HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/01/05 - Agenda Packet couNcm
AGENDA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
REGULAR MEETINGS
1st and 3rd Wednesdays - 7:00 p.m.
January 5, 1994
Civic Center
Council Chambers
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
City Councilmem'bers
Dennis L. Stout, Mclyor
William J. Alexander, Councilmember
Charles J. Buquet, Councilmember
Rex Gutierrez, Councilmember
Diane Willjnms, Councilmember
***
Jack Lain, City Manager
James L. Markman, City Attorney
Debra J. Adams, City Clerk
City Office: 989-1~51
:i : :; PAGE
~ i; City Council Agenda
, !~ ~ January 5, 1994 1
i'
; .
: 'D. CO.SE.T!CAL:E,D :R
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 ;discUssio:n. Any item may be
removed by a Councilmember or member of the audience for
discussion. ; ,,
10. Approvol of ~podiol poymeni of retention to Bernorals Brothers
Consfrucfion - ~oncho Cucomongo~Adu~; Spots Pod< Project.
~ : ,.
: L. ADJOOBNMENT ,,
l, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City 0f Ran~ho Cucamonga, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of th'e foregoing agenda was ~sted on
Decembe~ 29, :1993, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per
Government Code 54953 at 10500 CiVic C~nter ~Drive.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~~
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 5, 1994
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF PARTIAL PAYMENT OF RETENTION TO BERNARDS
BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION - RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADULT
SPORTS PARK PROJECT
Staff report for this consent calendar item was not in a final submittal format in time for
this Addendum. The final staff report wil be made available to you Monday, January 3,
1994.
RG:dk
PAGE
, City Council Agenda
January 5, 1994 1
I
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.
DE
1. Roll Call: Buquet Alexander ,Stout
Willjams , and Gutierrez
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.
1. Approval of Minutes: December 15, 1993
2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 12/8/93. 12/15/93, and
12/21/93; and Payroll ending 12/2/93 for the total amount Of
$457,931.07.
3. Approval to appropriate $5,000.00 from Fund Balance into the 12
Vehicle Depreciation and Replacement Account 01-4647-3931 for
repair of damaged City Water Truck.
4. Approval of a Resolution to enter into a Lease/Purchase
Agreement (CO 94-001) with Municipal Services Group
Incorporated.
PAGE
,~, City Council Agenda
) January 5, 1994 2
RESOLUTION NO. 94-001 14
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING
THE LEASE/PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT THROUGH
MUNICIPAL SERVICES GROUP, INCORPORATED
5. Approval of Environmental Initial Study Part I and II for the 16
proposed construction of the Adult Sport Park Expanded Parking
Lot Project located at 8287 Rochester Avenue.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-002 17
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING
THE ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY AND ISSUANCE
OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE ADULT
SPORTS PARK EXPANDED PARKING LOT PROJECT
LOCATED AT 8287 ROCHESTER AVENUE
6. Approval to appropriate $315.673.00 from Deferred Revenue 18
Account No. 22-236 and place it in Systems Development Fund
i Account Numbers 22-4637-92-06 ($104.891.00) and 22-4637-9205
($209,782.00) for the construction of the Rochester Avenue and
Banyan Street Improvement Project located north of Highland
Avenue.
7. Approval to award and authorization for execution of contract 19
(CO 94-002] for Rochester Avenue and Banyan Street
Improvement Project, located north of Highland Avenue and
LMD-6 Landscape Improvements to Kruze and Kruze Construction
and Engineering, Incorporated, for the amount of $464,673.00
($422.430.10 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from Systems
Development Account Nos. 22-4637-9206 ($104,891.00) and 22-4637-
9205 ($209,782.00) and S.B. 140 (S 180,000.00).
8. Approval to award and authorization for execution of Contract 24
(CO 94-003) for Ninth Street Waterline Improvement Project
located from Vinmar to Sierra Madre Avenues, to C.P.
Construction Company, Incorporated, for the amount of $24,887.50
($22,625.00 plus 1(:]% contingency) to be funded from CDBG Funds,
Account No. 28-4333-9121.
PAGE
, City Council Agenda
January 5, 1994 3
9. Approval to award and authorization for execution of a 27
Professional Services Agreement (CO 94-004) bel~veen the City of
Rancho Cucomonga and Williamson and Schmid. to prepare
design plans, specifications and estimates for the Arrow Route
Storm Drain Portion of the MiI;iken Avenue Extension from Foothill
Boulevard to Arrow Route. for S49,000.00 plus 10% contingencies to
be funded by Artedal Measure I, Account No. 32-z34537-9328.
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
The following Ordinances have had public hearings at the time
of first reading. Second readings are expected to be routine
and non-controversial. They will be acted upon by the
Council at one time without discussion. The City Clerk will
read the title. Any item can be removed for discussion.
No items Subrail'red.
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have been advertised and/or posted as
public hearings as required by law. The Chair will open the
meeting to receive public testimony.
1. CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - WESTERN 28
PROPERTIES - Consideration of an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to deny the design review of elevations
for Building X, a 5,350 square foot retail building within the Terra
Vista Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Haven Avenue, in the Community Commercial
District- APN: 1077-421-70. (Continued from December 1, 1993)
RESOLUTION NO. 94-(:]03 64
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA. UPHOLDING
THE APPEAL AND APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 93-13, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF
ELEVATIONS FOR BUILDING X, A 5,350 SQUARE FOOT
RETAIL BUILDING WITHIN TERRA VISTA TOWN
CENTER, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HAVEN AVENUE IN THE
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. AND MAKING
FINDINGSINSUPPORTTHEREOF-APN: 1077-421-70
PAGE
,~ City Council Agenda
January 5, 1994 4
2. CONSIDERATION TO MODIFY ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - 67
SAM'S PLACE - Consideration of an appeal of the Planning
Commission's decision to deny a modification to an
entertainment permit for adding entertainment on Sunday and
expanding the entertainment to allow a live band, disc jockey,
and karaoke in conjunction with a restaurant and bar, located at
6620 Carnelian Street in the Neighborhood Commercial District -
APN: 201-811-56through60.
RESOLUTION NO. 94-004 113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA. DENYING THE
APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY A MODIFICATION
TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT Q1-02 FOR ADDING
ENTERTAINMENT ON SUNDAY AND EXPANDING THE
ENTERTAINMENT TO ALLOW A LIVE BAND, DISC
JOCKEY, AND KARAOKE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
RESTAURANT AND BAR, LOCATED AT 6620
CARNELIAN STREET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 201-811-56 THROUGH 60
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items have no legal publication or posting
requirements. The Chair will open the meeting to receive
public testimony.
No Items Submitted.
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
The following items do not legally require any public
testimony, although the Chair may open the meeting for
public input.
1. CONSIDERATION OF 1994 STATE LEAGUE DUES 116
PAGE
, City Council Agenda
January 5, 1994 5
}. 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.
No Items Submil~ed,
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
This is the time for City Council to identify the items they
wish to discuss at the next meeting. These items will not be
discussed at this meeting, only identified for the next
meeting.
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
This is the time and place for the general public to address
the City Council. State law prohibits the City Council from
addressing any issue not previously included on the Agenda.
The City Council may receive testimony and set the matter
for a subsequent meeting. Comments are to be limited to five
minutes per individual.
L. ADJOURNMENT
MEETING TO ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PERSONNEL
MATTERS AND PENDING LITIGATION, GENTRY BROS VS CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA.
I, Debra J. Adams, City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby
certify that a true, accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on
December 29, 1993, seventy-two (72) hours prior to the meeting per
Government Code 54953 at 10500 Civic Center Drive.
December 15, 1993
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Remalar Meetin~
A regular meeting of the Rancho Cucamonga City Council was held on Wednesday, December 15, 1993, in the
Council Chambers of the Civic Center, located at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The
meeting was called to order at 7:08 p.m. by Mayor Dennis L. Stout.
Present were Councilmembers: William J. Alexander, Charles J. Buquet II, Rex Gutierrez, Diane Williarns, and
Mayor Dennis L. Stout.
Also present were: Jack Lam, City Manager; Andrew Arczynski, Assistant City Attorney; Jerry B. Fniwood,
Deputy City Manager; Linda D. Daniels, RDA Manager; Olen Jones, Sr. RDA Analyst; Rick Gomez, Community
Development Director; Brad Bailer, City Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Cindy Norris, Associate
Planner; Joe O'Neil, City Engineer; Mike Olivier, Sr. Civil Engineer; Bill Makshanoff, Building Official; Bob
Dominguez, Administrative Services Director; Suzanne Ota, Community Services Manager; Diane O'Neal,
Management Analyst II; Susan Mickey, Management Analyst I; Chief Dennis Michael, Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District; Capt. Bruce Zeiner, Rancho Cucamonga Police Department; and Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk.
B. ANNOUNCEMENTS/PRESENTATIOrq~$
BI. Jack Lam, City Manager, announced that Item D10 on the Consent Calendar had a corrected amounL
C. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
No communications were made by die public.
D. CONSENT CALENDAR
D1. Approval of Minutes: November 1, 1993 (Buquet, Gutierrez absen0
November 2, 1993 (Alexander, Gutierrez absent)
November 3, 1993
November 9, 1993
November 17, 1993
December 1, 1993
City Council Minutes
December 15, 1993
Page 2
D2. Approval of Warrants, Register Nos. 11/24/93 and 12/1/93; and Payroll ending 11/18/93 for the total
amount of $1,777,215.34.
D3. Approval to receive and file current Investment Schedule as of November 30, 1993.
D4. Alcoholic Beverage Application for Off Sale Beer & Wine for Shop N Go, Ruth Ann Dourghali and Albert
Sanam, 10110 Foothill Boulevard.
D5. Approval to authorize the Advertising of the "Notice Inviting Bids" for the construction of the Street and
Storm Drain Improvements on Sapphire Street, from Banyan Street to Moon Court; Access Ramps on Carnelian
Street, between Base Line Road and 19th Street; and the Street Improvements on Base Line Road east of Victoria
Park Lane; to be funded from Proposition 111, Account No. 10-4637-9307; 'TDA Article 3, Account No. 16-4637-
9106; and Gas Tax, Account No. 09-4637-9302.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-234
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS
ON SAPPHIRE STREET, FROM BANYAN STREET TO MOON COURT; ACCESS
RAMPS ON CARNELIAN STREET, BETWEEN BASE LINE ROAD AND 19TH
STREET; AND THE STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON BASE LINE ROAD EAST OF
VICTORIA PARK LANE; IN SAID CITY AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING
THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS
D6. Approval to appropriate $1,500,000 from Fund 32 - "Measure I (Arterial)" for the Milliken Avenue
Extension from Arrow Route to Foothill Boulevard to be funded from Account No. 32-4637-9328 and the
corresponding SANBAG Funding, Account No. 32-3900-6000.
D7. Fiscal Year 1992/93 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
D8. Approval of Refunding 1990 Bond Issue.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-235
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE REFINANCING OF A PORTION
OF THE RANCHO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT BY THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
D9. Approval of a mid-year loan transaction between the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the Rancho
Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency.
D10. Approval for the Lease Purchase of One (1) Three Axle, 10 Wheel Dump Truck, from Dietrich International
Truck Sales, Incorporated, of San Beruardino, California, in the amount of ® ' '~ "~ ' c~ $21,652.00 a year, for Five
(5) years, to be funded from Gas Tax Account No. 09-4647-7045.
D11. Approval to transfer the title for the Rancho Cucamonga Adult Sports Park from the Rancho Cucamonga
Redevelopment Agency to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
City Council Minutes
December 15, 1993
Page 3
D12. Approval to transfer the tifie for Jersey Station Number 174 and Banyan Station Number 175 from the
Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency to the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
D13. Approval of Parcel Map 13601, located at the north side of Fulton Court and east of Utica Avenue,
submitted by Arrow Rancho Cucamonga Incorporated.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-236
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PARCEL MAP 13601
D14. Approval of the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) Five-Year Strategy, 1994 Annual
Plan, and 1993 Annual Performance Report - The CHAS Five-Year Strategy covers the period from October 1,
1994, through September 30, 1999 and estimates the housing assistance needs of very low- and low-income
households and individuals, assigns priorities to those needs, and identifies resources anticipated to be available to
address affordable housing needs. The Annual Plan covers the period from October 1, 1993, through September 30,
1994, and establishes a one-year investment plan that outlines the intended uses of resources. The Annual
Performance Report covers the period from October 1, 1992, through September 30, 1993, and reports on the
progress in carrying out the CHAS Annual Plan and assesses annual performance in relation to meeting its overall
five-year CHAS priorities.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-237
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING
AFFORDABILITY STRATEGY (CHAS) FIVE-YEAR STRATEGY, 1994 ANNUAL
PLAN, AND 1993 ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT
D15. Approval of the Environmental Initial Study Parts I and II for the Proposed Sapphire Street Storm Drain
and Street Improvements from Banyan Street to Moon Court.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-238
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 SAPPHIRE STREET AND STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS FROM
BANYAN STREET TO MOON COURT
D16. Approval to authorize the execution of a Maintenance Agreement (CO 93-090) with the San Bernardino
County Flood Conwol District for the maintenanc~ of City landscaping within the Flood Control District's Right-of-
Way.
D17. Approval to execute Municipal Library Fund Contribution Agreement (CO 93-091) between the City of
Rancho Cucamonga and the County of San Beroardino.
D18. Approval to execute third amendment to agreement (CO 93-092) between the City of Rancho Cucamonga,
the Redevelopment Agency, and the County of San Bernardino (County Contract 82-171) as a result of the formation
of a municipal library system.
City Council Minutes
December 15, 1993
Page 4
D19. Approval to Set a Public Hearing for January 19, 1994, to consider establishment of an Underground
Utility District along Rochester Avenue between Foothill Boulevard and Arrow Route using Rule 20A Funds.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-239
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO
DETERMINE WHETHER PUBLIC NECESSITY, HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE
REQUIRES THE FORMATION OF AN UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT
ALONG ROCHESTER AVENUE BETWEEN FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND
ARROW ROUTE
MOTION: Moved by Buquet, seconded by Williams to approve the staff recommendations as contained in the staff
reports of the Consent Calendar, as amended. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0, with Buquet and Gutierrez
abstaining from the November 1, 1993 minutes, and Alexander and Gutierrez abstaining from the November 2, 1993
minutes.
E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
El. CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX LN
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 93-3 (FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE)
Jan Sutton, Deputy City Clerk, read the title of OrdinanceNo. 518.
ORDINANCE NO. 518 (second reading)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX
IN A COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
MOTION: Moved by Williams, seconded by Alexander to waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 518. Motion
carried unanimously, 5-0.
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
No items were submitted.
G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
No items were submitted.
City Council Minutes
December 15, 1993
Page 5
H. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
HI. CONSIDERATION OF SITE LAYOUT. CIRCLrLATION DESIGN. ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS.
SURFACE TRI~,TM~NT5 AND LANDSCAPE CONCEPT FOR THE METROLINK STATION AT MILLIKEN
AVENUE AND THE METROLINK RAILWAY TRACKS Staff report presented by Rick Gomez, Community
Development Director, who stated that Larry Ryan from RJM Design Group was in the audience and available to
answer any questions.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked how long would it be before the parking was expanded from the original 300 spaces
to the full design of 1,000 spaces.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated the expectations of Metrolink and the Southern California
Community Rail Authority would be that the parking would be increased in 2-3 years to meet the demands of the
patrons of the surrounding area, as well as the Victor Valley area.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked what the pat~onal;e was at the stations in surrounding cities.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated Rancho Cucamonga would be the second largest in the
system, behind the Montclair station which also has a Caltrans Park and Ride facility. He stared other stations along
the route are between 300-500.
Mayor Stout opened the meeting for public comments. There being no response, the public comments section was
closed.
MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Buquet to approve the Site Layout, Circulation Design, Architectttral
Elements, Surface Treatments and Landscape Concept for the Metrolink Station. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
I. COUNCIL BUSINESS
No items were submitted.
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
No items were identified for the next meeting.
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC
KI. REOUEST BY RANCHO CUCAMONGA OUAKES BASEBALL CLUE TO PRESENT PLANS FOR
EXPANSION OF STADIUM
Mayor Stout asked if there were any representatives from the Rancho Cucamonga Quakes Baseball Club. Them was
no response.
City Council Minutes
December 15, 1993
Page 6
Mayor Stout called a recess at 7:17 p.m. for an Executive Session too discuss personnel matters, to reconvene at the
conclusion and continue with Item K.
The City Council reConvened at 8:11 p.m. with all members of Council present.
Andrew Axczynski, Assistant City Attorney, stated the Council met in closed session to discuss meet and confer
matters and provided direction to staff. He stated they also discussed pending litigation in the case of Trudeau vs. the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and an opinion memo would be provided to the City Clerk in regards to the closed
session on that item.
Seeing representatives from Rancho Cucamonga Quakes Baseball present, Mayor Stout re-opened Item K1 for
discussion.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated wlmt they were looking for tonight would be direction from
the Council in regards to design issues, so that final plans could be prepared for submittal.
Hank Stickney, R.C. Baseball, introduced Terry Miller from HNTB Architects out of Kansas City. He
stated Mr. Miller designed the stadium at Adelanto, and is currendy designing the Lake Elsinore stadium.
He stated they would like to present a plan to expand the stadium in time for the 1995 season, which he felt
would greatly enhance the stadium and would meet the long range needs.
Terry Miller, Architect, showed diagrams to outline the proposed changes. He stated their primary focus
was adding 1700 seats in the right field area, including 17 new physically challenged spaces in front of
diose seats, which would replace the cafe area. He stated these seats would be in a configuration compatible
with viewing baseball. This would be a net gain of approximately 1500 seats. He stated in the current
grandstand area they were proposing three new rows directly behind home plate, adding 140 seats to the
seating capacity, and would relocate the current dugouts below ground level. In addition they would add
seats in the current cross aisle section directly behind home plate in order to off-set seats that would be
deleted to add 20 wheelchair positions on either side of the stadium. This would give them a total of 40
physically challenged spaces in the grandstand area. He stated the new seats would not interfere with the
current portal configuration in the main grandstand area, and the new wraparound area would reflect the
current architectural style of the stadium.
Mayor Stout asked about the addition of the cross aisle seats.
Terry Miller, Architect, stated in order to enhance the ADA requirements for the facility, they were offering
20 more wheelchair seats. He stated in order to make up the seats they would be replacing in the dugout
area, they are proposing additional seats in the cress aisle area.
Councilmember Buquet asked for clarification on die handicap seating in the new right field addition. He stated he
was concerned with the line of sight configuration for the right field addition, as they had some complaints with the
temporary seats.
City Council Minutes
December 15, 1993
Page 7
Terry Miller, Architect, stated the configuration for the fight field addition was almost identical with the
configuration used in other stadiums so them should not be a problem. He stated curren~y they have
straight bleachers which are in a position much closer and higher than they should be in a regular stadium
design. He stated they are matching the elevation of the treads which would alleviate the majority of view
problems. He also explained the fire egress designed for that comer of the field.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked how the three additional rows behind home plate compare with other stadiums.
Terry Miller, Architect, stated the Major League Baseball guideline is 60 feet, and they would be within a
few feet less than that, but felt morn importantly would be the position of the palxon relative to the field.
Mayor Stout asked for clarification on Major League guidelines, if they were minimum amounts, because he had
never seen a homeplate as close to the stand as what they currenfiy have.
Terry Miller, Architect, stated there were several Minor League fields that were within 30 feet. He stated
the Major League has guidelines set forth for Minor League stadiums, and they were recommendations, not
requirements.
Councilmember Alexander asked if the new seats would be the same types of seats as what they currently have.
Terry Miller, Architect, stated yes, the seats would be 22 inches wide, except in some areas they might be
21 inches wide to accommodate the curve of the stadium.
Mayor Stout stated he would like details as to what kind of seats will be used because of previous problems
encountered when the main stadium was built.
Terry Miller, Architect, stated they would be doing that, but tonight they were talking conceptual approval
only. He stated exact information would be available when they come back with the design.
Hank Stickhey, R.C. Baseball, stated right field was die most amenable to expansion plans, because the
refuse area precluded them from doing the same type of design in the left field area. He stated they are
looking at malesigning and improving the kitchen behind third base, which not only could serve meals, but
could be utilized by groups prior to bail games, and could aiso be used by community groups during other
times. He stated this was similar to the design at Adelanto and the new field at Lake Elsinore.
Councilmember Williams asked for clarification of the cross aisle, and would the new design delete that.
Terry Miller, Architect, stated two rows of seats would be added in the cross aisle section in the center four
sections of the grandstand area.
Councilmember Williams stated she would like the cross aisle kept in.
Mayor Stout stared a lot of the season ticket holde~'s liked the cross aisle, that it promoted a sense of camaraderie at
the games, and if you limited that access, it would create a whole different atmosphere in the stadium.
Hank Stickney, R.C. Baseball, stated they are t~ying to prevent a lot of traffic going through the handicap
seating areas, and that they have had complaints about people congregating in the cross aisle and blocking
the view of other pawons.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated he has found it to be distracting to see people walking through the stadium all the
me during a game.
City Council Minutes
December 15, 1993
Page 8
Councilmember Williams stated the safety and family atmosphere that people feel when they are at the stadium can
be attributed to the cross aisle. She felt it was a main attraction to people.
Councilmember Alexander stated this discussion tonight was just conceptual and they could talk about it again.
Councilmember Buquet felt they needed to address this issue because the cross aisle is what has slowed down
expansion discussions previously.
Councilmember Alexander stated he would not be able to make a decision tonight because he wanted to go to the
stadium and look at it in person and compare it to the proposed plans.
Councilmember Gutierrez asked what was the time factor involved, and was there an alternative configuration
available that would not alter the cross aisle.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated at the conclusion of the 1994 season they would like to
have all construction documents approved and bids in so that they could start construction immediately and have it
completed by the 1995 season. He stated if they could have direction on the principal design issues, that would
solve a lot of problems and enable them to move ahead to meet the deadlines.
Mayor Stout felt there were two issues on the table, one was the main stadium modification and the other was the
fight field expansion. He felt the consensus of the Council was that the right field modifications were f'me and they
could move ahead with that, which would add 1,500 seats. He stated combined with the current seating that gives
them more than 6,000 seats.
Councilmember Williams asked how the expansion related to the parking availability.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated the proposal is for an expansion of about 2,700 seats for a
total seating of 7,300 seats, and an additional 2,700 parking spaces. He stated with the spaces needed for employee
parking and City events, they would have about 2,300 spaces available which gives an occupancy of about 7,100
people, so they would have a deficit of about 150 spaces plus or minus.
Councilmember Buquet stated that was taking into account the new parking lot.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated yes. He stated these figures were based on the conceptual
plans, and as the final details and figures were worked out they would be closer to the target occupancy and parking
availability.
Mayor Stout stated he thought previously they had discussed having total seating of 6,000, now they were talking
about 7,300 seats.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, stated the 6,000 was the figure targeted for the 1994 season using
temporary seating. He stated 7,000 to 7,100 was the target for the permanent expansion.
Hank Stickney, R.C. Baseball, stated they were trying to do all of the expansion plans at one time to
consolidate time and construction costs.
Mayor Stout stated he was concerned that though they had a lot of sell-out games, there were many that weren't, and
did not want to have a stadium that was larger than the demand dictated.
City Council Minutes
December 15, 1993
Page 9
Hank Stickney, R.C. Baseball, silted they have just about sold-out the 1994 season, between season
tickets, groups and individuals, so them would be very few seats available for walk up sales. He silted that
was with 6,000 seats.
Rick Gomez, Community Development Director, suggested that if everyone concurred, they could move ahead with
everything except the cross aisles.
Mayor Stout silted the cross aisle modification was relatively minor compared with the rest of the project.
Councilmember Buquet asked how many seats were they adding by deleting the cross aisle.
Terry Miller, Architect, stated with all the changes taken into consideration it was about 35 seats. He stated
in response to their other comments on the cross aisle, that normally they would ~'y to locate a gathering
place somewhere other than the center of the stadium for various safety reasons.
Councilmember Gutierrez suggested the Council hold a workshop at the stadium in January to review the plans for
the cross aisle at the actual site.
Mayor Stout agreed with that idea.
Councilmember Buquet stated he would like to see the Council and team represeniltives meet to discuss long range
plans for the stadium and the ultimate build-out for the facility, and come up with a structured approach to achieving
those goals.
L. ADJOURNMENT
MOTION: Moved by Alexander, seconded by Gutierrez to adjourn, having already completed the Executive Session
items. Motion carried unanimously, 5-0. The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Jan Sutton
Deputy City Clerk
Approved:
CEIl OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
LIST OF NTS
FCR PERZOO: -93 (93/94)
1826 PACTEL CELLULAR VOIDED CHECK e 808~7~ ]Zg. Z3-
tel6 PACTEL CELLULAR VOIDED CHECK "" e08~8, 52.21-
VOIDED CHECK {{< 80e50- 8lT22 )>)
leGe FULWOOOe JERRY VOIDED CHECK etTz3, 37.X~-
CIIY OF RXNCHO CUCAHDNGA
LIST aF MARRANTS
FaR PERIOD: 12-08-93 (9319A)
$I CNECAI aVERLAP
2422 ELECTRONICS NAREHOUSE ELECTRONIC SUPPLIES 8Z303 92,41
Z366 EVERSAFE NAZNT SUPPLIES 8250A 65,81
123 FEDERAL EXPRESS CaRP DELlTEXT SERVICE t B2505 31.00
7921 FELDERt LINDR REC REAlION REFUND 82506 35°00
· 098 FORRES SUOSCR]PT[ON 8250T 54°00
2840 FORD OF UPLANDe INC, VEHICLE HAINTENANCE I 82508 61o59
396T FOURTH STREET ROCK NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 82509 213o34
1868 FULNOQDt JERRY eUSZNESS LICENSE REFUNO 825IO 31o1A
/DlT OARCZAR RQSIE REFUND GROUP PHOTO 82511 6.50
lIT aTE CALIPQRkiA HONTHLI TELEPHONE RILLENOS I E231Z 2e286.56
3336 HEIL[Gw KELLY INSTRUCTOR PAYRENT EESl3 9T3.08
IZ26R HERBERt JUSTIN RECREATION REFUND I 82516 37.50
437 HENOERLITERe de LLANAS g ASSOCIAIES SALES TAX AUOXT SERVICES I 82515 5,6Al.38
I2)& HOSENAN NAINTERANCE SUPPLIES 82536 36°24
1At NOTT LUNOER CODe S.H. HAZNTERANCE SUPPLIES I 8ZSl/ 516.65
2612 HOTTu RAYHONO INSTRUCTOR PATRENT 625ID
A95 NYORO-SCAPE PRODUCTSt INC LANDSCAPE NAZNTENANCE SUPPLIES I 82519 375o18
12221 I A P n O UNIFORR PLUNBENG CODE TRA2N2NG 82S20 lOO°O0
A6 [NOUSTR[AL ASPHALT NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES e 82521 221.66
1932 INLANO EHP1RE STAGESt LTD° TRANSPORTATION SERVICES 829ZZ 550.00
)ItS INLAND LAINHONER VEHICLE NA[NTENANCE I 8Z323 1riOADO8
92 INLANO VALLET DAILY 8ULLET2N SUDSCR[PTIONS 825ZA liboaR
CITY OF ~ANCNO
LIST OF MAI 'S
FOR PERIOD: l, ~93 (93/9~)
1020 NOUNTAIN VlEi GLASS ~ NIRROR MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 82554 325,16
6lZ N 8 I HAINTENANCE CONTRACT 82555 1.326o00
3631 NATIONAL UNXEORN SERVZCE UN[FDRP SERVICES 82556 415o6Z
3693 NATIONNIOE MOBILE NONE RENAO° PROGRAN I 82551 Ze189°*0
CZIY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
LiST OF MARRANTS
FOR PER[O0:12-08-93 (93191)
CXIV QF BANCHQ CUr' NGA
CITY OF RANCHU CUCANDNGA
LIST OF MARRANTS
FOB PERIOD; IE-IS-t3 (93/96)
ee CHECAR OVERLAP
TgEA CUETON OESIGN FURNISHINGS BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND e2663 34.00.
286 DAISY MNEEL RIBBON COw INC OFFICE SUPPLIES d 12664
355 DANlEAS TIRE SERVICE VEHICLE RAINENHANCE i SUPPLIES 62665 1,534.98
lEiI DATAVAULT - UoSo SAFE DEPOSIT CO. DATA STORAGE BZ666 13T.OQ
341 OAT-TINERS, INC, OPP ICE SUPPLIES e 82661
S6tl DEALER S AUTO TRIH VEHICLE NAINIEUANCE e1661 85.00
4SOS OEPAETNeNT OF JUSTICE FINGERPNIHTS EZSGt S,SSZ.DQ
SDZ6 OESEtT SUN NARKETING OFFICE SUPPLIES 12670 lOB.DO
ISSI OFN ASSOCIATES SUISCRIPTIQN 82671 35.68
134 OISPOSAL CONTEOL SERVICED INC. NAIlENHANCE SERVICE d eZGlZ SEE.SO
3616 OEVEOSZPIED AOVERTISING NOVELTIES OFFICE SUPPLIES g 82673 6SAoOO
523 EASTNAN, INC OFFICE SUPPLIES J RI674 SZO.66
GIG EOUC&LC HASMTERAKE SUPPLIES liSTS
4681 EMPIRE FOlD VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 8E676 I6Z.EI
ISS PILAOSKT & MATT MONTHLE seRvices 82611 lIT.S0
2391 FIRST SOLUTIONS COMPUTER SUPPLIeS/RENTAL liSTS 269°38
IZZTS PLORES, YENHA RECREATION REFUND EZ67Y
3902 FOOTHILLS PSICHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES EZ6~O 1,600o00
90 POlO PillTINS · NAILING, IMC MAINTENANCE L OPERATIONS I 82681 hTEIoiI
lOll PeANIL IN QUEST COo OFFICE SUPPLIES f 1261Z 1o009o10
TYEI GelolD OEVELOPNENT COMPANY BUSINESS LICENSE REPUNO 12683 TOEoil
TVIS G°C,So SERVICE, IUCo BUSINESS LICENSE BEFUNO lidS6 8o10
3141 GfB - PlIEDRICH A ASSOC. PROFESSIONAL setvlces 82685 3,120o00
131 GEE CALIFORNIA NONTHAT TELEPHONE iILLIN6S J 82686 362o16
500 HANSOM ASSOCIATESt INC. MAIMTENAOCO SUPPLIES I 8207 931o16
IZ46 HAVEN BUILOING MATERIALS NAIMTENAKE SUPPLIES J Oleo 5E.OT
462 HCS-CUTLEN STEEL CO. EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE leilt 3)Toil
920 HEARO P.H.O., EDNANO INSINUATOR PET EZSVO SG.O0
S2272 HEELUNDo ERIC/KATHERINE RECIEAllOU OEPUNO BlASt 46.50
4104 HEleNANNe DONALD U, NORKItS CONP BElle 205°00
2255 HOLT°S AUTO ELECTRIC NAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 82695 IGv.]l
3633 HOMELESS OUTREACH PIGMS L EDUCATION NONTHL1 SERVICES 82694 S/S.OO
16S HOVT LUNBEI CO.o Sen. HAZEValANCE SUPPLIES EI695 23o21
495 NVDAO-SCAPE PtOOUCTS, INC LANOSCAPE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES e 02696 495o40
A6 INDUSTRIAL ASPHALT MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES J 82691 IoOlZ.TT
JESt ZNLANO ENDlie SOCCER REFEREE ASSN° MEI'S SOCCER PlODBAN 12691 Sf465000
Ills INLAND LAMEHOMER VEHICLE NAIlENHANCE 82699 42.10
JOT INLAND NEOIATION BORED LANOLOIO/TEUANT DISPUTE I 82100 10666°43
104l IRON MOUNTAIN FORGE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES lZWOl SIR.II
609 KININN, STEINEl i UNGEIER PROFESSIONAL SERVICES IIIOZ IT,tIGoOI
INlet KELLEY, ROBERT/SHARON RICEgAllON REFUND II 103 46e50
IAW KING, L°Oo PAOPESSIONAL SERVICES e EZYO&
!I5 KNELT STORES MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES I 82105 114o20
IZtl KNOX NAENTENANCE SUPPLIES f 82106 STG.]t
516 KUHN, NAAV MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 82101 11o54
321 LANDSCAPE REST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE I 82101 6,025.00
IIT6 LU'S LIGHIMOUSEe INC. OIL ANALYSIS 82709 ITSolO
((( IZIIO - 8Z/lO
~Rg NAIlPOSE NOITICULTURAL NET,INC. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE e 82111 47,216.11
12 MAll CUllS, INC. VeHICLe MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 82112 9.70
74 NAIANANwAICZVNSAItHANSONeL KiNG PROFESSIONAL SERVICES I 92113 2EeRIE.IS
RUM DATE: 12/15/93 PAGe: 3
VENDOR NAME ITEM DESCRIPTION WARR NO WARR. ART.
ee CMECNI OVERLAP
3355 RONROEe RIAE IEZNRUESERENT/PESTZC1DE APPo 82115 110o00
lZZTO NONTERET RORTGAGE BUSINESS LICENSE REFUND 82116 9°00
41l N O I RATNTERANCE CONTRACT 62117 1e326o00
873 N A S/LORRY FOOTHILL RARRETPLACE ; 92 It6 2ZtEeSoO0
CZTY OF RANC~O CUCANQ~GA
LZST OF NARRANTS
FOR PERZOO: [Z-|5-g] C93/96)
CITT OF RANCHO qONGA
LIST OF MIR
FGR PERIOD: (93/91)
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
L/ST OF MARRANTS
FeR PER[gO: 12-22-93
RUN OATE: 12121/93 PAGE:
VENDOR NAME ITEM OESCR[PTXON NARR NO ~ARRo ANT,
S$ CHECAR DYERLAP
T26 FLORZOe JOAN INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT 62926 126.72
26AO FORD OF QPLANDe [NCo VENXCLE MAINTENANCE 8ZEZ9 6boDT
G
LZST 0 R
FGR PER[OD: 12-ZZ- 3 (93194)
RUN OATE: ]ZI21/93 PAGE: 3
VENDOR NANE [TEN DESCRZPT[ON WARR NO MARRo AHTo
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA . ?:~:~L q
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 5, 1994 ~' ~
TO: Mayor and Members of th~ City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Will iam J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY Dave Blevins, Public Works Maintenance Manager
SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE $5,000.00 FROM FUND BALANCE INTO THE
VEHICLE DEPRECIATION AND REPLACEMENT ACCOUNT (A/C 01-4647-3931)
FOR REPAIR OF DAMAGED CITY WATER TRUCK
REC(XWqENDATION
It is recommended that City Council approve an appropriation of $B,O00.O0 from
fund balance into the Vehicle Depreciation and Replacement Account {A/C 01-
4647-3931) for the City's insurance deductible share of repairs to City water
truck 518.
BACXGROUND/ANALYSIS
Several weeks ago the Ctty's water truck was involved in a traffic accident
that caused several thousand dollars worth of damage to the vehicle. Quick
thinking on the part of Lead Maintenance Worker, Richard Favela, averted a
potentially fatal collision with the vehicle that cut Richard off in
traffic. However, the water truck sustained almost $20,000.00 in damage when
it rolled. Although the Sheriff's Department investigator determined that the
other driver was totally at fault, the driver did not have insurance. The
City's insurance will cover the cost of the restoration of the water truck
except for the $5,000.00 deductible required by our policy. At this time,
staff is requesting authorization to use funds from the Vehicle Depreciation
and Replacement account to provide the deductible.
Respectfully submitted,
Willia~J.O'Ne~l~
City Engineer
WJO: DB :dl w
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 5, 1994
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director
BY: Joan A. Kruse, Purchasing Agent
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO ENTER INTO A LEASE/PURCHASE AGREEMENT WITH
MUNICIPAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
RECO~ATION
That Council adopt Resolution No. 94-__~ entering into a lease/purchase
agreement with Municipal Services Group,. Inc, (MSG, Inc.) for a lO-wheel dump
truck.
BACKGROUND/ANALISIS
Council approved purchase of this dump truck from Dietrich International Truck
Sales, Inc. at its December 15, 1993 meeting. Financing at that time had not
yet been finalized. Staff received a proposal for financing from Dieterich
Int'l. through Ford Municipal [.ease. In checking other financing options,
Municipal Services Group, Inc. was again the lowest with a 5.37 percent
interest rate.
Prime rate is still at six (6) percent. Financing in April for our loader
truck and street sweeper was 5.67%. This rate drop is representative of what
has occurred in the past few months. The new lease/purchase agreement would
be an addendum to the master lease with Municipal Services Group.
Respectfully submitted,
Rober D ez
Administrative Services Director
/jk
Attachment
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE LEASE/PURCHASE OF
EQUIPMENT THROUGH MUNICIPAL SERVICES GROUP, INC.
WHEREAS, The City of Rancho Cucamonga has determined that a true
and very real need exists for the acquisition of the equipment described in
the Municipal Master Lease and Option Agreement No. 464-2 (the "Agreement")
presented to this meeting; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga has
taken the necessary steps, including any legal bidding requirements, under
applicable law to arrange for acquisition of such equipment,
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
directs the City Attorney to review the agreement and negotiate appropriate
modifications of said agreemnt so as to assure compliance with state law and
local statutory law, prior to execution of the agreement by those persons
authorized by the City Council for such purpose.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cueamonga that:
Finding: Authorized Officers. The terms of said Agreement are
in the best interests of the City of Raneho Cucamonga for the acquisition of
such equipment and the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga designates
and confirms
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager and/or
Robert Dominguez, Administrative Services Director
to execute and deliver, and to witness (or attest) respectively, the Agreement
and any related documents necessary to the cons~mm~tion of the transactions
contemplated by the Agreement.
RESOLVED, the acquisition of the equipment, under the terms and
conditions provided for in the agreement, is necessary, convenient, in the
furtherance of the best interest of the City and will all times be used in
connection with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's governmental and proprietary
purposes and functions (except to the extent that subleasing of the equipment
is permitted under terms of the Agreement) and no portion of the equipment
will be used directly or indirectly in any trade or business.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Rancho Cucamonga is
authorized and directed to fulfill all obligations under the terms of the
Municipal Master Lease and Option Agreement No. 464-2.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 5th day of January, 1994.
AYES:
NOES:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 5, 1994
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
BY: Tarry L. Smith, Community and Park Development Superintendent
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL INITIAL STUDY PARTS I AND II AND REQUEST
FOR A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
RECOMMENDATION
Staff has completed the Environmental Study Parts I and II on the proposed Adult Sports
Complex Expanded Parking Lot Project, located at 8287 Rochester Avenue, directly east,
across Rochester from the existing Stadium Parkway. Based on the results of the study, staff
recommends the finding of a Negative Declaration.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
This project will include off site work on Rochester to bring it to its ultimate right-of-way
improvement, from Foothill Boulevard to Jack Benny Drive. Also, included are street
lighting, storm drain improvements, landscaping, asphalt, parking for 1,171 cars and on site
lighting.
Mitigation measures have been identified for all impacts found in the study. There are no
major impacts to the area as a result of this project.
Resp~&fu tted,
Ri
ent Director
Attachment
16
A RESnTx~TION OF THE CI'AY O3t~CIL OF IHE UrAY OF ~
~A'A~ ~ ~ IE OF A ~ D~ ~
~'~ ~ 8287 ~l'~ AM
~, ~ Ci~ ~il of ~ ~ of ~ nM ~
~i~ ~1 a~]~hle ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~t ~ ~1~
~, ~, ~ Ci~ ~il of ~ Ci~ of ~ n~=~....~ ~
~ ~M ~ ~~1 ~ ~{~ ~ ~ ~ of a
~ ~j~.
Erl~ 1: ~ Ci~ ~il of ~ Ci~ of ~ 0~..-~
a ~ti~ ~l~ti~ f~ ~ ~-~ ~t ~ 0'-,~.1~ ~ ~
~ ~j~.
S~i'l~ 2: h Ci~ Ci~ ~ d{~ ~ file a ~ of
~ti~ ~ ~ ~ ~lif~ ~~ ~i~ ~.
17
CITY OFRANCHOCUCAMONGA ---,,.
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January S, 1994
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY Lucinda E. Hackett, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO APPROPRIATE $315,673 FROM DEFERRED REVENUE ACCOUNT
NO. 22-236 AND EXPEND IT IN SYSTEMS DEVELOPMENT FUND ACCOUNT
NUMBERS 22-4637-9206 ($104,891) AND 22-4637-9205 ($209,782), FOR
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROCHESTER AVENUE AND BANYAN STREET
IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATED NORTH OF HIGHLAND AVENUE.
RECINDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the appropriation of $315,673
from Deferred Revenue Account No. 22-236 to expend in Systems Development Fund
Account Nos. 22-4637-9206 ($104,891) and 22-4637-9205 ($209,782) for the
construction of the Rochester Avenue and Banyan Street Improvement Project
1 ocated north of Highland Avenue.
BACI(GROUND/A~iALYSIS
The funds in Deferred Revenue Account No. 22-236 were deposited by the
Marlborough Corporation on March 11, 1988 for the construction of off-site
improvements as per the Conditions of Approval for Tract 12643 and Parcel Map
9192. A portion of these funds are now being expended to construct a part of
the required off-site improvements.
Respectfully submitted, ~
William J. O'Nell
City Engineer
WJO:LEH:dlw
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~,"'-"~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 5, 1994 ~
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council .
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager ~
FROM: William J. O'Neit, City Engineer
BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer
SUBJECT: AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR ROCHESTER
AVENUE AND BANYAN STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATED, NORTH OF
HIGHLAND AVENUE AND LMD-6 LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS TO KRUZE AND KRUZE
CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING, INC., FOR THE AMOUNT OF $46.4,~73.00
($422,430.10 PLUS 10% CONTINGENCY), TO BE FUNDED FROM SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT, ACCOUNT NOS. 22-4637-9206, ($104,891.00) AND 22-4637-
9205, ($209,782.00) AND S.B. 140, ACCOUNT NO. 35-4637-9205,
($1SO,O00.O0)
RECelqENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council a~cept all bid proposals as received,
award and authorize execution of contract for Rochester Avenue and Banyan Street
Improvement Project, north of Highland Avenue and LMD-6 Landscape Improvements,
to the lowest responsive bidder, Kruze and Kruze Construction and Engineering,
Inc., for the amount of $464,673.00 and authorize the Administrative Services
Director to expend $464,673.00 ($422,430.10 plus 10% contingency) to be funded
from Systems Development Fund, Account Nos. 22-4637-9206, ($i04,891.00) and 22-
4637-9205, ($209,782.00) and S.B. 140, Account No. 35-4637-9205, ($150,000.00).
BAD(GROUND/AJ~ALYSIS
Per previous Council action, bids were sol icited, received and opened on December
2, 1993, for the subject project. Kruze and Kruze Construction and Engineering,
Inc., is the apparent lowest responsive bidder with a bid amount of $422,430.10
(see attached bid summary). The Englneer's estimate was $663,000.00. Staff has
reviewed all bids received and found them to be complete and in accordance with
the bid requirements. Staff has completed the required background investigation
and finds all bidders to meet the requirements of the bid documents.
Respectful ly submiIted,
Will iam'~. O'Neil
City Engineer
WJO:LRB:ly
Attachment
CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMO~A SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
ROCHESTER AVENUE AND BANYAN STREET IMPROVEMENTS & LMD-6 LANDSCAPE IMPROVMENTS
ENGINEERS ESTIMATE $632,510.00 BID OPENING, DECEMBER 2, 1993
Kru.ze & Kruze Const. Laird Constrdction Co. Riverside Construction Co.
Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Original Unit Amount Quantity Amount
No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Aulhorized Prices
!. Cleaxing and C, rubbing LS I $16,768.00 $16,768.00 $19,270.000 $19;.70.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00
2. Unclassi~ed Excavation CY 3,000 $10.00 $30,000.00 $17.850 $53,550.00 $15.00 $45,000.00
3. Crushed Aggregate TON 2,420 $12.00 $29,040.00 $12.500 $30,250.00 $10.00 $24,200.00
4. A.C. Pavement TON 2,440 $32.50 $79,300.00 $22.100 $53,924.00 $23.00 $56,120.00
S. Cold Plane (5' Wide) SF 935 $1.00 $935.00 $0.920 $860.20 $1.50 $1,40Z50
6- Adj MH Fram~ & $0.00
Cover to Grade EA 6 $336.00 $2,016.00 $400.0C0 $2,400.00 $325.00 $1,950.00
7. Adj. WV Box m Cnnd~ EA 13 $170.00 $2,210.00 $100.000 $1,300.00 $75.00 $975.00
8. Reconslfuct Manhol= HA 6 $500.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.000 $6,000.00 $1,000.00 $6,000.00
9. Catch Basin w = 8 HA I $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,750.000 $2,750.00 $3,750.00 $3,750.00
10. Catch Basin w= 21 HA I $5,100.00 $5,100.00 $6,050.000 $6,050.00 $9,500.00 $9,500.00
11. Catch Basin w=28 HA 2 $6,000.00 $12,C00.00 $6,575.000 $13,150.00 $10,500.00 $21,000.00
12. P.C.C. Collar HA I $300.00 $300.00 $1,275.000 $1,275.00 $250.00 $250.00
13. Coast. Janclio, Sttuctth~ No. 2 HA I $750.00 $750.00 $1,0CO.000 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00
14. R & R M~somy Block Wall SF 40 $40.00 $1,600.00 $25.000 $1,000.00 $10.00 $400.00
15. Curbside Drain Outlet Detail D EA 2 $2,400.00 $4,800.00 $2,225.000 $4,450.00 $3,750.00 $7,500.00
16. Cttrbside Dnin Oudet Detail E HA 2 $2,300.00 $4,600.00 $ 1,695.000 $3,390.00 $3,750.00 $7,500.00
17. 8" P,C,C. Curb & $0.00
24"Gut~t LF 2,487 $7.00 $17,409.00 $10.000 $24,870.00 $8.00 $19,896.00
i& 4"PCCSdwlk&AccemaRamps SF 12,813 $1.70 $21,782.10 $1.64j0 $20.500.80 $1.50 $19;.19.50
19. PCC&CobblcstoncHardscape SF 1,800 $3.00 $5,400.00 $6.350 $11A30.00 $6.00 $10,800.00
20. Adj. WM Box to Grade HA I $400.00 $400.00 S100.000 $100.00 $250.00 $250.00
21. 30" Trench & BackFall, Conduit, $0.00
Pulltopes & Pull Bmcm LF Delete
22. 24" Dis. RCP Remove Plugt LF 80 $40.00 $3,200.00 $42.500 $3,400.00 $125.00 $10,000.00
23. Install lnduc~v= Loop $0.00
Dettctors HA 5 $1,100.00 $5,500.00 $1,030.000 $5,150.00 $1,500.00 $7,500.00
24. lrdgalion System and Meter LS I $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $53,000.000 $53,000.00 $45,000.00 $45,000.00
25. Hydromee. d SF 6,500 $0.10 $650.00 $0.095 $617.50 $0.10 $650.00
26. Hydrmced {}anzania SF 60,800 $0.17 $10,336.00 $0.200 $12,160.00 $0.20 $12,160.00
27, 180DayMainu:nancePeried LS I $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $5,100.000 $5,100.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
2& 1 QL Shrab HA 163 $10.00 $1,630.00 $2.650 $431.95 $4.00 $652.00
29. I Gal Shrub 2,733 $8.00 $21,864.00 $(xl00 $16,671.30 $5.00 $13,665.00
30. 5 Gad Shrub HA 1,513 $15.00 $22,695.00 $14.200 $21,484.60 $16.00 $24,208.00
31. 15GdTR. e HA 199 $70.00 $13,930.00 $72.0C0 $14,328.00 $135.00 $26,865.00
32. 24" Box Taz HA 10 $200.00 $2,000.00 $200.000 $2,000.00 $300.00 $3,000.00
33. 8" P.C.C. Mow Strip LF 94 $10.00 $940.00 $10.000 $940.00 $5.00 $470.00
34. 12' F. questtian Trdil LF 1,075 $25.00 $26,875.00 $30.850 $33,163.75 $32.00 $34,400.00
36. Traffic Suiping, Signing $0.00
& Pavement Markers LS 1 $8,800.00 $8,800.00 $8,335.000 $8,335.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00
Bid Tolal $422,430.10 $434,302.10 $444,783.00
CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
Page 2
Gentry Brothers, Incorporated Sully Miller ConL Co. Eastland Construction
Item item Unit of Estimated Unit Original Unit Amount Unit Amount
No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Authorized Prices Prices
1. Clearing and Grubbing LS I $15,000.(30 $15,000.00 $28,200.00 $28,200.00 $80,000.00 $80,000.00
2. Unclassitied Excavation CY 3,000 $14.30 $42,900.00 $21.00 $63,000.00 $12.00 $36,000.00
3. CnlshedAggv~gatc TON 2,420 $12.00 $29,040.00 $11.30 $27,346.00 $10.00 $24,200.00
4. A.C. Pavement TON 2,440 $27.00 $65,880.00 $23.50 $57,340.00 $24.00 $58,560.00
5. Cold Plane (5' Wide) ' SF 935 $2.70 $2,524.50 $2.10 $1,963.50 $1.00 $935.00
6. Adj MH Frame & $0.00
CoverloGnde EA 6 $200.00 $1,200.00 $290.00 $1,740.00 $300.00 $1,800.00
7. Adj. V/V Box to Cande EA 13 $70.00 $910.00 $210.C0 $2,730.00 $30.00 $390.00
& Reconstruct Manhole EA 6 $900.00 $5,400.00 $2,050.00 S12,300.00 $800.00 $4,800.00
9. Catch Basin w = 8 EA I $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,600.00 $3,600.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00
10. Catch Basin w = 21 EA I $6,000.00 $6,0130.00 16,300.00 $6,300.00 $5,000.00
I1. Catch Basin w = 28 EA 2 $7,000.00 $14,000.00 $7,050.00 $14,100.00 $4,000.00 $8,000.00
1/. P.C.C. Collar EA I $350.00 $350.00 $420.00 $420.00 $300.00 $300.00
13. Const Junction Stn~cntn No. 2 EA I $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $600.00 $600.00
14. R & R Masomy Block Wall SF 40 $35.00 $1,400.00 $115.00 $4,600.00 $12.50 $500.00
15. Curbside Drain Outlet Detail D EA 2 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,800.00 $7,600.00 $2,500.00 $5,1300.00
16, Curbside Drain Outlet Detail E EA 2 $3,380.00 $6,760.00 $3,900.00 $7,800.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00
17. 8" P.C.C. Curb & $0.00
24" Guttct LF 2,487 $10.00 $24,870.00 $6.60 $16,414.20 $7.00 $17,409.00
I& 4'PCCSdwlk&Acc~ssRamps SF 12,813 $1.90 $24,344.70 $1.45 $18,578.85 $1.20 $15,375.60
19. PCC & Cobblestone Harriscape SF 1,800 $5.00 $9,000.00 $10.00 $18,000.00 $3.50 $6,300.00
20. Adj. WM Box m Grade EA I $75.00 $75.00 $125.00 $125.00 $50.00 $50.00
21. 30" Tw. nch& B~.ckf'%R, Conduit, $0.00
Pullropes & Pull Bones LF Delete
2/. 24" Din. RCP Remove Plugs LF 80 $160.00 $12,800.00 $160.00 $12,800.00 $75.00 $6,000.00
/3. Install Inductive Loop $0.00
Detcclon EA 5 $1,200.00 $6,000.00 $1,025.00 $5,125.00 $1,500.00 $7,500.00
24. Itrigatinn System and Meier LS I $65,000.00 $65,000.00 $55,500.00 $55,500.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00
25. Ilydro~eed SF 6,500 $0.11 $715.00 $0.40 $2,600.00 $0.10 $650.00
2& HydreseedGanzanin SF 60,800 $0.21 $12,768.00 $0.16 $9,728.00 $0.40 $24,320.00
2?. 180 Day Maintenance period LS I $6,000.00 $6,C00.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00
2& 1 Qt. Sittub EA 163 $3.00 $489.00 $9.50 $1,548.50 $4.00 $652.00
29. 1 Gal Shrub 2,733 $6.50 $17,764.50 $8.40 $22,957.20 $5.00 $13,665.00
30. 5 Gal Shrub EA 1,513 $15.00 $22,695.00 $15.75 $23,829.75 $17.00 $25,721.00
31. 15 Gal The EA 199 $75.00 $14,925.00 $41.95 $8,348.05 $140.00 $27,860.00
3/. 24" Box T~e,e EA I0 $220.00 $2,200.00 $184.00 $1,840.00 $300.00 $3,000.00
33. 8' P.C.C. Mow Strip LF 94 $5.00 $470.00 $4.50 $423.00 $7.00 $658.00
34. 12'Equestl~nTtni] LF 1,075 $28.00 $~0,100.00 $32.~0 $34,937.50 $28.00 $30,100.00
36. Traffic Striping, ~igning $0.00
& Pavement Marken LS 1 $9,000.00 $9,000.00 $8,300.00 $8,300.00 ~$8,500.00 $8,500.00
Bid Total $460,580.70 $484,$94.55 $486,845.60
Original Bid Total $460,42030 $482,254.55
CITY OF RANClIO CUCAMtA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
Page 3
Vance Corporation JEG Construelion Co., Inc. Palomar Grad. & Pay., Inc.
Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Amount Unit Amount Unit Original
No. Description Measure Quahilly Prices Prices Prices Authorized
1, Clearing and Grubbing LS I $37,000.00 $37,000.00 S50'500.00 S50,500,00 $34,250.00 $34,250.00
2, Unclassificd Excavation CY 3,000 $24.50 $73,500.00 $17.25 $51,750.00 $15.67 $47,010.00
3, Crushed Aggregate TON 2,420 $12.25 $29,645.00 $20.00 $48,400.00 $9.40 $22,748.00
4, A.C. Pavement TON 2,440 $29.50 $71,980.00 $24.50 $59,780.00 $24.50 $59,780.00
5, ColdPlane(5'Wide) S]TM 935 $1.25 $1,168.75 $2.80 $2,618.00 $3,20 $2,992.00
6, Adj Mll Frame & SO.GO
Cover to Grade EA 6 $500.00 $3,000.00 S350.00 $2,100.00 $300.00 $1,800.00
7, Adj. WV Box toGrnde EA 13 $105.00 $1,365.00 $50.00 $650.00 $100.00 $1,300.00
8, Rccomtruct Manhole EA 6 $650.00 $3,900.00 $1,200.00 S7,200.00 $ 1,500.00 $9,000.00
9, Catch BEin w: 8 EA I $2,700.00 $2,700.00 $3,750.00 $3350.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
10, Catch Basin w = 21 EA I $5,950.00 S5,950.00 $10A50.00 S10,450.00 $4,800.00 $4,800.00
I1, CalchBasin w=28 EA 2 $13,000.00 $26,000.00 $10,800.00 $21,600.00 $6,100.00 $12,200.00
12,, P.C.C. Collar EA I $1,300.00 $1,300.00 $250.00 $250.00 $500.00 $500.00
13. Const. Juncfio~ Structure No. 2 EA 1 $1,050.00 $1,050.00 $650.00 $650.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00
14, R & R Masonry Block Wall SF 40 $39.25 $1,570,00 $30.00 $1,200.00 $15.00 $600.00
15, Curbside D'tain Ou~ct l)c~il D EA 2 $2,275.00 $4,550.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $2,300.00 $4,600.00
16, Curbside Drain Oudet Delnil E EA 2 $1,750.00 $3,500.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $2,200.00 $4,400.00
17, g' P.C.C. Curb & $0.00
24"Grater LF 2,487 $7.75 $19,274.25 $9.50 $23,626.50 $7.15 $17,782.05
!& 4"pCCSdwlk&AcccssRamps SF 12,813 $1.80 $23,063.40 $1.65 $21,141.45 $1.60 $20,500.80
19. PCC & Cobblestone Ilaxdt, c. aFe SF 1,806 $6,40 $11 '520.00 $7.50 $13,500.00 $5.00 $9,0OO.00
20, Adj. WM Box to Grade EA 1 $1,300.00 $1,300.00 $250.00 $250.00 $300.00 $300.00
21, 30' Trench & Backf~l, Conduit, $0.00
pullropes &pull Bt~xcs LF Delete $7.25 $24,650.00
2/. 24' Din. RCP Remove Plugs LF 80 $43.25 $3,460.00 $80.00 $6,400.00 $100.00 $8,000.00
23. Install Inductive Loop $0.00
De~ectors EA 5 S760.00 $3,800.00 $1,100.00 $5,500.00 $1,550.00 $7,750.00
24, Ixtigation System and Meter LS 1 $56,700.00 $56,700.00 $50,000,00 $50,000.00 $85,346.00 $85,346.00
25, Hydr0e, ce.d SF 6,500 $0.06 $390.00 $0.10 $650.00 $0.20 $1,300.00
26, IlydrcaeedGanzanin SF 60,800 $0.08 $4,864.00 $0.21 $12,768.00 $0.39 $23,408.00
27, 180 D~y Maintennnc4: Petted LS I $10,900.00 $10,900.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00
28, 1 QL Shrub EA 163 $2.15 $350.45 $Z75 $448.25 $3.00 $489.00
29, 1 Gal Shrub 2,733 $5.00 $13,665.00 $6.25 $17,081.25 $4.95 $13,528.35
30, 5 Gal Shrub EA 1,513 $17.50 $26,477.50 $14,50 $21,93g.50 $14.00 $21,182.00
31, 15 Gal Tree EA 199 $9Z00 $18,308.00 $75.00 $14,925,00 $105.00 $20,895.00
39 24" Box Tree EA 10 $215.00 $2,150.00 $200.00 $2,000.00 $210.00 $2,100.00
33, 8" P.C.C. Mow Snip LF 94 $5.00 $470.00 $6.00 $564.00 $15.00 $1,410.00
34. 12'Equestrian Trail LF 1,075 $37.50 $40,312.50 $36,50 $39,237.50 $43.00 $46,225.00
36, Traffic Striping, Signing $0.00
& Pavement Markets LS 1 $8'500.00 $8,500.00 $8'500.00 $8,500.00 ,$9,460.00 $9,460.00
$513,683.85 $514,428.45 $530,306,20
Original Bid Total $530,314.20
CITY OF RANCI I0 CUCAMONGA SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
Page 4
Mobassaly Engineering Inc. Tetra-Cad ConsL, Inc. Boral Reseuces, Inc.
Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Amount Unit Amount Unit Original
No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Prices Prices Authorized
!. Cl~uing and Cn-ubbing LS I $56,500.00 $56,500.00 $28,000.000 $28,000.(]0 564,500.00
2. Uncl~-ssilied Excavation CY 3,000 516.00 $48,000.00 $30.0C0 $90,000.00 $27.60 $82,800.00
3. Crushed Aggmgaie TON 2,420 $11.00 526,620.00 $28.000 $67,760.00 $18.80 $45.496.00
4. A.C. Pavement TON 2,440 $26.00 $63,440.00 $27.0C0 $65,880.00 $27.00 $65,880.00
S. Cold Plane (5' Wide) SF 935 $2.40 $2,244.00 $ 1.0CO $935.00 $4.00 $3,740.00
6. Adj MII Fran~ & $0.00
Cover to Gtade EA 6 $250.00 $1,500.00 $300.000 $1,800.00 $300.00 $1,800.00
7. Ad.~. WV Box to Grade EA 13 $75.06 $9'/5.00 $150.000 $1,950.00 $83.00 $1,079.00
& Reconstruct Manhole EA 6 $600.{X) $3,600.00 $2,600.000 $15,600.00 $615.00 $3,690.00
9. Catch Basin w = 8 EA I $3,800.00 $3,800.00 $2,750.000 $2,750.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00
!& Catch Basin w = 21 EA I $7,{]C0.00 $7,000.00 $5,400.000 $5,400.00 $6,560.00 56,500.00
11. Catch Basin w~28 EA 2 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $6,800.000 $13,600.00 $7,700.00 $15,400.00
12. P.C.C. Collar EA I $450.00 $450.00 $400.000 $400.00 $310.00 $310.00
13. Coast. Junction Stn~ctme No. 2 EA I $1,100.00 $1,100.00 $850.000 $850.00 $g70.00 5~0.00
14. R & R Masomy Block Wall SF 40 $20.00 $800.00 $40.000 $1,600.00 $72.00 $2,880.00
IS. Curbfide Drain Ouget Detail D EA 2 $2,600.00 $5,200.00 $2,500.000 $5,000.00 $2,150.00 $4,300.00
16. Curbside Drain Outlet Detail E EA 2 $2,400.00 $4,800.00 $2,400.000 $4,800.00 $2,150.00 $4,300.00
17. 8" P.C.C. Curb & $0.00
24" Gutter LF 2,487 $9.50 $23,626.50 $10.000 $24,870.00 $10.40 $25.864.80
I& 4" PCC Sdwlk &: Access Ramps SF 12,813 $1.95 $24,985.35 .. $2.000 $25,626.00 $1.60 $20,500.80
19. PCC & Cobbtestone Ilardscal~ SF l,gO0 $5.00 $9,000.00 $4.000 $7,200.00 $10.60 $19,080.00
2& Adj. WM Box m Grade EA I $75.00 $75.00 $200.0C0 $200.00 $84.00 $84.00
'>1. 30" Ts~nch & Backfall, Conduit, $0.00
Pulh'opes & Pull Boxes LF Deinm $100.00
22. 24" Dia. RCP Remove Plugs LF gO $100.00 $8,000.00 $87.000 $6,960.00 $78.00 $6,240.00
23. Install Inductive Loop $0.00
Detecton EA 5 $1,650.00 $8,250.00 $1,150.000 $5,750.00 $1,000.00
24. Irrigation System and Meter LS I $70,000.00 $70,000.00 $62,000.000 $62,000.00 $106,000.00 $106,000.00
25. Hydraseed SF 6,500 $0.11 $715.00 $0.060 $390.00 $0.65 $4,225.00
26. Ilydroseed Ganzanin SF 60,800 $0.43 $26,144.00 $0.042 $2,553.60 $0.610 $37,08&00
27. 180DayMain~ennnc~P~x~l LS I $5,200.00 $5,200.00 $18,000.000 $18,000.00 $19,000.00 $19.000.00
2& I Qt. Shrub EA 163 $3.30 $537.90 $1.500 $244.50 $1.62 $264.06
29. I Gid Shrub 2,733 $5.50 $15,031.50 $5.6430 $15,304.80 $5.90 516,124.70
30. 5 Gel Shrub EA 1,513 $17.00 $25,721.00 $10.200 $15,~.32.60 510.80 $16,340.40
31. 15 Gal T~ EA 199 $150.00 $29,850.00 $80.0C0 $15,920.00 $84.00 $16,716.00
32, 24" Box Tree EA 10 $300.00 $3,000.00 $120.000 $1.200.00 $26.00 $260.00
33, 8" P.C.C. Mow Strip LF 94 $600 $564.00 $7.0(30 5658.00 $10.60 $996.40
34. 12' Equestrian Trail LF 1,075 $36.00 $38,700.00 $23.000 $24,725.00 $48.00 $51,600.00
36. Traffic Stziping, Signin8 $0.00
&PavementMarkets LS I $10,800.00 $10,800.00 $9,0(X).000 $9,000.00 ~8,300.00 $8,300.00
Bid Total $541,229.25 $542,359.50 $660,729.16
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 5, 1994
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY: Linda R. Beek, Jr. Engineer/--~
SUBJECT: AWARD AND AUTHORIZATION FOR EXECUTION OF CONTRACT FOR NINTH
STREET WATERLINE, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATED FROM VINMAR
TO SIERRA MADRE AVENUES, TO C.P. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
INCORPORATED, FOR THE AMOUNT OF $24,887.50 ($22,625.00 PLUS
10% CONTINGENCY), TO BE FUNDED FROM CDBG FUNDS, ACCOQNT NO.
28-4333-9121
RECOI~ENDATION:
It is reconmnended that the C~ty Council accept all bid proposals as
received, award and authorize execution of contract for Ninth Street
Waterline, Improvement Project to the lowest responsive bidder, C.P.
Construction Company, Incorporated, for the amount of $22,625.00 and
authorize the Administrative Services Director to expend $24,887.50
($22,625.00 plus 10% contingency) to be funded from CDBG Funds, Account
No. 28-4333-9121.
BACKGROIJND/AN,qJ, YSIS
Per previous Council action, bids were solicited, received and opened on
December 9, 1993, for the subject project. C.P. Construction Company,
Incorporated, is the apparent lowest responsive bidder with a bid amount
of $22,625.00 (see attached bid sumary). The Engineer's estimate was
$23,165.00. Staff has reviewed all bids received and found them to be
complete and in accordance with the bid requirements. Staff has
completed the required background investigation and finds all bidders to
meet the requirements of the bid documents.
Respectf~]ly~submitte~, .
William~Neil(~Tz~''9]'/k'/
City Engineer
WJO:LRB:ly
Attachment
cc: Purchasing
BID DATE: DECEMBER 9, 1993 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS
NINTH STREET WATERLINE, FROM VINMAR TO SIERRA MADRE AVENUES
ENGINEERS'S ESTIMATE C.P. Construction Stanley F. Yelich, Inc.
Item Item 'Unit of Estimated Unit Original Unit Amount Unit Amount
No. Description M~asure Quantity Prices Authorized Prices Prices
1. 4" A.C. Pavement TON 60 60 $3,600.00 $50.00 $3,000.00 $42.00 $2,520.00
2. 8"Tee, GV 2" Blow OffBl. FIn LS I 2000 $2,000.00 $2,190.00 $2,190.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00
3. 8" Din. CML & W Pipe LF 363 30 $10,890.00 $23.85 $8,657.55 $22.00 $7,986.00
4. Con. 8" WL to Existing EA I 600 $600.00 $325.95 $325.95 $400.00 $400.00
5. lnst. 1" Cop. Pipe Ser./l" Dora. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Meter &Box EA 4 500 $2,000.00 $350.00 $1,400.00 $700.00 $2,800.00
6. Remove Meter EA 4 25 $100.00 $150.00 $600.00 $100.00 $400.00
7. Remove Valve, Cap &Abandon $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2" Line EA 2 150 $300.00 $200.00 $400.00 $100.00 $200.00
8. Install Pressure Reg. Valves EA 4 150 $600.00 $105.00 $420.00 $450.00 $1,800.00
9. Inst. 1" Copper Tubing Serv Ln. LF 179 15 $2,685.00 $18.50 $3,311.50 $10.00 $1,790.00
10. Cap Abandon Exist. Service Line EA 4 50 $200.00 $105.00 $420.00 $75.00 $300.00
I1. Restore Landscaping SF 100 i.65 $165.00 $12.00 $1,200.00 $10.00 $1,000.00
12. Traffic Control LS I 25 $25.00 $700.00 $700.00 $1,000,00 $1,000.00
Total $23,165.00 $22,625.00 $23,696.00
Sonora Pipeline Rainier Const. Co., Inc. Hood Corporation
Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Original Unit Amount Unit Amount
No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Authorized Prices Prices
1. 4" A.C. Pavement TON 60 50 $3,000,00 $75.00 $4,500.00 $50.00 $3,000.00
2. 8"Tee, GV 2" Blow Off BI. Fla LS I 30(}0 $3,000.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $3,930.00 $3,930.00
3. 8" Dia. CIVIL & W Pipe LF 363 33 $1 t.979.00 $45.50 $16,516.50 $46.00 $16,698.00
4. Con. 8" WL to Existing EA I 100 $100.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,043.00 $1,043.00
5.. Inst. 1" Cop. Pipe Ser./1" Dora. $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Meter &Box EA 4 445 $1.780.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $550.00 $2,200.00
6. Remove Meter EA 4 40 $160.00 $100.00 $400.00 $100.00 $400.00 i
7. Remove Valve, Cap &Abandon $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2" Line EA 2 100 $200.00 $150.00 $300.00 $250.00 $500.00
8. Install Pressure Reg. Valves EA 4 180 $720.00 $150.00 $600.00 $55.00 $220.00
9. last. l" Copper Tubing Serv Ln. LF 179 8 $1,432.00 $11.00 $1,969.00 $31.00 $5,549.00
10. Cap Abandon Exist. Service Line EA 4 50 $200.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $150.O0 $600.00
11. Restore Landscaping SF 100 8 $800.00 $10.00 $1,000.00 $15.00 $1,500.00
12. Traffic Control LS I 3350 $3,350.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $500.00 $500.00
Total $26,721.00 $35,485.50 $36,140.00
Page 2
Albert W. Davies, Inc. Atlas Allied, Inc.
Item Item Unit of Estimated Unit Original Unit Amount Unit Amount
No. Description Measure Quantity Prices Authorized Prices Prices
1. 4" A.C. Pavement TON 60 70 $4,200.00 $100.00 $6,000.00 0.00
2. 8"Tee, GV 2" Blow Off BI. Fla LS i 3200 $3,200.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 0.00
3. 8" Dia. CML & W Pipe LF 363 36 $13,068.00 $47.00 $17,061.00 g0.00
4. Con. 8" WL to Existing EA I 1000 $ i ,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 ~0.00
5. Inst. I' Cop. Pipe SerJl" Dean, $0.00 $(}.00 ;0.00
Meier &Box EA 4 600 $2,400.00 $800.00 $3,200.00 ;0.00
6. Remove Meter EA 4 200 $800.00 $200.00 $800.00 ;0.00
7. Remove Valve, Cap &Abandon $0.00 $0.00 ;0.00
2" Line EA 2 200 $400.00 $500.00 $ 1,000.00 ;0.00
& Install Pressme Reg. Valves EA 4 230 $920.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 ;0.00
9. lnst 1' Copper Tubing Sent Ln. LF 179 30 $5,370.00 $15.00 $2,685.00 ;0.00
10. Cap Abandon Exist. Service Line EA 4 300 $ 1,200.00 $200.00 S800.00 ;0.00
IL Restore Landscaping SF 100 40 $4,000.00 $4.00 $400.00 0.00
12. Traffic Comrol LS 1 1000 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 ;0.00
Tolal $37,558.00 $,38,946.00 ~0.00
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 5, 1994
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: William J. O'Neil, City Engineer
BY Mike · ivier, Senior Civil Engineer
SUBJECT: APPROVAL TO AWARD AND EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA AND WILLIAMSON AND SCHMID, TO
PREPARE DESIGN PLANS SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTIMATES
Ro. TE STOW D IN P RT O. 0 ,.E .ILLIKE. AVE..E
F
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD TO ARROW ROUTE FOR $49 000.00 PLUS 10%
CONTINGENCIES TO BE FUNDED BY A X MEASURE ~, ACCOUNT NO. 32-
RTERI L
4637-9328.
RECO44ENDATION
It is hereby recommended that the City Council approve, award and execute the
above subject Professional Services Agreement with Williamson and Schmid for the
design of Arrow Route Storm Drain.
BAD(GROUND/AN~J,YSIS
On December 1, 1993, board members of SANBAG approved $1,500,000 of Arterial
Measure I Funds for the extension of Milliken Avenue from Foothill Boulevard to
Arrow Route. The proposed work not only includes the design and construction of
a new roadway, but also a storm drain. In anticipation of this funding in-house
staff have been proceeding with the design plans, specifications and estimates
for the road work; however, to keep the entire project on schedule with the
proposed MetroLink Station, an engineering consultant should be brought on board
to prepare the design plans, specifications and estimates for the storm drain
work. The engineering firm of Williamson and Schmid has done considerable
drainage studies in the area and because of this, the start-up time to begin
design work is minimized due to this firm's familiarity. Also, after rating
their engineering proposal it shows a determination of adequacy of skill as well
as delivery of an acceptable professional design project in an accel erated time
schedule. Therefore the firm of Williamson and Schmid is reconmnended to provide
professional engineering design services for the storm drain portion of the
Milliken Avenue extension.
City Engineer
WJO:MO:ly
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT "
DATE: January 5, 1994 ~ '
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - WESTE~Iq PROPERTIES -
Consideration Of an appeal Of the Planning Commission's decision
to deny the design review of elevations for Building X, a 5,350
square foot retail building within the Tetra Vista Town Center,
located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven
Avenue, in the Con~nunity Co~m~ercial District
APN: 1077-421-70. (Continued from December 1, 1993.)
BAClI~I%O~IMD
On December 1, 1993, the City Council conducted a public hearing regarding the
applicant's appeal. After receiving public testimony, the Council appointed a
Subcommittee (Stout & Williams) to work with the applicant on revising the
elevations. The public hearing was continued.
Since that time, the subcommittee and staff have met with the applicant and
given direction to the architect for revisions. Revised elevations were
submitted end are currently being reviewed by the Sukommlttee. The
Subco~unittee will present an oral report at the meeting.
The Resolution of Approval is attached for consideration should the revised
plans address the concerns of the City Council.
Brad Bailer
City Planner
BB:DC/Sp
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Staff Report dated December 1, 1993
Resolution of Approval
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: December I, 1993 ..
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The consideration of
an appeal of the Planning Connnission's decision to deny the design
review of elevations for Building X, a 5,350 square foot retail
building within the Terra Vista Town Center, located at the
northeast corner of Foothill BOulevard and Haven Avenue, in the
Community Commercial District - APN: 1077-421-70.
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the decision of the Planning
Commission denying the Design Review for Building X. A Resolution of Denial
is attached for Council action.
The Commission approved the conceptual elevations for Buildings X and Y in
December, 1987. The final building design and architectural details were
approved in November 1989, as shown in Exhibit "F." Subsequently, the
developer received building permits, but did not pursue the construction
the buildings. In late July 1993, the developer suklnitted new elevations for
Buildings X and Y. The design and intended use of the two buildings has
changed from a two-story building for financial and office use to a single-
story building for retail use. On August 11, 1993, the Commission reviewed
the new elevations and directed the developer to address their des ~ gn
concerns. At the meetings of August 25 and October 13, 1993, the CommLss~on
reviewed the revised elevations as shown in Exhibits "G" and "I" and approved
Building Y, but did not approve Building X. The Co-~ission then denied the
Building X desigu at the October 27, 1993 meeting. The developer made a
timely appeal of the Con~ission's decision.
In the appeal letter, the developer stated that the C~ission exceeded
scope of their authority. The General Plan establishes the Development ~ t
Design Review process to implement the goal of quality c~ity design.
Commission's action in this application is within the authority established
the General Plan and Chapter 17.06 of the Development Code.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DR 93-13
December 1, 1993
Page 2
In their review of this application, the Commission recognized that Tetra
Vista Town Center is an award-winning shopping center since it received the
prestigious "design excellence" award from the International Council of
Shopping Centers (ICSC) in 1992. The Comission noted the importance of the
corner at Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue and the requirement that any
building at this intersection have the same high level of design integrity as
the center.
The concept of replacing the previously approved two-story buildings with one-
story retail buildings was accepted by the Commission with the understanding
that the design quality of the original approvals would not be lost. The
developer acknowledged the Commission's concerns and agreed to work diligently
to address them. The Commission found the revised design of Building Y to be
acceptable, but not Building X. The Commission felt that the overall building
design was too simple and that it looked like typical in-line retail shops.
Exhibits "H" and "I" show the progression of the design of Building X. The
Commission believed that both sides have tried very hard to work together in
molding the design of Building X, but the outcome was not successful. The
Commission did not approve Building X because the form and the scale of this
building does not provide the proper balance with Building Y and the design
does not project the architectural significance required at this corner or
when compared to the previous design and other buildings in the center. The
Comission, with a majority vote, denied the design of Building X. Copies of
the August 11, August 25, and October 13, ~993 Co-w. ission minutes, along with
the pertinent staff reports, are attached with this report for the Council
review.
Respe ly s ' ted
City Planner
Attachments:Exhibit "A" - Appeal letter from the applicant
Exhibit "B" - Commission Resolution No. 93-89
Exhibit "C" - October ~3, August 25, and August ~, 1993
Planning Comission Minutes
E~hibit "D" - October 27, October 13, and August l~, 1993
Planning Comission Staff Reports
Exhibit "E" - Location Maps
Exhibit "F" - Previously approved elevations of Buildings X ~
Y (~989)
Exhibit "G" - Approved Building Y elevations
Exhibit "B" - Proposed Building X elevations dated
August ~ and August 25, 1993
Exhibit "I' - Proposed Building X elevations dated October II.
1993
Exhibit "J" - Perspective of Building X
Resolution of Denial
Lewis Homes Management Corp.
11~6 North Madman Avenue / ~O. ~x 670 / Upl~. C~ifomi~ 91785~70
~8~ I F~: ~7~
November 3, 1993 CI~CLE~K
NOV 0 8 leg3
Ms. DeUby Adams
City ClerR 17~ 8~
The City of Ranthe Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Ranthe Cucmamonga, CA 91729
Re: Development Review 93-~3# Building ·
Tetra Vista Town cen~er
Dear Ms. Adams,
Attached you will find a letter dated October 28, 1993 from Gail
Satchel of the City of Ranthe Cucamonga by which I was advised that
at the Planning Commission meeting of October 27, 1993 the above
captioned Application was denied. This denial was in accordance
with Planning Commission Resolution 93 - 89, a copy of which is
also attached for your use.
In accordance with our rights, Western Land Properties hereby
appeals Resolution 93 89 to the City Council based on Western
Land Properties belief that the decision of the Planning Commission
was arbitrary, and exceeded the scope of their authority. In
addition, we believe that the Resolution of Denial was passed by a
3-2 vote and not S-0 as shown (which has been confirmed by Gail
'Sanchez). Additionally enclosed is a check for the $126 appeal fee.
Please schedule this appeal for the next available City Council
mee~.ing. It you ~ave any questions pAease call me at (909) 946-
7502.
Sincerely yours,
Western Land Properties,
a California Limited Partnership
b, L..i, ,o,,, ,n,,,.nt c,,p. k
by Riohard A. Mageri
its ~xeoutive Director off Commercial Development
31
R.ESOLUTION NO. 93-89
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMM~'SSION OF THE CIT~ OF
RANC~O CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
DBVILOPMXNT RX~/IEW NO. 93-13, THE DESIGN R~VIEW OF
ELEVATIONS FOR BUILDING X, A 5,350 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL
SUILDING, WITHIN THE TEPJtA VISTA TOWN CENTER, LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVAitD A/rD HAVEN
AVENUE IN THX COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRZCT, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-421-70.
A. Recitals.
1. Western Properties has filed ·n application for the approval o~
Develolmaent Review No. 93-13 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Her·in·fief in this Resolution, the subject Develolm~ent Review request ks
referred to as "the application.'
2. On August 11, August 2S, October 13, end OCtober 27, 1993, the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuclmonge conducted · meeting on the
application and concluded said meeting on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have oocurred.
S. ~
N0%4, THXREPORE, it iS hereby found, determined, end resolved by the
Planning C~iseion of the City of Rancho cueamong· Is follows:
1. This Coe~aiseion hereby specifically finds that all of the facts
set forth in the Recitals, Part A, o~ this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this C~ission
during the above-referenced ~eetingl on August 12, August 2S, OCtober 13, and
October 27, 1993, including witten and oral staff reports, this C'~waission
hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property Identified Is Pads X and
Y, located at the northeast corner of Foothill ~ulevazd and Haven Avenue and
is presently iJs~roved with landscape and hardscapel and
b. The properties to the north and east cf the subject site are
developed with · shoppln~ center, the property to the south is developed wt=h
in office peek, and the property to the west is developed with a mixed-use
business park] and
c. Buildings X and Y are part of the Tetra Vista Town Center and
were approved as two-story office buildingel and
d. The applicant requested to change the apprcved elevat~on. for
Buildings X and Y from a two-story to · einqle-story building design, and tros
offic. to r.t.il u.., .rid
p~AMNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-~9
DR 93-13 DBNIAL - WESTERN PROPERTIES
October 27, 1993
Boulevsrd and Haven Avenue is very important and that the architecture should
be of significance; and
f. The Ccffl~lssion initially reviewed the new elevations at the
meeting on Au~s~ ll, Z993, and the applicant a~red with the c~ission that
additiona~ exhibits ~rl necessary ~o better depict and address the concerns
raised by the Comission. The Cliomien did net find the t~ ~uiZdinql, as
presented, consis~en~ wi~h the s~andard set ~i~h the ori~ina~ proJec~ ap~rova~
for these ~ buiZdin~ pads. A~ ~ha~ tS, ~he ~iss~on directed
app~ic~t ~o revise ~hl ~ lin~e Ito~ buildings wl~h a design ~ha~ ma~ches
the sm level of sophistication as ~hs a~rov~ elevations} ud
g. At the mee~in~ on au~st 2~, 1993, the ~ission ~ound the
revis~ elevations of Building Y to be acce~le but detemin~ ~hat Bui~din~
X was not. The c~iseion approv~ Building Y with the sendirish ~hat
8ulldin~ x be su~Jec~ uo fu~her C~kssion r~i~l ~d
h. A~ ~he ~n~ on ~oMr 13, 1993, ~he ~lssLon
deli~ra~ed on ~he ~ssue off whether BuildinV I mrs ~he design s~udards
~he cancer. The C~ssion a~r~ ~ha~ ~he a~licu~ had ~rl~ ~o ad~se
design concerns by addin9 s~ore~ronu glass ud architectural de~a~ls ~o
building bu~ ~he e~ec~ was no~ succeeefful. ~e uJori~y off ~he
de~e~n~ ~ha~ ~he pro~s~ scale or Building Z dMs no~ provide
c~pa~bil~ ~o Bulldin9 Y and ~he dssl~ d~s n~ have ~he level
architectural excellence r~lr~ fief a building' a~ ~hie intersection. The
C~ssion, w~h a majority vo~e, direc~ s~arff ~o pre~Ee a Resolution off
Den~al Elf ~heir adoption a~ ~he m~lnV on ~oMr 27, 1993.
3. Based u~n ~he subs~u~lal evidence presen~ ~o ~h~s C~ss~on
durin~ ~he ~ove-refferenc~ m~ln9 ud u~n ~ s~lffic eind~ngs o~ ~ac~s
ss~ ~o~h ~n paragraphs 1 and 2 2~, ~his ~lssion here~ ff~nds and
concludes as
a. Tha~ ~he pro~s~ proJec~ ~s cons~s~en~ wi~h ~he objectives
off ~he General PlU~ ~
b. Thee e~ pro~e~ proJ~t Is In accord wl~h ~he objective
~he Tetra vista PI~ ~n~y and ~ ~ees off ~ d~s~r~c~ ~n
~he lice II l~at~/~
c. That ~he archit~ture of hildinV I Is not consistent vLth
the archiCe~ural standards est~limh~ in ~he Torts Vim~a T~ ~nCer ~hrcuqh
Cend~t~onal Use Pmm~ ~-12.
4. Bas~ u~n the ~lndin~m a~ conclusions se~ forth
paragraphs l, 2, and 3 mrs, this calsmlon hereby denims the
without prejudice.
DR 93-13 DENIAL - WESTERN pROEERTIES
O~to~er 27, 1993
S. The Secretary to this C~menission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
ApPROV~D AND ADOPTED THIS 2?TH DAY OF OCTOBER 1993.
pLANNING CO SSIOH OF THE CITY OF RANtHe CUCAMONGA ~LA/qNING/OSSION
BY:
cNlel, thai n
ATTEST:
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the P~enning c~emllelon of the City of Ranthe
Cucsa~nga, do hereby certify that the foregoinV Resolution wet duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning ~lesion of the
City of Ranthe Cucamonga, at · regu~·r meeting of the Planning C~emission held
On the 27th day ~f October 1993, by the followinV v~te-to-wi=z
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CMITIEA, MCNIEL, Mvr-CHER
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
CZTY OF RA,NCHO CUC~4ONGA
PLANNING COM~ZSSZON HZNUT~S
Adjourned Meeting
October 13, 1993
Chairmen McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cuc~nga
Planning Commission to order at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room at Rancho Cuc~monga Civic Center, 10500 Civic cen=er Drive, Rancho
Cuc~monga, California.
COMMISSIONERS: PNESENT: Suzenne Chitlea, Larr~ MCNLel, John
Melcher, Pe=er TOlstoy, wendy Velle==e
ABSENT: None
STAFF PP~SENT.' Bred Bullet, Cl=y Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner
A. DEVELOPNENT REVIEW 93-13 - W~STERN PROPwRTI!m The design review of
elevations for Building X within =he Tetra vis~e Town Cenner, located
a~ =he nor~hees= corner of Foothill B~uleverd end Haven Avenue -
APN: 1077-421-70.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented ~he s=eff report.
Hike Leelay, Wee=am Properties, referenced severe1 l~eme on ~he sap=ember 21,
1993, ~e==er =o =he applicant.
S=aff reminded ~he epplioan~ =he~ ~he purpose of ~he w~rkshop was to review
=he revised eleveEion of Building X.
Tom Bond, Archi=ec=s Peellice, archl=ec~ fCr Wee=sEn Proper~iee, described
improvements he had made ~o Building X.
Cumaissionere chilies ~d Valle~e s~e~ed ~h&~ ~hey concurred wi=h
reooemende~lons as ~u~llned in ~he s~eff report.
Commissioner Melther s~a~ed he did no~ find ~ha= ~he design of
ms=chad =he e~ele end excellence of ~he entire cea=er.
Commissioners Valle~=e and Chilies remarked ~hey had raised ~he same concer~e
e~ previous workshops.
C~mieeioner Tols=oy expressed d~sap~in~n~ wl=h =he building design.
Mike LaBlay lndice=~ a willingness ~ change sm ~f ~he detail e~.~e
pre-cas~ concre=e.
Tcxn Bond explaine~ that the Mission style of architecture includes the use of
contrasting the sample wlth the very detailed elements.
chairman MCNIel {ale that the design for the buildlng should be given the same
attention as the entrance to a very important building or center.
Commissioner Melcher stated that Suildlng X appears to be · misfit when
compared to the rest of the center because it is the only single-etor~
building chat has a gable roof, excep~ for one Cheater and Montgomery Wards
which are ma~or anchors.
Tom Bond explained that the building scale relates to the pedestrian height
yet it is still I very tall one-story building.
The CcMmnislion agreed that the applicant had tried to address the design
concerns with additional storefront glass and architectural details but the
outcome was not Successful.
Commissioners Vallette and Tolstoy believe~ that Building X, as proposed,
could be further Amproved with changing the maee and scale of the building An
order to meet the architectural standards of the center.
C~mmieeionerl Marcher and chitlea and ChaiL~nan McNlel felt that the scale of
Building X does not provide for c~patlblllty with Building Y and the design
does not have the same level of architectural excellence as in the rest of the
center.
MOTION: Moved by Melcher, seconded by chitlea, to deny the design o~ Building
X and direct staff to prepare a Reenlutton of Denial ~nr adoption at the
meeting on October 27, 1993, as a C~nsent Calendar item. M~tion carried by
the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIrA, MC~XIL, MBLCHBR
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY, V~LLBTTB
ABSENT: COMMXSSIONERS: ~ -curled
Coauuiseioner Vallette stated that she voted no ~ecauee she was still willing
to work with the applicant to addreel the concerns,
The meeting edJeMrned at 10:00 p.I.
Respectfully eu~Atted,
PC Ad3ourned Minutes -2- October
CITY OF ~ANC~ CUC~ONOA
PLANNING COM2~I$SION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
August 25, 1993
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Com~seion to order at 10:20 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Orive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COM~ISSIONERS~ PRESENT: Larr~ McN~el, John MoOcher, Peter To~s~o~,
Wendy Valle~=e
ABSENT: Suzanne Chiniel
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Sublet, City P~anner; Nancy Fong, Senior P~anner
A. DE~LOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - ~STERN PROPERTIF~ - The design revi~
e~evationl for Buildings X and & within the Tetra vista Town Concot,
located at =he nor=beast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue
APN: 1077-421-70.
Nancy Fong, Senior P~anner, presented =he staff
Tom Bond, Archinec=s Pacifica, architect for Western Pro~r~iel, descriDed
=he CoMission =he changes he had made =o buildings X lad Y.
CoMissioner Vailerie stated =hat both buildings need ~0 have additiona~
architectural e~e~is~ents such as stone treatment around arches, wkndows,
etc., similar =o the aperoved e~evations.
CoMiseioner Tolstoy r~arked that the west elevation of building X
looked ~ike the back side of a building.
Co~issioner MoOcher fe~t thac ~his west e~eva:ion was acceptable.
Chairman McNieX agr~ wich CoMissioner Tolscoy's rosen: on the
elevation.
CoMilsioner Eelchef ~eltioned whether =he pro~led ~ocaCion of ~he ~rasn
encXosure ares ~s appropr~ane so c~ose :o Foothill 8ou~evard.
Mike LalXey, Western Pro~rtiel, stated ~he ~ocations is shown on =he
approved p~ans.
commissioner Tolstoy asked if the parking next to the trash enclosure will be
for loading and unloading.
Mike LasZey indicated that they can stripe the parking spaces next to the
trash enclosure area as a loading space.
Brad 8uller, City Planner, suggested the Co,vaission make a decision on
Buildings X and Y. He suggested the Commission could come to a consensus to
approve Building Y and to bring Building X back for another workshop. Me
pointed out that the Commission should provide direction to staff and the
applicant regarding whether the proposed sign location for Leaps and Bounds at
the south elevation of building Y is acceptable. He observed the approved
sign program allows the sign to be located at the facia instead of the parapet
wall.
The consensus of the Commission was that the elevation for Building Y is
acceptable. The majority of the Commission felt that the elevation for
Building X needs improvement.
Motion: Moved by Me~cher, seconded by Vailerie, carried 4-0-1 with Chitlea
absent, to approve the revised elevations of BuiLding Y; to direct the
applicant to revise and resubmit Building X for Coe~nislion review at a future
workshop; to find the sign Location on the parapet wall of the south elevation
of Building Y acceptable, so Long as there is only one tenant, however, sign
placement to revert to the facia (~ower sign band area) consistent with the
approved sign program when two or more tenants occupy the building; an~ to
provide that all secondary issues identified in the August 11, L993, staff
report be approved by the City Planner.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting ad3ourned at 11:45 p.m.
RespectfuLly
secretary
PC Adjourned Meeting Minutes -2- August 25, ;;~;
CITY OF RANCMO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
Augus~ 11, 1993
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cuc&monga
Planning commission to order a= 8:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains
Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMJ(ISSIONERS: PRESENT: Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, wendy vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan coleman, Principal
Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Dan James, Senior
Civil Engineer; Steve Ross, Assistant Planner
A. DE~LOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - WESTERN PROP=RTIES The design review of
elevations for Buildings X and Y within the Tetra Vista Town Center,
located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue -
APN: 1077-421-70.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Richard Mager, Western Properties, introduced their teem to the
Commissioners. He stated there is no foreseeable prospect for bank or office
uses in Buildings X and Y. He said they have decided to go with retail uses.
Srian KoJos, the Staubach Company, explained the concept o~ Leaps and Bounds
as an indoor family play center geared toward children up to 9 years old.
Mr. Mager stated that Leaps and Bounds is different from Fundazzle in that the
parents have to stay in the building with the children.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, reminded the commissioners that the focus of
tonight's workshop wee to review the design for the two buildings.
chairmen McNiel cmnded the superb design of the center. He felt that the
proposed elevations for Buildings X. and Y fall short of the design
excellence. Me thought the design of the two buildings is toe sample end
looks like typical in-line retail shops. Me tomneed that the corner ~e wary
C~illioners chitira and Melcher expressed concerns with the reduced v~ew
corridor into the center.
Tom Bond, Architects Pacifies, architect for Western Properties, stated that
it is unreellstic to expect a wide view corridor into the center. He
explained the function and design of the two buildings.
buildings at this corner should have architectural treatment that pro~ect them
as the crown jewel of the center.
Mr. Mager interjected that because of economic conditions, it is not
financially feasible to build two-story office buildings. He disclosed that
the rent has dropped from to $2.00 to $1.50 per square foot.
situations; however, he felt this type of use may not be appropriate at this
Mr. Maqer felt this type of use would bring pedestrian activities into the
plaza area.
c~mmiseLoner Vallette suggested that the box-like design of Building Y have
Gary 8aker,'BSW International, architect representing Leaps end 8ounds replied
that the floor plan cannot be modified because it is tied to the function of
the plan.
Mr. Bullet suggested the commission first determine if one-story buildings ace
acceptable. He said if the Commission felt one-story buildings ere
acceptsDie, it could then move on to provide direction to the applicant for
addressing the other architectural design elements of the buildings.
Commissioner Veilstie remarked the one-story is not tN overlx~derinq and may
allow more visibility into the center. However, she felt the design needs
capture the same sophisticated design as shown Ln the epproved elevations.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed one-story is acceptsbias h~wever, he felt
design is t~ different free the original concept end lacking Ln architectural
exoellence. He expresled hi8 concern with orienting the back side of one
the buLldines to face Haven avenue.
commissione[ Meloher agreed one-story buildingl would be acceptable cut
felt the prowled architecture is
commissioner ChArles stated she would accept one-story buildings with
design.
chairman MeNial added that he would accept single ltory only If the
are designed as the Jewel of the center.
The Commission directed the applicant :0 forward revised designs no s:aff
August 18 in order to schedule a workshop following the regular Commissio~
meeting of August 25, 1993.
B. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TRACT 13316 o L. D. KING - The review Of alternative
grading schemes for compliance with the Hillside Development Ordinance for
a recorded tract map consisting of 123 lots on 84 acres of land in the
Very Low Residential District (less =nan 2 dwelling units per acre},
located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, ~orth of Carrari Street -
APN: 210-071-14, 37, and 45.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, gave a brief introduction to the project and stated
the purpose of the workshop.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, gave a presentation describing the location of
the site and the project's background and its relationship to the Hillside
Development Ordinance. He stated the purpose of the workshop was to determine
to what extent the Commission expects the applicant to comply with the
~illside Develo~ent ordinance. ~e said specifically the co~niseion'l purpose
was to review the proposed grading alternatives and give the applicant a
direction to proceed with the application.
Commissioner Tolstoy related that a peach orchard had previously been located
at the site.
David 8uxbaum, representing Chins Valley Bank, stated the project was acquired
through foreclosure by the bank. He said the bank'l goal ie to develop the
tract so that it can be sold to a builder. He indicated the bank will install
the storm drain system, mall grade the site, and install the streets and
related infrastructure.
Carla Serard, representing L. O. King, described the alternative grading
concepts that were before the Commission for review.
Commissioner Vailerie laid she worried that the lots would be sold to
individual buyers for the construction of custom homes. She felt there should
be some architectur·~ conformity.
Mr. auxbaum etated the bank had filed · letter with the city Engineer stated
it did not intend to have the project built with custom homes, but wanted
sell the whole project to a developer.
Mr. Bullet etated the bank could sell the project to a builder with she
requirement that certain architectural criteria be met relating to a uniform
design theme with sensitivity to the Hillside Ordinance.
Commissioner Melther added the bank could have an architect eltablLlh a dee~1n
envelope for the prospective homes. He felt an architect would also be
consulting regarding the afn~unt of grade which could be acc~fnodlted
house design.
PC Adjourned Hinutel -3- August II. ~3
41
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 27, 1993
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Cou~nission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The design
review of elevations for Building X within the Terra Vista
Town Center, located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Haven Avenue - APN: 1077-421-70.
BACKGROUND: At the meeting on October 13, 1993, the Commission reviewed
the revised elevations of Building X and deliberated on the issue of
whether the building met the design standards of the center. The
Co~m~ission agreed that the applicant had tried to address their design
concerns by adding storefront glass and architectural details to the
building but the effect was not successful. The ma3ority of the
Co~tnission determined that the proposed scale and design of Building X
did not provide compatibility to Building Y, nor did it have the same
level of architectural excellence required for this center and
specifically the buildings at this intersection. The Commission, with a
majority vote, directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for
adoption at the meeting on October 27, 1993.
~ECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Co~nission review the
attached Resolution of Denial. If the Co~nission concurs with
adoption of the resolution would be appropriate.
Resp lly ' ted,
City Planner
BB:NF/jfS
Attachments: Draft Planning Commission Minutes dated October 13, 1993
Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 13, ~993
Planning Commission Minutes dated August 25, 1993
Exhibit "A" - Building Elevations
R.,olutio. of D..i.1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATB: october ,93STAFF REPORT ?
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comission ~.
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - WESTERN PROPERTIES - The design review
of elevations for Building X within the Tetra Vista Town Center,
located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven
Avenue - APN: 1077-421-70.
BACKGROUND: On August 25, 1993, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised
elevations for Buildings X and Y. The Commission found Building Y acceptable but
felt Building X needed refinement. The Commission then approved Building Y with
the condition that Building X be subject to further review. Attached for the
Commission's reference are copies of the approval letter with the conditions of
approval for Development Review 93-13 and the draft minutes Of the meeting for
August 25, 1993. The applicant has refined the elevations of Building X by
adding plaster trim with scored lines to resemble pro-cast concrete trim around
the arches at the north and south sides of the building. Two smaller pre-~ast
concrete medallions were added to the north elevation.
STAFF COMMENTS: Staff reviewed the revised elevations and determined that the
applicant has improved them per the Co"mmission's direction. BOwever, staff feels
that the elevations can be further enhanced by the following treatment:
The proposed plaster trim with scored lines around the arches at the north
and south elevations should be changed to pro-cast concrete material.
2. Pre-cast concrete trim should be added to the east and west sides of the
south gable entry.
3. Pro-cast concrete trim should be added to the arch at the east elevation.
P. ECOMMENDATION: Staff recomends that the Co~.mission review the revLsed
elevation. If the Commmiseion finds it to be &cceptable and concurs with staff's
recomendation, thsn approval of Building X through minute action would be
appropriate.
.y Planner ~
Attachments: Planning Commission Minutes dated August 25, 1993
Approval Letter dated September 21, 1993
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE: Au st 11, 1993 ~
TO:. hairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FR Brad BuIler, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SU CT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 93-13 - Western Properties - The design
review of elevations for buildings X and Y within the Tetra Vista Town
r, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven
Avenue - APN: 1077-421-70.
ABST~CT: The purpose of this workshop is for the Commission to review the new
elevations for buildings X and Y.
~ The Commission approved the conceptual elevations for buildings X
and Y in December of 1987, To satis~ the conditions of approval, the developer had
submitted final building design and architectural details for Commission review. After
three workshops, the Commission approved the building design on November 16, 1989,
as shown in Exhibits A and B. The final design consisted of two slory buildings intended
for a mix of financial, office and retail uses. Subsequently, the developer had received
building permits but did not pursue the construction of the buildings.
The developer is interested in reviving this project. Because of today's market
conditions, the developer is proposing single story retail buildings instead of two story
financial/office buildings. Building X is designed for speculative retail tenants. Building
Y is designed for a specific tenant called "Leaps and Bounds" which is an indoor
recreational facility geared towards children of all ages (similar to 'Fundazzle" in
Montclair). Representatives from the developer and Leaps and Bounds will be at the
meeting to describe this proposed use.
~: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for the
Commission discussion.
A. ~. The following broad design issues will be the focus of the Commission
discussion for this project:
One-story versus two-story. The overall design concern is to ensure that
proposed elevations for buildings X and Y are provided with the same high revel ot
design integrity, Buildings X and Y play a very important role in the function of me
corner treatmenl at Foothill Blvd and Haven Ave. Based on comparing and evatuahng
the proposed elevations with the aiDproved ones, staff feels that however attract,re
the propOSed one-story elevations do not provide the same archilectural impact.
B, ~ Once the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting,
the Commission will discuss the following secondary design issues:
1. Building X.
a. The west elevation is the back of the building where service entries are to be
idcated. Since this side of the building faces Haven Avenue, windows should be
provided so that it does not look like the back of a building.
b. Precast concrete molding Should be added to frame the gable towers, the
arches and the windows.
2. Building Y.
a. Precast concrete molding should be added to frame the tower entries and the
arches,
b. The protsosed colonads at the north elevation places the tower 6 feet from the
curb and eliminated 5 tree wells.
3. Site and Landscaping.
a. Additional tree wells planted with canopy trees should be provided to the
courtyard plaza consistent with the approved plans. (5 tree wells were
eliminated)
b. Additional tree wells and planter areas should be provided to the north and
east elevations of building X.
c. The existing phone cabinet is in the way of the pedestrian pathways. The
northeast corner of building X should be stepped back so that there is room
for a raised planter area in front Of the window and landscape area around the
phone Cabinet, consistent with the approved plans.
d. Groups of small canopy trees should be planted within the iandsca,oe setback
area approximately between the Columns of the coionade along the west
elevation of building X. However, the placement of trees should take into
consideration the location o! signage.
e. Additional tree wells should be provided along the northern colonade of
building Y.
f. A continuous 6 foot wide minimum landscape area should be provided along
the east side of building Y. The proposed vine pOcketS in front of the columns
are inadequate.
g. Groups of small canopy trees should be ~anted within the landscape setback
area approximately between the columns of the colonade at the south elevation
of building Y.
~: Slaff recommends that the developer revise the development plans
to addreSS the identified issues and resubmit for further Commission review,
Attachments: Proposed elevations
Exhibit A - Approved Building X elevations
Exhibit B - Approved Building Y elevations
Exhibit C - Comparison of approved building pads with proposed ones
> aLDO 'x" (: ) ('. )
z
>
~ Fe>m"Hmu-- p,j_up ~I,I~IT E~ .Z
NORTH ELIrVATZON
VEST ELEVATION
I I I
NORTH ELEVAT ] ON '~
EAST ELEVATIGN
SOUTH ELEVATION
:Z::f,.'qS- t ~
BUILDING "X" BUILOI
SOUTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
57
BUILDING X
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, U~HOLDING TIrE PLANNING
COMMISSION~S OENIAL OF DB";~LOPMENT REVIEW NO. 93-13, THE
DESIGN REVIEW OF ELEVATIONS FOR BUILDING X, A 5,350
SQUARE FOOT RETAIL BUILDING WITHIN TERRA VISTA TOWN
CENTER, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD AND ~AV~N AVENUE IN TH~ COMMUNITY COe~M~RCIAL
DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 1077 -421-70.
A. Recitals
{i) Western Properties has filed an application for the approval
of Development Review No. 93-13 as described in the title of this
Resolution. Sereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Develolm~snt Review
request is referred to as ~the application.'
(ii) On the August ~, August 25, OCtober ~3, October 27, ~993,
~he Planning Comm~ssion of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducl;ed duly noticed
public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public
hearings, adopted Resolution No. 93-89 thereby ~enying said application.
( i i i ) The deci lion represented by said Planning Co,a~4 ss ion
Resolution was timely appealed to this Council.
(iv) On December ~, 1993, the City Council of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a public hearing on the application and concluded said
hearing on that date.
(v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B · Resolution
NOW, T~R~FORJ, it is hereby found, determined, and reeolvsd by the
City Council of the city o~ Rancho cuca~w~nga as followaz
1- This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part: A, of this Resolution ere true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented during the above
referenced December ~, 1993 hearing, including written and oral staff reports,
the sinurea of the above-referenced Planning Cussmission meetings, and
contents of Planning Ca/salon Resolution No. 93-89, ~his Council hereby
specifically finds as followsz
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
DR 93-13
December 1, 1993
a. The application applies to property identified as Pads X
and Y, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue
and is presently improved wi~h landscape and hardscapex and
b. The property to the north and east of the subject site is
developed with a shopping center, the property to the south is developed with
an office perk, and the property to the west is developed with a mixed-use
business park; and
c. Buildings X and Y are part of the Tetra Vista Town Center
and were approved as two-story office buildingss and
d. The applicant requested to change the approved elevations
for Buildings X and Y from a two-story to a single-story design and from
office to retail uses and
e. The City Council agrees with the Plauning Co--~ssion that
the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue is very important
and that the architecture should be of significance; and
f. The City Council finds the design of Building X too simple
and that it looked like a typical in-line retail shop building. The Council
determined that the form and the scale of the building does not provide the
proper balance with Building Y and the design does not project the
architectural significance required at this corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Haven Avenue or when compared to the previous design and other buildings in
the center.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives
of the General Plans and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of
the Developeen~ Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is
locatedX and
c. That ~he architecture of Building X is not consistent with
the architectural standards established in the Tetra Vista Town Center through
Conditional Use Permit SS-12.
4. The City Council of the City of l~ancho Cucamonge hereby denies
the application.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
DR 93-13
December ~, ~993
Page 3
5. This Council hereby provides notice to Rick Mager of Western
Properties that the time within which judicial review of the decision
represented by thie Resolution must be sought in is governed by the provisions
of California code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby
directed to~ (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b)
forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by cet~cified mail,
return-receipt requested, to Rick Mager of Western Properties at the address
identified in City records.
7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE APPEAL AND APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 93-13, THE DESIGN REVIEW OF
ELEVATIONS FOR BUILDING · X, A 5,350 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL
BUILDING WITHIN TERKA VISTA TOWN CENTER, LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND HAVEN AVENUE
IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS
IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-421-70.
A. Recitals
(i) Western Properties has filed an application for the approval
of Development Review No. 93-13 as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review
request is referred to as "the application."
(ii) On the August 11, August 25, October 13, October 27, 1993,
the Planning Commission of the City of Pancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed
public hearings on the application and following the conclusion of said public
hearings, adopted Resolution No. 93-89 thereby denying said application.
(iii) The decision represented by said Planning Commission
Resolution was timely appealed to this Council.
(iv) On December 1, 1993 and January 5, 1994, the City Council of
the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted public hearings on the application and
concluded said hearing on January 5, 1994.
(v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented during the above
referenced December ~, 1993 and January 5, 1994 hearingS, including written
and oral staff reports, the minutes of the above-referenced Planning
CommisSion meetings, and the contents of Planning Commission Resolution
93-89, this Council hereby specifically finds as follows=
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO0
DR 93-~3 - WESTERN PROPERTIES (APPROVAL)
January 5, 1993
Page 2
a. The application applies to property identified as Pads X
and is located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue
and is presently improved with landscape and hardscape; and
b. The property to the north and east of the subject site is
developed with a shopping center, the property to the south is developed with
an office pork, and the property to the west is developed with a mixed-use
business park; and
c. Buildings X is part of the Tetra vista Town Center and was
approved as a two-story office building; and
d. The applicant requested to change the approved elevations
for Buildings X from a two-story to a single-story design and from office to
retail use; and
e. The proposed elevations of Building X, as shown in the
revised elevations, are consistent with the architectural standards
established in the Tetra Vista Town Center.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Council
during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of
facts set forth in poragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Council hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives
of the General Plan; and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of
the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located; and
c. That the architecture of Building X is consistent with the
architectural standards established in the Tetra vista Town Center through
Conditional Use Permit 88-12.
4. The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby approves
the application with the following conditions:
l) Approval of Buildings X shalb expire, unless
extended by the Planning Commission, if
building permits are not issued or the approved
use has not commenced within 24 months from the
date of approval.
2) The proposed plaster trim with scored lines
around the arches at the north and south
elevations of Building X shall be changed to
pre-cast concrete material.
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
DR 93-13 - WESTERN PROPERTIES (APPROVAL)
January 5, 1993
Page 3
3) Pre-cast concrete trim shall be added to all
archway elements of Building X.
5. This Council hereby provides notice to Rick Mager of Western
Properties that the time within which judicial review of the decision
represented by this Resolution must be sought in is governed by the provisions
of California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6.
6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby
directed to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b)
forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail,
return-receipt requested, to Rick Mager of Western Properties at the address
identified in City records.
7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA -
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 5, ~1994
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO MODIFY ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 9~-02 - SAM'S PLACE
A consideration of an appeal of the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the modification of the Entertainment Permit
for allowing entertainment on Sunday and expanding the
entertainment to include live bands, disc jockey, and karaoke in
conjunction with a restaurant and bar located at 6620 Carnelian
Avenue in the Neighborhood Co~nercial District - APN: 201-811-
56 through 60.
Staff reco~nends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission ' s
decision in denying the modification to Entertainment Permit 91-02. A
Resolution of Denial is attached for the Council's action.
RACF4~O~MD
As a result of Code Enforcement action, the applicant submitted an application
to legalize his expanded entertainment use and amusement arcade on
September 22, 1993. The Planning Comission conducted a public hearing to
review the two requests at the meeting on November 10, 1993, and received
public input that included testimony in support of the requests as well as
objections to the expansion of the entertainment use. After the close of the
public hearing, the Co"~"lssion deliberated on the issue Of compatibility of
use and the track record of the applicant in complying with the City ' s
codes.e The Comission approved the amusement arcade, but did not approve the
proposed expansion of the entertainment use. The Co~nission, with a majority
vote, denied the application to modify Entertainment Permit 91-02 at the
meeting on November 23, 1993. The applicant made a timely appeal of the
Commission's decision.
~aIAT, TSIS
A. Proposed Entertainment: The approved entertainment granted for Sam ' s
Place consists of a duet or singer and guitarlet playing on Monday
through Saturday, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 2 a.m. The applicant's
request was to expand the entertainment by adding a five-member band, a
disc jockey with karaoke, and to allow entertainment On Sunday. The
proposed entertainment was to be offered betwean 8 p.m. and midnight.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
APPEAL OP EP 9~-02 - SAM'S PLACE
January 5, 1994
Page 2
B. Planning Comission Concerns: The Conunission focused their deliberations
on land use conflict, compatibility of use, and public nuisance
probleM. The Comission felt that, given the proximity of Sam's Place
to residences, the proposed expansion of the entertainment use will
increase the degree of land use conflict. Although testimony was
received at the hearing from patrons of Sam's Place supporting of the
entertainment, the Comission also considered the three letters from the
adjacent residents who objected to the loud music and noise from the
loitering activities in the parking lot during the late evening and early
morning hours. A resident also testified against the proposed
entertainment at the Commission's hearing. The Comission found that the
previous complaints, together with the recent letters from the same
neighborhood group, supported their assessment that the proposed
expansion of the entertainment would only make matters worse.
In addition to the above concerns, the Comission determined that the
applicant had not demonstrated that he can be a good neighbor because he
has not made a good faith effort to adhere to the conditions of approval
and the mitigation measures to prevent the public nuisance probleM. The
Commission found sufficient evidence in the staff report showing that the
applicant disregarded repeated contacts and notices from the City to
cease the violations and to address the nuisance problems.
Although two members of the Co~nission felt that additional mitigation
measures could be imposed to prevent further public nuisance problems,
the majority of the Co~=nission could not make the findings to support
expanding the entertainment use. With a majority vote, the Con~nission
denied the recluest at the meeting of November 23, 1993. Staff reports
and minutes including copies of the letters from adjacent residents are
attached to this report for Council's review.
FACTS FOR FINDIMG8
In order to approve this appeal, in full or in part, Ordinance No. 290
requires the following findings be made by the City Council:
1. The conduct of the establishment or the granting of the application would
be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.
2. The premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an illegal,
improper, or disorderly manner.
3. The applicant, or any other person associated with him as principal,
partner, or in a position or capacity involving partial or total control
over the conduct of the ,business for which such permit is sought to be
issued, has not been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction
any offense involving the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any
obscene show of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral
turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license issued
conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of entertainment
revoked within the preceding five years-
PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT
APPEAL OF EP 91-02 - SAM'S pLACE
January 5, 1994
Page 3
4. The granting of the application would not create a public nuisance.
5. The normal operation of the premises would not interfere with the peace
and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhood.
6. The applicant has not made any false, misleading, or fraudulent statement
of material fact in the required application.
This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to the
adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:NF/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's appeal letter
Exhibit "B" - Correspondence frcxn adjacent residents and
property owners
Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Minutes dated
November 10 & 23, 1993
Exhibit "D" - Planning Commission Staff Reports dated
November 10 & 23, 1993
Exhibit "E" - City Council Resolution No. 91-382
Exhibit "F" - Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-101
Resolution of Denial for EP 91-02
MANNERINO
BRIGUGLIO
~ o F F , c s s
· , RECEIVED
MITCHELL ROTH ~ITy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY CLERK
DEC 0 1993
November 29, ~993
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Attn: Clerk
~0500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Sam's Place/Modification to Entertainment Permit 91-02
Dear Clerk:
We hereby appeal the decision of the Planning Comission dated
November 23, 1993, with regard to that portion only, denying a
modification to Entertainment Permit No. 9]-02, to expand the
entertainment to allow a live band, disc jockey, and karaoke
in conjunction with the restaurant and bar located at
6620 Carnelian Street, Rancho Cucamonga, California, and
request that the matter be set o~ the agenda at the City
Council for hearing on the first available date.
Enclosed herewith please find a check in the amount of
$~26.00 to cover the filing fee.
Very ruly yours,
MANN I & BRI UGLIO
BY
RINO
RECEIVED
9333 BASELINE ROAD, SUITE 110 / RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 / TEL (909)980-1100 / FAX (909)94'
RECEIVED
tL. CUE~0N6-Ar. CA
0CT 26 1993
City o! Rancbo Cucamonga
planning Division
71
November 3,1993
City of Rancho Cucamonga R E C E I V E O
planning commission:
NOV 0 8 1993
Copies:
city ot Ranct~o CucamoncJ,n
Office of The City Manager planning Division
Office of The Mayor
The purpose of this letter is to express our opposition to the
proposed Modification to Entertainment Pc, fi~it 91-02 and
Condili0nal Use 12ermit 93-07 for ~AhlI~..PA.~.~I.
Over the past several years the city of Rancho Cucamonga has
allowed a verity of license and temporary permits for this tavern.
This was done in spite of numerous complaints by local residents.
Those of us that have to live in the neighborhood have had to
contend with the excessive noise and commotion in the parking lot
and from Within Sanl's Place until three and four in the morning.
When we complain we get minor lip service and are advised that we
need to elevate and be more persistent with the problem. I thought
our city officials where in control of strong plan for our community.
Obviously not.
Other major cities look upon the city of Rancho Cucarnonga as a
"Cowboy Town" and its becoming very evident why. The city has
tougher codes and stronger ~nforcelllent for noise abatement in the
city parks then it has for bars and taverns. To say nothing Of the
local police looking the other way when the "Dnmlcs" are squealing
tires as they enter on to Carnilen street from Sanl's parking lot.
What ever happened to M.A.D., and why aren't the police visible
when these charaCterS are seriously endangering anyone that might
be in the area when they are leaving Sam's bar?
The city has not required a buffer zone between the parking lot and
the privet residential properties adjacent to the commercial center.
Because there is no buffer the noise generated in the center is
magnified and projected by the surrounding stucco buildings and
cement walls.
The management of the parking lot noise by the management of
Sam's Place has never been accomplished and realistically speaking,
is probably impossible. Therefor, some reasonable means to impede
this noise needs to be established.
Its unfah' for us residents who own property bordering the
commercial center to be the noise buffer for the rest of the
neighborhood. If the city wants to collect tax money form Sam's
Place, then some of that money should be spent on providing
assurances that we can enjoy our homes.
Sincerely
J~i~'an~'Joe Fabis
'661 Topa2
Alta Loma, Ca 91701
enCl
Z
To J'ackLam Dat= Alm127. I992
Subjec$ 'S,,,,,, place'
For almost two years Sanms Place has been operating with varying degrees of liquor and
entertainment licensing. The city of Rancho Cucaxnonga has appropriately been trying to
accommodate a small business by setting reasonable guidelines concerning allowable noise
levels for both insid~ the business operations and activities in the parking lot. This effort by
the city seams to be reasonable and is understandable.
However, as r~sidenc~s bordering the property on which Ssm,, Place is located, there are
several problems that we would like you to address.
First of all there is the noise that is generated inside this tavern. b,x'__,,use of the cement wails
surrounding the area, v~'y little sound is absorbed, it is mostly reflected into the
neighborhood. Any smount of noi.g that escapes fixln S~mm Phire, and it gets to every loud
at "m~s, is extremely annoying when we are trying to get to sleep.
This is especially true on Friday and Saturday evenings when the doors are left open to
accomme'dnte the large crowd. (How about checking capacity vs Ftr~ codes). The noise
level is also aggravated by various types of amplifying equipment.
A second problem is the parking lot noise. Patrons leaving Sams Place are loud and
obnoxious. They scream and yell at each other and get into loud arguments at all hours of the
night and early morning, They also race engines, turn up the volume on radios and squeal
tires. (W'nat is the Cities liability by allowing legally intoxicated patrons to drive of the
A third problem is the trash that is thrown over the wall into our back yaxd. Beer bottles, beer
cans etc. ar~ thrown over the wall fx~m the parking lot.
As a hoHle owIlef in a fesjdef~tlnl neighborhood we expect to be able to enjoy the peace and
quite of our yard and home. Hopefully this matmr can be nrldresscd soon.
Thank yon for you attention to thi~ problem.
6611 Topaz
Alta l_oma Ca. 91701
(714) 989 - 9266 home
(310) 331-7414
T M E C v -
RANCHO CL'CAMONGA
Nay 8, 1992
Joe and June Fabis
6611 Topaz
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
Dear Mr. & Mrs, Fabis:
Thank you for your recent letter concerning Sam's Place.
Yours is not the only complaint we~ve received, and our staff is aware
of some of the problems you mention in your letter. Our Code
Enforcement office is making every effort to ensure that the business is
operated according to =he rules required under the ~ermit.
Very recently, we have formally reminded the owners of Sam's Place of
their obligation to the commtulity, and requested that they provide more
effective control over the parking lot area. We also requested that the
doors to the establishment be kept closed during the evening and night
hours to alleviate any noise problems.
At this point, our staff will continue to monitor the situation. It is
our hope that Sam's management will take the necessary steps to address
these concerns voluntarily, without the need for further action.
should this activity still continue to be a problem for the area, the
Planning Commission may be requested to review the use permit for
remedy. Should you continue to experience problems, please contact our
Code Enforcement Supervisor, Richard Alcorn, at 989-1861, extension
2249. / ·
Thank you for sharing your concerns with us-
Sincerely,
Jack Lam, AICP
City Manager
JL:mlg
ca: Otto Kroutil
Richard Alcorn
Mayor Dennis L Stouv ~ CouncilmemDef D~3ne Willjams
Mc,,cr ~Tem Wilbcm J AlexonCer Councilmemioet Pamela J WnGm~
Jcc~ Lcm. A;CP. Ci~ MancGer I/~ ~ CouncilmemDe* Charles J 8ucue'
IC~O CN,C Ce~t~ 2, ,e ~ C Sex ~7 . ~anc~c Cacc-c~;: CA ~ 729 . (7!4) ~80-185~
Hugh Hairston November 10, 1993
Luella Sims ( husband and wife )
6632 Topaz St.
Alta Loma, Ca 91701
909 9~8- 3773
The City of Rancho Cucamonga
Plannin8 Commission
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca 91729
Subject: Modification To Entertainment Permit 91-02 - Sam's Place
Conditional Use Permit 93-½7 - Sam's Place
Dear Chaix~an and Members of the PLanning Conmission:
We would like to express concern to the approval of these
two permits. The notifications that was posted on our property
and that we received in the mail stated that we had until tonight
to express our opinion in re to these permits. Therefore we were
totally surprised when we obtained copies of the Staff Repor~
last night to find that these permits had already been approved.
We as a family are not use to such expediency. We ask the
commission to delay their approval and weigh proportionately the
objections to those who are most effected.
We appreciate the fact that time was taken by the Planning
commission to receive any feedback from the community. The repor~
said that copies of the Notice of Public Hearing was only sent to
"adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project site as
well as the tenants in the shopping center" There are only
nine single family dwellings within 300 feet. Yet in 1992 when a
conditional permit was granted over 50% voiced complaints in
reference to the noise levels and those opinions evidently did
not matter. The majority of the families on the streets adjacent
to the project are cowwnuting families in one [orm or the other.
It is difficult to find the time to properly express opinions to
this type of a permit. We enjoy the peace of the community yet it
is changed by the noise levels that Sam's Place generates. Now
the Commission wants to expand it to a live band and or Disc
Jockey. When we first moved to Topaz street our family was
surprised to hear the noise levels that this place generates. At
first we did not know what it was but upon further inspection we
found that this noise was from Sam's Place. The noise not only
consisted of loud music but also of loud and boisterous customers
exiting,entering and just hanging around the establishment during
the late evening hours. Since reading the Staff Report even some
of this noise could have been muffled if the conditional use
permit was enforced to where guards would be inside and outside
the facility from 6:00pm to two hours after closing. We also
noticed that the front and rear doors are suppose to be closed.
Every time I have passed the location the front door is open
during business hours.
There are some other items that we would like to present in
person to the planning commnission.
Respectfully
Hugh Hairston
Luella Sims (husband and wife)
2
Mr. Lokken replied that the existing building will remain unchanged. He said
a emil1 portion will be used for offices and the remainder of the building
will be used for storage.
Nearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Motion= Moved by Melther, seconded by Tolstoy, to adol~ the resolution
approving Conditiofiel Use Permit 93-41. Motion carried by the following
AYES= COMMISSIONERS= CNITIEA, MCNIEL, NELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES= COIOiISSION~RS= NONE
ABSENT= COMMISSIONERS= VALI~TTS -carried
~D. MODIFICATION TO ENTERTAINMIENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S pv.a~qe -- & request
modify the entertainment permit by allowing entertainment on Sunday end
adding entertairunent consisting of live band· with 5 or more members, disc
Jockey, and karaoke, in conjunction with a restaur·nt and bar located
6620 Carnelian Avenue in the Neighborhood Cceeercial Dis=rio=
APN= 208-811-56 through
S. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-47 - SRM'S pL~L'~ - A request to establish an
amusement arcade in conjunction with · restaurant and bar located at 8S20
Carnelian Avenue in the Neighborhood Ccenercial Distric~ -
APN: 208-811-56 through 60.
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report and no~ed thee · letter
was in front of the Coexnissioners from · nearby realden=.
Commissioner Melcher questioned the requested day· end hours of
entertainment. He no=ed =hit the original entertainment permit approved
Tuesday through Saturday free 8=00 p.m. to 2=00 a.e., while ~he new request
was for Tuesday through Sunday free 8=00 p.m. to midnigh~ but s~aff was only
recommending Tuesday through Saturday from 8=00 p.m. to midnight.
Ms. Pong responded that was correct.
Co~nissioner ~elcher asked if the requested sign restricting patronage of
those under 18 years old during school hour· and after curfew wee a
requirement of all amusement arcades.
Ms. Fong replied the sale condition was recently applied to another approved
arcade.
Chairman McNlel opened the public hearing.
Thomas Nab·frets, 102S Pebble Beach, Upland, stated he was representing
Place. He ·aid the~ did not object to the signs or fire inspections.
ceaseneed they were trying to a=~ract · different clientele with the Okues
music on Sundays and it weuld be typically low-key. He laid he has been
the bar business for 8 years. He canted that Sam's Place has personnel ~n
Planning coaeis·ion Ninute· -5- Nov---~sr lO, ;qq3
78
the ~king lot to look for Xx~tential problems. He felt that the management
is very tight and deals with problems very effectively. Ha stated the n~nm of
hit bullnell was the Sl~armint Rhino.
C~issioner Tolstoy felt the room area would be too small for the requested
five-member hands.
~r. Nabsfrets replied that the t~pe of clientele S~m's Place attracts dictates
a four- to five-piece band.
Coeeisstoner Tolstoy asked if patrons are on stage during the tj~nt the hand
operates.
Mr. Nabsfrets replied that half of the upper section is for the hand and the
other hal~ tl occupied by patrons. He said that unavoidable incidents do
occur with any bar business but he ~elt S~m's is basically trouble-frem.
Sam Pelle~rkno, Sam's Place, 6620 Carnelian, Ranthe Cucamonga, stated that
when a hand ks on the upper floor, patrons are not there.
Chairman NcNlel noted that complaints had been received from some o~ the
reekdents of the neighborhood and one had specifically objected to
entertainment on Sunday evenings.
Mr. Pelle~rino stated they were requesting that bands be permitted on
Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Sundays. He said the complaints were only received
after the Planning Division sent out letters announcing the hearkng. He said
there had been sane previous problems because a had element was trying to get
knto his establishment when another club changed its entex~cainment venus.
Commissioner Chitice observed that the stall repor~ included a copy of an
advertisement indicating a live band on Sunday and a lingerie show. She
stated that these were not permitted under the previously approvad
entertainment permit.
~r. Pellegrino stated that as soon as he was advised that these were not
permitted, he had stopped. He said they had the lingerie shows for
approximately two months, hut they didn't work. He stated he really does not
need to adver~cise but the n~speper had talked him into ~dver~lsing.
Cceelesioner Chitlee cemented that she had seen his ads posted on telephone
poles all over the City ~nd she had heard radio adver~lsing. She felt he
should have known that he was violating the terse oZ his enter~ainmmnt permit
because the tylzte o~ snter~ainsent and permitted h~re were clearly shown on
the approvtd psz~tit, he had ateended poblic hearings at which those ~ssues
were discus~ed, and had retained an attorney to represent his in the matter.
Mr. Pell~rino replied that he had made a mistake and he apologized for havzng
done so.
Chairman McNlel ~elt the Cotmission was placed in an awkward position c~ ~g
asked to approve what had been done ille~Jslly ~or s~mt time.
Planning i~,"-,-,lsskon ainutee -6- November 10, 1991
Mr. pallsatins stated he was trying to run a business, not break the law. He
said a Code Inforcement Officer had visited him several t~mes. He thought his
attorney should have made him aware that he wee in violation.
Commissioner Tolstoy noted that entertainment was being requested on Sunday
evenings from 8z00 p.m. to midnight.
Mr. peltsgrins said they were trying to acccxm~odate the patrons.
Comissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Pellegrinc w~uld be amenable to different
hours.
Mr. Pallsatins replied he would have to abide by the rules.
Jim datewood, 7040 ~rchibald Avenue, Ranch· Cuc~monga, elated that he books
bands. He said that smaller bands try to sound bigger, so they play louder
than larger bands. He coMmaanted that he plays blues music between sets. He
remarked that they always maintain that the doors are to rain closed but
patrons sometime want the doors open. He said the bouncers have been advised
that the doors must remain closed. He said they felt that stopping the
entez~cai~nt at midnight would facilitate closing down the eltablis~aent by
2=00 a.m. He stated that the patrons prefer the Sunday blues entertainment be
earlier.
coosisal·her Melcher asked what would be a reasonable time to end the
entertainment on Sunday evenings.
Mr. Gatewood felt 10=00 or 11=00 p.m. would be acceptable. He laid the blues
draws an older crowd that needs to get up on Monday mornings to go to work.
C~emissioner Tolstoy asked what he would sonalder a viable starting time on
Sunday evenings.
Mr. G·tewo<xi felt 6=00 to 8=00 p.m. would be acceptable. He suggested that
the starting ~jJae might be later in summer end he requested that the hours be
from 8~00 p.m. to midnight to allow Sim'I Place the leniency to achedull as
appropr iate.
c~._lssioner v·llette Joined the Commission.
Scott Devil, mullclan, 198S Briar Trail, Upland, stated that Ssm'l Place gives
local musician· a place to play. He felt musical culture is needed and
canted that the blues are a good venus.
Ralph WLlliame, patE·n, 7686 Marine Avenue, aancho Cuclmonga, st·ted the =at
is · mellow place. Be felt the bar offers · good musical variety and he
consented that SIs out· off the music and does not let It get too loud. He
thought the bar is a good place for Ranch· Cucam~nge residents to patroness.
Hugh Heirston, 6632 Tops· Street, ~ancho Cuessongs, presented · letter to the
Commission. He ·lid he had reviewed the staff re~ot~c and thought it al~ed
Planning CcMmaission Minutes -7- November
the modification had already been approved because a resolution of approval
was included Ln the repc~c.
Chairman XcHiel commented that the resolution of approval was prepared based
on staff'm teccemendatton. He said the Ccemlsmton also had the option of
requesting that staff prepare a resolution of denial.
at. Hairston felt that there were many things that had not been adhered to
under the current entertainment permit. Be asked what happens when there are
violations of the enter~cainment permit.
Chairman McHlel noted that the matter was currently before the Ccexnission
because the City ' s code Enforcement staff had discovered they were not
adhering to the enter~ainment permit.
Mr. Hairston asked if fines are imposed.
Chairman McNlel responded there are no fines.
ME. Hairston felt that there had been a n-mkeE of occurrences where the
applicant had not complied and he asked what would guarantee compliance. Be
said he had spoken to a number of the neighbors and they ex/Eessed concerns
a~cut the noise levels. He said he had only lived there a fay months and he
felt the noise levels from the bar are excessive, especially on weekends. Be
stated he lives cn the west side of Topes and he was surprised that the City
allows such a use so close to a residential area. Be thought imcreeaing to a
five-piece hand would make matters worse as he did nod: believe a thEse-piece
hand makes more noise than a five-piece one. Be said a neighbor had sent a
letter but could not appear because his wife is incapacitated. Mr. Hairston
though= the noise is a public nuisance and interferes with the peace and gule=
of the surrounding neighborhQcd. He said he had spoken with Mike Goody, the
manager of Bob's Hlg Boy, and ME. Goody had indicated he was not aware of the
hearing regarding the enter~airnment permit. He questioned if there would be
adequate parking spaces and if children are allcased to play the arcade games.
Mr. Pellegrino felt he d~ea not disturb the peace of soy o~her businesses £n
the shopping center because no other businesses are open after 8:00 p.m.
except for 6ob°s BIg Boy. He said the manager of 8ob'a Big Boy visits the bar
all the time. He remarked they do no~ allow chlldEen to play the arcade games
and every child in the establiehaent is accompanied by a parent.
Hearing no fUkwCheE testisBony, Chairman McNlel closed the public hearing.
C~enisslonef C~ltlee camsanted that the last time the efiter~ainment permit was
reviewed by the Plaanln~ ComaLesion It was determined there was non-ccepliance
and the ColaLeSIon leeamended denial. Hhe said the eatteE wee appealed to
the CIty C~uncll Ind the C~M~Cll approved the poEsit. Hhe cd=norved that the
C~uncil resolution clearly established that only · due~ wee approved, she
noted there had been repeated violations and the staff rei~c lnclude~ a
letter from · nelgha~r re~ardlng noise, an august ~993 ne~epapeE adver~leemnt
lasting unauthorized entertainment, and staff le~te~l from June and Septmr
1993 and yet Mr, PellegFlno had stated he u~uld not have had unaut~orLzm
Planning ~lssion Minutes -8- Novta2~r 10, 1%1)
81
entertainment It he had been avara. She c~eotioned hov things could have been
made any Ii~re cleu. S~e d~ noc believe the k~nds o~ en~e~aL~nc
o~sr~ us 8~ro~r~ate nex~ ~o a residen~ial ~ea. She did n~ ~a~ an~hin~
sh~ a villin~es8 CO ~ide by ~he ~Zes esc~ish~ lnd she did no~
~he ~ssion should approve sn expansion. She d~d noc fNl the ~ission
sho~Zd condone the approach o~ do~n~ vh8C one ~kes ~n the hop you vi~l noc
~ caught.
c~lseioner valle==e ~es~lon~ if ~he city council had e~reee~ any
f~lings r~arding expanding =he en~enal~n~ ~it when L~ a~rov~
en~e~al~n~ ~i~ In Decoder 1991.
MS. Fong repll~ ~ha~ =he ~unci~ had no~ dis~ss~ ~y e~sion ~cause ~he
r~ee~ a= ~ha~ ~ wee only for a du~.
C~illioner valle~te al~ if =he ~uncil had given ~y direrion r~arding
~llible revoaa=ion in =he future.
MS. Fong said she ~llev~ ~rs of ~he ~uncil wut~ =~ give ~he business
a chute ~o prove l= could be a g~ height.
c~lslioner Valle~te fel~ ~ha= ~uld man a~lluce with the conditions of
~he ~i~. She agr~ wl~h C~slioner chitlea. She ~liev~ ~. Hairston
had obJec~ ~o ~he n~r of =~l ~he eet~lll~n~ was not in
ud =he noise levels genera~ by =he business ud ~he ~ronl ~eeving late
night. She cmn=~ =ha~ =he c~ty adve~lsee l~eelf is ~lng lily
orientS. She fel= ~ha~ ~he business provides a ee~lce bu~ she fel~ =here
a conflict wl~h =he ne~g~ring residential use In ~hil
c~issioner Marcher fel~ =ha~ once ~he conditional use ~lt wee grindS,
~he ~en~ial for a prohim was es~lllh~. He cmnt~ ~hat ~. Pell~rino
had ~rchas~ ~he problm. He euggel~ the ~isl~on ~ ~re vigilan~ when
r~es=s are f~rl~ process~.
~islioner Tolstoy agr~ with ~lssl~ners Val~et~e ud Chilies, bu~ he
fe~ ~he neig~rh~ oblations had I~eid~ In r~enE =Se. He sta=~ he
~uld like =~ ~rk out ss =~ of urugmn~ ~o all~ other =~s of
en=e~aisn~ but he ~ee~lon~ ~he proof h~rl f~r the ente~al~n~. He
felt =he prelen= ~erl had done a ~tter Job thu previous ~rl, bu= he
o~Jec=~ =o ~helr ~l=l~u=lng n~ fom of en=e~aimnt without firs~
r~es=lng a revision to t~ ~l~. He felt, ~ver, that =he ~ssion
not Judicial ~ ~t~ ~ ~tl duty Is not ~o ~nllh
C~IIIOME ~lt~ee ~bee~ ~ha~ =he ~lsslon wee consider~nq in
ex~nlion, ~ a ~nial or Eevoca=lon. She stat~ letters had ~n receiv~
indicating ~ ~ uses ~re n~t ~rking ~ IM did not
~iselon I~ld e~r6ve the expansion.
CheVron McNle~ amnt~ that =he C~llion hid pr~/~lly lt~gg~
=he en=e~aisn~ pmiz bas~ on =he hie~o~ of ~hie s~ific Iotazion end
~y pEoblme encoun~er~ Zhere a n~r of ye~e ago. se ob~
~ission had deni~ ~he p~i~, bu~ ~he sz=er wee a~e~ =o ~he Ck~y
Planning ~lssion Minutes -9- November 10, 1993
council, and t:he Council approved i~. He said he had been in Sam°s Place and
he felt: t:he management: runs a tight ship and clean operation within the
building, but he felt: t:here was not a lot: that can be done regarding the
outside problems created by noise in the perking lot. He st:·ted that: Mr.
Pellegrino had one of the most informed attorneys in the city and the matter
wee n~w before the cc~aission because of violations. He did not think it wee
logical for the ~lssion to to approve the expansion.
Motion: Moved by Chili·a, seconded by vail·tie, to direct staff t:o prepare a
resolution of denial for modificatiun t:o antattainment: Permit 91-02 for
adopt:ion at the November 23, 1993, meet:ing on · consent: calendar basis.
~isaioner Melcher suggeat:ed the ~lselon explore oi~cions to address the
concerns and allow the expansion before making a final decision to deny. He
thought · person knowledgeable in the field of
any mit:lgat:ion measures could he t:aken. He suggested t:he applicant could be
required to employ off-dut:y Sheriffs
the problems might he contained with such measures and he asked
Commission consider those ol~cions.
Commissioner gall·ate etat:ed she underst:ocKi why Cce~lssioner Halchar wanted
work wit:h the applicant:, but: she
not: int:end to abide by what: was set: fo~ch.
Cce~l//loner Chills· did not: feel the ~l/elon could sake t:he findings
necessary t:o approve t:he application. She said her meg. ion s~ood.
Coe~lsaloner Vallet:~e lndicat:ed her second s~ood.
The motion carried by t:he folioulna
AYES: COMMISSIONBRS: CHITIF·, MOllIE, V~T-T-mTT2
NOES: COMMISSION~I%Sx M~LCHBR, TOLSTOY
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NON~ -carried
Ccemissioner Tolst:oy elated he had vo~ed no because he felt It would still he
possible t:o work with the
Ralph Hanson, Deput:y City At:torn·y, suggest:ed t:he Corn·lesion act: on
Condit:lonal Use Persia 93-47.
chairman Me!l·1 felt ~he amusement sachines are coson In similar businesses
and they seem to woEit
Motion, liefled by Melt·l, seconded by Tolstoy, to adop~c t:he resolution
approvlng Coltli/t/onol Use Permit 93-47. Mot:ion carried by the following vov. e:
AYISz COI~ISSXONF~St Cl!XTI~A, MC~XIL, M~LC~!~R, TOLSTOY, V~LLZTTg
NOeS s CC~XSSIOIIBI~ s
ASSaNT: CC~MXSSXO~BIt8~ Nce~ -eartied
Planning ~lsslon Minut:ee -10- Nov·abet 10, 1993
Mr. Pellettins presented photographs OZ various stores in t~wn which he ~alt
were in violation of sign requirements and stated that he was no~ the only one
to vitiate City cedes.
The Planning C~emission recessed to the Historic Preservation C~emission at
8:48 p.m.
At 9:06 p.m., the Planning C~emission reconvened.
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-45 - HILD!rlBRA~n~ - A request to establish a
stress reduction clinic within an existing industrial canplex in the
Industrial Park Designation (Subarea 6} of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located at 8645 Haven Avenue, Suite 550 - APN: 209-144-54.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
commissioner Melther questioned if the Fire Dlstric~ and Building and Safety
had reviewed the project.
Mr. Murphy replied that the applicant .had received their approvals on tenant
improvement plans.
Chairman McNlel opened the public hearing.
Debts Hildenbrand stated she was available to answer questions. She said she
had been to a similar facility in L~S Angeles and one of her professors at
Charley College had recoemended such a facility to students. She thought the
business w~uld do well because it is near the college.
~Aseioner Melther suggested employers may wish to utilize the facility ~or
eaployees in order to cut down on w~rkerz' compensation stress claims.
Hearing no further testimony, chairman McNlel closed the public hearing.
MotAche Moved by Chilies, seconded by Veilstee, to adopt the resolution
approving C~nditionel gee halt 93-45. MOtion carried by the following vote:
AYESX COSOlISSIOeIBILa: CHITlEA, MCHIIL, MZLC!~R, TOLSTOY, VALLaTTE
ABSENTZ C~tOLTISZOieBI~Z NONB -carried
DEVELOPMINT COD~ AMINDM~NT 93-01 - CIT~ OF IqANCHO CUCAMOte~a . & requee~ =o
establish standards end locations for adult oriented businesses.
Duane Baker, ASsistant to the City Manager, presented the stef~ report.
Planning C~enisslon Minutes -11- November 10. lgq]
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 23, 1993
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE ~
request to modify the entertainment permit by allowing
entertainment on Sunday and adding entertainment consisting of live
bands with 5 or more members, disc jockey, and karaoke, in
conjunction with a restaurant and bar located at 6620 Carnelian
Avenue in the Neighborhood Comercial District - APN: 208-811-56
through 60.
BACKGROUND: The Commission conducted a public hearing on November 10, 1993,
to review the proposed expansion of the entertainment uses. At the hearing,
the Co.w~$sion received public testimony from a resident who objected to the
loud music and loud noise from the indoor enter~ainment and the loitering
activities in the parking lot. Following the public testimony, the Commission
determined that the proposed entertainment at this location would create a
compatibility issue with the residential neighborhood i~l~ediately west of the
center. The Con~ission directed staff to prepare the attached Resolution of
Denial for the Modification to Entertainment Permit 91-02.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:NF/jfs
Attachments: Resolution of Denial
CITY OFRANCHO CUCAMONGA
DATE: o e, er 993 STAFF REPORT
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT 91-02 - SAM'S PLACE - A
request to modify the entertainment permit by allowing
entertainment on Sunday and adding entertainment consisting of live
conjunction with a restaurant and bar located at 6620 Carnelian
Avenue in the Neighborhood Commercial District - APN: 208-811-56
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-47 - SAM'S PLACE - A request to establish
located at 6620 Carnelian Avenue in the Neighborhood Commercial
District - APN: 208-811-56 through 60.
BACKGROUND: The proposed modification is a result of code enforcement because
Sam's Place has offered entertainment, such as live bands and disc jockeys,
beyond what was approved on their entertainment permit. On June 22, ~993
staff notified the applicant to cease any entertainment beyond their approved
entertainment permit. Code Enforcement staff monitored the business for the
past four months and verified that the applicant continued to operate in a
manner not in compliance with the approved entertainment permit. Despite
repeated contacts, the violations continued; therefore, staff initiated the
citation process on September 14, ~993. On September 22, 1993, the applicant
submitted an application to modify the entertainment permit and a conditional
use permit to add an azmsement arcade. Attached in the report for the
Commiseion's reference are copies of the advertisement for Sam's Place in the
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin dated August 25, 1993, a su~nary of the
investigative report, and staff's letters to the applicant.
ANALYSIS:
A. Entertainment Permit 91-02 Modification:
1. 1~e4 Entertainment. The approved entertainment granted for Sam's
Place consisted of a duet, a singer and guitarist, playing on Monday
through Saturday, between the hours of 8 p.m. and 2 a.m. The
applicant requests modification of the permit to allow entertainment
on Sunday and add a five-member band to play on Tuesday and Thursday
through Sunday and adding a disc jockey with karaoke on Wednesday.
pLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT
EF 91-02 & CUP 93-47 - SAM'S PLACE
November 10, 1993
Page 2
Entertainment is not proposed on Monday. The live band will play
jazz, blues, or light rock. The entertainment will be offered
between 8 p.m. and 12 midnight. The applicant does not intend to
charge for admission.
2. CcsDatibility of Use. When the applicant originally proposed adding
entertainment and extending the hours of operation in 1991, the
Commission's deliberations focused on the issue of compatibility to
the residential neighborhood to the west. The Commission denied the
request on September 11, 1991. Mowever, on appeal, the decision of
the Coam%ission was overturned by the City Council on December 4,
1991.
In 1992, staff received four complaints from the residents to the
west regarding loud music and loitering activity in the parking
area. Staff did not receive any complaints from the adjacent
residents to date in 1993, but did receive complaints from another
business in the City. However, after the public hearing notices were
sent out to the adjacent property Mere, staff received one response
(see Exhibit "D"). The resident objected to the loud noise from
Sam's Place, especially on Sunday nights.
In reviewing the proposed expansion of the entertainment, staff
raises the same compatibility issue. Staff believes that the
potential for public nuisance problem is always there bocause of the
type of business. The conditions of approval contained in City
Council Resolution No. 91-382 and Planning Commission Resolution No.
82-98 have mitigation measures intended to alleviate potential public
nuisance problems; however, the effectiveness of the mitigation
measures depend upon the owner and the management of Sam's Place in
following and adhering to the conditions of approval. Staff
recommends approving the proposed expansion of the entertainment, but
limiting the days and hours of entertainment to TUesday through
Saturday and between 8 p.m. and 12 midnight only.
3. P~hlio Safer7 Xss~ee. One of the concerns with entertainment uses
the potential for an increase in the need for police and f~re
resources. According to the Police Department, they responded a
total of 15 times at the northwest corner of 19th and Carnelian
Streets in the last three months. Of the 15 calls, 4 were
specifically at Sam's Place (2 required police reports). The
relating to Sam's Place included assault, assault with a deadly
weapon, and one incident arrest. The Police Department stated
given the t~l~e of business, the number of service calls from ~am's
Place is not excessive.
The Fire Department indicated that they have not responded tn
of overcrowding- However, the applicant needs to modify the
assembly permit because of changes to the flour plan. This ~.~,'
completed prior to commencement of the proposed entertainment.
pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
EP 91-02 & CU~ 93-47 - SAM'S PLACE
November 10, 1993
Page 3
4. F4ua{ngs. To consider the modification to the entertainment permit,
the Commission must hear and determine all the facts and evidence
relevant to the applicant and supervisory employees, as well as the
entertainment proposed, including the nature and location of the
proposed entertainment. The Commission may approve the permit if it
finds and determines the following:
a. The conduct of the establishment or the granting of the
application would not be contrary to the public health, safety,
morals, or welfare.
b. The premises or establishment is not likely to be operated in an
illegal, improper, or disorderly manner.
c. The applicant, or any other person associated with him as
principal or partner or in a position or capacity involving
partial or total control over the conduct of the business for
which such permit is sought to be issued, has not been convicted
in any court of competent jurisdiction of any offense involving
the presentation, exhibition, or performance of any obscene show
of any kind or of a felony or of any crime involving moral
turpitude or has not had any approval, permit, or license issued
in conjunction with the sale of alcohol or the provisions of
entertainment revoked within the preceding five years.
d. That the granting of the application would not create a public
nuisance.
e. That the normal operation of the premises would not interfere
with the peace and quiet of any surrounding residential
neighborhood.
f. That the applicant has not made any false, misleading, or
fraudulent statement of material fact in the required
application.
B. Conditional Use Permit 93-47 For An Amusement Arcade: According to the
Development Code, any business that has more than three amusement devices
is considered an arcade and a conditional use permit is required. In one
of the routine inspections of Sam's Place, Code Enforcement staff observed
that there are six amusement devices (four electronic dart boards, one
basketball machine, and one pinbell machine) on the premises. Th~s
resulted in the applicant's requesting approval of a conditional ~se
permit for the arcade. In reviewing this request, staff determined that
such amusement games are customarily related to the restaurant and
uses and would not be incompatible to the surrounding businesses ~.
center nor the surrounding land uses of the site. Staff recouznends
conditions of approval be placed requiring the applicant to post s~gns
the business entrance that state "No person under 18 years of age ~af
on the premises during school hours or after curfew.'
pLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT
EP 91-02 & CUP 93-47 - SAM'S PLACE
November 10, 1993
Page 4
CORRESPONDENCE: Both items were advertised as public hearings in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property was been posted, and notices
were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project site
as well as the tenants in the shopping center.
R~CO~IENDATION: Staff recon~nends that the Planning Co~nnission conduct a
public hearing to review the proposed applications. If the Commission concurs
with staff's reco~nendation, then approval of the resolutions would be in
order.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:NF/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Location Map
Exhibit "B" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "Cm - Entertainment Permit Application
Exhibit "D" - Letters from Residents
Exhibit "E" - Police Report dated OCtober 25, 1993
Exhibit "F" - Memo from the Fire Department
Exhibit "G" - S,,"m~ry of Investigative Report from Code
Enforcement
Exhibit "H" - Letters to Applicant
Exhibit "I" - Ad for Sam's Place dated August 25, 1993
Exhibit "J" - Planning Co.~ission Resolution No. 82-98
Exhibit "K" - City Council Resolution No. 91-382
Resolution of Approval for EP 91-02 MOdification
Resolution of Approval for CUP 93-47
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
Applicants for ent~.~rtainrn~,nt permits shall complete the following questionaire:
PLEASE PRINT OR TYPE
A. The ha_me arid permanent address of applicant:
__~ e~ ~ ~_k~~ ..........................................
Name
.... (~L __~_d~?_L__ ~t, r _C6_ _ -qJ~L ...........................
Permanent Address
B. The name, propos~ and current, if any, and business address of the applicant:
.... ~e6_'_s_~ ............................................
Na.m~ (Current and ~oposed)
............. ~_~_~_~_~ ...............................
Business Address .~.Lt'l~ ~lr~¢ _~. _q3-~0{
C. A detailed description of the propos~l entertainment, including ryln of
entertainment, and numl:~r of persons engag~:l in the entetainment (may attach
s~l~rate sh~ts if n~cessary):
........... _~ _t ~ _~_ _s_~_,__ A_ r~ ~J~ ~_ _ _~ ~ ........................
D. The dat~ or day-of-wrY, hours and location of entertainment (attach floorplan).
and the ad~ fee, ~ ~y, to
E. The name(s) of the person(s) responsible for the rna~nagement or supervision of
applicanrs business and of any entena~runent:
.... .~_r~_~.~,l_~ ........................................
F. A statement of the nan~re and chazacter of app[icant's business, if any, to be
c~rried on in coni~Lnction with such entertainment, including whether or not
alcohol will be served as put of such business:
_~ e~L~_ _~_~s~_ex~_u._~c, _~_~_ __~so__ _ _~e~_ _ ~ ...............
G. Whether or not the applicant or any person responsible for the management ot
supervision of appLicant's business have been, within the previous ten yeats,
convicted of a crime, the nature of such offense, and the sentence received therefor
including conditions of parole or probation, Lf any:
H. Whether or not applicant has ever had any permit or license issued in
coniunction w~th the sale of alcohol or provision of entenaisunent revoked,
including the date thereof and name of the revoking agency:
Any false, misleading or praudule, t staterover oJ material fact in the required
application shall be gyounds for denial of the application for an entertainment
permit.
~x~6~T C2-
OCTOEER 17.1QQ3
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY HALL
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
~E: M{DDIFICATI{DN TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT
ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPLICATION
SECTION C:
?HE PF~CP{DSED ENTERTAINMENT MOOiFICATION WILL BE AS
FOLLOWS:
ENTERTAINMENT WILL INCLUDE A FIVE PIECE SAND: A
{DISC JOCKEY ANO KARAOKE. THE DISC JOCKEY AND KARAOKE
WILL EACH INVOLVE ONE (1) MEMBER.
THE BANO WILL HOST JAZZ. BLUES OR LIGHT ROCK. NO
HEAVY METAL'. RAGGAEE OR HARD ~ODK WILL SE RERMITTED.
SECTION D:
THE FLOORPLAN IS ATTACHED INDICATING LOCATION. NO
aDMISSION FEES WILL BE CHARGED.
THE DATES/TIMES A~E AS FOLLOWS:
- TUESDAY. T~URSOAY. FRIDAY. SATURDAY AND SUNDAY:
FIVE PIECE SAND - JAZZ. BLUES OR LIGHT ROCK.
HOURS WILL EE 8:00 P.M. TO MIDNIGHT.
- WEDNESDAY - ALTERNATE WEDNESDAY'S WILL PROVIDE
A C!SC JOCKEY 0R KARAOKE. NO ADMISSION FEES.
HOU~SWILL BE 8:00 P.M. TO MIDNIGHT.
RECEIVED
0CT26 1993
City ot Ranc~ Cucam~a
Planning Division
OP$ ?3-q7
" CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
'~' Nancy Fzng, ~enzor Planner
7R:2~: Dan Wartars, Crime Analyst
/'jSZECT: 5AM'S PLACE
As :e.~.ueste.~_ : have completed a 3 month study of police
:"esponses and reports relating to the area of SAM'S PLACE (662~
Carnelians.
, sum~ar./ there have been 4 call s for service st SAM S PLACE
of whlch snly 2 required reports,
Attached are 2 su-~aries that show all reports for the last
months relatlng to the corner of 19th and Carnelian. One
sum-sty Dnly shows reports from 6 pm thru 3 am to Oreak out
items that m~ght De attrlDute~ to 5AM'S PLACE, As you can ice
there are 15 total reports for that tlme perlod and so~e
tztaily unrelated to anything that SAM'S PLACE could .rontrltute
tD.
If you have any questions. please feel free to call -e
e:.:tensl~n 2428.
DWxdw
qs 7
ea6tr E I
10/25/93 MAP_RC Page 1
Reports ~aken from 6 pm ~hru 3 am
Da=e Time Type Location Resul~
07/12/93 2227 PC488 19TH ST/CARNELIA~ ST RTF
07/14/93 2337 1182 19TH ST/CARNELIAN ST RTF
07/23/93 0203 PC242 6620 CARNELIA~ ST RTF
07/24/93 0154 VC23152 19TH ST/CARNELIAN ST ARR
07/25/93 0125 FOUNDP 19TH ST/CARNELIAN ST RTF
07/25/93 0214 PC242 6620 CARNBIalAN ST RTF
'07/28/93 0103 VC10851 19TH ST/CARI~ELIAN 8T ARR
~7/29/93 225~.PII~4L5 .... 6620_CARNELIAN ST RTF
07/30/93 0136 PC242 19TB ST/CARNELIAN 8~"' RTF
08/05/93 0152 VC10851 19TH ST/CARNELIAN ST RTF
08/23/93 0251 INC 19TB ST/CARNELIAN 8T AKR
09/03/93 1802 1182 19TH ST/CARNBLIAN ST RTF
09/10/93 0156 PC488 19TH ST/CARNELIAN ST RTF
09/12/93 0108 PC488 8689 19TH ST RTF
09/20/93 0048 1182 6626 CARNELIAN ST RTF
F-P ql-o2
P--- 2-
~E~EIVED
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
Date: November 2, 1993
To: ~Nancy Fong, Senior Planner
From: Richard L. Alcorn, Code Enforcement Supervisor
Subject: ENFORCEMENT ACTION - SAM'S PLACE, 6620 CARNELIAN AVENUE
ABSTRACT
In Augus~ 1993, Code Enforcemen~ reins~ated action to bring Sam's Place
into compliance with ~he City's En~er~a~nmen~ Pern~it requiremen~s.
During the prececLtng months, efforts by the Planning staZ~ ~o work
cooperatively wi~h the o~ners of Sam's Place to mod~A'W ~heir
Enter~a~nmen~ Permit had been unsuccessful Sam'e Place continued to
have en~er~ainment beyond ~hat which was approved by their Permit, they
f~tled to comply with other conditions of approv~l. and ignored
repeated requesls to d/scontinue the illegal enter~cainment or seek a
moa~,ication.
Current Code Enforcement action has resulted in ~che submittal of a
reques= to modify ~heir Enter%ainmen= Permit However, even with this
application pending, compliance with' the current Permit has only been
assured when Code Enforcement staff act-u~llW monitors actlvi=ies at the
business. The ownership and management of Sam's Place has. and
continues, to consisten~ly violate the terms of this permit and o=her
CiW Code requiremen=s. Sign violations and outside storage violations
continue to exist following repeated no~i[ications. and enforcement
action is nearing the s~age o5 criminal prosecution.
SU~e~ARY
The following As a summary of Code Enforcement action for the period of
Au~st 1, 1993 through 0c=ober 31, 1993:
August 16, 1993 - Newspaper advertisements for live entertainment
including live bands, a disc Jockey, karaoke, and lingerie shows are
compi/ed, and activities verified by phone in preparation for on-site
inspections.
September 8, 1993 - Verifica=ion of con=inued ~egal entertainment is
presented ~0 Cit7 Planner. On-site inspections are scheduled following
the ms~{ng of a final notification le~er.
September 14, 1993 - Final notification let~cer is sent by the City
Planner informing the business of pending legal action. Police
Depar=ment is informed of pending inspec=lons.
September 19, 1993 On-site inspection found three (3) piece blues
band preparing to perform. No enter~ainment is perxt~ced on Sundays.
and a three (3) piece band As no= approved. Sam Pellegrino acknowledged
this viola=ed permit requirements and told =he band no= to perform.
Memorandum - $am's Place
November 2, 1993
Page
September 21, 1993 - On-site inspection found a live D.J. performing. A
live D.J. is no~ an approved form of enterla3Jlment. The manager agreed
to discontinue all i//ega/entertainment and apply for a modi[ication
~o their permit.
September 22, 1993 - Night manager, Randy Alverez, inquired about
continuing to have karaoke and a l~ve D.J. I reviewed the permitted
enterta/nment (guitarist and soloist) and he agaLin agreed to
discontinue all but approved entertainment.
October 26, 1993 - Period/c spot checks for entertainment were
negative. However, advertisements continue to run unchanged and reports
of entertainment continue to be received by Code Enforcement. I
contacted the night manager regarding continued entertainment. He
confirmed that j/legal entertainment had occurred fo//owing my contact.
I again admonished him to d.tscont~nue s31 but approved enterta.tnment
unti/action by the Planning Commission ie completed.
RLA
iO0
I ANCI-IO
Sepuem"~e: 14~ 1993
Mr. Sam Pellegrino
8am's Place
6620 Carnelian Avenue
Rancho cucamonga, CA 91701
SUBJECT: SAM'S PLACE - CONDITIONAL USE PEPJ4IT 78-03 A~D ENTERTAINMENT
PERMIT 91-02
Dear Mr. Pellegrino:
On June 22, 1993, the City notified you =hat Sam's Place is not in compliance
with the Entertainment Permit, in that entertainment As being provided on
Sundays and live entertainment such as a live blues band, disc jockey, and
lingerie show are being offered.
The City asked you to cease any entertainment beyond that approved, which is a
duet consisting of a singer and an acousticat guitarLet. To date, you have
not responded, nor have you applied for a modification to the entertainment
permit. The City hal no alternative but to proceed with the citation process
immediately.
If you have any questions, please call me or Nancy Fong at (909) 989-1881.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
8B:gs
c~: ,Xoh..anne=L.o, a~,m==..y ~,r>qt--O :1_
Nancy ,o..,,,Zann.= Ca/> q:?'
Richard Alcorn, COde Inforcement Supervisor
Mayor Oenn,s L Stout ~ Counc,lmemloer wtfiiQm J Alex~- :-
~,tc]vor Pro-Tern Cr',ades J 8uauer ~1 ,,- --: Councdmerr~Oef C),one
Jack Larn AICP. C~ry Manager ~ CouBciIrflefnDer ~ex Gur~errez
: Ce-'ef ~l,ve P O 8o, 807 rlc~ncno C~cclmof'cja CA ~)172q ~ ~c)C~) <~8~. 1851
101
DA NC NO C UC A HO NG i
June 22, 1993
Mr. Sam Pellegino
Sam's Place
6620 Carnelian Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91701
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT ?8-03 & ENteRTAINMENT PEP~IT 93-02 - SAM' 8 PLACE
Dear Mr. PellegTino:
It has come to our attention that you have been advertising in the Inland valley
Daily Bulletin for the following entertainment: live blues band on Saturday night;
DJ on Monday, TUesday, Friday, and Saturday; karsoke on Wednesday; and a lingerie
show on Thursday.
Your Entertainment Permit 93-02 only allows for a duet, consisting of a singer and an
acoustical guitaris= and further does not allow any live entertainment on Sunday.
You are to cease ~iately any entertainment beyond that approv~d by Entertainment
Permit 93-02. If you desire to offer additional enter~ainment beyond that approved
under your current entertainment permit, you ms= apply for & modification to the
entertainment permit. Continued violation of the entertainment permit will result in
revDcation proceedings.
City staff will continue to monitor your business to ensure compliance with the
0
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or Nancy Fong at (909)
989-1863.
Sincerely,
CO~2~TNITY DEVELOPMENT
BB:NF/jfS
co: John Mannerino, Attorney
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner ·
.ch&ra lcorn, co - ,n or.mn s, p. i.or
~oVor DGnnLS L. Stout ~ Councdmeml:}G; 'Nil|ic}m J.
~.-.'~""_ -""- Counctlme~'nOe~' OiQne wiiliat--s
t',toVo~ Pro. Tern Cnone$ J 8uciuet El
JOCK Lorn. AKiP. CJY Manager -~ Couf'lcalr~efvslDef ~ex Gutletter
lOgO:) C,v,c Ce,~et Dnve P O 8o, 807 r}oncno Cuccmongo. CA c;1729 (qO91 989-1851
102_
ttate?
..c,,M ~ ~ S~'S ~E ~LLEGE C~NE~
~ ~. · ~Y~~Y~
"m~~ Comer o~ Ca~llan & 1~, h Lores H~-~
~m UNGE~ ~S H;E 9
I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 7~ ~ ~ AVOID ~E UNE
_
COP q5-4,-7
108
RESOI/,FI'/Ci~I NO. 91-382
(i) Jd~n Mannerino, cn behalf of ~ Pellelrino, has filed an
application for llTtertairammt Permit 91-02 as described in t/le title of this
is referred to as the "application."
(ii) Cn July 10, 1991, and cc$1t/nued to July 24, Aucjust 14, arrl
Sep~.h~r 11, 1991, tile Plannil~ erms~!~tc$~ of the Cit=y of ~ Ctlcamos~3a
crsxiuc~ a duly noticed public hearing. cn the applicatic~ and foll~irrl the
ccrclusi~l of said public b~rirrjs, ~ti.~aa l~Molutic$1 NO. 91-132, thereby
denyizN said applicaticn.
(iii) ~he decisicn ~~a by said Plannirr/C~a.~ission
Reeoluticn was ti.~ly appealed to this'Curtail.
(iv) OI10ctc~e/16, ard cclYc/rBed to No~!e~__P 20, 1991, the City
Council of the City of Rarr$1o c~k~..~=~ c~..'.w~aa a duly rrfcir~ public
(v) All legal prerl~.,i~i~ prior to the ~.'-icn of this Resolution
B. Resol~i~.
MSW, ~B~2~a~, the City Council of t~e City Of Ranc$1o aw-x--~cja does
bereb~ find, detarmine, and resolve as folly:
1. ~ council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the l%$cita/s, Part "A," of this Resolution are true and corr~-t.
minus== of the a=~e-referermd Plannir~ ~icn ~cin~, taxi the cc~am,
of Plann~ n~.~ic$1 Resolutic.l No. 91-132, this Council hereby specifically
fillis as follows:
(a) ~le application applies to lxR2ert7 l~a at the rrrth-
weet ___rforrp_r of 19th arid PTlelia/1 Streets with a ~ ~ of 1,037 f~
an~ lot depth of 240 feet ard is presently <..:.-~ with a sboppin~ centsr.
104
Resolutic~ No. 91-382
(b) The ~ to the north of the ~abject site is a future
freely; the ~ ~ ~ ~ of ~t si~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ s~le f~ly ~i~.
(c) ~ ~li~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~ M~ ~ ~
11:00 o'cl~ P.M. ~ {mi~m ~ off~ li~ ~~ ~ riobrim of
~ ~ti~ of ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l~i~ ~. 83-117 ~ 91~7
f~ ~~ ~ ~t ~. 78~3 ~ ~ ~. 290 ~ ~
(d) ~ Ci~ ~ ~i~ ~ ~i~ ~le ~j~ ~
~ h~ of ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ li~ ~.
(e) ~ ~ ]{m~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ 11:00
o'Cl~ P.M. ~ ~ ~{m{~ Of li~ ~ ~ ~bl~ ~ a
~ ~t of a ~ of ~lic ~ ~ ~lic ~,~ ~1~
(f) ~ Ci~ ~ ~ ~ m ~t ~ f~ ~1~
~ ~ s~ ~ ~ ~ig~ ~ ~ ~ of 1~0.
(g) ~ ~li~ ~ ~,~ a ~m of ~a~ly
1,6~ si~ ~ ~ of ~ ~ ~ of ~ ~
li~ ~ f~ ~'s P~.
3. ~ ~ ~ e~ m ~ ~ ~ ~il
~, ~ ~il ~ f~ ~ ~1~ ~ folly:
(a) ~ M of ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ of ~
(b) ~ ~ ~ ~-~IM ~ ~ l~ly ~ ~
(c) ~ ~ ~ ~li~m, ~ ~ ~
of~, ~ma~M; ~
f~ wi~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i~T~.
P~ ~i~ ~1~ ~. 8a~8, a ~ of ~
~ ~ a~ ~, ~] 1 ~ly.
105
P~r~Dlution No. 91-382
Page 3
3) Any live entertaM shall be ~ided b~c~ 8:00
o'clcxzk P.M. and 2:00 o'clock A.M. MG[xiay thr~ ~y.
4) ~ f~ ~ ~ ~= of ~ ~M ~1 E
cl~ ~ ~ ~ (~ 6:W o'cl~ P.M.)
5) ~ ~ ~ e ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
f~ ~'s P~ ~ ~1 ~ ~~ly ~.
~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~m of ~ ~ of
al~l ~ ~ li~ ~. At 1~ ~ of ~
~jM ~ of ~ f~ili~.
7) ~ of ~ ~ ~1 ~ ~ --~,1~ wi~
all ~i~ of ~ ~1~ ~ ~ ~1 ~
~li~le Ci~ ~.
8) If ~ ~tim of ~ f~ili~ ~ m ~f~
~ ~ P~ ~im f~ ~ mi~ti~ ~
~le m~m of ~.
5. ~ ~il ~ ~ ~i~ ~ J~ ~ ~t ~
t~ wi~ ~ j~c~ ~ of ~ ~im ~~ ~ ~s
~l~im ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~iu of ~]if~ ~ of
civil ~ ~im 1~4.6.
6. ~ Ci~ Cl~ of ~ Ci~ of ~ nM ~ ~ d~
~: (a) ~ ~ ~ ~m of ~ ~1~, ~ (b) f~i~
PAS~, A~, and ADO~-ll~u this 4th day of ~, 1991.
~: ~, ~, Will{M
~: ~, ~i~
106
Resoluticm No. 91-382
~a~a J. ~_~, city Clerk
I, [,~MA J. ADAMS, ~jj.'x~ r"r-~'~:{K of the City of Pancho Cucam~rr/a,
Califuxxda, do ~ ~ ~t ~ f~ ~l~im
~, ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ci~ ~il of ~ ci~ of ~ ~ .... ~,
~~, at a ~]a~ ~ of ~ ci~ ~il ~ld m ~ 4~ ~y of
~, 1991.
~ ~ 5~ ~y of ~, 1991 at
~ · ~ J. ~ ci~ c~
Resolution ~. 91-382
P-age5
RESOLUTION 82-98
A RESOLUTION OF THE RANCHO CUCAJqON~ PLANNING COIvMISSION
OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ~DIFYING
CONDITIONAL USE PERHIT 78-03 FOR BAR ANO ENTERTAINMENT
FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOAR'S HEAO ESTABLISHHENT LOCATED
IN THE RANCHO PLAZA IN THE C-1 ZONE
WHEREAS, on the 22nd day of September, 1982, the Planning Commission
determined the need to suspend Conditional Use Permit 78-03 and to conduct a
public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, on the 27th day of October, 1982, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing to consider the above item.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Rancho Cucamon'ga Planning Coamnission resolves as
fo 11 ows:
SECTION 1: Additional conditions and changes are found to be needed
for Conditional Use Permit 78-03 in order to mitigate the past disturbances
and bring the use in accord with the intent and purpose of the neighborhood
shopping district. Therefore, the following conditions are added to those
already in effect per Resolution 78-44):
2. Periodic policing of the parking lot by the
management of the business should be done on a
nightly basis to assist in averting disturbances
from patrons.
3. Block access to the northwest parking area from the
main parking area by placing large trees and
planters in the driveway. Additionally, a chain or
breakaway barrier shall be used to block access to
this area from the rear driveway during evening
hours.
4. A sound attenuation wall shall be built on the three
properties adjacent to the northwest parking area of
the center. The precise height, location and
construction materials shai 1 i
be deSarm nd through
the development of a precise development plan, which
shall be prepared by the shopping center owner and
reviewtmd and approved by the City Planner. Such
improve,mnts shal 1 consider the use of sound
1
attenuation material as well as some add Stone1
landscaping between the new wall and the existing
wall. The plans should be prepared is soon as
possible and tnstallattion, with the cooperation of
all property owners and before the January 26, 1982
meeting scheduled by the Conmmission.
5. Speed bunqJs shall be placed throughout the center.
108
Resolutic~ No. 91-382
Resolution No. 82-98
Page 2
6. An analysis of the building shall be conducted to
determine the needs for sound insulation.
Appropriate insulation shall be installed, if
needed.
7. The rear door of the business shall remain closed
during evening hours, except in the event of an
emergency.
8. The northwest parking area shall not be used by
Boar ' s Head patrons or employees and shal 1 be
appropriately posted.
9. This Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before
the Planning Conmnission on January 26, 1983, for a
report on the performance of the establishment.
10. The business shall alter its operation to include
restaurant usage and food service during the evening
hours. This is required to meet the intent of the
original approval and shall be accomplished within
sixty (60) days of this action.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 1982.
PLANNING C I S N OF TH Y OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
~_Y:
,j f,
ATT
I, jACK LAM, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rantrio
Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Conmission of t~e
City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Comnission hel~
on the 27th day of October, 1982, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COFIMISSIONERS: MeNtel, King, Rempel
NOES: COI~4ISSIONERS: Barker, Stout
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
109
RSSOLUTION NO. 93-101
k R~SOLUTION OF ~ pLANNING COMMISSION OF TH~ CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING
ENTERTAINMXNT PSRMIT NO. 91-02, TO EXPAND TH~
ENTERTAINMXNT TO ALLOW & LIV~ BAND, DISC JOCKEY, AND
KARAOKE IN CONJUNCTION WITH & RBST&UI~ANT AND BAR LOCATHD
AT 6620 CARNELIAN STI~XET IN THB WBIGHBOP. HCOD
DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
ANN: 201-811-S6 THROUGH
1. Luanne Pellegrino has filed an application for the issuance of
entsrtai~ment Permit No. 91-02, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereins·tar in this Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit
request is referred to as 'the application.'
2. On November 10, 1993, the Planning Commission Of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public heating on the application
and concluded said hearing on that date. At that time, the ~_^---lsslon
directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial for adoption on November 23,
1993.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B.
NOW, THERZFOPa, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Cuc~monqa Is fnllc~es
1. This Coalfission hereby specifically finds that all of the fac~s
set forth in the Recitals, Pert A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Ceaselesion
during the eix3ve-rmfe~enced public heating on November 10, 1993,
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony,
Canmission ~e~eby elsecifically finds st follo~tz
e. The application applies to property located st 6620 carnelian
street and is presently lsq~rmved with a shopping centerl and
b. The property to the north Is vacant end planned for a
freeway, the property to the south Is a shopping center, the property te
east is a shoppin~ centers and the property to the west is single tees Iv
residenceel and
c. The original Entertainment Permit was granted for · d~e~ tee
allowed entertainment on MOnday through Saturday between 8 p.m. to 2 e.g.
110
PI~uMNING COMMISSION ~ESOLUTION NO. 93-131
EP 91-02 DENIAL - SAM'S PEACE
November 23, 1993
Page 2
d. The applicant expanded the types of enter~ainment to include
live bands, disc Jockey with karaoke, and lingerie shows and the days for
enter~ainment to include Sunday in violation of Ordinance No. 290 and city
council Resolution No. 91-382; and
e. After receiving the City's notice of violation·,
applicant su~eitted an application requesting ·edification to the
Entertainment Permit to allow entez~cainment on Sunday and to add live bands,
disc Jockey, and kateeke for entertainmentl and
f. The City received cce~ente free adjacent residents objecting
to the loud nmsic frc~ the entez~cainment in the bar end loud noise frc~ the
loitering activities in the perking lot ~n the late evening and early ~orn£ng
hours, during the ~nths the applicant illegally expanded the entertaineent;
and
g. The proposed entez~cainsent will create lend use conflict with
the westerly residential neighborhc~d because of the adverse impact of
excessive noise co~ing fro~ S~m's Place in the late evening and early
hours; end
h. The applicant has not demonstrated that he can be ·
neighbor nor cceply with the city'· code· and conditions of approval because
the city has previously received cc~plainte free residents of the ea~e
westerly neighborhood objecting to the loud ~ueic, noise, and loitering
ec~lvities ceasing from Sam'· Place end because the applicant continued
violate the city · · ordinances and conditions of approval under the permit
despite repeated notices fr~ the City to cease the violations and to address
the nuisance problen·.
3. eased upon the ·u~etential evidence presented to this Co~wn~ss~on
during the alcove-referenced public hearin~ end upon the specific findings of
facts set fetch in paragraphs I end 2 sa~ve, this cce~leelon hereby f~nds and
conclude· as
e. The~ ~he conduc~ of the establis~sent end the granting o~
application w~ald ~e con=ra~7 to the public health, safety, ·orals, or
welfare.
b. That the esta~lishsent is likely ~o he operated ~n an
illegal, ~m~per, or d~sorderly sanner.
c. T~at that granting of the a~licacion Mould create a
nullance.
d. That the normal operation of ~'.he prmisee Mould ~.ntarlere
with the normal peace and quiet. of any surroundin~ reeiden~.lal noighborh--:e~-_-.
4, Based upon the findings end conclusions set forth in pets·rapes
1, 2, and 3 aax~ve, this C~amieelon hereby denies the application.
111
PLANNING COMXISSrON RESOLUTION NO. 93-i3i
BP 91-02 DBNZAr- - SAM'S PLAC~
November 23, 1993
Page 3
5. The Secretary to this C~ission shall certify to ~he adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF NOVEMBER 1993.
PLANNING CO ISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
·/LANNING CO I/SISM
BY: ~
Lar McNle airma '
ATTEST:
I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Coe~iselon of the city of Rancho
Cucsmonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly end
regularly introduced, passed, and adol~ed by the Planning C~emieaion of the
city of Rancho Cuc~monga, at a regular ~eeting of the Planning C~--ieslon held
on the 23rd day of Normher 1993, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIrA, MCNIEL, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ~ELCHER
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPEAL END UPHOLDING
THE pLANNING CO~MISSION'S DECISION IN DENYING A
MODIFICATION TO ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT NO. 91-02, TO EXPAND
THE ENTERTAINMENT TO ALLOW A LIVE BAND, DISC JOCKEY, AND
KARAOKE IN CONa~3NCTION WITH A RESTAURANT AND BAR LOCATED
AT 6620 CARNELIAN STREET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
DISTRICT, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 201-811-56 THROUGH 60.
A. Recitals.
(i) Luanne Pellegrino has filed an application for the issuance of
Entertainment Permit No- 91-02, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Entertainment Permit
request is referred to as "the application."
(ii) on November 10, 1993, the Planning Colmnission of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application
and concluded said hearing on that date. The Coa~aission adopted a Resolution
Of Denial at the meeting on November 23, 1993.
(iii) The decision represented by said Planning Commission resolution
was timely appealed to this Council.
(iv} On January 5, 1994, the City Council of the City of Pancho
Cucamonga. conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and
concluded said hearing on that date.
(v) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does
hereby find, determine, and resolve as follows:
1. This Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set
forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during
the above-referenced public hearing, including written staff reports, the
minutes of the Planning Comission meeting, and the contents of Planning
Co~nission Resolution No. 93-101, this Council hereby specifically finds as
follows:
a. The application applies to property located at 6620 Carnelian
Street and is presently improved with a shopping center; and
113
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
EP 91-02 DENIAL - SAM'S PLACE
January 5, 1994
Page 2
b. The property to the north is vacant and planned for a future
freeway, the property to the south is a shopping center, the property to the
east is a shopping center; and the properties to the west are single family
residences; and
c. The original Entertainment Permit was granted for a duet and
allowed entertainment on Monday through Saturday, between 8 p.m. to 2 a.m.;
and
d. The applicant expanded the types of entertainment to include
live bands, disc jockey with karaoke, and lingerie shows and the days for
entertainment to include Sunday, in violation of Ordinance No. 290 and City
Council Resolution No. 91-382; and
e. After repeated contacts with City staff regarding the
violations, the applicant continued the violations, which ultimately led to
the issuance of the City's Notice of Violation. Upon receiving the Notice of
Violation, the applicant submitted an application requesting modification to
the Entertainment Permit to allow entertainment on Sunday and to add live
bands, disc jockey, and karaoke for entertainment{ and
f. The City received con~ents from adjacent residents objecting
to the loud music from the entertainment in the bar and loud noise from the
loitering activities in the parking lot in the late evening and early morning
hours, during the months the applicant illegally expanded the entertainment;
and
g. The proposed entertainment will continue the land use
conflict previously described with the westerly residential neighborhood
because of the adverse impact of excessive noise coming from Snm's Place in
the late evening and early morning hours~ and
h. The applicant has not demonstrated that he can be a good
neighbor nor comply with the City's codes and conditions of approval because
the City has previously received complaints from residents of the same
westerly neighborhood objecting to the loud music, noise, and loitering
activities coming from Sam's Place and because the applicant continued to
violate the City's ordinances and conditions of approval under the permit
despite repeated notices from the City to cease the violations and to address
the nuisance problems.
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 followsz
a. That the conduct of the establishment and the granting of the
application would be contrary to the public health, safety, morals, or
welfare.
114
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
EP 91-02 DENIAL - SAM'S PLACE
January 5, 1994
Page 3
b. That the establishment is likely to be operated in an
illegal, improper, or disorderly manner.
c. That that granting of the application would create a public
nuisance.
d. That the normal operation of the premises would interfere
with the normal peace and quiet of any surrounding residential neighborhood.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
l, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the application.
5. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
115
/_ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 5, 1994
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Courtall .,~'
Jack Lain, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Robert C. Dominguez, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF 1994 STATE LEAGUE DUES
The League of California Cities has proposed to revise their fee ~chedule for all
member cities. The proposed increase is 3% and would impact the City of Rancho
Cucamonga by $315; from $10,488 to $10,803.
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has been a member of the League of California
Cities since immediately after incorporation. Each year the City pays an annual dues
fee to the League which has increased over the years by virtue of the City moving
into a new population category, and/or by increases in the fees themselves as
approved by the League Board and the member cities.
This year the League Board of Directors at their annual meeting, approved a 3%
dues incTease. There was no dues increase last year. The process for approval is that
a majority of the divisions representing a majority of the member cities must
approve the dues increase. The League has asked for a response through their
respective divisions by January 20, 1994, so that the matter may be considered at the
next regular board meeting.
The major functions of the League are the same as they have been in the past, and
include: continuation as the City's representative for State budget lobbying, provide
research and media outreach programs for member cities; and to fund the
development of strategic plan to provide feedback to the member cities.
It is recommmded that the City Council discuss and provide staff with direction
regarding the League's proposed 3% dues increase which would affect the City of
Rancho Cucamonga by $315; from $10,488 to $10,803.
Respectfully submitted,
esAdDirector
116
DEC-14-93 TUE 12:18 LEAGUE OF CA CITIES F~X NO. 9164448671 P. 01
mm. ji[ ) League of California Cities
i~l~l~. 1400 K STREET · SACRAMENTO. CA 9S814 · (~16) 444-S790
W~ r~ether ~-It" Drand f~ ~smiltal ~ ~ Imams
November 9, 1993 ~, ~
TO~ Mayors and City Manaiers ~-~ ~ ~qq ~*
FRO)i: President Bob Bartlett, Mayor or Mortrowe
SBJE~: 1994 State Budget Battle/~ague Dues Increase
b~t year w~ one of the most critical le~siative battles cid~ have ever faced. I'm proud of
effort b nearly eve~ ci~ and our ~a~e to fight the Stat¢'s attempt to bal~ce i~ budget on
the bac~ of cities. Faced ~th a $1.3 biIHon at
takeaway ~a be~ing of the year, we didn't
~n outright, but we certainly staved off a fero~ous c~ort to ~t ci~ revenues.
We a~omplished a ~eat feat wor~ng togeffier-along ~ffi the ~a~e staff--to present a
unffied message to not offi the Governor and ~slamre, but also the news medi~ the
busi~ss corntauntW, ~d tie ~ers of ci~ senices. ~ l accompl~hed by the work of
elated offi~s and ci~ st~ as well ~ by the ~ordina~on and a~istance provided by
~a~e. ~e work of newly eve~ ~a~e staler w~ reditched to the Grass Roots State
Budget Battle.
~is year, we are ~c~ng ~ big a battle ~ I~t ye~-or bi~er. We are in the planning stages
d~t now to begin fighting for even bi~et stakes. ~ ~e ~rceived ~nne~ ~om last
cities must u~te again ~ never before to fight proposals to rake more ptoper~ t~ dozen and
even our sa]es t~ ~come.
To emure we have at le~t the ~e level of resources behind the eEo~ ~e ~a~e's Board of
Directors at the~ meeting dung the ~nual ~etence approv~ a 3 percent dues
To a d~ ~th a pop~atioa ~om 30,) to 40,~, this ~11 mean an incre~e of j~x $146.
~ere w~ no dues ~crease l~t year and a CPI incre~e the ye~ before. ~e major elements
of the ~n$ ye~s budget are:
m ~ndn~ to ~ at ~e forefront of State Budget lobb~g.
· U~ r~es to meet State Budget-related research ~d media ou~each needs.
· Fund 'ffi~ development of a sttat¢gic plan b~ad on f~dback ~om you, the mem~
~d ~stomers of ~e ~a~e.
~e te~on~ ~a~¢ di~siom have u oppomni~ to ta~ ~e pro osed 3% dues ~.
Ratifi~tion by a majori~ of the dMsions reprcseatin~ a ma'o~ o~mem~r ~es
approval of the dues ~cre~. Di~sio~ not res~ndmg by tanua~ 20 sh~l b~ co~i~
ha~n$ ratffied the du~s ~¢rease. Please don't besEtate to ~nta~ me if you have an)
about ~is propo~ or you may teach Don Banningboron or Dan Hanisoa on ~e ~
~ffi question.
~ank you for your con~ued sup~n of the ~a~e and eftore to maintain the abill~ of
to meet ~e b~ic nce~ of ~ffo~. Oo~ luck ~ ~¢ co~ng ye~) ~. · ·
117
DE0-14-93 TUE 12:19 LEAGUE OF CA CITIES FAX NO. 918444887! P. 02
PROPOSED 1994 DUES SCHEDULE
1992 and Proposed Increase
For cities having a population of: ~ 1994 ~
1 to 500 $29 30 $1
501 to 600 79 81 2
601 to 700 158 163
701 to 800 174 179 5
801 to 900 206 212 6
901 to 1,000 252 260 8
1,001 to 1,250 396 408 12
1,251 to 1,500 489 504 15
1,50I to 1,750 583 600 17
1,751 to 2,000 693 714 21
2,001 to 2,250 739 761 22
2,251 to 2,550 818 843 25
2,501 to 2,750 866 892 26
2,751 to 3,000 .. 944 972 28
3,001 to 4,000 .. 1,056 1,088 32
4,001 to 5,000 .. 1;59 1,297 38
5,001 to 7,500 ., 1,639 1,688 49
7,501 to 10,000 .. 1,891 1,948 57
10,001 to 15,000 .. 2,284 2,353 69
15,001 to 20,000 .. 2,630 2,709 79
20,001 - to 25,000 .. 3,293 3,392 99
25,001 to 30,000 .. 3,953 4,072 119
30,001 to 40,000 . . 4,867 5,013 146
40,001 to 50,000 .. 5,921 6,099 178
50,001 to 60,000 .. 6,820 7,025 205
60,001 to 70,000 7,496 7,721 225
70,001 to 80,000 7,874 8.110 236
80,001 to 90,000 8,394 8,646 252
90,001 to 100,000 9,196 9,472 276
100,001 to 125,000 10,488 10,803 315
125,001 to 150,000 11,544 11,890 346
150,001 to 200,000 13,119 13,513 394
per each 10.0430 of _oooulation
200,001 to 500,0430 ... $ 657 677 20
Over 500,000 ... 607 625 18
In no event shall the annual dues for any city exceed $50,000, and no city's dues shall
increase more than $5,000 per year.
E\member\~d\budge~\budget.duc
DATE: January 5, 1994 /, ~Fl
FROM: ' . M e t ' ~BE~ "
SUBJECT: BROTHERS CiNSTRUCTION - cHiCUC~ONG ~T SPCR~T~
PARK PROJECT
Staff is requesting that this item be pulled from the January 5,
1994, City Council agenda. Staff will reschedule this item for the
January 19, 1994 City Council meeting.
RG/TLS/js
12/03/93
Planning Division
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. BOX 807
Rancho Cucamonga,. CA 91729
To whom it may concern:
I, Becky Liao owner of 6623 Topaz St. Alta Loma, CA, is against
on the modification to entertainment permit 91-02- Sam's Place.
The live band, disc jockey and karaoke in conjunction with a
restaurant and bar affect the peaceful environment of all the
neighborhood around the rea as well as the sleeping time of the
people.
Apperciate your kind effort on this matter.
Sincerely yours,
Becky Liao
RECEIVED
J .FI j:·
City ol Rancho Cucarnor_
Planning Division
CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO.
EP 91-02 DENIAL - SAM'S P~ACE
January 5, 1994
Page 3
b. That the establishment is likely to be operated in an
illegal, improper, or disorderly manner.
c. That that granting of the application would create a public
nuisance.
d. That the normal operation of the premises would interfere
with the normal peace and cluiet of any surrounding residential neighborhood.
4- Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
l, 2, and 3 above, this Council hereby denies the application.
5. This Council hereby provides notice to John Mannerino 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.
6. The City Clerk of the City of Rancho Cucamonga is hereby directed
to: (a) certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and (b) forthwith
transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return-
receipt requested, to John Mannerino at the address identified in City
records.
7. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
115
IAN-~3-1994 i~: 03 FROM K S U TO 19~99~81648 P. 01
KAMINE, 5~INER 8 UNG~RE~
' Tr~smitt~ ~ ~ to (~0~) ~-I~8
IUU~ 3, I~3
D~ L. Stout, MaWr Ja~ ~, Q~ M~ag~
P. O. ~x ~7 P.O. ~x 807
Rancho Cu~monga, CA 91~0 ~n~o Cummonga, CA 91730
~arles ~. Buquet, Ma~or Pro Tm W~ J. ~xand~, Co~ffi M~r
P- O- ~x 807 P.O. ~x ~ :
Rancbo Cuc~o~a, CA 91~0 ~n~o Cu~onga, ~
P. O. ~x ~7 P- O. ~x 807
~ncho Cucamonga, CA 91~0 ~o Cu~onga, ~ 91730
Re: GENTRY v. RANCHO CUCAMONGA
~n Bernardino 5.C. NO. KCV U5~4~9
Our File No. 042.006
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
'l'he purpose of this letter is to request council approval of a partial settlement of
the case referred to above.
Gentry Brothers, ~c. ("Gentry"), Developers Insurance Company ,r"Developers"),
Cucamonga County Water District CDist~ict") and the City' will settle the action as
follows:
Gentry will accept in full and complete settlement of its claim, $230,000. That
amount will be paid by the following parties in the following amounts:
Developers (Barmakian's surety) will pay $I55,000, District will pay $15,000, and
City will l~ay $60,000.
The City's contribution is substantially less than the $250,000 which the City
authorized to settle the case.
This settlement does not con~plctety dispose of the lawsuit. Developers will
pursue a cross-conlplaint against Andrew Barmakian for the amount of its
ZAN-~3-1994 1S: (~4 FROM K S IJ TO 19099481648 P, 82
~. ',
Mayor and Council Me_rulers January 3, 1993
City of Ranch0 Cucamonga Page No. 2
payment. l'he City's cross-complaint against The Baxmaldan Company will
proceed as well as the Barmakian Company's cross-complaint against the City.
The City will seek to recover its set~ement payment from Barmaidan and
Bzaaiakian will seek to recover damages against d~ City for its alleged negligent
inspection of Barmaldan's storm drain and sewer line.
The partial settlement has advantages for the City:
First, at trial Gentry would tuive recovered agairmt City at least on the de. lay claim.
Gentry's recovery could have been more than $300,000 plus its attorney fees. By
settling, City's exposure on C-entry's claim will not exceed $60,000.
Second, the defense of the Barmakian cross-complaint depends upon two legal
questions, (1) whether the City haa immunity with respect to any duty to inspect
and (2) whether Barmaidan was required to serve a government code claim. Both
of these issues will be raised by a motion for summary judgment before the
balance of the case is tried. If the City prevails, then the _n~ against the City will
be over.
Third, there is a small chance that Barrnakian's lawsuit may not be tried. The
Barmakian Company is a suspended corporation and cannot prosecute the action
unless it cures its corporate status.
I will be happy to answer any questions about the proposed settlemerit at the city
council meeting on January 5, 1994-
Very truly yours,
PMU:L
ENVIRONMENTAL
INFORMATION FORM
(Part l - Initial Study)
The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the
the proposed project so that the City may review the proj ........
policies, ordinances, and guidelines; the California Environmental Quality
Act; and the City's Rules and Procedures to Implement CEQA. It is important
that the information requested in this application be provided in full;
INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE PROCESSED. Please note that it is the
responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the application is complete at
the time of submittal; City staff will not be available to perform work
required to provide missing information.
Application Number for the project to which this form pertains:
Project Title: RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADULT SPORTS PARK PARKING LOT EXPANSION
Name & Address of project o~mer(s): CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE, RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CA. 91730
Name & Address of developer or project sponsor:
Contact Person & Address: RICK
Telephone N,,--her: (909) 989-1851, ext. 2166
Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above):
SAM[
Telephone Ntlm~ :
r
CITY of RANCHO CUCAMONGA
8) Include a description of all permits which will be necessary from the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to
fully implement the project:
ENCROACHMENT PERMIT, GRADING PERMIT, STORM DRAIN PERMIT FROM SBCFCD
9) Describe the physical setting of the site as it exists before the
project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and
animals, mature trees, trails and roads, drainage courses, and scenic
aspects. Describe any existing structures on site (including age and
condition) and the use of the structures. Attach photographs of
significant features described. In addition, site all sources of
information (i.e., geological and/or hydrologic studies, biotic and
archeological surveys, traffic studies):
THERE ARE NO EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE PROJECT SITF. NATIIRAI ~ROIJND
FALLS UNIFORMLY NORTH TO gDUTH AT APDROXIMATFIY ? PFRCFNT, SnTIq
STABILITY IS NOT OF CONCERN ON THE PROJECT SITE_ THFRF ARF NQ
APPARENT ANIMAL HABITAT ON THE SITE AND ND TREES WHICH WOULD BE
REMOVED UNDER THE CURRENT CITY TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PROCESS,
13) 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, setback, rear yard, etc.):
ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL ARFA &P~CT~TC
PLAN. PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS PRIMARILY VACANT WITH AN EXISTING
RESIDENCE. PROPERTY TO THE EAST CONSISTS OF AN SCE EASEMENT AND
FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL. PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH IS VACANT. AND TO THE
WEST IS THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADULT SPORTS PARK,
14) Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the
surrounding general area of the project?
NO
15) Indicate the type of short-term &nd long-term noise to be generated,
including source and amount. How will these noise levels affect
adjacent properties and on-site uses- What methods of sound proofing
are proposed?
NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY THE PARKING LOT EXPANSION AND FUTURE SPECIA~
EVENTS ARE NOT ANTICIPATED TO BE SIGNIFICANT.
Indicate proposed removals and/or replacaments of mature or scenic
trees:
NONE
21) Anticipated range Of sale prices and/or rents:
Sale Price(s) $ to $
Rent (per month) $ to $
22) Specify number of bedroom by unit type:
23) Indicate anticipated household size by unit type:
24) Indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing
within the project: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown
in Attachment B:
a. Elementary:
b. Junior High:
c. Senior High:
coe~Rc~ , r~DD~rK~L ~MD INSTIT~TIOM~L PE~OU'ECTM
25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of co-m~rcial, industrial
or institutional uses:
26) Total floor area of com-~rcial, industrial, or institutional uses by
type:
ATTACHMENT A
Water Usage
Average use per day
~i~_~tial
Single F~m~ly 600 gal/day
Apt/condo 400 gal/day
~rcial/I~d~tzial
G~neral a~ ~io~al ~o~ial 3000 9al/da~/a~
Neig~rhood Com~rcial 1500 gal/~y/ac
~neral Industrial 1500 gal/day/ac
Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/ac
For all uses
Avera~ use X 2.0
Sewer Flows
l~esi~enttal
Single F-m~ ly 270 gal/day
&pt/Condos 200 gal/day
Ccmercial/Iaa--trial
General Commercial 2000 gal/day/ac
Neighborhood Cem-~rcial 1000-1500 gal/day/ac
General Industrial 2000 gal/day/ac
Heavy Industrial 3000 gal/day/ac
Source: Cucamonga County Water District Master Plan, 9/86
ATTACHMENT B
Contact the school district for your area for amount and payment of school
fees:
Xl~-utary School Districts
Alta Loma Etiwanda
9350 Base Line Road, Suite F 5959 East Avenue
~ancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 P.O. Box 248
(714) 987-0766 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91739
(714) 899-2451
Central
9457 Foothill Boulevard
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Chaffey High School
(714) 989-8541 211 West 5th Street
Ontario, CA 91762
(714) 988-8511
Cuc~nga
8776 A~chibald Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(714) 987-8942
ENVIRONMENTAL
CHECKLIST FORM
1) Project Name: RANCHO CUCAMONGA ADULT SPDRTS PARK PARKING LOT EXPANSION
2) Related file No.(s): DR -40-04
3) Applicant: CITY 0F RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
Address: ZQ~QO CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCNO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730
Telephone No.: (909) 989-1851 ext. 2166
4) Representative: RICK GOMEZ
Address: SAME
Telephone No.: fIT. 2166
5) Project accepted as complete (date):
II. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines, explanation of the potential project impacts identified as
"Yes" or "Maybe" are required on attached sheets. Explanation shall
also be provided in each instance where a potentially significant effect
has been determined not to be significant and is marked "NO".
Yes Maybe No
1. EARTH. Will the proposal result in:
a) Unstable earth conditions or changes
in geologic substructures (including
slope failures, subsidence, falling
rock, etc.)? X
b) Substantial disruption, displacement,
compaction or overcovering of the
soil? X
c) Major change in topography or ground
surface relief features, so that the
general slope and lay of land will be
significantly modified? X
C I T Y o f R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
Yes Maybe No
g) Substantial reduction in the amount
of water otherwise available for
public water supplies? X
h) Exposure of people or property to
water related hazards such as
flooding? X
4. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) A substantial change in the diversity
of species, or number of any species
of plans (including trees, shrubs,
grass, crops, microflora, and aquatic
plants)? __ ~__
b) Reduction Of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
of plants? X
c) Introduction of new species of
plants into an area, or results in a
barrier the normal replenishment of
existing species? X
d) Reduction in acreage of any
agricultural crop? X
e) · The removal of any trees? X
5. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) A significant change in the diversity
of species, or numbers of any species
of animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms or
insects)? X
b) Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare or endangered species
Of animals? X
c) Introduction of new species of animals
into the area, or result in a barrier
to the migration or movement of
animals? X
d) Deterioration to the existing fish or
wildlife habitat? X
Yes Maybe
10. COMMUNITY. Will the project result in:
a) The displacement of community
residents?
b) Opposition or controversy within the
neighborhood or the community as a
whole?
c) A detrimental effect on the community
due to an insufficient market?
d) An undesirable precedent which would
promote Or facilitate other projects
that would create significant impacts
on the environment?
e) An alteration in the location,
distribution, density or growth rate
of the human population of an area?
f) A detrimental effect on the existing
housing or create a demand for
additional housing?
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 waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
f) Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
Yes Maybe No
5) Storm water drainage? X
6) Solid waste disposal? X
15. RECREATION/OPEN SPACE. Will the project
result in:
a) An encroachment into any recreational
area or an area proposed as open space
by the City or any other jurisdiction? X
b) An impact upon the quality or quantity
of existing or planned recreational
Opportunities? X
16. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal
result in:
a) The alteration of or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site? X
b) Adverse physical or aesthetic effects
ko a historic building, structure, or
object? X
c) The potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values? X
d) Will the proposal restrict existing
religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact areas? X
17. AESTHETICS. Will the proposal result in:
a) The creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view? X
18. SAFETY. Will the proposed project result in:
a) The creation of an adverse or hazardous
conditions should a landslide, earthquake,
flood, or other natural disaster occur? X
b) The application, use or disposal of
potentially hazardous materials? ~
III. DISC~SSIO~ OF ~VI~O~ENTAL ~V~LUATIO~
(Attach ad~tional sheets with narrative description of environmental
impacts. )
IV. ~r~TI~
(To ~ completed by the Lead Agency. )
On ~he basis of this initial evaluation:
I find ~hat the ~ro~osed project CO~D NOT have a si~ificant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATI~ DEC~TION WILL BE P~PA[D.
I find that although the ~ro~osed project could have a si~ificant effect on
the environment, =here will not be a si~ificant effect in this case ~cause
the ~tigation measures describe~ on an attached sheet have ~en aa~ed to the
project. A NEGATI~ DEC~TION WILL BE P~PA~D. ~
I find the proposed project ~Y have ' ' '~nt '
and an E~IRON~T~ IMPACT ~PORT IS __
Decembe~ 9, 1993
Date Si~at~e
For
3.c: There will be an increase in surface runoff as the
parking lot will be paved and is therefore a non porus
surface. A storm drain is being installed as part of the
project and will take runoff to the Day Creek Channel.
7-b: City parking lot standards will be used for lighting.
The project will also incorporate higher intensity
lighting for the purpose of illuminating special events
when they occur in the easterly portion of the parking
lot. The project is located in an industrial area where
the impact to adjacent land use will be minimized. Glare
control will also be used on the special event lighting
to diminish spillage and visibility outside of the
project boundaries.
12-d (2): There may be need for some additional police patrol. The
site however, is gated and not open to vehicular traffic
when not in use. There also are security lights
throughout the parking lot which will remain on during
the night.
12-d(5): There will be minimal amount of added maintenance with
the landscaping of the parking lot and sweeping of the
asphalt. The location of the Sports Complex maintenance
yard diminishes this impact with its close proximity and
availability of equipment and personnel.
14-a(5): A storm drain line will be installed as part of the
project to take excess surface water to the Day Creek
Channel.
15-b: The parking lot will expand the Cities opportunity to
program new activities with its design of the easterly
half of the project. Programs such as swap meets, roller
hockey etc. may be held because of the open design and
lighting incorporated in this project.
~he Rancho Cu~m~nga City Council will be holding a mppting at 7:00 p.m.
on Ja~ual~ 5, 1994, at the Rancho r~,~mnnc/a Civic Center, Council
~mh,ar, lcca~a at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
California 91730, to consider the following described project.
received and the enviroDmPntal assessment may be reviewed any time prior
to final action. ~he City Council will be considering the assesa~_nt,
staff's rec~miendations, and public input at its meeting of January 5,
1994, prior to making a final determination.
EXPANDI~ PARKING LCT OONSiFj~Ji'iON PI~33'~, loca~ at Rod~ester Avenue
and Stadi~n Parkway. S~ef _reo__-_:mends issuance of a Negative
Declaration.
Anyone having concerns or questiors or wishing to review or c~a,ent on
the City Park Devel~ent Division at (909) 989-1851 or visit the
offices locate~__ at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Pancho Cucamonqa.
Also, anyone objecting to or in favor of the above, my app~ in person
at the abve-described meeting or may su~t their concerns in writing
to the City prior to said neeting. Written c~ents should be
to the Park Develu~ent Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga, P. O. Box
807, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729.
IF YOU (~AI.I.~GE ANY OF ~tE FORMGOING ACTIONS IN CO~T, YOU MAY BE
I21~T~U TO RAISII~G C~LY TP~DSE ISSUES YOU OR SCMK)NE ~-~E RAI~U AT THE
CORRESPC~DI~CE Dk"r.TVE~]3 TO THE ~l'~'f COUNCIL AT, C~ PRIOR TO, THE H~r.TC
December 14, 1993 Rancho Cucamonga City Council
Date