditional Use Permit 91-24 was reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission
on July 22, 1992. That Conditional Use Permit was approved with a number of conditions which
were appealed to the City Council on August 19, 1992 by the applicant. The Conditional Use Permit
was finally approved by the City Council on September 2, 1992. Final conditions of approval
required by the City Council have been included as Exhibit "B.'
ANAl ,YSIS
The applicant m his proposal (See Exhibit "A") is requesting that eight of the conditions of approval
noted in Resolution 92-240 (Exhibit "B") be modified. Below, staff will note the existing condition
as approved in 1992 and the applicant's request and conclude with SULff'S response to each requested
modification.
Condition No. ~: A diagram providing color locations for the myiarleanvas canopies shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Design Review Committee prior to the issuance of
building permits.
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that the colon of the awnings be subject to
review and approval by the City Planner, rather than the Design Review Committee, prior to
the issuance of building permits.
ITI~I C
PLANNING COMMI:~,.,ION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 2
Staff Response: This issue was originally discussed at the Design Review Committee meeting
of May 7, 1992. The design of the canopy element was of concern to the Committee (McNiel,
Kroutil) and they felt it needed to be explained graphically and at a larger scale. They
expressed serious reservations about using fabric/mylar awnings in this high wind area, At the
June 4, 1992, Design Review Cornmince meeting, the Committee (Chitiea, McNiel, Kroutil)
required the additional review of colon of the awnings. Further details were presented to the
Design Review Committee (McNiel, Chitiea, Kroutil) on June 18, 1992, and it approved the
mylar/canvas canopy element in the thickest gauge available. The Committee was still
concerned with the color schemes and felt that they should be carefully thought out. The
Committee then simply requested that a diagram providing color locations be submitted for
review and approval by the Committee. It also suggested keying the awning color to the type
of use being proposed.
Although previous Design Review Comminees have, on several occasions, reviewed this
matter and still required that the colon be reviewed and approved by the Committee, it is
staffs opinion that final approval could be deferred to the City Planner. Staff feels confident
that we can work with the applicant on a final color selection that will be in keeping with the
approved architecture and building colon.
Staff recommends Condition No. 2 be modified as follows:
2. A diagram providing color locations for the mylar/canvas canopies shah be submitted for
review and approval by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits.
Condition No. 7: A revised concept plan for the commissioned public art and the interpretire
public displays shah be reviewed by the full Planning Commission. The revised concept plan
shall graphically depict how the Vintner's Walk, commissioned art, and public displays wfil
be developed and maintaMed and how they will faction as a whole, Final detailed plans shah
be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of any permits,
Installation of the Vintnees Walk hardscope and landscaping shah be completed concurrently
with Foothill Boulevard improvements, prior to the release of occupancy of any buildings in
Phase I. Installation of the Vintner*s Walk trellises, vines, interpretire panels, and public art
shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy of buildings in Phase II.
In the event permits have been issued and Phase H is substantially under construction prior
to the occupancy of any building in Phase I, bardscape and landscaping improvemenU may
be deferred to be completed prior to the relense of occupancy of any building in Phase H,
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that the last line of the first paragraph of the
condition be reworded as follows: "Final detailed plans for the public art and public displays
shall be reviewed by City Planner prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy for Building
71
PLANNING COMMISoION STAFFREPORT
CUP 91-24 -MASI
January25,1995
Page 3
5 (Old Spaghetti Factory) and Building 6 (Denny's)." Additionally they request that the second
paragraph be reworded as follows: "Installation of public art and Vintner's Walk features
(seatwall, plaques, public displays, and nellis) to be completed prior to issuance of certificates
of occupancy for buildings 5 and 6."
The applicant is concemed that these improvements will be subject to vandalism if buildings
5 and 6 are not there to provide some visual security.
Staff Response: This particular condition relates to the timing of installation of public art and
the Vintner's Walk along Foothill Boulevard. The statement 2(f) within the Findings of the
Resolution of Approval states that: "...The timing of the installation of the Vintner's Walk
bardscape and landscaping should be completed concurrently with Foothill Boulevard
improvements for the safety of pedestrians, but installation of the pipe trellis, vines,
interpretlye panels, and public art could be deferred to the time of later con.Tm~ction." It was
clearly the intent of this condition to require bardscape and landscaping features concurrently
with Foothill Boulevard street improvements and prior to release of occupancy of any
buildings in Phase I. Improvements required to be constructed with Foothill Boulevard
improvements would then include paving treatment on the ground plane, curbs, and
landscaping. This is required for public safety reasons and is typical for all projects within
the City. Therefore, staff believes that the timing of the sidewalk ground plane and
landscaping should still be completed concurrently with Foothill Boulevard improvements and
prior to occupancy of any building within Phase I which includes the Auto Court, Building 3
(Jack in the Box), and Building 4 (restaurant).
In reviewing the minutes of the August 19, 1992, City Council meeting, it was clearly the
intent of the Council at the time that the more elaborate improvements including the pipe
trellis, artwork, interpretive panels, and seatwall be completed prior to release of occupancy
of any buildings within Phase lI. Phase II includes Buildings 5 (Old Spaghetti Factory), 6
(Dermy's), and 7 (Commercial/Retail). The applicant is now requesting that these
improvements be deferrot until certificates of occupancy ar~ issued for both Buildings 5 and
6. Staff believes it could be app. op, iate to relate installation of amenities prior to occupancy
for either Building 5 or 6, whichever is constructed first.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 7 be modified as follows (bold for new text, overstrike
for deleted text):
A revised concept plan for the commissioned public an and the interpretlye public
displays shall be reviewed by the full Planning Commission. The revised concept plan
shall graphically depict how the Vintner's Walk, commissioned art, and public displays
will be developed and maintained and how they will function as a whole. Final detailed
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner v.;or m iss,-,-gz of any l~c,,,,its
prior to occupancy for either Building S or 6, whichever occurs tirst.
PLANNING COMMIboiON STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 4
Installation of the Vintner's Walk hardscape and landscaping shall be completed
concurrently with Foothill Boulevard impwvements, prior to the release of occupancy of
any buildings in Phase I. Installation of the Vinmer's Walk trellises, vines, interpretive
panels, and public art shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy of buildings
in Ixhnsc II either Building 5 or 6, whichever occurs first.
In the event permits have been issued and Phase II is substantially under construction
prior to the occupancy of any building in Phase I, hardscape and landscaping
improvements may be deferred to be completed prior to the release of occupancy of any
building in Phase II.
Condition No. 8: The developer shall contribute $10,000 to the Chaffey-Garcia House Barn
project, whieh will be used to develop a museum/eultural center depicting and exhibiting the
agrieulturnl heritage of the area. The City Council may, upon the input of the Historic
Preservation Commission, allocate funds to another similar type of preservation project
inehding, but not necessarily limited to, the Historic Preservation Site and Land-Banking
fund, depending upon the timing of the compliance with this mitigation. This contribution
shah be provided prior to the issuanee of bu~ding permits of any phase of the Masi Commerce
Center.
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that this requi~ment be waived since they
believe the historic Vintnet~s Walk goes far beyond what was required by the Historic
Preservation Commission. They plan to use the money for another piece of artwork that will
compliment the Vintner's statue.
Staff Response: This particular condition was originally placed on this project by the Historic
Preservation Commission on September 5, 1991, when the La Fourcade Store was reviewed
as a potential Historic Point of Interest. This measmz was intended to partially mitigate the
demolition of the La Fourcade Store. The condition at that time reqttired a $25,000
contribution to the Chaffey Gar~ia House Barn project. At the September 18, 1991, City
Council hearing on the desi~rn,on. the applicanfs representative. Mike Scandiffio. requested
that the monetary contribution be reduced to $10,000, and that they be allowed to spend the
money on site, rather than on the barn project. The City Council, after much discussion,
reduced the monetary contribution from I;25,000 to 1; 10,000 but still required that it be spent
on the Chaffey Garcia Barn pwject. An element of flexibility was added to the resolution that
would permit the City Council discl~'tion to allocate these funds to another similar type of
preservation project, including but not necessarily limited to, the Historic PreserVation Site and
Land-Banking Fund, should they receive input from the Historic Preservation Commission.
This Historic Preservation Commission condition, as modified by the City Council on
September 1 g, 1991, was again appealed to the City Council on August 19, 1992. At that time,
the applicant requested that the 1;10,000 contribution be utilized for public an within their own
PLANNING COMMIS~,~ON STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 5
site. At that hearing, then Mayor Stout indicated that they had already reduced the mount and
it was the retention of the Council when the reduction was made to allow the developer to put
the $15,000 difference into their project. He felt that their request was already granted when
Council reviewed it previously. The City Council upheld the condition at the final reading of
the Resolution on September 2, 1992. In addition to this, it should be noted that a similar
condition was placed on the Foothill Marketplace project. However, the monetary contribution
required of that particular project was $100,000, which has already been paid by that
developer. Considering the long history regarding this condition and the fact that the applicant
has already attempted to appeal it to the City Council on more than one occasion, staff does
not support this requested modification.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 8 not be modified.
Condition No. 9: Landscaping along the entirety of Masi Drive from the sidewalk out to the
curb face shall be completed prior to occupancy of the last building for Phase 1.
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that the condition be r~worded as follows:
"Landscaping along the south side of Sebastian Way, starting from below Building 10, shall
be provided only when the buildings south of Sebastian Way are constructed."
Staff Response: The Engineering Division has required that all strut improvements along
Masi Drive/Sebastian Way be completed with Phase I. Phase I includes not only the Auto
Court. but also Building 3 (Jack in the Box) and Building 4 (Restaurant) as well. In order to
have a complete and atu'active streetscape along the sn'eet which bisects the project site, the
Planning Comnfission felt it appropriate to require landscaping in conjunction with these street
improvements. This condition is consistent with conditions which have been placed on Tetra
Vista Town Center, Tetra Vim Town Center Squa~, Foothill Marketplace, and Bixby
Business Park.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 9 not be modified.
Condition No. 15: There shah be provbion for the following design features in the trash
enclosure to the satisfaction of the City Planner:
a) Architecturally integrated into the design of the center.
b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main doors, to include self-
dosing pedestrian door.
c) Large enough to accommodate two trash bins.
d) Roll-up doors.
e) Trash bins with counter-weighted Hds.
f} Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
g) Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of enclosure and designed to
be hidden from view.
PLANNING COMMISalON STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
Page 6
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that b, d, e, f, and g of this condition be
eliminated. They would like it replaced with the standard city, trash enclosure requirement.
They are willing to provide the trellis in the retail/entertainment component of the project (that
portion of the project bounded by Masi Drive, Rochester Ave. and Foothill BIrd.)
Staff Response: This requirement for upgrading of trash enclosures is in addition to the
standard drawing for trash enclosures which the Planning Commission utilizes. It is a standard
which is applied consistently to all commercial projects throughout the City. It is staffs
opinion that there is no justification to eliminate it in this isolated case.
Staff recommends that condition No. 15 not be modified.
Condition No. 16: A uniform hardscape and street furniture treatment, including trash
receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bo!iards, benches, etc., shall be
utilized for the project and shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural style.
Detailed designs shah be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of
building permits.
Applicsnt's Request: The applicant requests the elimination of the bike racks, the
freestanding potted plants, and the light bollards.
Staff Response: This condition was placed on the project in order to create a uniform and
aesthetically cohesive design scheme throughout the project. A similar condition was placed
on the Foothill Marketplace, Tetra Vista Village, Tetra Vista Town Center, and Terra Vista
Town Center Square, as well as all industrial parks approved within the City. There is no
justification or precedent to delete or modify the condition in this isolated case.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 16 not be modified.
Condition No. :~0: A Uniform Sign Program shah be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner prior to the issuance of buffdang permits.
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that the Uniform Sign Program be reviewed and
approved by the City Planner prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any building.
They also request that it not be required that the monument sign program be approved prior
to any issuance of building permits or certificates of occupancy.
Staff Response: This condition was originally wrinen so that the Planning Commission
would review the sign program prior to issuance of building permits. The condition was
appealed to the City Council on August 19, 1992. At that heating, the Council felt that it
would be appropriate for approval of the Sign Program to rest with the City Planner. To defer
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January, 25, 1995
Page 7
review and approval of a Uniform Sign Program to the time of occupancy potentially raises
a conflict and timing issue ifa tenant is ready to occupy a space and the applicant is still in the
process of obtaining approval of the overall sign program. This condition is consistently
applied to all projects and is always tied to the issuance of building permits. There is no
justification or precedent to defer this approval to such a late date, when typically tenants are
extremely anxious to receive occupancy and begin business operations.
Typically, monument signage is included within a Uniform Sign Program application. If the
applicant does not wish to receive approval of any monument signs, then staff has no problem
in deleting monument signs from the Uniform Sign Program. However, the applicant must
be cautioned that at the point in time when they desire any type of monument signage, an
amendment to the Uniform Sign Program must be filed, reviewed, and approved prior to
erection of any monumentation. The applicant should also be aware that the fee for
amendment to an approved Uniform Sign Program is currently $590.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 20 not be modified.
Condition No, 18: All future building pads shah be temporarily seeded and irrigated for
erosion control. Detailed plans shall be included in the landscape and irrigation plans to be
submitted for City Planner approval prior to issuance of building permits.
Applicant's Request: The applicant requests that the second sentence '0f this condition be
deleted. They feel that review and approval by the Building and Safety Division is adequate.
Staff Response: Planning Division staff is comfortable with allowing the Building and Safety
Division to be responsible for review of the erosion control plan.
Staff recommends that Condition No. 18 be modified as follows:
18.
All future building pads shall be temporarily seeded and irrigated for erosion control.
Erosion control plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Building and Safety division
prior to issuance of building permits.
FACTS FOR FINDING: In order for the Planning Commission to approve the modifications to the
above noted conditions, the following facts for findings must be made:
A,
The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code
and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located.
The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISotON STAFFREPORT
CUP 91-24-MASI
January25,1995
Page 8
C,
The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code
and Industrial Area Specific Plan.
COPd~FSPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the I~land Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the project has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owner~ withi~
300 feet of the project site.
R FCOMMFNDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
modifications to Conditional Use Permit 91-24 through adoption of the attached Resolution of
Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:BL:gs
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Letter fxom Applicant
Exhibit "B" - City Council Resolution 92-240
Exhibit "C" - Minutes of August 19, 1992, City Council meeting
Resolution of Approval
TO:
BRAD BULLER, CITY PLANNER
PLANNING DIVISION
FROM: JACK MASI
MASI COMMERCE CENTER PARTNERS
CUP 94-26 APPLICATION
DECEMBER 29, 1994
RE:
DATE:
91994 I%
Dear Brad:
Please find attached the request for modifications of conditions
of CUP 91-24 and the CUP request for the Indoor Batting Cages.
The request for modification of conditions has been revised and
supersedes the letter request dated December 21-, 1994.
We would like to process these items as part of CUP 94-26. I
understand that the Planning Commission hearing for CUP 94-26 will
be rescheduled to January 25, 1995 as per the Planning Commission
action taken on this application at the Planning Commission
workshop meeting last night. I understand that these additional
items can be voted on at that meeting as well.
Please call me if there is any problem or misunderstanding in
regard to what I have stated above. My telephone number is (909)
SS2-4592. Thank you for your continued help in expediting this
project.
Sincerely,
TO:
From:
Brad Bullet, City Planner
Planning Department
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Jack Masi
Masi Commerce Center Partners
Date:
Re:
Dear Brad:
December 28, 1994 (Revised)
Modifications to Certain Conditions - CUP 91-24
As part of our current CUP application (94-26), we request that
certain modifications to CUP91-24, Planning Division Requirements,
be made. Specifically:
Item 2:
A diagram providing color locations for the mylar/canvas
canopies shall be submitted for review and approval by
the design review committee prior to issuance of building
permits.
Item 7:
Request:
Waive this requirement. Canvas colors to be
reviewed by City Planner prior to issuance of
building permit.
Vintner's Walk - Last Two Lines:
Final detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Planner prior to the issuance of any permits.
Installation of the public ar~andthe Vintner's walkway
shall be completed concurrently with Foothill Boulevard
improvements.
Request:
Final detailed plans for ~he public an and
public displays shall be+ reviewed by City
Planner prior to issuance of cer~:ificate of
occupancy for buildings 5 and 6.
Installation of public ar~ and Vin~ner's
Walkway features (seatwall, vintner plaques,
public displays and trellis) ~o be completed
prior =o issuance of cer~ifica~es of occupancy
for buildings 5 and 6. (These improvements
will besubJec~ ~o vandalism if buildings 5 and
6 are not there ~o provide some visual
security.)
Letter to Brad Buller - Modifications to Certain Conditions (CUP
91-24) - December 28, 1994
Page 2
Item 8:
The developer shall contribute $10,000 to the Chaffey-
Garcia House barn project ..... This contribution shall be
provided prior to the issuance of building permits of any
phase of the Masi Plaza Center.
Item 9:
Request:
We want this condition waived due to the fact
that the historic Vintnar,s Walkway goes far
beyond what was required by the Historic
Preservation Commission. We will use the
money for another piece of artwork that will
compliment the vintner's statue.
Landscaping along the entirety of Masi Drive from the
sidewalk out to the curb face shall be completed prior
to occupancy of the last building of phase I.
Request:
Landscaping along the southside of Masi Drive,
staz~cing from below building 10, shall be
provided only when the buildings south of Masi
Drive are constructed.
Item 15: Trash Enclosures
b)
d)
f)
g)
Separate pedestrian access that does not require
opening the main doors, to include self-closing
pedestrian door. '-
Roll-up doors.
Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from
blowing out of enclosure and designed to be hidden
from view.
Item 16:
Request:
Eliminate b, d, e, f and g. Replace with
standard city trash enclosure requirements.
We are willing, however, to provide the trellis
in ~he retail/enter~ainment component of the
project (that par~ of ~he project bounded by
Masi Drive, Rochester Ave. and Foothill Blvd).
A uniform herdscape and street furniture treatment,
including trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants,
bike racks, light bollards, benches, etc., shall be
designed to be compatible with the architectural style.
Detailed designs shall be submitted for City Planner
review and approval prior to issuance of building
permits,
Request:
Eliminate requirement for bike racks,
freestanding potted plants and light bollards.
C\\
Letter to Brad Buller - Modifications to Certain Conditions (CUP
91-24) - December 28, 1994
Page 3
Item 20:
A uniform sign program shall be reviewed and approved at
Planning Commission workshop prior to issuance of
building permits. (This was later amended on appeal to
City Council stating that it must be approved by city
planner, rather than at Planning Commission workshop.)
Request: Uniform sign program for building signage
location to be approved by City Planner prior
to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
any building. It will not be required that
the monument sign program be approved prior to
any issuance of building permits or
certificates of occupancy.
Item 18:
All future building pads shall be temporarily seeded and
irrigated for erosion control. Detailed plans shall ~e
included in the landscape and irrigation plane to be
submitted for City Planner approval prior to issuance of
building permits.
Request:
Delete second line, "Detailed plans shall be
submitted for City Planner approval
~i;~'&; issuance of building permits."
We feel ~hat ~he Building and Safety Division
review is sufficient.
If you have any questions, please call me at (909) 882-4592.
Sincerely,
Masi Commerce Center Partners
81
~C~ I~D. 92-240
A RESOI/TT/C~ OF ~E CITY (ITa~IL OF ~HE C1TY OF ~
~, CAT.TmCS~/A, ~ CC~DIT/a~AL USE P~MET
NO. 91-24 PCR ~E DEVaIE~M~ OF 32 ~3Trn~GS TO]~T.TM~
APPRO~ 268,907 SQ~RRE FEET AND CCMPRIS~D OF A MIX
OF IND~S~AL, MULTI~, OFF/a, AND RES~a/R~NT t~ES
IN ~ME ~ PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF ~ME
CCSNBR OF FOfT~r~. BIEEVA~)~ EX~4RqI~AV~NaE, AND
MAKING F/NDINGS IN ~ ~}~aDF - APN: 229-011-10,
19, 21, 26, 27, AND 28.
(i) M~i Oa~_z~e Center Partners has filed an applicati~l fur the
issuance of Ccrditic~al Use Permit No. 91-24 as described in the title of this
su~itted in cmjuncti~ with a Tentative Parcel Map (13845) to subdivide the
(ii) On the 22rid day of July 1992, the Plannir~ Ck ..... i-~im of the
City of Rand~ O~,,a~3~ currkEtad a duly noticed public hearirq c~ the
applicatic~ and concluded said hearirq m that date. At the .c~Elusim of the
public hearing, the Planning O ..... i-~im adopted their resolUtic~ No. 92-99,
(iii) On JUly 31, 1992, the applicant ~ly ~led the approval of
said Resolutic~ No. 92-99 based m cc~flicts with the fo~ ccrrlitic~s of
(a) Planni~ ~n~a_~tim No. 7: Final aRcoval of Vintner's Walk
a~a T~m~3 of Installation; ar~
(c) P~nnin~ Credition No. 20:
Pr~r~; a~
Approval of t~{fcrm Sign
(d) ~in~ Creditira No. 2(b) a.~ 2(c):
:Fcx:~:,h,~ll
(e) :!~g'~ir~
n~,roven~.rms; and
Creditira No. 2 (d):
(f) E~gin~rin~ Omx~itim No. 9:
Deleti~l of Traffic Signal
Resolution No. 92-240
City Council of the City of Rancho O~...~3a as follo~a:
1. ~ds Council hereby specifica//y fir~-~ that all of the facts set
fcrth in the Recitals, Part A, of tb~-~ Resolution are true and ~o~e~.
(a) ~he applicatim applies to txupe~ hf located at the
southwest cohg/of Rochester and Foothill Boul~ with a street fTcwfcage
of 1,250 feet alcrr/Foothill Boulevard art] lot .a~Tth of 950 feet alung
(c) ~he ~tf is designated "Z~bstrial Park" by the
Zr~ustrial Area Specific Plan; and '-
(d) ~e project requires the ~litim of the C~irl Salon,
designarea an Kistcric Point of Interest by the City Council cn -9~_-mh-r 18,
1991.
along Rochestar Avenue, added "Autcmc~i~ Servioe Oourt" as a ccrrliticmally
(f) ~e Phnni~ o ..... e-~im is best to ~,~iew such
imM ar~ should ~ ~ ~~ ~ k~-A~ ~ <~ ..... ~i~
~ ~ ~~~ ~c ai~h~, ~ ~ ~ ~f ~ ~y ~e
Resolutic~ No. 92-240
P~e3
(g) ~he $10,000 o~rihtuicn to the Chaffey-Carcia Barn
originally ~mpos~d by the F{~ccric Preservation
the applicant at the public hearirg.
(h) Fim~ ap~z~al of Unifurm Sign ~u~ .... fur su~ large
projects is most ap~~ta with the C~-~icn rather than with staff.
the ~x~4~ea ]XDjeCt. Foothill Boulevard is a major arterial ar~ already
carries substantial traffic volumes. threeted left-har~ turns for irrJress
and egress, even at the initial phases of the [=oject, w~uld ~e.~te an unsafe
traffic pattern. It is theref~u n~c~y for public safety that such
i~3rovemert~ be installed at the earliest feasible ~.
(j) ~e ~ le-t~ ue (c=nr~d ~t~ pi~) in
Foothill Boulevard could be uti//zed m a t~e=~ besis, if it is cleaned
(k) ~he applicant's request for a re/m~=semnt ageement for
one-half of the cost of signal installatim if Caltrans permits it to be
installed at th/s ~ is a[4xulxiats.
facts set fcrth in pal--agr~[~s i ar~ 2 abo~e, this C~uncil hereby firrls and
concludes as follc~s:
(a) ~hat the ~ceed use is in acuurd with the General Plan,
the objectives of the Deve/_qTm~nt Code and the Ir~bstria/S~ecific Plan, ar~
the purposes of the a~-~trict in w~ich the site is located.
welfare or matwia]ly injurious to L~,.~..e~Lim ~' i~m-g'aW~S~ in ~ ~d=inity.
(c) ~hat the ~u~re~a use c=m~lies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
4. ~b~- C~uncil hereby finds and certifies that the project
been reviewed ar~ ~nsidered in c~liance with the Califur~ ~/rc~ntal
Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council finds that the applicaticm is
~lutic~ No. 92-240
Plannin~ Division:
1)
Pursuant to provisicrs of CalifcrDi~ Public
~ Code Sectiota1 21089 (b), th/s
ap~licaticm shall not be operative, vested, cr
final, rnr will ~Hla~wx/permits be i.~-~rt cra
m,~p ~x~ded, Lu,til (1) the Notice of
the Clerk of the Board of S~ervis~ of the
co~,~y of San Bernareh~o; ar~ (2) any and all
required fi] inc/ fees ~-~~ pursuant to
Califcrnia F{-~h ara Game Code Sectira 711.4,
are paid to the emnty C~erk of the emnty of
~ with a recei~ ~ that ~ fees
~ fur payment of any required harrllirr/
cham~ fee filin~ a Certificate of Fee
Emem~cra, this ccrrliticn sr~ 1 be ~ null
and void.
2)
3)
4)
Resoluticra No. 92-240
5)
6)
S)
?)
apl=ovel by the City Planner prior to the
issuance of hillajar/permits.
~he appl/cant slmll provide a st. me lmse alert/
the bot'trm In'tim of the l%,ilalrrJs 4, 7, arrl
20 in thuse iotatiers ka'zre glenn ectersds all
prior tO the ,~ of hdlairx:j perzllits.
A revised ~sx~Jt plan for the
public art ard the intmrtl~:ive public ai-,Tlays
O .....i-~icn. ~he ~-e-dsed cras.~tJt p!~n sl-all
gra,_~hicallydepict lx~ the VinU~,s Wa/k,
fuxu~m as a khole. Final detailed plans
of oo~~ of any l.,,i~alr~j in 1~ II.
~e developer shall cce~rikxxta $10,000 to the
Chaffey-Garuia mmse Barn project, ~aich will
be used to develop a --,~-~mVcultur~l center
heritage of tha area. ~ha City O~un~il may,
upcm the irxput of the Hint. uric ~ticn
ReeoluticmNo. 92-240
not ~~ily ] ~m.i~,,a to, the Histuric
Preser~m Site av~ r ~nd-Bankin~ fund,
de~ upcn the ~ of the ccmpl/ance
permits of any phase of the Masi Cu~ez~e
9)
T-.qn"]-~a"'aping alCrr3 the eltiret"y Of M~-i Drive
free the -~a.-~.~dk out to the curb face shall be
ccml31eted price to ccr~ncy of the last
h,ilai~r/for Phase 1.
10) A trash enclosure shall be provided f~r
~dla~rr/5.
11) ~he trash enclosure fee ~,ilaing 3 (Jack-In-
~B~x) sba 1 ~ be located closer to the
h~ilrlinc3.
u)
will not re~,i~e pazkin~ .~r~c~ m Sunday
~x~an~ (at chzr~ the hou:cs of opemtim'f~r
victcTy Chapel) so that the p~~ reciprocal
~)
~he ~e,Be~ ~ treatment (i.e., lar~<~F~,
furniture, and har~-~[~) sb~ ] l ~ly ~ ~
~H,~ ~ ~ mf~ of ~ P~~
~) ~'aere shah be Vrov/sicn fcr the fonowin~
a) ArchitecU=~ ~ qy ~ted into the design
ofthecentero
Resoluticn No. 92-240
~9)
20)
d) ~oLb-up ck~rs.
e) ~ bins with camtar~/ghtad Lids.
f) Archi~y treated overhead
tre~.
g) Ch~n link screen on ~ to ~ tra-~-h
standin~ potted p~nts, bika racks, light
cc~patible with the architectural style.
P~nner ~e-~ie~ and approval prior to '.L~mk3nce.
of hd l~ng permits.
Graffiti shall he~,--~,edwith/n 72 hans.
~he entire site sb~] be ke~t free of tr~h
and debris at all ~m~, arrl in no event shall
trash arrI debr/s ~'~,~in for more than 24
A thifcrm Sign PzY~3~,, si'~l be z=ev'iewmerl ard
a~+~..v-,=~l by the city Planner pricr to the
issuance of
Resolution No. 92-240
1)
P~o'~isic~s sb~]] be made to resolve to the
satisfactim of the ~,~ ]a~r/ Official the
followir~ issues relative to installaticm of
a)
b)
c)
An impermeable surface shall be provided
at the top of the existing l~er wall to
d) Weep holes shall be ~aa~a to ea-~c/ng
Er~ineerir~ Division:
z)
~he existin~ overhead utih'ties
(tal~-~ ..... ,nicaticns) cn the project side of
~oc~estarAvenueshallbe~3r~-~edfrcm
the first pole off-site south of the project's
line pole just south of Focrtb'ill Boulevard,
prior to public improvw~fc ac~e~ance ar
oc~ncy, whichever e3m=B first. ~he
side of Rod%estar A%~rue sb~ ] 1 ~e
pole m the east side of the ~t~Bet. Services
east side of Roc~estar Averse sba 1 ] be
oppcsite side of Roc~estar Avem~ shall be
paid to the City prier to the ismmnce of
of the utilities (electrical, em~=~t f~r 66 KV
electrical) c~ the oppceite side of the street
ResoluCim No. 92-240
3)
2)
project side times the lerqth frcm the center
of FoothtU Boulevard to the south project
bcuaxlary (990!-_ feet).
follows. subject to ~w3~a_ificaticn by and
approval of Calm, with Pb~-~ I:
a)
Rochester Averse to the west project
boundary inclu~ a cc~cimr~s right turn
l~ne beq~ 230 feet west of the
Foothill drive, By.
b)
A 1;~rtl~ median bet~e~n Rod%estar
Averue ara '~]" Street with left turn lanes
to the satisfact/cn of the City
sirqle =_~eg,~nt, in-lieu feee w/ll be
c) ~/rty~ feet of pav,,,,-xt m the north
side of the median.
d)
~ 18-inc~ Ge (ccrru~ta~ total pipe) in
right-of-w~y graded to direct flM to the
~ed to the satinattire of the City
e)
satisfaction of the City i~qin== and
Cal'Xrans.
f)
prier to the issuance of h,i]alnc3 permits fur
p~a~ I cr ap~ of the Final Parcel
Resolutic~No. 92-240
P~e z0
4)
s)
v)
e)
~Lichever occurs finaL. 3]1e ~-r~-lt of the
fee sb~]] be ane-half the cost of the median
times the lerrJth Eran the west project
boundary to a projectim of the ~Mterly
right-of~way line far "B" Street. If CalTrans
ccnditic~ 2) b), the fee ]~m~ts sb~l extend
to a projectloll of the westerly right-of-way
line far ~0chester Averue.
street trees ar~ a cceb'u~a___ bus bay/right turn
lane narth of the project driveway shall be
installed. ~he right turn lane shall begin as
close to the Footh//1 Boulevard intemectian
as possible.
a)
b)
c)
~he public stcrm drain in ~ Boulevard
ar~ "B" St~t sl'~]I be ups:i. zed to ~ ...... ~te
Resoluti~ No. 92-240
s)
9)
:L0)
:1/)
U)
Errjineer. 'Ihe mini,,. diameter fcr I:EL"~
public storm drain mire is 24 L.-x:hee.
A traffic sigr~l sb~11 be inst~ll~a at the
intersectic~ of Foothill Boulevard and
Street with Pba~- I. ~le developer may
request a reimb~at a~~ for me-half
the cost of the sigDal f~n future devel~ae~
as it occurs c~ the rrrth side of Foothill
signal installatic~ at this ~_~m., an in-lie/
fee fur crm-ba if the cuet of the signal shall
oc~pa~cy of the first h,~lalr~/in b-- I.
An in-lieu fee fur otto-fourth the cuet of
cunstructi~ .p-c~al pmvezm within the
FeXhill Boulevard~ Avenue
to the issuance of h,ilai~/permits for l~a-~-
Modify the traffic signal at the interse~cim
of FoothillBoulevaz~an~RochestarAvermeas
right-of-~ay beOaeen Rochester A%~r~e ar~ the
project drivemy. ~he a~e~nt shall hold
the City harmless fur ~ to cr liability
) privately maint-~h.,.~a .~ml features.
Resolutic~No. 92-240
Pa~u
2.4)
All drive apWoac~es s~ll c~fcrm to City
~. Larger r~i (up to 20 feet
mY~.~) my be used ~hen tr~nsiticnir~ fr~ a
40-foot width at the ric3ht-of-~y to lesser
aisle widths c~-site, as shown c~ the approved
plans, for "B" Street driveeTa in partioa/ar.
~)
No p=ticn of the ~q~.~U~r's Walk," including
the seat w~ll, sb~l] ex=uach ~1 the Foot/hill
Boulevard ri~ht-of-~y.
~7)
Sidewa/k shall cr~ss drive apEEoadms at the
zero curb face. Bardicqp ~ are c~ly
~)
20)
~he sectira of "B" St~t between Foothill
Boulevard ar~ the 4~ay dri%~ay intersectira
200 feet south of Foothill Boulevard sh~l be
56 feet oa~o-to-o~b, to ~ ...... ~te four
traffic lanes. Provide a 40 ~ transitic~
for the outar l~-~ south of the 4-way
driveway ~m.
C~lifor~ Code of Civil ~ Sectic81 1094.6.
7. ~e City Clerk of the City of Ra. mo O--~ .... ~ is hereby
direct_~a to: (a) cer~y to the edc~ci~ of this ~Molutim, and (b)
fcrthwith transmit a certified co~f of this B~olutim, by certified mi~,
City Council Minutes
August 19, 1992
Page 6
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, speaking on behalf of Mr. Jim Clark of the ' anda Historical Society,
who could not be present tonight, wanted to relay Mr Clark's support of iojecL
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
RESOLUTION .92-229
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIF IA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE MIT NO. 85-04, TO CONSTRUCT A 2,500 SQUARE
FOOT BARN ON CHAFFEY-GARCIA SITE TO BE USED AS A MUSEUM
AND CARET R'S RESIDENCE ON A I-ACRE PARCEL IN THE LOW-
MEDIUM IDENTIAL (4-8 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE) DISTRICT OF TFIE
VICTO PLANNED COMMUNITY, LOCATED ON TI-IE WEST SIDE OF
E A AVENUE, NORTH OF BASE LINE ROAD - APN: 227-513-05
1M~W~n.fi : ' ' ' unanimously, 4-0-
F2. CONSIDI:RATION OF APPFAI. OF CONDITIONAl. US~ PI::RMIT 91-24 AND TI:NTATIVI~.
PARCI:I. MAP 13845 - MASI - An appeal of certain Engineering and Planning Division Conditions of approval f~'
Conditional Use Permit 91-24, the development of 32 buildings totaling approximately 268,907 square feet and
comprised of a mix of industrial, multi-tenant, office and restaurant uses, and Tentative 'Parcel Map 13845, a
subdivision of 30.2 acres of land into 31 parcels in the Industrial Park District (Subarea 7) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 229-011-10, 19,
21, 26, 27, and :28. Staff report presented by Otto Kroutii, Deputy City Planner, and Beuy Miller, Associate
Engineer. (0701-06 APPEAL) (0802-02 CUP)
Mayor Stout stated he was under the impression that the reason staff reviews signs for ptojocts other than shopping
centers was because the Planning Commission had delegated that authority to staff, but felt the appellant assumed
the opposite was the case.
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planning, stated the Planning Commission has the authority to review all the sign
programs, but they have delegated the authority to staff on projects other than shopping centers.
Councilmember Alexander asked if staff were to review sign programs, could the Planning Commission not
selectively pull a project out for review if they did not agree with staffs decision.
Mayor Stout stated he thought the Planning Commission has already made the decision that they want to review all
of it for this project.
Otto ICroutil, Deputy City Phnner, stated the Commission usually would not see things handled at staff level unless
a special request was made to put it on an agenda.
Mayor Stout stated it was his impression the developer wanted to install the traffic signal on Foothill at the time of
the development, so why would they have to pay an in-lieu fee.
Betty Miller, Associate Engineer, stated if the developer received permission from Caltrans to install the signal, the
City would not require an in-lieu fee.
C
C,
City Council Minutts
August 19, 1992
Page 7
Mayor Stout stated then the requirement was a contingency in case they did not receive permission to install the
signal. He asked if Calms would have any reason to deny the installation of the signal.
Joe O~Teil, City Engineer, stated staff was not sure because they did not think that area would meet Calu'ans'
warrants. so he thought them might be some resistance to it He felt Cain'arts would allow the median cut if the
median was built, but would resist the signal at this time.
Mayor Stout thought they had a policy that all median cuts had to be signalized.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated that because there was not a north leg yet, it would not be as critical a factor for
Caltrans.
Councilmember Buquet felt there would not be a problem with Calfarts since the developer was pushing to have the
median cut and would be providing the signal. He thought that they would allow the signal.
Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the Council were:
John Mannedno, 9333 Base Line Road #1 I0, representing the Masi family, felt there were six issues to be
addressed. He stated that in regards to the consultant, he stated it was Commissioner Melcher's suggestion
that a consultant be hired. He stated that it was clear that his concerns were not on issues such as the
durability of the mattrial, but directtd specifically to an artistic consultant being hired to offer advice as to
the artistic contint of the statutes. He felt in today's economy consideration had to be given to conserve
funds where able, and the developer felt City staff was capable of generating artwork guidelines without
having to hire another consultant. He stated in regards to the sign issue, he stated it was staffs initial
recommendation to the Planning Commission that the sign program be approved by staff but the Planning
Commission indicated that they wanted to review it. He felt that since this was not a retail oenter but a
mixed-use center, then staff should be allowed to review the sign program as per normal policy. He felt it
would he handled in a more timely manner and that staff was capable of reviewing the sign program. He
stated in regard to the Vinmer's Walk improvements, they had a concern about vandalism if it was installed
prior to the constzuction of the buildings, and that when work began on Phase Two, a large portion of the
improvements would be destroyed and have to be done over. He felt the Masi's were well known in the
community and could be counted on to complete the improvements as required after construction was
completed.
John Mannerino stated they were satisfied with staffs recommendation on the cLrainage issue. He continued
with listing the developer's concerns in regards to the in-lieu fee for the traffic signal since this signal is not
required by the City and does not appear in the Master Plan for the area. He stated the developer has
voluntarily offered to install the signal, and that this signal will benefit the public at large and not just
users of their project. He stated if the Council requires the fee, he asked that the City might inttgrate the
light into the Masttr Plan so that they would get credit on their transportation fees.
Todd Bremner, 10373 Trademark Street #A, Project Engineer for the Masi's, spoke in regards to the median
on Foothill BoulevarcL He referred to plans Lewis Homes had Madole and Associates prepare that showed a
six 'inch difference in the grade which is a significant difference from the planned median in theif projecL
He understood that Lewis Homes has postix>ned their plans for consu'uctmg that portion of their business
park which would require median consu'uction, and felt they should wait until the entire median was ready to
be constructed so their portion did not have to be dug up and redone in order to meet the grade difference in
the Lewis section. He stated they have both engineering and economic concerns that if they continue with
theif plans and build the median, it will be inconsistent with the remaining portion of median to be
constructed by Lewis Homes. He stated they would like to request an option to place an in-lieu fee for the
construcUon of the median.
City Council Minutes
August 19, 1992
Page 8
Councilmember Buquet asked if the City were to approve postponing the construction of the median, would the
developer be willing to block thax driveway access into the project and only allow access from B Street or Rochester.
He felt it was important because if the median was not there, you would have conflicting traffic pauerns for the
inletsection and the business center which could cause accidents.
Todd Bremner stated he was not in a position to give an immediate answer to that question, but pointed out
that this portion of the project was in Phase Two. He felt there may be other means to coutrol people from
turning left across traffic into the center and it might be possible to put something up to reslrict access.
John Mannedno stated he has consulted with Mr. Mast and he would be willing to install the median when
they install that particular driveway, and would be willing to work with staff in order to postpone
construction umil Phase Two. He also wanted to clarify that in regards to construction of the Vintner's
Walk. their intent was to put in the sidewalk and access facilities for the public, and tha~ their re. quest was
to delay installation of the treUis and artwork until consu'uction was near completion. He staxed the Masi's
have always felt this was a public/private project, and they have voluntarily planned improvements above
and beyond the normal required items, and asked ~at the City be aware of the current economic state.
There being no further comments, the public hearing was closed.
Councilmember Buquet asked what was the dmclinc for completing Phase One and Phase Two.
Brad BuUer, City Planner, stated that at the Planning Commission meedng the applicant indicated Phase Two would
follow within three months of Phase One.
Mr. Mast stated they an[icipated starting construcUon of Phase One in January of 1993 with completion
scheduled for June or July. He stated Phase Two was scheduled to begin in Aphi of 1993, with compleUon
anticipated six months later.
Councilmember Buquet asked for clarification on the comment made about the traffic signal not being required by the
City.
Joe O'Ne~, City Engineer, stated the signal would have been required if the developer had not volunteered to have
one installed.
Mayor Stout stated he would like to go over each of the items under the Analysis section of the stuff report and come
to a determination. He stated in regards to Item 1 of the Analysis, Final Approval of the "Vintoer's Walk," he did
not know what it was the consultant was supposed to do. He asked what kind of consultant did the Commission
have in mind.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the consultant would act in an advisory capacity, having expertise in the semng up
of displays of both art and history and coordinating with all involved in the project to make sure all the different
components were harmonious.
Councilmember Alexander asked if there was anyone on staff that would be qualified to do that.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff did a similar function with the Thomas Winery project, working closely with
the Planning and Historic Preservation Commissions.
Mayor Stout stated whatever concept the applicant came up with ulUmately had to be approved by the City, so he
felt they should submit the finalized conceptual plans, and if it was not acceptable and they felt they needed a
consultant to help them, they could hire one at that time.
City Council Minut~
August 19, 1992
Page9
Councilmember Alexander felt they did not need a consultant. He felt staff and the Commissions would be able to
work with the applicant on the design.
Councilmember Buquet felt they should do what has been done in the past and let the developer make a presentation
before saying they have to have a consultant.
John Mannedno stated the Council passed a resolution stating the I-Iismric Preservation Commission was
to approve the proposed statues, that the concept and general placement of the statues has been approvext,
but the Commission would approve the aesthetic nauu'e of the statues.
Mayor Stout stated his intention when they passed that resolution was that the Historic Preservation Commission
should review it to insure it was consistent with the goals of preservation within the commumty, but not necessarily
the aesthetics of the artwork itself. He stated the concept on how it would fit into the public improvemenLs and
design of the center itself should be decided by the Planning Commission.
The Council concurred they should not require the appellant to hire a consultant. and that the Planning Commission
should make the final decision with comments from the Historic Preservation Comments.
The Council then discussed the Deferral of "Vinmer's Walk" Installation. Mayor Stout stated he understood the
applicant's point of view, but has seen improvements like this and the resistance to installing them when too much
other construction is allowed. He felt that since the phasing was going to be so close together a substantial pomou
could be done during Phase One to the point when it would not overburden the rest of the project if it was not done.
He felt it was stricUy a protection for the City, and did not feel it would hurt the appellant since their phasing was
scheduled to occur so close together.
Councilmember Buqnet agreed that the City has been burned many times before in the past. and felt then should be a
way to put some type of phasing together on this project for the improvements. He felt things like the landscaping
and curbs and sidewalks needed to go in fight away, but things like the trellis could be dehyed until construction
started on Phase Two.
Brad Buller, City Planner, clarified if Council 's instruction was to defer the construction of the Vinmer's Walk and
accompanying artwork to Phase Two if permits for Phase Two and substantial construction of Phase Two has begun
before request of occupancy of Phase One, because if there was an overlap, they could not request occupancy of Phase
One until the Vinmer's Walk was under consm~ction.
Council concurred that would be a reasonable request.
Mayor Stout then moved to Item No. 3, the Chaffey-Garcia Barn Contribution. He stated they had already reduced
this mount to $10,000.00 fTOm the original mount of $25,000.00, and the project was just approved tonight to go
out to bid. He sated the intention of the Council when the reduction was made was to allow the developer to put
the $15,000.00 difference into their project, so he felt their request was already granted when Council reviewed it
previously.
Mayor Stout stated that in regm'ds to Item No. 4, Approval of Uniform Sign Program, he did not see why the
Planning Commission could not review it since they were the ones who delegated staff review in the t'u-st place.
Councilmember Buquet stated he did not understand what would be the difference between staff review or
Commission review, since staff normally reviews signs except for ntail shopping cenu:rs.
Mayor Stout felt with some of the changes that have been approved m the project, it was starting to resemble a retail
center, plus it was located on Foothill in a very high profile aria.
City Council Minutes
August 19, 1992
Page 10
Councilmember Buquet agreed, but felt that staff would be sensitive to the signage issue since they deal with it on a
regular basis. He stated he would be comfortable with staff reviewing it first, and then the Planning Commission
could review it if they were not happy with staffs decisions.
Councilmember Willlares asked if the signs had already been reviewed during the Design Review process.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated in Design Review they just present illustrations showing where signs would be
located, but they are not detailed drawings.
Councilmember Willlares stated she would be confident in staff conducting the review of the sign program.
Councilmember Buquet asked for clarification of the difference between a staff review and Planning Commission
review of a sign program.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff usually handles sign reviews over the counter once a program has been
established, but in this instance the Commission has found it is important to see the overall sign prop. He
stated it was based on a center by center basis as to what the differences would be.
Councilmember Alexander stated he also felt staff could handle the sign review.
Council concurred to allow staff to handle the sign review.
Mayor Stout then referred to Item No. 5, Foothill Boulevard Median and North Side Pavement Consn'uction. He felt
the median should be installed and the center should not be allowed to open unless then was a median.
Councilmember Buquet stated a comment had been made about median installation to the east of the project, and
stated even in these hard economic times the City was facing their responsibility and installing the median for safety
reasons, and felt the developer should install the median at this time and have a reimbursement agreement set up so
they could be reimbursed when the north side of Foothill was developed. He felt there would be a lot of ira/fie
conflicts if they did not install the median to control traffic.
Mayor Stout stated the City spent approximately S800,000.00 to improve the intersection at Foothill and Rochester,
which normally this project would have paid for if it had developed prior to the City finding it necessary to improve
the intersection for safety reasons. He stated the City was also improving Rochester to benefit the sports complex,
but it will also benefit this project, so he felt the City has assisted this project monetarily. He stated the need for
the median was a safety issue, not one of aesthetics.
Councilmember Alexander asked if the median would have to be changed when the north side of the street was
developed by Lewis since their plans were so different.
Joe O 'Nell, City Engineer, stated he did not think that would happen because the plans that Lewis had Madole draw
up are not approved plans, so they would be required to maK:h their plans to the ones submitted for this projecL
Councilmember Buquet stated if the Council a/lowed them to postpone construction of the median, he would
strongly recommend they do not allow access into Phase Two from Foothill Boulevazd.
Mayor Stout stated that in regards to Item No. 6, the Interim Drainage Improvements, he understood that when
Lewis completed their project on the north side of Foothill, the old pipe would be unnecessary anyway.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated that was correct.
City Council Minutes
August 19, 1992
Page
Councilmember Buquet asked for clarification about the maintenance, who would be responsible for maintaining it.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated it would be the City's responsibility m maintain. He stated the condition was in
there for the developer m do the original work in repairing and cleaning out the old line to a maintainable condition,
and then the City would maintain it until the new facilities were built.
The Council concun'~ to accept staffs recommenclation on this point.
The Council then discussed Item No. 7, Deletion of Traffic Signal "In-Lieu" Fees.
Councilmember Buquet stated he felt it was just a misunderstanding, that the developer thought they were offering
something above and beyond what the City required, but the City would have required that intersection m be
signalized as a condition of the project.
Mayor Smut asked for clarification on the request for reimbursement.
Joe O'Neil, City Engineer, stated the question of reimbursement had m do with the fact that this signal was not in
the transportation fee program, because the systems fee was set up to include signals that have a community bene~L
He stated this signal would be smctly for the benefit of the adjacent property ownen. He stated the systems fee was
carefully set up to conform m the legal guidelines that are required for a system fee of this type. He stated the BIA
was involved with the development of this fee, and the City has followed the legal guidelines, and he felt that
inclusion of signals like this would taint the process.
Mayor Stout asked if it was a requirement of the project, can they requite a signal without it being a part of the City-
wide system without having to pay a reimbtusement.
Joe O'NeL1, City Engineer, stated yes. He stated if Caltrans did not allow them to install it at this time, staff is
recommending that the developer put up an in-lieu fee for their half of the signal.
Mayor Stout felt if the developer was allowed to install the signal, it was a moot point, but if they cannot, then
maybe the City can defer the in-lieu fee and trigger it by some other method than issuance of building permits for
Phase One. Maybe when they apply for occupancy for Phase One.
Councilmember Buquet felt the occupancy of Phase One would be the best approach. He stated they could try m
work with Calfarts to get approval for the signal.
Councilmember Alexander asked if they could defer the fee until they were ready for occupancy for Phase Two, since
that would be when they have the most traffic.
Mayor Stout felt it would be a problem if they were m start deferring too many things into Phase Two, if something
were to happen that they would not be able to complete the whole project, it would be less likely that they would
install the signal. He stated if they did not collect the fee and that area was found to be a safety hazard, the City
would be liable for paying for the signal with no contribution from the developer.
John Mannerino stated Mr. Masi would like to propose a compromise in that the incident that would trigger
the installation of the Vintner's Walk and the payment of the in-lieu fee be when they ask for the occupancy
permit of the last building of Phase One.
Mayor Smut stated he could see a problem with that in that the lease for one of the pads might fall through and the
final development would not he completed for a long time, and that Phase Two might he completed before the Final
pad of Phase One was complete.
(i7)
City Council Minutes
August 19, 1992
Page 12
Councilmember Buquet felt they should do everything they can to assist with getting the approval from Caltrans for
the installation of the signal, and then the fall back position would be that if they cannot get approval, then they
would take an in-lieu fee.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, suggested they could take the in-lieu fee prier to the release of the
ftrst occupancy of Phase One.
The Council concurred with Rick Gomez's suggestion.
The Mayor asked staff to return with a resolution covering all the decisions made tonight, that they could not take
final acUon at this meeting.
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Atwmey, stated that since it was an appeal, they would need findings for those mat~rs
which they have not changed, and would recommend the Council direct staff to bring a resolution back on the
Consent Calendar incorporaUng all of the changes made tonight.
Councilmember Buquet stated he was unhappy that they spent so much time at this meeting discussing this item and
then wcr= unable to take final action. He felt staff should have presented appropriate resolutions and options that
they could have modified if necessary, and had it over with.
MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Willjams to bring back a resolution with the modifications on the
Consent CaJendar at the Sepmmber 2, 1992 meeting. Motion carried 4-0-1 (Wright absent).
G. PUBI.IC HEARINGS
G1. CONSIDgRATION OF AN ORDINANCE F. STABI.ISHING REGUI.ATIONS AND
RF. OUIRF. MF-NTS FOR TAXICAB SF-RVICI:. (Continued from August S, 199'.
TRANSPORT)
1206-06
Mayor Stout stated there was a request to continue this item since the information
meeting was still being compiled and suggested they continue this item to the next
at the August 5th
Mayor Stout re-opened the public hearing for the purpose of continuing I~
to the September 2, 1992 meeting.
ORDINANCE NO. 501
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, TITLE 8 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA M BY ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 8.30
ENTITLED "TAXICAB THEREIN REGULATING AND PERMITTING
THE OPERATION OF'
MOTION: Moved by
Motion earned unanimously,
by Williams to continue Item G1 to the September 2, 1992 meeting.
(Wright absent).
RESOLUTION NO. 95-08
A RESOLUTION OF THE PI. ANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCA~ONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MODIFICATION TO CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 91-24, A REQUEST TO AMEND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL RELATING TO THE PROJECT'S DEVELOPMENT AND
INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING, DESIGN REVIEW PROCESSING, WAIVER OF
$10,000 HISTORIC PRESERVATION MITIGATION CONTRIBUTION, AND
DESIGN OF THE TRASH ENCLOSURE FOR A 27-ACRE CF~FTER, LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND ROCHESTER
AVENUE IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT (SUBAREA 7) OF TH~
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 227-011-10, 19, 21, AND 26 THROUGH 28.
A. Recitals.
1. Masi Cc~nerce Center Par=nets has filed an application for modification
of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-24, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Her·in·fret in this Resolution, the subJec~ Conditional Use Permit
request is referred to as "the application.'
2. On the 25th day of Januar~ 1995, the Planning Ccexnission of the City of
Ranthe 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
oc curred.
B. ResQlution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereb~ found, determined, and resolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Ranthe Cuc~monga as foll~wl=
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Par= A, of this Resolution ere true and correct.
2. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Ccem~ssion during
the a~ove-referenced public he·ring on January 25, 1995, including written and
oral staff reports, together with lmb~ic testimony, this Cosmillion hereby
spec. ifically finds Is fQZlows=
a. The application applies tQ pz~per~y located at ~he scuthwes~ corner
of Rochester Avenue and l~}othlll Boulevard with · street frontage of 1,250 feet
along Foothill Boulevard mnd 1o= depth of approximately 950 feet along Rochester
Avenue and is presently vacant.
b. The proper~y to the north of the subject site is 'vacant, the
property to the I~uth consists of the Spoz*cs Complex, the proper~y to the east
is de~lo~ with the ~azzotti Wl~, ~ t~ ~~y ~o C~ ~ Is yacht;
and
c. The proper~y is designated 'Industrial Perk" by the Industrial Area
Specific Plan.
101
PLANNING COMMISSION -RESOLUTION NO. 35-08
CUP 91-24 - MASI
January 25, 1995
?age 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Con~nission during
the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set
fcr'ch in paragraphs 1 and 2 aDove, this Co-wnission here~y finds and concludes as
follows:
a. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the
objectives of the Developsent Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan, and the
purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable
there=c, will not be de=rimennal to the public heal=h, safety, or welfare cr
materially injurious to properties cr improve=ants in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use complies with each of =he applicable
provisions of the Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
4. On Sep~mr 2, 1992, the City Council issued a Negative Declaration in
conjunction with ins review of the development heroin and =he approval of
Conditional Use Permit 91-24. This Coeeission hereby finds on the basis of
substantial evidence tha= the project heroin does no= result in any substantial
changes or new circumstances (as described in State CEQA Guidelines Section
15162) in the project as previously reviewed to require further environsental
documents=ion.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth ~n paragraphs 1, 2,
3, and 4 a~ove, this C~mnission hereby approves the application subject to each
and every condition let forth below=
1)
All conditions of approval contained in City Council
Resolution 92-240 shall still apply, excep~ Planning
Division Conditions No. 2, 7, and 15, which are revised
as shown below=
2)
A diagr~n providing color locations for the
mylar/canvas canopies shall be su~nitted for
review and approval by the City Planner prior
to issuance of building permits.
7)
A revised concep~ plan for the cce~lseloned
public arc and the interpretire public
displays shall be reviewed by the full
Plannin~----ission. The revised conce~ plan
shall graphically depic~ how the Vlntner's
Walk, c~---issioned ar~, and public displays
will be developed and maintained and how they
will funcOLon as a whole. Final detailed
plans shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner prior to occupancy for either
Building 5 or 6, whichever occurs first.
Installation of the Vintner's Walk bardscape
and landscaping shall be completed
co=currently with Foothill Boulevard
improvesants, prior to the release of
102
?TANNING COMMiSSiON -~ESOLUTiON NO. 95-,SO
CUP 91-24 - MA3I
January 25, 1995
?age 3
occupancy of any Buildings in Phase I.
Ins=alia=ion of nhe VinEner's Walk =rolllees,
v~nes, interprenive panels, and public
shall be comple=ed prior ~o =he release of
occupancy of sinher Building 5 or 6, whichever
occurs first.
In =he event permits have been issued and
Phase II is substantially under construction
prior to the occupancy of any building in
Phase I, herds=ape and landscaping
improvements may be deferred =o be collated
prior to nhe release of occupancy of any
building in Phase II.
15) Unless the applicant submits an alternate
design for Planning Commission review and
approval, there shall be provision for the
following design features in the trash
enclosure to the satisfaction of the City
Planner:
e) Architec=urally integrated into the design
of the center.
b) Separate pedestrian access thaC does not
require opening the elan doors, to include
self-closing padsaUrian door.
c) Large enough to acccesoda~e =wo trash
bins.
d) Roll-up doors.
e) Trash bins wi=h counter-weigh=ed lids.
f) Architecturally treedad overhead shade
trellis.
g) Chain link screen on =op =o preven~ =rash
frcsblcwin~ ~u= of enclosure and designed
=c ~e hidden fr~ view.
6. The Secre~ar~ ~ =his Cusslesion shall calcify ~o ~he adol~lon of this
Resolution.
-
APPROVED RaID PTID TI!I~I~TH DAY ARY 199~.
~. Davi , Chligman
ATTEST:
, .
103
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95-08
CUP 91-24 - MASI
january 25, 1995
?age 4
I, Brad Buller, Secretary no the Planning Commission for the City of Rancho
CuCamcnga, do hereby certify that =he foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopned by nhe Ciny Planner of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, a= a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on =he 25th day
of January 1995.
AYES:
NOES:
A~SENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
COMMISSIONERS:
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCM~R
NONE
TOLSTOY
104
RESOLUTION NO. ~.~' C)c~ C)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING MODIFICATION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24, A REVISION TO CERTAIN
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A 27 ACRE CENTER LOCATED AT
THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVENUE AND
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DISTRICT
(SUBAREA 7) OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 227-011-10, 19,
21, AND 26 THROUGH 28.
A. Recitals.
1. Masi Commerce Center Partners has filed an application for a modification to
Conditional Use Permit 91-24, as described in the title of this resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject modification request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 25th day of January 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. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Planning Commission adopted their
Resolution No. 95-08, thereby approving the application.
3. On January 26, 1995, the applicant timely appealed the approval of said Resolution based
on conflicts with the following conditions:
(a) Planning Condition No. 8: Chaffey-Garcia Bam Contribution; and
(b) Planning Condition No. 9: Timing of landscaping along Masi Drive/Sebastian
Way; and
(c) Planning Condition No. 15: Development criteria for trash enclosures; and
(d) Planning Condition No. 20: Timing of approval of the Uniform Sign Program.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
Now, therefore, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the City Council of the City
of Rancho Cucarnonga as follows:
105
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
APPEAL OF MOD. TO CUP 91-24 - MASI
February 15, 1995
Page 2
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution are tree and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-referenced
public heating on February 15, 1995, including written and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located at the southwest comer of Rochester and
Foothill Boulevards with a street frontage of 1,250 feet along Foothill Boulevard and a lot depth of
950 feet along Rochester Boulevard and is presently vacant, and in the process of being rough
graded;
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south
consists of the Sports Complex, the property to the east is developed with the Aggazzotti Winery,
and the property to the west is vacant; and
and
(c) The property is designated "Industrial Park" by the Industrial Area Specific Plan;
(d) The project required the demolition of the Cowgirl Saloon, formerly known as the
La Fourcade store and gas station. The structure was designated an Historic Point of Interest by the
City Council on September 18, 1991.
(e) The monetary conlribution to the Chattey-Garcia Barn was originally recommended
by the Historic Preservation Commission on September 5, 1991 as an important alternative to other
on-site historical improvements; and
(f) The requirement for the monetary contribution to the Chaffey-Garcia Barn was
upheld by the City Council on September 18, 1991, but was reduced from $25,000 to $10,000; and
(g) On August 6, 1992 the applicant made a formal request to the Historic Preservation
Commission to waive the $10,000 conUibution; the HPC did not support this request; and
(h) On August 19, 1992 the applicant appealed the monetary contribution to the
Chaffey-Garcia Barn pwject to the City Council; the City Council did not support this appeal; and
(i) On August 19, 1992 the applicant appealed the requirement for approval of the
Uniform Sign Program by the Planning Commission and the City Council modified it to approval
by the City Planner instead; and
O) The trash enclosure design requirements are consistent with what has been required
of other commercial projects which have been approved in the City, and the applicant has been
provided flexibility to develop his own design for such trash enclosures, should he so desire; and
106
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
APPEAL OF MOD. TO CUP 91-24 - MASI
February 15, 1995
Page 3
(k) Requirement of landscaping between the curb and the sidewalk with Phase I of the
project is consistent with what has been required of other projects which have been approved in the
City.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Council hereby finds and concludes as follows:
(a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code and the IndusU'ial Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site
is located.
(b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
(c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
4. This Council hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered
in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Council finds
that the application is in substantial compliance with the original approval for which the Negative
Declaration was issued.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this
Council hereby approves the modification subject to each and every condition set forth below.
PI .ANNING DIVISION
1)
All conditions of approval contained in City Council Resolution 92-240
shall still apply, except Planning Division Conditions No. 2, 7, and 15,
which arc reviscd as shown below:
2)
A diagram providing color locations for the mylar/canvas canopies
shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Planner prior to
issuance of building permits.
7)
A revised concept plan for the commissioned public art and the
intcrpretivc public displays shall be reviewed by the full Planning
Commission. The revised concept plan shall graphically depict how the
Vintner's Walk, commissioned art, and public displays will be
107
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
APPEAL OF MOD. TO CUP 91-24 - MASI
February 15, 1995
Page 4
developed and maintained and how they will function as a whole. Final
detailed plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior
to occupancy for either Building 5 or 6, whichever occurs first.
Installation of the Vintner's Walk hardscape and landscaping shall be
completed concurrently with Foothill Boulevard improvements, prior
to the release of occupancy of any buildings in Phase I. Installation of
the Vintner's Walk trellises, vines, interprefive panels, and public art
shall be completed prior to the release of occupancy of either Building
5 or 6, whichever occurs first.
In the event permits have been issued and Phase II is substantially
under construction prior to the occupancy of any building in Phase I,
hardscape and landscaping improvements may be deferred to be
completed prior to the release of occupancy of any building in Phase H.
15)
Unless the applicant submits an altemate design for Planning
Commission review and approval, there shall be provision for the
following design features in the trash enclosure to the satisfaction of the
City Planner:
a) Architecturally inte.grated into the design of the center.
b) Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the main
doors, to include self-closing pedestrian door.
c) Large enough to accommodate two trash bin-~.
d) Roll-up doors.
e) Trash bins with counter-weighted lids.
f) Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis.
g) Chain link screen on top to prevent trash from blowing out of
enclosure and designed to be hidden from view.
6. This Council hereby provides notice to Masi Commerce Center Partners 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 ofRancho 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 Masi Commerce Center Partners at the address identified
in City records.
108
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
February15,1995
TO:
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM:
Brad Buller, City Planner
BY':
Beverly Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 94-04 - CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT -
A request to add Extensive Impact Utility Facilities as a conditionally permitted use
in Subarea 17 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Commission recormnends approval of this request.
BACKGROUND
The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment 94-04 at their January 11, 1995 hearing. The proposal contemplates the addition of
Extensive Impact Utility Facilities as a conditionally permitted use within Subarea 17 (Industrial
Park). The request for the amendment stemmed from the District's wishes to relocate their current
facility on San Bernardino Road to a larger site on Center Avenue, west of Haven Avenue and south
of Church Street. Associated with the ISPA is a Conditional Use Permit for a master plan for the
proposed facility which was approved by the Planning Commission on January 25, 1995, contingent
upon City Council approval of this Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment.
ENVIRONMENTAl, ASSESSMENT
Staff has found that this amendment could restfit in some adverse impacts to the adjacent residential
neighborhoods, such as noise, light and glare. However, the Industrial Area Specific Plan contains
performance and development standards which address these potential impacts and reduce them to
a level of insignificance. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
1(Y3
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
EA & ISPA 94-04 - CUCAMONGA
February 15, 1995
Page 2
CO. WATER DIST.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS
The proposed amendment is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan. This amendment will
not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant adverse environmental impacts.
CORRESPONDENCE
In addition to advertising and posting this public heating, the applicant held a Neighborhood
Meeting on December 5, 1994. Invitations were mailed to all property owners within a 600-foot
radius. The applicant presented their proposed amendment and conceptual site plan. The one
resident who artended the meeting expressed concern regarding potential traffic generated by the
proposal.
Respect ly submitted,
ller
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 11, 1995
Exhibit "B "- Draft Planning Commission Minutes for January 11, 1995
Exhibit "C"- Resolution 95-04
Exhibit "D"- Minutes of Neighborhood Meeting December 5, 1994
Ordinance Approving ISPA 94-04
110
ITY I.~F R.\\Cf [o ~I. C..\.\lO\G.\ --
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 11, 1995
TOi
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City. Planner
BY:
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENT.,~L ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 94-04 - CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - A request
to add Extensive Impact Utility Facilities as a conditionally penrotted use in Subarea
17 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A,
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North Flood control basin; Flood control district
South Car wash/gas station: Community Commercial (FBSP)
East Shopping center; General Commercial
West - Single family residences; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units/acre)
General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Industrial Park
North Flood Control
South Commercial
East - Commercial
West - Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units/acre)
D. Site Characteristics: The site consists of multiple, undeveloped industrial lots.
ANALYSIS:
A,
General: Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD) currently operates their administrative
and maintenance facility on a 2-acre pan:el on San Bernardino Road, west of Archibald
Avenue. The District d~ir~ to consolidate their entire operation on a larger site more
centrally located within their service area. CCWD is considering purchasing a 10.74 acre
property located at 7900 Center Avenue within Subarea 17.
The proposed administrative headquarters and vehicle storage yard/maintenance facility are
classified as "Administrative Civic Services" and "Extensive Impact Utility Facilities,"
respectively, by the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The former is a permitted use within
Subarea 17, whereas the !at~er is not permitted (see Exhibit "B"). Therefore, the applicant is
requesting this amendment to add "Extensive Impact Utility Facilities" as a conditionally
permitted use within Subarea 17.
ITEM C
111
PLAN,'NING COMMIS~,ON STAFF REPORT
ISPA 94-04
January 11, 1994
Page 2
Land Use Suitability: Subarea 17 is intended as "a transition from more intensive industrial or
commercial activities to residential areas". In this case, the transition is from the commercial
activities along Haven Avenue and the low density residential neighborhood on the west side
of Center Avenue. Allowable uses within Subarea 17 range from "Custom and Light
Manufacturing." such as the existing Data Design manufacturing operation, which is permitted
by right, and "Automotive Rental/Leasing" and "Public Safety and Utility Services," which are
conditionally permitted. These latter two uses are similar to the storage of vehicles and the
indoor maintenance facility which Cucamonga County Water Disuict is proposing. The
General Telephone switching facility and vehicle storage yard, which exists on a property
adjoining the southeast comer of Subarea 17, is an example of how such a facility can be
successfully designed to screen outdoor storage activities. Staff believes that the Conditional
Use Permit review process would be the appropriate tool to solicit public comment and ensure
neighborhood compatibility consistent with the intent of Subarea 17. It should also be noted
that CCWD's current location within a residential neighborhood has not resulted in any
complaints from surrounding residents.
C,
Environmental Assessment: The Initial Study has ~ completed and staff determined that t!~.
amendment could result in adverse impacts upon the adjoining residential neighborhood, such
as noise, light, and glare. The Industrial Arfi Specific Plan contains performance standards
and development standards which address these potential impacts and r~:luce them to a level
which would not be considered significant; therefore, staff r~mmends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
CORRESPONDENCE: In addition to advertising and posting this public hearing, the applicant held
a neighborhood meeting on December 5. Invitations were mailed to all property owners within a
600-foot radius. The applicant presented their proposed amendment and conceptual site plans. The
one resident who attended the meeting expressed concerns regarding traffic and the lack of street
improvements on certain struts in the area.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution of Approval and forward their recommendation to the City Council.
City Planner
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Industrial Area Specific Plan Land Use Definition~
Exhibit "C" - Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 17 Regulations
Exhibit "D" - Surrounding Land Use Map
Resolution Recommending Approval
Proposed Ordinance
112
CUCAMONGA
COUNTY
November 16, L994
Mr. Dave Barker, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
WATER DISTRICT
u,- 't4NC~O C '
· ,VNin,,O Di~V~CAMONG,,
a 9, tON
NOL, R Z 1994
Dear Chairman Barker:
I respectfully request that the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga consider initiating a change to
the Industrial Area Specific Plan to allow Cucamonga County
Water District (CCWD) to consolidate District operations at
a new site located in Subarea 17. The operations will
include an administrative office building, shop/warehouse
building, vehicle maintenance building and a vehicle
fueling station. The existing Specific Plan would only
allow the office building as a permitted use. The other
uses fall under the "extensive impact utilities facilities"
definition and therefore, are not currently permitted in
Subarea 17.
The proposed CCWD site is located at 7900 Center Avenue in
an existing improved industrial subdivision. The property
being considered for purchase by the District
approximately 10.74 acres in size. This property is
bounded on the north by a flood control basin, the east by
Haven Avenue, Deer Creek Channel and the Brunswick Center
beyond, the south by vacant industrial and improved
industrial properties, and the west by single-family
residences on the west side of Center Avenue. See the
attached vicinity map.
The request for a Specific Plan Amendment is necessitated
to allow CCWD to relocate to a larger parcel of land and
maintain a consolidated facility as we now have. The CCWD
utility as a land use was nob specifically addressed in
planning oE the industrial areas as it is in the Foothill
Boulevard SpeciEic Plan. Therefore, the only use
definition is the "EIUF" designation which is not totally
accurate but sufficient. This use requires a Conditional
Use Permit to be allowed in several of the other subareas
and would be appropriate in Subarea 17 as well.
~il ~4\ LIE]~,NARI-~IN(~) R/') ' i4AJ~CHCl (.f, C,%.%tC.}%C',A. CA ~)1T2~-.~38 ' !' C). 12OX .~3R ' (*.qN) ~aT-~Ul ' ):~,X ~]~s
113
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DIS'TRICT · P.O. BOX 638 · RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA el 729-0638 * (90g) 987-259'~
Mr. Dave 9arker, Chairman
Planning Commission
NovemUer 16, 1994
Page 2
The District has been looking for a suitable site on which
Eo relocate for a number of years. This site has many
advantages, not the least of which is the price. Also, it
is central to the District's operations, is adcquate in
size, has good vehicle access, is buffered from an~
adjoining uses, and has the necessary public improvements
in place.
Maintaining a consolidated facility with administrative
offices, shops, warehouse and maintenance on one site has
many obvious advantages to the District. Overall
management and administration is simplified and therefore,
will be more efficient when all operations are on one site.
In addition, the number of vehicle trips will be reduced
between facilities resulting in a savings in travel =imp.
The SpeciEic Plan Amendment would allow an "EIUF" use in
Subarea 17 subject to a Conditional Use Permit. This would
allow the City to maintain control of development in the
subarea and assure that 'conflicts with other uses'do not
occur. A Conditional Use Permit application has been
submitted in con3unction with this request so that the
Commission can evaluate the merits of the pro3ect an~
expedite resolution of the amendment.
Yours truly,
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Generll Manager
Attachment: Vicinity Map
114
SPECIFIC
PLAN
U C:~ea.r CP-e.~ k-
:,5r_un e,w i
51',~V=~ ST. N
AMENDMENT - SITE PLAN
PROJ(CT NO.
ISSUE DATE
DRAWING CONTI)IT$
0RN 8Y CHK BY RE%q$ION 0ATE$
JKM MEW I I
OWNER
WA'"I'EK D S'T'R. ICI"
..~I~T ~ A~
WILLIAM5
FIRCHITECT-~o IN'el
:,,,..o... ,..:o,.o -.,.,,,~.;:~
UPI. RNI), CR Q'1786
I
115
SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY SUBAREA
USE TYPES
MAN UFACTU RING
CusTom
L~gnt
Medium
Heavy
Minimum Implc-'t Helvy
P P P P P P P P P P P P P
P P P P P P P P P P P P P
C C C P C P P P P P p
P
P P
.OFFICE ~ROFES~ONAL, DESIGN &RESEARCH :.
P P p p p p p is
AdmimslTalwe & Office
Profess,onN/Design Sennces
Researct~ Set~ces
.WHO: Weal E, STORAGE & DISTRIBUTION
Pul~,c Storage
Light
MeOium
MATERIAI.~ RECOVERY FACILITIES
Colllcl~on FlCilibll
Processing FiCslital
So'a) Operltion
CIVIC
,N:lmlmS~ltwe Ciwc Servicll
CulturN
P p
p p
,~- Ex~ens,ve ImDlct Utility Facilities
FIo<x:I ComroVUblity Cornclot
Pubic AssemOiy
Pul3iic Safety & Ublily Ssr,-i~e.
, Rel;,qiOUI AIIlffll31y
Ce,,,e~+';,- Ceate-e
P-y C4,~ F..;I,"/.7
C P C C P P
C P C C P P
P P P P P P P
P P P
CCC
C
P C C C ,
C C C C C C ~:
CC CC CCC CCCC CC
CCCCCCCCC C CCCCCCCC
CC CC CCC CCCC CC
C C C
CCC, OCCc, C,C cCcCC C(-'
(~ CC, CCCC CC C-C..Cc C cC
D- l' :,,.; IIUmNamWlfmilmd
116
Extensi ve Impact Util fry Facil tries: Acti varies
typically include, but are not limited to those
performed by public agencies or which are strongly
vested in the public interest, and which produce or may
produce a substantial impact upon the surrounding
area. Uses typically include, but are not limited to
the following institutions and installations:
- Electric, gas, and otl transmission
factl tries
- Garbage or refuse disposal facilities
- Major nail-processing centers
- Radto and tel eva si on transmt ssi on
facilities, including but not limited to
booster or relay stations
- Railroad and bus terminals
- Railroad rights-of-way, railroad yards and
bus storage ares
Public utility corporation or truck yardt
- Reservoirs, water tanks, and water treatment
factl I ties
- Sewage treatsent facilities and truck llnes
exclusive of Individual septic tanks
- Steam, fossil, or nuclear power plants
- Truck terminals operated by a public agency
Flood Control/Uttltt Corridor: Activities typically
lnclude flood conlYrol channels' and major utility
corridors, such as high power electrical transmission
llnes and towers. Other activities whlch are compatible
with both the uttli~ function and surrounding existing
or future land uses my be permitted in utiltty
corridors, as provided for by the regulations contained'
in Chapter 17.16 (Open Space Districts) of the Ctty's
Development Code.
Public Assembly: Activities typically include, but are
not 111lte(I to those performed by, or at, the folqowtng
institutions or installations:
Parks, botanical gardens, and open space
ares of a passive use character;
Public and semi -publtc playgrounds and
playing fields, and open space ares of an
active use character;
- Public and SErl-publtC meeting halls.
III-17
117
F~6. IV-19
~'11111
m Ill I,O,I. oo®® Belle
__ w,__u.,. ,.T.~-. ~
ooou · I " ~ MIMEIn
Atom MID
Mt
aMmanmeat, m: · .fk emm ee~.,.:-~ '
~-, Iv-99
118
SUBAREA 17
Land Use Designation
Pri mary Functi on
Pemi tted Uses
Condt tt onal Uses
I ndustri al Park
Tiqi s Suparea serves as a transi ti on zone fr0ll more
i ntensi ve i ndustri al or consarea al acti viti es to
residential areas. As such, new aevelopment must oe
sense tive to the surroundi rigs with appropri ate
architecture and site planning to mitigate potential
confl ictS.
Subarea 17 is located in three separate areas of tne
Industrial Plan: the southeast corner of Baker and
Ninth; the soutl~east corner of ArcntOald and Main; and,
on the east side of Center Avenue, between Foothill
Boulevard and Church.
Custom Manufacturing
Light Manufacturing
AdEt n t s t rat Ive and Off tce
Profess1 onal/Oest gn Servtces
Research Servtces
Light Wholesale, Storage and Distribution
lui 1 dt ng Mat ntenance Services
Business Supply Retail Sales and Services
Business Su~lmrt Services
Co81untcatt on Services
Eating and Ortnktng Estal~l tshments
Financial, Insurance and Real Estate
Note1/Note1
Recreational Fact l t ties
Administrative Civic Services
Autmott ve Rental/Leas1 ng
Automot1 ve Sales
Convenience Sales and Services
Entertat merit
Fast Fo~l Sales
Food and Beverage Sales
Medical/Heal th Care Services
Personal Servtces
Cul rural
Pub1 tc Assely
Public Safety and Utility Services
Reltgtous Assemly
IV-IO0
119
Exhibit: 'P Date: I-/t- '~e I
~0
DRAFT - FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
~NVIRON~.NT~r. ~S~SS~.NTAND INDUSTRI~T. AR~A SPECIFIC PLAN AM~.ND~.NT 94-04 -
CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT - A request to add Extensive Impact Utility
Facilities as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 17 of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Coa~nissioner Tolstoy questioned if the Flood Control basin is par% of Subarea 17.
Mr. Coleman responded that it is not.
Ca~nissioner Tolstoy asked for affirmation that any future use of the basin for
other than flood control would require a re. valuation of the land use by the
City.
Mr. Coleman responded affirmatively and stated At would take a General Plan
Amendment and zone change.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Tom Sholenberger, Cucamonga County Water District, 9641 San Bernardino Road,
Rancho Cucamonga, stated that Jim ClAns, the Director of Engineering for
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD); Tim Mim Mack, Associated Engineers; and
Max Willjams, Willlame and Associates, the design architect were present.
Max Wili~ms, Willisdue and Associates, 276 North Second Avenue, Upland, requested
approval of the Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment and observed that the
City still maintains control over how the property will develop in the future.
He felt the use will provide a good transition from the high'intensity uses to
the east to the lower intensity uses to the west. He remarked they had also
submitted a conditional use permit application which will be reviewed by the
Planning Cc~mnission at a future meeting. He said the~ propose using the easterly
portion of the site for a consolidated facility. He noted they had held a
neighborhood meeting at which they received input regarding concerns with
increased traffic on Center Avenue, pedestrian safety, and circulation and
increased traffic within the residential neighborhood. He said they had
contracted with Associated Engineers to conduct a traffic study and address those
issues. He believed CCWD is an excellent neighbor and noted their current
facility is surrounded by residences. He felt they have more control over
traffic and circulation than a typical industrial development would have because
CCWD is managed by a s~ngle general manager and would be there for a long period
of time. He thought that if the general manager instructed his staff not to
drive through a residential area, the staff would follow those instructions.
Tim Mim Mack, Senior Project Manager, Associated Engineers, stated he is in
charge of the traffic study. He stated that although the traffic study is not
complete, preliminary traffic generation analysis indicates that the site would
probably generate 900 to 1,200 trips per day with the currently zoned uses and
1,000 to 1,200 trips per day with their proposal. He noted that the traffic
study is not complete and will indicate mitigation measures which may include
street widening and traffic signals. He observed that CCWD has a flex 9/80 work
week with employees starting at 6:30, 7:00, and 7:30 a.m. and getting off at
3:30, 4:00, and 4:30 p.m. He noted that visitor traffic would be spread
throughout the day.
Planning Commission Minutes
Januar~ 11, 199S
121
Ccexnissioner McNiel asked how many trips per day would be by large CCWD trucks.
Mr. Mim Mack replied that CCWD has provided projections to the year 2010. He
said they currently have three of the vector trucks and 50 automobiles and
pick-up trucks.
Commissioner McNiel asked how many of the trips would be visitor trips.
Mr. Mim Mack responded they .anticipate a maximum of 170 day time visitors.
C~M~nissioner Lumpp asked if there is information regarding current traffic counts
in terms of distribution as to whether people predominantly go north to Church,
south to Foothill, or toward Hermosa.
Mr. Mim Mack replied that they have yet to perform the traffic warrants and those
will show the predominant travel patterns.
J~,nes Career, 7740 Center Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he had not received
notice of a neighborhood meeting but had received a notice from the City
regarding tonight's meeting. He commented that in 1986 CCWD was going to
purchase the property where the reservoir is located. He said that there is a
lot of traffic currently on Center Street from people trying to avoid Foothill
and Haven and he objected to additional traffic. He said he was opposed to the
project because he had not received notice of the neighborhood meeting.
Chairman Barker thought that CCWD would be glad to talk to Mr. Car~er. He said
the matter before the Camnission was an Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment.
He noted that the Conditional Use Permit will be processed separately and Mr.
Career could contact staff for information on that application.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked Mr. Carter'e perception about the current traffic
situation.
Mr. Car~er replied that traffic is currently hear7 in the early morning and late
afternoons. He said that when the intersection was widened at Foothill Boulevard
and Haven Avenue, many people itar~ed cutting through to bypass the intersection
reconstruction and traffic still remains heavy.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Co~m~ssioner Melcher suggested additional verbiage to further clarify that the
proposed use is limited to only this portion of Subarea 17.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Tolstoy, to recommend issuance of a
Negative Declaration and to adopt the resolution recommending approval of
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 94-04. Motion carried by the following
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: NONE
ABSENT = NONE
BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, NELCHER, TOLSTOY
- carried
· · · · ·
Planning Commission Minutes
7
January 11, 1995
I~SOLUTION NO. 95-04
A RESOLUTION OF TH~ PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF INDUSTRIAL
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMXNT 94-04, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. R-citJle.
1. Cucasonga County Water Dlstric~c has filed an application for Industrial
Area Specific Plan ~mendment No. 94-04, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the eubJec~ Industrial Area Specific
Plan Amendment is referred to as 'the application.'
2. On the llth day of January 1995, the Planning e~---ission of the City of
Rancho Cucenonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prsre~lsites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have
occurred.
R-solution.
NC~4, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, de~ermined, andresolved by the Planning
Commission of the City of Rancho Cucmnga as follwsx
1. This Cosmission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Pan A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Cueslesion during the
above-referenced public hearing on Januax7 11, 199S, including written and oral
staff reports, together with public testimony, this ~lssion hereby
specifically finds as follows=
a. The application applies to property located within the City; and
b. The pzoa~ssd amendments will not have · significant impact on the
environment.
3. heed upon the su~e~antial evidence presented to this Cce~iesion during
the above-referenced l~lic hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set
forth in para~ra~s I and 2 above, this e-----lesion here~y finds and concludes as
follows=
a. That this amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies
of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a
manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and
b. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the
Development Code and the Industrial Area Specific PlanJ end
c. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially inJuri~us to properties or ~mprovesents
in the vicinityl and
t~ ~/
PLANNING COMMISS1uN PaSOLUTION NO. 95-04
ISPA 94-04 - CCWD
January 11, 1995
Page 2
d. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the
objectives of the General Plan or the Development Code.
4. Based upon the fac~s and information contained in the proposed Negative
Declaration, together with all written and oral repoz~cs included for the
environmental assessment for the. application, the Planning ~Aselon finds that
there is no substantial evidence that the proJec*cwlll have a significant effect
upon the environment and ~.ac, -n~s IdolSion of sNagleAve Declaration based upon
the findings as fellowes
a. That theNegative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the California Invironsental GualityAc~ of 1970, as amended, and the State C29A
guidelines pronulgatedthereunder; that saidNegativeDeclarationandtha Initial
Study prepared therefore reflect the independent JudOment of the Planning
Commission; and, fuz~cher, this ~lssion has reviewed and considered the
information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the
application.
b. That, based upon the standards of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section ?S3.S(c) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as fellowes In
considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for
the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential
for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upOn which wildlife
depends. Pureher, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative
Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the
Planning ~lssion during the public hearing, t~e Planning Commission hereby
rents the presuml~lonof adverse effoc~ as so~ forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of
TltXe 14 of the CaXlfornim Code of Regulations.
S. Based upon the findinVs and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2,
3, and 4 e~ove, this ~iselon hereby resolves as foilMs
a. That the Planning CanULsSlOn Of the City of Pancho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 94-04 to modify
the Industrial Area Specific Plan par the attached Ordinance.
6. The Secretary to ~axis ~lssion shall certify to the adoi~lon of this
Resolution.
APPk~VSD AND ADOPTED THIS llTH DAY OF JANUARY 199S.
PLANNING
Of T!l~r~l~,~ IUI~qCHO Cge~JIO!lOA
Chel~E~~)
124
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 95-04
ISPA 94-04 - CCWD
January 11, 1995
Page 3
ATTESTz
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cuc~non~a, do hereby certify that the foregoing l%eeolution was duly and regularly
introduced, passed, and adopted by the PlannJ~M~ ~leelon of the City of Xancho
Cuc~songa, at a regular meeting of the Planning Cueslesion held on the llth day
of January 1995, by the following vote-to-.q~'it=
COMMISSIONERS: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOBSx COMMISSIONERSx NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS = NONE
ORDXNANC~ NO.
DR qFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THX CITY OF RANCBO
CUCAM0~GA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING INDUSTRIAL AAIA SPICIFIC PLAN
AMXNDMINT 94-04, AMENDING THX LAND US:IS WITHIN SUB&.q/~ 1'7, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPFORT THERZOF.
A. R-tittle.
1. Cucamonga County Water District has filed an application for
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 94-04, as described in the title of
this Resolution. Rereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Industrial Area
Specific Plan Amendment is ref$rred to as 'the application.=
2. On January 11, 1995, and the Planning COBBleSiOn Of the City of
Ranthe Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning the above-
referenced amendment and, following conclusion thereof, adoi~ced its Resolution
No. , recommending that the City Council adop~ this endsent.
3, On , 1995, the City Council conducted and concluded a
duly noticed public hearing concerning the subject endsent to the Industrial
Area Specific Plan.
4. All le~al prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance have
occurred.
B, Or~insnc-.
The City Council of the City of Ranthe Cucamonga does hereby ordain as
followsz
SECTION lz T~ City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the
facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct,
SECTION 2z The City Council of the City of Ranthe Cocamonga hereby
finds that this amendment is established and adopted to protect and promote the
public health, safety, Betels, comfort, convenience, and welfare~ and sore
particularlye
l. That the [~oFos$S amendment i8 in confozmance with the General Plan
of the City of Ranthe Cucsmonga; and
2, That the proposed amendment is consistent with the DevelopBent Code
the City of Ranthe Coosmange; and
3. That the proposed amendment does not conflict with 'the Land Use
Policies of the General Plan and will provide for developsant within the district
in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related developssnt~ and
4, That the proposed endsant will have no significant environmental
impact; and
5. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Ordinance
"" DH 4FT
SECTION 3, uased upon the facts and information contained in the
proposed Negative Declaration, t~gether with all written and oral reports
included for the envLromntal assessment for the application, the City Council
finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a
sl~nificant affoc~ upon the environment and adol~s a Negative Declaration based
upon the findings as follows=
1. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with
the California v-nvironmental guality A~c of 1970, as sanded, and the State CB~A
guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial
Study prepared therefore reflec~c the independent Judgmnt of the City Council;
ands fur'chef, this Council has reviewed and considered the ~nformation contained
in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
2, That, based upon the standards of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
no significant adverse environmental effects will occur,
3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.S(c) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations, the Planning ~lssion finds as follMt In
considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative Declaration for
the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project will have potential
for an adverse Leeact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative
Declaration, the staff reports and exhibits, and ~ho information provided to the
Planning CoaLsalon during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the
prosmullion of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14
of the California Code of Regulations.
SeCTION 4s The Industrial Area Specific Plan tex~, Part IV, Subarea 17
Special Considerations, commencing on page IV-103, is hereby seendad to add the
following paragraphs
The pox'c/on of Subarea 17 located on the east side of
Center Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Church
St~ee~ is unique because it ia ~undH on t~ noah
a fl~ ~ntrol ~e~ ~ on ~he east
consul c~l.. ~ unusual sha~ of t~ ~a, as
~ll u its prox~ty ~o ueibntLal ~as, p, son~e
e~Lal site ~lopnt ~ns~rain~s. In a~/tion
~mtt~ vi~h~ S~ea 17, ~ensiu X~
sl~o pl~ ~ ~sl~ considerations as doscr~
SECTION St The City Council declares that, should any provision,
section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared
invalid by any final court action in a court of competent Jurisdiction, or by
reason of any preemptlye legislation, the remaining provisions, sections,
paragraphs, sentences, and ~ of this Oral/hence shall remain in full force and
effect.
SECTION 6z The Mayor shell sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall
cause the ease to ha imblishod within 1S days after its passage at least once in
the Inl.-nd V~lley n~l~y a-lletin, a newspaper of general circulation published
in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucam~nga,
127
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
December 6, 1994
Brad Buller,City Planner
Beverly Luttrell, AICP, Associate Planner
CUP 94-39 CCWD
On December 5, 1994 1 artended a Neighborhood Meeting hosted by the CCWD at Dona Merced
Elementary School regarding their master plan proposal and ISP amendment in Subarea 17, on
Center Ave. The project was presented by the architect and the General Director of CCWD ( Tom
Shollenberger) and his special assistant ( Sandy Olson).
The brief overview explained that the master plan consisted of a maintenance and administration
building, as well as a fueling station that would utilize compressed natural gas. It was indicated that
Phase One would consist of the office portion with other phases occurring in the future.
Ninety five notices were sent out to residents within a 600 foot radius. Only one resident (Steve
Jesson) artended the meeting. He had the following concerns:
1. Mr. Jesson lives on Ashford and was concerned with additional tnffic being dumped on Center
and that the stnet would deteriorate with the heavy truck traffic. He questioned why the
entrance could not be on Haven Ave.
2. Foothill and Center is not signalized and is already a dangerous intersection.
3. Potential conflict with school children who walk to school and use the Church and Center Ave.
intersection.
4. Ashford, Hemlock and Norwalk Streets do not have sidewalks and employees will cut through
these neighborhoods and endanger the children.
5. If the pwjea has to be built he would rather that it happen all at once rather than in phases, so that
the construction period would not be pwlonged over time.
6. He requested that they look into providing a light at Foothill and Center and widen the Church
and Center Avenue intersections.
7. Would it be possible to funnel all traffic to the south and to gate the project.
CCWD responded that the lots in question are already designated as industrial and if they were to
//
.)
develop individually they could produce even more traffic than the 75 employees of CCWD. The
CCWD proposal is much less intensive than what might happen otherwise and the volume of traffic
will probably be less. The largest trucks are 5 ton, and they only have three of these. The majority
of their fleet is small 1/2 to 3/4 ton pick up trucks.
They indicated that employees would have no r~ason to shortcut through residential neighborhoods
and that they would be directed to not do so. They also indicated that the Traffic Engineering
Division would not allow them to have an entrance off of Haven Ave. since this is already a high
speed, heavily traveled street.
They explained that the public will be visiting the Admimstration building to pay water bills and that
it would be difficult to funnel all traffic to the south and to gate off the entrance. They noted that
they wanted to be good neighbors, are curren~y located in a residential area on a two acre parcel and
have received no complaints from adjacent residents.
c.c.: Maria Perez
Paul Rougeau
ORDINANCE NO. 5J ~
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 94-04, AMENDING THE LAND USES WITHIN
SUBAREA 17, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. Cucamonga County Water District has filed an application for
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 94-04, as described in the
title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the
application."
2. On January 11, 1995, and the Planning Commission of the City
of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing concerning
the above-referenced amendment and, following conclusion thereof, adopted
its Resolution No. 94-05, recommending that the City Council adopt this
amendment.
3. On February 15, 1995, the City Council conducted and concluded
a duly noticed public hearing concerning the subject amendment to the
Industrial Area Specific Plan.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby
ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council hereby specifically finds that all
of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are
true and correct.
SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
hereby finds that this amendment is established'and adopted to protect
and promote the public health, safety, morals, comfort, convenience, and
welfare; and more particularly:
1. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General
Plan of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
2. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the Development
Code of the City of Rancho Cucamonga; and
3. That the proposed amendment does not conflict with the Land
Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within
the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with
related development; and
130
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
EA & ISPA 94-04 - CUCAMONGA CO. WATER DIST.
February 15, 1995
Page 2
4. That the proposed amendment will have no significant
environmental impact; and
5. That the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives
of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
SECTION 3: Based upon the facts and information contained in the
proposed Negative Declaration, together with all written and oral reports
included for the environmental assessment for the application, the City
Council finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative
Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
1. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance
with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and
the State CEQA guidelines promulgated thereunder; that said Negative
Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the City Council; and, further, this Council has
reviewed and considered the information contained in said Negative
Declaration with regard to the application.
2. That, based upon the standards of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of
the California Code of Regulations, the City Council finds as follows:
In considering the record as a whole, the Initial Study and Negative
Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed
project will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources
or the habitat upon which wildlife depends. Further, based upon
substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the City Council
during the public hearing, the City Council hereby rebuts the presumption
of adverse effect as set forth in Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the
California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 4: The Industrial Area Specific Plan text, Part IV,
Subarea 17 Special Considerations, commencing on page IV-103, is hereby
amended to add the following paragraph:
The portion of Subarea 17 located on the east side
of Center Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and
Church Street is unique because it is bounded on
the north by a flood control basin and on the east,-
by a flood control channel. The unusual shape of
the area, as well as its proximity to residential
areas, presents special site development
constraints. In addition to those uses which are
permitted or conditionally permitted within
Subarea 17, Extensive Impact Utility Facilities
may be permitted in this portion of Subarea 17,
subject to a Conditional Use Permit and the
special site planning and design considerations as
described above.
131
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
EA & ISPA 94-04 - CUCAMONGA CO. WATER DIST.
February 15, 1995
Page 3
SECTION 5: The City Council declares that, should any provision,
section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or
declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent
jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining
provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance
shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at
least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
132
Date:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
Febmary 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Jerry B. Fulwood, Deputy City Manager
CONSIDERATION TO AMEND FACILITY RENTAL FEE FOR THE
EPICENTER
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Resolution amending Resolution 94-091A amending the facility rental fee for the
Epicenter and approving a Halloween attraction rental rate adjustment from $1500 to $325 per
day.
BACKGROUND
On December 7, 1994, City Council adopted a fee Resolution that established a dally rental rate
in the amount of $1500 for usage of the Epicenter. However, occasionally, stadium events will
run for an extended period in excess of two weeks. Some of these events may require a review
of the Epicenter's dally rental rate to make the event financially viable for all parties including
the City. One such event is a proposed Halloween attraction.
ANALYSIS
Inland Valley Baseball proposes to run a Halloween attraction at the Epicenter. The event will
require approximately 51 days from start to conclusion. Therefore, Inland Valley Baseball is
requesting that the daily rental rate be adjusted to $325 per day for this event during 1995.
1004 California League Cl~arnpions
HALLOWEEN 1995
It was a cold, dark night in mid October. The wind had been howling all day, but for
some reason, as the darkness came, so did a peculiar stillness. I looked over at the
clock and realized it was after 6:00 p.m. and I had put in a long day. I was turning
off my radio, and as I was packing up my things, a very brilliant beam of light came
through my window. The light became blinding as it got closer. Then I heard it on
the radio. Ontario airport had sited an unidentified flying object headed for the
Epicenter! I couldn't believe it! Was someone playing a trick on me? The next
sound I will never forget, it was the biggest crash I ever heard, and it came fi'om the
middle of the staditan. I ran from my office, and there I saw it. Lights flashing,
smoke and steam rising from a huge round space craft, crashed in the middle of
second base. We have been invaded from outer space.
Of course this is a dream, but one we want to recreate. Halloween is one of few
holidays where everything comes to life. Knotts Berry Farm has proven this with its
huge success of KNOTTS SCARY FARM, a Halloween haunt attraction. We are
convinced that a Halloween attraction will also go extremely well here in Rancho
Cucamonga, at the Epicenter, in the heart of the Inland Empire.
For years Chaffey College produced a successful haunted house. In discussing this
proposal with Art Shepard, Director of Chaffey's Drama Department, we learned the
college discontinued the haunted house due to their inability to handle large crowds.
Although it had grown too big for Chaffey College to handle, we believe the
Epicenter would be able to support the demand. We have been in contact with Jet
Productions, which has produced the Knotts Scary Farm attraction for years. We
have discussed plans of a Halloween attraction with the possible scenario of an alien
invasion.
l~a,~ch,, Ct,cam,,,,~a Q.akc: l'r,,fc::i,,,~al Ba:¢hall Club · P.O. Box 4130 · Rancho Cucamon~a, C.\ 01720
.\,Jmi,~i.4rati,.,, .t~ ,tll 481'5(111(1 · Ticket Office ItJ(R)} 481'5252 · Fax (OOO)48l'5{1{)5
/A3 -/
1994 California League C~ha~npions
Our proposal is for a 19 day event, beginning Friday, October 13th, through
Halloween, October 31st. We will be open daily at 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
Sunday thru Thursday. Friday and Saturday will be open until midnight. A minimum
age limit will be enforced due to the intense nature of the attraction. It will be scary!
The average ticket cost will be $7.00 with $1.00 off coupons available at sponsored
locations within the community. A complete walk ttu-u of the attraction will take a
customer about 20 minutes There will be games in the concourse area, and a huge
~:ideo screen which will run science fiction movies continuously. Concessions will
be open serving traditional Halloween treats, and souvenirs of this frightful night
will be made available in our gift shop.
In conclusion, the Halloween attraction has the potential to not only be successtiff
~.his year, but to become a popular Halloween landmark for years to come. This
~:ttraction will create steady revenue for the city in the month of October. We need
to confirm these dates for use, and will need to begin construction mid September
on the din portion of the infield. Your cooperation and input for this attraction will
be appreciated to make this event the success it can be.
I~.anch,, C.cam,,n~a Q,,akc: l'r,,fcssio,~al Baseball Cl~d, · l~O. B,,x 4130 · Rancho Cucamon~a. CA 01720
.X,Jmm,~trati,,,~ ~t)(it}l 481'5(1{)(1 · Ticket Office Ita()tll 4S1'5252 · Fax {g(}~)) 481-5005
RESOLUTION NO. 94-091D
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION 94-091A PERTAINING TO THE FACILITY
RENTAL FEE FOR THE EPICENTER
WHEREAS, this action is not considered a new fee but is an amendment to
an existing fee schedule; and
WHEREAS, Resolution 94-091A, after all legal prerequisites occurred, was
adopted on December 7, 1994 to amend the fee schedule for the Adult Sports
Complex which had been previously established by Resolution 94-091.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga does hereby amend Resolution 94-091A as follows:
A,
Section 8.0 (Recreation Fees), Subsection 1 (Stadium Facility),
Subsection "a" (Rental Rate) for the Adult Sports Complex fee
schedule is amended by the addition of the following:
a 1. Rental Rate
Extended Engagements
The Rental fee for events in
excess of two weeks in duration
may be negotiated and set by the
City Council on a case by case
basis.
Except as provided herein, all provisions of Resolution 94-091A
shall remain in full force and effect.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 15, 1995
Mayor Alexander & City Councilmembers
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager
CONSIDERATION OF ALTERNATIVE SENIOR & COMMUNITY
PROGRAMS CONDUCTED AT THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER AND LIONS EAST COMMUNITY CENTER
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the program altematives proposed by the Senior
Advisory Committee as well as the staff recommendations and provide staff with direction
regarding programs at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center.
BACKGROUND
At the December 21, 1994 Council Meeting, staff was requested to look at program alternatives to
promote senior and human services programs with the possibility of shifting some programs to the
Lions East Community Center (site of the Old County Library). The Council also requested that the
adjacent unimproved parking lot be reviewed.
On January 12, 1995, staff met with the Senior Advisory Committee and VIP Club Board Members
and conducted a needs assessment workshop to determine and prioritize the program and facility
needs for the City's senior population (see attached minutes of the meeting). Staff presented a
budget overview of the City, Department and Senior and Human Services programs, outlined the
programs currently conducted at the Neighborhood Center and gave a status report on renovation
needs for Lions East Community Center. The Committee Members were sensitive to the fiscal needs
of the City and the need to accommodate community programs working with limited public facility
space.
SENIOR PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES & RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The Center must be called a "Senior Center." The Committee felt that the name of the Center
should be clearly designated as a Senior Center. This would easily identify where senior citizen
programs are being held and especially help present resident and new seniors seeking services locate
the facility.
134
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SENIOR CITIZEN PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES AND PRIORITIES
February 1, 1995
Page 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that the City Council provide a policy direction on
whether the Center should be designated as a Senior Center rather than the current Community
Center. If the name of the Center is changed, the estimated cost to replace the Center signage is
$7,500. Staff recommends that this cost be considered in the upcoming fiscal year 1995/96 budget.
2. Public Transportation to the Center. Public transportation has been an ongoing priority need
identified for senior citizens. The Committee felt that the City should continue to evaluate
alternatives to improve public transportation to bring senior citizens to Center programs. Staff has
been informed that there are some new transit proposals being considered by Omnitrans which may
provide assistance to senior citizens.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this item be referred back to staff for
further discussions between Omnitrans, City staff and the Senior Advisory Committee.
3. Increase City Staff'mg at the Center. Due to the large number of senior citizens participating
daily in senior programs, the Committee felt that City senior program staff in addition to building
attendant staff needed to be present at the Center during these times. Staff has reviewed the weekly
scheduling calendar and has made changes to insure that City senior program staff as well as
building attendant staff are present when senior citizen programs are being held.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this item be received and filed as the issue
has been resolved.
4. Create a Passive Social Meeting Room. Currently the Royalty Room (Billiard Room) is the
only dedicated space for seniors at the Center. The Committee recommended that the Thompson
Room which houses the Playschool Program be developed into a passive social meeting room for
the seniors. This room would house the new Big Screen TV, the Senior Library, and would be
available for movies, travelogues, educational workshops, etc. for the seniors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Thompson Room be designated as a
dedicated space for the seniors after the Lions East Renovation Project has been completed. Staff
proposes to relocate the Playschool Program to the Lions East Center, and this Renovation Project
is currently being reviewed as part of the upcoming budget process. The conversion of the
Thompson Room to a senior program space could be accomplished at a minimal expense.
5. Create more parking space for the Center. The Committee recommended that the adjacent
vacant lot be improved to create more parking space for senior programs. There are many times
when seniors must park on the street as on-site parking is limited. The estimated project cost for the
improvements to the vacant property and Center building (Items #5, #6, #7 and #8) is $477,200.
135
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SENIOR PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES & PRIORITIES
February 15, 1995
Page 3
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the construction of this Project be
considered after the improvement projects to the existing Lions West and Lions East Community
Centers have been completed. Lions East should be renovated first to allow recreation programs to
be relocated there. Then renovation can commence at the existing Lions West Community Center.
The funding source for the vacant property could be from Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) funds. It is recommended that current available CDBG funds be allocated to the Lions East
and Lions West Renovation Projects.
6. Expand the Mission Room and Create a Performing Arts Stage. The Mission Room does
not fully accommodate the large number of seniors at major events. The Committee recommends
that when the adjacent vacant property is designed, that the Mission Room be expanded to create a
larger meeting room space and that a Performing Arts Stage be designed to enhance senior cultural
and recreational programs at the Center.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this item be considered in conjtmction with
the vacant property improvement project at which time the additional parking and Center building
improvements can be planned concurrently.
7. Develop Exercise & Aerobic Programs. The Committee felt that physical fitness is important
for seniors. A Senior Fitness Program is currently offered at the Center. An exercise room was
suggested as a future consideration for seniors.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this item be considered in conjunction with
the vacant property improvement project at which time the additional parking and Center building
improvements can be planned concurrently.
8. Enclose the Patio. The Committee felt that additional programming space could be created by
enclosing the patio between the Grenache and Royalty Room. An enclosed room with a skylight
could create an ideal space for an arts & crafts room.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this item be considered in conjunction with
the vacant property improvement project at which time the additional parking and Center building
improvements can be planned concurrently.
9. More Adult Classes. The Committee felt that it was important to have classes at the Center to
maintain revenues for the Center. It was their feeling, however, that more Adult classes should be
planned at the Center to serve the adult and senior population as well as to attract new seniors to the
Center. It was pointed out that the existing Lions and the new Lions East Community Centers could
be developed for Youth, Family and Adult Programs. Evening and weekend rentals were also
recognized as a source of needed revenues for the Center.
136
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SENIOR PROGRAM ALTERNATIVES & PRIORITIES
February 15, 1995
Page 4
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that youth programs be relocated to the Lions
East and West Centers upon completion of the Renovation Projects and that staff commence
developing new adult classes, workshops and programs which can be established at the Center in the
future.
!0. The Center needs a new Piano. There are two very aged pianos at the Center, one in very poor
condition. The Committee recommended that every effort be made to acquire a new piano.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City staff work with the seniors to develop
alternatives, including fundraising and donations, to acquire a new piano.
11. Consider a Senior Day Care Program. The Committee recommended that a Senior Day Care
Program be considered. This would be based on a social rather than a medical model. A Day Care
program would allow frail seniors to come to the Center and socialize and interact with other seniors.
Staff indicated that such a program would need to be carefully evaluated because of the staff time
and program costs involved.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that this item be deferred for one year to afford
sufficient time for staff and the seniors to work on the above program priorities.
Summary
The Senior Advisory Committee and City Staff recommends that the City Council consider the
above Senior Program Alternatives and Recommendations developed at their January 12., 1995
meeting. The Committee recognizes the importance of timing due to the need to renovate the new
Lions East Community Center and the proposed improvements at the existing Lions Community
Center. Also recognized is the need to maximize classes and rental revenues to help support the
Center.
Staff feels that the Playschool Program can be moved from the Center upon completion of the
renovation of the Lions East facility. This would allow the Center to have a second dedicated space
for senior programs. Staff would like to express its appreciation to the Senior Advisory Committee
for their hard work in identifying priority needs for the City's senior citizens.
Respect~xlly submitted,
unity Services Manager
so/semorpgms
137
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SENIOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING
AGENDA
Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center
9791 Arrow Route
Rancho Cueamonga, CA 91730
JANUARY 12, 1995 - 8:00 a.m.
A. REGUI,AR MEETING - CAI.I, TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag
Roll Call:
Tom Baillie
Esther Humphries
Betty Linker
Nancy McCormick
Mabel Mercer
Grace Parker
Kathy Peters
Dorothy Stanley
Arnold Steenburg
Edna Steenburg
Elmer Steeve
Wilma Steeve
Elbert Wilkerson
Ann Williams
Guests:
Commission/Staff:
B. ANNOUNCEMF,,NTS AND PRESENTATIONS
C. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PURl ,IC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Senior Advisory
Committee. State law prohibits the Committee from addressing any issue not
previously included on the Agenda. The Senior Advisory Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments
should be limited to five minutes per individual.
138
D. ITEMS OF RU~INE~S
Discussion and Review of Senior and Human Services and Community
Programs Conducted at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center.
F. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
G. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PURI,IC
This is the time and place for the general public to address the Senior Advisory
Committee. State law prohibits the Committee fi'om addressing any issue not
previously included on the Agenda. The Senior Advisory Committee may
receive testimony and set the matter for a subsequent meeting. Comments
should be limited to five minutes per individual.
H. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
January 23, 1995·
J. ADJOURNMENT
I, Paula Pachon, Management Analyst II, hereby certify that a.true, accurate
copy of the foregoing Agenda was posted on January 9 1995, seventy-two
(72) hours prior to the meeting per A.B. 2674 at the Rancho Cucamonga
Neighborhood Center, 9791 Arrow Route, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730.
139
SPECIAL MEETING
SENIOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
JANUARY 12, 1995
ITEMS OF BUSINESS:
1. Discussion and Review of Senior and Human Services and Community Programs Conducted at
the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center
A. Community Services Department "What We Do"
B. Overview of Programs Conducted at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center
C. Brainstorming of Projected Needs for Programs/Services at the Rancho Cucamonga
Neighborhood Center
D. Prioritizing of Projected Needs for Programs/Services at the Rancho Cucamonga
Neighborhood Center
E. Status Report on City Community Facilities
1. Lions Park Community Center
2. Old Library Facility
3. Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center
140
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SENIOR ADVISORY COMMITTEE
SPECIAL MEETING MINUTES
January 12, 1995
AI.
BI.
CI.
DI.
A. SPECIAL MEETING - CALL TO ORDER
The meeting was called to order by Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager at 8:10 a.m.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag was led by Suzanne.
Roll call indicated the following individuals in attendance:
Committee Members: Ester Humphries, Better Linker, Nancy McCormick, Mabel Mercer,
Kathy Peters, Dorothy Stanley, Arnold Steenburg, Edna Steenburg, Elmer Steeve, Wilma
Sleeve, Elbert Wilkerson and Ann Williams. Guests: Don Carroll, Miriam McIntosh, Ed
Mclntosh, Robert Anuba and Hilda Phillips. Commissioners: Ann Punter. Staff: Suzanne
Ota, Community Services Manager, Paula Paehon, Management Analyst II, Chris Worland,
Recreation Coordinator, Artira Peterson, Seniors-Recreation Leader, Lisa Russek, Human
Services-Recreation Leader.
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS AND PRESENTATION
None
C. COMMUNICATION FROM THE, PURl ,IC
None
D. ITEMS OF BUSINESS
Discussion and Review of Senior and Human Services and Community Programs Conducted
at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center.
Suzanne Ota explained the purpose of this special meeting is to review the current senior
programming, recreational and human services, at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood
Center and to discuss "needs and wishes" for additional programs and/or facility usage. Ms.
Ota advised the Committee that the City Council has requested a report on this topic at their
February 15, 1995 City Council meeting,
141
Ms. Ota began the meeting by sharing information with the Committee about the Community
Services Department and the wide range of programs and services it provides the residents of
Rancho Cucamonga. She then reviewed the City's 1994-1995 fiscal budget. Along with this
information Ms. Ota reviewed a report on Senior Services Programs for the fiscal year
1994/1995. This report explained that the majority of the funding for Senior Programs comes
from the City's General Fund. While discussing the General Fund, Ms. Ota explained the effect
of Proposition 13 on Rancho Cucamonga, especially in comparison to neighboring "pre-
Proposition 13" cities. Also included in the report was an ou~ine of the cost of providing senior
services for fiscal year 1994/1995.
Before beginning the discussion on projected needs and/or programs for seniors, Ms. Ota
distributed a diagram of the rooms at the Neighborhood Center.
Paula Pachon then distributed a set of minutes from the Senior Advisory Committee meeting
from April 11, 1992. The purpose of this meeting was also to discuss ideas for expanded senior
programs and services. Ms. Pachon pointed out that several of the items identified at this 1992
meeting have since been implemented by staff.
Ms. Pachon then distributed a staff report dated December 21, 1994. Ms Pachon explained that
this report was compiled by staff for the City Council. She also explained that the report
outlined all the current programming and rental usages at the Neighborhood Center, including
information on estimated revenue from these programs/rentals.
The meeting then continued with a request from Ms. Ota for definite ideas for new or expanded
programs and/or facility uses at the Neighborhood Center. After all the ideas of the Committee
Members and guests were listed on a flip chart, the group then prioritized the items. During the
prioritization process the subject of fee programs arose. The Committee agreed that the
programs should be as low fee as possible, but acknowledged that fees would be necessary to
cover the cost of some classes/programs.
The Committee Members and guests then began the process of brainstorming ideas of projected
needs for programs/services at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center. Once the list of
ideas was developed the group then prioritized these needs. By consensus the Committee
Members and guests developed the attached list of projected needs for program and services at
the Neighborhood Center (see attached).
Suzanne advised that the ideas developed and the prioritized list of needs that were developed
by the Committee at this Special Meeting of the Senior Advisory Committee would be presented
to the City Council at their February 15, 1995 meeting. Ms. Ota then reviewed the status of the
old library facility and explained that staff will be presenting ideas to City Council for the use
of this facility also.
142
FI.
F. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR FUTURE MEETINGS
The following items were identified by the Committee as items for future meetings.
Update on Art Tournament
Discussion of the Card Tournament
G. COMMUNICATION FROM THE PUBLIC
G1. None
H. DATE OF NEXT MEETING
HI. January 23, 1995 - 9:00 a.m. - Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood Center
I. ADJOURNMENT
I1. By consensus the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 a.m.
143
Brainstorming of Projected Needs for Programs/Services at the Rancho
Cucamonga Neighborhood Center
* Library/Big Screen TV (Thompson Room)
* Exercise Room with Equipment
* New Piano/Lessons
* Move Playschool to Lions East
* Permanent Craft Room
* Area for Theater/Cultural Arts Programs
* Aerobics Room
* Education Classroom
* More Classes
* Expand Mission Room to Hold All Seniors
* More Parking Space
* Better Public Transportation
* Need More FT Staff Support at the Center
* Enclose the Patio for More Use
* Need Information Records on All Seniors Participating at RCNC
* More Adult Classes
* Travelogues on Big Screen TV
* Nutrition and Health Classes
* Senior Day Care
* Bridge Lessons
* Name "Senior Center" Will Attract More Seniors
* Human/Social Services Classes/Workshops
* Keep Programs at Low Cost
Prioritizing of Projected Needs for Programs/Services at the Rancho Cucamonga
Neighborhood Center
1. Center must be called a "Senior Center"
2. Public Transportation to Bring Seniors to the Center
3. Increase FT Staffing at the Center
4. Make Thompson Room Available for Library/Big Screen Television Use
5. More Parking
6. Expand Mission Room (seniors need to be together)
7. Exercise & Aerobic Programs
8. Enclose the Patio
9. More Adult Classes (all types of classes)
10. Piano
11. Senior Day Care
DATE:
T~.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
February 15, 1995
STAFF REPORT
Members of the City Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
DISCUSSION OF AN ORDINANCE TO PREVENT CONVENIENCE STORE
ROBBERIES
The last time that the City Council discussed this matter, they reviewed the
Gainesville ordinance with the exception of a provision requiring two clerks
after dark. Before moving forward with an ordinance, the City Council
directed staff to meet with convenience store owners and managers, the
chamber of commerce and other interested panics to get their input.
The workshop was held on January 26, 1995 and was attended by
representatives of the Chamber of Commerce, the California Grocers
Association, the Southland Corporation, Mobil Oil, individual 7-11 franchisees,
and one independent liquor store owner. During the discussions at the
workshop, the majority of the business representatives felt that the City
should be encouraging compliance with guidelines rather than mandating
rules which can't effectively be enforced. It was suggested at this workshop
that the objectives of the City will be better met by working in partnership
with the business community rather than imposing mandates that add costs to
the business.
To demonstrate its commitment to a cooperative solution, the Chamber of
Commerce offered to host annual forums or training sessions on robbery
prevention and safety. In addition, the Southland Corporation offered to make
all of their robbery prevention materials available for the City's use at no cost.
It was suggested that these materials along with input from our own Crime
Prevention Unit could help make a robbery prevention handbook and a set of
guidelines specific to Rancho Cucamonga. These material could be distributed
to all related businesses and annually reinforced by sessions hosted by the
Chamber of Commerce.
Finally, it was recommended at this workshop that the City modify specific
parts of the current Development Code to help enhance public safety. An
example might be requirements for exterior and parking lot lighting.
In general, the business representatives at the workshop felt that a voluntary
and collaborative approach combined with a tightening of existing City
regulations should be tried first. These representative felt that these steps
would meet the goals of reducing convenience store robberies without placing
an undue burden on local businesses.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
ORDINANCE FOR PREVENTING CONVENIENCE STORE ROBBERIES
February 15, 1995
Page 2
One option before the City Council are to adopt the ordinance already
considered at a previous meeting, whose key provisions are:
Removal of signs posted in windows to provide a clear and
unobstructed view of the cash register and sales area;
Locate sales area so that the clerk and customer are clearly
visible from the street;
3. Post a conspicuous sign in the window which states:
a)
h)
c)
the cash register has $50 or less,
employee has access to $50 or less, and
a drop-safe or time release safe is maintained in the store;
Parking lots are to be lit at an intensity of 2-foot candles per
square foot, with a uniformity ratio of no more than 5:1;
Install a security camera of a type and number approved by the
city;
Provide mandatory robbery prevention training to all employees
who work between the hours of 7 PM and 5 AM;
Require two employees be on duty between the hours of 8 PM and
4 AM.
Another option for the City Council is to accept the suggestions of the business
community and direct staff to prepare robbery prevention and safety
materials to be distributed to convenience and neighborhood stores. Along
with the above, staff would also be directed to examine the development code
for current regulations that could be modified to further the goal of
improving public safety.
Rejectfully Submitted,
Duane A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
146
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
CONVENIENCE STORE REGULATIONS
Page i
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.28 TO THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
PERTAINING TO CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES.
WHEREAS, homicides and robberies at Convenience Food Stores between the
hours of S p.m. and 4 a.m. may result in loss of life and/or property and is
contrary to the public health and safety and the welfare of the employees and
customers of Convenience Food Stores; and
WHEREAS, these regulations provide essential requirements that will
minimize or eliminate a significant number of incidents of homicide and/or
robbery at Convenience Food Stores; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 1994, a public workshop was conducted to obtain
public input; and
WHEREAS, on , 1994, the City Council conducted and
concluded a duly noticed pubic hearing concerning the subject amendment to the
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Ordinance
have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California:
S~CTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code is hereby amended to add
a new Chapter 9.28, to read, in words and figures, as follows:
Ch~ter 9.28
CONV~NI~NC~ FOOD STORPS.
Sections:
9.28.010 Definitions.
9.28.020 Regulations.
9.28.010 Definitions. The following terms and phrases, when used
in this Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this
Section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
A. "Convenience Food Store" is a business establishment that:
147
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
CONVENIENCE STORE REGUIj%T!ONS
Page 2
DRAFT
1. Derives 50 percent or more of its gross income, excluding
motor fuels, from the sale of goods, merchandise, or other articles of
value in their original containers; and
2. Offers a limited quantity and variety of food, household,
and sundry items; and
4a.m.;and
Operates at any time between the hours of 8 p.m. and
4. Does not sell or have for sale prescription drug items.
B. "Owner" is the person, corporation, partnership, joint venture,
or other group enterprise having lawful possession of the premises upon
which the Convenience Food Store is operated.
C. "Employee" is the person, corporation, partnership, joint
venture, or group enterprise legally responsible for the day-to-day
operation of the Convenience Store.
9.28.020 Re~ulations. All Convenience Food Stores shall comply
with the following regulations:
A. Locate any signs posted in the windows so as to provide a clear
and unobstructed view of the cash register and sales area from zhe
street.
S. Locate the sales area so =hat the clerk and customer are fully
visible from the street at the time of the sales transaction.
C. Post a conspicuous sign, not exceeding 2 square feet in area,
in the window which states the cash register has $50.00 cash or less in
it.
D. Have no more than $5o.oo cash available and readily accessible
employees.
E. Maintain a drop-safe or time release safe at the Convenience
Food Store which is bolted to the floor or installed in the floor or
weighs at least 500 pounds.
F. Post a conspicuous sign, not exceeding 2 square feet in area,
in the window which states that there is a safe at the store and it is
not accessible to the employees.
148
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
CONVENIENCE STORE REGULATIONS
Page 3
DRAFT
G. The entire area of the parking lot area utilized by customers
of the Convenience Food Store must be lighted during all hours of
darkness when the employees and/or customers are on the premises as
follows:
1. Minimum average maintained illuminance must be two foot
candles or greater wlth a uniformity ratio (average to minimum} of no
more than 5:1.
2. Additionally, all such lighting shall be in accordance with
the applicable City's Lighting Code requirements, and shall be verified
through the submittal of a detailed lighting plan to the Planning
Con~nission and the Crime Prevention Bureau of the Rancho Cucamonga Police
Department.
H. Install a security camera of a type and number approved by the
City Manager or his designee. Said camera must be capable of producing
a retrievable image on film or tape that can be made a permanent record
and that can be enlarged through pro3ection or other means. Cameras
meeting the requirements of this section shall be maintained in proper
working order at all times and shall be sub3ect to perlodic inspection
by the City Manager or his designee.
I. Any owner or employee who works between the hours of 7 p.m. and
5 a.m. at a Convenience Food Store shall complete a course in Robbery
Prevention to be given by the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department, or a
program certified by the City Manager or his designee, within 30 days
after he or she begins employment. If the Rancho Cucamonga Police
Department's Robbery Prevention course is utilized, the City Manager or
his designee shall determine the cost of training per employee to the
City and the Convenience Food Store shall pay the cost to the Rancho
Cucamonga Police Department prior to the training of the employee.
S~CTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion of this Ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such
decislon shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
Ordinance. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares that
it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence,
clause, phrase, or portion =hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or other portlots mlght
subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
S~CTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least once in
the Inl~na V~ilev Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation published
in the City of Ontarlo, California, and circulated in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
149
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
T~.
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
PROGRAMS USED BY CITIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES IN OFFERING
AND MAINTAINING A REWARD PROGRAM
The City Council asked the staff to look at programs that offer rewards for
information leading to the apprehension of criminals. WeTip is the program
that is currently in use by Rancho Cucamonga.
WE TIP
In the City Council's discussion of this issue it will be important to know first
what program is currently available to the City. Nearly 100 cities, along with
Rancho Cucamonga are members of WeTip. WeTip is a non-profit group that
started in 1972 in the Inland Empire as an anonymous hotline to turn in drug
pushers. Since that time, WeTip has expanded its efforts nation wide to provide
toll free anonymous "tip" lines and rewards to help law enforcement and other
public safety agencies solve crimes. This toll free "tip" line is available to our
City and all tips are passed on to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
WeTip also provides rewards of up to $1,000 for information that leads to the
arrest and conviction of criminals. In addition, WeTip has worked with the
City in the past to develop special programs to address specific needs such as
graffiti. Another program offered by WeTip is their Extraordinary Reward
Program. This program is a resource that allows for a large reward to be
offered on a specific crime. The money for the reward is raised by interested
parties and WeTip provides its "tip" line and also publicizes the reward with
posters and other media coverage. We Tip works directly with the lead
investigator on the specific case to insure that all tips are funnelled to the
right person.
CRIME STOPPERS
A program utilized in Upland and Ontario is Crime Stoppers. This program is
run completely by community volunteers. In cooperation with the local police
department, a telephone line is established at the police station to receive tips
24 hours a day. The tips received are anonymous to help encourage people to
provide information. All rewards given by Crime Stoppers are determined by
their own board of directors, which is made up of community volunteers, and
these rewards can go up to $1,000. In addition, Crime Stoppers also has annual
fund raising and friend raising events to raise awareness and to raise money
for the reward fund. Crime Stoppers also works with local police in
REWARD PROGRAMS
February 15, 1995
Page 2
highlighting a crime of the week to be publicized. This publicity helps raise
awareness on a specific crime and also makes people aware that Crime
Stoppers is there to take information on any crime. The Crime Stoppers group
feel that their strength lies in the community involvement needed to make a
volunteer operation like theirs work.
CASE SPECIFIC REWARDS
In some communities, a reward will be put up by concerned community and
business leaders in response to a specific crime. Normally, an account is
opened at a local bank and donations are received from concerned individuals
and businesses. Communities where this occurs normally don't have a Crime
Stoppers, WeTip or similar organization to handle the reward and the
information. Tips in these cases normally go straight to the police department.
These rewards are one time only and are tied to a specific case and are not
associated with any sustained reward or crime prevention program.
SUMMARY
Most communities rely on outside non-profit organizations and individuals,
such as WeTip and Crime Stoppers, to provide for rewards while some
communities react only to specific cases. In all cases, the goal is to bring a
criminal to justice through participation with a program that continually
provides information to law enforcement and that has an established
mechanism for accepting anonymous tips and paying out rewards.
The City currently belongs to WeTip which accepts information and offers
rewards of up to $1,000. The City has had an ongoing relationship with WeTip
and feels comfortable in supporting an already excellent crime deterrent
program.
Respectfully Submitted,
Duane A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECY:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
STAFF REPORT
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
DISCUSSION OF REESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
AND OTHER ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has asked staff to look at issues surrounding the Public Safety
Commission as well as similar bodies in other cities. This information is to help
the City Council in their discussions of whether the Public Safety Commission
should be reestablish or whether some alternative would better serve the
needs of the community.
The Public Safety Committee, later to become the Public Safety Commission, was
established to address some very specific objectives. These objectives included
reviewing the City's disaster preparedness capability, review of the paramedic
issue, and review of the idea of a City run police department. The Public Safety
Commission fulfilled all of its original mandates and more when the state
financial crisis took its toll on Rancho Cucamonga. As pan of an overall cost
saving and streamlining program, the City Council decided to eliminate the
Public Safety Commission and to handle public safety matters through their
own Public Safety Subcommittee whenever necessary.
In researching this matter, staff contacted a number of surrounding
communities to see if they had public safety committees, commissions or other
similar groups. Staff contacted ten local cities and requested information on
the state wide computer bulletin board, CityLink. The results were that none of
the local cities had a public safety committee or commission made up of
residents although one city had a committee of staff people that met regularly
to discuss public safety issues and service delivery and another city had a
traffic advisory committee made up of staff and some residents. In response to
our inquiries over CityLink, we received one response from a city that has a
subcommittee made up of city council members, the police chief, the fire
chief, and some other city staff. Unfortunately these other cities did not
provide an appropriate model for the purposes of this discussion.
Absent a good model outside our City, staff focused on the comments made by
the City Council regarding this issue. First, the City Council wanted to increase
and expand public participation and input on important public safety issues.
Second, the City Council wanted to create a setting in which citizens did not
feel intimidated where they would be more comfortable in raising concerns.
Keeping the City Council's goals in mind and recognizing the limited staff
resources, the following would be recommended:
151
DISCUSSION OF REESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
February 15, 1995
Page 2
PUBI,IC SAFETY FORUMS/SEMINARS
Hosting public safety forums that include seminars would be a good way of
increasing communication and interaction with the public in a manner that is
not intimidating. A public safety forum would be an event held at a local park,
community center, or shopping center that gets our public safety personnel
out into the community. In addition to displays and educational materials, it is
an opportunity for us to share important information with the public and
more importantly for the public to share their observations with us.
As was done in he past, the community seminars on public safety issues proved
educational. An example would be the gang seminar hosted by the City two
years ago or the Red Ribbon Week programs that attract hundreds of residents
each. This seminar provided important information to the public and allowed
us to hear their concerns and questions as well. These events, conducted
separately or concurrently with the safety forums, can be designed to address
specific topics in response to trends in the community. City Council members
can also provide a level of participation at these events. These events give the
City a flexible tool that maximizes public participation with the most effective
use of staff resources. This method will involve greater levels of public
interaction on general public safety issues than the Public Safety Commission
format can achieve.
TASK FORCE. STRUCTURE
Another tool that the City can use use is the task force structure. From time to
time issues come up that are specific to a neighborhood and are best addressed
with the residents of that neighborhood. Instead of having the residents come
to city hall for a meeting before a commission, a task force can be sent to meet
with the residents in the neighborhood. Staff resources can be focused on the
problem, develop and implement solutions in a finite period of time. This
meets the needs of the residents by providing a forum for their concerns on
their own "turf" that is less intimidating than a formal commission. Also, a
task force uses staff time efficiently as the task force is dissolved once the need
has been addressed rather than providing ongoing support for a standing
commission which has the likelihood for "make work" projects. The task force
structure has been used successfully in the City in Southwest Cucamonga to
deal with gang and crime issues and in the neighborhood north of Rancho
Cucamonga High School to deal with traffic issues.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND CAB! .E TEl .EVISION
To further enhance the reach and scope of our crime prevention, fire
prevention, and other public safety programs, cable television can be used to
get the message out to even more citizens. Shortly, the City Council will be
discussing the government portion of the PEG access channel for cable
television. Part of that program would enable us to run videos on crime
prevention topics. Also, the community bulletin board could be used as a way
to get information and important announcements to the public's attention.
152
DISCUSSION OF REESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
February 15, 1995
Page 3
These efforts would enhance our current crime prevention programs such as
neighborhood watch and business and home security checks and fire
prevention as well as other community public safety programs.
PO! .ICF. DEPARTMENT CITI73~._.N ADVISORY COMMITTEE
In discussing the City Council's objectives with our new Police Chief, he
suggested that a program that Sheriff Penrod was having each of his stations
start might fit in well with the efforts mentioned above as well as the City
Council's goals.
The program in question is a citizen's advisory group which represents a wide
cross section of the community rather than five or seven hand picked
commissioners. This new group is made of community leaders picked by the
Police Chief to provide direct interaction with the Police Department. The
community leaders would be representative of different neighborhood
associations, the business community, ethnic groups and other organizations.
In other cities where these groups are in place, the membership consists of
30-40 individuals. The meetings are held every other month or quarterly and
provide an opportunity for the Police Chief to talk informally about trends in
the community, new programs and other items of interest to the community.
After the presentation, the members of the group have an opportunity to
discuss any concerns or issues that they have. The main purpose of this group
is to foster better communication between the Police and the community. In
addition to the meetings, the committee members will be contact points in the
community. If issues arise between meetings, we can use the new automated
phone system to call automatically all of the committee members and give
them the information.
The cities of Hesperia and Victorville have had these programs in place for
several years and are very happy with the outcome. To these cities, the main
benefit has been the opening of communications between the police and the
community. Community leaders come to know the Chief of Police and feel
comfortable calling him with concerns or issues before they become
problems.
RFCOMMENDATIONS
The City Council is discussing this matter out of their concern for improved
public safety and communication between the City and its citizens. The Public
Safety Commission that we had, filled a role at that time and met its original
objectives. The goals that the City Council has in mind now are different and
staff would recommend the options described above and summarized below as a
way to move beyond a limited Public Safety Commission to address those goals
with the most efficient use of staff resources.
DISCUSSION OF REESTABLISHING THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION
February 15, 1995
Page 4
Public Safety Forums/Seminars
Task Force Structure
Public Safety and Cable Television
Police Department Citizen Advisory Committee
These recommendations would be more effective in providing greater public
participation and would allow City Council participation at a policy level.
Respectfully Submitted,
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
Mr. Hudgens, CalTrans, gave a brief overview of CalTrans role in the freeway design and
construction. Mr. Cohoe, CalTrans, then gave a detailed presentation on the development
of the freeway profiles. Mr. Cohoe covered the original proposed above grade profile and
then followed with detailed explanations of the depressed profile and a "new" profile
introduced at this meeting referred to as the "at-grade depressed" profile.
The presentation included the relative advantages and disadvantages of the various profiles
and also the cost implications involved for the various types of construction. Mr. Cohoe had
a handout describing the various profiles and significant features relative to each and is
attached for your information.
Mr. Cohoe then proceeded to describe the geomelrics of each of the five on/off ramps in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga. These are at Carnelian Avenue, Archibald Avenue, Haven
Avenue, Milliken Avenue and future Day Creek Boulevard. City staff then gave a short
presentation which acted as a backdrop for the Task Force's discussion on interchanges. The
handout relative to this information is also attached. After staffs presentation, Task Force
member Doris Beckner gave a short presentation with a handout relative to her work in
investigating interchanges in her area. Ms. Beckner stressed the committee needs to spend
time investigating interchanges and the implications thereof.
After these presentations there was discussion among the committee members regarding not
only the profile but also the interchanges. All are in agreement that there was a great deal
of information to absorb in one meeting. The Chairman requested the committee members
take time to digest this material and over the next few days prepare questions regarding this
information. Questions are to be mined in to the City Engineer who will provide answers
as applicable and provide this information with the agenda. This should encourage more
discussion regarding these issues at the next meeting.
155
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
ROUTE 30 UPDATE
February 15, 1995
Page 2
The Task Force was in agreement that these issues are extremely important and the time
should be taken to fully develop the issues regarding both the profile and the interchanges.
The Chairman requested staff to prepare traffic information regarding impacts on local streets
if the interchanges are eliminated.
The CalTrans representatives agreed to keep the profile and presentation material at City Hall
for the next month. Committee Task Force members were encouraged if at all possible to
review this information prior to the next meeting scheduled for March 14, 1995. The Task
Force agreed the next agenda will begin with the discussion of profile and interchanges
again and other items will be taken in successive order as time permits.
The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 14, in the Tri-Communities Room. The
group further agreed the meeting time will begin at 6:00 p.m. as this appears to allow a lot
more time for discussion on these very important issues.
Respectfully submitted,
William J. Alexander
Mayor
WJA:dlw
Attachments
156
0
r.~mH
.._~
O'
mmmrn
~ I-.
7~>-
0o~
uj o
_~ 1.9..°
Z
O~
I--
I
>.
,(
LU
n"
,,
Z
I--
,,,
n-
Z
~ Z ~ ~ _
> ~o~ ~ ~
Z
D
.-
0
0
157
INTERCHANGE CONSIDERATIONS
General Plan and Circulation Element
· Arterial and collector street pattern is dependent on freeway access.
One mile urban design
Designated interchange allow use of freeway by entire City
· Interchanges allow maximum use of freeway.
· Access should be equal for all areas and business community.
· Shiedng or removing interchanges creates impacts on other areas.
Impact on local circulation and neighborhoods
· Lack of interchanges causes more travel on arterial and collector streets
between remaining interchanges.
· Lack of sufficient interchange will cause neighborhood streets to have
through traffic as motorists search for short cuts.
Impacts on Service Levels at remaining interchanges
· If interchanges are eliminated remaining interchanges will have "failure"
level congestion on both the ramps and major City streets.
· Adjacent City street intersections will also reach failure levels of
service.
158
/~
159
,._.! , ~ ~
=I
L---1
ROUTE 30 AD HOC TASK FORCE MEETING
(January 10, 1995)
February 7, 1995
SUBJECT: ON/OFF RAMPS
Thank you Mayor Alexander, Rancho Cucamonga department heads, Caltrans, SANBAG
representatives, and all others for your willingness to listen to the homeowners concerns
and problems that will affect them as you make Route 30 Freeway plans and decisions to
be presented to the council.
In reading SANBAG's 'Responce to Comments from Route 30 Public Meeting; May 10,
1994', four main issues of concern dramatically stood out:
1. Elevation or Profile
2. On/OffRarnps
3. Sequencing
4. Increased Crime
Several momhs ago the council saw fit to approve a resolution for a completely depressed
prof~e. I'd like to thank council for their responce and proactive approach to the residents
concerns. Because the council has already approved the resolution for a completely
depressed freeway, in the interest of time, it may be best for this Ad Hoc Committee to
focus only on the depressed profile.
There remains three other major issues of concern expressed by residents attending the
May 10, meeting.
· On/Off ramps
· Sequencing
· Crime?
Over the past several months, I have gathered the following information by personally
walking the area outlined in red on the attached maps, speaking to the residents, and
reading SANBAG's 'Responce to Comments' publication. I would ask that you please
consider the details of my research carefully. It is my humble opinion that this information
may reflect some genuine logistical and safety issues involving both pedestrian and
vehicular access to schools, homes, and businesses to be bracketed between the proposed
Archibald and Haven On/Off ramps.
161
I understand that the On/Off Ramp subject is just one aspect of overall freeway planning
and the possible problems to those living and doing business in the area east of Archibald
and west of Haven are issues representative of only one neighborhood. However, at my
age, I am not capable of conducting the same research in all the areas in our city that will
be impacted. Perhaps the 'micro view' can help serve to enhance the 'Big Picture'.
Please refer at the artached fact sheet. Notice how many homes, townhouses, and
apartments are in this small area; it contains lots ofpeopi~ Maybe we should consider
some things besides getting on and off the freeway. Most households have 2 cars these
days, that's 955 dwellings using conservatively 1,910 cars with only one way in and out
of their respective neighborhoods. Carefully examine the drawings showing details of how
on/off ramps will connect to surface streets.
Questions:
Will there be a frontage road between the freeway and the area outlined on the map?
Will these neighborhoods have entrances to the frontage road?
Wrdl the fi'ontage road provide for 2-way or only 1-way traffic?
Will the Haven Ave. on/off ramps connect directly to Haven or use 19th as an access
road?
Are there plans to install any traffic lights in the 1 mile area of 19th between Archibald and
Haven? (Currently posted 45mphJ actual average 50+mph)
What provisions are planned for traffic control on 19th street?
Notice the number of schools in or adjacent to this area; families with children live in
neighborhoods with schools close by. There are currently 4 schools with 2,~00 students
enrolled. There are lots of kids, approximate ages 5 - 15, walking to and from schools and
parks every weekday morning, lunchtime, and afternoon. Pedestrians presently crossing
19th street face a 45mph (posted) four lane highway, using 2 unsignaled crosswalks and 2
pan time crossing guards in the 1 mile area between archibald and Haven. I have spoken
to these crossing guards:
One that used to work at ( at 19th & Hermosa) had been hit by cars twice, and had many
near misses; the other ( at 19th & Canilia) said he has also had many near misses and
considered quitting due to concern for his safety.
2
162
O.J:esfions:
Will crossing signals be installed at comers where children regularly cross 19th street for
school? (Ramona, Hermosa, Cartilla)
Will there be crossing guards on duty?
Will heavy trucks be using 19th street during construction?
Will any fleeway arteries be posted as school zones during peak traffic hours?
According to the SCAG Baseline Population Forecast ( refer to SAArBAG'S 'Responce to
Comments' Page 15 ), Rancho Cucamonga's population will grow 117.5% by the year
2010. This committee's recommendations could effect whether or not our city continues to
be considered a desirable place to live and work for that future population.
It is my hope that the Ad Hoc committee will sharply focus on each on/off ramp as a
critical pan of the overall fleeway package. Our recommendations to the council
regarding the 'fine details' need to be treated with the same priority as the issues
themselves.
I am continuing to gather information for this committee as I am able and will be happy to
offer some assistance to anyone wishing to study other impacted areas.
Thank You,
Doris M. Beckher
One Senior Citizen at Large
FACT SHEET
SUBJECT: Haven and Archibald On/OffRamps
Distance Between: 1 Mile
Dwellings:
Main Area
Wedge area
Barassa Apartments
Loma Vista Woods
= 623
= 166
= 66
-- 100
Total Dwellings
= 955
Approximate Total Cars
1,910
Schools:
Vineyard Middle School
Deer Canyon Elementary
Brethren in Christ School
Highlaud Christian School
931
1019
300
Total Students Enrolled
= 2,500
164 ¢
Lack of access
to getaways
may help city
CRIME: Being away f~}.t frl~wuys
and emphasis on eomnlunity polic-
ing tu~ among the facU's c~ited
f~ HuntinDn's ~lative safety-
HUNTINGTON B~ -- Bad freewaY a~ess
may ~ one of the main naml HunUnion Beach
hM ~e u[ ~e lowell crLme tales m ~e nal~. a
bu~m leader subBraN ~U~my.
And a io~ard-thiu~8 Poli~ ~urtm~t and
punic revolvemerit thrush ~nfiy-~a~
lLcinl p~g~ms dane s~e of the c~it, Voti~
ChiefRun,won--t a~mmmumtyleaderM~sd.
A new Mmk'a ~B~Mllga tit Hulingten Nach
was Ametiu's safest city in IW3 is ~onliltent
past reports wh~mi thlt Surf City ~d the 15tb
lowut came rate or lower among cities with
iuo.~ ~sidents or more,
Only fryins -- which had the seventim loweli
~rnme rate I~on8 cries with l~.~ or morc
dents m IvY3 -- rauked ~tter iraohM Orange Coun-
ty communities. The ~R, ~ity Crime RanmaRs.
rnnkN only the nati~'s 1~ hiegut cities.
Hunttn~ Beach's ~pututiun t~k n (ew
m l~ after ~o m~ t~, ~nnM down
Main ~lre~t and a "~kin~d" family shot a b~ck
man ~tM~e a McDonmld'm restam'ant.
of ~le~ NIj~e b~tlHty du~g a Fou,h of Jdy
nlcl, p~mptN the FBi to launch a civil-ri~ts
in~ltgatmn despite heated ~s by city and
pub~ dficlm~.
"But ir xeu i~ at tM statetics, ~r
cram ram ~n~ m p ~," ~0n~I s~d.
~ ~tc, ex-ml~r and I~m~ c~mirm~
the De,town B~,s Areaim, ub~ ~lt
b~ ~bbe-- and other eramats fi~ tt h~d to
make qmck getaways ft~m !iu~atun
cauR Ihe froway is so far awe .
The FBI discomics t~ u~ o~its ~ta to magi
city-t~cllY ~mpi~l~l ~cm~ [l~
Accoming te Qty Crime Ranlines, · rt~erance
citefling eJle suitus of ~rlme m AmIFKa'S ciUe~ ann
meWOOOlibln areas. ~ i1~ l(} saint U .5. titsea
The list is kaleci on lyerage riokeaTs of crime. from
violent cr~mes to pri3~eRy-tetated Crimes
CJe/ Avg. mml°
2. GlentiNS 6 0~
3. Fremonl. 6.50
d. HonO4ulu 7 67 ,
4. Virginia Belch. VA ? 67
6. MadelOre. Wl R 17
7. Li~oln. NE
8..~ln Jole 13.13
9. DOI Mote, IA 14 SO
10. YontOPS. NY
$1, CO4UmI:NI, CtA
11. Me!&AZ 1813
13. COCOratio $11nn~s, C.O 20. 17
14. Aimington, TX 21 .! ]
15. LulN~:t. TX Z2J3
16. RNNeh. NC 24,17
17. Leanfinn-layette. ICY 25.17
18 Motqtgomery, AL 26,67
1~. $po~arw, wA
20. Louiswile, KY Z7 33
b!~ rite. OreWill vMl~fit-r, ttell ~ ~ OWrili
Crlf~e rite. The lower He ri41, ~hl (~sef te I raMuriC el 1
(aM ~he ,afar We
thin pol:ee-departmcnt Idaquacy C Jill affect crinte
ruraL 5nee cilies have smell Ix)plaJutim~i but
hie or triple m si~a 'lul'~l the day beenuns of
loom or Industry.
· ' lt's not ;air In ramk a city Just based on their
cr3me rate because ll;erc ,'ouid bo other factors
involved," said Nancy Ca, · writer and eaitor
rot me 1:sr, tjed[om crime Relmf'a profree.
Scott Merlin. editor ot Qty Crime RanklaP.
allreed [hat readers shouldn't jump to cenctgslees
about wbut melt city'l rankleg mess.
· 'All we'N doinl il Idlowinl yen where m r6ok.
It'll up Io yon to rind out why." Morgan
"These k,nae of rinkisis Kelp put thinp its per-
spectjvu Md ihow bow much betlcr or worn off
thinp are m your c~ty."
Huntington named safest city
CRIME: The prazotmoement ~mee in a new asdmaJ c~me-etsdatLo8 ~
~M~ ~ a~y~t'ENen~MMio~ ~e~,and i~ov~
The~e~~ ' t~em~of~
~m~W nd a ~bi ~0. MI a m~np.
x
~ w new ~ ~ at ~W. 'We a e'm ~ m ~ ~ mr. U~e
In im ~ ~don, ~ ~ ~ ~, ~7 m a; ~ A~m wm m~
ht of ~ m~ m, ca u Im d~."
w
w ~wm~b~mx emeMr~me.~S
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
FROM
ROUTE 30 PUBLIC-MEETING
MAY 10, 1994
June 8, 1994
'1
lllilli
°I -i' :
169"
f
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
February 15, 1995
TO:.
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Chairman and Members of the Redevelopment
President and Members of the Fire Board
FROM:
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
SUBJECT:
Correction in Agenda Items for the City Council, Redevelopment
Agency and Fire Board.
On the February 15, 1995 agenda for the City Council, Redevelopment Agency and
Fire Board, there is an item from the Redevelopment Agency staff, seeking approval
of the sources of payment for the Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund. This
staff report is found on the following pages:
Redevelopment Agency ......... Page 10
Fire District ................................Page 18
City Council ...............................Page 17
The source of funding identified as "Fund 25/Fire Facilities Fund" notes incorrectly
that the money is from "tax increment." The actual source of payment is "bond
proceeds" from the 1990 Tax Allocation Bond issue.
MEMO
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BIll
Baldy View Region
DATE:
All Mayors & City Councils
Frank Williams, Executive Officer
February 15, 1995
SCAG General Assembly, March 2, 1995, Proposed
Bylaws Amendment - Past President Membership on
Regional Council
The SCAG Regional Council voted (17 ayes to 11 noes) on 2/2/95 to
forward to the SCAG General Assembly a proposed bylaws amendment
that would allow Past Presidents who remain in public office
perpetual representation with voting rights on Standing and Policy
Committees and full compensation when they have not been voted as
a representative to the Regional Council by their SCAG District.
(See enclosed staff report dated January 20, 1995).
We urge your General Assembly representative to oppose this bylaws
amendment. Our interest in this proposed bylaw amendment relates
directly to the fact that the policy and substance SCAG produces is
directly related to the structure of the organization. SCAG
policies have the potential to greatly impact your city.
Procedurally, this bylaws amendment has not met the prerequisites
for consideration by the General Assembly. Article IX of current
SCAG bylaws require that at least 30 days prior to the General
Assembly meeting, a copy of the proposed amendment with the
recommendations of the Regional Council and its reasons therefore
be forwarded to General Assembly members. Since the Regional
Council voted on February 2, its recommendations would not have
been available (even if faxed to General Assembly representatives
that same day) for 30 days prior to the March 2, General Assembly
meeting.
Further, Past Presidents of SCAG that do not garner support of
their District should not serve with voting rights on SCAG Standing
and Policy Committees. This is an insult to the representative
system -- a system that recently has been observing term limits,
not perpetual public service.
From the public's perspective, rather than preserving institutional
memory this amendment borders on cronyism and, if enacted, will
compromise the credibility of SCAG as a public body.
Again, we urge you NOTto adopt this bylaws amendment. Should you
have any questions, please call me at 909-945-1884.
9227 Haven Avenue, Suite 280 · Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 · (909) 945-1884 · FAX (909) 948-9631
To:
From:
02/15/95 10:11
81R OF SO C~LI~O
lVlEMO~UM
]~P~ 20, 1994
NominatinZrResolutions/Bylaws Committee
Administration Committee/Regional Council/Geneal Assembly
~ent of Government and Public Affalrs-Al Puentes (213) 236-.1882
Subject:
Proposed Bylaws Amendment
Past President Membership on Regional Council
Background
The Association's past Presidents represent a valuable resource of regional leadership and
experience. If a past President does not continue to serve on the Regional Council as a
District Representative or County Representative, that leadership and experience is lost.
Several Regional Council members have requested staff to prepare a proposed Bylaws
amendment that would provide for Past President membership on the Regional Council, even
if they are not Dis~a or County Representatives.
This pwposed Bylaws amendment will be considered by the Nominating/Resolutions/Bylaws
Committee at their January 25 meeting (teleconference). The same Byhws amendment
proposal is being mailed to the Administration Committee and Regional Counc'd for
consideration at their February 2 regular meetings. The Nominating/Resolutions/Bylaws
Committee's recommendation will be presented at the February 2 meetings. The same
Bylaws amendment pwposal is being mailed to the 1995 General Assembly delegates on
January 31 in order to meet the meeting notice/agenda requirements. The Regional
Council's recommendation will be reported to the General Assembly at the business session.
Proposed Bylaws Amendment
Amend Article V-Regional Council, A. 1 Membership, (d) Regional Council Representation
to add paragraphs (7) and (8) as follows:
(7) An immediate past President, who is not a District Representative or County
Representative, shall have the tight to serve as a voting member of the Regional
Council for a one (1). year term which commences upon the adjournment of the annual
meeting of the General Assembly. Under this subsection, the immediate past
President has to be an elected chy council member or a member of a County Board of
Supervisors. The immediate past President shall serve on the Regional Council with
compensation.
(8) A past President, who is not a District Representative or County Representative, shall
have the fight to serve as an Bx-Officio member of the Regional Council without the
right to vote for a period concurrent with his or her service as an elected city council
member or a member of a County Board of Supervisors. The past President shall
have the right to serve as a voting member on Standing and Policy Committees. The
past President shall serve on the Regional Council with compensation.
P.O4
t;fiO072
FEVEN pI ESTON
r
RECEIVED
FEB ! 3 1995
February 7, 1995
City ot Rancho Cucarnonga
Planning Division
MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
SUBJECT:
MASI COMMERCE CENTER APPEAL
Historic Preservation Mitigation Fee
Honorable Mayor and Council:
It is with great fondness that I remember my term on the former Historic
Preservation Commission; and while we have relocated to Glendora, we con-
tinue to watch with pride the impressive work of the Council, manager
and staff in negotiating high quality commercial projects in Rancho
Cucamonga.
That is why I was disappointed to hear of Mr. Masi's appeal concerning
deletion of the mitigation fee requirement. If you will permit a former
Commissioner to plead his case, here are my thoughts:
This will mark the third attempt by the applicant to have this con-
dition waived or modified. The Council has already reduced the
mitigation fee from $25,000 to the present $10,000; the modest and
reasonable investment provided by this fee, when "leveraged" against
the other assets the project brings, provides a long-term commitment
to the history of Rancho Cucamonga that can only grow in value.
The combination of land use entitlements provided by the City, along'
with the substantial investments in infrastructure which have allowed
these projects to proceed, offer the developer a considerable return
on investment; the modest value of the applicant's $10,000 invest-
ment will be repaid by the appreciation of his property and economic
gain for the community.
My experience tells me that the contribution is certainly consistent
with current practice among similar California cities, reasonable in
light of the environmental and preservation impacts associated with
the project, and consistent with the high quality of public and pri-
vate improvements which set Rancho Cucamonga apart from nearly
every fast-growing community in the Inland Empire.
I respectfully urge the Council to deny the applicant's appeal. Please
notify me of the Council's decision; thanks for considering my thoughts
Honorable Mayor and Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
and best of luck with the difficult decisions ahead.
STEVEN A. PRESTON, AICP
(Former Chair, Historic Preservation
Commission, 1991-92)
BY FAX AND MAIL
cc: Planning Department
February 7, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729
RECEIVED
FEB ! 3 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
RE: Masi Commerce Center Appeal - Historic Preservation
Mitigation Fee.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members;
As one of the remaining members of the Historic Preservation
Commission at the time of original mitigation conditions
adoption, I would like to go on record as opposing the
Applicant's appeal. This will mark the third attempt by the
Applicant to have this condition eliminated or reduced. The City
Council has already on previous occasion reduced the mitigation
from $25,000 to the present $10,000. In addition the City has
given the subject property considerable land use entitlement, e.
g.; commercial zoning and conditional use permits thereby
increasing the value thereon.
Furthermore I have considered the level of improvements approved
for the Site and determined that the levels are not beyond the
anticipated quality and are consistent with levels required of
the Foothill Market Place Project.
In conclusion, I urge the City Council to deny the Applicant's
appeal.
Sincerely;
RECEIVED
February 7, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729
FEB ! 3 1995
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
RE: Masi Commerce Center Appeal - Historic Preservation
Mitigation Fee.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members;
As one of the remaining members of the Historic Preservation
Commission at the time of original mitigation conditions
adoption, I would like to go on record as opposing the
Applicant's appeal. This will mark the third attempt by the
Applicant to have this condition eliminated or reduced. The City
Council has already on previous occasion reduced the mitigation
from $25,000 to the present $10,000. In addition the City has
given the subject property considerable land use entitlement, e.
g.; commercial zoning and conditional use permits thereby
increasing the value thereon.
Furthermore I have considered the level of improvements approved
for the Site and determined that the levels are not beyond the
anticipated quality and are consistent with levels'required of
the Foothill Market Place Project.
In conclusion, I urge the City Council to deny the Applicant's
appeal.
Sincerely;
February 7, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729
RECEIVED
FEB ! 3 1995
City of Rancho CucamonOa
Planning Division
RE: Masi Commerce Center Appeal - Historic Preservation
Mitigation Fee.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members;
As one of the remaining members of the Historic Preservation
Commission at the time of original mitigation conditions
adoption, I would like to go on record as opposing the
Applicant's appeal. This will mark the third attempt by the
Applicant to have this condition eliminated or reduced. The City
Council has already on previous occasion reduced the mitigation
from $25,000 to the present $10,000. In addition the City has
given the subject property considerable land use entitlement, e.
g.; commercial zoning and conditional use permits thereby
increasing the value thereon.
Furthermore I have considered the level of improvements approved
for the Site and determined that the levels are not beyond the
anticipated quality and are consistent with levels'required of
the Foothill Market Place Project.
In conclusion, I urge the City Council to deny the Applicant's
appeal.
Sincerely;
MARSHA MEEK BANKS
CI:'I:~TII~IED PU!~LIC ACCOUNTANT
RANCHO CUCAIvIONGA' CALIFORNIA 91730
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of City Council
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re:
Masi Commerce Center Appeal - Historic Preservation
Mitigation Fee
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members;
At the time of the Council's disbanding of the Historic
Preservation Commission I was serving as that Commission's
chair. I had served on the Commission since 1984.
As a Commissioner I had participated in every public hearing
regarding the Masi Commerce Center. Furthermore, I was a
member of the joint Planning/Preservation subcommittee
reviewing design of the project. Finally, I was a member of
the joint Council/Preservation subcommittee .(consisting of
Councilwoman Wright and Commissioner Preston and myself)
which examined the concept and application of historic
mitigation with regard to development in the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
I hereby oppose the Applicant's appeal of the $10,000
contribution to an historic preservation project in the City
for the following reasons:
This matter has been heard twice by the Historic
Preservation Commission and each time (September 5,
1991 and August 6, 1992) the majority of the
Commissioners agreed that the historic significance
of the property warranted not only commemoration at
the site but also reinvestment in the efforts of
historic preservation elsewhere in the City.
The City Council has previously upheld the
Commission's determination of historic site
significance (September 18, 1991)·
The City has previously granted a concession to the
Applicant reducing the Commission's recommendation
from $25,000 to $10,000 (September 18, 1991).
February 15, 1995
Page 2
A special subcommittee of Council and the Historic
Preservation Commission was convened to study the
Applicant's assertion that the $10,000 request was
being applied disproportionately. The subcommittee
studied not only this project but others as well.
The subcommittee (prior to the disbanding of the
Historic Preservation Commission) was in the process
of developing criteria by which mitigations could be
quantitatively calculated and applied, taking into
consideration such items as the size of the project,
the historic significance of the site, the historic
significance of persons associated with the site,
the length of time that the site contributed to the
City's history, etc.
Although I assume the work of this subcommittee has
not been completed or even continued, it is
important to note that the subcommittee,s opinion
was that the Masi project was undercontributing to
Historic Preservation in the context of precedent
set by such other projects as the Foothill Market
Place.
The importance of the LaFourcade family store, the Rochester
community and the City's winery/vineyard heritage have all
been thoroughly discussed and considered in this mitigation
requirement issue.
I urge the City Council to uphold the decisions which have
previously been made, to deny the Applicant's appeal and to
reinstate the original $25,000 amount.
MMB/kh
James E. Carter 989-70~?
7740 Center Ave~,rancho Cucamonga CA 91730
Ref: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 94-04 CUCAMONGA COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
Dear Council Members:
I am personally unable to attend this meeting and was
unable to attend the 1-25-95 Planning Commission hearing due
to academic scheduling. Please accept my apologies and
sincerity in the matter referenced above.
I was under the impression of several things after being
heard at the 1-11-95 Planning Commission hearing.
I had the understanding that I would be provided with the
opportunity to review the environmental assessment report
prior to any final desiccation of the Commission. When I
requested to view the report mentioned above, from the
Planning Department after 1-11-95 but prior to 1-25-95 I was
given the staff report instead. That bothered me a little
but I looked at it anyway. Enclosed in the report I was
shocked to see a pre typed approval of the request from
CCWD.
As stated above I do not have a lot of free time. I did
manage to review a copy at the city library of the City
Council Addendum slated for 2-15-95.
Clearly let me state my protest of this matter as referenced
above, and to how it has progressed to date.
Several issue are at question.
Copies of the staffs reports are more than just vague in
fact with a little research one can easeably substantiate
the alleged facts supporting or lack there of supporting the
above mentioned reference matter.
One item addressed slightly in the staff report of 2-15-95
in regards to environmental assessment. There is no mention
of the traffic that will be produced. As reported later in
this report no analysis have been completed nor do I see any
proof of such analysis being implemented in part as of this
date.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS indicate the amendment is consistent with
the IASP, and that such amendment would not be detrimental
to the adjacent properties. Let me remind every one
concerned that there is already a car wash, emergency
response facility, flood control vehicles and a huge volume
of commuters that use Center Ave. as a short cut to avoid
the corner at Foothill and Haven.
I believe the traffic that travel's on Foothill in combined
direction exceeds 80,000 and Haven exceeds 50,000 trips per
day. I would also be inclined to think that a portion of
them use Center ~'~.. and if that inc!iD~7~tr[on is
apprehensible tt,el! ~ l.~rcent!fge of thai:, tI:affic could be
computed. Lets :~ay that ofliy one percex~ of the traffic
mentioned above (which could be and in my opinion is far
greater)applied Than with out even added the CCWD traffic
the number would be 1300 trips a day. I don't Fmow how many
of the council members have 1300 vehicles passing their
homes on a daily bases but I would be willing to say not
many if at all any.
As you can see I could go on and on about this and I do have
many other questionable references to the staff reports that
seem to be relied on as sole support to the recommendations
and approval of those recommendation's. It is apparent to me
that little, if any, weight of the public will have an
affect on local descissions made by public appointed
leaders.
In fact if that weight of the people was a contributing
factor than I would at least think that some precautionary
measures would apply. Like the traffic survey I was given
the impression, would be completed to substantiate the
staffs report in reference to FACT FOR FINDINGS. If they
need help in finding or defining those facts as stated above
it only took a few minutes to verify some of the supporting
evidence that is alleged by the staffs report and the formal
request for the above mentioned amendment submitted by CCWD.
I did not write this letter to offend anyone at all but to
simply open their eyes to my view point and to what's at
stake for me and my family. We have resided at this address
since 1984 and have yet to see anything positive happen to
the area since moving here. I pay for equestrian facilities
when I don't or can not own a horse, I pay taxes for
maintenance and improvements to the streets and when
resurfacing of the streets in my subdivision is performed
mine is not, but I still have the heavy traffic. When the
rains wash the dirt from the flood control down into the
street I or my wife has to request someone to send a sweeper
out other wise it is weeks before it is cleaned up again
along comes the traffic and up goes the dirt.
I probably sound like I'm rattling on and on but due to my
schedule I do not have time to proof read this letter so
please forgive me for any mistakes and I am sorry if I
offended anyone but I have a great concern in this matter
and I don't wish to allow it to blow right by.
THANK YOU FOR'READING THIS
DATE:
TO:.
FROM:
SUBJECt':
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 15, 1995
Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
Duane A. Baker, Assistant to the City Manager
PROGRAMS USED BY CITIES AND INTERESTED PARTIES IN OFFERING
AND MAINTAINING A REWARD PROGRAM
The City Council asked the staff to look at programs that offer rewards for
information leading to the apprehension of criminals. WeTip is the program
that is currently in use by Rancho Cucamonga.
W~. TIP
In the City Councirs discussion of this issue it will be important to know first
what program is currently available to the City. Nearly 100 cities, along with
Rancho Cucamonga are members of WeTip. WeTip is a non-profit group that
started in 1972 in the Inland Empire as an anonymous hotline to turn in drug
pushers. Since that time, WeTip has expanded its efforts nation wide to provide
toll free anonymous "tip" lines and rewards to help law enforcement and other
public safety agencies solve crimes. This toll free "tip" line is available to our
City and all tips are passed on to the appropriate law enforcement agency.
WcTip also provides rewards of up to $1,000 for information that leads to the
arrest and conviction of criminals. In addition, WeTip has worked with the
City in the past to develop special programs to address specific needs such as
graffiti. Another program offered by WeTip is their Extraordinary Reward
Program. This program is a resource that allows for a large reward to be
offered on a specific crime. The money for the reward is raised by interested
panics and WeTip provides its "tip" line and also publicizes the reward with
posters and other media coverage. We Tip works directly with the lead
investigator on the specific case to insure that all tips are funnelled to the
right person.
CRIMF. STOPPERS
A program utilized in Upland and Ontario is Crime Stoppers. This program is
run completely by community volunteers. In cooperation with the local police
department, a telephone line is established at the police station to receive tips
24 hours a day. The tips received are anonymous to help encourage people to
provide information. All rewards given by Crime Stoppers are determined by
their own board of directors, which is made up of community volunteers, and
these rewards can go up to $1,000. In addition, Crime Stoppers also has annual
fund raising and friend raising events to raise awareness and to raise money
for the reward fund. Crime Stoppers also works with local police in
REWARD PROGRAMS
February 15, 1995
Page 2
highlighting a crime of the week to be publicized. This publicity helps raise
awareness on a specific crime and also makes people aware that Crime
Stoppers is there to take information on any crime. The Crime Stoppers group
feel that their strength lies in the community involvement needed to make a
volunteer operation like theirs work.
CASE SPECIHC REWARDS
In some communities, a reward will be put up by concerned community and
business leaders in response to a specific crime. Normally, an account is
opened at a local bank and donations are received from concerned individuals
and businesses. Communities where this occurs normally don't have a Crime
Stoppers, WeTip or similar organization to handle the reward and the
information. Tips in these cases normally go straight to the police department.
These rewards are one time only and are tied to a specific case and are not
associated with any sustained reward or crime prevention program.
SUMMARY
Most communities rely on outside non-profit organizations and individuals,
such as WeTip and Crime Stoppers, to provide for rewards while some
communities react only to specific cases. In all cases, the goal is to bring a
criminal to justice through participation with a program that continually
provides information to law enforcement and that has an established
mechanism for accepting anonymous tips and paying out rewards.
The City currently belongs to WeTip which accepts information and offers
rewards of up to $1,000. The City has had an ongoing relationship with WeTip
and feels comfortable in supporting an already excellent crime deterrent
program.
Respectfully Submitted,
Duane A. Baker
Assistant to the City Manager
/dab
Don C l~aver,
Dons C. Buchman
Ottk~rs
Chai~l ~ff the ~d
F~I Vice C~
~cond Vice Ch~m
D~o~
~crct~'
l~e MueHer
Don ~1~
~nf~ .~e~,
G~ ~
~s D~ccio
~H~
~' ~ich
~ St~ Makers, ~nt
Debn
,~,
Dick IDndon
Ma~ M~ets, 1~,, ~co~
W K "Bill" Ma~on~
B~ta Mat~cws
~2~ S't M~et. los ~nge~
,~ PI~
~ ~ GnK~. Zos Angeles
Jcm' ~ton
Michael ~ove~o
M~c Read
~ly
Mike ~lcm
Michael We~
California Grocers Association
SERVING THE FOOD INDUSTRY OF CALIFORNIA SINCE 1898
February 14, 1995
Sacramento Office:
906 G Street, Suite 700
Sacramento, CA 95814
Tel: (916) a,483545
Fax: (916) 448-2793
Southern C_,alffornla Office:
One World Trade Center
Suite 480
Long Beach, CA 90831-O480
Tel: (310) 432-8610
Fax: (310) 432-7931
The Honorable William Alexander
Mayor, City of Rancho Cucamonga
City Hall
10500 Civic Center
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mayor Alexander:
Thank you for taking the time to meet with us to discuss the proposed
Convenience Store Ordinance. As discussed, I have enclosed copies of our
Neighborhood Outreach Program. It is our hope that the City would want to
participate in this program.
If you have any further thoughts or ideas, please call me at 310/432-8610.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
C/~IA~N
BETH BEEMAN
Vice President
Local Government
Enclosures
NEIGHBORHOOD
OUTREACH
PROGRAM
STORE
I I
A RESPONSIBI,E RETAIIF~R
CAIJFORNIA ASSN. OF NEIGHBORHOOD STORF~
PARTICIPANT
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
TITLE
PAGE
®
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
THE PROGRAM
PRE-QUALIHCATION CHECKLIST
STANDARDS OF OPERATION
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
CRIME AWARENESS PROGRAM
STORE AND PROPERTY BEAUTIHCATION
PROGRAM SIGNAGE
PUBLIC & COMMUNITY RELATIONS
PROGRAM ORDER FORM
1-3
4-5
6-8
9 - 34
35 - 39
40 - 45
46 - 48
49 - 56
57 - 59
60
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
THE PROGRAM
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STORES
COPYRIGHTED 1991
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
SECTION 1. THE PROGRAM
This program has been designed to have, as its goal, an outreach and community
relations program. This program would have a number of components, which we will
discuss. The program would be available to any convenience and small store operator who is
currently a member of the California Association of Neighborhood Stores ("CANS"), pays a
nominal fee and pledges to abide by the standards set forth by the program. With
participation in the program, each store would receive a program kit and decal to display
prominently in the store, which would signify participation in the program, and serve as a
"quality seal" that would inform customers the operators of the store displaying the decal are
concerned and active members of the community.
An operational policy, which embodies the high standards of operation a participant is
expected to adhere to, must be signed by each store in the program.
A list of all program participants would be sent to the appropriate state and local law
enforcement agencies, community groups and the media. Each year of participation, the list
will be updated and reviewed for renewal by the CANS Board. New decals will be issued to
those renewed in the program. The decals will state the year of active participation each
year, so that active and current participants are easily identified.
CANS will publicize the activities of the program members in both the media and its
own publication, "California Grocer." Each month, a program participant who has done an
outstanding job in the community will be recognized and publicized, and at the end of the
year, a store will be selected as "Neighborhood Store of the Year." The recipient of this
award, along with the local law enforcement agency or appropriate community group, will be
honored at the Association's Annual Convention, in addition to being widely publicized.
As part of the program application process, each participant will complete a pre-
qualification survey, including a list of current community activities, crime prevention
programs, employee training, etc., in which the store is involved. These activities will be
publicized as well, in order to get immediate media and community attention for the store's
efforts. In all cases, when we publicize a store's activities, not only will the media be
notified, but appropriate community, city, county and state public agencies will be informed.
1
THE PROGRAM KIT
Each participant in the program will receive a program kit. The cost of the kit would
be covered b.y the program fee. Included in the kit will be:
DECAL: The decal would be static, that is, visible on both sides of the glass
to which it is adhered.
2. OPERATIONAL POLICY: Operational Policy included.
SALES CLERK TRAINING CHECK LIST/CONTRACT: Sales clerk
training check list and contract regarding sales of alcohol and cigarettes to
minors. This lraining program would provide the operator with helpful
suggestions for training sales personnel in the regulations affecting cigarette
and alcohol sales. Each clerk would be given a "contract" to sign in which
they pledge to be diligent in checking ID, and view "Support the Law" (7-
minute video tape). These documents could also be made available to the
media and community leaders to prove that operators are making a sincere
effort in enforcing these regulations.
CRIME AWARENESS TRAINING GUIDE: A crime awareness training
guide for employees, which would include: Crime awareness and crime
reporting tips for sales clerks. Landscaping and parking lot suggestions and
standards for crime awareness, such as proper lighting fixtures and wattage, as
determined by local building codes and law enforcement experts. In-store
crime awareness prevention methods, such as drop-in safe suggestions, how to
identify a criminal, how to report a crime, etc. Law enforcement liaison
suggestions. Community crime watch programs.
BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM: Beautification program suggestions,
including: How to minimize litter, landscaping and beautification suggestions,
and recycling programs.
KIDS ID PROGRAM: Neighborhood children could be fingerprinted, ID, or
video taped for future reference. This program works in part with local police
departments and community groups.
,
COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT: If you expect to do business in a
community and be successful, you must get to know your community. The
Neighborhood Outreach Program tells you how to get involved -- and be
successful at it. It lists community activities you can sponsor and events in
which you can participate (i.e., attend city council meetings, bring coffee and
doughnuts).
MEDIA RELATIONS: Make the media work for you. This program
describes how to contact the media, how to respond to the media and how to
excel with the media.
TOLL FREE HOTLINE: An 800-number has been installed (1-800-794-
3545) for use by consumers, program participants, community leaders and the
like. This hotline will serve as a clearing house for program problems,
suggestions, reports, etc. The hotline would be manned by Association
employees, who will be trained in the issues facing convenience and small
stores. Calls would be immediately referred to the "experts" in each area of
COnCelTi.
SUMMATION
The overall goal of the program is to educate our member stores in communication
versus confrontation. We want to be active and respected members of the community. We
want the community to come to us with positive messages and activities -- not negative
regulations and restrictions. We firmly believe that such a program will go a long way in
attaining its goal.
3
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
PRE-QUALIFICATION
CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STORES
COPYRIGHTED 1991
,
,
,
,
,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
SECTION 2. PRE-QUALIFICATION CHECKLIST
Store Name
Parking Lm - No potholes, oil/grease build-up,
free of debris/trash.
Gas Pump Area - No oil/grease build-up, prow
signs posted, good housekeeping.
Sidewalks - Free of cracks, abnormal wawx, no
litter, highlighting main~ned.
Entrance Doors/Exits - Operating properly, not
blocked by stock, proper signs.
Lighting (Interior/Exterior) - Adequate, aJl bulbs
working.
Floor Condition - Free of spills, no water, no
holes, no missing tiles.
Merchandise Display - Neatly displayed, no
unstable stacking.
Machine Exposures - No missing panels on
coolers, no broken display sheives~
Electricial Exposures - Service panels not
blocked, no missing cover plates, no improper
use of extension cords.
Fire Extinguishers - Properly mounted and
readily accessible, properly charged.
Housekeeping (Interior) - Aisles free of debris,
no liner, stock area clean. Dell area clean.
Housekeeping (Exterior) - No litter, no debris
around building, no graf~ti on walls, front,
sides, rear.
Cash Control - Proper level in register, deposit
secure, safe locked. Drops made.
Trash Receptacles - Properly covered and
emptied regularly. Exterior.
Are the windows closest to the register clear of
signage?
Do you have any neon signs advertising
products in your front windows?
Manager's Name ]
Satisfac- Not Satis-
tory factory
Date
Corrective Action
Taken
I
Satisfac- Not Satis- Corrective Action
tory factory Taken
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
Do your window signs look neat and ordc~y?
Can your pay phones be changed to outgoing
calls only.'?
Do your employees currently use a training
manual?
Have your employees been trained in alcoholic
beverage sales and signed ABC
acknowledgment?
Have your employees been trained in tobacco
sales?
Have your employees been trained in crime
deterrence?
Do you presently have any alcoholic beverage or
tobacco age signs posted in your store?
Do you presently have a central alarm system?
Do you presently have a time lock drop safe?
Do you presently have surveillance cameras?
List current community programs your store is involved in:
Are you currently a member of the California Grocers Association or the California Association of
Neighborhood Stores? c~ Yes ~3 No
How many stores do you have? What is the square footage of your stores (approx.)? __
Who will be the contact person for this program?
Contact person's telephone number: (__
Store Name
Address
City
Owner Signature
Representative Signature
.) FAX number: ( )
State Zip
Date
Date
5
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
STANDARDS OF
OPERATIONS
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STORES
COPYRIGHTED 1991
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
SECTION 3. OPERATIONAL POLICY
As a member of the California Association of Neighborhood Stores (CANS) and
participant in the Neighborhood Outreach Program, the undersigned agrees to strictly adhere
and take all reasonable action necessary to ensure compliance with these standards.
The Neighborhood Outreach Program member decal must be placed on the
front door in direct view of customers entering the store.
Retailers must use every reasonable means to'eliminate, loitering on store
property, including parking lots, post "No Loitering" signs, and work closely
with local law enforcement.
Retailers must keep all store property, parking lots and any adjacent property
clean and free of litter.
Parking lot must have adequate lighting according to building code standards,
and lights must be replaced as needed.
Employees must be trained to pass the Neighborhood Outreach Program test
provided, or equivalent company provided tests, so they fully understand and
can enforce state laws and regulations regarding the sale of alcohol and
tobacco. Store must utilize the in-store decals provided by the Neighborhood
Outreach Program (or equivalent company provided decals) regarding alcohol
and tobacco sales to minors.
Employees must be trained in crime awareness techniques, and provided with
the materials necessary for crime awareness..
Strictly prohibit the use or sale of illegal substances on store property,
including parking lots. To discourage sales or use of narcotics on store
property, all outside pay telephones should be switched by the telephone
company to accommodate outgoing calls only. Developing a good relationship
with neighborhood law enforcement can help control this problem.
Not more than one-third (1/3) of the front windows can be covered with
signage. Windows near the sales counter and enu'ance doors must remain clear
of signage. For security purposes, a clear view of the store should be visible
from the street and parking lot. In order to improve community relations and
the appearance of your store, beer and tobacco product signs should not be
over used, so that your customers and the community do not have the
6
11.
12.
13.
impression that you are only interested in selling beer and tobacco products.
No neon signs advertising products can be placed in windows or doors.
Retailers must have graf~ti removed from building within 24 hours.
Display all federal, state, county and city signs that are required by law. They
are listed in Section 10, Program Signage Section of this manual.
All banners hung outside the store should be rotated or changed and cleaned
as indicated below. The recommendations are as follows:
Lottery Banners - Change as necessary
Grand Openings - Change within 30 days
New Management - Change within 30 days
Pennants - Change every 30 days
No single cigarette sales are permitted in the State of California.
Maintain a close working relationship with local law enforcement agencies and
local community organizations.
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL 1-800-794-3545
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE SALES
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STORES
COPYRIGHTED 1991
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
SECTION 4. INTRODUCTION
This section contains important information you need to know and understand
regarding the sale of alcoholic beverages. (Be sure to have the point of sale counter display
visible at all times.)
You must understand that a store could easily lose its license if even one employee
does not comply with the laws regarding alcoholic beverages.
In addition, any employee who breaks these laws can be charged with a misdemeanor
and fined, plus be required to perform at least 24 hours (and as high as 32 hours) of
community service.
We understand how difficult it is to "guess" a customer's age. Therefore, if a
customer purchasing any alcoholic beverage does not look at least 25 years old, ask him/her
politely to provide identification to protect yourself and the store from breaking the law.
It is very important to remain calm when asking a person for identification, so you can
make sure it is a valid ID and has not been altered in any way.
A valid ID must be issued by a governmental agency and should have most or all of
the following information thereon:
· The person's picture
· Current description, including:
Date of Birth
Weight
Height
Sex
Color of Eyes
Color of Hair
· Signature of the person
· ID must be currently valid
You must be alert at all times when working behind the sales counter and observe
each customer -- pay attention to what that customer is purchasing as the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control (ABC) does not like to hear excuses (such as):
· Sorry, I'm a brand new employee.
Sorry, I was so busy at the time, I didn't even look up to see who I was
waiting. on.
· I thought he/she was 21 years old.
· Oh, I've seen him/her purchase alcoholic beverages elsewhere.
If you have the slightest doubt in your mind that the customer isn't at least 25 years
old, you must ask for an ID. Then you must be 100% satisfied that the customer is, in fact,
at least 21 years old. If you are not 100% sure, you must refuse to sell the alcoholic
beverage.
Another reason you must be alert and know whom you are waiting on is that you
cannot sell alcoholic beverages to anyone who is obviously intoxicated.
It is very important you observe the customer to see if he/she is staggering, has
alcoholic breath, dilated pupils, slurred speech, poor muscular coordination or appears as
though they don't know where they are.
It is very important that you handle this as politely as you can, so you do not insult
them. (Refer to the special section, Section 4, in this booklet on handling an intoxicated
customer.)
Most important of all, you must understand that you could be held personally liable if
a person is hun or killed in any accident due to your selling the alcoholic beverages.
SALES TO MINORS
We swongly suggest that you log every customer whom you ask for an ID in the "ID
Log Book." (See Appendix. Photocopy, if additional forms are needed.) You must log a
person even if they are in the Log Book already (by another clerk). You cannot accept the
fact that the customer is at least 21 years old because they have been checked by another
clerk.
The law states that if you do not feel that the person is of age, you must ask for
identification before you make the sale. The ABC, or any law enforcement agency, will not
accept the fact that the person was checked last week by "John Doe and he sold it -- so I
assumed the customer was at least 21."
Remember, you are totally responsible for all sales made while you are on duty. You
don't want the following to happen:
1. Be charged with a misdemeanor and have a "Record."
2. Have a costly fine.
3. Perform 24 to 32 hours of community service.
4. Know someone was killed or crippled due to your negligence.
CRACKING DOWN ON ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES TO MINORS
California retailers are being sued in civil court for allegediy selling alcoholic
beverages to minors.
The suits filed against convenience and liquor store Owners could result in substantial
fines and permanent injunctions. County District Attorneys are using civil suits because they
are faster and more effective than filing criminal charges.
By filing a civil suit, the District Attorney can sue the store owner, who could be held
responsible for an employee's actions in lieu of suing only the clerk.
Cases of liquor sales to minors have been handled in the criminal courts in the past,
with misdemeanor charges typically bringing suspended sentences and fines of $50 to $100
for the clerks involved.
In the current cases, retailers could be fined as much as $2,500, and be subject to
permanent injunctions. Repeat offenders could face $6,000 fines for violating the injunction,
as well as an additional $2,500 for the offense.
l0
Besides the civil suits, the stores face State Alcoholic Beverage Control Department
(ABC) fines and possible license suspensions. Market owners could also be ordered to
reimburse ABC for its investigation costs.
According to ABC, liquor sales to minors are punishable by $300 to $1,500 fines for a
first offense,' and $750 to $6,000 fines for subsequent offenses. Amounts are geared to store
sales volumes.
1T IS THE LAW
You can NOT use the services of any person under the age of 18 years for the sale of
alcoholic beverages, unless the person is UNDER CONTINUOUS SUPERVISION of a
person 21 years of age or older.
VIOLATION OF THIS LAW WILL RESULT IN REVOCATION OR SUSPENSION
OF THE LICENSE.
WHO GETS
1.
HURT?
The person [clerk] on duty who sells, furnishes, gives, or causes to be sold,
furnished or given away any alcoholic beverages will be:
(A)
(B)
(C)
Charged with a misdemeanor.
Fined.
Required to perform not less than 24 hours nor more than 32 hours of
community service.
The person who purchases and/or gives any alcoholic beverages to anyone
under the age of 21 years old will be:
(A)
(B)
(C)
Charged with a misdemeanor.
Fined.
Required to perform not less than 24 hours nor more than 32 hours of
community service.
The Licensee [store owner] is held responsible for any action regarding his
employee and can:
(A)
(B)
(C)
Have his license suspended or revoked.
Be fined [LARGE].
Be in violation of the Franchise Agreement and lose the Franchise.
HOURS DURING WHICH ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES CAN BE SOLD
Question:
May a minor who is employed at a location which sells both alcoholic
beverages and gasoline be permitted to work any shift?
Answer:
Effective January 1, 1988, it is illegal for any employee who is not 21 years of
age or older to work during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., where
gasoline and alcohol are sold.
Question: What are the lawful hours for retail sale of alcoholic beverages?
Answer:
From 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. the following day. In other words, it is unlawful
to sell alcoholic beverages between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. of the
same day. It is also unlawful for any person to knowingly purchase any
alcoholic beverages between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and 6:00 a.m.
Question:
At what time must a Licensee cease sales of alcoholic beverages when the time
changes from standard time to daylight savings time and vice versa?
Answer:
On the day that a time change occurs from Pacific Standard Time to Pacific
Daylight Time (Spring) or back again to Pacific Standard Time (Fall), 2:00
a.m. means two (2) hours after 12:00 p.m. of the day preceding the day such
change occurs.
SALES TO MINORS
Question:
With regard to the sale, service, consumption or possession of alcoholic
beverages, what is the age of majority?
Answer: The age of majority for these purposes is 21 years.
Question:
-May alcoholic beverages be furnished to a minor when the beverage is for
consumption by the parents? (This applies to cases when parents send a minor
to the store to make the purchase.)
Answer: No - This would be in violation.
Question:
Would the Liccnsee be in violation of the Alcoholic Beverage Conu'ol Act for
selling an alcoholic beverage to a person under 21 who appeared to be 21 years
of age or older?
Answer:
Yes - The Licensee is required to exercise the caution which would be shown
by a reasonable and prudent person in this circumstance?
12
Question:
Is there anything which a Licensee or an employee may do to prevent selling
to minors?
Answer:
A Licensee is authorized to demand documentary evidence of the age and
identity of any person in the licensed premises and should do so immediately
prior to the sale whenever there is the slightest doubt of the age of the
prospective patron. Proof that a Licensee was shown Bona Fide Documentary
Evidence off' (A) majority, and (B) identity, and in good faith relied upon such
evidence, establishes a good defense. The Licensee, or the Licensee's agent,
may refuse to sell or serve alcoholic beverages to any person whose majority is
questionable.
Question: What is documentary evidence of age, identity and birth date?
Answer:
To be suitable as evidence for a defense, the identification card must be issued
by a governmental agency and, in most cases, have a current picture, plus a
description of the person presenting it, which reasonably describes the person
as to: date of birth, weight, height, sex, color of eyes and hair.
Question: What other defense is available to a Licensee accused of selling to minors?
Answer: A Licensee accused of selling to minors has only three defenses:
(A) No sale or serving of alcoholic beverages was made to the minor.
(B) The person sold or served is in fact 21 years of age or older.
(c)
The person to whom the alcoholic beverage was sold or served
furnished Bona Fide Documentary Evidence of majority and identity as
required. An example would be a Motor Vehicle Operator's License or
an Identification Card issued by the Armed Forces, which the Licensee,
in good faith, carefully examined and reasonably relied upon as such
evidence.
Question:
May a minor be arrested for purchasing, consuming or possessing alcoholic
beverages?
Answer: Yes - Any one of these constitutes a misdemeanor.
Question: May a minor be employed in an "Off Sale" licensed premises?
Answer:
Any Off Sale Licensee who employs or uses the services of any person under
the age of 18 for the sale of alcoholic beverages shall be subject to suspension
or revocation of his or her license. An employee under the age of 18 years
may sell alcoholic beverages if that person is under continuous supervision of
a person 21 years of age or older.
13
Question:
Answer:
May a minor who is employed at a location which sells both alcoholic
beverages and gasoline be permitted to work any shift?
Effective January 1, 1988, it is illegal for any employee who is not 21 years of
age or older to work during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 2:00 a.m., where
gasoline and alcohol are soM.
MINORS LOITERING AROUND MARKET TRYING TO INDUCE SOMEONE TO
PURCHASE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES FOR THEM
1. Have "No Loitering" signs posted.
Advise the minors that your store does not allow loitering in or around the
market.
Make sure parking lot lights are all working and timeclocks are coming on
early enough.
4. Advise the minors that you will have to call the police if they do not move on.
If Friday and Saturday nights are the problem evenings, you may want to hire a
clerk, for a few hours (for the outside), to advise the minors of No Loitering.
After a few weeks, they will learn that your store does not tolerate this.
If you know that a person is purchasing alcoholic beverages for a minor, you
must refuse to sell it.
Go up to a customer whom you feel is purchasing alcoholic beverages for a
minor and explain to them that if, in fact, they are purchasing alcoholic
beverages for minors, you want to advise them that the police department and
ABC have been watching the market and you must advise them not to do it.
If a sale was made and you were not aware that the alcoholic beverage was for
a minor, but you do observe the alcoholic beverages being given to the minor,
you must write down a description of all persons involved, together with the
car license numbers -- then report it to the police.
NOTE: It is important that your customers know and understand that if they
buy alcoholic beverages for a minor, they can be arrested and charged with a
misdemeanor, which will result in a fine.
If you do not have results in having the minors move on and they continue harassing
your customers, you should discuss this problem with your Area Representative. It is a good
14
idea to have very mature persons working on Friday and Saturday nights, as these are the
problem nights.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND AN INTOXICATED PERSON
Question: May an obviously intoxicated person be sold alcoholic beverages?
Answer:
No - Every person who sells, furnishes, gives or causes to be sold, furnished,
or given away, any alcoholic beverages to any obviously intoxicated person is
guilty of a misdemeanor.
Question: How may a Licensee determine whether a customer is obviously intoxicated?
Answer:
A customer is obviously intoxicated when an average person can plainly
observe that the patron is intoxicated. The visual tests are staggering,
alcoholic breath, dilated pupils of the eyes, slurred speech, poor muscular
coordination, etc.
NOTE: Remember, you have the right to refuse the sale of alcoholic beverages to
anyone, even if they are 21 years old or older. You may be held personally liable
if an intoxicated customer purchased alcoholic beverages from you and then was
involved in an accident.
How would you feel if someone was killed or crippled for life -- knowing you
should not have sold alcoholic beverages to the person who caused the accident?
HOW TO HANDLE AN INTOXICATED CUSTOMER
DO'S
1. Be very polite at all times.
Tell the customer you are sorry, but you are unable to sell any more alcoholic
beverages today to him/her.
If you know the customer, you can say "(Name), I'm sorry, but I can't sell you
any more beer/wine/liquor today."
"(Name), we value you as a customer, and I cannot sell this (product) to you
today."
5. "You're driving, and I'm sorry 1 cannot sell this to you today."
15
10.
11.
12.
13.
DON'T
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
"For your own best interest, it is best that I do not sell you any more alcoholic
beverages today."
"I am not allowed to sell any more alcoholic beverages to you today, but rll be
happy to give you a free cup of coffee."
Explain to the customer that there is a big crackdown on drinking and driving.
Ask the customer if you could please call a cab or a friend to drive him/her
home.
Tell the customer it is your opinion that he/she does not need any more
alcoholic beverages today.
Talk to the customer alone, if you can, and explain that you care about
him/her, and you can't sell any alcoholic beverages to them.
Call for help if the need is there (police, wife, husband or friend).
Remember to always be as polite as possible.
Do not start a shouting match.
Do not tell the customer he/she is drunk.
Do not tell the customer he/she is intoxicated.
Do not argue with the customer.
Do not give in to the customer and sell the alcoholic beverages.
Do not talk loudly to the customer -- this will upset him/her.
Do not laugh at the customer about the way he/she may be acting.
Do not push or shove the customer out of the way.
Do not make threats to the customer -- it could start a fight or argument.
Do not make the customer feel that he/she is drunk in front of or around other
customers who may be in the market
Do not allow customer to drive (if possible) -- the last resort may be for you to
call the police.
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL ACT
Question: What are the powers of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control?
Answer:
The ABC has the exclusive power, in accordance with the laws enacted, to
license and regulate the manufacture, importation and sale of alcoholic
beverages in this state. It also has the power, for good cause, to deny,
suspend, or revoke any specific Alcoholic Beverage License.
Question: What is a liquor license?
Answer:
A license issued under the Act is a mere permit to do that which would
otherwise be unlawful. Such a license is not a matter of right, but is a
privilege, which can be suspended or revoked by admu'nistrative action because
of violation of the Act or ABC rule.
Question: What type Alcoholic Beverage License is issued to our store?
Answer:
Off Sale Beer & Wine (Type 20) - Authorizes the sale of all types of beer, wine
and malt beverages for consumption off the premises in original, sealed
containers.
Off Sale - General (Type 21) - Authorizes the sale of all types of alcoholic
beverages, including hard liquor, for consumption off the premises in original,
sealed containers.
Question: Can any person obtain an Alcoholic Beverage License?
Answer:
The ABC may refuse to issue a license to any person who violated the Act, has
a disqualifying criminal record, or is otherwise disqualified.
NOTE: NO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES CAN BE CONSUMED ON THE
PREMISES AT ANY TIME.
Question: Are local authorities empowered to enforce the Act?
Answer:
Yes - It is the duty of every peace officer and every district attorney in this
state to enforce the provisions of this Act.
Question:
Does the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control have a staff of employees
whose duty it is to enforce the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act?
Answer:
Yes - The ABC employs investigators who have powers as peace officers to
enforce the penal provisions of the Act.
Question:
Do ABC investigators and local peace officers have the right to visit and
inspect licensed premises without a search warrant?
AHswer:
Yes - In addition, California State Police and Peace Officers of the Department
of Parks and Recreation are authorized to visit and inspect licensed premises
located on state property.
Question: Are there any requirements with regard to interior lighting of retail premises?
Answer:
Yes - The rule requires that there shall be sufficient interior light in the retail
premises to make easily discernible the appearance and conduct of all persons
on the premises. This is to assist in enforcement insofar as minors and
intoxicated persons are concerned, and to aid the Licensee in this respect.
Question: What is a disorderly house?
Answer:
It is a premises which causes a disturbance of the neighborhood or is
maintained for purposes which are injurious to public morals, health,
convenience, or safety. Any Licensee, or employee of any Licensee, who keeps
or permits such a disorderly house is guilty of a misdemeanor, and the
Licensee is subject to disciplinary action.
Question:
If a Licensee violates the Pure Food and Drug Laws [Health and Safety Code],
may his license be suspended or revoked?
Answer:
Yes - A violation of any penal provisions of California law prohibiting or
regulating the sale, exposing for sale, use, possession, giving away,
adulteration, dilution, misbranding, or mislabeling of alcoholic beverages is
grounds for suspension or revocation of licenses.
Question:
When a license certificate is lost or destroyed, how may the Licensee obtain a
replacement?
Answer:
· Application must be made to the ABC for a replacement license, and a fee of
$550 paid for each one.
Question: May the ABC deny the renewal of an existing license?
Answer:
Yes - If the Licensee has not paid an annual license fee. Otherwise, every
license now in effect [other than temporary retail permits and special daily
licenses] is renewable, unless such license has been revoked after a Hearing on
an accusation.
18
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
When must licenses be renewed?
Off Sale Licenses should be renewed annually on or before June 30. After
June 30, and on or before August 15, the license may be renewed upon the
payment of the annual fee, plus a penalty. The penalty fee is equal to the
annual fee or $50, whichever is the lesser. If the license is not renewed by
August 15, it is automatically revoked.
Where may alcoholic beverages be stored when there is no room for them on
the licensed premises?
The ABC's approval is necessary before placing the distilled spirits in storage
in a private warehouse. Tax paid beer and wine may be stored anywhere
legally; however, this store does not allow any merchandise to be stored off the
premises.
May certain conditions be placed upon the exercise of a license?
Yes - The ABC, at the request of the applicant or Licensee, may restrict the
hours of sale, advertising, entertainment, or any condition that appears to
alleviate objections to the premises operation. Such conditions have been
imposed restricting licensed operations in the vicinity of churches, schools and
residential areas. Additionally, conditions relating to the personal
qualifications of the applicant or Licensee may be endorsed upon the license.
How long does it normally take for the issuance or transfer of a license?
Most investigations take approximately 45-50 days, and by law, the license can
not be issued for a minimum of thirty (30) days. Circumstances often result in
a longer waiting period; therefore, before final approval and issuance of a
license, you are cautioned regarding extensive financial commitments, plans for
grand openings, etc.
Pending transfer of the license, may the intended u'ansferee operate the licensed
business?
The transferee may operate the licensed premises during the transfer period if
a 60-day retail permit has been obtained. To qualify for this temporary permit,
the premises must be currently licensed and have been operating within the
past thirty (30) days prior to application, and no disciplinary action is pending
against the transferor.
May any person protest the issuance of a license?
Yes - By filing the protest at any office of the ABC. Like an accusation, a
protest must be verified, unless filed by a Public Officer.
19
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
What are the usual grounds of protest?
That the applicant has violated the Alcoholic Beverage Control Act or has been
convicted of a felony or is otherwise of unfit moral character, or has a
disqualifying police record; that the applicant is not the true owner of the
business; that the premises operation will disturb the peace and quiet of a
resident of the area, create a law enforcement problem, aggravate an existing
law enforcement problem, or adversely affect the operation of a consideration
point, such as a church, school or public playground.
Must a protest from a City Council or Board of Supervisors or local public
official state legal Founds for denying an application?
Yes - The ABC policy is one of cooperating fully with local officials, but the
law requires legal reasons for requesting a denial.
When may protests be made?
At any time within thirty (30) days from the first date of the posting at such
premises of the notice of application to sell alcoholic beverages or notice of
application for ownership change.
If a proper protest is made for the issuance of a license, will a hearing be held
and, if so, where?
Ordinarily, a protest hearing will be heM. It will be held in the county seat of
the county in which the premises or Licensee is located. However, if an
official protest is made by the governing body of a city, the hearing shall be
held within such city.
May retail licensees give away samples of alcoholic beverages?
No.
Under what circumstances may wholesalers give away samples of the alcoholic
beverages they distribute to retail licensees?
If the retailer has not purchased the product BEFORE, and the samples do not
exceed the following size:
· Wine - 1 quart or I liter, when bottled.
· Beer - I bottle or can opened on the premises of the Licensee.
· DisHfilled Spirits - 500 milliliters or smallest marketed size.
2O
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Is the retailer permitted to sell alcoholic beverages which have been given as
samples?
No.
Can credit tokens be given to persons purchasing alcoholic beverages, highball
glasses, etc.?
No - The giving of any kind of gift, premium, or free goods in connection with
the sale of alcoholic beverages is PROHIBITED.
If a retailer buys 100 cases of beer from a wholesaler, may any be given free?
No - The wholesaler and the retailer would both be in violation of the law
prohibiting the giving of gifts or free goods. This also applies to gifts of wine
or distilled spirits.
May a retailer give gifts in connection with the sale or advertising of
merchandise other than alcoholic beverages?
Yes - Retailers may redeem coupons of food items or give non-alcoholic
beverage gifts to charitable and civic organizations or customers, provided the
gifts are not given, directly or indirectly, in connection with the sale or
advertising of alcoholic beverages.
May a retail licensee rent space to a wholesaler for the placing or painting of
signs on window displays on or in retailers premises?
No - It is a misdemeanor for a retail licensee to accept any money or anything
of value for the privilege of placing or painting a sign or advertisement or
window display on or in the licensed premises.
May a retailer accept any payment from a wholesaler for setting up an
advertising display or performing a distribution service in connection with
distilled spirits?
No.
What is a consignment sale?
It is a sale and delivery of alcoholic beverages under an agreement whereby
title to the alcoholic beverages is retained by the seller. The Licensee
receiving the alcoholic beverages has the right, at any time before the sale, to
return them to the original seller.
21
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Are consignment sales lawful under the Act?
No - A retail licensee may not solicit or accept delivery of alcoholic beverages
on such a basis.
When may a manufacturer or wholesaler make deliveries of alcoholic
beverages to retail licensees?
Manufacturers or wholesalers may only deliver alcoholic beverages to a retail
licensee's premises between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday.
No deliveries may be made on Sunday.
May retailers who hold the same type license agree to group purchase distilled
spirits [pool buying] from a wholesaler or distiller?
Does the Act require alcoholic beverages to be "Fair Traded?"
Fair Trade in respect to sales of alcoholic beverages by retailers is no longer
a part of the state regulations, except as it relates to beer prices between
manufacturers and wholesalers?
May a wholesaler or manufacturer give a retailer a sign?
Yes - If the sign, relating to wine or distilled spirits, does not advertise the
Licensee's premises and is for interior use only.
What other restrictions are there on maintaining signs?
Barrels, kegs, cases of bottles, or other containers for alcoholic beverages may
not be displayed on sidewalks, and advertising banners must not be hung over
sidewalks.
Is a retail licensee required to close the doors of the licensed premises and not
serve alcoholic beverages during the hours that an election is being held?
No.
May the Licensee refuse an investigator from the Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control permission to examine the Licensee's books and records
pertaining to the Licensee's business?
No - Any Licensee who refuses to permit the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control, or any of its representatives, to make an inspection or an examination
of books and records for which provision is made in the Act, is guilty of a
22
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
misdemeanor. In addition, it is a misdemeanor for a Licensee to falsify or fail
to keep books and records required to be kept under the provision of the Act or
the regulations of the ABC.
How was the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control created?
The ABC was created by constitutional amendment effective January 1, 1955,
as an independent department of the executive branch of the state government.
The Board of Equalization no longer has any responsibilities in liquor control
matters, except as a taxing authority;
What is the organization structure of the Department of Alcoholic Beverage
Control?
The Director of Alcoholic Beverage Control heads the department and is
appointed by the Governor. For administrative purposes, the ABC divides the
state into two divisions, the northern division and the southern division. Each
division is divided into districts on the basis of population and geographical
need.
Can a retail licensee import alcoholic beverages from outside the state?
No - Only persons holding an importer's license are permitted to have
alcoholic beverages shipped to them into the state.
What type of identification does an ABC investigator have?
They have a plastic Identification Card, which has the investigator's picture
and states "State Peace Officer" in large black letters against an orange
background. They will also have a gold badge, which is a 7-pointed star with
blue enamel lettering.
ACCUSATIONS
Question: What is the meaning of "Accusation?"
Answer:
The word "Accusation" is used to designate what would otherwise be known as
the complaint in a civil or criminal action. It sets forth in ordinary and
concise language the acts or omissions with which the Licensee is charged.
23
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Who may make an accusation against a Licensee?
Any person - Accusations must be verified, unless filed by a public officer
acting within his official capacity, and must state facts constituting legal
grounds to suspend or revoke a license.
What is meant by saying that the accusation must be verified?
The accusation must contain a written certification or declaration by the party
making the accusation attesting the accusation to be true "Under Penalty of
Perjury," or it must be sworn to before a notary public with a statement that
either by the party's own knowledge, or information and belief, the alleged
facts are true.
What are the legal grounds which the facts, stated in an accusation, must
support?
Facts stated in an accusation must have at least one of the following grounds:
(A) The violation or the causing or the permitting of a violation of
(1)
(2)
The Act;
Any rules and regulations of the department adopted under the
provisions of the Act; or
Any other penal provisions of the laws of this state prohibiting
or regulating the sales and use, possession, giving away,
adulteration, dilution, misbranding, or mislabeling of alcoholic
beverages or intoxicating liquors.
(B) The misrepresentation of a material fact in the application.
The plea of nolo contendre, the plea, verdict or judgment of guilty to
any public offense involving moral turpitude, or to any federal law
prohibiting or regulating the sale, use, possession, etc., of alcoholic
beverages or prohibiting the refilling or reuse of distilled spirits
containers.
(D)
Failure to correct objectionable conditions within a reasonable time
after notice by a district attorney.
(E)
Any other facts which would make the continuation of the license
contrary to public welfare and morals.
24
Question: May a Licensee pay a fine in lieu of serying a license suspension?
Answer:
Yes - If the ordered period of the suspension does not exceed ttu'rty (30) days
and the ABC finds that public welfare and morals wouM not be impaired by
the substitution of a fine for the actual suspension of the licensed business, the
retail licensee may pay a sum of money equal to 20% of the estimated gross
receipts from the sale of alcoholic beverages during the period of the
suspension. Such an offer to compromise shah not be less than $470, nor more
than $6,000, except that the limits are $300 + $1,500, when no accusation filed
against a retail licensee has resulted in a final decision within the prior three
(3) years.
NOTE: NO PETITION FOR AN OFFER TO COMPROMISE SHALL BE
GRANTED FOR A SECOND OR SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF "SALES OF
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES" TO OBVIOUSLY INTOXICATED PERSONS,
WHICH OCCURS WITHIN 36 MONTHS OF THE INITIAL VIOLATION.
HANDLING BEER "RUN-OFFS"
Run-offs can usually be stopped by clerks being very alert at all times while on duty.
Be alert when two or more minors come in, then split up in the market, one staying
back by the cooler while the others come to the sales counter. They could be trying to
distract you.
If someone does, in fact, steal any alcoholic beverage from you, report it to the police
immediately, with a full description and vehicle license number, if you can obtain it.
Do not allow loitering inside or outside the market -- no exceptions.
Have enough help on duty on prime nights, such as Friday and Saturday.
25
VALID "ID's"
California driver's license.
California Identification Card looks like a driver's license and is issued by the
Department of Motor Vehicles.
Passports.
Alien Registration Cards.
VALID "ID's" MUST BE ISSUED BY A GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY AND HAVE
MOST OF THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION ON THEM:
· The person's picture.
· Current description, including:
Date of birth
Weight
Height
Sex
Color of eyes
Color of hair
Signature
ID must be currently valid
DO NOT ACCEPT A CALIFORNIA DRIVER'S LICENSE OR ID CARD, WHICH
HAS BEEN MUTILATED OR LAMINATED
CHECKING ID'S
It is very important to ask any customer who is purchasing alcoholic beverages for
"ID" if he/she does not look at least 25 years of age. If you have any reason to believe that a
customer who wants to purchase alcoholic beverages is under the minimum age [go by looks
of a 25-year-old] requirements, you must ask for proof of age.
Only official identification issued by a governmental agency, which has a current
description of the person presenting it, may be accepted.
26
If the ID appears to have been altered or tampered with in any way, you cannot accept
it. You should be suspicious of any driver's license or ID card marked "DUPLICATE" and
must see some other form of ID before accepting it!
Verifying proper identification requires more than just a valid document. By
following the six (6) steps listed below, you can take full advantage of built-in security
features on the Califomia Driver's License and Identification Card.
Never accept a license or card in a container or laminated in plastic. It is too
hard to recognize if the license has been altered or tampered with. It also
obscures the security film on the license.
Look at the photo on the license and at the person presenting the driver's
license or ID card. Is the photo of the same person?
Does the person match the description on the license - height, weight, color of
eyes/hair, approximate age?
4. Ask the person's date of birth. Is it the same as on the license/ID card?
5. Check signatures. Do they match?
Does the document appear altered in any way? Under normal light? Under
direct light? (Flashlight?)
27
CALIFORNIA DRIVERS LICENSE
WHAT TO LOOK FOR
Callf. St~e S~al
EzDtmlan Date
~f expired, nat valid
· boc,~Tea in eaher Ic;c. atian.
idemify Customer
Hold license uO
to licJnt - lOOK 8I
DOU~ S~dGS for Ctrt
marxs and wining
or ryiDincJ QvGF numbers.
C.,alIL St=t.. S881
'iD" # far ID Log
Name of customer for ID
=6-:',, ~,~ Da of BIrth
'~"',-t Customer weicJt~t - heicjnt
Customer cotor of eyes
Hair color
C~m;~am sicjrm~um
REMEMBER:
l. HAVE CUSTOMER REMOVE LICENSE OUT OF PLASTIC HOLDER.
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION Vv~HENEVER LICENSE IS
STAMPED "DUPLICATE."
ASK CUSTOMER THEIR DATE OF BIRTH - DOES IT COMPARE WITH
LICENSE?
4. LOOK AT THE PHOTO ON LICENSE - COMPARE WITH CUSTOMER.
LOOK CLOSELY AT HEIGHT, WEIGHT, EYES AND HAIR OF
CUSTOMER - DO THEY MATCH LICENSE?
CHECK EXPIRATION DATE ABOVE PHOTO OR TO THE RIGHT OF
LICENSE NUMBER - IF EXPIRED, LICENSE IS NOT VALID·
IF SUSPICIOUS, DO NOT
MAKE THE SALE
28
CALIFORNIA IDENTIFICATION CARD
WHAT TO LOOK FOR
Callf. State ,Seal
h;tr~lon Data
it exI;ir~, not valid
· L::c. smcl in either
Idemthf Customer
Nam: Hold license up
',a ligrr[ - look a%
~3tn siclos tar
ram'Ks and wrr~ng
or Typing aver nurnz~rs.
Callf. St~e S~ai
L/c # for ID
2~1~ 2~ AUE
S~,~TO C~ fse~e Oa of Birth
~ommr color of eyes
REMEMBER:
HAVE CUSTOMER REMOVE IDENTI2HCATION CARD OUT OF PLASTIC
HOLDER.
REQUIRE ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION WHENEVER ID CARD IS
STAMPED "DUPLICATE."
ASK CUSTOMER THEIR DATE OF BIRTH - DOES IT COMPARE WITH
ID CARD?
LOOK AT THE PHOTO ON ID CARD - COMPARE W1TH CUSTOMER.
LOOK CLOSELY AT HEIGHT, WEIGHT, EYES AND HAIR OF
CUSTOMER - DO 'II-fY .,MATCH ID CARD?
CHECK EXPIRATION DATE ABOVE PHOTO OR TO THE RIGHT OF ID
CARD NIJMBER - IF EXPIRED, D CARD IS NOT VALID.
IF SUSPICIOUS, DO NOT
MAKE THE SALE
29
MAKE THE SALE
EMPLOYEE QUIZ
CIRCLE THE CORRECT ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1. Can you refuse the sale of alcoholic beverages to anyone, even though they arc 21
years old or older?
A. Yes B. No
2. You must ask for an ID if a person does not appear to be what age?
A. 18 B. 20 C. 25
3. Should you accept a temporary driver's license issued by the Department of Motor
Vehicles as a valid ID?
A. Yes B. No
4. Should you accept a driver's license stamped "Duplicate" as a valid ID, without some
other form of ID that shows date of birth?
A. Yes B. No
5. If identification has been laminated, is it valid?
A. Yes B. No
6. If identification is valid, but the date of expiration shows it has expired, can you
accept it?
A. Yes B. No
7. Should you accept an [D when it appears the description of the person presenting it is
not the same as on the ID?
A. Yes B. No
8. If the year of birth shows the person would be just 21 years old, can you sell that
person alcoholic beverages?
A. Yes B. No
3O
,
Can a minor with a note from his mother or father purchase alcoholic beverages, if the
minor is going su'alght home from the store.?
A. Yes B. No
10.
Can alcoholic beverages be consumed inside the market, if a customer is at least 21
years old and they are purchasing other items?
A. Yes B. No
11.
What is the minimum age for a person to work in the market alone and sell alcoholic
beverages?
A. 16 B. 19 C. 21 D. 25
12.
If a person is 16 years old and working the cash register, can they sell alcoholic
beverages, if they are being directly supervised by a person who is 18 years old?
A. Yes B. No
13.
If a customer has forgotten his/her driver's license and you request to see an ID,
should you sell the customer alcoholic beverages if you feel you have seen him/her
purchase it from another clerk.'?
A. Yes B. No
14.
Can you sell alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, if they promise you they
will drink it at home only?
A. Yes B. No
15.
Can local police authorities enforce the rules and regulations of the Department of
Alcoholic Beverage Control?
A. Yes B. No
16.
Does the ABC have a staff of people whose duty it is to enforce the ABC rules and
regulations?
A. Yes B. No
17.
Can you demand evidence of age from a customer who is purchasing alcoholic
beverages?
A. Yes B. No
31
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
As of today, what is the full date that a person had to be born in order to purchase
alcoholic beverages?
Month Day__ Year
What does a California ID Card look like?
A. Military 1D C. California Driver's License
B. Social Security Card D. Employer's ID
Is a California Identification Card a valid ID?
A. Yes B. No
Can a person under the age of 21 purchase alcoholic beverages if that person is
married?
A. Yes B. No
If you shine a beam of light (flashlight) at an angle on a California Driver's License or
Identification Card, what should the special film covering on either one reflect?
A. Picture of State Capitol C. State Flower
B. State Seal
Can a person who is obviously intoxicated, but is not driving a motor vehicle,
purchase alcoholic beverages?
A. Yes B. No
Can a person who is 18 years old and in the Armed Forces purchase alcoholic
beverages?
A. Yes B. No
Is it against the law to sell alcoholic beverages to a person who is at least 21 years old
to give to a minor?
A. Yes B. No
32
EMPLOYEE'S AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
I have reviewed the information in the Booklet entitled "Alcohol Beverage Sales
Employee Training Guide", and I' have asked all questions that I may have had regarding the
rules and regulations concerning the sale of alcoholic beverages.
I understand that the point-of-sale counter top displayer will always be visible for me
to read, in case problems arise.
I will not sell alcoholic beverages to any person under the age of 21 years. If the
person does not appear to be at least 25 years old, I will ask for identification. Should
there be any questions at all about the identification, I will not make the sale.
I will not sell alcoholic beverages to any individual during those hours when it is
illegal to do so (2:00 a.m. - 6:00 a.m.).
I will not knowingly sell alcoholic beverages to any adult who is at least 21 years old
for use by minors. If I think this is happening, I will not make the sale.
5. I will not sell alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated customer.
6. I will not permit the consumption of alcoholic beverages on the premises.
I understand that I must pass this test with a score of 100 percent before I can sell
alcoholic beverages.
By: Date:
(Employee's Signature)
Print Name:
By: Date:
(Signature of Training Coordinator)
This Agreement must be filled out and signed, along with the clerk affidavit, and
returned to your employee. It will be maintained in your personnel file as part of your
permanent employee record.
Test Score
(Total Possible Score - 25)
Correct Answers
Wrong Answers
33
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL (ABC) LAWS
CLERK'S AFFIDAVIT
CLERK'S PRIOR VIOLATIONS (Clerk must check one)
__ I have never been convicted of violating any law under the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Act (such as selling an alcoholic beverage to an underage or obviously
intoxicated person).
__ I have been convicted of violating a law (or laws) under the California Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act (such as selling an alcoholic beverage to an underage or
obviously intoxicated person). [If you checked this box, please explain in full what
happened. Use the space below or a separate sheet of paper, if necessary.]
DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY (Clerk must complete this secaon)
I have read and understand this Affidavit. I swear that all statements I have made in
this Affidavit are true. I swear that I signed this Affidavit, on the date stated, under
"penalty of perjury." I understand that if I did not tell the truth in this Affidavit, I
may be found guilty of the crime of lying
Signature of Clerk
Date
Name of Clerk (Printed)
Home Address
Home Telephone
Work Telephone
34
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF LICENSEE
I have reviewed the attached "Clcrk's Affidavit" with the person who signed it.
keep ~ signed copy of the "Clerk's Affidavit" at (show address where "Clerk's
Affidavit" will be kept):
I will
I understand if I do not have a signed "Clerk's Affidavit" for every person who sells
alcoholic beverages in my store, the ABC may discipline my license.
Signature of Licensee's Agent
Date
ABC License Number
NOTICE TO LICENSEE (Employer must read this section, then post sign in store)
You must post a sign in your store that warns customers about certain laws. The sign
must be placed at an entrance or at a point of sale in your store, or in any other
location in your store that is visible to your custome~;s and employees. A sign which
satisfies the requirements of Business and Professions Code §25658.4(b) is on the
following page.
35
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
TOBACCO PRODUCTS
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERS
COPYRIGHTED 1991
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
SECTION $. SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS
As responsible tobacco retailers, we have an obligation to uphold the laws of this
state. After you have reviewed the materials contained in this section and discussed it with
your supervisor, you will be asked to acknowledge that you have read and understand its
contents. Any questions you have about this material should be directed to your supervisor.
A seven (7) minute videotape, "Support the Law" has been supplied.
view it.
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Please take time to
Is the age critical?
You must determine that a customer is of legal age before selling him/her
tobacco products. The legal age for this state is 18 years old.
What if the customer looks under age?
Under no circumstances may you sell tobacco products to someone you believe
is younger than the minimum age. If you have any doubts about an
individual's age, you must ask for proper ID.
What do I look for on ID's?
If you believe the customer is under the minimum age, you must ask for proof
of age. Only ID's that show the date of birth and a photograph should be
accepted.
What is an acceptable ID?
Acceptable forms of !D for this store include:
· Driver's License
· Current Passport
· Military ID
If the individual presents any other form of ID, you must request a second form
of ID to verify the first one.
36
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
What can be used as a second ID?
The following cards cannot be used as the only form of ID for proof of age,
but can be used to verify the information:
Social Security Card
Student ID
Work ID Card (Green Card)
Can I accept copies of birth certificates for proof of age?
Do not accept copies as proof of age. These certificates generally have no
identifying photo and are easily altered.
Should I accept printed identification cards?
The person may have given false information (especially on date of birth) when
the card was issued.
Do I accept an ID if it looks altered?
No, do not accept it if it looks altered, but you must return it to the customer.
Only a police officer can keep a false ID.
How do I check an ID?
You must make the following determinations before accepting an ID as
genuine:
(1)
Check the birth year to make sure it has not been altered in any way
(erased, typed over, smudged, cut out and replaced), and be sure the
customer is of age.
(2)
Compare the photo on the license to the person. There should be a
reasonable match.
(3)
Make sure the physical characteristics, such as eye color, height, and
weight on the ID, match those of the customer.
If the 1D has been altered, what can 1 do?
You must return it to the customer. Only a law enforcement officer can take it
from a customer.
37
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
Question:
Answer:
What if the customer gets upset?
Explain to him/her that it is this company's policy to ask for ID when the
customer appears to be close to the minimum age for purchasing tobacco
products.
What if the customer remains upset?
If the customer remains upset-or becomes uncooperative, offer to let him/her
talk to the store manager or supervisor.
What if the customer cannot or will not provide ID?
Do not make the sale under any circumstances.
Can I sell tobacco products to an adult who is buying for an underage person?
You are not allowed to sell tobacco products knowingly to a legal age adult
who, in turn, furnishes the product to an underage person or resells to the
same.
What if a customer wants to purchase a SINGLE cigarette?
Explain to him/her that selling single cigarettes is against the law.
38
EMPLOYEE'S AGREEMENT OF UNDERSTANDING
I have reviewed the information contained in this section, the 7-minute "Support the Law"
videotape, and Tobacco Retailing, and have asked my supervisor any questions that I have. I
agree to the following laws and company policies on the sale of tobacco products. Circle the
correct answer, where applicable.
1. What is the legal age for purchasing tobacco products in the State of California?
old
A. Tobacco: __ years old B. Smokeless Tobacco: __ years
2. If the customer appears to be close to the minimum age, should I ask for ID?
A. Yes B. No
I will not knowingly sell tobacco products to any adult for second party usage. If I
think this is happening, I will not make the sale.
A. True B. False
If a customer does not have money for a pack of cigarettes, I can sell them a single
cigarette?
A. True B. False
I will "Support the Law."
Employee
Printed Name of Employee
Manager/Supervisor
Date
(Signature)
THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE KEPT IN THE EMPLOYEES PERSONNEL FILE.
(Please photocopy for additional copies)
39
Notice to Our Custom ers
This store wijl not sell alcoholic beverages in violation of the California Alcoholic
Beverage Control Act.
We will refuse to sell an alcoholic bever~e to any customer if we reasonably suspect
The customer is under the age of 21 years old.
The customer looks and acts intoxicated.
The request to buy alcoholic beverage is made between the hours of 2:00 a.m. and
6:00 a.m. on any day, or in violation of legally required shorter hours of sale.
(4) The customer inteands to drink the alcoholic beverage in this stare or on adjacent
property immediately outside the store.
(5) Any ohher violation of the California Alcoholic BevemSe Control Act will occur as a
result of the sale.
Special Notice to Minors
If you are under the age of 21 years and ymu buy. or try to buy, any alcoholic
beverage in this store. you may be assested and charged with a creme. If you are convicted,
you may be fined up to $1,000 and/or ordered to do up to 36 hours of commumty service.
In addition, your California Driver ~ License may be taken away or, if not yet issued,
delayed [Vehicle Code Section 13202.5].
We appreciate your cooperation-The Management
S!~¢if~d by Stole of Clifcx. m~, ABC (10/91)
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
CRIME AWARENESS
PROGRAM
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STORES
COPYRIGHTED 1991
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
SECTION 6. CRIME AWARENESS
Unfortunately, crime is a factor in every business. Whether it be robbery, or internal
theft, it will occur. You and your employees can take some actions that will protect your
property -- and yourselves.
Your first line of defense is your building Founds. Make sure your address is easily
read from the street at night. Your address numbers should be at least 5 inches high,
mounted on a high contrasting backFound. This will help police respond to an emergency
call. You can also mark your rooftop to aid helicopter patrols. Rooftop numbers should face
the street and measure 6-inches wide by 36-inches high. Your back door should have a peep-
hole, and your address should be on the back door.
Good exterior lighting is important and need not be expensive. It is recommended that
you use 1.5 foot candles of minimum maintained illumination per square foot of parking
space between dusk to one hour after sunrise. A minimum of .25 foot candles of illumination
should be provided at the surface of any walkway, alcove or passageway related to the store
during the same hours. Business owners can install lights at the roofs edge to illuminate all
possible entry areas, storage yards, parking lots, etc. Timers or photoelectric cells can be
purchased, both of which will automatically turn the lights on at dusk and off at dawn.
Many local utility companies offer a night light program through which they will
install vapor lights on a business owner's utility pole. For a small monthly fee, they will
install the light, maintain and repair it on a 24-hour basis.
Points to remember:
· Illuminate your property.
businesses.
Don't depend on street lights or other
· Shadows provide hiding places for burglars.
· Be sure your lights don't shine into the eyes of passing citizens or
police patrols.
Inspect your lights regularly. Replace broken or burned out lights
immediately.
· Protect your lights from vandals with wire or plastic covers.
· Padlock your circuit breaker boxes so that lights can't be turned off.
Trees should be trimmed up to 6-feet from the ground. Bushes should
be no higher than 2-1/2 feet tall.
4O
Mounted near the ceiling, convex mirrors are a cost effective tool that can provide
visible coverage of a large area. Keep the mirrors clean. Also, remember that shoplifters use
these mirrors too. The parking area must be visible for internal monitoring. Where windows
are not appropriate for this purpose, closed-circuit monitors may be used.
Don't waste money on dummy tv cameras to discourage robbers. Most criminals can
tell the difference. And remember, a camera must be connected to a recorder.
Do not clutter windows with signs and displays, which will block viewing from the
street.
A television set or radio playing in a back room suggests that someone else may be
present in the store, if you are alone.
Keep a minimum amount of operating cash in registers, especially in the evening. Use
a drop safe for large bills, and post signs stating, "Thank you for paying with the smallest bill
possible." "No large bills after 9:00 p.m. will be accepted." "Make that drop." "Time-lock
safe -- clerk cannot open." (Signs are included in Program Kit.)
Making bank deposits can be risky. Follow these guidelines for safety:
· Always vary your delivery time.
Vary the route you take to the bank, and watch for suspicious
perSOilS.
Disguise your money pouch. Place it in a standard grocery bag or
shopping bag.
If suspicious persons are loitering around your place of business, notify the police. Be
particularly alert at opening and closing times.
IF A CRIME OCCURS
No matter how security conscious you are, a crime may occur in your store. You and
your employees should be prepared for such an eventuality. Training your employees in
crime preparedness is essential. It will help protect them and your property from danger.
Your local law enforcement agency offers training and training materials free of charge.
If you are held up, remain calm. Robbers are usually excited and may be provoked
easily, and are probably under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
Avoid defending yourself with a firearm when you are already facing a weapon. The
odds would be against you.
Take a good look at the sUspect(s). Notice any details which would aid you in
describing them and their mannerisms. When determining age, height, weight and
appearance, make comparisons between them and people you know, use door height decals.
Memorize peculiarities such as tattoos, scars, and prominent physical featms. Look for
habits, speech patterns and type of clothing worn. Be able to describe size, type and color of
guns or other weapons used. Watch to see if anything is touched, so you can preserve it for
evidence. Observe the direction in which the suspects left, describe any vehicles used, and
write down the license number.
After the robbers leave, notify the police immediately. Tell them you have been held
up and be prepared to report the location of the robbery, a description of the suspect(s),
license number of any vehicles used, and the direction they took. Call the police whether you
have a hold-up alarm or not. Call 911. Be aware that if you do have a hold-up alarm, your
phone lines may be tied up until that alarm ceases.
Don't much anything yourself.
items the suspects may have touched.
have been.
Lock the doors until the police arrive. Preserve any
Prevent anyone from going into areas the robbers may
Direct your employees not to discuss the crime among themselves or with other
witnesses until they have been interviewed by the police. Ask any customers who were in the
store to remain until the police arrive. If there is a delay, suggest they fill out suspect ID
forms, while the information is still fresh in their memories. (Sample at end of this section.)
When the police arrive, give them all the filled out suspect ID forms, answer all their
questions, and tell them only what you saw or know. If an estimate is necessary to supply an
answer, tell them you are estimating.
Cooperate with law enforcement officers by making yourself available for interviews,
don't be reluctant to identify the right suspects, and testify in court, if necessary.
IN THE EVENT OF AN EMERGENCY:
CALL 911
Most law enforcement agencies will provide you with training
and training materials in crime prevention. Contact your
local agency for details.
42
SUGGESTED SECURITY CHECKLIST
Do the police on patrol visit the store?
Are all outside lights turned on at
night?
Are all outside lights working
properly?
Is the cash register visible from the
outside?
Could the sides of the store be used as
a hiding place?
Are there any ladders or crates that an
intruder could use to reach the roof or
a window?
Are the windows covered by signs,
displays, or other materials thai block
necessary visibility?
Is all crime awareness signage in
place?
Are emergency phone numbers posted
and up-to-date?
Is a Robber Identification form
available to clerks?
Are trash or boxes kept away from the
fence.so they cannot be used to climb
the fence?
Is Crime Awareness training in effect
for employees prior to working in the
store?
Are there large bills visible in the
register?.
Does the clerk drop large bills as soon
as possible?
Is trash restricted to a dumpster?
If premises are fenced, are any repairs
needed?
Are there any signs of people sleeping
or drinking near the building?
Do employees or vendors leave by
unauthorized exits?
Are exits properly marked?
Are all locks working properly?
Is back door locked? (Do not violate
fire codes.)
Are displays blocking the vision of
cashiers to observe customers?
Do ceiling and display lights block
visibility?
Do you know who has keys to the
store?
If you have seasonal items (like
firewood), are they blocking windows?
Does the safe work properly?
Does the employee have access to the
safe key?
Do the employees on duty carry money
on them personally?
Is there any money in the store besides
the cash register and safe?
43
SUSPECT IDENTIFICATION FORM
NOTIFY POLICE AND FILL IN THE BLANKS. GIVE THE TOP COPY TO THE
FIRST POLICE OFFICER ON THE SCENE. RETAIN THE SECOND COPY FOR
STORE MANAGEMENT. (Photocopy and keep under counter.)
SEX IACZ AGE HiIGHT W~IGHT
TA'rrOOS
HAT
TIE
COAT
COMPLEXION JEWtLIY BELT BUCICLE FACIAL HAIR
AIJI'OMOBILE DESCRIPTION
COMMON WT. APON TYPES
LDNG IAIIRtL RI'VOLV~i 5NUII NO~t' ItVOLVIr. I
LICL'NSE NIj'MBEI MAKI COLOR
SAWlI~-OFIrIIIFIIS
BOLT-ACT]ON
LEY13t
I, ARGK AUTOMATIC
SMALL AUTOMATIC
SAWeD-OFT SHOTGUNS
PUMP
AUTOMATIC
SlNGt. E SHOT
STAY ON THE PHONE:
WIIAT lOll~tgS) SAID
DON'T HANG UP!
44
I I I I I I I
I I I I I I I
I I I
I I
I
I I I
I I I I
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
STORE AND PROPERTY
BEAUTIFICATION
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STORES
COPYRIGHTED 1991
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
SECTION 7. LANDSCAPNG AND BEAUTIFICATION
The first thing a customer or a member of your community sees is your property.
First impressions can be lasting; so make sure yours is a good one. Follow these simple tips,
and your property will be an asset to the neighborhood.
· Keep parking lots clean and litter free. Hire a neighborhood kid or have an
employee regularly pick up customer's trash daily in the parking lot and any
adjacent property. Keep your parking lot striping freshly painted.
· Place trash receptacles inside and outside your store - empty daily.
· Paint over any graffiti immediately.
· Make sure your lights and light bulbs are in working order.
· Keep your windows clean and free of clutter and obtrusive signage.
· Landscape with trees and/or shrubs to beautify your area. Trees should be
trimmed up to 6 feet from the ground and bushes should be no higher than
2-1/2 feet tall.
(Use the following lanclscaping guiae to shrubs anti trees. These were especially
selected to beautify the property, yet prevent criminals from using them as a
hiding place.)
Z
z
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
PUBLIC & COMMUNITY
RELATIONS
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STORES
COPYRIGHTED 1991
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
SECTION 8. MEDIA/COMMUNITY RELATIONS
The first step in working with the media or your local community groups is to compile
a list of all publications, radio/television stations and organizations. Examples of
organizations are the local Kiwanis, Jaycees, Rotary Clubs, Community Associations, etc.
When putting together your media list, don't forget to include weekly newspapers, ethnic
publications, senior citizen papers and educational, public and cable television stations.
One of the best sources of information is your local phone book's yellow pages.
local congressional district office is a good source for information, as well as your local
library.
Your
Once you have your list together, it is important to contact the right person. At
newspapers, contact either the editor or city editor. At television and radio stations, contact
the local assignment editor.
For community groups, contact an officer of the organization. Don't forget that many
such groups have a regularly scheduled meeting. Plan to attend and meet with members of
the organization. Such contact can definitely lead to good community relations, and
oftentimes customers. Don't forget, you want to demonstrate your commitment to the
community.
Try to arrange appointments to meet with people at their convenience. Plan your visit
ahead of time and be prepared to answer questions about your business, and the role your
business plays in your community.
Occasionally, you will be asked by the media to respond to an issue, provide
information, or offer comments. Be cooperative, friendly and candid. Always make sure you
return a reporter's call, if you are unavailable for the initial contact. If you don't know the
answer to a question, don't make one up. Tell the reporter you will find out the information,
and then get back to them with an answer as quickly as possible.
It is important to answer questions knowledgeably. You might want to prepare
answers in advance for the important points you want to make. Be sure to answer questions
in one declarative sentence. Either, "yes, that's correct", or "no, I don't agree with that."
Take 10 to 15 seconds to expand on your answer. Take 5 seconds for a transition
sentence leading to what you want to say on the subject, and then another 10 to 15 seconds to
sell your idea. An example of this might be, "Yes, I believe recycling is necessary. In fact,
we have bins located at our store. We urge all our customers to recycle and protect our local
environment."
Some general rules when working with your local media are:
46
· Write or talk in everyday language.
· If you don't want a statement quoted, don't say it.
Start with the most important facts first.
information first is sometimes confusing.
have made your major point.
Beginning with background
Those details can wait until after you
· Stay cool. Don't argue with a reporter. It's a no win situation.
· Give direct answers.
Don't bluff. If you don't know the answer, admit it and then supply it later.
Tell the truth. Don't exaggerate or embellish the facts -- they'll come back to
haunt you later.
GET TO KNOW YOUR COMMUNITY
If you expect to do business in a community, and be successful at it, you must get to
know the people and the organizations.
Join community groups, volunteer for community activities. Sponsor softball, little
league, soccer teams, etc. Attend city council meetings, and read your local newspapers. The
more you know, and axe known by your community, the more likely you are to be a
successful part of it.
Some ideas for community activities you might want to include:
Place recycling bins in front of your store. The proceeds from the
redeemable items can then be given to a local charity or organization, such as
the Boy Scouts. Let the media know about your activity, and prepare a bag
stuffer to let your customers know.
Kids ID Program. Neighborhood children can be fingerprinted and an ID or
video tape made for future reference. This program works through local police
departments and community groups. We have a complete program the store
can sponsor for local schools, at no cost to you, which includes any amount of
posters, bookcovers, and table top cards. Again, let the media and your
customers know about such an activity.
Offer to donate products, such as doughnuts, coffee, soft drinks, snacks, etc.,
to local community meetings. Your suppliers can help you obtain the items.
The groups will be grateful for the donation, and you will be recognized as a
valuable member of the community.
47
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
PROGRAM SIGNAGE
Suggested Placement of Program Kit Signs
Federal and State Mandatory Signs that must, by law, be posted
in your store
CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD STORES
COPYRIGHTED 1991
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
SECTION 9. REQUIRED POSTED SIGNS FOR
CALIFORNIA RETAIL GROCERY STORES
Sign/Description
Source/Order
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
"Equal Opportunity Is The Law"; 2 signs; 1
English and I Spanish (if you employ Hispanic
workers); 13-1/2" x 17-1/2"; white with red
and blue letters. New sign; includes ADA
provisions. Post where employees can see.
U.S. Equal Employment Commission, San
Francisco District Office, 901 Market Street,
5th Hoor, San Francisco, CA 94103, (800)
6694000.
"Job Safety And Health Protection"; 2 signs; 1
English and 1 Spanish (if you employ Hispanic
workers); 10" x 16"; yellow with black letters.
Post where employees can see.
U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety
and Health Administration, 71 Stevenson
Street, Suite 415, San Francisco, CA 94105,
(415) 703-4981.
"Polygraph Protection Act"; all stores are
required to post this sign; 11" x 17"; white
with red stripes. Post where employees can
see.
U.S. Deparanent of Labor. Check local phone
book under "Federal Offices."
"Saccharin Notices"; 11" x 14"; red and black
ink on white card stock. If store is 3,200 sq.~.
or less, post sign near entrance. If store is
more than 3,200 sq.~., but less than 10,0t210
sq.~., post 2 signs (1 near entrance and 1 either
where drinks containing saccharin are sold or
where foods containing saccharin are sold). If
store is more than 10,000 sq.ft., post 3 signs.
Per Section 403 of the Federal Food, Drug and
Cosmetic Act of 11-23-77. Supplied by soft-
drink salesperson.
"Discrimination In Employment"; 2 signs; 1
English and I Spanish; 11" x 16"; white with
rust and black letters. Post where employees
can see.
Caiifomia Fair Employment and Housing
Department, 1201 'T' Street, Suite 214,
Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 445-9918, or 30
Van Ness Avenue, 3rd Floor, San Francisco,
CA 94102, (415) 557-2005.
"Industrial Welfare Commission Wage, Hours,
And Working Conditions in the Mercantile
Industry"; 19" x 22"; green. Post where
employees can see.
Order #7-80; Industrial Welfare Commission,
(Division of Labor Standards Enforcement,
P.O. Box 603, San Francisco, CA 94101, (415)
703-3820.
"Federal Minimum Wage"; 11" x 17"; white.
Post where employees can see.
Order #MW-88; Industrial Welfare
Commission, Division of Labor Standards
Enforcement, P.O. Box 603, San Francisco, CA
94101, (415) 703-3820.
48
STATE REQUIREMENTS
"Safety And Health Protection On The Job";
22" x 17"; yellow with blue letters. I English,
I Spanish (if you employ Hispanic workers).
Post where employees can see.
"Log And Summary Of Occupational Injuries
And Illnesses", for employers of 10 or more
employees. Post where employees can see.
"Access To Medical And Exposure Records";
8-1/2" x 11"; yellow with blue letters. Post
where employees can see.
"Emergency Phone Numbers"; i.e. physician,
hospital, ambulance, fire, police, or print your
own. Post where employees can see.
"Payday Notice", or make your own sign;
includes the day, time and place of the regular
pay date. Post where employees can see.
"Notice Of Workers' Compensation Carrier."
Notifies employees of compensation benefits,
first-aid procedures and emergency telephone
numbers. Post where employees can see.
"Notice - Unlawful To Sell To Persons Under
18 Years of Age Tobacco, Cigarettes or
Cigarette Papers or Any Preparation of
Tobacco or Instruments"; 8-1/2" x 11"; blue
with black letters.
"Warning: Drinking Distilled Spirits, Beer,
Coolers, Wine and Other Alcoholic Beverages
May Increase Cancer Risk, and During
Pregnancy, Can Cause Birth Defects"; 5" x 5"
for retail stores, to be posted above cash
register.
"Notice to Customers - Special Notice to
Minors"; 5-1/2" x 8-1/2" decal, 8-1/2" x
11-1/2" sign. Notifies customers regarding
ABC laws/sales.
CAL/OSHA Poster, Deparanent of Industrial
Relations, Division of Occupational Safety and
Health, 525 Golden Gate Avenue, San
Francisco, CA 94102, (415) 703-4981.
CAL/OSHA Form #200; Deparunent of
Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational
Safety and Health, 525 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco, CA 94102, (415) 703-4981.
CAL/OSHA Form #5-11; Department of
Industrial Relations, Division of Occupational
Safety and Health, 525 Golden Gate Avenue,
San Francisco, CA 94102, (415) 703-4981.
CAL/OSHA Form Dosh-lO00 6843;
Department of Industrial Relations, Division of
Occupational Safety and Health, 525 Golden
Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 (415)
703-4981.
Deparlxnent of Industrial Relations, Division of
Labor Standards Enforcement, P.O. Box 603,
San Francisco, CA 94101, (415) 703-3820.
Available through your workers' compensation
carrier.
See/State Form LL-34; Office of the Secretary
of State, 923 12th Street, 3rd Floor,
Sacramento, CA 95814, (916) 324-6778.
Califomia Beer & Wine Association, 1127 1 lth
Street, Suite 306, Sacramento, CA 95814,
(916) 441-5402.
Califomia Grocers Association, 906 G Street,
Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95814,
(916) 448-3545.
49
Sip/Description Source/Order
International Symbol of Accessibility. Must be
posted at all accessible check lanes, according
to Americans with Disabilities Act mandates.
"Notice to Employees Regarding
Unemployment Disability Insurance";
approximately 8" x 1 ! "; yellow with black
letters. Post where employees can see.
"Warning - Tobacco Smoke Is Known To The
State of California To Cause Cancer"; 8-1/2" x
11"; white with blue leuering. Post in break
rooms where smoking is allowed for
employees.
"No Smoking" signs advise your customers
that smoking is prohibited in food stores.
State Recycling Window Dccal stating name
and location of nearest recycling center.
Blank sign; write address on sign. Post at each
public entrance, at eye level.
California Grocers Association, 906 G Street,
Suite 700, Sacramento, CA 95814,
(916) 448-3545.
DEA-1857A. Employment Development
Department, 805 R Street, Sacramento, CA
95814, (916) 322-2835.
Health & Welfare Agency. 1600 9th Street,
Room 450, Sacramento. CA 95814. (916)
654-3454.
Per State Health Code, Section 25947. Make
your own signs, or purchase from hardware or
stationery stores.
Division of Recycling, 801 K Street, 15-52,
Sacramento, CA 95814, (800) 642-5669.
IF YOU HAVE A RECYCLING CENTER ON
SITE, OR REVERSE VENDING MACHINES,
YOU MUST POST:
"Open" and "Recycling Center"; lists hours and
prices (large metal sign).
Division of Recycling. (800) 642-5669.
IF YOU ARE REQUIRED TO REDEEM
CONTAINERS IN YOUR STORE. THE
STATE NOTIFIES YOU IF YOU HAVE TO
POST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING 10" X 15"
SIGNS:
"Containers may be redeemed at the designated
cash registers within store." Post at entrance.
"Containers may be redeemed at a designated
location in the store." Post at entrance.
Division of Recycling, (800) 642-5669.
Division of Recycling, (800) 642-5669.
50
NOTE:
Grocers who need these signs should consult their local metropolitan telephone
books in the white pages for the government offices involved. The address or
phone numbers we have listed here are those that we have been able to obtain in
major metropolitan areas. Local cities and counties may require additional signs
not listed here.
PLACEMENT OF SIGNS SUPPLIED IN
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM KIT
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM DECAL:
This decal will be placed by the official program representative at their earliest
convenience.
TOBACCO SIGNS:
· "It's The Law" (5-1/2" x 7-1/2"). Place the two (2) signs on overhead or isle where
tobacco display racks are located. Be sure signs are visible to the customers.
"Customer Must Be 18" (2" x 11 "). These should be placed on top of the check out
counters or the back side of cash register. Be sure they are in view of customers.
"Support The Law" table top. Place on cash register in view of customers and
employees.
ALCOBOLIC BEVERAGES SIGNS:
"Comer Cooler Signs." Place these in the upper left hand comer of each cooler door
that has alcoholic beverages stocked behind them.
"Policy Strip Sign." Place these on the top of your check out counters, back/side of
cash register.
Legal Age Wheels.
cashier usage.
CRIME AWARENESS:
"Make That Drop."
drawer.
Have these in a convenient place so they are readily available for
Place strip on front of drop safe and/or front of cash register
"Emergency Phone Numbers." Place on all store phones and fill in with appropriate
information.
"Crime Awareness Poster." Place where employees have time to read (i.e. time clock
area, lunch room, etc.).
"Height Decals" (2 sets included). Both sets should be placed on the inside center of
door frame, visible from cash register area.
52
"Suspect ID Forms." Make copies and place within cash register area. easily
attainable by all employees.
Signs not included in Kit. Need to be ordered separately.
"Parking Lot Sign" (sample next page). Adhere (lag screws, adhesive, etc.) to exterior
of building facing parking lot. (If your parking lot wraps around building, we suggest
you use two of these signs.)
"Bad Check Signs." Place in view of customers.
QUESTIONS? CALL 1-800-794-3545
53
ABSOLUTELY NO LOITERING!
"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO ENTER,
BE, OR REMAIN ON THESE
PREMISES, ADJACENT PARKING
LOT, OR ADJACENT PUBLIC
SIDEWALK WITH AN OPEN
ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE
CONTAINER."
Sample Parking Lot Sign