HomeMy WebLinkAbout1988/08/31 - Agenda Packetry
t�
eft
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: June 15, 1988
T0: rbvnr ano Hembers of the City Council
FAOM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: DO COMM, Senior Planner
C�"r 73(
SUBJECT- cl1yI- 1000(TAL ASSESg1ENi AND SIGN CPZINAwCE MENDRO(T 88-
m---- tnny7y -mm�ar ous aav:n n o e
reyar ng neon signs and xtndmx signs.
I. PFCOWENDATI3N: The Planning Commission Vcomends approval.
II. BACKGRDUM: li,'s amendment will i
concern ng neon and window signs Co.,
the City Council at their March
rcoomondaticns from tb^ Chamber
amendment was scheduled for ruvlew
April 13, 1988, but vas continued at
Commerce. In t,efr ;- ntinLance reque
proposed changes seined substantlall.,
Task Force Ceamaittee recommendatinna_
fy the City's regulations
tent with the direction of
meeting in response to
Comorco. The proposed
the Planning Commission on
e request of the Chamber of
the Chalbcr noted that the
fferent frm the Chamber's
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider this witk minor
modifications. taihe 1Comission's deliberations p10 -urld upon three
Issues:
I. Signs within the public right -of -wy - Councielmphad directed
banners signs andapennantsowlthfn tthhe public rightrof wayafor
recommended coodel Lion of these provf;ionse based upon nnoopinion
of the City Attorney, to preserve the City's ability to
prohibit political signs• on public property.
2. Interior Neon Signs - The Planning Commiss:on recommended that
neon signs located on the interior of a window need not be
fully enclosed to a metal frame and covered with plexigl,>ss.
3. window Sign Area - The Planning Commission recomended that a
amximmm limit of 150 square feet in aree be established for
window signs, in addition to the limitation ct 30% of the
wtndow area.
r
� •„;� r- Y z� iS
y.,`y?'�. •'.1•�. ..� 1��4 '��sh9�j�'.�- °,y'�e'fiX,'.or'. .� - f t ,i. ".i �� ti��i �"i %..?
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT-,
RE: SIGN OROMANCE ",WEH711 08-01 Y•?
June 15. 1988
Page T
The Comalssion's modifications are reflected in the ettached
Ordinance for your consideration. Also attached are the minutes of
the Consission hearing.
Attachments: May 11, 1989 Planning Commission Staff Report
May 11, 1988 Planning Comaission hinates
Resolution Recommending Approval
Ordinance
1
r rv-r:
'r.
d
Crrf OP RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: may 11, 1986 MMM�
TO: Chairman and Meabers of the Planning Coa`is. ion
FROM: Bred Buller, City Planner
BT: Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONNEVAL ASSESSMENT AND SIGN ORDINANCE mENCMENT 88-
93�n s
.,.,nonce regarding, neon signs, window signs, and
tempo:arf signs 'or City s,,)cnsored special events.
I. BACKGROUND: This Item was continued at the request of the Chamber
aft rcee to allow them time to revir4 and address the proposed
changnare subshantiallyadifferenttt those that the
Chamber. The proposed changes were reviewed by the City council at
their meeting of March 16, 1988, The City Council directed staff
to prepare the attached Ordinance accordingly.
Staff has not received any comments to date from the Chamber.
II. RECOMENDATION: Staff recommends that tho Planning Commission
con uc a pu c hearing, review and consider any cements from the
Chamber of Commerce and other public testiamny. If, after such
amendments are acceptable the Commission adoption of the attached Resolution
recommending approval to the City Council would be in order.
fully subm , ed,,'/
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:DC:ko
Attachments: April 13, 1988 Staff Report
Resolution
Ordinance
ITEM 8
ry
r
t
r
I
I. ASSTRACT: This report presents certain changes to the Sign
rlrnance as directed by the City Council in response to
recommendations from the Chamber of Coacerce.
II. WXGROUND: The Sign Ordinance pprohibits signs with exposed
rub ng� : such as neon signs. In response to the growing
proliferation of these signs, the Planning Division conducted a
survey in Jut a of 1987 and datermined Mat fifty (50; businesses
had illegal neon signs. Most of these signs were small signs
advertising 'Open% 'Coors ", 'Pizza", etc., that hung in the
storefront window. Letters were sent out informing these
bust^ *sses of the violation and the need :o comply with the sign
regulations. Several businesses contacted the Chamber of
Commerce.
The Chamber of Comcerce created a task force to review the City's
Sign Ordinance and to make recoomendations for Possible changes in
the Ordinance. The City Planner and ,toff participated in several
mmeetin3s with the task force between July, 1987 and October, 1987.
The Planning Comission on January 27, 1988. preThetedChamober's
recommendations, together with the comments of the Planning
Commission, were presented to the City Council for direction on
February 47, 1988. The City Council directed staff to prepare
alternatives to the Chamber recommendations and highli ht sections
of the Sign Ordinance that may warant charges. Staff presented
concepts to allow neon signs and modify the window sign regulations
for the City Councils consideration on March 16, 1980. The City
Council concurred with staff's recommendations and directed staff
to prepare this ammend=ent accordingly.
ITEM S
i
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
o
DATE:
S
April 13, 1988
T0:
Chairmn and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM:
Brad Buller, City Planner
BY:
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
SUBJECT:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSEssmoa AND SIGN OMINANCE MOMENT 88_
— ar ous aren n s m
gSidinance regar ng noon signs, window signs, and
temporary signs for City sponsored special events.
I. ASSTRACT: This report presents certain changes to the Sign
rlrnance as directed by the City Council in response to
recommendations from the Chamber of Coacerce.
II. WXGROUND: The Sign Ordinance pprohibits signs with exposed
rub ng� : such as neon signs. In response to the growing
proliferation of these signs, the Planning Division conducted a
survey in Jut a of 1987 and datermined Mat fifty (50; businesses
had illegal neon signs. Most of these signs were small signs
advertising 'Open% 'Coors ", 'Pizza", etc., that hung in the
storefront window. Letters were sent out informing these
bust^ *sses of the violation and the need :o comply with the sign
regulations. Several businesses contacted the Chamber of
Commerce.
The Chamber of Comcerce created a task force to review the City's
Sign Ordinance and to make recoomendations for Possible changes in
the Ordinance. The City Planner and ,toff participated in several
mmeetin3s with the task force between July, 1987 and October, 1987.
The Planning Comission on January 27, 1988. preThetedChamober's
recommendations, together with the comments of the Planning
Commission, were presented to the City Council for direction on
February 47, 1988. The City Council directed staff to prepare
alternatives to the Chamber recommendations and highli ht sections
of the Sign Ordinance that may warant charges. Staff presented
concepts to allow neon signs and modify the window sign regulations
for the City Councils consideration on March 16, 1980. The City
Council concurred with staff's recommendations and directed staff
to prepare this ammend=ent accordingly.
ITEM S
i
t
III. A1W.YSIS: The attached Council staff report summarizes the
iae' n�aents to the Sign Ordinance:
IV. RF.COO MOATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
arop-E—Va—aTfached Resolution recommending approval of Sign
Grdirance Amendment 88 -01.
Res ally ft d,
Bra e
Ctty P1 ner
08:OC:ko
Attachments: Resolution
Ordinance
M
L�
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
OATE: larch 16, 1988
TO: Mayor and Motors of the Cfty Coun:il
FROM: Brad Buller, CCiittsy planner
�
BY:y�t�l�w i�!s,IAI7I
SUBJECT: SIGN ORDIMAMCE - Reviw of changes proposed by Chamber of
ommerce TMUnued from February 17, IM)
1. RECOMiMOATIOM: Staff reccegnds that the City Council reviey and
cons r alternatives discussed in this :*port and provide
direction to staff to prepare necessary moand"Ats to the Sign
Ordinance.
II. BACKGOUID' The City Council was prasentad with the Chamber's
recaewe a ions regarding neon signs and window signs at their
nesting of February 17, 1988. It* Council raised the following
concerns:
1. Signags should relate to the land use zone.
2. If too restrictive, sign regulations us hurt bu:intss.
3. Colors, eaterials and eaintenAnce of window signs should be
addressed.
After considerable discussion, the City Council Continued this it"
to allow the Council time to review And consider the Information
presented. The Council also directed staff to highlight sections
of the Sign Ordinance that may need aawndswnt.
III. ANALYSIS
A. App=oach: This report Presents altaraative solutions to
i3dnss the MY Council's concerns and the recommendations
of the Chamber of Commerce regardin3 neon signs and window
signs. The solution to the issues is twofold.
1. Education - A proactive approach is needed to educate the
.T_ is, owner of the City's sign regulations and
advertising opportunities:
CITY COUNCIL Sl. F REPORT
:. RE: SIGN ORDINANCE
March 16, 1986
-;j Page 2
a. The Small Business Guide being prepared by the
Chamber of Comeerce explains the City's sign process
and should be made available to their awvhership,
particularly Raw members. The City Council could
increase sign permit fees by $2.00 in order to
provide a copy of the Sign Ordi:ence to all
businesses with their application package.
Ill Shopping center Omar$ and the Chamber of Coeserce
shoe d take a proactive approach in educating their.
umbers /tenants /property mane ors concerning
promotional campaigns and advertising the ,practices
to 1st residents know of their goods and services and
when to find them. A shopping center Omer and /or
manager should •cork with his tenants in develop!ng
joint advertlslry and special sales or promotional
events - all the tenants ,working togather want
maximum advertising banefit at minimums cost. Staff
would recommend that a cautious approach be ttkan ir.
amending the Sign Ordinance. Changes to the
Ordinance should be considered as 'fine tuning'
rather thar. a •major overhaul•.
2- ".esthetics - Tie issues relative to types of allowable
s gnT i aid- the standards for size and design are bast
addressed by taking a cautious approach. Staff
recommends that subtle changes to the Sign Ordinance be
attempted first and the results monitored to see if the
changes address the concerns of the Paunch and the
Chamber. The next section of this report highlights
areas of the Sign Ordinance when changes my be
appropriate.
8. Potential Amendments: _
Entirul Yearn SL - Amending the Sign Ordinance to
allow Tneon s no ust a simple utter of lifting the ban
on neon. Then are two major concerns regarding the use
Of exposed neon tubing: 1) aesthetics and 2) safety.
Staff believes that the aesthetics or •quality' of neon
signs can be adequately controlled through the sign
permit process, as are other types of permanent signs,
and by adopting design guidelines. The issues of safety
are relevant to window or other neon signs susptnded in
midair, interior wall- mounted, and neon signs with open,
exposed tubing. Generally speaking, exposed tubes are
fragile and can be broken by high winds or physical
contact. Improper installation can also result in fire
' _--��$.`,�yls_s'.�i� "•!�y -` "' '- - -. w " .,Vi,µ,,-• ;.K
CITY COUNCIL STAVF,:R„ .AT `' °• ta_y
RE: SIGN CRDIMK'C, ' b ' •r=
"arch 16, 1966
Page 3 .r,
t'1'4
T <}
poundal. The issue of safety is discussed at length in
:E-
the attached study by the City of West Coring ($ee
Exhibit •A -).
r
<
Staff rrcoo rands that the following standards be
considered for external men signs:
a. Limit their use to'Wre intense comeercfal zones,
such as:
r
- Commmfty Comercial
= Regvonel Related Commercial
b, Require totallly
enclosed installation
li
C. Within shopping Centers, allow as a part of a Uniform
Sign Program
5
d. susiness identification only
2. Internal MineeS_IMM - Noon signs Touted in the
s n wore —mew
r
rtndaw t1N same is$"$ relative to
aesthetics
aconecerrn externally
not
n, there i rdmtnggn the renumber
neon signs, content and $ise. Staff would• recommend the
following standards be considered for noon window signs:
a. Limit their use to commercial zones cnly
b. Require totally enclosed installation
c• Msxfmum site - 2 sq. ft.
d. Om per business
e, NO product advertisfni or business names - oust be
generic, such as Mer or Open*
3. Wiedew SI - The Sf9n Ordinance retolnftes the nevi for
weporary—wTadow signs for certain types of busine°tes to
advertise special sales. The majority
of windok sign _
violations are regarding the six (6) foot Might
limitation in the current
regulations which the Ch Me'r
le
Commission have pressed concernawithiothe
aestheticsmof
window signs and the length of time they are displayed.
In
particular, then were objections to the florescent
colors used in painted window
signs and the lack of
regulations governing how long they My be displayed. I
Staff would eons dered fortwindow �signsc following standards be s
A. Limit their use to retail consrdrcisl zones only
b. - Neximu height limit - 20 feet
f ' Ailow for thirty days /event, 4 ivents /year
p[ Colon must be compatible to building design/colors
AAA raw signs should be placed in frames
Brad 1ui dr 44y
'�:il�`1�4.�r�y K^�fir"'�- .e•' _
M. _ ••'ri. �'.e�zx`R��C-c�
."n°'�etR
wry ,s,�i,:�;,
CITY COUNCILIS`. FFIREPORT
MN
'
RE: SIGN ORDINANCE:"
Attachments:
Exhibit
march 16, 1968,
- West Covina Neon Study
Page 4
V
A. Limit their use to retail consrdrcisl zones only
b. - Neximu height limit - 20 feet
f ' Ailow for thirty days /event, 4 ivents /year
p[ Colon must be compatible to building design/colors
AAA raw signs should be placed in frames
Brad 1ui dr 44y
City p nner
81: ;LO
Attachments:
Exhibit
'A'
- West Covina Neon Study
Exhibit
V
-Neon Survey
Exhibit
'C''-
Window Survey
ExNlbtt
'0'
- Nep of Commercial Zones
Exhibit
'E'
- Sign Ordinance
II
�Y
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REFORT
DATE:
ilaren.16, 1988 '
-C:
Nayor and Nnbers of the City council
FROM:
Bra3 Buller, City Planner
BY:
Dan Coleman, senior Planner
MEST:
SIGN ORDINANCE - Addendum RCPort
I. RECOYAL40ATION: Staff recomeands that the City Council rnvitw and Ids
direction two staff to prepare discussed
ecessary mendeents todthe Sijn
Ordinance.
II. BACKGROUND: In addition to those concerns outlillea'in she previous
repo ,"iFa City Cwncil raised concern WILh the need for siSnage
such hias thhep101YeariAnnivers aarryhFounder'snDay pirapdas,oete events,
I31. mporsry flags, f bcnners. soiggnns, and tpenn pennants within ethe 1public
right -of -way sebject to the following standa•ds.,
a. Limit ,heir use to City sponsored special events
b. Placement shall not cause public safety hazard
c. Comply witil California Vehicle Code
d. Rcquire approval by City Engineer
Respec ully submitted,
ra' 4
City P anne
BS: DC•ko
37Z -A
1
•�
tll y i
K
4
t�
1
9
r
a • a s a
Urad, Huller, City. P'
Items and 0 were t
requests, tems P and
1988 meetln respect
by the Comm Ss as
also be combined.
f f a f f
announced modifications to this agenda.
will by the appl leant. At the applicants's
being continued to the May 25, and June 8,
Items E and F will be heard concurrently
as Items G, H, and I. Items J and 0 will
- OHSENT CALENDAR
A. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MA 49 - SMITH - A
acres o en nto parce s n t ery Low
District (2 dwellings units par acre), locate the sc
Strang Lane, west of Carnelian Avenue - APM 1061 -2 07.
Hatton: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chltiea, unanimously
acopt the Consent Calendar.
• e • r
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. E.HVIRONMFNTAI
c7
to
regar nq neon s gns, Window tSigns,aa d temporary stgnsgfor thonCice
sponsored events. (Continued from April 13, 1988)
Brad Buller, City Planner, presented the staff report. He advised t„dt
the Chamber of Commerce is requesting that :his item be continue• in
order that the Commission and the Chamber could meet in a war Clop
form.
Commissioner Tolstoy pointed out that the original Sign Ordinance
allowed the sign area to not exceed 6 feet, and the amendment allowed up
to 20 feet above the finished grade. He asked for an example of where
this might occur.
Mr. Buller explained that there are a few instances in the larger
existing shopping centers where the architectural design included higher
windows. The amendment was intended to not only address signs on new
facilities, but those on existing businesses as well.
Commissioner Chitiea pointed out that the amendment provides 304 as a
mint 1`113 coverage for temporary signs but does not provide a maximum.
She felt a maximum should be included.
Mr. Buller concurred a maximum should be added.
Planning Commission Minutes .2-
�•i
May 11. 1988
9
Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attorney, advised that if the City were to
stipulate any exclusions to the placing of signs within rtyhts -of -way,
cf such as allowing placement of temporary signs by the City, it could not
legally prohibit the placement of political signs within those same
rights -ef -way. The only way to prohibit the proliferation of political
? signs within rights -of -way is to exclude all signs.
t' Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing,
.r'
John Mannerino,' representing the Rancho Cucamonga Chamber of Commerce,
1L, indicated that until just recently he was under the Impression that a
pL
workshop Would Commerce to an efturtt to address the Chamber's o ncerns with
Y- the Sign Ordinance Amendment and that this hearing was to be continued.
= The following individuals addressed the Commission in opposition to the
Sign Ordinance Amendment as presented. It was the opinion of those
fi addressing the COmmission that florescent window signs should be
allowed. They were also in support of a workshop between the Chamber
and the Commission.
Larry Rosenthal, owner of a Foothlll Boulavard Coffee Shop
i. Vic Armejo, owner of the Pet Stop
>. Mike Mitchell, 10_4 Kingston, Rancho Cucamonga
Craig Mefferd, 8724 E. Foothill, Rancho Cucamonga
i Stella Medley, 8637 Base Line, Rancho Cucamonga (Sweet Merchantile)
Cheryl Mefferd, 8724 E. Foothill, Rancho Cucamonga
Irving Voorheis, 5922 Villa Drive, Rancho Cucamonga (Sunrize Market)
Bob Forrest, 8049 Rosebud Street, Rancho Cucamonga
Carlos Hernandez, 9166 Foothill, Rancho Cucamonga (Carlos Halr Design)
Lisan�ohnson, 9220 Timberline, RanchonCucamongaa(Sign Painter)
Danielle Morasse, 9455 Hemlock, Pet Stop, Ranco Cucaaongs
Lynda Unger, Star's Fitness Center, Rancho Cucamonga
There were no further comments, therefore the public hearing was closed.
Chairman McNiel stated that he was unaware of any discussion which may
have lead the Chamber of Commerce to believe that a workshop between the
Commission and the Chamber would take place. He pointed out that the
original posture of the Planning Commission was that the Sign Ordinance
remain in its original state, which is more restrictive than the
amendment now being proposed. He advised that the ordinance was
undergoing its current revision at the direction of the City Council.
Chairman McNiel asked for clarification of one issue raised during he
Public hearing relative to temporary window signs in businesses within
the Office /Professional category,
Planning Commission Minutes _3_
May 11, 1988
Mr. Buller advised that temporary window signs were allowed in
Commercial designations only. He stated that it was s concern at the
City Council level that office projects are not designed for retail
advertising and window signs detract from the Office /Professional image
of a center.
- Commissioner Tolstoy pointed out that Rancho Cucamonga is a city with
#: almost 95,000 citizens, which would seem to promote the prosperity of
signseshouldbnotnbe�requireds to o be ullyoencLsed. LHetdisoesuggested
that to the design of their neon sign, a business should be allowed to use a graphic depicting the type of business. He supported temporary
window signs painted in a color to complement a centers color decor, and
Opposed the use of florescent pat t.
Commissioner Blakesley stated that everyone wants an attractive
f, community and wants to support
Commissioner Tolstoy's posit relativertosn oe and t mporary signs.
.� Commissioner Chittea stated that auendaents to the Sign Ordinance were
C generated by the City Council. She agreed that taporary window signs
should not be the color of the building, but should be of a color
Palette to complement the colors of the center. She could not, however,
support the use of florescent paint. She stated that a maximum space
coverage needs to be established for temporary window signs. She stated
that the Council was more permissive in that they allowed the use of
�r neon algns and she would not like to liberalize that section further,
Particularly by allowing the use of graphics.
Chairman McN1el was concerned with the issue of temporary signs for
businesses within the Office /Professional designation and suggested that
the City Council should review that area closely. He was not opposed to
allowing temporary signs for those businesses. Commiss s pporttbusin sslos 1n theaOffics /Professionalhcentersiwas th tfthey were
to complement and be ancillary to those uses. He questioned if they met
that criteria why they would have to attract from the outside.
Chairman NcNtel asked for a consensus relative to internal neon signs.
witmmhautttherrequirment Blakesley, and
being encased and all use of neon
the design. 9 graphics 1n
Chairman MCNiel and Commissioner Chitlea were opposed.
Chairman McNiel then asked for a consensus relative to colors for
temporary signs.
.. Planning Commission Mluutes .d_
- May 11, 1988
we
r
Commissioners Tolstoy, Emerick, Chlttea. and 314kesley supported the use
Of contrasting colors to complement the color paSette of the center.
Commissioner Chitipa clarified that the City Ceuncfl should discuss this
Issue fu or with the business owners.
Chairman McNiel stated he was not opposed to the use of florescent
colors.
O Suggested
with regardtotemporary sign alternative 1t lmight be d too l specificlto
define color ranges within the ordinance.
Notion: Moved by Chitlaa, soconded by Tolstoy, to direct staff to
forward the Sign Ordinance amendment to the City COUHCil with the
recommendation that the Council considor Section 3 and 4 for possible
modifications
based on City Attorn armed by theefollowingdvoteations
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE - carried
f f f f
C.
Nine � - ine request to re uce t r. re u re m n mma �"1 "AIaw o 0.29 acres for Parcel 2 and 0.89 acres for ParcelsIZIn t e a Oistrict of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan located
s thwest corner of Klusman Avenue and San Bernardino Road -IS 24 (Continued from April 27, 1988)
0. ENTAL SESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL NAP 11044 - NOVARETTE
v s on aBd Speciftt lan, Subarea 3 located t thessouthwestocorner
odn Avenue nd San Bernardino Road - ACN 208- 151 -24
(CO ed from April Ra 1988)
Chairman McMtel announced t
applicant. ha this item had been withdrawn by the
f f f f f
E. CONDITIONAL ucc arou,. e
to an approve s to lum PAACO - A modification ne
retail center located atathe southwest co yeraof Foothill Boulevard
and Ramona Avenue in Subarea 3 of the thill Specific plan,
Community Commercial, on 3.245 acres of land PN 208- 301 -15, 16,
17.
F. VARIANCE 88 -05 - PARCO - A request to allow a reduc rear yard
Planning Commission Minutes _5_
ay 11, 1988
i
I
RESOLUTION N0. 88 -97
l'• A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMiSSIO11 OF THE CITv OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA. CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 88 -01, AMENDINq TITLE 14 OF THE
y RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIF7 REGULATIONS FOR
ti NEON AND WINDOW; SIGNS
WHEREAS, on the 11th day of May, 1989, the Planning Commission held a
duly advertised public hearing pursuant to Section 65864 of the California
Government Code.
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has made the
fall ;wing— Marng:
1. That the Amendment will provide for development of a
comprehensivaly planned urban community within the
District that is superior to development otherwise
allowable under alternate regulations; and
2. That the Amendment will provide for development
} within the District in a manner consistent with the
Genersl Plan and with related development and growth
management policies of the City; and
3. That the Amendment will provide for the
construction, Improvement, or extension of
transportation facilities, public utilities, and
public services required with the District.
SECTION 2: The Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission has found that
this pro Ject—w-fMnot create a s'gnificant adverse effect on the environment
and recommends to City Council the issuance of a Negative Declaration on May
11, 1983,
NOM, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. That pursuant to Section 65850 to 65855 or the
California Government Code, that the Planning
Commission Of the City of P,dncho Cucamonga hereby
recommends approval of Sigi, Ordinance Amendment 88-
01.
.'. The Planning Commission hareby recommends that the
City Council approve and adopt Sign Ordinance
Amendment 88 -01 to modify the Municipal Code per the
attached Ordinance.
1
k "" 'y� fM:,F"�w1y..�.li�rP�t t-r V ;• . Yri _ - - .�;c-.'_ -.rc.:.i°�t s +:ll` ?t�".s- �jv'�`,#t
PLAIT SI COl1NISSIOM RfiSOLUTlOM t.'
RE :' 5IER ORD:,AMENOIKNT�83 -01 ' -+
APPROVED,ANO;ADOPTEA THIS 11TH DAY OF NAY, 1988.
PLANNING C"ISSION OF THE CITY OF RaHrwn niravnvny
I, Brad Buller, Oc ,Y Secretary of the Planning ComafSSln of the C'ty of
Rancho Cucaaanga, do,Acveby certify that the foregaing, Resolution was duly and
CitylofiRanchoroCucamjng s t a reguls Rmeeting of t1k',, P'anM 9Commission ikeld
on the 11th day of yay;Nf-188, by the' +ollowfng Vote -to -wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS; CHITIEA, TOLSTOY, BIAKESLE'f, EMERICK, MCNIEL
NOES: C0MINISSIONERS: HONE
ABSENT: C011MISSIONERS: NONE f�
-Z-
,j
r
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUKCIL Or THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, r,AL1FORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
88 -01, MENDING TITLE 14 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA
RUNICIPAL CODE TO MODIFY REGULATIONS FOR NEON AND WI NO ON
i SIGNS AND ADDING PROVISION FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS FOR CITY
d' SPONSORED SPECIAL EVENTS
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does ordain as
follows:
SECTION 1: Section 14,08.030 of Chapter 14.08 is amended to read as
follows, ni" wards end graphics:
1
4, 14.00.030 Area of sign. 'Area of sign' shall be computed by
including the entire area within a single, continuous, rectilinear perimeter
of not more than eight straight lines, or a circle or an ellipse, enclosing
the extreme limits of the writing, representation, emblem, or other display,
together with any material or color fonoing an integral part of the background
of the display or used to differentiate the sign from the backdrop of
structure against which it is placed, but not including :ny supporting
framework or bracing that is clearly incidental to the display Itself. In the
case of a two - sided, multi- stdcd, or three dimensional sign the area shall be
computed as including the maximum single display surface which is visible from
'. any ground position at one time.
9
INDIVIDUALLCrraK
IX
1
Urk Ci�v
DOKVOx1AL LKTTFf eaul Stan A+i is
CaWAL u rmin"
v
\ \
\\� Q\ ,.
\
DON WITH BACKGROUND ayr An M13
Determining Sign Areas
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE'NO.
RE: SIGN ORD. AMEND. 88-01
Page 2 L °;
follows: SECTION 2: Section 14.08.380 of Chapter 14.08 is amended to read as
14.08.030 Window si n. 'Window sign" means a sign painted, attached,
interlorrsideeof the window or otherwise easilytvisible within
from thefeet
exteriorhof
the building.
follows; SECTION 3; Section 14.20.070 of Chapter 14.20 is amended to read as
14.20.070 Near signs - exterior. Neon tubing may be permitted as a
sign mater a. n ex r or monu;en s gns and wall signs subject to the
following provisions:
A. Permitted only in thn more int "nse commercial zones:
Community C=aercial
Regional Related Co®ercial
Regional Commercial
B. Ex osed tubing 1s prohibited. Neon tubing shall be
fully enclosed in a metal framo and covered with
plexiglass.
C. Within shopping centers, neon signs may be allowed
only as part of a Uniform Sign Program.
D. Such signs shall be limited to business identification
only, and ma- include graphic symbols
SECTION 4: Section 14.20.071 is added to Chapter 14.20 to read as
follews:
14.20.071 ~<,on st ns - interior. Neon tubing may be permitted as a
sign voter ai tor n er or. w n ow s gns subject to the following provisions:
A. Permitted in commercial zones only;
6. m, more than one neon window sign shall be permitted
Per husiness.
C. Tne sign Brea shall not exceed two square feet and
shall rot exceed 20 feet in height above finished
,grade.
D. Such signs shall be limited to generic messages, such
as 'OPEN" or "PIZZA ". No product advertising or
business identification is allowed.
,��...
Cj CITY�COONCii 6RDiNAkE N0.
RE: SIGN ORD. MEND. U-01
Page 3
follows: SECTION 5: Section 14.20.000 of Chapter 14.20 is-axnded to read as
14.20.000 permitted s1 ns - ltesideattal Zones. The followingg signs
may be Dorm n e rem en a :ones su ec a provisions 1lsted:
(Chart remain: unchangedl
follows: SECTION 6: Section 14.20.100 of Chapter 14.20 is amended to read as
14.20.100 Permittt.�d si ns - Coomercial and Office Zores. The
Following s gns may a ports- n e eamerc a an o ce zones subject to
(see revised chart attached)
follows: SECTION 7: Section 14.20.110 of Chapter 14.20 is amended to read as
14.20.IIr, Permitted s1 ns - Industrial ZMes. The following signs
may be perm fde n e n us r a zones su ec a provisions listed:
(Chart remains unchanged)
follows: SECTION 0: Section 14.24.090 is added to Chapter 14.24 to read as
buildfny ere24.0on90 Sign color^ shoppingicenters, lsign coolortsheuld compliment
the color scheme for the center. The use of garish or flourescent colors is
considered fiappropriate.
SECTION 9: This Council finds that this amendment will not adversely
effect the env romoent and hereby issues a Negative Declaration.
I
1'
a
r
S•= 22
bf
1.3 1
bib Vill Ill's
list PI
• �„�
a
i�
-sill
Ali I
fill
S$
I
��g 3l ] 1
tg
�1
161
$�r�
�,I :i
AY�Y
JIil��a�a�� ��y$�$
9�a��
���ta�
.1
3
J
i
i d
v
31
PH
¢¢6
�FiS�j
yi11
7i
S
Z
lams]
°a°
,@
�nS�
SSS
4
�9c
r
35
355
ggi3
e
t
d
�
a,
E�
Ye
sill
�
d a;A
Egg
a•e
sg�s
i
egyy
plat
X23
ti
IV jigs
JI
S $
a
is
fill
J9a73
Z+a'
���
�a1
kill
��1
'
Otis
.11
,
�1
,s
ajal,
sa
;all
scab
yj
1Gi1
9a d
Alit
89
ea118 d
a
9
a�?
6:
�-
j
a
a
F
7'
n
' illi 1_ _al lij
jp°� r�
3 1
' lit lit
y9 €
a3 i t
-j�
IA
a r
9
M
M
�i
I
August 15, 1988
Mayor and Members of
the city Co;nsel
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9340 Baseline Rd.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
M
Re: Entertainment Permit 87 -01-Ham Clp- Apceal of Planning
Decision to Modify Entertairment Form 97 -01 for
Restaurant /Night club at 10577 Foothill Blvd.
Hearing Date: August 17, 1988
Harry Cos, Inc., doing business as "Harry Cis" appeals from
the decision of the Planning Commission mado Jnly 13, 1988, and
formalized July 27, 1988, on both factual and legal grounds.
I.Q. FACrM BASIS
Appellant Harry C's seeks to modify its entertainment permit
issued on or about June .A4, 1987, to include in the permitted
entertainment at Harry Cgs certain live shows in addition to a
live disc jockey playing uusic.
At issue are complaints made by several agencies prior to
J.-a 7, 1988, and Harry C's response thereto. A lengthy response
`o t::ose allegations was submitted to the Planning Commission, and
is attached to the staff report submitted to this body as attach-
ment Iv. That response io incorporated herein by reference as
thcugh fully not forth.
A brief stuamary of those allegations and an update of Harry
C'9 response in as follows:
I.I. PLANNING OZPARTMEN2 CONCERNS
The Planning Department objected to deterioration in the
landscaping surrounding the Hurry Cos restaurant. Those problems
have boar corrected by replanting, repair and improvement of the
automatic sprinkling system, and by uniformed control guards who
in addition to preserving peace, inhibit the trampling of plants
by clientele and other individuals in the parking lot. At the
present time Harry Cos is unaware of any continuing violations or
dissatisfaction in the Planning Department.
go
HARRY J HIS7EN
'
ono 'g.tr T .•+
awe ur •tt ur+•.t +u+
a:Vtea:: 1. 1Ug::K19"U 92OOI
August 15, 1988
Mayor and Members of
the city Co;nsel
City of Rancho Cucamonga
9340 Baseline Rd.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
M
Re: Entertainment Permit 87 -01-Ham Clp- Apceal of Planning
Decision to Modify Entertairment Form 97 -01 for
Restaurant /Night club at 10577 Foothill Blvd.
Hearing Date: August 17, 1988
Harry Cos, Inc., doing business as "Harry Cis" appeals from
the decision of the Planning Commission mado Jnly 13, 1988, and
formalized July 27, 1988, on both factual and legal grounds.
I.Q. FACrM BASIS
Appellant Harry C's seeks to modify its entertainment permit
issued on or about June .A4, 1987, to include in the permitted
entertainment at Harry Cgs certain live shows in addition to a
live disc jockey playing uusic.
At issue are complaints made by several agencies prior to
J.-a 7, 1988, and Harry C's response thereto. A lengthy response
`o t::ose allegations was submitted to the Planning Commission, and
is attached to the staff report submitted to this body as attach-
ment Iv. That response io incorporated herein by reference as
thcugh fully not forth.
A brief stuamary of those allegations and an update of Harry
C'9 response in as follows:
I.I. PLANNING OZPARTMEN2 CONCERNS
The Planning Department objected to deterioration in the
landscaping surrounding the Hurry Cos restaurant. Those problems
have boar corrected by replanting, repair and improvement of the
automatic sprinkling system, and by uniformed control guards who
in addition to preserving peace, inhibit the trampling of plants
by clientele and other individuals in the parking lot. At the
present time Harry Cos is unaware of any continuing violations or
dissatisfaction in the Planning Department.
go
RE, Entertainment Permit 67 -01 -Harry Con
August 15, 1999
Page 2
4
Y 1 2 SFiPi{T�"S.4EPbB
In the peat there,vere a Hasher of law enfon:emant re:•rponsea
required to Harrrryy C�a restaurant and its immediate environment. Of
Thera vans some dl! isagr eeaurity guards. eHarry9cis hadtbeenpadvised
by Police agencies in other [ncilities that uniformed aecurilj,
guards could often be n source of conflict and additlonal
problems. Since implementation of the �ersonneltonCtheiprvaites
rncommendation of two uniformed security p a law
evenings, until a cg cleared,
facility have all but disappeared.
enforcement responses
The Sh^riifis Department testimony at the 2latming Co=ission
heating further indicated tat the cituaticn under xntrol aid
cI'CiC T'REAE� CoNCEH
There hod developed a pattern of late payiant o! entert'tin-
rent taxes from Harry C's to the City. This was dae to the fact
that Harry C's processed entertainment tax payments with all other
accounts payable through its normal accounting pracedurac
has begun
ing in house bookkeeping and its CPA firm. E ry rib
pay the entertainment taxes separate and apart from its normal
procedures, and will continue to do so. Tbersfors the late pay -
rent pronitho part en Weeny resolved VY some addltior.al bookkeeping
L a ere rs i1CT c O�bLP -
Tba Yire Dist.: ict problems have been discussed in great
detail in Harry C'a response submitted to the Planning Commission.
While numerous allegations were made, Harry cis submits the
problem is grossly exaggerated.
In the course of existence of the restaurant, substantial
work has been done with the e District tin determining Yocc P an cY
counts, furniture location, Fir
District, Harry cis retained Tomes and Associates, a
fire /building /life safety consulting firm from San Diego, for a
binding review of the occupancy levels and lire exit conditions at
Harry Cis. Tomes and Associates report of Ynbruary 12, 1988, (a
copy of whioa is attached as Exhibit ^A ^) supported Harry C's
position as to occupancy count and increased the occupancy load to
a level subntantlally greater than that assigned by the Yire Mar-
shall.
In addition thereto, Tomas and Associates Sound that the
ira two exits for fo
Uniform code e
lnearfeet Gfnneetinthe bar arnThe bar area has our
'� •
RES E.itartairaant Permit 87 -01-Harry CIO
ti August 15, 1988
Page 3
exits and seventeen linear feet, therefore greatly exceeding the
Piro code Regulations.
Sill Tomes of Tomes and Associates e testified before the of
Planning commission that Harry CIO
A+ in its facility, ", employing advanced state of the art fire
safety features. it is apparent that no substantial l� rgumeeerefore
exists as to the quality of the facility. ta
directed to the use and maintenance of the state of the art fea-
tures.
The only evidence provided by the Fire District concerned a
blocking of exits citation occurring at 1s30 P.m. on Mother0sDay
May 8, 1988. Harry Cis concedes that that event was inappropri
ate, and has promised that that condition will not be repeated. was
The pleadeguilty,aand bien MiXe ausessedea,fine,ciHr. for Hiller no longer
associated with Harry Cis in any capacity.
Only one other citation has ever been issued to Harry Cis,
that occurring on June 30, 1988, when the restaurant and the
manager Hillis Hon were cited for a table in the entry y
lobby crew, clean only two patrons in the entire restaurant
clean-
ing crew,
at tjabati time o in a alleged violation The merits of that citation
in the area of over crowdliq or occupancy count, there has
been substantial disagreement between the Pare District and Harry
Cis, as discussed above. other than this disagreement which was
resolved by Tomes and Aasociatos, there have boonoacitations to
Harry Cis With regard to exceeding occupancy count, in
Cis knowledge, no allegations Cisohas installed a complex system of
several months. Aary
counting patrons entering and leaving the establishment, using
maintain c the appropriate) ountalevel. rsThe starget eounttisto
significantly below the maximum occupant count to allow some
margin of error.
The primary complaints of the Fire District seem to bs that
on occasion, they have found tables moved or chairs moved into
fire exit lanes. This occurs when tpa cons move tOnestto suit the
r
pleasures of their party, at their table. As Hr. Tomes
another to allow greater minting
testified before the Planning Commission, this is a condition
which
ojily be monitored under the corn ctediwhen but
can
: RE: Ente_- tainment Permit 87 -01 -Harry C's "
August 15, 1988
Page s
ti
v,
v
found, occasionally this can happen also by inadvertent placement
of carts by employees. In ordcr to combat and control this ongo-
ing problem, Harry C's has hired employees who during peak hours,
continuously patrol the restaurant and bar to correct these situa-
tions.
I.S. SUM1WY
Harry C's has been a new experience for Rancho Cucamonga, and
vice versa. It should be noted that while some "growing pains"
existed d•:ring the first year, or less, of operation, all of the
concerns by any and all agencies, of which Harry COs is aware have
been corrected either permanently or by continuous monitoring. it
should also be noted that neither of the citations made by the
Fire District ware during entertainment hours, but rather were on
an isolated early afternoon Mother's Day incident, and a cleaning
time incident at 3:30 P.M. on a Thursday afternoon.
In addition no evidence has been introduced, nor have any
allegations been made that the type of entertainment sought to be
offered by Harry Cis, and which in the past has bean offered by
Harry C's, would have any impact on the concerns of any agancy
expressed to date.
While Harry Cis original permit was issued for a live disc
jockey and dancing, Harry C's is inexperienced in dealing with
entertainment licenses,as Rancho Cucamonga is the first city in
which Harry C's or its owner has operated a facility requiring
such a license. Prior to the Public Safety Commission bearing on
June 7, 1988, Harry C's innocently offered such entertainment as
is requested to be included in its entertainment license. There
are no allegations of any problems caused by the type of enter-
tainment provided.
While the nature of entertainment is subject to the whims of
fashions, Harry COs at the present time contemplates the follo4ing'
offerings to its patrons:
Monday night: Monday Night Football on big screen T7,
and cheerleader contest after the game involving one
contestant at a time on stage.
Tuesday night: Bikini Contest involving one participant
at a time on stage.
Wednesday night: Lip Sync contest involving one person
at a time on stage.
Thursday night: Hawaiian Tropical Tan contest which
will select entrants to a national contest. Again this
will involve one contestant at a tine an stage.
Sunday evening: Comedy performers. Again, at least in
most cases, one parson at a time would be on stage.
RE: Entertairment Persit 87 -01 -Harry C's
August 15, 1988
Page 5
All of these events involve cover charges which would result
in tax payments to the City.
While the State of California allows Municipalities to make
and enforce their Ordinances and Regulations with regard to
entertainment, this "Municipal affairs doctrine merely allows an
area in which the local anvernment may freely pnarate. Gnhiaer t,
, p. 3746,
One clear rule applicable to the City is that it must, at the
very least, follow the provisions of its own ordinance.
Y
Harry cgs license having been granted, it may be suspended or
revoked only on a finding of the conditions specified In ordinance
Number 290 of the City of Rancho Cucamonga referred to as Chapter
5.12. Section 5.12.100 lists the criteria for suspection of
revocation of a pe: -mlt. As of this date, Harry Cgs permit has not
heen suspended or revoked, and no evidenre was furnished regarding
yr any uncorrected activity, which would be grounds for suspension or
revocation under said section.
Similarly, Section 5.12.080 lists the conditions under which
an application may be denied, those conditions being essentially
the same as those required for suspension or revocation. Again no
allegations are made of uncorrected activity which could even
arguably fall within any of the six criteria enumerated.
Section 5.12.150 lists tha penalties, short of suspension or
revocation, which may be assessed for violation of the require-
ments of Chapter 5.12. No provision is made therein for proba-
tion, or limiting the types of entertainment to be offered by the
permittee.
The activities sought to be offered by Harry C's ere lawful
activities and cannot be prohibited. POODlq V. E1 Dorado (19791
96 CA3d 403, 406.
The Municipality may not selectively exclude commercial live
entertainment, where it cannot show that such entertainment poeos
prohloms of a uniq+e nature. Schad V. Mt. Ephraim. (19811 452 VS
61, 68 L.Ed.2d 6:1, 101 S.Ct. 2176
The determination of whether the operation comports with the
requirements of the Ordinance is to be made at the time of the
. � w
RE: Entertai=Gnt Permit 67 -01-Harry C's
August 15, 1908
Page 6
hearing before the Clty Counsel and not ao of the time of the
making of the allegations. Sunset amueemant_Ce, v. Board gj
Policg Commissignurs .19721 7 Cad 66, 82.
Amusement and entertair.;ent are enrompasued within the right
of freedom of speech as wall as the exposition of Ideas. That a
particular form of antertainmsnt might be unlawful in a different
context, circumstance or place, does not remove the activity an a
stage from the protections of the First Amendment. In re
gpnnini !19661, 69 Ca1.2d 563.
2.2. CITATIONS NOT
There has bean no evidence preaented at any tiea at any
hearing, the= the citatLons isswid by the Fire Department, or any
other complaints relatati directly to the offering of or.e form of
entertainment over another. These is no evidence that problems
increased or decreased with the type of entertainment being af•-
forded. In fact, Harry C's inadvertently, offered tho types of
entertainment srught to be authorized at this time prior to the
Public safety Commission hearing on June 7, 1988. Harry Cis has
not surrendered the right to continue to offer that form of enter-
tainment, but has voluntarily suspended ti.. activity pending
resolution through administrative channels.
There is no provision in Chapter 5.12, authorizing the city
or any of its agencies to become Harry C's "entertainment
director ", based on a violation of that Chapter. For could such a
provision pass constitutional muster
Finally, to roach a rational conclusion as to the intended
regulation to be proposed by the ordinance, tt is apparently the
position of the Fire District, Public Safety Commission and Plan-
ning Commission that a change in format from a live disc jockey
and dancing, to a comedian, to a televised football gama, etc.
require approval of the Planning Commission.
Were that view to be accepted, Sections 5.12.050 through
5.12.070, vould require that tha City Manager investigate the
application for such a change, notify all property owners within
300 feet of the proposed activity, at the --ost of the applicant,
and hold a public hearing on such an application. It As
respectfully submitted that the City Counsel .md passing ordinance
290 did not anticipate such a procedure. It is further submitted
that if such a procedure were required, it would fail to pass
constitutional scrutiny.
.- rd
., e„
i�
i REi = ^EtitirtairiieatPirni
August 15' 1988 "*` '-:•
Page 7 1 _
r'•r
57 -01 -Harry cis
7.0. CONCIA920N -
It is respectfully 4' omitted that there are no facts offered
in evidence by any agency, which have bean uncorrected, that would
justify the denial, suspension, or revocation of Harry Cis li-
cense. The ordinance governing entertainment licenaea does not
give the city power to interfere with lawful activities and First
Amendment protected activities at Harry Cis. The violations which
have occurred have been resolved in the courts, or are pending
resolution in the courts.
r'
The affect of the proposed "probationary-; limitations oti.the
type of entartainnent allowed, not only violated First Amandmei,,t
rights, but is in sffecV a'drastic economic sanction not-antici-
pated or permitted by'Chapter 5.12 or Constitutional requirements.
The conditions approval Section 5.12.080 allows for conditions
such as the requirement for uniformed mocurity personnel at the
facility and smilar requirements, not a forfeiture of fundamental
constitutional rights. ,
ra, _
The recommendations of the Public Safety Commission and the
actions of the Planning Commission exceed the remedies allowed to '
the Planning Commission by Chapter 5.12. Also, as shown above,
the action of the Planning Commission violate the constitutional
Proscriptions against such regulation.
'Respectfully submittal,
Harry J., Histon
Attorney for Harry Cie, Inc.
i
TO es & Assodates
f1e/Du'Idrg'fe5day CarsAorts ,
February 12, 198d
(619) 561$125
Fire Marshal Lloyd Almand
'p. Foothill Fire Protection District.
P. O. Box 35
',••. Rancho Cucamonga, California 91701
.7
Dear Fire Marshal Almand,
t
Enclosed is our proposed exiting plan jor Marry C'a
restaurant located at 10877 Foothill Blvd This plan was
J developed after a survey of the restaurant was conducted
on Monday, February 8, 1988.
y 1. An occupant load of 399 was calculated for the Car and
dance area. This occupant load calcuiation vas based on
the following rationale:
Twenty -six hundred (2600) square feet was
cleared of all chaire and tablea. A
concehtratcd use factor of 070 was applied
to this area. This gave an occupant load
for this area of 371. The 400 square foot
dance floor vas calculatod at , its use
capability of 170. This calculation was
based on the fact that continuous music
is played and an aeuumptlon that 1} Ito
capacity will be used. This gave an
additional occupant load of 20 people for
a total of 359.
2 The Uniform Fire Code in Section 25 114(b) allows for
11 10% increase of occupant load if additional exit
facilities are provided. We are proposing to put and
additional 3 0' exit door out the cast side of the
building This will provide 4 exits, 17 feet of linear
exltway, from the area. One 3.0' exit from the north
vall area by the bar, one 5.0' exit from the east wall,
one 3 0' exit from the east wall (proposed) and one
6.0'exit from the southwest corner of the area. The
occupant load requested would be 439 The code would
only require two exits and a total linear feet of
exitvay of V.
3. It is further requested that 50 stools and 4 tables be
102061nsto Conwxt ld,esWe. Coldorno 92040
�+klfT Eli //
•e