HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/03/27 - Agenda Packet CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY MARCH 27, 1996 7:00 P .M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. Pledge of Allegiance
II. Roll Call
Chairman Barker Commissioner Melcher
Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Tolstoy
Commissioner Lumpp
III. Consent Calendar
The following Consent Calendar items are expected to be routine andnon-controversial. They
will be acted on by the Commission at one time without discussion. If anyone has concern
over any item, it should be removed for discussion.
A. VACATION OF A 30-FOOT EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT on
two lots at the southwest comer of Laredo Place and Laramie Drive -
APN: 1061-801-06 and 07.
IV. Public Hearings
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice their
opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman and address the
Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions shall be limited to 5 minutes
per individual for each project. Please sign in ajqer speaking.
B. VARIANCE 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to reduce the required building
and parking setbacks for a commercial development in the Community
Commercial designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -
APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related file: Conditional Use Permit 95-25.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
96-01A - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request for a land use change from
Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on
the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues
APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration of environmental impacts·
D. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to
amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial
designation for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill
Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts.
V. New Business
E. DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - A request to initiate text changes to the
Etiwanda Specific Plan development standards for the area south of the I-15
Freeway. Related File: Preliminary Review 95-10. Related file: Tentative
Tract 15711.
VI. Director's Reports
F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE -
Review of the Uniform Sign Program for the proposed development of an
integrated shopping center totaling 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land
' ' with proposed Phase One consisting ofa 132,065 square foot Home Depot home
improvement center in the Mixed Use District (Commercial, Residential, Office)
of the Terra Vista Community Plan, located at the northwest comer of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-15 I-18 and 24.
G. PRELIMINARY REVIEW 96-05 PATRICK SULLIVAN
ASSOCIATES/SAN BERNARD1NO COUNTY - A courtesy review of a
proposed juvenile housing facility located in the General Industrial designation
(Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located on the west side of
Etiwanda Avenue, north of Fourth Street - APN: 229-283-70.
VII. Public Comments
This is the time andplace for the general public to address the Commission. Items to be
discussed here are those which do not already appear on this agenda.
VIII. Commission Business
IX. Adjournment
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an 11:00 P.M.
adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only with the consent of
the Commission.
I, Gail Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby certify that a true,
accurate copy of the foregoing agenda was posted on March 2 L 1996, at least 72 hours prior to the meeting per
Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga.
/
VICINITY MAP
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 27, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: VACATION OF A 30~FOOT EMERGENCY FIRE ACCESS EASEMENT ON TWO
LOTS AT THE SOUTIIWEST CORNER OF LAREDO PLACE AND LARAMIE
DRIVE - APN 1061-801-06 AND 07
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The owner of lot 14 in Tract 11626 has asked the City to vacate a
30-foot emergency fire access easement along his east property line (Exhibit "B"). The Fire District has
lndicaidd this was h temporary access during tract construction which is no longer needed, and they have no
objection to the proposed vacation.
Cucamonga County Water District also has a 15-foot waterline easement on lot 14, and the City will retain
a 15-foot storm drain easement on lot 13 (Exhibit "C"). The applicant's objective is to install a perimeter
wall along the property line, between the two remaining easements. We will require a small storm drain
easement near the southeast comer of lot 14 to assure that the wall will be at least six feet from the existing
storm drain.
The subject easement is 310 feet long and 30 feet wide extending southwesterly from the intersection of
Laredo Place and Laramie Drive. The vacation is consistent with the General Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission make the finding through minute
action that vacation of the emergency fire access easement conforms with the General Plan. This finding
will be forwarded to the City Council for further processing and final approval.
Respectfully submitted,
Dan~jam~es~
Senior Civil Engineer
DJ:BAM:sd
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "B"- Easements
Exhibit "C" - Existing Facilities
ITEM A
CiTY OF ITF_,,~: FI~
RANCH0 CUCAMONGA ?rimE: VILIAI~TY /WAP
KNG]iNF,,ERING DIVISION EXiW~IT:
9°
T H E C I T Y 0 F
ANCPIO CUCA ONCA
March 27, 1996
Mr. Gil Rodriguez, Jr.
P.O. Box 281
Upland, CA 91786
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 96-01
Dear Mr. Rodriguez:
Staff is in receipt of a copy of your letter to the Planning Commission dated March 25, 1996. Like yourself,
the City is concerned with the processing time of an application. For that reason, the Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) application, while still incomplete, continues to move forward in the process while the
Variance application is scheduled for Planning Commission consideration. Staff believes the processing
of the Variance application prior to the CUP application will prove beneficial to you in reducing possible
delays and expenses.
Staff scheduled the Variance for the first available Planning Commission meeting to receive direct input
from the Planning Commission. If the Planning Commission determines that the Variance can not be
approved, you would then be able to make the necessary revisions to your Conditional Use Permit
application plans and complete the Design Review process. If a ruling on the Variance application is not
rendered until the CUP application is scheduled for Planning Commission hearing, a denial of the Variance
at that time could result in revisions to the CUP plans or denial of the project. If revisions are necessary,
additional time and expense will be incurred at that time. If the Variance is approved, the schedule of the
CUP would have remained the same in either case.
We believe that considering the Vadance at this time will provide the most time and cost-effective manner
to review the project. The issues raised in the Variance staff report are not new. The Variance and
related issues were discussed as early as October 25, 1995, during a Pre-Application Review with the
Planning Commission. If, however, you desire additional time to prepare for the Variance application, staff
recommends that the application be continued to April 10, 1996.
If you have any questions or need more information, please do not hesitate to call me or Scott Murphy,
the project planner, at (909)477-2750.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
P G IS
r
BB:SM/ds
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
City Attorney
Mayor William J. Alexander ~ Councilmember Paul Biane
Mayor Pro-Tem Rex Gutierrez Councilmember James V. Curatalo
' Jack Lcm, AICP, City Manager Councilmember Diane Wilt!ares
105C0 Civic Center Drive · RO. 8ox 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (909) 989-1851 · FAX (9C9) 987-6499
l.J 759 N. Mountain Avenue
P.O. Box 281 Ulfiand, CA.91786
R E A t E (909) 985-0958
Fax (909) 985-0950
March 25, 1996
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic ,Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 - 0807
RE: VARIANCE 96-01 - A request to reduce the required building and parking setbacks for a commercial
development in the Community Commercial designation ( Sub Area 2 ) of the Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan,
located at the southwest corner of Foothill Blvd. and Vineyard Ave. - APN: 207 -211 - 12 and 13.
Dear Chairman and Members of Planning Commission:
This is a request for a continuance of the Variance scheduled for the March 27, 1996 Public hearing
to be consolidated with all other discretionary approvals, including the conditional use permit. This will save
a great amount of time and cost.
I received the Notice of the Planning Commission hearing and a copy of the staff report March 25, 1996,
two days before the scheduled hearing. Therefore there is an inadequate amount of time to prepare for the
public hearing and to be heard affectively on the application.
Sincerely,
U.S. PROPERTIES
Gil Rodfiguez Jr.
cc: Mayor Bill Alexander
Mayor pro-Tem Rex Gutierrez
Councilmember Paul Biane
Councilmember James V. Curatalo
Councilmember Diane Williams
City Attorney Jim Markman
City Planner Brad Buller
Associate Planner Scott Murphy
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAlViONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 27, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to reduce the required building and
parking setbacks for a commercial development in the Community Commercial
designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the
southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12
and 13.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoning:
North - Vacant; Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Community Commercial (Subarea 2)
South - Vacant and single family residence; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per
acre)
East Gas station under construction and multi-family residential; Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan. Community Commercial and Medium Residential (Subarea 2)
West Flood Control Channel; Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, Flood Control Channel
(Subarea 2)
B. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Commercial
North Commercial
South - Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
East Commercial and Medium-High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre)
West Flood Control/Utility Corridor
C. Site Characteristics: The site is presently developed with the historic landmark John Klusman
House that has been conver~ed to a commercial use. A gravel access drive has been
provided from Vineyard Avenue to a gravel parking area adjacent to the structure. A
detached garage is located south of the house. The balance of the site is vacant.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing to develop a shopping center. Phase I consists of a fast
food drive-thru facility and a sit-down restaurant. The drive-thru facility is proposed
immediately to the east of the Klusman House. The restaurant is proposed at the northeast
corner of the site along the Vineyard Avenue frontage. A future pad is provided between the
drive-thru facility and the restaurant along the Foothill Boulevard frontage. Parking is
proposed behind or to the side of the buildings. Access to the site will be obtained from one
., entry drive along Foothill Boulevard and one along Vineyard Avenue.
ITEM B
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ
March 27, 1996
Page 2
B. Variance Request: In conjunction with the development application, the applicant has
submitted a Variance request to reduce the required building setback and the parking setback
along the street frontages.
The site is located within the "activity center" of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan~ The
intent of the activity centers is to create pedestrian oriented development through orientation
of building and amenities towards the public street. To encourage this pedestrian orientation,
building setbacks were substantially reduced from the normal 45 feet to 25 feet for single
story structures. To further emphasize the pedestrian orientation, the parking setback is
increased from a 30-foot minimum to 50 feet. The two standards combine to provide
opportunities for expanded pedestrian walkways, pedestrian amenities, and a pedestrian
- scale building design.
The applicant is requesting to modify both the building and parking setback standards. The
restaurant building fronting Vineyard Avenue is located 17 feet from the curb. The trellis
...... '- structure provided in front of the drive-thru facility on Foothill Boulevard is located 15 feet
from the curb. The parking area south of the restaurant is proposed at 39 feet from the curb.
And the drive-thru lane, considered by staff as a parking drive aisle, is proposed at 21 feet
from the curb.
FACTS FOR FINDING: In order for the Planning Commission to approve a Variance, facts to
support all of the following findings must be made:
1 That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result
in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the
Development Code.
2. That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same district.
3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive
the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.
4. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent
with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
5. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
In the letter to the Planning Commission. the applicant indicates that the site is unlike other
properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning designation. The applicant notes that the property
development at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue resulted in the shift
of the centerline in Vineyard Avenue 9 feet to the west. The result of this shift is that the applicant
must dedicate 9 additional feet that he would not have had to dedicate if not for that development.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ
March 27, 1996
Page 3
In considering the Variance request and the applicant's justification, staff offers the following:
1. The activity center provides a reduced building and parking setback from other properties
along Foothill Boulevard within the same zoning designation. The activity center allows
buildings to be located 25 feet from the face of curb compared to other locations which
require 45 feet.
2. The applicant is required to widen Vineyard Avenue 20 feet for a 740-foot wide property (at
the midpoint) in order to provide the required street improvements - a 3 percent reduction in
the overall property width. By comparison, the property immediately across Vineyard Avenue
was required to widen Vineyard Avenue 7 feet off their 160-foot wide property - a 4 percent
reduction in their property width. The project on the east side of Vineyard Avenue was able
to meet the 25-foot building setback required. The project did, however, receive Variance
approval to reduce the parking setback to 43 feet because of the small size of the existing
parcel (0.64 acres). The property at the northeast corner of the site, which necessitated the
......... shift in the Vineyard centerline, was also granted Variance approval. That Variance permitted
the Thomas Winery building (the arbor) to remain 2 feet from the face of curb. The approval
was granted in recognition of the historic designation of the winery building.
3. The project approved for the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue
(Smiths Food King) was required to deal with the same 9-foot shift in the Vineyard Avenue
centerline. The site is zoned Community Commercial and the Foothill Boulevard and
Vineyard Avenue intersection is designated as an activity center. That project was able to
meet the required building and parking setbacks while widening Vineyard Avenue 22 feet.
That northwest corner site is approximately 10.6 acres with a lot width of 630 feet. The
applicant's overall site is roughly 9.1 acres under the same Community Commercial zoning.
4. The applicant is proposing to develop a site measuring 610 feet by 730 feet. This area
provides more than adequate room in which to make up the distance necessary to comply
with the setback requirements.
5. While the applicant is required to dedicate and improve the Foothill Boulevard frontage, there
is no correlation between the 9-foot shift in the Vineyard Avenue centerline and the reduced
setbacks requested along Foothill Boulevard.
6. VV~th the application, the applicant is required to widen Foothill Boulevard roughly 20 feet to
accommodate the ultimate improvements for Foothill Boulevard. The project approved for
the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue was required to widen
Foothill Boulevard 17 feet to accommodate a right turn lane. Nonetheless, that project met
the building and parking setbacks along Foothill Boulevard.The project at the southeast
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue was also required to widen Foothill
Boulevard 9 feet. Like the northwest corner, the application met the building setback
requirements. The application did, however, receive Variance approval to reduce the parking
setback from 50 feet to 40 feet. As with the Vineyard Avenue setback, the Variance was in
recognition of the small size of the parcel.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ
March 27, 1996
Page 4
7. Even if the Vineyard Avenue centerline had not been shifted 9 feet to the west, the application
would still not meet the required 50-foot parking setback within the activity center - the
parking setback would be 48 feet from face of curb.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny Variance 96-01
through adoption of the attached Resolution.
City Planner
BB:SM:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" Site Plan
Resolution of Denial
: W'e do ~ot enjoy the same prMlegcs as other properties in the same distric. L Thomas Winery located aT tile :
i ;~°~hD"'est corner of Foothill Bb'd. and Virteyard Ave. caused the center line of Vineyard Ave. to b,: shifted :
rune leer to the west thus affi:cting the bui!ding setback/br the proposed Vh~eyztrd ,'(; 'c. Bur!din8' T'h. oI~s
: Winery enjoys ~ privileged setback, lhus the development code would deprive the proposed building. to be
; located at [he. Southwest corner of Foothill BIrd. ar~.d Viaey.,.rd Ave, .of privileges enjoyed by
p. ropenies in the same district.
The required setback For buildings ~oca.'.ed on Vineyard Ave. is 25 fee~, ~he. propused b.:ildin8 is setba:k 17
· tel from the curb. We are requesting only a 8 foot reduction in the required setback.
Post-It' Fax Note 7671 ~/r/,/]l~a~,~ Z,
./o~ - t. / o.
· Phon~ ~ ' ~h~n__8 ~
., , ..... ,.
.. .....................
.:' ,~
1~5~,26' r'rn N 00 13' 4C
381 88.00'
20
N ~9 ~7' 07' W 390
533.91'
-../
103 ~ STQ~ COL.
39' WAL ~ RSPECTIVE V;?NF
',~LL ..... ~--F-UTURE
;'~""~'~'¢' .... 5'-5' .., J ENTRY SIO~VALK A~O'
I FUTU~
~ col i use
-- -- , MULTF
I 3500
NG BUILDING ]:( '
..... ~ ~, ~u,~r ~l ......... /
I '" 2900 sl ~" j
.....
,'.::: .....' ~ZFl( =; ;,
& t- , ~ .....
..... TOTAL pARKING 154 SPACES CONC. WAL~ "
ENTRY~'~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO. 96-01,
A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED BUILDING AND PARKING
SETBACKS FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY
COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 2) OF THE FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER
OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-211-12 AND 13.
A. Recitals.
1. Gil Rodriguez Jr. has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 96-01 as
described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafier in this Resolution, the subject Variance request
is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 27th day of March 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
..... Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Pad A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 13, 1996, including written and oral staff repods, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to properly located at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with street frontages of 640 feet along Foothill Boulevard and 495
feet along Vineyard Avenue and is presently improved with a local historic landmark, the John
Klusman House, which has been converted to commercial use; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated for commercial uses and
is vacant. The properly to the south consists of a single family residence and is designated for
residential uses. The properly to the east is designated for commercial uses and is being developed
with a gas station and mini-market. The property to the west is designated and developed with a
flood control channel; and
c. The application has been submitted in conjunction with a request for the issuance
of a Conditional Use Permit No. 95-25 to allow the development of a shopping center, the first phase
of which consists of a drive-thru fast food facility and a restaurant which are conditionally permitted
and permitted uses within the Community Commercial and Activity Center designation. respectively;
and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ
March 27, 1996
Page 2
d. The application has been submitted to allow the development of buildings with
lesser setback than 25 feet from the face of curb along Vineyard Avenue and along Foothill
Boulevard, and to allow development of parking with lesser setback than 50 feet from face of curb
along Vineyard Avenue and along Foothill Boulevard contrary to the requirements of Section 9.5.3.3
of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and
e. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan encourages development within certain
designated activity centers by providing various incentives. These incentives include substantially
reduced building and parking setbacks different from other properties along Foothill Boulevard within
the same zoning designation. The activity center allows buildings to be located 25 feet from the face
of curb contrasted with 45 feet, which is normal the requirement for other locations within the Plan;
and
f. All new buil~lings within all other projects located within the same activity center at
the intersection of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue have fully complied with the setback
requirements. The applicant is required to widen Vineyard Avenue 20 feet for a 740-foot wide
properly in order to provide the required street improvements which constitutes a 3 percent reduction
...... in'-the 'overall properly width. By comparison, the properly immediate across Vineyard Avenue was
required to widen Vineyard Avenue 7 feet off their 160-foot wide properly, which constituted a 4
percent reduction in their properly width, Without the need for variance for building setbacks; and
g. The project approved for the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard
Avenue was required to address the same 9-foot shift in the Vineyard Avenue centerline. The site
is zoned Community Commercial and the Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue intersection is
designated as an activity center. That project was able to meet the required building and parking
setbacks while widening Vineyard Avenue 22 feet. The nodbeast corner site is approximately 10.6
acres with a lot width of 630 feet. The applicant's overall site is roughly 9.1 acres under the same
Community Commercial zoning; and
h. The applicant is proposing to develop a site measuring 740 feet by 610 feet at the
mid-points of the parcel. This area provides more than adequate room in which to comply with the
setback requirements; and
I. While the applicant is required to dedicate and improve the Foothill frontage. there
is no correlation between the 9-foot shift in the Vineyard Avenue centedine and the reduced setbacks
requested along Foothill Boulevard; and
j. With the application. the applicant is required to widen Foothill Boulevard roughly
20 feet to accommodate the ultimate improvements for Foothill Boulevard. The project approved
for the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue was required to widen Foothill
Boulevard 17 feet to accommodate a right turn lane. That project met the building and parking
setbacks along Foothill Boulevard; and
k. If the centerline of Vineyard Avenue had not been shifted 9-feet to the west, the
application would still not maintain the 50-foot parking setback required within the activity center of
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; the resulting setback would be 48 feet.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set fodh in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
J
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 96-01 - RODRIGUEZ
March 27, 1996
Page 3
a. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations
would not result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of the Development Code.
b. That there are not exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the properly involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally
to other propedies in the same district.
c. That stdct or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would
not depdve the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.
d. That the granting of the Variance will constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other propedies classified in the same district.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 ~bove, this
Commission hereby denies the application.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolulion.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 27th day of March 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
January 8, 1996
Mr. David Barker, Chairman, Planning Commission (Via Fax: 909/989-6028)
Mr. Brad Bullet, City Planner (Via Fax: 909/987-6499)
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Raneho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RE: Proposed General Plan Amendment for the property located South of Foothill Boulevard
between Spruce and Elm
Gentlemen:
Although it is clear from the joint City Council\Planning Commission meeting held in December
regarding the land use survey prepared by Mr. Agaganian that there are still questions and concerns
about the recommendations therein, the discussion of this issue over the past two months has brought
several uneontested points to light, including the following:
1. It is an undisputed conclusion that Foothill Boulevard east of Haven is the primary retail corridor
within the City and is best suited for future retail development;
2. The existing retail core, which started with Terra Vista Town Center and has successfully ' '
expanded east to the Promenade, is thriving and continues to attract regionally oriented retailers to the
City;
3. Based on projected population growth and other positive aspects within Raneho Cucamonga and
the sub-region, there will be continued ,demand for substantial acreage to accommodate future retail
development;
4. It has been emphasized over and over again that building "critical mass" or the grouping of '
retailers both competitive and complementary is a positive factor for the City and is crucial in the
decision making process for retailers seeking new locations;
5. Retail development contributes the most income to the City compared to any other type of
development at a very low cost to service. Because of potential cuts in current income sources and
the constantly growing demand for city services, Raneho Cueamonga cannot afford to miss any viable
opportunities to increase its tax base; and
6. Area property owners as well as Mr. Agaganian have emphasized the fact that competition
between cities for regional retailers is fierce and that Rancho Cucamonga needs to act swiftly and
aggressively to attract the remaining candidates. Every major retailer which Rancho Cucamonga
loses means not only the lost sales tax revenue from that store but also the lost draw to the Foothill
corridor (i.e. every tenant locating in an adjacent city wilt pull customers away from Rancho
Cucamonga).
W01tL INVESTMENT COMPANY ichelson, Suite 170, h'vine, California 92715 · (714) 955-0115 · FAX: (714) 755-3971
Based on these facts, the City needs to determine what it can and should do to assure that it attracts as
much retail development to its primary retail corridor as the surrounding trade area can support.
Currently, the only viable "product" the City has to attract community and regional retailers to its
primary retail corridor is the land on the north side of Foothill Boulevard owned by Lewis Homes.
Also available is Masi Project on the south side of the street. However. this project has been delayed
for several years and orients itself more to the sports complex than to the existing retail core at Tetra
Vista. Tenants looking to locate in this market are therefore forced to deal with Lewis Homes or to
look at alternative locations outside of the City. Maintaining this monopoly of retail acreage on the
Foothill corridor east of Haven is definitely not in the best interest of the City. Of course, Lewis
Homes has made it clear in its letter presented to the council at the joint meeting that they do not
want any competition. However. Mr. Agaganian's conclusions regarding the ~ositive impact of
critical mass and the proven concept of locating new retail across the street from existing centers (as
he is proposing on 4th St.) indicate that a retail development on our site would be extremely
beneficial to the City in the long run by attracting more shoppers to the area and giving more choices
to the community.
The planning staff has suggested that the City should wait until the north side of Foothill Blvd. is
completely built out before retail development on the south side is even considered. Although this
may sound like a good idea, stifling competition in the market is not the best long term interest of the
City. Yes, adding retail acreage to the market may slightly delay the full lease-up of the Lewis
projects, but over the next three to five years and beyond the City will get more tenants than it
otherwise would have attracted and al__l tenants will do better because of the added critical mass
created by the expanded development.
We are not proposing that the entire South side of Foothill Boulevard be rezoned. Rather, the City
should proceed as it has on the north side of the street by starting at the point nearest the existing
critical mass and moving east from there if demand justifies further rezoning.
As you know, we currently have a firm commitment from "the good guys!" to build a 20.000-25,000
sq. ft. store on our site. We also have proposals from other prospective retail tenants interested in
our site. I have attached a letter from "the good guys!" which basically states that the city will have
to act "swiftly and aggressively" to keep them from moving to Ontario. Based on the quick
turnaround which the City was able to accomplish to attract "Best Buy" on the Lewis site. I am
confident that their objectives can be met should the City make the decision that this tenant will be a
positive addition to the existing critical mass.
Because of the time constraints we are working with. I would Jike to proceed on the following basis:
First, we would like to immediately schedule a workshop with the planning commission to discuss site
layout. As you suggested. this can be done irrespective of the proposed uses but can address issues
such as elevations, circulation, parking and layout of buildings.
Second, it is our intention to immediately resubmit our application for a General Plan Amendment.
Although we would prefer to wait until we have arrived at an acceptable solution with the staff and
Planning Commission, we are willing to risk the cost of the application fee in the hopes that we can
come to agreement on a mutually acceptable plan while the application process is ongoing. Working
with staff and Planning Commission at the same time as our application is being processed is the only
way that we can come close to meeting the time frame set forth by "the good guys!".
Finally, we would like to submit a request to have our GPA application considered on one of the two
available "floating" dates for hearing such general plan amendments. I understand that the next
scheduled submittal deadline is on March 15 with hearings in May or June. As you can imagine, like
"the good guys!", most of the tenants which are currently interested in our property need to know the
availability of our site as soon as possible or they may locate elsewhere.
Based on the new information that has been presented recently, we are asking the Planning
Commission to consider our proposed GPA for the following reasons:
1. It expands the existing "critical mass" of retailers on the Foothill corridor;
2. It allows healthy competition amongst landowners in the City's retail core, therefore
providing more opportunities for retailers looking to locate in this market;
3. It is compatible with the existing General Plan which already permits certain kinds of retail
development on our site;
4. It will provide a significant sourc~ of revenu~ for the City as the project is built out (for
example, "the good guys!" alone is projecting sales of approximately $20 million which translates
into sales tax revenues to the City of approximately $200,000); and
5. It will be designed in a way that will be complementary to all neighbors and will be an asset
for the City.
I would like opportunity to meet with you this week to discuss these ideas further and will call you
set up an appointment. Thank you for your consideration and I look forward to working with both
staff and the Commission to arrive at a mutually acceptable solution for this site.
Sincerely,
W~RANC 0 P NERS
Pete~ D~"
enel.
co: Mr. Melther
Mr. Tolstoy
Mr. McNiel
Mr. Lumpp
Mr. Curatalo
Mr. Blanc
Mr. Alexander
Ms. Williams
Mr. Gutierrez
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 27, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTAND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01A -
WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request for a land use change from Industrial
Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side
of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62
through 69.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 96-01 - WOHU RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the
Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for
14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between
Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested by Applicant: This application is a request to change the south side of
Foothill Boulevard from Industrial Park to Community Commercial retail between Spruce
and Elm. No concept Master Plan has been submitted with this application. These
applications are virtually the same applications as General Plan Amendment 95-02A and
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02, which were recommended for denial by
the Planning Commission on October 11, 1995 (Exhibits "AA and "BB") and denied by the
City Council on November 1, 1995 (Exhibits "CC" and "DD").
B. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Partially developed with retail stores, including home electronics, linens/home
accessories; craft supplies; bookstore; and coffee house; with pads for up to four
restaurants - Terra Vista Planned Community: Community Commercial District.
South - Developed - Hotel; and Vacant - Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7:
Industrial Park and Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan
East Vacant - Industrial Area Specific Plan Subarea 7: Industrial Park and Rancho
Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan
West Developed - Vacant Restaurant; and Vacant - Industrial Area Specific Plan
Subarea 7: Industrial Park and Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master
Plan C.
iTEMS C & D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO
March 27, 1996
Page 2
C. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Industrial Park
North - Community Commercial
South - Industrial Park
East - Industrial Park
West - Industrial Park
D. Site Characteristics: The site encompasses 14.45 acres of undeveloped land bounded on
the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the south by Eucalyptus Street, on the east by Elm
Avenue, and on the west by Spruce Avenue (see Exhibit "A" under Exhibit "AA"). The site
slopes gently from north to south with a drainage easement across the property just east
of the mid-point between Spruce and Elm Avenues. Soil conditions are stable. The site
is partially covered with old growth vineyards which appear abandoned and partially
covered with weeds. The only trees on the site were planted at the intersection of Foothill
........... and Spru/:e as part of the landscaping requirements for the Rancho Cucamonga Business
Park site development. There are no structures on the site.
BACKGROUND: On October 11, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on
a request for a land use change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres of
land on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues and voted 4-0-1 to
deny the application (McNiel absent). The Commission expressed support for commercial
development on the site consistent with uses already allowed in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Specific
Plan (Exhibit "BB" ).
The applicant appealed the Planning Commission decision to the City Council. On November 1,
1995, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the aforementioned application and voted
3-2-0 to deny without prejudice (Biane and Gutierrez voted no). Council members emphasized that
this was a land use decision (Exhibit "DD").
On December 20, 1995. the City Council and the Planning Commission held a workshop on the
Agajanian Market Study and the Council directed the Commission to develop policies and
objectives for retail development. On January 31, 1996, the Planning Commission began their
review of policies and objectives, as well as a review of the Foothill Boulevard retail corridor.
Also, on January 31, 1996, at the request of Peter Desforges, representing the subject property,
the Commission discussed a design workshop for the site. The consensus was that the
Commission could host a design workshop as part of a Pre-Application Review process. On
February 13, 1996, instead of going forward to resolve site development and design issues for a
retail center through the Pre-Application Review process, the applicant submitted the subject
requests for General Plan Amendment and Industrial Specific Plan amendment only.
Aqajanian Market Study: The Agajanian Market Study was presented to the City Council
and the Planning Commission at several meetings and workshops. The Study, which was
'-. prepared in close cooperation with the Chamber of Commerce, advised aggressive efforts
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHURANCHO
March 27, 1996
Page 3
to attract development. It indicated development of between 400 and 550 acres of retail
and office commercial development can be expected Citywide in the long term. Currently
1,714 acres are zoned for, or are under consideration for, commercial development.
The Study also offered a number of general conclusions as well as specific observations
for Foothill Boulevard. The Study stated (general conclusion in bold):
· Promote aggressive commercial development: Continue to promote commercial
development along Foothill Boulevard on property which is currently zoned for retail
Use.
· Build synergy with commercial siting: Development potential of large single
ownership properties as exemplified by Victoria Gardens and Terra Vista Town
Center.
........ · Orient new retail toward residential growth area in north Rancho Cucamonga
and Fontann: Expand sites at the Foothill Boulevard/I-15 retail node.
· Retain Foothill Boulevard as the principal commercial corridor: Central
Foothill Boulevard, between Haven and Rochester Avenues, should continue to
develop community retail stores in largely "center" settings. Frontage properties
along the southern side of Foothill Boulevard should be reserved for ancillary/
business support commercial development, not retail development which competes
with the north side of Foothill Boulevard.
Public testimony by Mission Land Company and Western Properties supported the
conclusions of the Market Study. Mission Land Company supported the Study based on
a review by their market consultant. Western Properties initially questioned the
conclusions, but stated full support at the January 31, 1996, meeting of the Planning
Commission.
Wohl Investment Company testified that the Study supports a land use change for their
property opposite Town Center Square. The justification statement submitted with the
subject application restates their testimony (Exhibit "GG"). However, as referenced above,
the Market Study states:
"The frontage properties along the southern side of Foothill Boulevard in
[this study's] Subarea 2 should be reserved for commercial development,
but not necessarily retail development" (p. 71).
As stated above, the City Council and the Planning Commission met and discussed the
Market Study at an adjourned meeting on December 20, 1995. The City Council directed
the Planning Commission to develop recommendations for long term goals and strategies
for retail development.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95~01 - WOHL/RANCHO
March 27, 1996
Page 4
On January 31, 1996 the Planning Commission continued discussion of the Market Study
(see attached minutes, Exhibit "EE") and directed staff as follows:
· Move forward via the existing Industrial Area Specific Plan to add retail uses to the
north side of Foudh Street opposite the Ontario Mills Mall;
· Build on success of the Foothill Marketplace by facilitating retail development at the
Foothill Boulevard/l-15 Interchange;
· Defer study on the State Route 30 Freeway access ramps until the freeway design
is final;
· Continue to study the Foothill Retail Corridor, including the potential for adding retail
development on the south side of Foothill between Haven and Rochester;
· Work with an applicant on his initiation of text changes to the Industrial Area
Specific Plan Subarea 8 to add "automotive sales" as a conditionally permitted use.
On February 14, 1996, the Planning Commission again considered the Market Study and
reviewed development along the Foothill Boulevard retail corridor from Grove Avenue to
Etiwanda Avenue (Exhibit "FF"). The Commission requested staff to return in a workshop
setting when additional land use and zoning data has been obtained. The review of the
Foothill Corridor between Deer Creek Channel and Day Creek Channel indicated that
virtually all the proper~y owners on the south side of Foothill Boulevard have contacted the
Planning Department regarding the potential for land use change from office and industrially
related retail to unrestricted retail. Retail development along this segment has progressed
generally from west to east. Additionally, Western Properties indicated an interest in
requesting retail for their remaining Foothill Boulevard frontage between Elm and
Rochester. In response to the Commission's request for more information in vacancies,
staff has found that there is approximately 466,000 square feet of retail leasable area
available or with approved pads within the Terra Vista Community Plan. There is also
260,255 square feet approved in the Masi Project at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue.
ANALYSIS: The applicant's justification statement asserts several points to support
reconsideration of the requested land use change. These points will be presented and discussed
as follows:
Foothill Boulevard is the Primary Retail corridor of the City: The applicant states and staff
agrees that Foothill Boulevard is the primary retail corridor for the City. Foothill Boulevard
extends a distance of approximately 6 ¼ miles through the City. The Market Study advised
focusing on solidly anchored, single-ownership centers including the Victoria Gardens and
Tetra Vista Town Center, as well as projects at the 1-1 5/Foothill Boulevard node, including
the Foothill Marketplace. Testimony during review of the Market Study cautioned that
opening the entire corridor to retail development from Haven Avenue to Etiwanda Avenue
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHURANCHO
March 27, 1996
Page 5
would dilute the leasing power of the activity centers and may slow retail development.
Leasing and related financing problems at the approved Masi site at Rochester and the
Moore site opposite the Foothill Marketplace were also cited.
The Market Study stated that the south side of Foothill Boulevard, which is zoned Industrial
Park in the Industrial Area Specific Plan, should be reserved for ancillary and business
support commercial development, but not necessarily retail development. The Rancho
Cucamonga Business Park (of which the subject site is a part) has Master Planned the site
for multi-story office and food court uses. A subsequent proposal was approved for a
high-end commercial design center. The design center was to compliment and not
compete with the retail activity within the retail centers along Foothill Boulevard in the Terra
Vista Planned Community. With development of the hotel within the southwest quadrant
of the subject site, restaurants and entertainment would be the most compatible type of
uses, and are already permitted, or conditionally permitted, in Subarea 7 of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan.
Demand for substantial acreaqe to support retail development: The City has 1,002 acres
of undeveloped commercial land and another 712 acres with potential for rezoning to
commercial development. The Agajanian report concluded that the long term build out
potential is for not more than 550 acres of additional office and retail development.
Retail needed to serve population qrowth: Population growth in the City during the past four
years has been slight, averaging 2.9 percent per year. During this period, retail
development has been in a catch-up phase to meet the needs of population growth which
occurred during the 1980s. Residential growth through the remainder of the 1990s is
uncertain. New residential development is likely to increase as the economy in the Inland
Empire improves, but for now remains relatively flat. For example, according to the
Business Press San Bernardino County housing starts during December 1995 lagged
behind housing starts in December 1994 by 32 percent, but the LA. Times reported that
in January 1996 housing permits were only 1 percent behind January 1995 in the Riverside-
San Bernardino area. One dampening effect on production and sales of new product is that
the price of existing homes is still declining throughout the region.
Compatibility with General Plan: (see also Exhibit "AA" Land Use Analysis): The applicant
states that retail use is compatible with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages
retail development in a hierarchy of "Centers" defined by acreage and activity and
discourages "strip development." Strip development refers to retail businesses with
frontage on arterial streets which are located on individual, often non-contiguous parcels
of relatively shallow depth. Strip development describes the condition along Foothill
Boulevard prior to City incorporation.
In the General Plan a "Center" has an acreage criteria, a gross leasable area criteria. and
a market area criteria. In the hierarchy of commercial land uses, a Community Commercial
Center would be between 15 and 50 acres in size and intermediary in activity between a
Neighborhood Center and a Regional Center.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO
March 27, 1996
Page 6
It is unusual to receive a request for a land use change without an application for
development. While a development application is not bound to a land use change, it
provides a strong indication of what is intended to happen. A Community Commercial
designation on the subject site without a master plan or other development parameters to
avoid strip commercial could not be found consistent with the General Plan. No application
for development has been received with this application for land use change.
Critical mass: This term is used when a sufficient number and type of businesses are
grouped together to attract consumers. Critical mass has been obtained in the Terra Vista
Planned Community from Haven Avenue to Elm. The applicant's request could add retail
oppodunities to Terra Vista's critical mass or it could dilute the current success of the Terra
Vista Center. An important consideration with a land use change is whether it can achieve
an intended result. The properties to the east, west, and south of the subject site are zoned
Industrial Park. An amendment to the land use midway between Haven and Milliken would
not logically build on the critical mass created by the activity center expanding from Haven
and woul8 be Spot zoning.
The Terra Vista retail focal area is consistent with the General Plan "Centers Concept" and
the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan "Activity Centers" concept. The Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan further defines centers as follows:
Activity Centers are points of intersection at major streets or landmarks
along the Foothill Boulevard Corridor. As such, they are points of
concentrated activity which give identity to individual subareas.
The "Centers" concept has proven successful in the City. The two most successful are the
Terra Vista Town Center and the Foothill Marketplace. Major anchors are doing well in
these locations, but in-line shops are struggling. A recent study of Inland Empire
Commercial Development for CB Commercial by Alfred Gobar stated that even
well-anchored centers in the Inland Empire region have a vacancy rate of 11.6 percent,
"about a percentage point better than last place Dallas/Ft. Worth". The highest reported
vacancy rate was for unanchored strip centers which have a 18.4 percent vacancy rate in
the Inland Empire compared with a 3.4 percent vacancy rate for the leader, Minneapolis/St.
Paul (Exhibit "HH").
Foothill Corridor and 4th Street Comparison: The applicant states that the addition of retail
along Foothill Boulevard is the same as adding retail along 4th Street. There is an
important difference between "Centers" development on Foothill Boulevard and potential
retail development on 4th Street. The former is directly tied to residential development and
focuses on the Rancho Cucamonga "Community" market. The latter is freeway-linked to
the region, focuses on a regional market, and may pull consumers and sales tax dollars
away from Rancho Cucamonga to Ontario.
The Terra Vista retail center and the Foothill Marketplace development primarily serve
existing residential development in the City, drawing heavily on the Terra Vista and Victoria
Planned Communities, as well as new residential construction north of Foothill Boulevard
c
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO
March 27, 1996
Page 7
in Fontann. The Community Commercial designation is intended to draw customers from
the entire City, but adjoining and nearby residential areas are the also expected to provide
a substantial number of the customers for Community Commercial developments.
In contrast, there is no residential development in the immediate vicinity of the Ontario Mills
site. The Mills mall is intended to be a destination center drawing from the regional
population. It will be dependent on those who will typically choose the mall as their
destination and will arrive via the 1-15 freeway or the 1-10 freeway. Additional retail
development opposite the Mall would aim to divert some of those regional customers.
Further, retail sales along 4th Street in the City has the potential to bring sales tax revenue
into the City which would otherwise go to the City of Ontario.
Mixed Use desiqnation: The applicant incorrectly describes the Terra Vista Town Center
and Town Center Square as "mixed use" developments. They are designated "Community
Commercial" which is a commercial retail use and not a mixed use. In the Terra Vista
........ COmmunity Plan there is a "Mixed Use" designation which is described as follows:
Mixed use centers have the ability to provide stimulating, integrated
environments that include commercial. office, entertainment and leisure
time, and residential developments -- all clustered together into unified,
highly identifiable developments (emphasis added.)
Fiscal Impact: The applicant states that the Good Guys store would increase opportunities
for comparison shopping for electronics merchandise in Rancho Cucamonga. If built. the
amount of net increase in sales tax revenue is uncertain in that an increase in sales by
Good Guys may result in a decrease in sales by other electronics merchandise stores in
the City, for example: Montgomery Wards Electric Avenue, Circuit City, and Best Buy.
With the subject applications, the applicant resubmitted the market study by Urban
Research Associates: Table 3 identified the 1995 demand for electronics merchandise in
the market area as 63,800 square feet with a supply of 100,600 square feet already
developed in the City (Exhibit "I1").
Act swiftly and aqqressively to attract retail business into the city: The applicant refers to
the Agajanian Market Study. The imperative in the Agajanian study is for selective effort,
for example to support retail development in a "Centers" setting such as development of
the Victoria Mall site, development at the 1-15 and Foothill Boulevard intersection, and
development along 4th Street opposite the Mills.
The applicant also refers to aggressive time lines achieved by Western Properties to
develop their Town Center Square and Promenade sites. The success of those
applications was due in large part to the diligence of the developer. Western properties
submitted applications for development concurrently with a request for land use change,
resolved site planning and design issues early in the process. and was poised to advance
to plan check immediately after the City Council's decision to proceed.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO
March 27, 1996
Page 8
Desiqn: There are no design issues to be considered with these applications, because no
development project has been submitted for review. When a development package is
submitted, design issues can be addressed. As with any project in the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, within the limits of existing Design Guidelines and City policies, the design
of the site can be controlled by the Planning Commission. Compatibility with existing and
intended future development, as well as buffering of certain uses such as dock deftvery
areas, would be required.
Market Studies: The applicant states that the Lewis (Western Properties) and Masi market
studies support the requested change from Industrial Park to Community Commercial.
Those studies were site specific to the Western Properties and Masi requests for land use
change and did not address any other sites, including the subject site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: There has been no material change in the subject applications
from previously reviewed applications for General Plan Amendment 95-02A and Industrial Area
.... S~ci~C Plan Amendment 95-02. The Initial Study, Part I and Environmental Checklist, Part II, for
the aforementioned applications are incorporated into this application (Exhibit "J J"). Staff has
found that no significant adverse environmental impacts will occur because of the proposed land
use amendments. A Negative Declaration would be recommended upon approval of the subject
application.
CORRESPONDENCE:
· Wohl Investment: The attached letter and site plan schemes "A", "B", and "C" were
received from the applicant on March 14, 1996 (Exhibit "KK"). A revised scheme "C" was
forwarded by the applicant on March 19, 1996 (Exhibit "LL"). Again, no application for
development has been received with this application and none of the schemes would be
a part of an approval of the subject applications. As stated earlier in this report, staff has
continued to encourage the processing of a development proposal concurrent with any
General Plan application. Also, the Planning Commission and staff suggested a Pre-
Application review to consider site design issues for the property. The applicant has
chosen not to process development plans, but has submitted the attached schemes as
development possibilities. These schemes have not been previously considered by either
Design Review Committee or the Planning Commission.
· Lewis Homes: The attached letter from Lewis Homes Management Corporation dated
March 13, 1996, discusses vacant and/or available retail space along Foothill Boulevard in
Terra Vista Town Center, Town Center Square, and Tetra Vista Promenade (Exhibit "MM").
Five merchants are in bankruptcy -- Home Express, Clothestime, Discovery Zone, Lingerie
for Less, and Anna's Linens) -- accounting for 68,421 square feet of available space to add
to the 397,578 square feet of vacant stores or available pads in the centers for a total of
465,999 square feet of vacanfJavailable space. This is 38 percent of the total retail space
in the three Centers.
c,,
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
GPA 96-01A and ISPA 95-01 - WOHL/RANCHO
March 27, 1996
Page 9
RECOMMENDATION: These applications are virtually identical to General Plan Amendment
95-02A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 which were recommended for denial
by the Planning Commission on October 11, 1995, and denied by the City Council on November
1, 1995. The only circumstance which has changed is completion of the Agajanian Market Study.
The Study encouraged commercial development but discouraged adding retail uses in Subarea 7
of the Industrial Area Specific Plan on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Haven and
Rochester. The Planning Commission has not completed their review of development along the
Foothill Corridor.
However, at the request of the applicant to expedite review of these applications and. to facilitate
the decision process, this item has been brought forward. Staff recommends denial and
resolutions recommending denial are attached.
City Planner
BB:MB:sp
Attachments: "AA" Planning Commission Staff Report - October 11.1995
"BB' Planning Commission Minutes - October 11, 1995
"CC" City Council Staff Report - November 1, 1995
"DD" City Council Minutes - November 1, 1995
"EE" - Planning Commission Minutes - January 31, 1996
"FF" - Planning Commission Minutes - February 14, 1996
"GG" - Applicant's Justification Statement
"HH" - "Local retail vacancy rates" article, Business Press, February 19, 1996
"11 .... Table 3: Focused Market Analysis: Foothill Courtyard Retail Center
"JJ" Environmental Assessment Pad I and Part II
"KK" - Applicant's Site Plan Schemes "A," "B," and "C"
"LL" Applicant's Revised Scheme "C"
"MM" - Correspondence: Lewis Homes Letter, March 13, 1996
Resolution Recommending Denial - General Plan Amendment 96-01A
Resolution Recommending Denial - Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-01
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAIVfONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: October 11, 1995
TO: Chairman anCl Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02A -
WOHURANCHO PARTNERS - A request for a land use change from Industrial Park
to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of
Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related file: Industrial Area
· '-':- '" Specific Plan Amendment 95-02.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-02 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the
Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45
acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and
Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. Related file: General Plan Amendment 95-02-A.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surroundinq Land Use and Zoninq:
North - Padially developed with retail stores. including Home Electronics, Linens/Home
Accessories. and Craft supplies; with a bookstore and coffee house under
constructions; and with pads for up to four restaurants - Terra Vista Planned
Community - Community Commercial
South - Developed - Hotel; and Vacant - Industrial Park: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park
Master Plan
East Vacant - Industrial Park: Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan
West Developed - Vacant Restaurant; and Vacant - Industrial Park: Rancho Cucamonga
Business Park Master Plan
B. General Plan Desiqnations:
Project Site - Industrial Park
North Community Commercial
South - Industrial Park
East Industrial Park
West Industrial Park
PLANNING COMMISSION b~ I'AFF REPORT
GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
October 11, 1995
Page 2
C. Site Characteristics: The site encompasses 14.45 acres of undeveloped land bounded on the
North by Foothill Boulevard, on the South by Eucalyptus Street, on the east by Elm Avenue,
and on the west by Spruce Avenue (see Exhibit "A"). The site slopes gently from nodh to
south with a drainage easement across the property just east of the mid-point between Spruce
and Elm Avenues. Soil conditions are stable. The site is partially covered with old growth
vineyards which appear abandoned and padially covered with weeds. The only trees on site
were planted at the intersection of Foothill and Spruce as part of the landscaping requirement
for the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park site development. There are no structures on the
site.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has reviewed the initial Study, Part I and completed the
Environmental Checklist, Part II of the Initial Study. and has found no significant adverse
environmental impacts will occur because of the proposed land use amendments. Potential
impacts, determined not to be significant, include:
.... A.. Air Quality: The proposed land use change would increase air emissions, primarily from
vehicle trips, due to the intensity of retail development. However, because of the high ratio
of retail uses allowed and previously approved on the site under the Industrial Park
classification. including the existing hotel, the increase is below the South Coast Air Quality
thresholds of significance.
B. Transportation: The proposed land use change does not significantly increase traffic impacts.
LAND USE ANALYSIS:
A. History of the Site: The site is designated Industrial Park in the General Plan and located in
Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area specific Plan (see Exhibits "B" and "C").
The Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan was approved in 1981 for the area
bounded on the north by Foothill Boulevard, on the south by Arrow Highway, on the 'east
generally by Milliken Avenue, and on the west by Haven Avenue. The original vision for the
subject site was for a continuation of the high rise office buildings to the west plus a food park.
In 1987 a development proposal was approved. The proposal included a small hotel, food
park, and retail stores and shops. The project was amended to provide a large hotel which
was built, but the approval for the remainder of the development expired.
B. Appropriateness of the Existinq Desic~nafion. The existing Industrial Park designation includes
a number of commercial uses which could contribute to a vibrant downtown area. Permitted
or conditionally permitted uses include restaurants, theaters, art galleries, entertainment,
athletic clubs, and indoor and outdoor commercial recreation.
The site is suitable for development under the existing designation for many commercial
combinations. The Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Master Plan adopted in 1981 and still
valid, emphasizes office development similar to the Barton Plaza buildings to the west together
... with a Food Court. Each alternative incorporates the original food court concept. A 1987
approved and expired development plan emphasized retail development allowed under the
PLANNING COMMISSION b FAFF REPORT
GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
October 11, 1995
Page 3
Industrial Area Specific Plan. Also, inquiries have been received for a multi-plex theater
development which would be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit.
In addition to the above uses, many development options are available because many
commercial uses are allowed under the existing zoning. Permitted or conditionally permitted
retail uses include convenience sales (pharmacies, barber and beauty shop, cleaners, tailors,
newspaper/magazine store, florist), food and beverage sales (delicatessen, doughnut shop,
ice cream/yogurt shop, bakery), most retail automotive uses (sales, rentals, repairs. service
station), business supply (business machines, photocopy, print shop), and building
supply/home improvement (floor covering. glass, hardware, lighting, paint, window covering).
Also a number of commercial services are permitted or conditionally permitted, including
medical services, financial seNices, travel agencies, and real estate services.
Not permitted under the existing designation are commercial uses such as department
store/apparel/general merchandise type retail, home electronics, music and video stores,
appliance sales, or furniture stores. These uses would be permitted under the proposed
...... COmmunity .Commercial designation.
C. Appropriateness of the Proposed Desiqnation. The project site is 14.45 acres and proposed
to support 133,515 square feet of leasable area. The site appears to be insufficient in size to
support the General Plan's Community Commercial designation. A Community Commercial
site generally ranges in size from 15 to 50 acres. The size of the subject site is less than 15
acres. The proposed leasable area of 133,515 square feet is within the Community
Commercial range, but may be high in relation to the design parameters for the subject site.
The applicant states that the population within the assumed market is 152,000, a population
typically associated with a Regional Commercial designation.
The General Plan sets up the hierarchy of commercial site criteria ranging from Neighborhood
Commercial (the smallest) to Regionally Related Commercial (the largest). According to the
General Rap, a Neighborhood Commercial site ranges from 5 to 15 acres which will support
leasable floor area. of from 30,000 to 100,000 square feet, and is intended to serve about
10,000 residents in the immediate vicinity. It is typically anchored by a supermarket. The site
size of the subject application would be typical for a Neighborhood Center.
General Commercial is the next level of intensity of use. Size is not specified. The K-mart
Center on Haven Avenue south of Foothill has a General Commercial designation within the
Industrial Area Specific Plan and was established as part of the Rancho Cucamonga Business
Park Master Plan. The Virginia Dare Center also has a General Commercial designation
under the General Plan.
Commercial development regulated by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan is designated
General Commercial under the General Plan. It should be noted that although development
standards within the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan identify varying levels of intensity
including a "Community Commercial" designation, none are intended to develop to the
intensity of commercial use described in the General Plan as "Community Commercial." Under
the General Plan designation, the prototype is the Terra Vista Town Center.
PLANNING COMMISSION b FAFF REPORT
GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
October 11, 1995
Page 4
The General Plan states that the Community Commercial designation is aimed at
approximately 20,000 residents within a 5 mile radius. The site size is up to 50 acres and
capable of supporting leasable floor area ranging from 100,000 to 300,000 square feet.
Community Commercial sites include the Town Center and Town Center Square, as well as
the proposed Promenade development, all within the Tetra Vista Planned Community with
frontage on Foothill Boulevard. The Town Center Square located across from the subject site
was approved as Community Commercial use on a 25-acre site supporting 222,600 square
feet of leasable stores. The Terra Vista Promenade located west of Rochester Avenue is an
application under consideration for land use change to Community Commercial for a 45-acre
site supporting 457,801 square feet of leasable area.
The Regional Commercial designation is at the top of the hierarchy. It is expected to serve
a population base of at least 150,000 persons. An example is Foothill Marketplace located
on Foothill Boulevard east of the 1-15 Freeway interchange. It is a 60-acre site approved for
550,000 square feet of leasable stores.
............ T~e applicant has submitted a concept plan and a justification statement with an addendum
describing the proposed development (see Exhibits "D" and "E"). In this application, the size
of the site is at the upper limit of the Neighborhood Commercial designation. According to the
concept plan the site will support 133,515 square feet of leasable space, including four anchor
stores, five in-line shops, and two in-line food shops, one fast food drive-thru business, and
one freestanding restaurant.
Generally, a 15-acre site would be expected to support not more than 100,000 square feet of
leasable space. The leasable area illustrated in the concept plan is within the low range of the
Community Commercial designation. The proposed leasable area may be in excess of what
the design criteria for the site will actually support. An analysis of the site capacity will occur
at the time an application for development is submitted. However, the concept plan will be
briefly discussed in this report. Good Guys, a retail electronics store, is a committed anchor
tenant in a 20,250 square foot space on the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue,
and would be typical of a Community or Regional Commercial user.
D. Market Demand. The Foothill Courtyard Market Study identifies the current marketing
population at approximately 153,000 (see Exhibit "F"). The population to be served includes
the entire City population of 117,903. as well as the approximately 35,000 persons residing
in the Village of Heritage and the unincorporated County island east of the City and north of
the Metrolink line. The market area analyzed is larger than the General Plan's description of
area to be served, but a reasonable market area.
The Foothill Courtyard Market Study references the 1993 Tetra Vista Market Study for the
Town Center Square application. The Terra Vista Market Study identified a primary plus
secondary market area incorporating residents as far south as the 1-60 Freeway in Ontario and
as far east as Sierra Avenue in Fontann. For this area it identified a 1993 population of
250,000 persons and a year 2000 population of 335,000. It identified 971 acres of
commercially zoned land in the City and concluded that by the year 2000 there would be a
shortfall of 143 commercially zoned acres.
PLANNING COMMISSION SrAFF REPORT
GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
October 11, 1995
Page 5
Staff and the Planning Commission questioned the size of the market area, the population
figures, and the need for additionally zoned commercial acreage. These questions prompted
the City's Market Study which is in progress. The Foothill Courtyard Market Study considered
a more realistic market area and population, but referred to the conclusion in the 1993 Terra
Vista Market Study of need for additional commercially zoned land in the City by the year
2000. The City's Market Study will address reasonable market area, expected population,
impacts of the Ontario Mills regional commercial development, and the City's future need for
commercially zoned acreage.
Review of the Courtyard Market Study indicates that it does not support a land use change
based on unmet retail demand for the retail specialties on which it focuses. The focus is on
Home Electronics, Fast Food, Family Restaurants, Upscale Dining, Linens/Home Accessories, '
and Bookstores..
The Market Study does not support additional electronics-computer retail square footage
based on uOmet demand. The 1995 demand is stated as 63,800 square feet and the supply
at 100,600 square feet, or a current excess of 36,800 square feet. Adding another 20,250
square feet of this retail speciality is justified in the report with the statement: "A commitment
from The Good Guys chain to open a store in the Foothill Courtyard demonstrates that the
home electronics market segment is certainly not a closed one."
The Market Study emphasizes unmet demand for Fast Food/Take Out, Family Restaurants,
and Upscale Dining. However, these are all permitted or conditionally permitted uses under
the existing Industrial Park designation. Further, there are unbuilt pads for restaurants nearby,
including up to three pads in Town Center Square.
The Market Study identifies unmet demand for Linens/Home Accessories and Bookstores.
However, it states that based on leasable floor area the recently completed Home Express
store in Town Center Square, as well as the BarDes and Nobel bookstore under construction
will fill these demands.
E. Compatibility with surroundinq Industrial Park Land Uses. The south side of Foothill Boulevard
from Haven to Milliken is master planned for professional office use mixed with Food Park
uses. Haven Avenue to Aspen Avenue has developed as high rise office use. The
introduction of Community Commercial use between Spruce and Elm Avenues would set a
precedent for additional Community Commercial development on the south side of Foothill and
reduce opportunities for future professional office development. However, as stated above
under the existing zoning many commercial uses would be allowed on the site other than
office.
Further, the application for land use change raises questions about compatibility with existing
and planned development immediately adjoining the subject site. An important issue is design
orientation. The applicant's concept plan is designed to face Foothill Boulevard and place in-
line anchor stores and shops at the rear of the site. Loading docks and receiving areas would
be situated at the rear of the buildings which would potentially face entrances of buildings on
....... the south side of Eucalyptus Street. The proposed Good Guys store also faces Foothill with
PLANNING COMMISSION b FAFF REPORT
GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
October 11, 1995
Page 6
its loading dock facing the entrance and rooms of the existing Best Western Hotel. The
applicant proposes a combination of screen walls, landscaping, and design detail on the rear
building faces to soften the interface.
The compatibility issue is not resolved by the aforementioned design elements. The depth of
the proposed Courtyard site severely restricts opportunities for landscape screening. The
depth of the Courtyard ranges from approximately 270 to 505 linear feet. In comparison. the
depth of the Town Center Square site ranges from approximately 660 to 880 linear feet. The
Promenade site ranges in depth from approximately 895 to 1,100 linear feet.
Stores requiring loading docks may not be appropriate on this shallow site. The depth of the
Courtyard site makes it difficult to buffer large stores with rear loading docks. The Foothill
Boulevard setback requirements are: parking, 25 feet minimum; building, 45 feet minimum;
and landscaping, 45 feet minimum. The setback requirements for Eucalyptus Street are:
parking, 15 feet; building, 25 feet; and landscaping, 25 feet. Also, an adequate design
relationship to the existing hotel development and to future development on the south side of
-. . _- -_ Eucalyptus Street must be provided.
Access to the site is somewhat constrained. Only one access will be permitted mid-block
along Foothill Boulevard. (The applicant's concept plan indicates two accesses along Foothill
Boulevard), Access from Spruce Avenue will be shared with the existing hotel. One of two
Eucalyptus Street access drives will be shared with the hotel. An additional access will be
permitted from Elm Avenue.
The applicant's development concept is automobile oriented, but the Rancho Cucamonga
Business Park Master Plan indicates a need for a pedestrian oriented development to serve
nearby office users, as well as potential hotel users. The ultimate design should open up to
Eucalyptus Street by inviting pedestrian access from Eucalyptus Street and providing some
building frontages on Eucalyptus Street.
The applicant's Market Study reports that there is unmet demand for restaurant use in the City.
Again, this is a currently permitted or conditionally permitted use for the subject site. Also,
there are a number of nearby available restaurant pads in approved commercial centers.
Further, there are nearby vacant restaurants, including one at Foothill Boulevard and Spruce
Avenue, one in the Tetra Vista Town Center, two in the Virginia Dare center, and one at the
K-Mart center at Haven Avenue and Foothill Boulevard.
Notwithstanding the existing vacancies. there is the long term potential at the intersection of
Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue for mutually enhancing restaurant development. For
example, there is the vacant 12,165 square foot restaurant on the southwest corner. A Boston
Market is under construction on the nodhwest corner. There is also an available 10,000
square foot restaurant pad on the northeast corner. In contrast to a major retail anchor, a
restaurant pad on the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue would
compliment the existing and planned restaurant development and be compatible with the
existing hotel development.
F:-- Compatibility with Neiqhborinq Community Commercial Land Uses. The Town Center Square
development on the north side of Foothill Boulevard is designated Community Commercial.
VV~th the recent land use change from Office Park to Community Commercial, the Town Center
PLANNING COMMISSION b r'AFF REPORT
GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
October 11, 1995
Page 7
Square development extends the Community Commercial designation along the north side of
Foothill Boulevard from Haven Avenue to Elm Avenue, about three-quaders of a mile of
commercial development (see Exhibit "B").
The proposed land use change would extend Community Commercial to the south side of
Foothill Boulevard. While the change would mirror the Town Center Square development to
the north, it would set a precedent for more intense commercial development on the south side
of Foothill Boulevard (see Exhibit "C").
PRELIMINARY CONCEPT PLAN DISCUSSION:
The subject applications do not include project development. However, the applicant has included
a plan which indicates their concept for Community Commercial development (see Exhibit "D").
As discussed in previous sections of this report, the concept plan proposes 133,515 square feet
of leasable space on 14.45 acres. One 20,250 square foot anchor store is located on the
southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Spruce Avenue, nodh of the existing Best Western
....... Hqtel,. ,The applicant has a commitment from The Good Guys chain to occupy that pad. Three
additional anchor stores ranging in size from 18,047 to 30,090 square feet are located in a row
along with seven in-line retail or food shops.
The Good Guys pad and the easternmost anchor store would provide loading docks. Two
additional food pads am located along Foothill Boulevard flanking the mid-block entrance. One is
a drive-thru fast food pad, but it does not meet the minimum design requirements for a drive-thru.
A drainage easement bisects the site just east of the mid-block entrance. The design incorporates
pedestrian/access to Eucalyptus Street over the drainage easement. The concept proposes two
entrances along Foothill Boulevard.
The applications for land use change are not accompanied by a development application, therefore
the submitted concept plan is illustrative only and not part of the land use applications. Also, land
use change may not be conditioned. Further, under State law a land use change should be
considered on its merit independent of a proposal for development.
INDUSTRIAL AREA PLAN TEXT CHANGES:
On August 2, 1995, the City Council considered the applicant's request to initiate text changes to
add Commercial uses and standards for Commercial use to the Industrial Area Specific Plan. The
Council initiated consideration of the aforementioned text changes. If the proposed land use
change is approved the following text changes to the Industrial Area Specific Plan are proposed:
Table II1-1 - SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPES BY SUBAREA - COMMERCIAL (p. t11-6)
after Business Support Services insert:
Community Commercial Retail and add as a Permitted (P) use for
Subarea 7.
Table 111-2- LAND USE TYPE DEFINITIONS - D. COMMERCIAL USE TYPES -
. - (p. 111-13) after Business Suppod Services insert:
PLANNING COMMISSION ~ I'AFF REPORT
GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
October 11, 1995
Page 8
Community Commercial Retail: This category permits a mix of general
retail with other uses permitted in the Industrial area that will make the
development lively well into the night, function as an active "people
place." and serve not only the residents of the City but, by location on
Foothill Boulevard, will also draw from residential areas in neighboring
communities, Activities will typically include retail department stores,
focused-product retail stores, and subsidiary retail shops, as well as
services/repairs related to sales. Uses include, but are not limited to:
Apparel, Appliance, Bicycle, Book, Catalog, Department Store, Home
Electronics, Home Furnishings, Luggage, Import, Jewelry, Music,
Nursery/Garden Supply, Outlet, Specialty, Sporting Goods, Toys, and
Video.
PART IV: OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND SUBAREA DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS -
Subarea 7
Under Permitted uses after Business Support Services (p. IV-48) insert:
Community Commercial Retail
Under Special Considerations. Last paragraph (p. IV-52), insert:
In order to expand opportunities along Foothill Boulevard for a mix of
uses to encourage development which will function as an active
"people place" and be lively well into the night for the residents of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, Community Commercial Retail is added
as a permitted use on the south side of Foothill Boulevard on a 14.45
acre parcel bounded by Spruce Avenue on the west, Elm Avenue on
the east, and Eucalyptus Street on the south.
FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff does not believe
the required facts for findings can be made.
A, The properties are not suitable for the uses allowed in the proposed land use and Industrial
Area Specific Plan designations in terms of access and size, as evidenced by the site's
location within an existing Industrial Park Master Plan of Development.
B. The proposed amendments would not have a significant impact on the environment. However,
there are potential negative impacts on surrounding propedies.
C. The proposed amendments do not conform with the General Plan and Industrial Area Specific
Plan goals and objectives for development.
CORRESPONDENCE: These items have been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property
owners within 300 feet of the project site.
One lefter dated July 12, 1995, has been received from Best Western commenting on the proposal
(see Exhibit "G").
PLANNING COMMISSION b (AFF REPORT
GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
October 11, 1995
Page 9
RECOMMENDATION: Because the facts do not support a land use change, staff can not make
the required findings and recommends denial of these applications. If the Planning Commission
agrees with staffs analysis, they should approve the attached resolutions recommending denial.
If, however, following Public Testimony the Planning Commission can make the findings under "A,"
"B," and "C" above, an alternative action would be to continue the item for two weeks and direct
staff to prepare resolutions r.ecommending approval.
City Planner
BB:MB:mlg
Attachments: 'Exhibit "A" Site Plan
Exhibit "B" General Plan Map Excerpt
Exhibit "C" Industrial Area Specific Plan Map Excerpt
-E-x-hibit "D" -- Applicant's Concept Pan
EcdTilalt"F' - Foulhill Cuu~ty~Ed Market Study,~,ug~
~bit "C" ~spondence frcm Bcst Wcstcrn Haritago~
~ol~iat Goncr~men~men[ ~5-02A
.Rcscbt[cn of Do n~l I ndusb;~l A~ ~a Specific Plau Am~ ~&'ner,~ 9~
'" Roncho / .San AnJanlo
.,]:}~); 794.000 Square F'e~l ERRA VlSrA
FI1 ~. ~-o ,~,,<~ ~l,.,~. EXECUnVE
~ OFRCE MEOIC~L
~ PARK CENTEn Va, can~:
LL~t: Tndus~Lej_/
.,
COMMERCIAL
COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
NEIGHBORHOOD COMM.
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL
OFFICE
:::::::::::::::::::::::: LOW 2-4 DU's/AC
LOW- MEDIUM 4-SDU's/AC
i!:i:i:;:i:i:i:!:~ MEDIUM 8-~4 DU's/AC
~ MEDIUM-HIGH 14-24 DU's/AC
HIGH 24-30 DU's/AC
INDUSTRIAL ·
F//'/~ INDUSTRIAL PARK
~ GENERAL INDUSTRIAL
_cHuRcH
ImamllI
FFEM: SPA ~.:.-c-o':ZAi I.~PA ~.C. o2,~ ~
CHTY., OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA iiiLE:Sa-N~Ca,,,~LiDL,,~tM JN
C COMMERCIAL
] HAVEN OVERLAY
DISTRICT
INDUS,T,,_RIAL PARK
'GENERALINDUSTRIAL
MINIMUM IMPACT
"' '~';'~HEAVYINDUSTRIAL~
IV CIVIC CENTER ~/SITE ]
1,:::::: .- .:-::.- .f'7. · .:.:.: !:.:.:.~'..:~:-:.:'::K::~: ~-4.~-.~ 'l ~
× !--.
~ ~ ..
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA IIILE:IIJ~L~STRIA,/L AREA :~[ "'
PLANNLYGDMSION ~::,~,~.d] ~-AM~ usa AqAP L<';CC~'RPF ~
EXErB1T~'C/'' SCALE: ,,._
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. EN~;IRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN ~ENDMENT 95-02A - WOHL/~ANCHO
D~ _ A request for a land use change from industrial Park to Community
Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill
Boulevard between spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related
file: Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02
C. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AR~A SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02 -
W~ - A request to amend the Industrial Area Specific Plan
to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally
located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm
Avenues APN: 208~352-62 through 69. Staff recommends issuance of a
Negative Declaration. Related file: General Plan Amendment 95-02-A.
Miki Bratt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Lumpp asked what the status of the City's market analysis was.
Brad Buller, City Planner, replied that the rough draft was sent back to the
consultant and it should be back to the City in about two weeks and would likely
be distributed to the Commission soon thereafter.
. ' ..... ~-'-Cor~missioner..Lumpp asked if the original time line was still intact.
Mr. Buller replied it was still within the time line.
Mr. Lumpp asked why the setback requirements were mentioned in the staff report
when the site plan had not been evaluated yet.
Ms. Bratt responded that she had performed a brief review for the potential
fastfood use and determined that the setback requirements had not been met for
that use.
Chairman Barker opened the public hearing.
Peter DesForges, Wohl/Rancho Partners, 2400 Michelson Dr. #170, Irvine, CA 92715,
stated that he had sent a memo to Mr. Buller yesterday addressing questions that
were in the staff report and he assumed that the Commission had a copy.
Mr. Buller, responded that the Commissioners had received that information. He
pointed out to the Comission that a letter from Urban Research Associates,
responding to the market study, had been placed in front of the Commission for
this meeting.
Mr. DesForges commented that Wohl Partners believes the site should be changed
from Industrial to Community Commercial and explained the concept of "critical
massing" of retailers related to how retail has changed since the inception of
the General Plan. He stated that critical mass retailing was the clustering of
similar retail businesses, in a fairly close proximity to one another, to provide
customers with the convenience of comparison shopping. He further commented that
this idea originated a few years ago with the introduction of auto malls. He
stated that he recently read in the Business Journal that the Mills project, in
Ontario, will be good competition for Rancho retailers. He said this was an
excellent location for this project given the recent clustering of retail between
Terra Vista and the 1-15 Freeway by adding to the critical mass that already
exists here. He introduced Brad Kaye.
Planning Commission Minutes -2- October 11, 1995
r'
Brad Kaye, Real Estate Manager for Good Guys Home Electronics, 7000 Marina Blvd.,
Brisbane, CA 94005, stated that Good Guys went public in 1986 with 12 stores and
now have 64 stores with sales of over one billion dollars. He stated his job is
working up demographics, determining where new stores should be located, and
negotiating the deals for these stores. He comJnented that they do extensive
analysis prior to selecting a site and the Rancho market shows a trade base of
more than 400,000 people, with the good incomes, and they have no hesitation in
moving into the area. He went on to state that they are the industry leader in
consumer electronics sales and their sales increase last year was 29 percent (8
percent above average). He stated they were interested in locating in Rancho and
at this site because they want to be where they have an attractive street
frontage and in an area where their customers can conveniently cross-shop. He
pointed out that their business actually generates more revenue when they are
located next door or across the street from their direct competitors (i.e.; Best
Buy and Circuit City). He stated that the service level and their high-end
merchandise is what makes them successful.
Comissioner Lumpp asked why they haven't considered locating on the north side
of Foothill within To~ne Square or another location in that area.
Mr. Kaye stated he was not aware of an opportunity there.
Chairman Barker asked if Mr. Kaye was aware of the concern expressed about the
proposed location of that building; it is a large building placed up against
..... Foothill Boulevard.
Mr. Kaye stated that was no longer their location; they are in line with the
other buildings.
Chairman Barker asked if they moved the building location.
Mr. Kaye responded affirmatively.
Mr. DesForges stated that there was a revised map attached to the letter given
to the Comission earlier this evening. He stated he wanted to address the issue
of locating the proposed project on the south side of Foothill. He said their
site offers opportunities to their potential tenants that they may not be able
to get elsewhere because the site has over 14,000 square feet of frontage on
Foothill Boulevard, it is convenience-oriented, and is easily accessible for
ingress and egress traffic. He commented that the project has the potential to
produce quite a bit of sales tax benefits for the City. He stated there will be
approximately 100 extra parking spaces at the site that could be used to move
buildings around if staff and Commission want. He felt the project is
compatible with surrounding retail because it would broaden the scope already
available. He stated that Great Western's main objection was that they thought
there should be a restaurant on the corner, rather than Good Guys, and he stated
Wohl Partners agreed and changed the location of Good Guys so that could occur.
Chairman Barker asked for additional questions and/or speakers on the proposal.
Andrew Hall, Manager, Best Western/Heritage inn, 8179 Spruce Avenue, Rancho
cucamonga CA 91730, stepped up to address the Commission stating he was pleased
to find out that Good Guys will not be locating in building J, but at the same
time, he was concerned that building A could pose visibility problems for the
hotel also. He was pleased to note that two restaurants are under construction
currently within walking distance of the hotel and stated more restaurants and
movie theaters in the area are good for their customers. He stated his desire
to have the Commission consider placement of types of business that complement
.~he hotel rather than detract from it.
Planning Commission Minutes -3- October 11, 1995
Chairman Barker asked for clarification on the issue of building J versus
building A and the hotel's concern regarding this matter.
Mr. Hall responded that street visibility on the east side of their building is
still a concern as J and A are about the same size, and depending on the height
of the proposed building, either has the potential to block their visibility from
the approaching westbound traffic.
Chairman Barker asked for additional public comments on the project, and hearing
none, he closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Lumpp stated there were many issues to consider and it was his
feeling that market studies can be manipulated any number of ways and that isn't
necessarily the information he is seeking to make his decision. He commented
that there are CEQA issues that need to be explored, including air q~ality. He
stated he felt this could be a good location for this land use, but he was
concerned about making a final decision on this issue before our consultant's
commercial study is completed.
Commissioner Melcher stated he thought the applicant had made a sincere effort
but he felt he would not be able to support the project because he had not been
shown yet how the land use would fit into the longer range plan (the Industrial
Specific Plan). He stated the depth of the site troubled him as the parking in
front of the biggest stores has to be shifted one direction or the other to
........... ensure there ~will be ample parking. He did not feel what had been presented thus
far was convincing enough for him to change his opinion.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he thought we needed to reflect on the original
vision for the City, which was to have residential and associated business
commercial retail uses above Foothill Boulevard and industrial and associated
commercial service uses below Foothill Boulevard. He stated that this has
remained true with a relatively small amount of "leakage" on Archibald Avenue and
the Masi project (by the sports complex), but he felt there was no need to change
that vision at this time. He stated the problems he saw were: 1} required
landscape and building setbacks; 2) parking with limited access from Foothill;
3) building mass; 4) buffering of the surrounding properties; he felt there was
no way to acco~odate all these conditions on a site with only a 400-foot depth.
He agreed with Commissioner Melcher's views on the parking situation. He told
Mr. Kaye that he would like to see Good Guys locate in Rancho, but this was a
land use issue, not an issue of whether we wanted Good Guys here or not.
Chairman Barker asked for clarification on the current allowable land uses and
conditional uses that could have a major impact on parking, etc., at the proposed
site.
Mr. Buller responded that under the Industrial Specific Plan, the type of retail
uses allowed are called Business Support Retail; businesses that support the
business industry on the south side of Foothill. He stated this was one of the
broader, more open commercial designations. The limitation is what will
physically fit on the site with parking and building mass.
Chairman Barker stated his question was which uses would have an impact on the
elements of this project. He requested clarification on whether a movie theater
is a permitted use for the site now.
Mr. Buller responded that a theater is a conditionally permitted use under the
existing land use.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- October 11, 1995
Chairman Barker asked if a theater would have similar parking or site plan
problems.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated he thought they would have similar problems, given
the depth of the property and the potential for. such a concentrated use.
Commissioner Melcher stated that strip-fashion arrangement of buildings on
Foothill was never the intention of the original plan.
Chairman Barker stated he would like to be supportive of a plan for restaurants
and movie theaters becauee he thought that there weren't enough theaters
currently to support the present population. He asked Commissioner Lumpp for
clarification on his former comments regarding the City's consultant study.
Commissioner Lumpp stated that Urban Research Associates (URA) was the consultant
for the original Foothill Specific Plan and they stated, at that time, there was
no need for additional commercial uses in the City; now they are coming back
saying that perhaps there is a need for additional commercial use. He stated he
iz not convinced by this market study, or other market studies, that the
information is sufficient to make him comfortable approving this project.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he wanted to change what he had previously said
by stating he now believed that a movie theater could be appropriate for this
location. He stated that previously he had thought of it in a strip-fashion
'-. '-~'.~-..configuration, but with a different footprint, there could be a theater (with
appropriate parking) on the property.
Commissioner Melcher stated that looking at a piece of property, individually,
without considering the larger, long-range plan for Foothill Boulevard seems
opportunistic since there is already a developer and tenants ready to move
forward; it does not mean the proposal is right for the City however. He stated
he understood the benefit to the City, with regard to sales tax prospects, but
his function is to determine the appropriateness of the project for that
particular site.
Mr. Buller commented that he had just now been informed that a resident in the
audience wanted to speak to the Commission regarding this matter.
Chairman Barker reopened the public hearing and invited the resident to come
forward.
Fred Doe, 11036 Shaw Street, Rancho Cucamonga, apologized for arriving late as
he did not realize this would be the first item heard this evening. He said he
had just listened to the tapes from the recent City Council meeting on this
project and he wanted to comment on a couple things he heard on those tapes. He
complimented Commissioner Melcher on his ability to change his mind when given
new or different information. He stated he agreed with what he had heard from
the Commission this evening as he did not think strip malls were a positive move
for the City. Be also stated he was pleased to hear the Commiseion aligning
closely with their Specific Plan and General Plan for the area, but that they are
also willing to make considerations as needed. He stated that someone should
look at all the strip malls currently in the City and check their vacancy rates
and compare those malls to the land uses they have. He commented that
consideration should be given to projects that will enhance or complement the
hotel/convention operations which in turn could generate even more tax benefits
to the City later. Mr. Doe did not feel there was a need for more theaters, or
at least more in the same vicinity, as there just weren't that many good movies
out at one time. He stated that perhaps we could consider using some vacated
retail space in the City before making a land use change of this 14 acres. He
Planning Commission Minutes -5- October 11, 1995
stated there is an obligation to look at development as it comes up and to allow
City staff to have the proactive advisory role that is intended to implement the
long range goals and plans of the City. He ended by paraphrasing comments from
commissioner McNiel, stating that if one of these businesses does not make it
because of the direct competition the other creates, we then end up with a blight
on one of the most beautiful, industrial, historic areas in Rancho Cucamonga.
Mr. DesForges stated the narrow depth of the site should not create parking
problems because of the extra spaces currently available and because the building
orientations could be rearranged. He commented on the other issue of strip mall
versus meandering retail building placement by saying that they have found these
centers are not successful. He stated people need to see the sign on the
storefront and be able to get in and out conveniently. He commented that
orienting any of their commercial use away from Foothill, to the south, would not
be feasible for them because the traffic count in that direction is too sparse.
He stated that the land use already does allow commercial uses, they are only
asking to broaden those uses.
Chairman Barker again closed the public hearing. He asked for a motion.
MOTION: Moved by Commissioner Melcher, seconded by Commissioner Lumpp, carried
4-0-1, to adopt the resolutions recommending denial of General Plan Amendment
95-02A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02. Motion passed by the
following vote:
AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MELCHER, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: MCNIEL - carried
H il arrived at 8:25 PM.
D. & - A request to consider initiation of text changes to add
~aSs~~ommunity Commercial use within Subarea 3 of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific P .,.
Dan coleman' Principal~nted the staff report.
~. Coleman replied he was not familiar wlth that particula~sre and that the
application was for the Salvation Army.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated that definition would include pawm~
second-hand, or used goods.
Con~missioner Helcher asked for examples of General Commercial areas.
Planning Commission Minutes -6- October 1Z, 1995
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCA~MONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: November 1, 1995
TO: Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jack Lam, AICP, City Manager
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02A -
WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request for a land use change from Industrial
Park to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side
of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues ~ APN: 208-352-62
through 69. Related file: industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02. Staff
recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
" ' .... ""'" " ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-02 - WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS - A request to amend the
Industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for
14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between
Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69. Related file: General Plan
Amendment 95-02-A. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny General
Plan Amendment 95-02A and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02, a request to change
the land use designation from Industrial Park to Community Commercial, by adoption of the
attached Resolutions of Denial.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS: At its meeting on October 11, 1995, the Planning Commission
reviewed the subject application, heard public testimony, and voted 4-0-1 to deny the applications.
The draft minutes of the October 1 lth Planning Commission meeting, as well as the Planning staff
report and additional correspondence from th~ applicant and consultant, have been included as
Exhibits to this report. In arriving at their recommendation, the Planning Commission discussed
the followi.ng issues:
1. The Commission discussed the application's conformance with the goals and objectives of
the General Plan and to the Industrial Area Specific Plan (ISPA). They expressed concern
about the overall impact on the Industrial Area Specific Plan and specifically the adjoining
properties along the south side of Foothill Boulevard to the east and west of the subject site.
The Commission reaffirmed its support for the IASP and the range of uses already allowed
on this site. The allowable uses were found to be the best to complement the surrounding
properties.
2. The Commission discussed the applicant's market study and previous market studies. The
Commission could not find adequate justification to support the proposed amendments.
j / t¢// " c,c,,'
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REFdRT
GPA 95-02A & ISPA 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
November 1, 1995
Page 2
3. The Commission discussed the size and shape of the parcel proposed for change. The
Commission determined that the shallow depth of the site would be a problem for expanded
retail uses. The shallow depth of the site and the retail uses desired created a strip
commercial development. Strip commercial development is identified in the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan as a feature to be avoided in new development along the corridor.
4. The Commission considered environmental impacts of the subject application. The
applicant's air quality study indicated that, consistent with methodology developed by the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, there would be no significant adverse air quality
impacts resulting from the proposed change in land use. No other environmental impacts
were identified.
FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, the Commission
determined that with the exception of environmental impacts, the required facts for finding could
not be made.
...... !..- -The property is not suitable for the uses permitted under the proposed land use and
Development District designation in terms of access and size.
2. The proposed amendments would have significant impacts on the surrounding properties.
3. The proposed amendments are not in conformance with the General Plan and are not in
conformonce with the Development Code because of the inadequacy of the site to promote
the goals and objectives for development permitted by the Community Commercial
designation.
CORRESPONDENCE: 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 all property owners
within 300 feet of the project side.
ACTION: If the City Council concurs with the Planning Commission's recommendations, as well
as the analysis contained in the staff report to the Planning Commission, and believes that the
proposed land use change would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of the General
Plan and would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of the Industrial Area Specific Plan,
it would be appropriate for the City Council to deny General Plan Amendment 95-02A and Industrial
Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02 by adopting the attached Resolutions of Denial.
,-,L.A%ttachments. ' ' "" n,~ t,-, tho P!ann.'..%~,..,m:,.:i~
,F_.'cbjhit "9" - Mgpno4o4he4P4anning Commission dated October ,!,, ! gO5
Exhibit "3" - Let4e~frcm RaT'Yuung dated OcTober 5, 1995--
~bit "" -,dZL=J:;~Faerta~nning-e;omm!ssion Minute,~dated October ! 4, 1995
Jg, e,soh ltio,a4:~LDe~,ia! fo~Z~-enera[ Pla~_&mendment 95;02A
· City Council Minutes
November 1, 1995
Page 3
D5. Approval to accept the Cataveras Avenue Street Improvement Project, located from Arrow Route to
ACCEPTING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS Fp~.f"dX~VERAS AVENUE
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, LOCATE~'~FROM ARROW ROUTE TO
NINTH STREET, CONTACT NO. 95-026 .A~'AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF
A NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR T~E~bRK
MOTION: Moved by ~lliams, seconded by~G~[~rez to approve the staff recommendations in the staff
repo~s contained in the Consent Calend~f~ith Curatalo abstaining from voting on the September 20 and
October 4, 1995 minutes. Motio unanimously,
" - .... · ..' '. - E. CONSENT ORDINANCES
F. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS
F1. CONSiDERATiONOFENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTANDGENERALPLANAMENDMENT95'
02A - WQHURANCHO PARTNERS - Consideration of a request for a land use change from Industrial Park
to Community Commercial for 14.45 acres generally located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between
Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-52 through 69. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative
Declaration. Related File: industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02.
RESOLUTION NO. 95-153
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02A,
A REQUEST TO AMEND THE LAND USE MAP OF THE GENERAL PLAN FOR
14.45 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL
BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-35-62 THROUGH 69
CONSIDERATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 95-02 - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS - Consideration of a request to amend th~
industrial Area Specific Plan to create a Community Commercial designation for 14.45 acres generally located
on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between Spruce and Elm Avenues - APN: 208-352-62 through 69.
Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Related File: General Plan Amendment 95-02A.
City Council Minutes
November 1, 1995
Page 4
RESOLUTION NO. 95-154
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 95-02, A REQUEST TO AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN MAP FOR 14.45 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69
Staff report presented by Miki Bratt, Associate Planner.
Mayor Alexander opened the meeting for public hearing. Addressing the City Council were:
Peter DeForge, padher of Rancho Partners, stated they would like to think of this center as an
entertainment center. He pointed ~ut what is planned for the site. He continued to explain the project
and why they are attracting the tenants they have attracted so far. He felt this project would bdng the
City ,$400,000 to 5500,000 in sales tax revenue. He stated the issue is what retail uses are allowed
on the south side of Foothill. He stated they felt the plan was compatible with surrounding neighbors
........... and that the project should be approved. He added they felt they could make their project very
attractive.
Councilmember Williams asked if the Wahl Company would be building these units.
Mr. DeForge stated they would be selling the property to each business so they could build their own
structure.
Councilmember W~lliams asked if they have any signed tenants.
Mr. DeForge stated yes they did.
Brad Kay, Real Estate Manager for the Good Guys, stated he felt there was a good market for their
store in Rancho Cucamonga because of its proximity to entertainment activities in the City. He felt
they would do better business because of the competition they would have. He felt they would have
good visibility from Foothill and stated they liked the tenants that are planned for the center. He added
he felt the zoning was compatibl~ witfi what was around them. He told about the differences between
their store and other stores that sell electronics.
Councilmember Biane asked where they thought their sales would be if they opened in Rancho Cucamonga.
Mr. Kay stated they are projecting 520,000,000 to $25,000,000 within five years.
Councilmember Willjams asked if this was 100% leased.
Mr. Kay stated the key anchor slots are very interested, but that the restaurants are not. He added
it is .too early to have it 100% leased.
Greg Wahl, partner with Peter DeForge, stated they are currently in escrow with Good Guys. He
added they are working on the deal with the bookstore. He stated he felt it would be a very positive
step to change the General Plan. He stated they think they have excellent compatibility with the
.Heritage Inn and that it would generate approximately S400,000 to S500,000 in tax revenue to the
· ~. City. He asked for the Council's supporL
City Council Minutes
November 1, 1995
Page 5
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated staff has not seen the new plan as was distributed tonight to the Council, but
that he could work with the Council through the process i'or this project.
Fred Doe, Shaw Street, stated the question is should the General Plan Amendment be made for this
project, that it was not to approve the project. He stated the question was should the marketing
studies be brought to the Council before a decision is made on this matter. He stated the issue before
the Council tonight is should the General Plan be changed. He stated he felt this project should be
stopped.
Gary Kendrick stated he was here because he heard this was a slam dunk vote, just like the sprinkler
ordinance was. He stated he did not think this center was nepded.
Brad Umansky, 7269 Thermal Place, stated he did not think the project was dealt with fairly at the
Planning Commission meeting. He stated he felt there was a need for this project and felt the
· . General Plan Amendment would be good for the City and should be changed.
Charles Buquet, Chades Joseph Associates, stated he was hired by the proponent to work with the
City on this matter. He pointed out how this same type of situation occurred with the Tetra Vista
" " "'-'. :- '-'- Town. Center as far as zone changes. He talked about the other centers he sees throughout
Southern California and the types of stores you see. He stated even though the General Plan is a
plan, it is subject to change and felt this should be done for this project. He stated he likes the plan
that has been revised, but agreed there was still some work that needed to be done on i~. He asked
if the Council was willing to step out and take a risk with this project because that is why Rancho
Cucamonga is a leader in the area.
Debbie Daniels, 10970 Deer Canyon, stated she welcomed the idea of having choices where to go
to eat or shop in Rancho Cucamonga. She stated she liked what they are proposing and would like
to see this happen.
Gina Martinez, 10656 Grand View stated she felt more large stores were needed to provide income
to the City so property taxes won't continue to increase. She stated she welcomed this concept. She
did not think the revenue should be taken out of the City and given to another community, and slated
she did not like paying taxes.
Andrew Hall, Manager of Best Western Heritage Inn, stated he just now saw the plan for this center.
He stated he thought the new plan would be better for his hotel guests than the old one. He stated
he is still concerned that Good Guys is the driving force for the project. He stated he likes the idea
of more restaurants in the. City and that he would have to take Mr. Wohl's word that he is committed
, to the project. He felt the new plan would be an indication of being a good neighbor to the hotel.
Peter De Forge stated Good Guys did not want to go to the Payless site as someone had previously
mentioned. He stated the only assurances that the Council made was that their project would not be
held up because of 'dqe commercial study. He stated they have not received any assurances about
the Council's vote tonight.
Bryan Serrell, 6474 Citrine, felt the center was a good idea, but stated he was skeptical about the
theaters and thought there might be too many already in the area. He felt Good Guys would be good
at this particular location.
JGe Maladna, 10935 Spruce, stated he agreed with the idea of this project. He felt the more
.._ restaurants the better.
City Council Minutes
November 1, 1995
Page 6
Councilmember Biane stated he asked if the screening would be set up to protect the location from seeing
delivery trucks pulling in and so forth.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated the site plan review process for the Planning Commission would address
everything, i.e., compatibility, design and so forth.
Councilmember Biane asked if the Council would still be able to have the power to get what it wants out of
this project.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated yes, that the issue tonight is a land use issue. He stated any action the
Council takes tonight does not guarantee the tenant mix or design. He stated it would still have to go through
the development review process.
Councilmember Vv~lliams asked if the theaters are allowed with a conditional use permit so that it does not
require a zone change for this.
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated yes that was correct.
"" ' ': "= '~our~cilmer~ber'Vvilli~ms stated she felt the bookstore was quite an opportunib/and asked if it had a coffee
shop inside, would this be allowed with a CUP?
Brad Buffer; City Planner, stated Borders Books does desire to be free standing and that he had a discussion
with them as to whether they would be classified as entertainment or retail. He stated this is something they
would have to talk to the Commission about.
Councilmember W~lliams stated she felt they would probably be allowed with a CUP to go under
entertainment.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated they would have to go to the Commission for a use determination.
Councilmember Gutierrez stated it appears to him that even/use being proposed is already approved except
the Good Guys, and that it is up to the Council to determine if this is appropriate. He stated he did not think
he could vote to prohibit this project.
Councilmember VVifiiams brought up that the issue is not whether Good Guys will meet or beat the
competition, that it is whether this kind of use is proper for this padicular piece of land. She stated the issue
is if this piece of land gets a general commercial designation. She read from page 35, the paragraph starting
with '"The application for land use change....". She pointed out this is a land use issue. She stated she is
normally against spot zoning, but that this case is different. She did not think this should be given a blank
check and then there would be no control over the project.
Mayor Alexander stated this is a land use issue this evening and agreed with Councilmember V~lliams. He
stated he would be interested in seeing what the commercial study says. He stated he would agree with the
Planning Commission decision.
Councilmember Biane stated he felt the Council will still have control {?ver what the City will end up with. He
felt the retailers needed to know that they are needed in the City.
Councilmember Curatalo stated he has not heard anything to change his mind to go against the Planning
Commission. He supported their decision. He asked if a project is denied, can they resubmit in one year.
City Council Minutes
November 1. 1995
Page 7
Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that Rancho Cucamonga's Code states that no like or similar application,
once denied, can be submitted within twelve months. He added the only way around this is to deny it without
prejudice which would then give the proponent the chance to come back down the road.
Councilmember Curatalo stated he would like to waive that time limit.
James Markman, City Attorney, stated if the Council adopts the Resolution of denial, they can specify that it
be amended to be without prejudice for re~ling.
MOTION: Moved by Curatalo, seconded by Willtams to approve Resolution Nos. 95-153 and 95-154 without
prejudice for refillrig ol' application. Motion carried 3-0-2 (Blanc and Gutierrez voted no).
......... " "" · ' G. PUBLIC HEARINGS
No items were subFf~itted.
~H~. CITY MANAGER'S STAFF REPORTS
No items were submitted.
--,,.
I. COUN?~BUSINESS
NO items were submitted.
\.
J. IDENTIFICATION OF ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING
J1. Councilmember Curatalo read a statement into the record which is on~!,? in the City Clerk's office
which stated he would like to place an item on the agenda for ways in which the Cit,/can help the Etiwanda
High School band because of the representing the City in the 1996 Rose Parade.
\
...... \
K. COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE PUBLIC '.,.,
K1. Gary Kendrick apologized to Diane Willtams. He felt the City should put on the ballot the ~ssue of
consolidating school districts.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
January 31, 1996
Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho
Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. Chairman
Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John Melcher
ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy
STAFF PRESENT: Miki Bratt, Associate Planner; Brad Bullet, City Planner; Alan Warren,
Associate Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
A. COMMERCIAL LAND STUDY DISCUSSION
Brad Buller, City Planner, highlighted the repod and gave a brief update of the process the
Commercial Study had been through and asked the Commission how they would like staff to
proceed.
Chairman Barker requested the discussion be limited.
Commissioner Melcher said he would have to leave by 8:45 p.m.
Chairman Barker said he would also like to see a separate workshop on design issues for the Wohl
site at a future date.
Commissioner McNiel said that was acceptable if the applicant is aware that the land use issue will
not be prejudiced by the design considerations.
Commissioner Melcher indicated he would object to a design workshop because there are significant
land use considerations,
Commissioner Lumpp said he would like to look at the larger land use issues first.
Mr. Buller said the applicant could apply for a Preliminary Review proposing uses that meet current
._z. pning uses.
/
Peter Desforges, Wohl Investment Company, 2402 Michelson, Suite 170, Irvine, stated they would
like to go forward following Mr. Buller's suggestion.
Commissioner Melcher said he would like to have staff sit down with the Commission and review
the land use map and the allowed uses to understand how different uses fit together.
Commissioner Lumpp agreed.
Commissioner McNiel said that the Commission needs to go carefully in order to make sound
decisions.
Chairman Barker said there appeared to be a consensus that the Commission would host a design
workshop with Wohl so long as the issue is design and not land use.
Commissioner Melcher felt that plans which conform to the zoning should proceed along with
examination of what needs to be changed.
Mr. Buffer described the current zoning concepts and the way in which they are integrated rather than
rigidly defined.
Chairman Barker asked if the public would like to address the issue.
..... Jim ,~xte!l, Mission Land Company, said they support the process of text amendment and "Master
Plan" concept. He noted that the Mills project is pushing the clock and that potential sites on the
south side of Fourth Street to the west in Ontario compete with the nodh side in the City.
Mr. Desforges commented on the study and the fact that retail uses such as an Office Max office
supply store are already permitted on the south side of Foothill Boulevard. He felt that the same
rh'ythm of retail development should be allowed staring in the west and moving east as Lewis has
done on the nodh side.
Commissioner Melcher inquired about the relative size of Mission Land frontage and the Mills
frontage on 4th Street. as well as the Wohl frontage and the Terra Vista frontage on Foothill
Boulevard.
There was general discussion of the approximate lengths.
Commissioner Melcher noted that Mission Land controls about half the frontage that the Mills project
does. that Wohl has about half that of the Mission Land, and that Tetra Vista has about 1-3/4 miles.
John Koenig, Lewis Homes, stated that they support the Agajanian study. He said they will be
applying for another Land Use amendment to close the retail gap on Foothill between Elm Street and
Milliken Avenue. He indicated Lewis has reviewed their position and now suppods the Mission Land
and Archibald Avenue and 4th Street recommendations in the Market Study.
Mr. Buffer stated that a large box office supply retail store on the south side of Foothill would require
a Use Determination by the Commission and would not be automatically permitted.
Commissioner Melcher thought the Commission needs to rediscover the intent of the text not just
look at the use tables in the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
Commissioner McNiel observed that to accommodate some retail in the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, the concept of 20 percent for "ancillary uses" was developed. He agreed the Commission
needs to revisit that concept.
'-- c_,, ,'E> 95'
PC Adjourned Minutes -2- January 3 l, 1996
Chairman Barker questioned whether more office use is planned on Foothill than the market will
support.
Mr. Buller indicated the inlent was to encourage offices to concentrate on the Haven Avenue corridor
and the south side of Foothill. He said that originally the Tetra Vista frontage was planned for Mixed
Commercial, majority office, and some retail.
Chairman Barker said the Commission needs to look at what was intended to happen and what did
happen, for example to the Victoria Mall.
Commissioner Melcher expressed suppod for going forward with the Mission application on 4th
Street opposite the Mills project.
The Commissioners agreed unanimously and directed staff to move forward.
Commissioner Lumpp said because of the high visibility and traffic volume, there appeared to be a
potential for large scale retail at the 1-15 and route 30.
-.. Chairman Barker said that be and Commissioner McNiel had spent a lot of time on Route 30. He
felt that large scale retail may not work out because of the two-level interchange, positiontrig of off
ramps to favor Fontann, and the land use pattern.
...... Mr. E~Mller said that Staff and the Commission could "walk through" the freeway layout and existing
zoning of the area but because the freeway completion is still a few years off, other sites may have
a higher priority.
Chairman Barker stated that the Commission needs to look at the zoning and uses for each of the
areas.
Mr. Buller said that some applications are in process and will come to the Commission, for example
an environmental impact report is being prepared for 4th Street and Archibald Avenue.
Commissioner Melcher stated that the south side of Foothill Boulevard from Haven Avenue to
Rochester Avenue should be a priority for the meeting of February 14.
Mr. Buller suggested review of various zones allowed along Foothill Boulevard in the various Specific
Plans.
Chairman Barker agreed.
Mr. Buffer said there would be an initial walk through with maps and discussion of definitions.
Commissioner McNiel stated his first level of priority was for 4th Street north of the Mills project, auto
sales in Subarea 8, and Foothill at 1-15 because each has a high potential of benefit to the City; his
second level would be for the south side of Foothill Boulevard because it is significant but more
controversial and for 4th Street and Archibald Avenue; and his last priority would be for the Southern
California Edison Corridor and the State Route 30/I-15 interchange.
Mr. Buller felt that Foothill Marketplace at Foothill Boulevard and the I-15 interchange is a success
and that the City should look at strategies and incentives for this critical core. He noted that 4th and
Mills and 4th and Archibald Avenue are in the works and that Subarea 8 auto sales will be back as
soon as an application is received. He agreed that the south side of Foothill Boulevard will take time.
He said staff would like to move towards expanding uses subject to a master plan on the Mission
Land site.
·
PC Adjourned Minutes -3- January 31, 1996
Commissioner Lumpp said he could support the master plan concept as long as that when
· something does not work, it can be changed.
Commissioner Melcher supported going forward.
There was general agreement to go forward with the master plan concept.
Mr. Buller indicated that staff has sufficient direction to proceed for February 14.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Mr. Desforges indicated Good Guys are willing to continue at the Wohl site but will evaluate their
position at lhe end of February. He expressed hope that the Commission would work with this
request. He then offered some observations of his views of existing city commercial corridors. He
stated again that retail is really the highest and besl use of the Wohl site.
itional Commission business
The Planning Commission adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Bullet
Secretary '%-
PC Adjourned Minutes -4- January 31, 1996
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
B.,,, CUCAMONGA CORNERPOINTE LLC - A request to consider initiation of text changes to a
",,~,"~all ~co'~nction with General Plan Amendment 9S-03A, Ind,
S"p~,Cific Plan Amendment 95-04, and Development District Amendment 95-02.
i
ndustries, 24005 Venturn Boulevard, Calabasas, they had
proposed a pro], merit, but they fe~l it would be betlet to den the project location
and change of land use ~out complicating it by requesting te> to add small lot
subdivision standards.
Commissioner Melcher stated that he been conlacted by had been informed they
are now planning all 6,000 square ts. He said told Mr. Faller that he felt the
Commission development in a somewhat isolated
area when there is plenty of undeveloped in lhe City· He felt the project originally
had appeal because of the proposed innovative
Mr. Strickland said there had been many u~ ~ their original proposal which they still
........ i~eHa'topumU~: such as architectural styN porches and projections
into the fronl yards, and back and to the He indicated they still intend ~o
he had m~ City's responsiveness when asked by ether developers. He hoped t~
would Rancho Cucamonga's image change to a more positive one.
said he would be happy to do so.
OLD BUSINESS
C. COMMERCIAL LAND STUDY DISCUSSION
Brad Buller, City Planner, reviewed the Foothill Boulevard corridor from the western to the eastern
City limits. He discussed land use designations, current utilization including vacancy problems,
approved projects which have not gone forward, applications in process, and proposals in the early
stages of development. He reported that Wohl Development had resubmitted their General Plan and
Industrial Specific Plan amendment applications with a letter requesting that review be expedited·
Commissioner Melcher said that the Foothill corridor review was helpful. He felt a zone change
without a development concept would be backwards· He cited Terra Vista Town Center as an
example of a development that was Master Planned with high quality design which attracted t~nants.
Planning Commission Minutes -9- February 14. 1996
He thought a plan should drive land use changes and not a single tenant with sales tax revenue
potential.
Chairman Barker praised the GIS colored map of Foothill Boulevard between Deer Creek Channel
and Day Creek Channel and looked forward to seeing the rest of Foothill mapped.
Commissioner Lumpp said it would be helpful to post updated aerial maps and General Plan maps
for Commission meetings.
Mr. Buller indicated updated aedals and maps are available, just not posted in the Council chamber.
Chairman Barker invited public comment.
Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Homes, 1156 Nodh Mountain Avenue, Upland, said it has been difficult to
attract tenants to their current projects because of the uncedainties of additional land along Foothill
Boulevard being rezoned for retail development, for example Vestar is advedising the availability of
300,000 square feet of leased space on the southwest corner of Haven Avenue and Foothill
Boulevard. He commented that a zone change without a project could make a profit for a landowner.
He also stated that, if the City is to entertain rezoning the south side of Foothill Boulevard for
Commercial retail, the remainder of the nodh side should be considered at the same time.
The Commission concluded that as more data and updated maps and plans are generated, that
information should be forwarded to the Planning Commission in a workshop setting.
D. \ PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 96-01 - Mark/Taylor - The review of 264 condominiums or
~ res of land in the Medium Residential zone (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located
Keit % . h ~ d
himself. Y
'' · .
hi a odh Scottsdale Road. P Anzona, gave a brief
P
Wade Felkins, architect rk-Taylor, briefly presented I ~roposed project. He showed the
Planning Commission a :onceptual site plan pr ponse to staff comments and
colored elevations of the ~roduct.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner. staff issues and concerns which included the
following:
1. Is the project design so outstan~ top of the Medium range?
2. Vacation of Railroad Av~ South and ,rate into project.
3. Acquisition of Rede~pment Agency properly to e east.
,, r.
Planning Commission Minules -10- Februa~ 14, 1996
WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS
GPA APPLICATION: FTLENG REQUIREMENT #3
Description of Proposed Project and Supporting Information
FOOTHILL COURTYARD
(Southside of Foothill Blvd. between Spruce & Elm)
An amendment to the General Plan is requested by Wohl/Rancho Parreefs changing the land
use designation for the subject parcels from Industrial to Community Commercial. Simultaneously,
an amendment to the Industrial Specific Plan is requested which will allow uses consistent with the
uses permitted under the Community Commercial designation as defined in the Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan.
These amendments are requested in order to allow the development of a mixed use
coramercial center on the 1.:1.45 acre property located on the southside of Foothill BIrd. between
Spruce and Elm Streets. The subject property is directly across the street from the existing mixed use
............... retail ,Tetra Vista Towne Center and Towne Center Square. Our project will consist of approximately
130,000 square feet of commercial use space that will include a diverse group of tenants.
There are several factors which support the change from Industrial to Community Commercial
for this particular site. These factors are identified in the Wohl/URA market study (attached), the
Lewis and Masi market studies, and most recently, the city's market study. Subsequent discussion
between the city's hired consultant, the city council, the planning commission, planning staff, and the
public have brought to light several uncontested points that further support the change to commercial
for our lz~.45 acre site:
1. It is an undisputed conclusion that Foothill Boulevard east of Haven is the primary retail
corridor within the City and is best suited for future retail development;
2. The existin~ retail core, which started with Tetra Vista Town Center and has successfully
expanded east to the Promenade, is thriving and continues to artreel regionally oriented
retailers to the City;
3. Based on projected population growth and other positive aspects within Rancho
Cucamonga and the sub-region, there will be continued demand for substantial acreage to
accommodate future retail development;
4. It has been emphasized over and over again that building "critical mass" or the grouping
of retailers both competitive and complementary is a positive factor for the City and is crucial
in the decision making process for retailers :;ecking new locations. In the city market study,
Mr. Agaganian's conclusions regarding the positive impact of critical mass and the proven
concept of locatin~ new retail across the street from existinR centers (as he is proposina on
zlth St.) indicate that a retail development on our site would be extremely beneficial to the
City in the long run by attracting more shoppers to the area and giving more choices to the
community.
5. Fetail development Contributes the most income to the City compared to any other type of
page 2
gpa application
filing requirement #3
2/9/96
sources and the constantly growing demand for city services, Rancho Cucamonga cannot
afford to miss any viable opportunities to increase its tax base; and
6. Area property owners as well as Mr. Agaganian have emphasized the fact that competition
between cities for regional retailers is fierce and that Rancho Cucamonga needs to act swiftly
and aggressively to attract the remaining candidates. Every major retailer which Rancho
Cucamonga loses means not only the lost sales tax revenue from that store but also the lost
draw to the Foothill corridor (i.e. every tenant locating in an adjacent city will pull customers
away from Rancho Cucamonga).
We currently have a firm commitment from "the good guys!" to build a 20,000-25,000 sq. ft.
store on our site. We also have proposals from other prospective retail tenants interested in our site.
I have attached a letter from "the good guys!" which basically states that the city will have to act
"swiftly and aggressively' to keep them from moving out of Rancho Cucamonga. Based on the quick
.... turnaround which the City was able to accomplish to attract "Best Buy" on the Lewis site, we are
confident that their objectives can be met should the City make the decision that this tenant will be a
positive addition to the existing critical mass.
As presented in a recent Rancho Cucamonga planning workshop, the primary objective of
planning is to ultimately benefit the citizens of the community. We feel that our proposal fulfills this
requirement through providing more choices for consumers, economic development for the city, and
competitive prices from large retail economies of scale. In addition to the above reasons and based
on the new information that has been recently presented. we are asking Planning Staff consider our
proposed general plan and IASP plan amendments for the following reasons:
1. It expands the existing "critical mass" of retailers on the Foothill corridor;
2. It allows healthy competition amongst landowners in the City's retail core, therefore
providing more opportunities for retailers looking to locate in this market;
3. It is compatible with the existing General Plan which already permits certain 'kinds of
retail development on our site;
4. It will provide a significant source of revenues for the City as the project is built out
(for example, "the good guys!" alone is projecting sales of approximately $20 million
which translates into sales tax revenues to the City of approximately $200,000); and
5. It will b~ designed in a way that will be complementary to all neighbors and will b~
an asset for the City.
It is our intent that this proposed center be consistent with the fabric of development
occurring along Foothill Boulevard. We recognize the prominent location of Tetra Vista Town
Center to our west and proximity of the retail center directly to our north and are prepared to use
landscaping and screening methods similar to thiose utilized at the rear of the buildings within the
project to the north. We feel the center will be effective in emulating the established high standards
page 3
gpa applicatiom
filing requirement #3
2/9/96
along Foothill Boulevard.
LAND USE ISSUES
The prop~Dsed commercial retail development at the southeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Spruce Avenue is compatible with surrounding existing and proposed land uses for these reasons:
1. Landscape and building setbacks will be generous at all perimeter conditions and will
provide lush landscaping treatments, clustering of plant materials and trees, mounding
and undulation of the ground plane, treatments of scale with formal broad entries or
small intimate accent themes. There are a number of techniques that will be utilized
............ t9 break up the scale and enhance the formal broad avenue of Fo~Dthill Boulevard that
would setwe to add interest along the perimeters and transitions into, and out of our
site. These techniques are as follows:
a. Along the shopping center frontage at Foothill Boulevard a broad thirty five
foot (35') wide landscape strip will be utilized in a broad brush manner
addressing its vehicular orientation. Plant materials might be applied in a
large formal grouping with sweeping lawns to accentuate the vistas along
Foothill Boulevard. Entries will be highlighted with color and plan mateddals
will step down in scale to provide a transition into the center.
b. The pedestrian scale will be addressed by down sizing the plant materials.
introducing a variety of ground cover, shrubs, and color accents to enliven
the walking experience through texture, color, enhanced paving, benches,
accessories, free standing planters, and trellises.
c. The landscape setback along Eucalyptus Street to the south of our property
will be a generous twenty five foot (25') width. There are opportunities here
to screen the areas through six foot (69 high screen walls, groupings of trees
and hedge rows, garden trellises, and mounded landscape forms to add
interest. The retail building:; themselves will be setback from the property
line by a minimum distance of fifty feet (50') made up of twenty five foot
(25') landscape buffer plus twenty five foot (25') wide service drive. This
will allow the ability to develop a comprehensive landscape theme.
2. Architectural treatments will extend around all four (zl) sides of the buildings. Most
buildings will still require service and delivery areas at the side/rear, however their
elevations will be enhanced with architectural elements, pilasters, cornices, parapets,
accent medallions, and accent finishes.
page 4
gpa application
filing requirement #3
2/9/96
The predominant tenants projected for this center are electronics, soft goods,
restaurants and specialty type users. Typically, deliveries and service to this type of
center are accommodated by smaller panel trucks. Many tenants will not require
truck docks, but may be served by on-grade deliveries made through a rear
door/service entrance.
3. Through the tactical placement of screen walls and landscaping and the sensitive
application of architectural treatment, we are confident that a commercial retail center
will compliment the future office development to the south by providing ancillary
services that office tenants will find desirable to them.
,1. It has been our experience that retail centers of the character that is proposed for this
site are highly compatible to office land uses by providing close, convenient access to
....... :_ -. personal services and goods. A combination of restaurants and drive-thru fast food
will provide a convenient location for work day meals within a variety of price
ranges.
5. Through the thoughtful deliberate placement of screen walls, landscaping, and
architectural treatment we will insure that center will be pleasant for patrons and
present a neighborly face to land uses adjacent to our center. The area that interfaces
with the existing Best Western Heritage Inn Hotel located to the southwest corner of
the site is located adjacent to one of three major entries to the site along Spruce
Avenue. This shared entry drive will be treated with enhanced paving to note the
shared entry which leads to a turn off to the Best Western then eastward to the main
drive accessing the front doors of the shopping center. This drive will be the "Main
Street" passing the prominent facade of each shop. Every attention will be applied in
enhancing the entry experience through landscaping and walkway treatments. The
architectural treatment will also extend along this area and provide additional interest
through articulated parapets, cornice work, and medallion accents. This area also
serves as an important path of travel for pedestrians affording opportunities to utilize a
variety of smaller plant materials, accent planrings, and paving treatments.
6. The Best Western will be separated by a minimum of 200' to the north and 185' to
the east of the shopping center. We are certain that this separation will preserve the
integrity of the Best Western Heritage Inn Hotel and adjacent office building land
uses. Additionally, entry treatments, enhanced paving and landscaping will enhance
the grounds of the Best Western. Every opportunity to screen and integrate loading
facilities into the fabric of the building will be provided to present the best facade at
each turn.
EXISTING MASTER PLAN and CC&R's
The proposed development is consistent with the existing Master Plan for the Rancho
page 5
gpa application
filing requirement #3
2/9/96
Cucamonga Business Park in that it includes a significant amount of fast food/restaurant uses similar
to the "Fo<xt Park" originally planned for the western end of the subject property. The retail uses
planned for the remainder of the property are similar in nature to those which had been approved
pursuant to the previous Development Agreement 87-01 which has since expired. That agreement
provided for a variety of retail uses which were convenient to both business and residential traffic in
the area. Although the uses which are anticipated for this new project are not specifically business
support, they will nevertheless provide a variety of retail alternatives in a location convenient for both
the nearby business as well as commuter traffic and residential traffic along Foothill BIrd.
It should be noted that the Development Agreement 87-01 which was in place at the time of
the construction of the Best Western Hotel adjacent to the subject. This development agreement
included food and retail uses which would have had a similar impact on the Hotel site as the proposed
project and land use.
EXISTI~.IG CC&R's
Although the existing CC&R's for the Rancho Cucamonga Business Park include certain
design criteria for new construction, the sections regarding use are limited in scope to insuring that
the uses are conforming to the city's zoning requirements. It is the developer's intention to comply
with all of the requirements set forth in the CC&R's for design review and construction. The existing
CC&R's do not appear to restrict changes in zoning which are approved by the city.
the good
,aULII I / FIDEL SPECIalISTS
2/12/96
December 29, 1995
Per conversation with Brad Kaye,
"the good guys" will continue to
work with us if the city can
Mr. Peter DesForges respond in 30-60 days.
Wohl Rancho Partners
2402 Michelson, Suite 170
Irvine, CA 92715
RE: SEC Foothill and St~ruce Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga
Dear Peter,
..... As a folio, up to my November 15 letter, I want to reiterate the key role that expedient
processing plays in our decision to proceed.
As we discussed last week, interest in this location hinges on our ability to commit soon to
a late 1996 grand opening. What this means is that unless we have all discretionary City
approvals behind us by February in order to make our plan preparation and construction
schedule, we will proceed ~vith our alternative site in Ontario.
I am hoping for the City's full cooperation to make this project happen quickly as I
understand was done across the street. Thank you for your cooperation.
Yours truly,
Brad Kaye
Real Estate Manager
BK/md CokOO,5.doc)
Corporate Offices · 7000 Ivlarlna BI,;d - Brisbane, CA g4005-1830 - (4~5) 615-5000
I LANCE ]ONON ~ Ed;mr ccn[cr~ wifi~ 50,0~ squ~rc ~c~ or more
was 11.6 percent for the [nl:md [Empire,
Ow ~g ret:xll slmcc in tl~c h~l:md :~bout n l~crccntage point better th:m Inst- noted tlmt Price/Costco builds its wnre- Home sales in R'iverskle :rod S:m
IEmplrc h:,s been no [mrg:fin for sevcr;fi pl:~ce I):dlns/Ft. Wt~rth. The c:xtq: y did house-style stores for $85 per square foot Bern:~rdhm ctmntlcs rct>oundcd f~>r
years, wl~at with high vnc~mcies nnd not include regional malls. :rod sells $1,200 wurth ofmerch;mdise per fourth ctmsccutive month on n ycnr-ovcr-
Es g lease prices. As if to prov~ the Among power centers ~ ret:fil centers square foot. It typlc;dly costs $ I~0 per ye;xr bnsis. .
[mlnz, :~ recent ~:xml~ling by CI3 of :~t Im~st qS0,O~ squ:~r~ fce't with trl,e' .squ;xre foot to buikl a s r p center, which It's the I;xtest indic:~tlon t~f wh;tt ccon-
C~mnncrci:d Real IZstnte Groul~ Inc. found higl~ly I~rtm~otkm;u[ tm~ants -- tl~e In[:md sells nn nven~ge ors 150 per squnre foot. mnists h:~ve been hcr;dding :~s a modest
~.~n:,rkc is one of the most bdenguercd I~crccnt, the worst of the lot. ]'lowever. two, we're buikllng d~c kinds of i~rojects real cstnt~ nmrket.
mnong seven U.S. regions. Archer :~cknt~wlcdgcd tlmt the figure may th:~t ;~cceler;~te the obsolescence of some Home s:dcs in Riverside C~mnt~
nf Riverside :u~d Snn Ilcrnnrdino i~ostcd Empire sdll hns relatively few ofd~is shol>- Gobar snkL p:~rcd with J:muary [995, :~cct~rding
~ "The In[:md Empire hnsn't grown ;~s New York, :~ o ~I' others. Still, it con- dueted three yenrs ngo, the economist clmses were of less-expenslve }mines. The
~much :~s :~ It~t of Inndlords expected ;rod finned wh:~t re:my retail :n~alys~s a[re:~dy grand the Inl:md Empire was wdl int~ ~l~c so.called "muvc-u[~ m:n'kcC is still s I~'
d~crc's ;~ I~t t~f vnc:mt spnce out there." knt~w: Many portions of the Inland "high 50s." gish, Dan~Qulck sakL The trend once
t:i:dist with CB Commercinl's Riverskit The CB Commcrcinl study predicts unt:q~ped are:~s in the h~l:md Eml~ire." he price.
~fficc. th:~t the Imce of new ret~fi[ constructim~ said. The medi:m, or the midpoint of
The ;~ver ~ :e v;Ic;u~cy ;It in-line. unnn- will sltnv this year, but tlmt's not likely to Archer did note, Imwevcr. tlmt retail home s:des prices, dropl~cd 2.3 percent
chorcd strip cemcrs w;~s pnrdcularly ~ I' be ,nt,d~ s~Jace for older-style rctnilers, centers in the wcst'crn regions of botl~ $1 27,0~ in glvcrsklc Cranny
~ 18.'1 percent. compnred with only 3.q sakl Alfred Gobnr, n Pl:~centin-b;~sed ret:dl counties were ~rlng better th:m dmse in with J;mu;~ry 1995. The fiI, re tlil~l~cd 6.5
percent g~r d~e }e;~tlcr. Minne=q~olis/St. econnmist. · the cities of Riverside, San l~emnrdlno, percent to $116,0~ in San l~ern:~rdim~
P~t ,1. In-llne c~ntcrs :xrc thuse not brokm~ New rct:xilers such ns W:d-M:~r~ and Font;m:~, Co[ton nnd Ri;dto. "Pl:~ccs ... County, x~hich lind the lowest mcdi:m
up hy ]:~rger retailers. Pricc/Costcc~ nrc far more efficient :rod wid~ okler centers nre re:dly ht r ~t' r ght price nmong Somhm'n C:dif~rnia's six
FOCUSED MARKET ANALYSIS: FOOTHILL COURTYARD RETAIL CENTER
TABLE 3.
f'D SPECIALITY RETAILING MARKET CONDITIONS
X RANCIIO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
~ Existing Suppl_y_ 1995 Market Demand 1995 Unmet Year 2000 Year 2000
-.. Category Estimated Sales Square Demand Unmet Demand Potential
~ Number Sq. Ft. in Millions Feet Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. at 25% Q~pturc
Restaurant Group:
~ ~ Fast Food/Take Out 53 93,300 $36.9 206,900 113,600 149,000 37,250
Jt~ Family Restaurants 20 64,900 $30.8 156,900 92,000 118,800 29,700
~ Ethnic &Specialty 30 56,800 $9.2 47,000 (9,800) (1,800)
Atmosphere & Upscale 8 49,200 $18.7 64,800 15,600 26,700 6,675
~ Coffee House 5 6,51Y3 NA NA NA NA
Electronics &Computer 4 100,600 $I3.5 63,800 (36,800) (25,900)
Stx3rting Goods 8 55,100 $7.4 59,300 4,200 14,300 3,575
Bookstorcs 6 16,040 $4.4 27,700 11,700 16,400 4,100
Source: FieId research and consumer market modelling by Urban Research Associates, July and August 1995.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY - PART II
BA(;KGROUND
1) Project File #/Name: sp~, ~95-028; TSPA 95-02
2) Related File(s): DR 80-12; PM 6200; DA 87-01
3) Applicant: WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS
Address: 2402 Michelson Drive, ~170 ;Irvfne, CA 92715
Telephone #: (714) 955-o1~.5
4) Project Description: A r,,.q,,~.l- fnr '}ana ,me r'hang~ frnm Tna,,~l-.~al par~' fn r'nrn.,,n~t-y
Corr~rnercial for 14.4 acres of 'land generally located on the south side of Foothill
5) Project Accepted as Complete (date): septembe= 13, 1995
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTR
shall 'also be provided in each instance where a potentially significant effect has been determined not to
be significant and is marked "No."
Yes Magbe No
I. EARTH. Wit the proposal result in:
a) Unstableearthconditionsorinchangesinthegeologicstructure? Q Q
b) Disruptions, displacement, compaction or over covering of the
soil?.
c) Change in the topography or ground surface relief features? Q Q
d) The destruction, covering, or modification of any unique geologic
Qr physical features?
e) Any increase inwindorwatererosion ofsoils, eitheron oroffthe
site? Q ~ []
f) Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in
siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of
ativerorstreamorthebedoftheoceanoranybay, inlet or lake? Q [] ,,~
g) Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards, such as
eadhquakes, landslideS, mudstides, ground failure, or similar
hazards? O O
c.,Dqz
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY
Yes Maybe
II. AIR. Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? ,:3 (Z/
b) The creation of objectionable odors? Q El
c) Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any
change in climate, either locally or regionally? ,::3
III. WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a) Changesincurrents,orthecourseofdirectionofwatermovements,
in either marine or fresh waters? El Q
b) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and
amount of surface runoff? Q ~
c) Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? [D Q
d) Changes in the amount of sudace water in any body? El
e) Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of sudace
waferquality, including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity? Q Q
f) Alteraft'on of the direction or rate of ground waters? El Q
g) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by
cuts or excavations? tD El
h) Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available
for public water supplies? Q El
i) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as
flooding or tidal pools? Q El
IV. PLANT LIFE. Will the proposal result in.'
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
plants (including trees, shrubs, grass,crops,andaquaticplants)? Q El
b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered
species of plants? Q El
c) Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment of existing species? El El
d) Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? El Q
V. ANIMAL LIFE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of
animals (birds; land animals. including reptiles; fish and shellfish;
benthic organisms or insects)? Q El
b) Reduction of the number of any unique, rare, or endangered
specie or animals?D ElEl
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Yes Maybe No
c) Introduction of new species of animals into the area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? Q
d) Deterioration tQ existing fish or wildlife habitat? Q
VI. NOISE. Will the proposal result in.'
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Q Q
VII. LIGHT AND GLARE. Willtheproposah
a) Produce new light and glare? Q ,:B/''' Q
VIII. LAND USE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an
area? Q
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES. Wi~ the proposal result in:
..... a) . Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Q E] ~""
X. RISK OF UPSET. Will the proposal involve.'
a) A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances
(incud ng, but not m ted to: o I, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset conditions? D Q
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an
emergency evacuation plan?
XI. POPULATION. Will the proposal.'
a) Alter the location, distribution, density or growth rate of the
human population of an area? Q
XII. HOUSING. Will the proposal:
a) Affectexistingh0using,orcreateademandforadditionalhousing? Q Q
XIII. 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? Q ~"
c) Substantial impact upon existing transpotlation systems? Q
d) Alterations to the 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? ~ ~D5--2) Q Q
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Yes Maybe No
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in
a need for new or altered government services in any of the loftowing
areas:
a) Fire protection? Q Q
b) Police protection? Q Q
c) Schools? a
d) Parks and other recreational facilities? C3 Q ~"
e) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Ca
f) Other governmental services? [] Q
XV. ENERGY. Will the proposal result in:
' a) Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? Ca Ca
b) Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy,
or require the development of new sources of energy? Ca Ca
XVI.UTILITIES and SERVICE SYSTEMS. Wi~ the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? Ca Q
b) Communications systems? Q Q
c) Water? Q Q
d) Sewer or septic tanks? Ca Q
e) Storm water drainage? Q Q
f) Solid waste disposal? Q
XVII. HUMAN HEALTH. Will the proposal result in:
a) Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding
mental health)? Ca Q
b) Exposure of people to potential health hazards? Q []
XVIII. AESTHETICS. Wit the proposal result in:
a) The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public? Ca []
b) Creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? []
XIX. RECREATION. Wifi the proposal result in:
a) Impact upon the quality of existing recreational opportunities? [] []
b) Restrict the religious or sacred uses within the potential impact
area? Ca Q
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Yes Maybe No
XX. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Wi~ the proposal:
a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archeological site? Q Q ~r"'
b) Result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object? Q Q
c) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below. self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history '0r prehistory?
b) Short-term: Does the project have the potential to achieve shod-
term, to the advantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A
shod-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a
relatively brief. definite period of time. Long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.) [] []
c) Cumulative: Doesthe project have impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on
two or more separate resources where the impact on each
resource is relatively small, but where the effect on the total of
those impacts on the environment is significant.) [] Q
d) Substantial adverse: Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly? [] Q 9"""'
XXII. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION.
(Attach additional sheets with narrative description of the environmental impacts.)
See attached.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Initial Study - Part II
Discussion of Environmental Evaluation
Project Description: General Plan Amendment 95-02A
industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 95-02
A request for land use change from Industrial Park to
Community Commercial for 14.4 acres of land generally
located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between
Spruce and Elm Avenues in Subarea 7 of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan.
1. Earth:
....... e. The site is in a soil conservation area. Erosion control measures during
construction are required as a condition of project development.
2. Air:
a. An air quality analysis has been completed indicating that significant
impacts would not result from the proposed land use designation change
from Industrial Park to Community Commercial. Analysis indicates that
emissions, primarily from mobile sources, may increase for all categories
under the proposed use. The applicant's air quality study comparied a ,
project previously proposed for which the hotel component was
constructed with a conceptual proposal for the site. For this comparison
Carbon Monoxide and Reacfive Organic Compounds would exceed South
Coast Air Quality Management District Emissions Thresholds by 431 and
43 pounds per day respectively. Oxides of Nitrogen and Particulates
would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds. Further analysis will be required
when an actual project is submitted. If indicated by further analysis at the
project level, mitigation measures will be required to the satisfaction of the
SCAQMD.
3. Water:
c. Drainage and flood control issues have been addressed in the Master
Environmental Assessment for the General Plan adopted January 4, 1989
and implemented by the City's Master Plan of Drainage. These measures
are triggered at the project development level.
4. Plant Life:
b. The site is rough graded and periodically cleaned of weeds, therefore
there are no known rare. unique, or endangered plant species on site.
c. Landscaping at the project level will consist of native species and
generally accepted ornamental landscape species with emphasis on
drought tolerant plant materials.
d. No agricultural crops exist on site.
5. Animal Life:
b. The site is rough graded and periodically cleaned of weeds. There are no
known rare, unique, or endangered animal species on site.
6. Noise:
a. The proposed land use change is not expected to increase noise levels
above that of the existing development as anticipated in the General Plan
and discussed in the Master Environmental Assessment for the General
Plan.
b. There are no sensitive receptors in the surrounding area which is zoned
for commercial and industrial use.
7. Liqht and Glare:
a. Light levels for commercial development may be slightly higher than light
levels under the industrial park designation, but not to a level of
significance because the site adjoins Foothill Boulevard, a state highway.
Commercial development of the proposed site would be consistent with
the light levels of commercial development on the north side of Foothill
Boulevard.
8. Land Use,:
a. General Plan Amendment and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment
applications are the prescribed process for changing land use
designations. The duel applications are intended to make the General
Plan and Zoning consistent for the subject land area. The change from
Industrial Park to Community Commercial would not result in a substantial
alteration of planned land use because the subject site is located adjacent
to Industrial Park and Community Commercial land use areas.
11. Population:
a. The proposed land use change would not result in a change in population
from that addressed in the Master Environmental Assessment for the
General Plan. industrial park is considered a high employment generator
comparable to commercial use. Further, many commercial uses are
allowed within the Industrial Park land use category.
12. Housing:
a. Based on information contained in the Housing Element and the Master
Environmental Assessment for the General Plan, current and planned
housing stock will be sufficient to meet the needs of employees wishing to
live in the City. There will be no significant increase in employment
generation from retail commercial uses over Industrial Park uses and
therefore no significant impact on housing needs.
...... 13 Transportation:
a. There will be no significant increase in traffic generation resulting from a
change from the existing Industrial Park designation to the proposed
community commercial designation. Peak traffic periods will shift in time
consistent with retail use, with a resultant decrease in the predicted
morning peak period traffic flows. Generally, the information contained in
the Master Environmental Assessment for the General Plan adequately
addresses traffic and circulation impacts. Mitigation measures will be
implemented at the project development level, including access and other
circulation issues.
b. Parking will be provided consistent with the development code for
commercial uses.
c. Public transportation is available along Foothill Boulevard. There will be
no significant change in the demand for public transportation with the
proposed change in land use.
14. Public Services:
The area is urbanized. Public services are existing.
a. No substantial new fire services are expected as a result of the proposed
land use change.
b. No substantial new police services are expected as a result of the
.... proposed land use change.
16. Utilities and Service Systems.
The area is urbanized. Utilities and services are existing.
18. Aesthetics:
a. Future development will conform to the strict design guidelines of the City,
and be compatible with surrounding existing and planned development.
b. Future development projects will conform to the strict design guidelines of
the City, thereby eliminating any offensive site visible to the public.
20. Cultural Resources:
The site is par~ of a Master Plan of Development. The site has been rough
graded and street improvements, including public utilities installed. No known
cultural resources exist on the site.
21. Mandatory Findinqs of Siqnificance:
The proposed land use change would not cause any substantial adverse impacts
to the environment.
a. No known animal or wildlife species are expected to be substantially
adversely impacted by the land use amendment.
b. There are no known long-term enviro'nmental impacts that are expected to
occur as a result of the land use amendment.
c. The land use change is not anticipated to cause cumulative impacts.
d. The land use change will not cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly.
I:\MIKI\GPAP502A.IS
XXlll. DISCUSSION OF LAND USE IMPACTS.
(An examination of whetherthe project would be consistent with existing zoning, plan~,and other
applicable land use controls.)
General Plan Amendment and Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment applications
processed concurrently are the prescribed process for changing.land use designations.
The duel applications are intended to make the General Plan and Zoning consistent for
the subject land use amendment. :
XX]M,.DETERM NAT ON (To be completed by Lead Agency.)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
a) I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared ..............................
b) I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because rniti~gtion rn~sz~res described on
an attached sheet have been added to the project.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared .............................. El
c) I find the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and
An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required ......................... El
,. ' Miki Bratt, AICP, Associate .~.anner
S~ n
g alu Print Name
PFanning Division, City of Rancho Cucamonga
Dais
C,,,-,t> d'9
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ENVIRONM.-'NTAL
INFORMATION FORM
The purpose of this form is to inform the City of the basic components of
the proposed project so that the City may review the project pursuant to City ·
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 A_DPLICATIONS 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.
GENERAL IN~ORMATIO~
Application Number for the project to which this form pertains:
Project Title: Foothill Courtyard
Name S Address of project owner(s): Wohl/Rancho F{trtn. Cr$
c/~'ohl Investrant Crmpeny, 2LX72 ~chelson Dr., #170
Indne,~'CA 92715
Name & Address of developer or project sponsor: (same)
Contact Pers'on s Address: (Address same as above)
(1) Greg~ ~'ohl or Pete/Desfor~es Fn.#714/955-0115 Fax #714/755-3971
(2) laura Brozek Ph.#cj09/983-4719 Fax #<909/980-5849
Telephone Number:
Name & Address of person preparing this form (if different from above):
C I T Y o f R A N C H O C U C A M O N G A
pRCkTECT rN?ORMATI0~ & DESCRIPTION
Information indicated by asterisk [ ' ) is not required of non-construction
CUP'S unless otherwise requested by s~aff.
*]) Provide a full scale (8-1/2 X ]~) copy of the USGS Quadrant Sheet(s)
which includes the project site, and indicate the site boundaries.
2) Provide a set of color photogTaphs which show representative views into
the site from the north, south, east and west; views into and from the
site from the primary access points which serve the site; and
representative views of significant features from the site. Include a
map showing location of each photograph.
3) Project Location (describe): The site is bounded by Foothill on the north, F~]c~]yptus
on the ~th. Spnlc~ on the west, and Elm on the ¢~st excludin~ the south esst corner
currently improved with a hotel.
4) Assessor's Parcel Numbers (attach additional sheet if necessary):
~ 2fB-352-62 throu~h 2C8-352-69 (eight ~ercels)
'5) Gross Site Area (ac/sq. ft. ): 14.45 Acres
'6) Net Site Area (total site size minus area of public streets & proposed
dedications):
N6 addi~onal dedications proFo~-~d.
7) Describe any proposed general plan amendment or zone change which 'would
affect the project site (attach additional sheet if necessary):
The site is curlatEly desi,~nated on --the General Plan within rj~ indust~a] Are~I and is
lccated within the Industrial SFecific PIe_n, subere~ 7. ~ application requests an amend-
merit in the General Plan designation to CnnTcsnity Carmzrc~$] and an ammdmant' to the Indus-
trial Specific Plan to permit Canmnity Cc~merc~a] tu~es at this location as such uses are
defined within the Foothill SFecific Plan. "
Include a description of all per m. its which will be necessary from the
City of Rancho Cucamonga and other governmental agencies in order to
fully implement the project:
General F/an Amandmen~I.S.P. Amendmen~,Condi~onel Use Permit for Shoppin~ Center
develo~ment, standard buildin~ ~qnits.
9) Describe the phy~ica! setting of the site as it exists before the
project including information on topography, soil stability, plants and
animals, matu/e 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 photoqr_aphs of
significant features described. In addition, site all sources of
information (i.e., geological and/or hyd~rologic studies, biotic and
archeologica! surveys, traffic studies):
]he site is ~cant at this time but ~s ~ced as a ~eyard in the past. There is no n~ture
....... vegiration on the subject propetty' or any existing structures. Topography is reJatively
level with drainage to slope to Dl~]yptus. Please see enclosed soils report for soils
informWon. Please see enclosed aerial photograph for general overview.
10) Describe the kno~ cultural and/or historical aspects of the site. Site
all sources of information {books, published reports and oral history):
None
11 ) Describe any noise sources and their levels that no'~ affect the site
(aircraft, roadway noise, etc. ) and how they will affect proposed uses:
The prirraz7 source of noise is normal and customary traffic on FoOrJtill Blvd. There is
miriral noise frcm flights in and out of Ontario International Airport. These will not
affect the proposed uses.
12) Describe the proposed project in detail. This should provide an
adequate description o~ the site in terms of ultimate use which will
result from the proposed project- indicate if there are proposed phases
for development, the extent of development to occur with each phase, and
the anticipated completion of each increment. Attach additional
sheet(s) if necessary:
(Please ~ enclosed "DescriD~on of F~0~ect end SuDsort/n~ Information")
Describe the surrounding properties, including information on plants and
animals and any cultural, historical or scenic aspects- Indicate the
type of land use (residential, co~n. ercia!, etc.), intensity of land use
(one-fatal!y, apartment houses, shops, department stores, etc. ) and scale
of development (height, frontage, setback, rear yard, etc. ):
Adjacent pro~_rtv descriptions are as follo~,~:
(1~ To the north is Term Vista Town Canter. a Ccmmnitv Cc~rarc~s] shopping cen~er within
the Tetra Vista Specific Plan. (2) To the ~est is a current/v vacant restaurant b~ildin~
and unimDroved land planned for further rer~aurant develonrent. (3~ To the south and east
is unimproved land within the Industrial Specific Plan. (4~ Tn~n~iat~ly ~ajscent to ~d
south est of the subject property is a six story Best Western Hermitage Hotel.
Will the proposed project change the pattern, scale or character of the
surrounding general area of the project?
The proposed Ccmmmity Cc~merria] Shopping Center project on the subject property is
............... consistent with the pattern, scale and character of the surroundin$ 8ener~l area.
15) Indicate the type of short-term ~nd long-term noise to be generated,
includ/ng source and amount. How will these noise levels affect
adjacent properties and on-site uses. What methods of sound proofing
are proposed?
Short term noLce will he o_enerated by te ~radinR and buildino_ constructCon prcce~q. ]]~e lnng
term noLce ~enerated by this Dro~ect will be normal and customary traffic noise ~e~r~d hy
auto and truck traffic cgnin~ and Roino_ frc~ the site. There wil he no adverse PF~-r~ rn the
adjecant Froberries.
* 16 ) Indicate proposed removals and/or .replacements of mature or scenic
trees:
None existing
Indicate any bod/es of water {including domestic ~'ater supplies) into
which ~he site drains:
The site dr~ins into the ~iscin~ storm drsin system.
18) indicate expected amount of water usage. (See Attachment A for usage
estimates). For further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga
County Water District at 987-2591.
a. Residential (gal/day) Peak use (gal/day)
b. Co,~-unercial/Ind. {gal/day/ac) 1,~C0 Peak use (gal/min/ac) 3,0C0
19) Indicate proposed method of sewage disposal. __ Septic Tank X
Sewer. If septic tanks are proposed, attach percolation tests. If
" discharge to a sanitary sewage system is proposed indicate extDected
daily sewage generation: (see Attacbament A for usage estimates). For
further clarification, please contact the Cucamonga County Water
District at 987-2591.
a. Residential (gal/day)
b. industrial/Commercial (gal/day/ac) 1,033-1,503
RESIDENTIAL PRfXI]~'~TS
~!'a_-_b~r of residential
Detached (indicate range of parcel sizes, m~nimura lot size
lot size:
.Attached ('i~ units are rental or for sale units):
Sale Price(s) S ~c $
Rent (per month) S to $
22) Specify numbPer of bedroom~ by unit type:
23) Indicate anticipated h/d size by unit type:
24) indicate the expected number of school children who will be residing
within the roject: Contact the appropriate School Districts as shown
In Attac ent B.
Junior High:
COM3~ERCIAL, INDDb-i'MI3tL AND INSTI'iVrlONAL pRf)JECTS
25) Describe type of use(s) and major function(s) of commercial, industrial
or institutional uses:
7he type of Lute is a Commmity Cc~nercis] shopping center <i.e. retail with restaurants
as as ancillary use).
26) Total floor area of commercial, industrial, or institutional uses by
type:
Restaurants 16,550 square fent
General P~t~il 1161965 square feet
Total 133,515 square feet
27) indicate hours of operation: 7he appro.~jpate hours of operation ~ill be Retail/
Cc~rnerc~$] 7:00 ~\[ to 9:00 Fbl; Restaurants and/or fast food 6:C0 A~I to 2:(I3
28) Number of employees: Total: N/A
Maximum, Shift:
Time of Maximtun Shift:
29) Provide breakdovn of anticipated job classifications, including wage and
salary ranges, as well as an indication of the rate of hire for each
classification (attach additional sheet if necessary):
N/A
30) Estimation of the number of workers to be hired that c'~renzly reside in
the City:
For co~umercial and industrial uses only, indicate the source, type and
amount of air pollution emissions. (Data should be verified through the
South Coast Air Quality Management District, at (818) 572-6283):
32) Have the water, sewer, fire, and flood control agencies serving the
project been contacted to determine their ability to provide adequate
service to the proposed project? If so, please indicate their
response.
Yes, ~ ser~ces are available to the subject property.
33) In the kno~ history of this property, has there been any use, storage,
or d/scharge of hazardous and/or toxic materials? Examples of hazardous
and/or toxic materials include, but are not !im/ted t~ PCB'S;
radioactive substances; pesticides and herbicides; fuel, oils, solvents,
and other fla~nmable liquids and gases. Also, note undergTound storage
of any of the above. Please list the materials and describe %heir use,
storage, and/or discharge on the property, as well as the dates of use,
if known.
No
· 34) Will the proposed project involve the temporary or long-term use,
storag~ or discharg~ of hazardous and/or toxic materials, includang but
not lim/ted to those examples listed above? If yes, provide an
inventory of all such materials to be used and proposed method of
...... disposal. The location of such uses, along with the storage and
shipment areas, shall be shown and labeled on the application plans.
0nly to theextentthatsuch~aterialsare typically ut~]~Tedintheconstruction
and operation of a rera//cccFercial develoDen~nt.
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached
exhibits present the data and information required for adeqnaate evaluation of
this project to the best of my ability, that the facts, statements, and
information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief. I further understand that adddtional information m~y ~e required to
be submitted before an adequate evaluation can be made by the City of Rancho
cucamonga.
Date: 5/22/95 Signature:
Title: General Partner
ATTACH~-"NT A
Water Usage
Average use per day
Residential
Single Family 600 gal/day
Apz/Condo 400 gal/day
Commercial/Industrial
General and Regional Commercial 3000 gal/day/ac
Neighborhood Commercial 1500 gal/day/ac
General Industrial 1500 gal/day/ac
.. Industrial Park 3000 gal/day/ac
Peak Usage
For all uses
Average use X 2.0
Se~er Flo~s
Residential
Single Family 270 gal/day
Apt/Condos 200 gal/day
C(~m~ercial/lndustrial
General Commercial 2000 gal/day/ac
Neighborhood Commercial 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
BECEIVED
MAR 14 ~996
March 13, 1996 City of Rancho Cucamonga
_2_~nin/~f2visiOr~ 7//, / ~.._~
Mr. Brad Buller ~
City Plarmer ~ ~
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ~,~
RE: South side on Foothill Between Spruce and Elm
Dear Brad:
Enclosed are three proposed plans for the above referenced property. All are identical except for the
east end of the property for which there are currendy three potential uses.
Scheme "A" shows a service station on the north east corner wid~ a 20,000 sq.ft. Good Guys} store and
a cluster of four auto related tenants to the sotltl~ of it (7.000 sq.ft. auto parts store, 3,000 sq.ft. muffler
store, 4,000 sq.~. tire store and 2,800 sq.ft. lube & rune).
Scheme "B" shows a 20,000 sq.ft. Good Guys~ store next to a 30,000 sq.ft. "major" retailer on the east
and with a 4,000 sq.ft. pad retail building on the north east corner.
Scheme "C" shows a 50,000 sq.ft. "WOW~" store on the south east corner and a 4,000 sq.ft. pad retail
building on the north ~st corner.
It is difficult to predict which of these configurations will be developed until we are able to market this
property with zoning that will permit these uses.
WOHL INVESTM2ENT CONIPANY 2402 Michelson. Suite 170. Irvine, California 92715 · (714) 955-0115 · FAX: (714) 755-3971
Page 2
Brad Buller
March 13. 1996
I have not heard froin your office regarding any further information needed to complete our application
and am under tile assumption that we are still on schedule for tile March 27th Planning Commission
meeting.
If you have any questions, comments or need any further information. please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
WOHL/RANCHO PARTNERS
......... Peter-'Desforges
General Partner
C
F UIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIilIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIII ...... II '~"'~"' ____,
_ --_
SIT~ PLAN SCHEME
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. MARCH 7,
FO~: WOHL INVESTMENT CO. IRVIng, CA. ARCHITECTS PACIFICA LTD
F UHiiiiiiiiiiii[iiiiiiiiiiiiiiHiijiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiHI F~III ~IIIIIII[i[II]IIHII~II,-LI[fII]I]ITT~[I[[[I][]III[I
~ E Z_- .... ' -
-
5~T~ PLAN
~ANCH0 CUCAMONGA, CA. MA~CH 7~ 199E
FOR: WOHL INVeSTMeNT C0. I~VIN~, CA. A~CHIT~CTS PACIFICA LTD
F i~]lllllllllll]llllllllllllllllll{llllllllllllllllllll!llllll i ~]lll I]IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIT[TTTTFIiiiiiiiiiiii
~c ':" ""' ': :" ' "~"' I ' "
~ : ~ - ,.- , .,,
~ ,, -, ~ .
PARKING PROVIDED ' 678 CAR5 N
SIT[ PLAN - SCH[M['C~
RANCH0 CUCAMONG'A, CA. MARCH 12, Ig96
FOR: WOHL {NV[STM[NT C0. IRVIN[, CA. A~CHITECTS PACIFICA LTD ~k
ARCHITECTS PACIFICA LTD
17711 MITCHELL NORTH, SUITE B TRANSMITTAL
IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92714-6028
714 - 253 8525
DATE March 19, 1996
Fax 714 - 553 1768 R E C E I V E D
¢~AR J, 9 lg96 SENT BY (check all that apply)
TO City of Rancho Cucamonga ) Mail
Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga ) UPS
Planning Division ) Fed Ex
X ) Messenger
) Overnight
) Facsimile
Attention Mr. Brad Buller, City Planner
WE TRANSMIT
( X ) Attached
Fax ( ) Under seperate cover
( ) No. of pages including
.... P=roj~ct .. Wo.hl Inve~tment/Rancho Cucamonga THE FOLLOWING: (check au that apply)
X Prints
Copies Description Date
1 Site Plan Scheme "C" 3-18-96 Original tracings
(Full Size} Reproducibles
Copy of letter
1 Site Plan Scheme "C" 3-18-96 Specifications
(Legal Size}
FOR YOUR
( X ) Review
( ) Approval
( ) use
( )
Comments ~
I am sending this at the request of Peter Desforges. Please call if
you have any questions or comments. __
Thomas Bond "~
Project Manager
1:'~DATALc~ROJECTSt96~OStBULLERt.TRN
Copies to: (w/enc. or w/o enc.)
SITE PLAN - ,SCHEME ](3]
RANCH0. CUCAMONGA~ CA. MARCH 18~ 1996
FOR: WOHL ]NVFSTMENT C0. IRVINE~ CA. ARCHITECTS PACIFICA LTD
Lewis Homes Management Corp.
11% North Mounta[n Avenue / P.O. Box 670 / Upland, Cali/orala 91785-0670
909/985-0971 FAX: 909/949.6740 .~ [2 C [Z [ V F D
March 13, 1996 MAR 14 1996
Ci,,y of Rancbo Cucamonga
Planning Division
Mn Brad Buller
City Planner
City ofRancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
RE: Retail availability along Foothill Blvd.
Dear Brad:
As follow up to our meeting of last week concerning retail availability along Foothill Boulevard, I
wanted to give you some more information.
Lewis Homes owned centers have vacant/available space as follows:
Terra Vista Promenade 306,300 s.f.
Town Center Square at Tetra Vista 35,000 s.f.
Terra Vista Town Center 56,278 s.f.
Total 397,578 s.f.
Tenants in bankruptcy 68,421 s.f.
(Home Express, Clothestime, Discover,/Zone,
Lingerie for Less. Anna's Linens)
Total Available 465~999 s.f.
This is 38% of the total retail space we have zoned on Foothill in Terra Vista. This does not
include nearby space at Deer Creek, and the K-Mart on Haven or projects further east on Foothill
like Rancho Towne Center where there is 125,000 s.[ available. Nor does this include the space
available at Foothill Marketplace.
Some of this vacancy is a result of the changes in retailing especially tenant size. More
importantly, retailers like to group together so a Home Depot anchored center at the east side of
'* E.xHi srT" "t rl/'
Mr. Brad Buller
March 13, 1996
Page 2
Terra Vista attracts a different user group then Best Buy/Bames and Noble or TargetfM. ervyns
anchored centers. We will be rezoning our Elm to Milliken piece to attract those retailers who
will not go to the Promenade but want to be on-Foothill.
The City needs to carefully consider the impact of additioaat retail zoning bn existing Centdrs.
The purpose for planning and zoning is to direct uses to where the community belieyes they
belong and'create the mbst synergy.
· Rezoning a new site only weakens the ex~er~si,be pllifiiiiilg and zor.';ng the City has wc~rkcd hard to
implement.
-:
Sincerely,
C/re oxworth
erc~al Development
co: Richard Lewis
John Goodman
Gary Luque
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
THE REQUEST TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP FROM
INDUSTRIAL PARK TO COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL FOR 14.45 ACRES
OF LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, NORTH OF
EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND WEST OF
ELM AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69.
A. Recitals.
1. Wohl/Rancho Padners has filed an application for General Plan Amendment No. 96-01A
as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject General Plan
· Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. OH March 27. 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals.
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 27, 1996. including written and oral staff repods, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 14.45 acres of land, basically a rectangle
configuration, located south of Foothill Boulevard, north of Eucalyptus Street, east of Spruce Avenue,
and west of Elm Avenue and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Industrial
Park; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated Community Commercial
and is partially developed. The property to the west is designated industrial Park and is partially
developed. The property to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The property to the
south is designated Industrial Park and is vacant.
c. This amendment does conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and
will not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and
with related development; and
d. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use
Element; and
e. This amendment would be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
propedies.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
GPA 96-01A - WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
March 27, 1996
Page 2
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forLh in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the subject property is not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
distdct in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment would have significant impacts on the surrounding
properties; and
c. That the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and
3 above, this Commission hereby recommends denial of General Plan Amendment 96-01A.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMQNGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Buffer, Secrelary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 27th day of March, 1996, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01, A REQUEST TO
AMEND THE INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN TEXT FOR 14.45 ACRES OF
LAND LOCATED SOUTH OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD, NORTH
OF EUCALYPTUS AVENUE, EAST OF SPRUCE AVENUE, AND WEST OF
ELM AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 208-352-62 THROUGH 69.
A. Recitals.
1. Wohl/Rancho Partners has filed an application for an Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment No. 96-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the
subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On March 27, 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and issued Resolution No.
.... recommending to the City Council that the associated General Plan Amendment No. 96-01A b~
denied.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 27, 1996, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 14.45 acres of land, basically a rectangle
configuration, located south of Foothill Boulevard, north of Eucalyptus Street, east of Spruce Avenue,
and west of Elm Avenue and is presently vacant. Said property is currently designated as Industrial
Park; and
b. The property to the nodh of the subject site is designated Community Commercial
and is padially developed. The properly to the west is designated Industrial Park and is padially
developed. The properly to the east is designated Industrial Park and is vacant. The properly to the
south is designated Industrial Park and is vacant.
c. This amendment does conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and
will not provide for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan and
with related development; and
d. This amendment does not promote the goals and objectives of the Land Use
Element; and
CD7?
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 96-01-WOHURANCHO PARTNERS
March 27, 1996
Page 2
e. This amendment would be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
properties and would.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. That the subject property is not suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
district in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area; and
b. That the proposed amendment would have significant impacts on the surrounding
properties; and
c. That the proposed amendment is not in conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends denial of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment No. 96-01.
........ - ..... 5. · The-Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 27TH DAY OF MARCH 1996.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
A'FFEST:
Brad Buffer, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 27th day of March 1996. by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 27, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, A1CP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES - A request to initiate text changes to the Etiwanda
Specific Plan development standards for the area south of the 1-15 Freeway.
Related Files: Preliminary Review 95-10 and Tentative Tract 15711.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd., is requesting
modifications to the Basic Development Standards for the Low Medium and Medium Residential
Districts of the Etiwanda Specific Plan. Specifically, the applicant is asking to modify the Basic
...... Development Standards for the Low Medium and Medium Residential Districts to be similar to
those under the Basic Development Standards of the Development Code for the area south of the
Interstate 15 Freeway. Examples of the proposed modifications include but are not limited to, the
minimum and minimum average lot size and setbacks. The proposed modifications are shown on
the Basic Development Standards Table from the Etiwanda Specific Plan (included with
Exhibit "A"). The proposed modifications require an amendment to the Etiwanda Specific Plan, and
text changes such as the one proposed can only be initiated by the Planning Commission or City
Council· The Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment application will be considered by the Planning
Commission at a future meeting·
ANALYSIS: At the direction of the Planning Commission, staff will analyze and recommend
possible modifications to the Basic Development Standards Table within the Etiwanda Specific
Plan as part of the request for modifications to the development standards within the Low Medium
and Medium Residential Districts·
To determine the most appropriate basic development standards forthe Low Medium and Medium
Residential Districts for the area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway, staff will review existing basic
development standards within the Development Code and the existing standards within the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, while considering the uniqueness of the area in Etiwanda south of the
Interstate 15 Freeway where the amendment is proposed. A comparative analysis will be
forwarded to the Commission under separate cover to be considered prior to, or concurrently with,
any related Tentative Tract Map.
Currently, the Etiwanda Specific Plan requires that individual lots within the Low Medium and
Medium Residential districts be a minimum size of 7,200 square feet with a minimum average size
of 10,000 square feet under the Basic Development Standards· The applicant is proposing to
modify the Basic Standards for the Low Medium and Medium Residential districts in the Etiwanda
Specific Plan to be consistent with the current Low Medium Residential Basic Development
Standards in the Development Code (5,000 square foot minimum. 6,000 square foot minimum
average) and to create an overlay "sub-area" for the properties south of the freeway zoned "LM"
ITEf,1 E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DIVERSIFIED PACIFIC HOMES
March 27, 1996
Page 2
and "M." In conjunction with this request, the applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract Map for
a 331 lot subdivision on approximately 80 acres of the property under consideration for these
amendments.
If the application for amendment includes al_l differences between the Basic Development
Standards in the Etiwanda Specific Plan and Development Code, then other resulting changes
would be smaller minimum lot widths and depths; lesser minimum front, corner side and rear yard
building setbacks; and a greater allowable lot coverage. Staff will analyze these modifications in
greater detail and provide another report to the Commission in the future.
The only other standard that the applicant is asking to delete from the requirements for the "LM"
and "M" properties south of the freeway is the standard stating that "at least 50 percent of dwellings
shall be plotted parallel to the street frontage." With the proposed smaller lot sizes, the applicant
feels that this requirement is not feasible and is not required in areas governed by the Development
Code.
.... Attached to this. report is the applicant's justification letter, which goes into detail about the
proposed request for amendment and includes a Map of Land Uses and the Basic Development
Standards Tables from the Etiwanda Specific Plan and the Development Code (see Exhibit "A").
COMMUNITY MEETING: A community meeting was originally scheduled for March 18, 1996, with
all property owners in the Etiwanda area south of the Interstate 15 Freeway and within a 1,000 foot
radius of the affected area invited. At the request of the applicant, this meeting has been
tentatively rescheduled for April 23, 1996. The applicant requested the later date in order to
respond to staffs February 28 incompleteness letter on this project and the related Tentative Tract
Map.
ACTION: Staff requests that the Planning Commission accept, through minute action, the
proponent's request to initiate the text change through the submittal of an application for an
Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment for a modification to the Basic Development Standards for the
Low Medium and Medium Residential Development Districts.
Any change in the Development Standards will be considered upon receipt of an application and
fees for an Etiwanda Specific Plan Amendment which will come before the Commission at a future
date.
City Planner
BB:SH:mlg
At't,-achments: Exhibit "A" - Justification Letter including Map of Land Uses and Basic
Development Standards Tables from the Etiwanda Specific Plan and
the Development Code F__. "~
J
PETER J. PITASSI, AIA
A R O H I T E O T
RECEIVED
February 20, 1996 FEB 2 2 1986
Mr. Brad Buller Oily of Rancho Cucamonga
City Planner Planning Division
City ofRancho Cucamonga
] 0500 Civic Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
........ Subject: Diversified Pacific Homes' Property
APN: 1100-041-09; 1100-081-02; 1100-141-0i, 02;
1100-171-01,13; 1100-181-01, 04; 1100-201-01
Dear Brad:
On behalf of Diversified Pacific Homes', owner of the above referenced property in
Etiwanda, we are requesting that the Planning Commission initiate an Amendment to the
Etiwanda Specific Plan regarding a revision to the Development Standards for the area
south of the 15 Freeway.
If you have any questions regarding this request or our associated application, please
advise. Thank you in advance for your cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Peter J. Pitassi, AIA, Architect
Peter J. Pitassi, Alia
PIP:cas
cc: Steve Hayes; City ofRancho Cucamonga
Andrew Wright; Diversified Pacific Homes, Ltd.
Dan Guerra; Derbish, Guerra & Associates
8439 WHITE OAK -%'71 STi 05
~//~/X/ %,'~ TEL [90~19B0'~36~
PETER J. PITASSI, AIA
A R C H I T E C T
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN
JANUARY 16, 1996
Backqround
The Etiwanda Specific Plan was approved in 1983, and includes
the northeastern corner of Rancho Cucamonga, north of Arrow
Hwy., and generally east of Etiwanda Avenue.
The Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan bisects the southern end of
the Plan area and includes land approximately 500 feet north
and south of Foothill Blvd.. The Foothill Blvd. Specific
....... Plan includes its own land use designations and development
standards.
The Etiwanda area has seen relatively little development over~
the past 13 years for a number of reasons . Major
infrastructure improvements are yet to be developed including
master plan drainage facilities which have not been
constructed on a local or regional level.
Without the possibility of realistically developing this
area, the major flood control improvements for the east side
of the city may never be realized.
The City's position has been that private development efforts
should solve the problems by constructing major master plan
flood control facilities, storm drains, and retention basins,
in addition to paying regional drainage fees intended to
provide improvements to both San Sevine and Day Creek Flood
Control Channels.
These are major costs which have contributed to preventing
private development from being economically viable.
This dilemma has resulted in a severe devaluation of
developable properties in Etiwanda.
When the Etiwanda Specific Plan was created, its intent was,
as indicated in Section 2.6 of the Plan, to preserve the
areas unique qualities and retain its character and identity.
Proposed Amendment
Etiwanda Specific Plan
January 16, 1996 Page 2
Those of us who have been in our community for a while,
realize that the Etiwanda described in the Plan as worthy of
protection, preservation, and emulation, is generally north
of Base Line Road, and along Etiwanda Avenue. The beautiful
turn of the century homes, rural roads, windrows, and rustic
atmosphere reminds us of a time past.
This rustic environment is bisected by the Interstate 15
Freeway cutting a 45 degree path through the north/south
street grid established by the Chaffey brothers over 100
years ago. This interstate highway is 20-25 feet above grade
and creates a physical boundary effectively establishing the
southern edge of the "Etiwanda" we all think of.
krea Description
Our proposed amendment is intended to address both the
........ undeveloped properties south of the Interstate 15 Freeway,
west of East Avenue, and north of the Foothill Blvd. Specific
Plan and the parcels north of Arrow Hwy. , west of .the
extension of Hickory Avenue, east of the Utility Easement,{
and south of the Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan. This proposal
should exclude the existing single family homes southeast of
Foothill Blvd. and Etiwanda Avenue, and the existing multi-
family development on the northeast corner of Arrow Hwy. and
Etiwanda Avenue.
These two areas north and south of Foothill Blvd. constitute
the southern end of the Etiwanda Specific Plan' s
jurisdiction. Parcels are designated either "LM" , 4-8
dwelling units per acre, or "M", 8-14 dwelling units per
acre, per the Official Land Use Map, Figure 5-1, of the
Etiwanda Specific Plan. (See attached Exhibit No. 1. )
This land use seems consistent with the "Relative Land Use
Intensities" indicated in Figure 4-2 of the Plan.
When we examine the area described above, and review the
neighboring land uses and potential uses, we see the
following:
The Interstate 15 Freeway is a physical boundary along
the northwest edge.
Proposed Amendment
Etiwanda Specific Plan
January 16, 1996 Page 3
The City of Fontana's "Village of Heritage" on the
east side of East Avenue includes land uses along East
Avenue, such as Office/Industrial, Public/Quasi
Public, and "LM2" or residentially designated property
of 6 d.u./acre, and minimum 4,000 sq. ft. lots. (See
attached Exhibit No. 2.)
· The Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan includes a recently
opened "power center" or sub-regional retail center on
the southeast corner of Foothill Blvd. and the
Interstate 15 Freeway. The Foothill Blvd. Specific
Plan indicates retail, commercial, and office uses on
both the north and south sides of Foothill Blvd. from
the Interstate 15 Freeway to East Avenue.
The Industrial Area Specific Plan governs the property
south of Arrow Hwy. and west of Etiwanda Avenue, south
of the Foothill Blvd. Specific Plan.
These land uses and boundaries seem to support "LM" and."M".
Land Use Designations until the development standards of the~
Etiwanda Specific Plan are examined.
If an applicant were to propose a multi-family project in the
upper half of a parcel's respective density range, i.e. 6-8
d.u./acre in "LM" or 11-14 d.u./acre in "M", he would be
required to comply with the Optional Development Standards,
Figure 5-3 of the Plan. With some creative planning and
design, a proposal could be prepared which would comply with
the optional standards and propose multi-family product in
the upper ends of each respective Land Use Designation. All
are within the allowable densities and development standards
of the Etiwanda Specific Plan.
On the other hand, proposals for single family detached
projects are penalized by the Basic Development Standards,
Figure 5-2 (see attached Exhibit No. 3) for each designation.
These standards require a 7,200 sq. ft. minimum lot size and
a minimum average lot size of 10,000 sq. ft.. This results
in an effective density of 2.5-3 d.u./acre for traditional
single family detached development. This density is not even
within the low end of each Land Use Designation.
Proposed Amendment
Etiwanda Specific Plan
January 16, 1996 Page
Proposed Amendment
It is clear that the Etiwanda Specific Plan was created to
preserve the unique aspects of the Etiwanda area through the
establishment of restrictive development standards. The
Basic Development Standards, referred to above, are generally
intended for traditional single family detached development
and include average lot sizes of 10,000-40,000 sq. ft.
depending on the land use designation.
It could be argued that the Basic Development Standards have
also contributed to the lack of development in Etiwanda
effectively decreasing density to levels well below what they
appear to be. For example, an "LM" designation of 4-8
d.u./acre will effectively yield 2.5 to 3 d.u./acre in a
traditional single family detached product, if designed to
meet the standards of the Plan.
=We. are !proposing that the Basic Development Standards for the
"LM" and "M" designations be revised for the area south of
the Interstate 15 Freeway to more realistically address.the
physical factors present in this ~rea of the city. A~
revision of these standards would allow the possibility of
reaching the mid to low levels of these density ranges with
traditional single family development.
Our proposal is not intended to alter the Basic Standards for
the "Etiwanda" with which we all associate. In other words,
the area north of the Interstate 15 Freeway which is the vast
majority of the Plan.
As described previously, the area in question has distinct
boundaries which should be taken into consideration.
Reasonable planning addresses land use and development
standards based upon neighboring land use, physical
boundaries, such as circulation elements, and transition of
land use from higher intensity to lower intensities.
Our proposal does not suggest removing this area from the
Etiwanda Specific Plan, but rather revising the Basic
Development Standards through creation of a "sub-area". (See
attached Exhibit No. 1.) The Basic Development Standards for
this sub-area under land use designations "LM" and "M" would
become the City's Development Code, Table 17.08.040B. (See
attached Exhibit No. 4.) This would allow an average lot
size of 6,000 sq. ft. and a minimum lot size of 5,000 sq. ft.
with supporting standards.
Proposed Amendment
Etiwanda Specific Plan
January 16, 1996 Page 5
By seriously considering this proposal, we will more
realistically address an area of the city which is, for the
most part, currently undeveloped, and could remain so for
quite some time.
Our proposal provides development standards for single family
homes which realistically address the juxtaposition of this
property in relation to its immediate neighbors. The 5,000
to 6,000 sq. ft. lot sizes are consistent with the "LM"
designations of the Victoria Planned Community, the Terra
Vista Planned Community, the City's Development Code, and the
Village of Heritage, east of East Avenue.
These lots sizes will generally yield densities in the 4.5-
5.5 d.u./acre range which is a reasonable transition from the
surrounding commercial and residential uses to the more
restrictive standards of the Etiwanda Plan, north of the
Interstate 15 Freeway.
Simply put, by requiring larger lot sizes, the current
standards demand the development of a single family product.
type inconsistent with the surrounding land uses, the~
significant infrastructure improvements necessary for
development, and the intense commercial development projected
along Foothill Blvd..
We believe that by creating a sub-area of the plan and not
removing this area from the Etiwanda Specific Plan
altogether, we will more clearly define land uses north and
south of the freeway and strengthen the historically
significant community it is intended to preserve. We also
propose to preserve, within the sub-area, elements of the
Plan which are unique to the City, such as the Etiwanda
Avenue Overlay District and the Architectural Standards
described in Section 5.42 of the Plan.
The Architectural and Design Guidelines of the Plan outlined
in Article 5.42.600 should be addressed within this sub-area
as follows:
a. Items .601-. 604 should remain u~changed.
b. Item . 60.5 does not apply to this Land Use
Designation and should not be included within this
sub-area.
Proposed Amendment
Etiwanda Specific Plan
January 16, 1996 Page 6
c. item .606 is certainly a challenge considering the
desires of the new home market to enjoy the
convenience and security of an attached garage. We
believe, however, that the intent of this
requirement can be achieved by combining side
entry, front entry, and corner lot side entry
garage locations. Therefore, this item should be
retained within the sub-area with the removal of
any reference to detached garages.
Please review our Exhibits indicating a "Typical
Street Plan" and a "Streetscape Elevation" attached
to our proposed Specific Plan Amendment
Application. These Exhibits render prototype
housing units which address Items .602 and .606 of
the Standards.
d. Items .607 and .608 should remain unchanged.
............. e.- Items .609 and .610 are not practical requirements
when the Standards of the Development Code are
utilized. We contend that the undulation of street
design and pattern will achieve the desired resultsa
of variety and interest in streetscape
architecture. Items .609 and .610 should not be
included within this sub-area.
This proposal, if adopted, will not alter densities already
established because, as mentioned previously, development of
multi-family product could occur within the 4-8 and 8-14
designations at the midrange of these densities with no
revision to the Plan. This proposal merely allows a more
reasonable approach to single family development in an area
physically separated from traditional Etiwanda, surrounded by
similar and more intense land uses, and required to provide
major infrastructure improvements for the east side of the
city.
We would appreciate your serious consideration of this
proposal and we look forward to working with the Planning
Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council in creating a
sub-area of the Etiwanda Specific Plan which will allow
reasonable yet sensitive growth to occur while respecting the
unique architectural and historical essence of Etiwanda.
Exhibit No. I
ETIWANDA SPECIFIC PLAN
· - OS
L Low GCC, emadC<xm~
MMe<b'n OP~ionai.
""""'
/,
_..., figure
Proposed __
· ~ Sub-Area
Village of Heritage Exhibit No. 2
H L.VI~
LM2
~,~c LEGEND
P/OP ~ I L., I Lo~ ~o~1~ 2 6.0 P/Q
Revised September 16, 1986 ~
Amendment No. 2
i'XRIDII: INO,
Lot Azea:
minimum average 40,000 25,000 15,000
(in square feet) ~,ooo
minimum 30,000 20,000 10,000
(in square feet)
Number of DU's 1/40,000 1/20,000 1/10,000 'i/..Z~:~ S'ooO 1/5,000
(per lot area in 2 max/lot 2 max/lot 4 max/lot 4 max/lot 4 max/lot
square feet)
Lot Dimensions:
minimum depth 1351 1351 100'
minimum width 120' 90' 80'
" (at required
front setback) V~,'/~5'1 V y ~"
minimum frontage 60' 40' 40'
..... (~{t frbnt p.1 .) ' 3 o
Setbacks:
front 40' 30' 25'
side (street) 25' 25' 15'
side 20/20 10/20 0*/20 0'/15 0'/15
Total 20' Total 15' Total 15'
rear 40' 30' 25'
/Y
Co, , e
(maximum %) : ~O
On-site WLncl~owsI 100'/ac 50'/ae N/R N2R
(in 1in. feet/ae)
Streetside N/R Required Required Required Required
I,ands,'-pi~
(prior to occupancy)2
Height T.imitations 35' 35' 35' 35' 35'
* O lot Line not to be used at project boundary
1 Existing lots of record of t acre or less may be exempted [tom this requirement.
2 Custom lot subdivisions may be exempted from this requirement.
BASIC
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Fig. 5-2
Exhibit No. 4
TABLE 17.0,8.040 - B BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
N/R = NOT REQiJIRED) '/1,. L iiii i!i ~Ei~iiiiii!i ~!~iii!ll iiii~!ii:.iii~!iiMHH
LOT AREA: 22:500 8000 6~00 3AC 3AC 3AC
MINIMUM NET AVERAGE (L) (L) (L)
MINIMUM NET 20{X)O 7200 50430 3AC , 3AC 3AC
(L) (L) (L}
NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS (A)
(PERMHH-DPERACRE) UPTO2 UPTO4 UPTO6 UPTO11 UPTO19 UPTO27
MINIMUM DWelliNG UNFF Sr'2=: (I)
SINGLE FAMILYATi'ACHED AND 1.000 SQ. FT. (H) REGARDLES~ OF DISTRICT
DF'TACHED DWELLING
MULTZPLE FAMILY DWELLINGS (,J)
EFFICIENCY/STUDIO 550 SCLFT. REGARDLES~ OF DL~'TRICT
ONE BEDROOM 650 SO.FT. REGARDLESS OF DISTRICT
TWO BEDROOM S00 S~.FT. REGARDLESS OF DL,c"rRICT
THREE OR MORE BEDROGMS 950 S~.FT. REGARDLESS OF DISTRICT
LOT DIMENSIONS
MINIMUM WIDTH (d} REQUIRED 90 AVG. 65 AVG. 50 AVG. N/R NJR
FRONTS~ilclACK') VARY~-10 VARY+~ 5 VARY+,~ 5
MINIMUM CORNER LOT WIDTH 100 70 50 N/R N/R NZR
MINIMUM DEPTH 150 10~ 90 N/R NJR N/R
MINIMUM FRONTAGE 50 40 30 100 100 100
{d} FRONT PROPERTY LINE)
MINIMUM FLAG LOT FRONT~, 30 20 20 50 50 50
(d~ FRONT PROPERTY LINE)
SETBACKS: (B)
FRONT YARD (C,E) 42 AVG. 37 AVG. 32 AVG. 37 AVG. N/R N/R
VARY+,/-5 VARY+/-5 VARY+~-5 VARY
CORNER SiDE YARD 27 27 22 27
INTERIOR SIDE YARD 1Q/15 5/10 5/10 10 N/R
REAR YARD 30 20 15 10 N/R N.zR
(O)
AT INTERIOR SiTE BOLINOARY 343/5 2Q/5 15/5 15/5 15j5 15~5
( DWELLING UNIT/ACCESSORY (D)
BLDG.)
Ordinance No. 465
Page 5
TABLE 17.08.040 - S BASIC DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS (Continued)
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING N/R N/R ~EQUIRED PER SECT1ON 17.08.640-E
SEPARATIONS
HEIGHT LIMITATIONS 35 35 35 35 40 55
(F) (F) (P")
LOT COVERAGE ( MAXIMUM % ) 25% 40% 50% ,50% ~ ,50%
OPEN SPACE REQUIRED
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE- 2,00O/N/F 1,0O0/N/R 336/150 ~'~150 150/100 150/100
(GROUND FLOOR/UPPER STORY UNF/')
COMMON OPEN SPACE (A)
(MINIMUM %). N/R N/R N/R 30%
USABLE OPEN SPACE (A)
(PRIVATE AND COMMON) 65'% 60% ~ 35% 35% :35%
RECREATION AREA/FACALrI'Y NVR N/R N/R FEQUIRED PER SECTION 17.08, G40-H
LANDSCAPING (G)' (G) (G) REQUIRED PER SECTION 17.08.G40*G
AMENITIES ' N/R N/R NIR REQUIFED PER SECTION 17.08,040-R
Article 5.42
.600 Residential Projects of Five DweLlings or More Developed Under
Basic Development Standards (Figure 5-2)
.601 The project shah be designed in a manner that is
sensitive to, and compatible with, the character of the
surrounding area.
.602 While no specific architectural style is required;
dwelling design shah incorporate at least some elements
of traditional architectural styles found in Etiwanda,
such as the following:
Traditional materials
Building masses broken into smaller
components
Vera0das/porches
- Dormers/cupolas
- Variety in roof lines; large roof projections
- Garages de-emphasized (Side-on, detache'd)
- Bay windows
- Field stone foundations or veneers
Prominent Chimneys
.603 Architectural treatment and detailing shall appear on
all elevations visible from public areas.
.604 Excessive repetition of single family structures with
identical floor plans and elevations shall be
discouraged. Foot prints and elevations shah be varied
per Figure 5-45.
.605 In the ER & VL Districts, front yard setbacks along
public streets shall be staggered up to 10 feet.
.606 At least 50% of all garages within single family tracts
shall be detached, side-on, or set behind front part of
dwelling.
.607 Driveways shall not exceed 16' in width through pub]jr
parkway frontages.
.608 Two-story structures should not be planned for corner
parcels, unless extra deep setbacks are used.
.609 At least 50% of dwellings shall not be plotted parallel to
the street frontage.
.610 Property lines should be staggered as much as possible
to create variety.
5-42
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ' ~
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 27, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buffer, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADF - Review of the
Uniform Sign Program for the proposed development of an integrated shopping
center totaling 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed Phase
One consisting of a 132,065 square foot Home Depot home improvement center in
the Mixed Use District (Commercial, Residential, Office) of the Terra Vista
....... Community Plan, located at the northwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and
Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24.
BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 95-11 was reviewed on numerous occasions by the
Planning Commission and eventually recommended for approval by the Commission on September
27, 1995. The City Council went on to approve the project at its October4, 1995, meeting. One
of the special conditions of approval specified that a Uniform Sign Program be prepared for review
and approval by the Planning Commission. The Sign Program before the Commission tonight
incorporates the necessary elements of consistency with the Uniform Sign Programs for the Terra
Vista Town Center and Town Center Square projects (see Exhibit "C").
ANALYSIS.:
A. General: The Commission reviewed preliminary wall sign concepts for the Home Depot at
previous workshops and found them to be acceptable given the context of the use and the
Master Plan for future development of the balance of the shopping center. Those signs
reviewed in concept by the Commission are in compliance with the proposed Uniform Sign
Program. Staff will summarize the proposed sign program by briefly highlighting each type
of sign, as follows:
1. Sian Type A-l: This sign serves as the primary identification sign for the
project. It is proposed to be located at the intersection of Foothill Boulevard
and Rochester Avenue on the ledge stone wall at the base of the water
feature within the pedestrian Activity Center. The sign would be made of
individual letters with a bronze finish with ground mounted up-lighting to
illuminate the sign. Letter sizes are not specifically noted within the program,
but scaled to be approximately 10 and 14 inches in height.
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE
March 27, 1996
Page 2
2. Siqn Type A-2: These signs are intended to serve as project identification
signs at other key locations on the property. This type of monument Sign is
proposed in five locations on the property, either at vehicular access locations
to the project or at other primary street intersections, The letter style,
material, color, size, background stone material, and proposed lighting are
identical to that proposed for sign type A-1.
3. Sign Type A-3: These monument signs are intended to function as the major
tenant identification signs along the perimeter streets of the project. The signs
may be designed to accommodate up to three major tenants per side. These
signs are proposed to be located in up to four locations along the streetscape
of the project as shown on the conceptual Site Plan. The same background
material would be applied to this type of sign as the previous two sign types;
however, the applicant is seeking approval on allowing plexiglass inserts with
internal illumination and a light stucco texture over the surface of the sign
cabinet insert area to create the look of individual channel letters for this
.... category of sign.
4. Anchor Tenant Wall Siqnage: Tenants of over 50,000 square feet would be
allowed to use this type of wall sign for identification purposes. Up to one sign
per side of the building facing a street may be allowed, but in no case to
exceed three per business. The size of these signs is limited to a maximum
of 300 square feet or as considered proportionate to the building elevation, as
determined on a case-by-case basis along with color by the Design Review
Committee.
5. Major User Siqnaqe: This type of wall sign applies to users in the 10,000 to
49,999 square foot range (excluding pad tenants). Generally, signs in this
category shall consist primarily of red letters and not exceed 24 inches in
height, unless specifically approved by the Planning Commission on a case-
by-case basis. One sign per building elevation that faces a street, not to
exceed a maximum of three per business, may be allowed as currently
written,
6. Pad or Restaurant Siqnaqe:
a. Wall Siqns: Signs in this category are proposed to be limited to a
maximum height of 24 inches for two-lines of copy or 18 inches for a
single line of copy. If the tenant is a nationally recognized company or
corporation, then that tenant may have their nationally recognized letter
style, color, and Iogos subject to review and approval of staff,
b. Monument Siqns (Siqn Type A-4): Signs identifying pad or restaurant
tenants may also be in the form of a monument sign not to exceed a
maximum size of 24 square feet. These signs may be internally or
externally illuminated, but an alternative exterior monument design to
· - those used for shopping center and major tenant identification would be
subject to review and approval of the Design Review Committee. As
L
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE
March 27, 1996
Page 3
with the pad or restaurant tenant wall signs, requests for nationally
recognized letter styles, colors, and Iogos would be subject to staff
review and approval.
A combination of wall and monument signs may be used not to exceed a
maximum of three signs per business, as is the case with other major users
within the shopping center. The conceptual locations of the proposed pad
tenant monument signs is shown as sign type A-4 on the attached master Site
Plan.
7. Shop Tenants: This type of sign is for tenants of less than 10,000 square feet.
Sign copy would not be allowed to exceed a maximum height of 18 inches for
one or two lines of copy. Also, all letters are to be internally illuminated
channel letters with registered companies having the flexibility to have their
recognized script style and logos, but all wall signs in this category are to be
limited to a red color.
B. Desiqn Review Committee: The Committee (McNiel. Lumpp, Henderson) reviewed the
proposed Uniform Sign Program at its meeting on February 20, 1996. and recommended
approval of the Sign Program to the Planning Commission subject to conditions contained
in the attached Design Review Committee Action Agenda (See Exhibit "B").
C. Issues: All issues previously mentioned by staff and the Design Review Committee have
been addressed to the satisfaction of the Planning Division with the exception of the following:
1. Pad/Restaurant Tenant Monument Siqnaqe: The applicant is proposing to allow pad
and restaurant tenants, as an option, to each have one monument sign along the
Foothill Boulevard street frontage. Seven pads are shown on the shopping center
Master Plan, all with frontage along Foothill Boulevard. When combined with the
other six shopping center and anchor tenant identification signs, there is a potential
that up to 13 monument signs could exist along Foothill Boulevard. The shopping
center frontage along Foothill Boulevard is approximately 2,080 feet. This approach
is identical to that used in the Uniform Sign Program for Terra Vista Town Center. In
that project, however, all of the pad tenants have preferred to use their maximum wall
signage and not construct the monument signs allowed under the program. Staff
feels that since the criteria is consistent with that already approved for Terra Vista
Town Center and that most pad tenants will opt instead to maximize their wall signage
and not construct a monument sign, that the criteria for this facet of the proposed
Uniform Sign Program is acceptable.
2. Number of Siqns for Anchor Tenants: As currently written. the Uniform Sign Program
allows anchor tenants (such as Home Depot) to have a maximum of three wall signs,
but no limit has been established on the number of times an anchor tenant can be
identified on the Major Tenant Monument signs. In using the example of Terra Vista
Town Center, large tenants (such as Mervyn's) may have three wall signs, but are
limited to being identified on only one major tenant monument sign within the project.
Staff would recommend that the same limit be established for anchor and major
tenant identification within the Terra Vista Promenade project.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95~11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE
March 27, 1996
Page 4
3. Stacked stone veneer: In a related issue concerning the Design Guidelines, the
Design Review Committee questioned the proposed use of stacked stone veneer
which is also the primary material on the monument signs. The Committee requested
that the applicant provide further information to justify how the slate stone is
consistent with the proposed architecture and in context with the historical citrus
theme of the site. The Committee initially felt that a natural river rock material may
be more in keeping with the theme of the center. However. the Committee (Barker,
Henderson) approved the material sample at their meeting on March 19, 1996. The
materials board will be available at the Planning Commission meeting.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve, by minute action,
the Uniform Sign Program for Conditional Use Permit 95-11, the Terra Vista Promenade shopping
center, with the proposed modifications recommended by staff and any other modifications the
Planning Commission deems appropriate.
......... Respe.ctfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:SH:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Proposed Uniform Sign Program for the Terra Vista Promenade
Shopping Center
Exhibit "B" - Design Review Committee Action Comments
Exhibit "C" - Terra Vista Uniform Sign Program Comparison
TERRA VISTA
PROMENADE
........ at Terra Vista
SIGN PROGRAM
LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO.
DATE: DECEMBER 20, 1995
Revised: March 7, 1996
PREPARED BY:
FEOLA CARLI & ARCHULETA ARCHITECTS
116 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91205
(818) 247-9020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page Name Page Number
INTRODUCTION t
I. SITE - IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE 2
II. ANCHOR TENANT SIGNAGE 3
(Anchor Tenant 50,000 s.f. plus)
III. MAJOR USER SIGNAGE 5
(Major User 10,000 to 49,900 s.f.)
IV. PAD TENANT OR RESTAU1LA2xlT SIGNAGE 7
.......... V. ' SHOP TENANTS 10
VI. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS 12
VII. GUIDELINES 13
VIII. MISCELLANEOUS SIGNS 18
IX EXHIBITS
SIGN TYPE A-2 19
SIGN TYPE A-3 20
SIGN TYPE A-4 21
SIGN TYPE 13 22
SIGN TYPE C 23
SIGN TYPE D 24
LOCATION PLAN 25
Terra Vista Promenade Sign Program
INTRODUCTION
This program has been developed for the purpose of assuring a coordinated
Signage theme, and continuity for all types of Signage throughout the project
for the mutual benefit for all tenants and the public. All Signage contained
within Tetra Vista Promenade shall be consistent with this criteria and shall be
submitted for review and approval to the landlord, and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
Page I
I. SITE - PROIECT IDENTIFICATION SIGNAGE
A. PROJECT I.D. SIGN.
1. The shopping center shah be identified by street oriented signs at major
intersections around the center including main entrance from Foothill
Blvd and. All Signs shah be in accordance with the criteria in this
program unless in the opinion of the landlord and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, the design contributes to the overall benefit of the project.
2. Sign Type A-I. Project wall sign will be located at the intersection of
Foothill Boulevard and Rochester Avenue. Wall will display the shopping
center name only. (SIGN TYPE "A-1 )
3. Sign Type A-2. Smaller scale project wall signs will be located at the
intersection of Foothill Blvd. and Orchard Avenue, main entrance from
Foothill Blvd., intersection of Rochester Avenue and Poplar Drive as well
as p}oject entries from Rochester Avenue, and Orchard Avenue. Each
wall will display the shopping center name only. (SIGN TYPE 'A-2 )
B. ANCHOR TENANT I. D. SIGN.
1. Two (2) Anchor Tenant I. D. monument type signs, will be located at,
the secondary entry drives along Foothill Blvd as well as project entries
on Rochester Avenue and Orchard Avenue. Sign panels on these signs
will be reserved for the display of retail tenant user (15,000 sq. ft. plus)
names. Three (3) individual tenant user names can be displayed on each
face of the panel signs for a total of six (6) tenant names. The use of logos
or symbols will not be allowed on these monuments unless specifically
approved in writing by the landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
(SIGN TYPE 'A-3 )
Page 2
II. ANCHOR TENANT SIGNAGE (50,000 sq. ft. plus)
A. Tenant shall be allowed to install one (1) wall mounted identification sign for
each street frontage. One (1) sign on the sign fascia in front of Tenants space
facing Foothill Boulevard (primary customer entry). Tenants which have street
frontage on more than one street shall be allowed to have one (1) additional wall
mounted identification sign for each street frontage. The total number of wall
mounted signs shall not exceed three and shall be subject to Design Review
Committee approval.
B. Anchor signs shall be of a size which is appropHate to the exterior elevations
of the proposed Anchor tenant. These signs will be submitted to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga during the Design review process. The maximum sign area
allowed shall be three hundred square feet (300 s.f).
C. Signs shall be in accordance with criteria contained within this program,
unless in the opinion of the landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga, the
d~sign contributes to the unique benefit of the complex.
D. A sign shall consist of internally illuminated individual letters.
1. Internally illuminated individual letters shah consist of (1) channel
letters, (2 neon illumination, (3) plastic face and (4) trim cap.
2. Channel letters shall be made of .063 aluminum returns with .090
aluminum backs.
3. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers
shah be housed within the individual letters or in a raceway located
behind the sign fascia. Exposed raceways are prohibited.
4. All metal surfaces shah be primed and painted to match colors specified
in design drawings.
5. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed, provided however
that design, color and spacing of letters are subject to written approval by
Landlord and City of Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 3
E. In addition to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted t6
place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name
and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet. (SIGN TYPE - C).
The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches.
F. Promotional or special event signs, banners or flags shall be in conformance
with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by
Landlord prior to submission to the City.
Page 4
III. MAIOR USER SIGNAGE - (10,000 to 49,900 sq. ft.)
A. Tenant shah be allowed one sign per building elevation up to a maximum of
three (3) signs per business. However, if the building elevation that faces Foothill
Blvd. has more than one entry, the Tenant shah be allowed one (1) sign per
entry facing Foothill Blvd. In no event shall the total number of signs allowed
per building exceed three (3). The height of each sign shah be measured from
top to bottom.
Tenants (Major Users) that require a larger sign area, height or length, must
submit sign specifications and drawings, composed on the building elevation, to
the City of Rancho Cucamonga for Planning Commission review and approval.
1. Two line signs shah not exceed 24" in total height including the space
between the line and no line shall be more than 14". The space between
lines shall not exceed one third of the letter height of smallest letter.
2. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 24" including downstrokes.
3. Single line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 24".
4. Length of sign shall not exceed 70 % of shop frontage, or twenty-five
feet (25'), whichever is less. Shop frontage shall be defined as, storefront
dimension or average lease bay width, whichever is greater.
B. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said
trademark/logo is "registered" or nationally recognized with at least six (6) open
stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements.
C. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated letters. Internally illuminated
individual letters shall consist of (1) channel letters, (2) neon illumination, (3)
plastic face, and (4) trim cap.
D. Channel letters shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimum),
sides painted medium bronze. Channel letters shall be fastened to and be
centered on the sign fascia.
E. Letters shah be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shah be
housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are
prohibited.
Page 5
F. Individual letter styles of Tenants shall be allowed. All major user Tenants
shall be limited to the following Plexiglass colors: red # 2793 with a maximum
choice of two (2) of the following colors not to exceed 10% of the total letter
area; blue #2214, white #7328, green #2108 and yellow #2037 by Rohm and
Hass Co. or approved equal. Tenants with a trademark/logo that is "registered"
or a nationally recognized trademark may be allowed subject to review and
written approval by Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
G. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4" trim cap (medium bronze) to match
letter returns.
H. Sign copy shah contain Tenants trade name only. No other services or
product advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenants nationally
registered trademark or logo name, subject to Landlord and City of Rancho
Cucamonga reviews and approval.
I. In additicin to the signs described above, each Tenant shall be permitted to
place white vinyl lettering (Ftelvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name
and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet (Sign Type "C'). The
total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches.
J. Promotional or special event signs shall be in conformance with the City of
Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by Landlord prior
to submission the City.
Page 6
IV. PAD OR RESTAURANT S~GNAGE
A. Single users/Tenant in a free standing building pad. Each tenant shall be
allowed one (1) monument sign along Foothill Boulevard, and two (2) wall-
mounted identification signs, one sign per elevation or building face, or as an
option, each tenant shall be allowed (3) wall-mounted identification signs, one
(1) sign per elevation or building face. A combination of monument and wall
signs may be used, however, only a maximum of three (3) signs may be used to
identify any one business and only in the combinations described herein.
1. Wall Mounted Signs - Sign area shall be the entire area within a
perimeter defined by a continuos line composed of right angles which
enclose the extreme limits of lettering, logo, trademark or other graphic
representation. The height of each sign shah be measured from top to
bottom and shah not exceed the following guidelines:
a. Two LLne signs shall not exceed 24" in total height, including
space between lines, and no line shall be more than 18'. The space
between lines shah exceed one third of the letter height of smallest
letter.
b. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 24" including
downstrokes.
c. Single Line signs in all upper case shall not exceed 24".
d. Length of sign shah not exceed 70% of shop frontage, or twenty-
five feet (25'), whichever is less. Shop frontage shah be defined as
storefront dimension or average lease of bay width, whichever is
greater.
2. Monument Signs - This sign type can be either internally or externally
illuminated. The maximum monument size shah be eight foot (6') long by
four foot (4') high. (A-4)
B. Signing shall be in accordance with the criteria contained within this program,
unless in the opinion of the landlord and, the design contributes to the unique
benefit of the complex and the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
C. Multi-Tenant Pad. In the event that there are multiple tenants in a free
standing pad, signs shall be as shown in Shop Tenant Criteria.
Page 7
D. Restaurant Pad. In the event that the pad tenant is a restaurant; It is
recognized that restaurants have specific and unique graphic color and Signage
needs. Restaurants may, if they wish, submit alternate monument designs
through the Rancho Cucamonga design review process as long as colors and
materials are consistent with the restaurant's architecture. Signs will be limited
to the restaurant users name only. The use of brand names or logos, shields or
crests will not be allowed on the sign unless specLfically approved in writing by
the landlord and subject to City of Rancho Cucamonga review and approval.
E. A registered trademark/logo, without adjacent individual letters, may be
included within the calculated sign area provided the allowable sign area for the
trademark/logo letters is reduced to thirty-three percent (33%) of the allowable
area and that the logo may not exceed four feet in any dimension. Logo sign
shall also be sized to be in proportion to the building face to which it is attached.
This sign is also subject to approval by the Landlord and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
............ ' F. 'A trademarkAogo may be combined with individual letters if said
trademark/logo is a "registered" or nationally recognized trademark and is within
the allowable area and size requirements.
G. A sign shall consist of internally Ltluminated individual letters. Internally
illuminated individual letters shall consist of (1) channel letters/logo, (2) neon
illumination. (3) plastic face. and (4) trim cap.
H. Channel lettersAogo shall be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep, sides
painted medium bronze. Channel letters shah be fastened to and be centered on
the sign fascia.
I. Letters shall be internally illuminated via neon lighting. Transformers shall be
housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are
prohibited.
J. Individual letter styles of Tenants shah be allowed. In the case of a single user
for a pad building Tenants with a trademark/logo that is registered or a
nationally recognized trademark may use their national colors subject to written
approval by Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. All other pad
Tenants shall use the following colors: red #2793 with two of the following
colors not to exceed 10% of the total letter area; blue #2214 white #7328 green
#2108 and yellow #2037 by Rohm and Haas Co. or approved equal.
K. Plastic faces shall be trimmed with a 3/4 trim cap medium bronze to match
letter returns.
Page 8
L. Sign copy shall contain legally registered name only. No other services or
product advertising will be allowed.
M. In addition to the signs described above each Tenant shall be permitted to
place white vinyl letter (Helvetica Medium letter style) to provide store name
and hours information as specified on attached detail sheet. ( SIGN TYPE 'C" )
The total area for this sign shall not exceed 280 square inches. Each restaurant
may also display one (1) menu provided it is contained within a display area
incorporated within the overall architectural theme.
N. Promotional or special event signs banners and flags shall be in conformance
with the City of Rancho Cucamonga s Sign Ordinance and must be approved by
Landlord prior to submission to the City.
Page 9
V. SHOP TENANTS
A. Tenants shall be allowed one (1) sign per building elevation with a maximum
of three (3) signs allowed. The height of each sign shah be measured from top to
bottom and shah not exceed the following guidelines:
1. Two line signs shall not exceed 18' including the space between the
lines in total height and no line shall be more than 14". The space between
lines shah not exceed one third of the letter height of the smallest letter.
2. Upper and lower case signs shall not exceed 18" including downstrokes.
3. Single line signs in aH upper case shah not exceed 18".
4. The length of sign shah not exceed 70% of Shop frontage, or fi~een feet
(15) whichever is less. Shop frontage shall be defined as storefront
dimension or average lease bay width, whichever is greater.
B. A trademark/logo may be combined with individual letters if said
trademark/logo is "registered" or nationally recognized with a least six (6) open
stores and is within the allowable area and size requirements, subject to City of
Rancho Cucamonga review and approval.
C. Each sign shall consist of internally illuminated Internally Illuminated
individual tetters shah of (1) channel letters, (2) neon illumination, (3) face, and
(4) trim cap.
D. Channel letters shah be made of 22 gauge sheet metal, 5" deep (minimum),
sides painted medium bronze. channel letters shah be fastened to and be
centered on the sign fascia,
E. Letters shah he internally illuminate via neon lighting. Transformers shall be
housed in a raceway located behind the sign fascia and exposed raceways are
prohibited.
F. Individual letter styles of Tenants shah be allowed. All shop building Tenants
shah be limited to the following Plexiglass color: red #2793 by Rohm and Hass
Co. or approved equal.
G. Plastic faces shah be trimmed with a 3/4" trim cap (medium bronze) to match
letter returns.
Page 10
H. Sign copy shah contain Tenant's trade name only. No other services or
product advertising will be allowed unless it is part of the Tenants trade name
without Landlords Prior written consent.
I. In addition to the signs described above each Tenant shah be permitted to
place white vinyl lettering (Helvetica Medium letter style ) to provide store
name and hours Information as specified on attached detail sheet (Sign Type
"C'). The total area for this sign shah not exceed 280 square inches.
J. Promotional or special event signs, banners and flags shail be in conformance
with the City of Rancho Cucamonga's Sign Ordinance and must be approved by
the landlord prior to submission to the City.
Page I1
VI. TRAFFIC CONTROL SIGNS
A. Signage required to control and manage the movement of traffic and
pedestrians shall be installed in accordance with the criteria of this program.
Traffic signs shall be standard sizes, heights and colors and shall be in
accordance with all requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga and the
State of California. Signs shah be mounted on fabricated metal sign
backgrounds painted in colors complementary to the approved colors and
materials or the center. (Sign Type "D')
B. Traffic signs shall be installed in locations as designated by a traffic engineer
licensed in the State of California. Sign locations shah be reviewed and
approved by the city of Rancho Cucamonga prior to installation and shall be
reviewed again after one (1) year to determine if they are adequate in managing
traffic with an acceptable degree of efficiency and safety.
Page 12
VII. GUIDELINES - BUILDING SIGNAGE FOR TENANTS
A. General Requirements:
1. Each Tenant shah submit to the Landlord for written approval before
fabrication, not less than four (4) copies of detailed drawings of the
Tenants proposed signs indicating the location, size, layout, design,
materials and color graphics. Such drawings shall be submitted
concurrently with architectural drawings, sufficient in Landlord's opinion,
to show the exact relationship with the store design, Tenant's store
location on site and the dimensions of the building frontage.
2. Prior to fabrication. detailed drawings of all signs shall be submitted to
the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Division for review and
approval. These drawings must be signed and stamped as approved by
the Landlord prior to submittal to the City.
...... 3. Tanant shall obtain and pay the entire cost of all permits, and
approvals, construction, installation and maintenance of its respective
sign. No sign shah be installed until all required approvals and permits
have been obtained.
4. Tenant shah be responsible for fulfillment of all of these Sign Criteria to
the extent applicable.
5. No Tenant shah affix or maintain upon any glass or other material on
the storefront of within twenty-four inches (24") of any window, any
signs unless such signs or materials have received the written approval of
the Landlord, and comply with this Sign Criteria.
B. General Specifications:
1. All primary identification of Tenant shall be internally illuminated.
Secondary Signage may be non-LLluminated if total allowable sign area is
not exceeded in height and width.
2. Two lines of copy may be used as long as the total height of sign does
not exceed maximum sign height for the applicable type of Signage and
the design is approved by the Landlord and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
3. The width of the tenant fascia sign (unless covered elsewhere in this
program) shall not exceed 70% of the storefront dimension based on the
Page 13
average lease bay width, whichever is greater. Sign shall center on the
storefront unless prior written approval is obtained from the Landlord
and the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
4. No sandblasted or painted wood signs will be allowed.
5. Tenant shall be solely responsible for the installation and maintenance
of its own signs.
6. Tenants sign contractor shall repair any damage to the premises or
other property in the Shopping Center caused by the contractor s work.
Should Tenant's contractor fall to adequately repair such damage,
Landlord may, but shall not be required to, repair such damage at the
tenant expense.
7. Tenant shah be fully responsible for the actions of Tenants sign
contractor.
8. Electrical service to Tenants signs will be connected to Tenants meter
and shall be connected to a time clock supplied by Tenant. Time dock
hours shall be subject to Landlord approval.
C. Construction Requirements:
1. Landlords construction superintendent shah be given adequate notice
prior to installation of all signs. Failure to notify Landlord may result in
removal of sign to inspect penetration in bullding face.
2. All signs shall be fabricated and installed per UL and city standards.
3. Letter fastening and clips are to be concealed and be of galvanized,
stainless, aluminum, brass or bronze metals.
4. No labels will be permitted on the exposed surface of the signs, except
those required by local ordinance, which shall be placed in an
inconspicuous location.
5. Tenants shall have identification signs designed in a manner
compatible with and complimentary to adjacent and facing storefronts
and the overall design concept of the Shopping Center.
6. Design, layout and materials for Tenant signs shall conform in all
respects with the sign design drawings included in this criteria. The
Page 14
maximum heights for letters in the body of the sign shall be as indicated
in these criteria.
7. All penetrations of the building structure required for sign installation
shall be sealed in a watertight condition and shall be patched to match
adjacent fir~ish to Landlords satisfaction.
8. No wood backed letter material will be allowed.
D. Sign Installation:
1. All work to fabricate, erect, or install signs (including connection to
electrical junction box) shall be contracted and paid for by Tenant and
subject to approval by Landlord.
Z All signs shall be designed, constructed and installed in accordance
with local codes and ordinances. All permits shall be obtained by Tenant s
.......... sign 'contractor, at Tenant s sole expense.
3. Signs not installed in strict accordance with previously approved plans
and specifications shall be immediately corrected by Tenant, at Tenant's
cost and expense, upon demand by Landlord. If not corrected within
fifteen (15) days, sign may be removed or corrected by Landlord at
Tenant's expense.
4. Erection of any sign shall be promptly and safely effected v, dth as Little
disruption to business and traffic as possible and with minimum of
inconvenience to the Landlord and to the other Tenants.
5. Upon removing any sign, Tenant shall, at its own expense, repair any
damage created by such removal and shall return the area from which the
sign was removed back to its original condition. All debris from removal
shall be promptly removed from the site.
E. Protection of Property:
1. Tenant's sign contractor shall design, install or erect Tenant's sign in
such a manner that it will not over stress, deface, or damage any portion
of the building or grounds.
2. Any sign, temporary or permanent, capable of exerting damaging
pressures on the building due to its size, weight or design shall have its
design examined by a structural engineer. Prior to installation of such
Page 15
sign, Tenant shah submit to Landlord such engineer' a written approval
verLfying that no unsafe condition will be imposed upon the building or
other structure to which the sign will be attached.
3. All exposed parts of any sign or sign support subject to corrosion or
other sin41ar damage shall be protected in a manner acceptable to
Landlord.
4. Any sign on which stains or rust appear, or which becomes damaged in
any way, or which in any manner whatsoever is not maintained properly
shall be promptly repaized by Tenant. Landlord may remove and store, at
Tenant s expense, any signs not maintained properly or not in accordance
with sign program.
F. Insurance:
1. Tenant shall cause Tenant's sign contractor to submit to Landlord prior
to sfich contractor entering upon the Shopping Center, a certificate of
insurance, evidencing that such contractor has in effect corrtmercial
general liability insurance and worker's compensation coverage as
requLred by the State of California in an amount and issued by a company .
acceptable to Landlord.
2. All Tenants are to carry Liability insurance naming themselves and
Landlord as additional insured in accordance with terms and conditions
specified in the lease.
G. RESTRICTIONS:
All users are subject to the following:
1. No animated, revolving, flashing, audible, or odor producing signs will
be allowed.
2. No vehicle signs will be allowed.
3. No formed plastics or injection-molded plastic signs will be permitted.
4. No exposed raceways, cross-overs or conduits will be permitted to be
visible.
5. No other types of signs except those specificaLly mentioned within this
criteria will be allowed.
Page 16
6. Tenant win be required to remove any sign considered to be in bad
taste or that does not contribute positively to the overall design of the
center.
Page 17
VIII. Miscellaneous Signs:
A. It is understood that there may be the need for additional signs for
information and directional purposes. These signs will be reviewed by Landlord
and the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Department for consistency of
design with the shopping Center.
B. City, State and Federally required signs shall be installed as required by the
governing agency.
Page 18
MAR 20 "96 i3:59 LAMD CONCERN, LTD, P.2
PARTIAL ELEVATION OF SIGNAGE WAI]L
AT CORNER OF ROCHESTER AVE. & FOOT~glrLL BLVD.
SIGN TYPE - "A-2"
QUANTITY (5)
MAXIMUM WALL HEIGHT 5'.6"
MAXIMUM SIGN HEIGHT 4'.0"
NO. SIDES 1
MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE (Not applicable)
MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN AREA 8'-0"
TYPE OF ILLUMINATION Ground Mounted External Illumination
PERMITrED USERS Project Name 20
LE'FFERING TYPEFACE
COLOR:
STONE China Mountain
PERCAST CONC: Natural Grey Con. I
........ LTI~ERING= Medium Bronze Finish
S~[EVES FOR ,~ ~ - 8' CON. BLOCK
WALL ANONCHS
~ON LETERINB i ' ' ~ WALL ANCHOR
SET IN EPOXY
~ANUFACllJRED ~ . '
TN
SECTION "A"s
SCALE 3/4"= 1'-0" < ~
21'-6"
3'-9" 14'-0" 3'-9"
1' T
,/, o PRECAS[ CO~CREE CAP
o STACXED STONE FA~
~GNAC~
PRO/ECT ENTRY MONUMENTS
SCALE 1/4"= l"O*'
TI~RRA VISTA PROMENADE liE""sb
SIGNAGE PROGRAM
PAC~ 19 LHJS~;9
SIGN TYPE - "A-3"
, QUANTITY 4
MAXIMUM HEIGHT 6'-0"
NO. SIDES 2
MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE 60 ~f.
MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT 8"
MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN AREA 10'-0"
TYPE OF ILLUMINATION Ground-mounted flood lights or intemally
illuminated individual letters with flood-
lighting of monument background
.. PERMIlq'ED USERS Major Tenants
COLORS Same As A-2
10'-0"
1'-6" 7'-0" 1'-6"
o PRECAST CONGREE C~
~ , r- -1 I-m,:
~ ~ ~ o STA~ED ST~E FA~
I L ~ o ~N~T ~A~ E~
(M~. LO~R ~lE 8')
J I~
~ r , ~. )
MAJOR TENANT SIGNAGE
S~LE 3/8": 1'-0"
TERRA VISTA PROMENADE F~7
SIGNAGE PROGRAM
PAGE 20
SIGN TYPE - "A-4"
QUANTITY 1 per pad
MAXIMUM HEIGHT 4'-0"
NO. SIDES 2
MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE 24 s.f.
MAXIMUM LETEER HEIGHT 8"
MAXIMUM LENGTH OF SIGN AREA 6'-0"
TYPE OF ILLUMINATION Ground-mounted flood lights or internally
illuminated individual letters with flood-
lighting of monument background
PERMITTED USERS Pad Tenants
COLOR Same As A-2
8" 4'-8"
~.. ~ o PRECAST CONCREE
~_ ~ ~ o STAO(EO STONE FA~
I~ i ~ o ~N~[ SIGNAGE
PAD
PAD TENANT MONUMENT
SCALE 3/8"= 1'-0"
TERRA VISTA PROMENADE ~E'.=~,~g SIGNAGE PROGRAM
PAC~ 21
SIGN TYPE - "B'
QUANTITY 1 per building elevation
MAXIMUM HEIGHT 18"
NO. SIDES 1
MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE 375 s.f.
MAXIUM LETTER HEIGHT 18"
MAXIMUM LENGTH DE SIGN 15'-0"
TYPE OF ILLUMINATION Internal
PERMITTED USERS Typical tenant shop tenants
TYPE "B"
__-.--------TYP. STOREFRONT & ENTRY
---STORE INFO. SIGN TYPE C
ii~~ · -STORE ADDRESS
~ [_
TERRA VISTA PROMENADE SIGNAGE PROGRAM
PAGE 22
SIGN TYPE - "C"
QUANTI'P~' (1) Per user
MAXIMUM HEIGHT (Not applicable)
NO. SIDES
MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE (Not applicable)
NOMINAL LETEER HEIGHT 3/4" for hours, 2-1/2" for address and
store name
MAXIMUM LENGTH (Not applicable)
TYPE OF ILLUMINATION None
PERMITTED USERS Major users, shops and restaurants
TYP. STORE NAME
2 1/2" MAX. LETTER ~-~
T
INFO. SIGN 5/4" MAX. ~. ]' VARIES l'
LETTER HEIGHT -
TYP. STORE ADDRESS
2 1/2" HIGH NUMBERS
FINISHED FLOOR --~,,.
TERRA VISTA PROMENADE SIGNAGE PROGRAM
PAGE 23
SIGN TYPE - 'D'
QUANTITY (As required)
MAXIMUM HEIGHT 9'-0'
NO. SIDES 1
MAXIMUM AREA PER SIDE (Not applicable)
MAXIMUM LETTER HEIGHT (Per local or state jurisdiction)
MAXIMUM LENGTH (Not applicable)
TYPE OF ILLUMINATION None
PERMITFED USERS (Not applicable)
TYPICAL TRAFFIC
STOP SiGN
TYPICAL
HANDICAP
SIGN
---- PAINTED STEEL
TUBE
F
TERRA VISTA PROMENADE SIGNAGE PROGRAM
PAGE 24
LOCATION PLAN
%
VISTA PROMENADE SIGNAGE
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes February 20, 1996
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE ~ Review of the Uniform
Sign Program and Design Guidelines for the proposed development o fan integrated shopping center
totaling 495,736 square feet on 47.33 acres of land with proposed Phase One consisting of a 132,065
square foot Home Depot home improvement center in the Mixed Use (Commercial, Residential,
Office) District of the Terra Vista Community Plan located at the northwest comer of Foothill
Boulevard and Rochester Avenue - APN: 227-151-18 and 24.
Background:
This application was approved by the City Council on October 4, 1995. Conditions of Approval
· requiring that a Uniform Sign Program be prepared for review and approval of the Planning
Commission and the Design Guidelines be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Committee
prior to the issuance of building permits were included in the Resolution approved by the City
........... Council.
Desian Parameters:
The site has been rough graded and cleared of all vegetation in preparation for Phase One
development of the Home Depot. The balance of the site has also been rough graded in preparation
for future development of the balance of the shopping center.
Staff Comments:
The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Issues: The following design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding this
project.
Uniform Sign Program
1. Three different types of monument signs are proposed at this time to identify the shopping
center and major tenants within the project. In addition, it is possible that all pad tenants may
be able to have an individual tenant monument sign as currently written. Given the master
Site Plan as currently shown, it is possible that up to 13 monument signs could be placed along
the frontage of Foothill Boulevard, which is approximately 2,080 feet, and up to three along
Rochester Avenue, which has a frontage of slightly over 1,000 feet. Staff feels that this
number of monument signs is excessive and should be reduced.
2. As currently ~vritten, the Sign Program would allow certain major tenants to have more than
three signs per business in certain situations. The City's Sign Ordinance only allows a
maximum of three signs per business. It should be included in the program that no tenant shall
be allowed to have more than three signs. }27 '~ ~
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-11 ~ TERRA VISTA PROMENADE
February 20, 1996
Page 2
3. No specific size restriction has been placed on ~vall signs, as currently written. Staff feels that
a maximum square footage of letter height restriction should be applied to the sign program.
4. The sign type "A-3" monument sign should be designed to be more compatible with other
proposed project monument signs throughout the project, including, but not limited to,
monument sign form, letter colors and styles, and lighting.
5. Sign cabinets should not be allowed; all letters should be individually cut letters for all walt
signs.
6. As proposed, major users would be allowed to have one sign per entrance facing Foothill
Boulevard, as long as the total number of signs does not exceed three per business. Staff
would recommend that no tenant be allowed to have more than one sign per building face,
regardless of the number of entrances along Foothill Boulevard.
' 7. ' The Committee should consider the proposed colors for wall signs. The applicant proposes
to allow anchor tenants and restaurants to have any recognized corporate color for their sign
and major users and shop tenants to have up to three letter colors within their sign (excluding
logo colors).
Design Guidelines
1. Corrugated metal roofing should be eliminated as a proposed accent roofing material within
the project.
2. The conceptual design of the to~ver focal point between Majors 5 and 6 should be modified
as directed by the Planning Commission during the development review process.
3. Additional information is needed regarding the public art program and how it will compliment
the design theme of the shopping center.
4. Details of other design elements, such as bicycle racks, drinking fountains, etc., should be
contained within the design guidelines.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Committee recommend the modifications requested by staff and have
them incorporated into the Uniform Sign Program text for further review and consideration of the
Planning Commission. In addition, the Committee should direct the applicant to modify the Design
Guidelines supplement as recommended by staff and incorporate any further information or revisions
as requested by the Committee.
D, esign Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE
February 20, 1996
Page 3
The Design Review Committee recommended that the following modifications be made to the
Uniform Sign Program and Design Guidelines:
Uniform Sign Program:
1. The program should be modified to match the sign program for the Terra Vista Town Center
in terms of monument sign numbers and minimum distance between monument signs.
2. A monument sign design for a single tenant should be designed and incorporated into the sign
program text. This sign type should be similar in size, lettering and material use with the
monument sign type "A-2."
3. The monument sign type at the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Mayten should be an "A-2."
4."' The monument sign type "A-2" may be eliminated at the intersection of Rochester and Poplar.
However, in all other locations where an "A-2" is proposed, the sign monuments should be
constructed even if the lettering is not applied to the signs.
5. Shop tenants should be limited to a primary sign letter color of red; no corporate colors (if
other than red) may be used as the primary sign color.
Design Guidelines
1. All references to corrugated metal roofing should be eliminated.
2. The proposed design of the planter pots, waste receptacles, and benches should be modified
to be more compatible with the architecture of the shopping center.
3. The structure at the focal point of the shopping center (between Majors 5 and 6) should be
modified to be a taller, airy clock tower element as previously recommended by the Planning
Commission.
4. A more detailed rendering and description of the proposed promenade wood trellis structure
should be provided. The Committee expressed concern that the structure may appear flimsy
with the proposed wood member sizes.
5. All architectural elements at the intersection of Foothill and Rochester should tie into the citrus
theme, as previously required by the Planning Commission. These elements include the
terraced water feature, the plaque and the artwork. The Design Review Committee should
review the final design of these elements.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-11 - TERRA VISTA PROMENADE
February 20, 1996
Page 4
6. The Committee requested that the applicant provide further information to justify how the
proposed slate stone material is consistent with the proposed architecture and in context with
the historical citrus nature of the site. The Committee suggested that a natural river rock
material may be more in context with the theme of the shopping center.
7. The Committee expressed concem that the Activity Center and water feature were being
designed and developed in phases. The Committee noted that the design needs to be
integrated completely and should relate to the on-site development as well as the comer.
The Committee recommended that all of the proposed revisions be incorporated into the documents
for review and approval of the Planning Division. Once these items are addressed and incorporated
into the appropriate documents, then the Uniform Sign Program may be scheduled for the Planning
Commission and the Design Guidelines again scheduled for review of the Design Review
Committee.
TERRA VISTA UNIFORM SIGN 'PROGRAM COMPARISON
Sign Area 48 s.f. 90 s.f. 50 s.f.
Letter Height 24" 24" 24"
Length 24' 25' 25'
Number Max 3 1 per entry Max 3
Colors Red, blue, wht, yell Red, Blue, white Red +10% other
Sign Area 30 s.f. 30 s.f. 22.5 s.f.
Letter Height 18" 18" 18"
Length 15' 25' 15'
Number Max 2 Max 3 Max 3
Colors Red, blue, wht, yell Red + 10% other Red
Sign Area 50 s.f. 60 s.f. 50 s.f.
Letter Height 24" 24" 24"
Length 20' 25' 25'
Number Max 2 Max 3 Max 3
Colors Red, blue, wht, yell Red + 10% other Red + 10% other
Sign Area 12 s.f. 42 s.f. 21 s.f.
Letter Height 15" 8" 8"
Length 8'6" 7' 7'
Sign Area 27 s.f. 42.6 s.f. 18.8 s.f.
Letter Height 16" 32" 20"
Length 13 '6" 16' 8'
..... Sign'Area 't 1 s.f. 11 s.f. 24 s.f.
Letter Height Z?Z' 24" 8"
Length " 6'6" 4'8"
I:\DANXTVSIGNS.WPD
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA '
STAFF REPORT
DATE: March 27, 1996
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Scott Murphy, AICP, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY REVIEW 96-05 - PATRICK SULLIVAN ASSOCIATES/SAN
BERNARDINO COUNTY - A courtesy review of a proposed juvenile housing facility
located in the General Industrial designation (Subarea 14) of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, located on the west side of Etiwanda Avenue, north of Fourth Street -
APN: 229-283-70.
ANALYSIS:
A. Applicable Requlations: The site on which the juvenile detention facility is proposed is owned
and operated by the County of San Bernardino. As such, the project is not subject to the
provisions of the Rancho Cucamonga Development Code nor the City's Development Review
process. The only approval authority granted to the City would be through the encroachment
permit process for pubtic improvements and grading plan review to make sure adjacent
properties are not adversely impacted by the development. In this case, no encroachments
within the public right-of-way are proposed. As a result, the Planning Commission's review
of the project is advisory/informational only.
B. General/Discussion: The applicant is proposing to develop a maximum security juvenile
housing facility on the site of the West Valley Detention Center. The application anticipates
the construction of a 40-bed facility at the northeast corner of the site. Access to the site is
obtained via the east entry off Etiwanda Avenue. Employees and vehicles transporting
detainees will access the southern parking area into a secured "sallyport." All detainees enter
the building through the southerly portion of Building No. 1. The parking area on the west
side of the building will be used for visitors.
The buildings are designed with block construction and standing seam metal roof. The
building interiors are laid out to access most facility functions without leaving the building.
Every 10 beds have access to a "day room." All rooms have access to the multi-purpose
rooms and eating facilities in the center of the building. All meals are prepared at the West
Valley Detention Facilities and transported to the juvenile facility through the sallyport. The
east and west halves of the building (20 beds each) have direct access to an outdoor
basketball/recreation area.
I] EM G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PR 96-05 - PATRICK SULLIVAN ASSOCIATES/SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
March 27, 1996
Page 2
The ultimate plan for the facility includes the construction of a second housing unit (Building
No. 2). When completed, the facility will provide housing for 80 juvenile offenders. Also, the
future plans include the construction of an administration building (Building No. 3). Visitor's
facilities will be provided within the administration building. Detainees will be accompanied
from the housing building to the administration building through enclosed passageways
connecting the buildings.
C. Desiqn Review Committee: The Design Review Committee (Barker, McNiel, Henderson)
reviewed the application and suggested the following items be forward to San Bernardino
County for consideration in the final design:
1. Landscaping should be provided along the Etiwanda Avenue frontage. The design
should be consistent with the overall design for Etiwanda Avenue.
2. Given the visibility from Etiwanda Avenue, alternative fencing material should be
considered in place of the chain link fence on the east side of the complex. The
........... applicant will investigate possible alternatives for presentation to the Planning
Commission.
3. The height of the fence on the east side of the complex should be lowered to the
minimum acceptable height that maintains the integrity of the security system.
4. The applicant indicated a larger-scale elevation could be available for the Planning
Commission meeting so the Commission can review the building elevations in more
detail. Of padicular concern was the split-face block and burnished block relationship.
D. Technical Review Committee: The Technical Review Committee reviewed the application and
recommended the following:
1. Pursuant to the Etiwanda/San Sevaine Master Plan of Drainage Repor'UPolicy any
drainage flows which pass below the southerly City boundary may not exceed the
amount specified in said drainage report or mitigation is required. With the construction
of the West Valley Detention Center, City master plan drainage facilities were
constructed and the watershed area revised to the extent as to provide the necessary
mitigation for this project. However, the proposed Juvenile Housing facility area is
tributar,/to the Etiwanda/San Sevaine watershed area, and said area shall drain to the
intersection of Etiwanda Avenue and Fourth Street. The area shall not drain westerly
in Fourth Street as the existing storm drain pipe in Fourth Street was not sized to
include this drainage area, and said storm drain pipe is undersized to carry the existing
tributary Q100 flows.
If it is the intention of the County to phase the construction of the Juvenile Housing
Facility due to budget constraints, then, as an interim condition, the City will allow the
site to drain to the existing detention basin located south of the Detention Center along
Fourth Street. However, the detention basin must remain in place until such time as
the ultimate drainage improvements are constructed diverting the drainage flows to the
intersection of Fourth Street and Etiwanda Avenue.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
PR 96-05 - PATRICK SULLIVAN ASSOCIATES/SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY
March 27, 1996
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the application and
forward any comments to San Bernardino County and the California Youth Authority for possible
inclusion in the final design of the project.
City Planner
BB:SM:
Attachments: Exhibit "A" Location Plan
Exhibit "B" Site Plan
Location Map
~ County of
~:'~-j~i~: ~ San Bernardino
LLI
4TH
City of Ontario W"~ ~,
S
0.47 0 0.47 0.94 Miles
~"Z,;/za,r ,2-/,,~ 'k
Location Plan
Proposed Juvenile Detention Facility
W
0.24 0 0.24 0.48 Miles
Z'X///,~'/r ,2/- Z"