HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/07/13 - Agenda Packet, ~ ~ a CITY OF
~ ~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA
"' PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
1977
WEDNESDAY JULY 13, 1994 7:00 P.M.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER
COUNCIL CHAMBER
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA
I. ROll Call
Chairman Barker Commissioner Melcher
Vice Chairman McNiel __ Commissioner Tolstoy __
Commissioner Lumpp
II. Announcements
A. PRESENTATION OF 1994 AWARDS FOR DESIGN
EXCELLENCE
III. Approval of Minutes
Adjourned Meeting of May 25, 1994
Adjourned Meeting of June 8, 1994
June 8, 1994
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 after speaking.
B. VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 94-02 - CITY
OF RANCHO CUQAMONGA - An amendment to the
Victoria Planned Community pertaining to the
timing of construction of parks.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-18 - BRETHREN IN
CHRIST CHURCH - A request for a temporary
modular classroom structure for an existing
school on 5.6 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District, located at 9974 19th
Street - APN: 1076-051-12.
D. VARIANCE 94-04 - CAMPOS - A request to reduce
the required number of parking spaces, to
reduce the required rear yard setback from 15
feet to 0 feet, and to reduce the required side
yard landscape setback from 5 feet to 0 feet in
conjunction with the development of 5 parcels
in the Specialty Commercial Designation
(Subarea 3) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan, located on the north side of Foothill
Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman
Avenues, APN: 208-153-08, 09, 10, 11, and 23.
E. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-45 HILDENBRAND -
Consideration of revocation of a stress
reduction clinic within an existing industrial
complex in the Industrial Park Designation
(Subarea 6) of the Industrial Area Specific
Plan, located at 8645 Haven Avenue, Suite 550 -
APN: 209-144-54.
F. CONSIDERATION TO MODIFY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
92-33 OASIS SPA - A request to modify a
condition of approval to extend the hours of
operation to 10:00 p.m. for an existing massage
establishment located at 7890 Haven Avenue, #14
- APN: 1077-401-29.
G. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-19 - COOK
{ACCU-CENTER) - A request to allow a massage
establishment within a leased space of
approximately 1,350 square feet in an existing
commercial center on 9 acres of land in the
General Commercial District, located at 7890
Haven Avenue, Suite 11 - APN: 1077-401-29.
H. VARIANCE 93-05 - OAS PARTNERSHIP - A request
to increase the sign area for the Project
Identification Monument Sign from 24 to 49
square feet; increase the sign area for the
Tenant Identification Monument Signs from 24 to
49 square feet; and increase the maximum number
of tenant names on the Tenant Identification
Monument Signs from three to five per face, for
Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the northeast
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard
Avenues - APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related
File: Amendment to Uniform Sign Program No.
88. (Continued from May 25, 1994)
V. Old Business
I. ~IEND~ENT TO UNIFOI~ SICN ~O~l~n~ NO. 88 -
PARTNERSHIP - A request to amend the Sign
Program to allow a Project Identification
Monument Sign, internally illuminated Tenant
Identification Monument Signs, and various
changes to the sign criteria for Thomas Winery
Plaza, located at the northeast corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -
APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related file:
Variance 93-05. (Continued from May 25, 1994)
VI. Public Comments
This is the time and place for the general public
to address the Commission. Items to be discussed
here are those which do not already appear on this
agenda.
VII. Commission Business
J. ELECTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OFFICERS
K. METROLINK RELATED DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES -
Oral Report
VIII. 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.
VICINITY MAP ~
'A' CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 13, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Rick Gomez, Community Development Director
BY: Karen McGuire-Emery, Associate Park Planner
SUBJECT: VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLANAMENDMENT 94-02 - An Amendment to
the Victoria Planned Community Pertaining to the Timing
of Construction of Parks.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this review is to consider a request from
the "Merchant Builders" of the Vineyards South village within the
master planned community of Victoria to increase the number of
dwelling units allowed prior to the completion of Ellena Park.
BACKGROUND: With approval of the Victoria Community Plan in 1981,
a provision for the development of park acreage was adopted as
follows:
"Each park area within each village shall be dedicated to
the City in a complete form including, but not limited to,
installed parking areas, seeded play areas, irrigation and
restrooms prior to the construction of greater than 200
dwelling units of the lots within the village. Park design
shall be to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Services and consistent with the Victoria Planned Communities
and reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission."
To date, the four parks constructed in the Victoria Planned
Community have been built by the William Lyon Company per the
provisions as stated above. Over the last few years however, the
Lyon Company has sold rights to develop homes in Victoria,
specifically in the Vineyards South development, to five other
"Merchant Builders". These builders include M.J. Brock & Sons,
Inc. ("Brock") , Lewis Homes ("Lewis"), PGI, LTD., No. 38
("Premier"), Bill Albin Matreyek ("Matreyek"), and Centex Real
Estate Corporation, ("Centex"). Through the agreement that the
Lyon Company has with these Merchant Builders, the builders are
required to deposit their park fees into an escrow account where
the money is to be held for construction of the park in the
Vineyards South Development. This agreement also allows any of the
builders to step into Lyon's place and use these funds (and future
funds collected) to construct the park.
ANALYSIS: Due to financial constraints the Lyon Company is now
experiencing, it has no interest in building the Ellena Park
project now or in the near future. The Merchant Builders however,
would like to see the project completed as a marketing tool to
enhance their developments and are wanting to assume the obligation
to construct Ellena Park using the money in the escrow account. As
of May 12, 1994, the escrow account had approximately $407,000.00
on deposit. Construction of the entire 6.5 acre facility is
estimated to cost $1.1 Million. For this reason, the builders are
proposing that the park be constructed in two phases.
The Park and Recreation Commission at their May 19 meeting reviewed
the proposed options and recommends that construction of the park
occur in the following manner:
Phase I
- Restroom
- Picnicking amenities (tables and barbecues)
- Play area
- Parking lot
- Turf the remaining area for open play (including the future
ballfield)
- Security lighting
Phase II
- Exercise stations
- Volleyball court
- Basketball courts
- Ballfield installation
It is estimated that the .construction of Phase I will cost
$600,000.00. For this reason, the Merchant Builders are requesting
that the Victoria Community Plan be amended to increase the number
of building permits to be issued prior to the completion of the
first phase of construction from 200 to 350 which will thus
increase the amount of park fees collected in the escrow account to
allow Phase I construction to occur. In addition, after the
completion of the first phase of improvements, the Merchant
Builders request that the City issue up to 100 additional building
permits for units within the Vineyards South village, at which time
the improvements to Ellena Park must be completed.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission
modify the Victoria Community Plan to allow the construction of
Ellena Park to occur in two phases; amend the number of building
permits issued prior to the completion of the first phase of
construction of Ellena Park from 200 to 350; and further, allow the
issuance of an additional 100 permits at which time the
imp ovem~/t~o Ellena Park must be completed.
ly s~~Dle~es~.bmitted, ~
~opment Directo~
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter From Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Ellena Park Plan
Lewis Homes Management Corp.
1156 North Mountain Avenue / P.O. Box 670 / Upland, California 91785-0670
909/985-0971 FAX: 909/949-6700
June 28, 1994
Mr. Steven Hayes
Assistant Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
Re: Victoria Community Plan Amendment
Dear Steve:
The Victoria Community Plan requires that Ellena Park be
constructed before more than 200 building permits can be issued for
projects in the Vineyards South village. On behalf of the builders
in the Vineyards South village ("Merchant Builders"), this letter
is to request that the Victoria Community Plan be amended to
increase the number of building permits that can be issued to the
amounts that are described below.
This request is precipitated because the Victoria master developer,
who had built the previous parks in Victoria, will not build Ellena
Park, and neither will the City of Rancho Cucamonga ("City"). Per
the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Construction
of Ellena Park between the Merchant Builders and the City, the
Merchant Builders have assumed the obligation to construct Ellena
Park.
The City needs to amend the Victoria Community Plan so that the
City will issue up to a maximum of 350 building permits prior to
the completion of the first phase of improvements, which are
described on the attached exhibit. After the completion of the
first phase of improvements, the City will issue up to 100
additional building permits for units within the Vineyards South
village, at which time the improvements to Ellena Park must be
completed.
Mr. Steven Hayes
City of Rancho Cucamonga
June 28, 1994 - page two
The proposed Victoria Community Plan amendment needs to be
processed in a timely manner since the City continues to issue
building permits and the Merchant Builders are proceeding with the
Ellena Park improvements. Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
LEWIS HOMES MANAGEMENT COR~.
~G~qu e
Manager of Special Projects
GHL/dm
Enclosure
cc: Karen McGuire-Emery, city of Rancho Cucamonga Jim Young, Brock Homes
Gary Peterson, Premier Homes
Michael Aller, Centex Homes
Tom Matreyek, Matreyek Homes
Joe Manisco, Lewis Homes
CONCEPTUAL CONSTRUCTION PHASING PLAN
i~ ~I:NA PARK. VICTORIA VINEYARDS SOUIH
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING AppROVAL OF
VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDMENT 94-02, TO MODIFY THE
COMMUNITY PLAN TEXT PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
ELLENA PARK, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho cucamonga has filed an application for
Victoria Community Plan Amendment No. 94-02, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Victoria Community
Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th day of July 1994, 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, 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 July 13, 1994, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. This amendment does not conflict with Land Use Policies of
the General Plan and will provide for development, within the district, in a
manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and
b. This amendment does promote the goals and objectives of the
Land Use Element; and
c. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity; and
d. That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the
objectives or the General Plan or the Development Code; and
e. The Victoria Community Plan calls for construction of Ellena
Park prior to the completion of the 200th dwelling unit in the Vineyards South
Village; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VCPA 94-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
July 13, 1994
Page 2
f. The cost of construction of the 6.5 acre Ellena Park is
estimated at $1.1 million; and
g. The Merchant Builders of Victoria Vineyards South Village pay
park development fees into an escrow account established by the William Lyon
Company; and
h. At the issuance of the 200th building permit in the Vineyards
South Village there will not be adequate funds to complete the Ellena Park
improvements; and
i. Because of current funding constraints, the Merchant Builders
are proposing to complete the Ellena Park improvements in two phases; and
j. In order to provide adequate funding for the completion of
Phase I of Ellena Park the number of building permits must be increased from
200 to 350 and the nu~er of permits issued in order to complete final
improvements must be increased to 450.
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 proposed amendment would not have significant
impacts on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and
b. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the
General Plan.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared
and reviewed in compliance with the california Environmental Quality Act of
1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and further,
specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can be seen with
certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendment will have a
significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendment
is exempt pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows:
a. That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
hereby recommends that the City Council approve and adopt Victoria Community
Plan Amendment 94-02 to modify the Community Plan Text for the completion of
Ellena Park as follows:
(1) Condition #4 Of "Parks/Open space" Of Resolution
No. 81-37 to read as follows:
"Ellena Park, within the Victoria Vineyards South
Village, shall be built in two phases. Phase 1 shall
be constructed prior to the issuance of the 351st
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VCPA 94-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
July 13, 1994
Page 3
building permit within the village and the entire park
shall be completed prior to the issuance of the the
451st building permit. The park shall be dedicated to
the City in a completed form and shall include
installed parking . area, turf area, picnicking
amenities, tot lot, volleyball court, basketball
courts, improved ball field, irrigation and rest
rooms. Park design shall be to the satisfaction of
the Director of Community Development and consistent
with the Victoria Community Plan and reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission."
(b) That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho cucamonga
hereby recommends approval of Victoria Community Plan Amendment 94-02 to
modify the Victoria Community Plan for the construction of Ellena Park per the
attached Ordinance.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, 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 13th day of July 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VICTORIA COMMUNITY PLAN
AMENDMENT 94-02, TO MODIFY THE COMMUNITy PLAN TEXT
PERTAINING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ELLENA PARK, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
(i) On July 13, 1994, the Planning Commission Of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above-
referenced Victoria Community Plan Amendment. Following the conclusion of
said public hearing .the Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. ,
thereby recommending that the city Council adopt Victoria community Plan
Amendment No. 94-02.
(ii) On 1994, the city Council of the city of
Rancho Cucmmonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said
hearing prior to its adoption of this Ordinance.
(iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucmmonga ordains as follows:
Section 1: This Council hereby specifies and finds that all of the
facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and
correct.
section 2: The Rancho Cucamonga City Council finds as follows:
a. The proposed amendment would not have significant adverse impacts
on the environment nor the surrounding properties; and
b. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
Section 3: This Commission hereby finds that the project has been
reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder,
and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed
amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and, therefore,
the proposed amendment is exempt pursuant to State CEQA. Guidelines,
Section 15061(b)(3).
Section 4: The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby
approves the Victoria Community Plan Amendment 94-02 to modify the Community
Plan Text for the completion of Ellena Park as follows:
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
VCPA 94-02 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Page 2
a. condition #4 of "Parks/open Space" of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 81-37, adopted by City Council Ordinance No.
143, shall read as follows:
"Ellena Park, within the Victoria Vineyards south village,
shall be built in two phases. Phase 1 shall be constructed
prior to the issuance of the 351st building permit within the
village and the entire park shall be completed prior to the
issuance of the the 451st building permit. The park shall be
dedicated to the City in a completed form and shall include
installed parking area, turf area, picnicking amenities, tot
lot, volleyball court, basketball courts, improved ball
field, irrigation and rest rooms. Park design shall be to
the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development and
consistent with the Victoria Community Plan and reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission."
Section 5: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published within fifteen (15) days
after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a
newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Ontario, California,
and circulated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 1994.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 13, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Steve Hayes, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-18 - BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH - A
request for a temporary modular classroom structure for an
existing school on 5.6 acres of land in the Medium
Residential District, located at 9974 19th Street -
APN: 1076-051-12.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Action Requested by Applicant: The applicant is requesting approval
for the interim use of a temporary modular building for classroom
purposes in order to be used for the upcoming school year which
begins in September.
B. Site Characteristics: The site is developed with two permanent
buildings, two modular buildings used as interim classroom
buildings, and related parking facilities. The northern portion of
the site is vacant and not yet developed.
C. Parking Calculations:
Number of Number of
Type Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Ratio Required Provided
Existing Sanctuary 1/4 fixed 125 132
Multi-purpose seats
Existing Modular 1/5 students 45
Classrooms 1/employee
Proposed Modular 1/5 students 15
Classrooms 1/employee
TOTAL '125 132
* The total number of spaces required is based upon the most
intense use of the property, which is the church. Refer to the
Parking Analysis for discussion of this issue.
BACKGROUND: Conditional Use Permit 83-09, originally approved by the
Planning Co~m~ission on September 14, 1983, included a four-phased Master
Plan, including the construction of a permanent classroom facility. On
ITEM C
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-18 - BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH
July 13, 1994
Page 2
August 14, 1985, the Planning Commission approved a modification to the
approved Master Plan by allowing two temporary classroom buildings to be
placed on the property prior to completion of the permanent classroom
facility shown on the Master Plan. These buildings were approved to
function as classrooms for a private school consisting of up to
100 students from Kindergarten through 6th Grade. The existing church
also functions as a preschool for up to 140 children. The applicant
intends to remove the temporary buildings upon occupancy of the
permanent education facility, which the applicant has stated should
occur within three to five years.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant is proposing to utilize the 1,440 square
foot temporary building for classrooms and a library for up to
50 students from 4th through 6th Grade. The building is proposed to
be located near the northwest corner of the property, adjacent to an
existing parking area. The building is proposed to receive an
"adobe" style exterior finish to match the existing buildings on the
property. The applicant has stated that they plan to use this
building for three to five years, until such time that funding for
the construction of the master planned classroom building is
available. Students of the new building will utilize the existing
play area on the south side of the adjacent parking lot and a new
proposed turf area north. and east of the module. For further
information about the use, please see EXhibit "A."
The purpose of requiring a Conditional Use Permit for temporary
classroom buildings is to assure that the module will be removed and
replaced with permanent buildings over a specific period of time and
to improve the appearance of the buildings by requiring improvements
such as foundation skirting, roof variations, and equipment
screening. The Development Code requires permanent street
improvements and landscaping with the placement of temporary
buildings through the Conditional Use Permit process. All
applicable items are incorporated into the attached Resolution of
Approval as recommended by staff for this specific scenario.
B. Land Use Compatibility: Currently, residential development exists
east and west of the church property. The northern half of the
church property is currently vacant and acts as a substantial buffer
for residential development north of the site. The proposed modular
building is shown 55 feet from the west property line and a 6-foot
high block wall separates the church property from the adjoining
residential condominium development. This should act as a
sufficient buffer. Compatibility is also enhanced by the proposed
hours of operation on weekdays from 8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.
Furthermore, the addition of the temporary building will only add
approximately 33 percent more children to a school use that has been
existing on the property for over eight years. No reports of any
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-18 - BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH
July 13, 1994
Page 3
compatibility problems with adjacent residents have been registered
with the City since this school has been in operation. Therefore,
staff anticipates no land use compatibility problems by adding the
additional classroom building as shown on the conceptual plans.
C. Parking: With the addition of the temporary classroom building on
the property, an additional 15 parking spaces will be needed during
the hours of operation for the school and office uses on site. This
amounts to 60 spaces during weekday business hours. The site
currently has 132 parking spaces on site. Given that the applicant
has stated that the hours of operation for the school (8:00 a.m. to
2:30 p.m.) will not overlap with church services, which are on
Sundays and weeknights after 7:00 p.m. and the day care/preschool
facility operates from 6:00 a.m. to 6:'00 p.m., ample parking should
be available at all times for all uses on site.
D. Modular Structure: The Development Code requires that office
modules be designed to look permanent, including screening temporary
foundations, screening utility equipment, and using architectural
elements such as overhangs and walkways. The architectural
elevations as shown in Exhibit "D," combined with the
recommendations of the Design Review Committee, will meet the
requirements of the Development Code by providing a majority of the
recommended design elements. Therefore, staff feels that the
modular structure as shown will meet the intent of the Development
Code for providing a more permanent, aesthetically pleasing look.
E. Site Improvements: The Development Code requires "necessary street
improvements, grading, drainage facilities, and landscaping" to be
installed in conjunction with temporary office modules. The street
frontage of the property is fully improved with curb, gutter,
sidewalk, street lights, and landscaping. However, staff recommends
the following improvements per Development Code standards:
1. Parking lot landscaping (trees, shrubs, and groundcover) that
has been removed shall be replaced with new landscape
materials, as recommended in the attached Resolution of
Approval.
2. Restriping of the parking lots, double-striped per current City
Standards.
3. Landscaping around the exterior of the new building, as
recommended by the Design Review Comittee.
F. Design Review Committee: On July 5, 1994, the Design Review
Committee reviewed the proposal. The action comments from this
meeting have been attached for your convenience (see Exhibit "E").
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-18 - BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH
July 13, q994
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Co~unission approve
Conditional Use Permit 94-18 through adoption of the attached Resolution
Of Approval with Conditions.
BB:SH/jfS
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Elevations Of Modular Building
Exhibit "E" - Design Review Committee Action Comments
Resolution of Approval
PREFERRED MODULAR STRUCTURES
G I
enera Contractor's License rio. 66843:3
:~027 River Road · ~uite 1~1 · Norco, CA 91760
909-7~5-~2 · FAX 909-735-8~81
' .-c~,,;..wc~., --
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MAY 23, 1994 PLANNING DIVISION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
com. ru-.zTy DEVEtOpMENT DEPT. MAY
all 2 3 1994
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
cHo CUCAMOHGA, CA 91V30
ATTN: PLANNING DEPT.
RE: COURTESY REVIEW OF PROJECT
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING DEPT. IN ORDER
TO ESTABLISH, FROM STAFF, A PRELIMINARY IDEA OF PERMIT(S) REQUIRED
FOR THIS PROJECT, COSTS OF SAME, AND THE ACTUAL TIME REQUIRED TO
SECURE PERMIT(S). WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO DETERMINE IF ANY SPECIAL
CONDITIONS EXIST RELATING TO MODULAR BUILDING, FOUNDATIONS FOR
SANE, FACIA'S TO COVER 1/4-12 ROOF LINE, AND ANY SIDING
REQUIREMENTS.
SPECIFICS:
OWNJl~: BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH
9974 19TH STREET
RANCliO CUCANONGA, CA
CO~ACT PERSON: MIKE DUNCAN @ 909-989-3119 OR MATT CASSERLY WITH
PREFERRED MODULAR STRUCTURES 909-735-2332.
RE~0CAT~t-E MOD~ B~It.DIN{JJ 24' X 60' (1440 SQ. FT.) WITH THREE
20' X 24' CLASSROOM.
O~C~ANCy: E-1
CONSTR~CTIOM: TYPE 5, NON-RATED
GEi.'~RAL INFORMATION:
BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH WOULD LIKE TO INSTALL A MODULAR BUILDING
ON THE LOCATION NOTED ON SITE PLAN. THE MODULAR BUILDING SITE IS.
NOT CURLY WI'F,4~N THE BOUNDART~-~ OF THE MASTER PLAN. THIS
MODULAR CLASSROOM WOULD SUPPORT APPROXIMATELY 60 S~TE[~ AND 3
TEACHERS AND WOULD STAY ON SITE UNTIL THEY DEVELOP THE 2 STORY
CLASSROOM BUILDING SHOWN ON MASTER PLAN. THIS IS EXPECTED TO TAKE
FROM 3-5 YEARS BEFORE OCCUPYING. /
THE MODULAR CLASSROOM WOULD BE INSPECTED THRU COURSE OF
CONSTRUCTION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND BEAR THEIR INSIGNIA.
THE BUILDING WILL CONTAIN 3 SINKS ONLY WITH NO TOILET FACILITIES.
THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD ALSO INCLUDE A NEW SEWER RUN FROM EXISTING
LINE @ RECENTLY INSTALLED MODULAR BUILDING (BUILDING C) TO THIS
PROPOSED MODULAR.
THE FOUNDATION WOULD BE A POURED IN PLACE STEMWALL TYPE WITH
FINISHED FLOOR APPROXIMATELy AT GRADE LEVEL. THE ROOF LINE WILL BE
TYPICAL OF A MODULAR BUILDING WITH A 1/4 - 12 PITCH.
ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THE INCREASE IN OCCUPANCy HAS NOT YET BEEN
ADDRESSED, HOWEVER, THERE IS A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF UNDEVELOPED
LAND, OWNED BY THE CHURCH, NEXT TO AND SURROUNDING THE PROPOSED
BUILDING SITE.
REGARDLESS WHETHER THIS MODULAR IS DETERMINED TO BE PERMANENT OR
TEMPORARy BY THE CITY, THE STRUCTURES THEMSELVES WILL BE REMOVED
WITHIN FIVE (5) YEARS TO MAKE ROOM FOR OTHER DEVELOPMENT.
PLEASE CONTACT ONE OF THE TWO INDIVIDUALS NAMED ABOVE WHEN REVIEW
IS COMPLETED. WE WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE CORRECT DOCUMENTATION
ASAP IN ORDER TO GET THIS PROJECT ON TRACK FOR THE FALL SCHOOL
SEMESTER.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR REVIEW OF THIS MATTER.
SINCERELy,
We propose to supply and install one (1) temporary, 24 x 60 (1440 Square feet)
Department of Housing, modular building to be set on a concrete stemwail foundation.
This building will be located near the north west comer of rear parking lot. This will
provide easy enu'y/exiting for student drop off. The proposed occupancy is 50 students for
the new structure which increases enrollment to 250 students overall.
We expect this modular building to be located on this site for approximately three to
five years. This will give the church enough me to construct the permanent two story
building shown on the existing master plan.
The proposed modular will have a adobe siding materiai with a finish floor at grade
level which will make it compatible with the surrounding structures. The sewer hook up
will provide drainage for sinks only as no toilets are planned for this building.
We had not allowed for additionai parking as the majority of available spaces are
utilized on Sunday while the proposed buildings would be utilized mainly Monday thru
Friday for classes.
· We aiso had not allowed for landscaping as the building is temporary, but will be
recepnve to any staff suggestions with regards to this.
OF ~C~"fi"/~,'UCAMONGA ITEM:
PLANNING., DMSION TFm-F-:
E~ff C
CITY OF . C,~ OC --___
RAN . ,: ':C" AMONGA
PLANNING.. DMSION 1TrLE: ~v,~J,~ F/,,,-=+,~,~ N --:
~ , ~- =
EXI-IIBIT:"D- I SCALE: L L ~-
ELEVATION
OUTER FIELD
SUPPLIED AND,,,~ /~ }0 CA GALV ROOF
INST,N_LED 19/32' ~NNEPSEAL SIDING / -- 2,12 R/S TR~M (~p)
/ 11
FINISH GRADL ........
-- F~NISH FLOOR
ELEVATION
C~ ITEM:
OF
~ EXHIBrT -~" SCALE: --- , ~___
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:40 p.m. Steve Hayes July 5, 1994
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-18 - BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH - A request for a
temporary modular classroom structure for an existing school on 5.6 acres of land
in the Medium Residential District, located at 9974 19th Street - APN 1076-051-
12.
Background:
Brethren In Christ Church received Planning Commission approval for Conditional
Use Permit 83-09 for a four phased Master Plan on September 12, 1983. In August
of 1985, the church received Planning Commission approval to install two temporary
classroom buildings in lieu of constructing the permanent classroom building shown
on the approved Master Plan at that time. Since that time; the school use has
grown to the point where the existing classroom facilities on the property are no
longer sufficient to serve their needs and revenue for the permanent classroom
building approved with the original Master Plan is still not yet available. The
new classroom building is 1,440 square feet and will be designed to have a
capacity of approximately 50 students.
~esi~n Parameters:
The site is currently developed with a permanent sanctuary building, a permanent
administrative building, two temporary classroom buildings, 152 parking spaces and
required landscaping. The site is accessed by 19th Street, where two driveway
approaches exist along with sidewalk, curb, gutter and streetside landscaping.
The site slopes from north to south at roughly 3 percent. The Development Code
requires temporary structures to be designed with a l~k of permanence, as much as
practicable, through the USe of screening temporary foundations and utility
equipment, overhangs, walkways, and stepped roofs. In addition, the Code requires
landscaping.
~taff ~ents:
The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focUS of Committee
discussion regarding this project:
1. The modular building should be more compatible with the existing buildings.
Suggested items include an alternate skirting material, stepped roofs,
overhangs and walkways.
2. Dense landscaping, including box size colunlnar evergreen trees and fast
growing evergreen shrubs, should be provided along the south, west, and east
elevations of the temporary building.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
CUP 94-18 - BRETHRI'N IN CHRIST CHURCH
July 5, 1994
Page 2
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the
project subject to the above-referenced items being addressed to the satisfaction
of staff.
Design Review Crm~ttee Action:
Members Present: Hein~ Lumpp, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Design Review Committee recomended approval of the project subject to the
following conditions:
1. The building should be rotated 90 degees so the long elevation with windows
faces south.
2. An arbor overhang approximately 5 feet in depth should be constructed along
the south elevation of the trailer to provide shade along the window side of
the building.
3. A painted pedestrian path should be provided across the parking lot to
connect the new classroom building with the existing play ground.
Appropriate handicap access should also be provided to the play ground area.
4. Landscaping, including trees, should be provided along the elevations of the
trailer exposed to public view.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 94-18, A REQUEST FOR A TEMPORARy MODULAR
CLASSROOM STRUCTURE FOR AN EXISTING SCHOOL ON 5.6 ACRES
OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT
9974 19TH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
- APN: 1076-051-12.
A. Recitals.
1. Brethren In Christ Church has filed an application for the
issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 94-18, as described in the title of
this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th day of July 1994, 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, 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 July 13, 1994, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at
9974 19th Street with a street frontage of 323.79 feet and lot depth of
628.69 feet and is presently improved with two permanent buildings, two
temporary classroom buildings, 132 on-site parking spaces, landscaped areas,
and curb, gutter, and sidewalks along the 19th Street frontage. The northern
portion of the site is presently vacant with no significant vegetation or
structures; and
b. The properties to the north, south, and west of the subject
site are single family residential and the property to the east is a multi-
family residential development; and
c. The utilization Of a temporary classroom building is
permitted subject to conditions as specified by the Development code, section
17.10.030.F.4 and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-18 - BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH
July 13, 1994
Page 2
d. The modular building will be used for up to 50 students and
5 teachers during school hours (8:00 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Mondays through
Fridays, excluding National Holidays); and
e. The exterior of the modular building will be upgraded
through the use of an exterior plaster treatment matching other buildings on
the property, compatible roof treatment, and foundation screening, per the
requirements of the Development Code.
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 proposed use is in accord with the General Plan,
the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in
which the site is located.
b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
4. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined
that the proposed project does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment. The project has been determined to be
exempt from CEQA pursuant to section 15061(b)(3). The Planning Commission,
having final approval over this project, has reviewed and considered this
exemption prior to the approval of this project.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below:
Planninu Division
1) Approval Of this request shall not waive
compliance with all sections of the Development
Code, and all other City Ordinances.
2) If the operation of the temporary classroom
building causes adverse effects upon adjacent
businesses or operations, the Conditional Use
Permit shall be brought before the Planning
Commission for consideration and possible
termination of the use.
3) Occupancy of the modular building shall not
commence until such time as all Uniform Building
Code and State Fire Marshal's regulations have
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-18 - BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH
JUly 13, 1994
Page 3
been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans
shall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire
Protection District and the Building and safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall
be inspected for compliance prior to utilization
of the building.
4) If any safety problems or Other adverse effects
arise in relation to the placement and size of
the modular building, the Conditional Use Permit
shall be brought before the Planning Commission
for consideration and possible termination of
use.
5) Operating hours for activities within the
temporary modular building shall be limited to
the activities and hours described in the
application as follows:
Children's classes from 8:00 a.m. to
2:30 p.m., Mondays through Fridays,
excluding National Holidays.
Any modifications to these times and uses shall
require approval. by the Planning Commission.
6) Approval of this use shall be for a maximum of
five years from the approval date of this
Resolution Or issuance of building permits for
any alterations, expansions, or demolitions of
any structures on the property, whichever occurs
first.
7) The trailer shall be painted to match the
existing buildings as closely as possible, to
the satisfaction of the City Planner, prior to
occupancy.
8) A temporary irrigation system and landscaping
shall be installed around the new temporary
classroom building to the satisfaction of the
City Planner, prior to occupancy.
9) Prior to occupancy, specimen size trees from the
existing plant palette (24-inch box size or
larger) shall be installed within the parking
area in landscaped planters where trees have
been removed, consistent with the intent of
parking lot landscaping within Section
17.12.030.A.11 of the Development Code.
The species, location, size, and number of
parking lot trees shall be indicated on the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-18 - BRETHREN IN CHRIST CHURCH
July 13, 1994
Page 4
detailed landscape/irrigation plans, which shall
be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Division.
10) All wall-mounted mechanical equipment shall be
painted to match the buildings.
ll) The building shall be rotated 90 degrees so the
long elevation with windows faces south. A
revised site plan shall be submitted for review
and approval by the City Planner prior to the
issuance of building permits.
12) A trellis overhand approximately five feet in
depth shall be constructed along the south
elevation Of the trailer to provide shade along
the window side of the building to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
13) A painted pedestrian path shall be provided
across the parking lot to connect the new
classroom building with the existing playground.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TB DAY OF JULY 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Bullet, 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 13th day of July 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 13, 1994 '
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Comission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 94-04 - CAMPOS - A request to reduce the required number of
parking spaces, to reduce the required rear yard setback from 15 feet
to 0 feet, and to reduce the required side yard landscape setback from
5 feet to 0 feet in conjunction with the development of 5 parcels in
the Specialty Co~aercial Designation (Subarea 3) of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the north side of Foothill
Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman Avenues, APN: 208-153-08, 09,
10, 11, and 23.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Single family residential; Specialty Commercial (Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, Subarea 3)
South Fast food restaurant; Specialty Commercial (Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, Subarea 3)
East Abandoned gas station; Specialty Com?aercial (Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, Subarea 3)
West Single family residential; Specialty Commercial (Foothill Boulevard
Specific Plan, Subarea 3)
B. Site Characteristics: The site is presently developed with four single
family residences and a cafe. None of the structures are presently occupied.
C. Parking Calculations:
N~er of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Footaye Ratio Required Provided
Cafe 1,367 1 space/ 14 11
100 sq. ft.
Commercial 4,869 1 space/ 19 18
250 sq. ft.
TOTAL 33 29
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant has submitted a Development Review application
requesting the conversion of four single family residences to commercial
uses, the demolition of an existing care, and the construction of a new
IT~MD
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 94-04 - CAMPOS
July 13, 1994
Page 2
cafe. With the processing of the application, staff has identified three
areas of the proposed plans that do not meet the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan and Development Code requirements. These items are:
1. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP) requires that a conm~ercial
development maintain a 15-foot rear yard landscape setback from existing
or proposed residential uses. The proposal shows 0-foot setback because
the parking and drive aisles will extend to the rear property line.
2. The FBSP requires a 5-foot side yard landscape setback be maintained.
The applicant is proposing 0-foot setback because the drive aisle will
extend to the property line.
3. The Development Code requires 33 parking spaces be provided to meet the
demands of the commercial uses. The applicant is proposing only 29
spaces. Staff, however, is recon~nending a 75-foot stacking distance
from Foothill Boulevard which will eliminate an additional 4 parking
stalls, leaving 25 stalls for the development.
In reviewing the site, staff has expressed concerns abut unique site
constraints regarding access to not only this site but the entire block.
Based on the current driveway policy, only One access point (drive approach)
will be permitted along Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman
Avenues. The ultimate plan for the block would require the drive approach to
be located in line with House No. 3 (see Exhibit "C"). Staff has met with
Caltrans to review this preliminary drive location and has received favorable
co~nents. Because of the potentially historic nature of the homes and the
desire to retain them, staff has agreed to a drive approach location between
the cafe and House No. 1.
Because only one drive approach will be allowed to Foothill Boulevard for the
entire block, access to the other properties in the block will be obtained
from the rear of the properties. A drive aisle will be required extending
from the alley west of Archibald Avenue to Klusman Avenue (see Exhibit
"D"). This will allow the properties to develop or redevelop while
maintaining access to the public streets. The City will require offers of
dedication from the property owners as development occurs to ensure the
access is available. This being the first development/redevelopment
proposal, there have been no previous offers of dedication obtained for the
block. As a result, the access to the parcels and to Foothill Boulevard must
be contained entirely On the subject site.
B. Landscape Setbeck (north property line): with the properties to the north
being residential units, the FBSP requires a 15-foot landscape setback be
maintained. The project could be designed to meet this requirement.
However, that would mean the elimination of all parking spaces for the
project. Additionally, placing the drive aisle 15 feet from the property
line would result in significant reconstruction of the drive aisle at such
time as the northerly properties develop and the drive aisle is relocated to
straddle the property lines as ultimately planned for the block.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 94-04 - CAMPOS
July 13, 1994
Page 3
Even though the entire block is designated for commercial use, the
requirement to provide a 15-foot landscape setback was intended to provide a
buffer from proposed commercial uses and existing residential dwellings. In
this case, the residences to the north of the site are located at the
northern portion of their respective parcels, adjacent to Estacia Court.
Five of the six lots abutting the site have detached garages at the southern
portion of their lots. With the closest residence approximately 35 feet from
the rear property line and garages separating the residences from the subject
site, staff believes that adequate buffering will be provided between the
uses.
C. Landscape Setback (east property line): The FBSP also requires a 5-foot side
yard landscape setback to be provided. At the east side of the site, the
applicant is proposing to extend the drive aisle to the property line. As
previously mentioned, the ultimate plan for the block will require the
extension of the drive aisle to the alley to the east which serves businesses
along Archibald Avenue. The applicant could provide the 5-foot setback and
eliminate the Variance request. Staff believes, however, that the pavement
should remain in order to reinforce to potential buyers of the site or
adjoining sites the fact that the drive aisle will be extended in the
future. Additionally, the pavement does provide for an easier turning
movement for cars parked in the easterly stall.
D. Parking Variance: The applicant is proposing 29 parking stalls for the
project. AS noted in the parking calculations, 33 parking spaces are
required based on the square footage of commercial use proposed.
Additionally, staff is recommending the elimination of the four parking
stalls proposed on the west side of the care to provide greater vehicle
stacking area. Because of the traffic volume and speed on FOOthill
Boulevard, staff is concerned that vehicles entering or exiting those stalls
will result in cars entering the site stacking onto Foothill Boulevard until
the drive aisle is clear. The requirement to provide a 75-foot on-site
stacking distance is cOnsistent with other projects located on major
arterials.
The Specialty Commercial designation is one of the more restrictive
con~nercial designations in the FBSP. The designation was intended to provide
uses that are more "specialized" as the name would indicate. The cormnercial
uses permitted are generally less intensive than the other commercial
designations. As a result, the demand for parking may not be as great.
In addition to the type of uses allowed, the site layout is a contributing
factor in regulating the types of uses that might be established. The houses
proposed for conversion to commercial uses are 958, 1,065, 1,296, and 1,550
square feet in size. The relatively small size of the buildings will provide
opportunities for small tenants and will eliminate large tenants from
considering the site. Also, being designed as residences, the conversion of
the houses to commercial uses will provide retail space that is less
efficient than spaces designed for commercial uses. If a large tenant did
wish to expand or connect the buildings, an application would have to be
reviewed.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 94-04 - CAMPOS
July 13, 1994
Page 4
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Planning Commission to approve the Variance
request, the Commission must be able to identify facts to support each of the
following findings:
1. That the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation 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 to other properties in the same district.
3. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owner 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 in the same
district.
5. That 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.
As outlined in the analysis section, staff believes that there are substantial
facts to support each and every finding required to be made by the Planning
Commission.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Variance
94-04 through adoption of the attached Resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:SM/jfS
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Site Utilization Plan
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Access Plan for the Block
Resolution of Approval
MORA
ARCHITECTS
PLANNING & ENGINEERING
..,:
:.,
DATE: April 21, 1994
TO: City ofRancho Cucamonga
Planning Department
PROJECT: 9656 Foothill Boulevard
DR 93-15 CAMPOS
VARIANCE FINDINGS
Pursuant a Variance request these findings are respectfully presented for consideration by
the Planning Commission due to the following circumstances:
1. Strict interpretation and enforcement of the parking and front, rear and side setback
requirements are difficult to achieve due to the existing size, shape and location of the
existing houses which are to be rehabilitated.
2. The existing houses have been determined to have significant historical value to the
community. This extraordinary circumstance precludes these buildings from being
modified in order to comply with the requirements of parking and yard setbacks. These
conditions do not apply to other properties in the same zone.
3. An earlier design scheme presented by the owner called for the demolition of the old
houses, before their designation as of historical value. This scheme allowed the owner
with maximum economic utilization of the site according to location. It also allowed
compliance with applicable parking and yard setback requirements. The need to
preserve the houses and replace the old cafe next door presented a new design
challenge in order to accommodate handicapped requirements, minimum number of
parking stalls and the necessary widening of Foothill Blvd
3221 20TH STREET
SAN FRANCISCO. CALIFORNIA 94110
FAX (415) 824~]243 TEL (415) 824-9602
Planning Department
DR 93-15 CAMPOS
4/21/94
Page Two
4. Given the circumstances, it seems that the granting of this Variance may not constitute
a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the
same zone.
5. When the houses are fully rehabilitated and the new cafe built, the entire development
will represent a real asset to this important arterial intersection. It is our belief that the
health, safety and welfare of the community and the public in general will not be
affected by the granting of this Variance.
Please note that this development will have its own turn lane for traffic entering from the
east-west direction thus allowing additional room for cars parking in front of the cafe and
also for cars entering the complex.
ESTACIA
LO
LLIG~S ANED WARE) SUE~DIVISION ,%-'_---~
® ® e ® ® e e e '
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE
NO. 94-04, A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF
PARKING SPACES FROM 33 TO 25, TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED REAR
yARD SETBACK FROM 15 FEET TO 0 FEET, AND TO REDUCE THE
REQUIRED SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5 FEET TO 0 FEET IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF FIVE PARCELS IN THE
SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 3) OF THE
FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN ARCHIBALD AND KLUSMAN
AVENUES, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN:
208-153-08, 09, 10, 11, AND 23.
A. Recitals.
1. Ana Campos has filed an application for the issuance of Variance
No. 94-04 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th day of July 1994, 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, 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 July 13, 1994, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Co~nission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to five parcels located On the north
side of Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman Avenues with a
combined street frontage of 300 feet and lot depth of 130 feet which are
presently improved with four single family residences, that are potential
local historic landmarks, and an abandoned cafe; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated
for commercial uses and is developed with single family residences, the
property to the south is designated for commercial uses and is developed with
a fast food restaurant, the property to the east is designated for commercial
uses and is developed with an abandoned gas station, and the property to the
west is designated for commercial uses and is developed with a single family
residence; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 94-04 - CAMPOS
July 13, 1994
Page 2
c. The applicant proposes the demolition of the existing cafe,
the construction of a new cafe, and the conversion of the existing single
family residences to commercial or office uses for a total of 6,236 square
feet of lease space; and
d. The development of the cafe and conversion of the residences
is consistent with the Specialty Commercial designation of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan and the Commercial designation of the General Plan;
and
e. Access to Foothill Boulevard between Archibald and Klusman
Avenues will be limited to one drive approach consistent with the City's
General Plan Circulation Element and Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and
f. The ultimate plan to provide access to all sites within the
block bounded by Foothill Boulevard, Archibald Avenue, Klusman Avenue, and
Estacia Court, will require a 26-foot offer of dedication to be obtained
equally from the properties fronting Foothill Boulevard and the properties
fronting Estacia Court (13 feet from each property). The offer of dedication
will extend from the west side of the parcels fronting Archibald Avenue to
Klusman Avenue; and
g. Because only the five parcels fronting Foothill Boulevard are
being developed in the block at this time, a 24-foot drive aisle must be
provided entirely on the site. Upon development of other parcels in the
block, the drive aisle may be shifted to the north to straddle the property
lines; and
h. The property to the north is designated as Specialty
Commercial. However, because the properties to the north are existing
residential uses, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires a 15-foot
landscape setback be provided; and
i. Because of the limited access to Foothill Boulevard for the
block and drive aisle requirement at the rear of the site, the requirement for
a 15-foot landscape setback would result in the elimination of all parking
spaces for the project; and
j. The residences north of the subject site are located at the
northern portion of their respective lots separated from the proposed
commercial uses by detached garages, providing a buffer between the uses; and
k. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires a 5-foot side
yard setback be provided; however, the drive aisle will ultimately be extended
over the parcel to the east in the future to allow access to Foothill
Boulevard; and
1. In the formulation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
the City recognized the potential historic and cultural value of the
residences provided within the block. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
encourages the retention of historic and cultural resources where possible;
and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 94-04 - CANPOS
July 13, 1994
Page 3
m. The city has identified the area bounded by Foothill
Boulevard, Archibald Avenue, Klusman Avenue, and Estacia Court as a potential
historic overlay district in order to retain the historic and cultural
significance of the area; and
n. the application as proposed requires 33 parking spaces;
whereas, the site plans indicate 29 spaces are being provided. Staff has
recommended the elimination of 5 spaces to provide adequate vehicle stacking
for cars entering or exiting from Foothill Boulevard, a major arterial street
with current traffic volume of over 35,000 daily two-way trips and projected
traffic volume of over 40,000 daily two-way trips. Therefore, the total
number of parking spaces available for the proposed development would be
25 spaces; and
o. The applicant contemplates conversion of several small
residences to commercial/office uses. The relatively small size of these
structures will be suitable for specialty commercial or small office users
which have lower parking demand than the typical shopping center or office
complex.
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 i and 2 above, this commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
a. That strict Or l'iteral interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code.
b. 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.
c. 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.
d. 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.
e. 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.
4. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined
that the proposed project does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environment. The project has been determined to be
exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). The Planning commission,
having final approval over this project, has reviewed and considered this
exemption prior to the approval of this project.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 94-04 - CAMPOS
July 13, 1994
Page 4
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in
paragraphs l, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the
application.
6. The secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TB DAY OF JULY 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCBO CUCANONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, 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 13th day of July 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 13, 1994 ~ ~'
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission ~ ~
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Scott Murphy, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 93-45 HILDENBRAND - Consideration of
revocation of a stress reduction clinic within an existing
industrial complex in the Industrial Park designation (Subarea 6)
of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8645 Haven Avenue,
Suite 550 - APN: 209-144-54
ANALYSIS: In December of 1992, the City adopted Section 9.24 of the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code establishing criteria under which massage
establishments may be permitted. The Code establishes the permitting process
for both massage establishments and massage technicians working within those
establishments. The permitting process requires background checks to be done,
establishes minimum levels of improvement to the building, and establishes
minimum certification requirements for technicians. The complete Code section
is contained as Exhibit "B."
On November 10, 1993, the Planning Commission approved plans for a stress
reduction clinic, "The Lily Pad," at the Haven Tech Center located on the east
side of Haven Avenue, south of Arrow Route. The plans called for the use of
aroma therapy, relaxation breathing exercises, stretching, and sensory
deprivation to relieve stress and provide relaxation therapy. Because the
applicant did not have a Massage Establishment or Massage Technician Permit,
the conditions of approval prohibited massage. In addition, the conditions
prohibited adult businesses from being conducted with the use.
AS a result of an undercover investigation by the Police Department on May 4,
1994, arrests were made for prostitution and for drug possession. A
representative from the Police Department will be available at the meeting to
provide an oral report to the Commission. Staff has not been able to reach
the applicant and the business has not been open, to the best of staff's
knowledge, since the arrests.
On May 25, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted a meeting to review
compliance with the conditions of approval. Based on information provided by
the Police Department, the Commission determined that there was sufficient
evidence to indicate that the application was in violation of the conditions
Of approval. As a result, the Commission directed staff to schedule a public
hearing to consider revocation of the Conditional Use Permit application.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 93-45 - HILDENBRAND
July 13, 1994
Page 2
ZONING REQUIREMENTS: Massage establishments may only be permitted in the
General Commercial designations, subject to approval of a Conditional Use
Permit. "The Lily Pad" is located in the Industrial Park designation.
Therefore, the use is in violation of the Development Code and the Industrial
Area Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission revoke
Conditional Use Permit 93-45 through adoption of the attached Resolution.
BB:SM/jfS
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Resolution of Approval for CUP 93-45
Exhibit "B" - Municipal Code Section 9.24 Regulating Massage
Exhibit "C" - Memorandum from Police Department dated
May 25, 1994
Resolution Revoking CUP 93-45
RESOLUTION NO. 93-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 93-45, A REQUEST TO ESTABLISH A STRESS
REDUCTION CLINIC WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN
THE INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 6) OF THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 8645 HAVEN
AVENUE, SUITE 550, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF
- APN: 209-144-54.
A. Recitals.
1. Debra Nildenbrand has filed an application for the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-45, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 10th day of November 1993, 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, 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 November 10, 1993, including
written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on the east side
of Haven Avenue, at 8645 Haven Avenue, Suite 550, which is presently partially
developed with a multi-tenant industrial park; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated
industrial uses and is vacant, the property to the south is designated for
industrial uses and is developed with a warehouse/manufacturing building, the
property to the east is designated for industrial uses and is developed with a
warehouse/manufacturing building, and the property to the west is designated
for industrial uses and is vacant; and
c. The establishment of the Stress Reduction Clinic is
consistent with the Industrial Park designation of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan and the Industrial Park designation of the General Plan; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-96
CUP 93-45 - HILDENBRAND
November 10, 1993
Page 2
d. The application, with the attached conditions of approval,
will comply with all applicable standards of the Development Code; and
e. The Stress Reduction Clinic will utilize various stress
reduction techniques including light therapy, aroma therapy, relaxation
breathing exercises, stretching, and sensory deprivation.
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 i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
a. That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the
objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
4. Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined that
the proposed project does not have the potential for causing significant
effects on the environment. The project has been determined to be exempt from
CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). The Planning Commission, having final
approval over this project, has reviewed and considered this exemption,
including the comments received during the public review process, prior to the
approval of this project.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below and in the Standard conditions,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Plannino Division
1) Approval of this request shall not waive
compliance with all sections of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan and all other City ordinances.
2 } If operation of the facility causes adverse
effects upon adjacent businesses or operations,
including, but not limited to, noise, vibration
or parking, the Conditional Use Permit shall be
brought before the Planning Commission for
consideration and possible termination of the
use.
3 } Any signs proposed for the facility shall be
designed in conformance with the Uniform Sign
Program for the Haven Tech Center and the
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-96
CUP 93-45 - HILDENBRAND
November 10, 1993
Page 3
Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and shall require
review and approval by the Planning Division
prior to installation.
4) The applicant shall obtain and maintain a valid
Business License.
5 ) The two rage rooms shall be soundproofed to
comply with the Class A performance standards of
the Industrial Area Specific Plan to the
satisfaction of the City Planner pursuant to an
inspect ion.
6 ) The use shall be operated as not to generate
vibration discernible without instruments by the
average person on the property or within an
adjoining lease space.
7) No massage, as defined by the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code, is permitted by this permit.
8) No adult business, as defined by the Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code, is permitted by this
permit.
9) Any expansion of this use shall require
modification of this permit.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 10TM DAY OF NOVEMBER 1993.
PLANNING COMM SION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY: ~ Larry 'cNiel, Chairman "
ATT : ~
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 Cormnission held
on the 10th day of November 1993, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS .' NONE
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PRCUECT#:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATsON:
/
Those items checked are Conditions of Approval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DNISION, (714) 98~-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. TIme LImits ~
~/' 1. Aleroyal shall expire, unless exlended by the Planning Commission, it building permits are ---/ /-
not issued or approved use he~ not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. DeveiopmenVDesign Review shay be approved prior to ! / , / i
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of / /
4. The developer shall commence, participate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, _./ /
participated in, or o0nsummated, a Mello-Roos Community Fadlitiss District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucarnonga Fire Protection District to finance construction and/or maintenance of
a fire station to serve the development. The station shall be located, designed, and built to
all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga F~e Protection District, and sttall become the
District's property upon completion. The equipment shall be selected by the District in
accordance with its needs. In any building of a Station, the developer shall comply with all
al:~icable laws and regulations. The CFD shell be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recl;Hdation of the final map _oc~__,ra.
5. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of buiiding permits, whichever comes __/ /
first, the a,o~licant shall consent to, or participate in, the estabashrnent of a MellO-Roos
Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary SChool
facilities. However, if any softool district has previously established suctt a Community
Fadlities District, the a,o~icant shall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the
project site into the territory of such existing Distr~ I~or to the racordmion of the final map
or the issuance of I~uilding permits, whichever comes first. Further, it the affected SChool
distdct has not formed a Mello-Rcos Community Facilitie8 DiStrict within twelve months from
the date of ap0roval of the project and I:mor to the recon:lation of the final map or issuance
of building pern~t$ for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
J
This condition shall be waived if the Ch'y receives notice that the al~plicant and all affected
school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommedate any and all school
impacts as a result of this project.
6. Prior tO recordafion of the final ma,o or prior to issuance of building betmite when no map is / /
involved, written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water
facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water
districtwithing0dayspriortolinal malDal;;rovalinthecaseofsubdivisionorpriortoissuance
of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. SIte Development
1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the a,opfoved plans which .__/ /
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior matels and colo~s, landing, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and
.Specific Plan and
Planned Community.
v/ 2. Prior to any use of the project site or business activity being commenced thereon, all .__/ /
Conditions of Approval shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
v/ 3. OccupancYofthefacilityshallnctcommenceurdilSuchtimeasallUniformBuiidingCodeand __./ /
State Fire MarShall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occugancy, plans shall
be submitted to ~e Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection DistriCt and the Building and Safety
Division to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to
"'/ 4. ReviseS site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Al)CH'oval shall be / /
submitled for City Planner review and api:s'oval prlor lo issuance ol building permits.
5. All site, grading, landsc. aDe, irrigation, and street irngmvement I~ans shall be coordinateS for ~ /
consistency prior to issuance of any penTitS (SUCh as grading, tree removal, encroachment
building, etc.), or prior to final ma,o alXxoval in the case of a custom lit subdivislin, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes find.
v/ 6. Al:~oroval of this request shall not waive compliance wilh all sections ol the 0evelif)ment .__/ /
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and apt;)llcable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building PenTtit issuance.
7. A datalieS on-site lighting ~ shah be revieweS and aOpmved by the City Planner and / /
Sherrd's DeOaflment (989-6811 ) I)dor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination, localton, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent FxolNirties.
8. If no centralized trash receOtaclee are l:N'ovided, all trash l:dck-up shall belorindivk:lualunits .__/ /
with all recel:Racles shielded from public view.
9. Trash recel~tacla(s) ara requiteS and shall meet City standard8. The final design, locatlins, / /
and me number of trash receptacles shall be sul~e¢~ to C~/Planner review and al3xoval
prior to issuance of building permits.
10. All ground-mounted utility aOl~rtenances such as transformers. AC conclansers, etc., shalt .--J /
he ticareS out of public view and adequately screened through the usa o! a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berming, and/or landsca;ing to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
9.20.020
9.20.020 Violation--Penalty. It is unlawful for any
person to violate any provision or to fail to comply with
any of the requirements of this chapter. Any person vio-
lating any provision of this chapter or failing to comply
with any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished
by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars or by impris-
onment not exceeding six months or by both such fine and
imprisonment. Each person shall be deemed guilty of a
separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof
during which any violation of the provisions of this chap-
ter is committed and shall be deemed punishable therefor as
provided in this chapter. (Ord. 425 §t(part), 1990).
Chapter 9.24
MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS AND TECHNICIANS
Sections:
ARTICLE I. MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS
9.24.010 Definitions.
9.24 020 Permit required.
9.24 030 Same--Exceptions.
9.24 040 Massage establishment application.
9.24 050 Same--Operating requirements.
9.24 060 Same--Facilities.
9.24 070 Same--Inspections.
9.24 080 Permit nonassignable.
9.24 090 Change of location or name.
9.24 100 Massage establishment notification of
change.
9.~4.110 Same--Renewal of permit.
9.24.120 Applicability of regulations to existing
businesses.
ARTICLE II. MASSAGE TECHNICIANS
9.24.200 Massage technicians--Permit required.
9.24.210 Same--Application.
9.24.220 Same--Requirements for renewal.
9.24.230 Same--Notification by technician.
(Rancho Cucamonga 114-10
9.24.010
Sections: (Continued)
ARTICLE III. OUT CALL MASSAGE SERVICES
9.24.300 Out call massage services--Special endorse-
ment required.
9.24.310 Same--Application.
9.24.320 Same--Records.
ARTICLE IV. PROHIBITED CONDUCT, PROCEDURES,
AND PENALTIES
9.24.400 Prohibited conduct.
9.24 410 Suspension pending revocation.
9.24 420 Revocation--Massage establishment permit.
9.24 430 Same--Massage technician permit.
9.24 440 Permit denial/revocation appeal procedure.
9.24 450 Burden of proof at hearing.
9.24 460 Penalties for violation of chapter.
9.24 470 Civil remedies available.
9.24.480 Severability.
ARTICLE I. MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENTS
9.24.010 Definitions. Unless the particular provi-
sion of the context otherwise requires, the definitions and
provisions contained in this section shall govern the con-
struction, meaning, and application of words and phrases
used in this chapter:
1. 'Director" means the administrative services di-
rector of the city, or his or her designee.
2. "Employee" means any and all persons, other than a
massage technician, who may render any service to the per-
mittee, and who receives compensation from the permittee or
his or her agent, and who have no physical contact with the
customers or clients.
3. "Hearing officer" means the city manager, or his
or her designee.
4. "Massage" means any method of treating the exter-
nal parts of the human body for remedial, health, or hy-
gienic purposes by means of pressure on or friction
against; or stroking, kneading, rubbing, tapping, pounding;
or stimulating the external parts of the human body with
the hands or other parts of the human body, with or without
the aid of any mechanical or electrical apparatus or appli-
ances; or with or without supplementary aids, such as rub-
bing alcohol, liniments, antiseptics, oils, powders,
creams, lotions, ointments, or other similar preparations.
5. "Massage establishment" means any establishment
having a fixed place of business where any person, firm,
(Rancho Cucamonga
E~~ll 5/92)
9.24.020
association, partnership or corporation engages in, con-
ducts, or carries on, or permits to be engaged in, conduct-
ed or carried on, any business of giving massages, baths,
administration of fomentation, electric or magnetic treat-
ments, alcohol rubs, or any other type of system for treat-
ment or manipulation of the human body with or without any
character of bath, such as Turkish, Russian, Swedish, Japa-
nese, vapor, shower, electric tub, sponge, mineral, fomen-
tation, or any other type of bath.
6. "Massage technician" includes a "massage techni-
cian," "massage trainee," "masseur," "masseuse," and means
any person who administers to another person, for any form
of consideration, "massage" as defined, or baths, manipula-
tion of the body, electric massage procedure, or similar
procedure.
7. "Out call massage service" means any business
where the primary function of such business is to engage in
or carry on massage, not at a fixed location but at a loca-
tion designated by the customer or client.
8. "Permittee" means any person, firm, partnership or
corporation having a permit issued hereunder.
9. "Recognized school of massage" means any school or
institution of learning which teaches the theory, ethics,
practice, profession, or work of massage, which has been
approved pursuant to the California Education Code. A
school offering a correspondence course not requiring at-
tendance shall not be deemed a "recognized school." The
City shall have the right to confirm that the applicant has
actually artended class in a recognized school of massage.
(Ord. 485 §l(part), 1992).
9.24.020 Permit required. A. It is unlawful for any
person, firm, partnership or corporation to engage in,
conduct or carry on, or to permit to be engaged in, con-
ducted or carried on, in or upon any premises within the
city, v. he operation of a massage establishment as herein
described, without first having obtained a permit issued by
the city, pursuant to the provisions hereinafter set forth.
Said permit shall innediately be surrendered to the direc-
tor upon suspension, revocation, or expiration of said per-
mit.
B. A permit issued pursuant to this chapter shall be
valid for twelve months from the date of issuance unless
revoked or suspended. The permit required shall be in
addition to any business license required by city ordinance
or any other permit required for such use including, but
not limited to any conditional use permit or other similar
entitlement for use. (Ord. 485 §l(part}, 1992).
(Rancho Cucamonga
9.24.030--9.24.040
9.24.030 Same--ExceDtions. The provisions of this
chapter shall not apply to the following classes of indi-
viduals while engaged in the performance of the duties of
their respective professions:
A. Physicians, surgeons, chiropractors, osteopaths,
or physical therapists who are duly licensed to practice
their respective professions in the state.
B. Nurses registered under the laws of the state.
C. Barbers and beauticians who are duly licensed
under the laws of the state while engaging in practice
within the scope of their licenses, except that this provi-
sion shall apply solely to the massaging of the neck, face,
and/or scalp of the customer or client.
D. Hospitals, nursing homes, sanatoriums, or other
health care facilities duly licensed by the state.
E. Accredited high schools, junior colleges, and
colleges or universities whose coaches and trainers are
acting within the scope of their employment.
F. Trainers of amateur, semiprofessional or profes-
sional athletes or athletic teams. (Ord. 485 §l(part),
1992).
9.24.040 Massaqe establishment application. A. Any
person, corporation, or partnership desiring to obtain a
permit to operate a massage establishment shall make appli-
cation under penalty of perjury to the director. Prior to
submitting such application, a nonrefundable fee in an
amount established by city council resolution shall be paid
to the city to defray, in part, the cost of the investiga-
tion and report required by this chapter. A copy of the
receipt showing payment of the required fee shall accompany
the application.
B. The application and fee required under this sec-
tion shall be in addition to any license, permit or fee re-
quired under any other chapter of this code or ordinance
heEetofore or hereafter adopted.
C. The application for permit does not authorize con-
ducting a massage establishment until such permit has been
granted.
D. Each applicant for a massage establishment permit
shall submit the following information:
1. The full true name under which the business
will be conducted;
2. The present or proposed address where the busi-
ness is to be conducted;
3. The applicant's full, true name, any other
names used, date of birth, California Driver's License num-
ber or California identification number, Social Security
number, present residence address and telephone number.
The sex, height, weight, color of hair, and color of eyes;
(Rancho Cucamonga
114-13 5/92)
9.24.040
4. Previous two residences of the applicant and
the inclusive dates at each address;
5. The applicant's business, occupation, and
employment history for five years preceding the date of
application, and the inclusive dates of same;
6. The permit history of the applicant, including
whether such person has ever had any permit or license
issued by any agency, board, city, county, territory, or
state, the date of issuance of such a permit or license,
whether the permit or license was revoked or suspended, or
if a vocational or professional license or permit was is-
sued, revoked, or suspended, and the reason(s) therefor;
7. All convictions for any crime involving conduct
which requires Pegistration under any state law similar to
and including California Penal Code Section 290, or of
conduct which is a violation of the provisions of any state
law similar to and including California Penal Code Sections
314, 315, 316, 318, 647, or any crime involving dishonesty,
fraud, deceit, or moral turpitude;
8. A complete definition of all services to be
provided;
9. The name, address, and date of birth of each
massage technician, aide, trainee, or employee who is or
will be employed in said establishment;
10. The name and address of any massage business
or other like establishment owned or operated by any person
whose name is required to be given pursuant to this section
wherein the business or profession of massage is carried
on;
ll. Acceptable written proof that the applicant is
at least eighteen years of age;
12. If the applicant is a corporation, the name of
the corporation shall be set forth exactly as shown in its
articles of incorporation or charter together with the
state and date of incorporation and the names and residence
addresses of each of its current officers and directors,
and of~each stockholder holding more than five percent of
the stock of that corporation;
13. If the applicant is a partnership, the appli-
cation shall set forth the name and residence addresses of
each of the partners, including limited partners. If the
applicant is a limited partnership, it shall furnish a copy
of its certificate of limited partnership as filed with the
county clerk. If one or more of the partners is a corpora-
tion, the provisions of subdivision 12 of this subsection D
pertaining to corporate applicants shall apply;
14. The applicant, if a corporation, Or partner-
ship, shall designate one of its officers or general part-
ners to act as its responsible managing employee. Such
(Rancho Cucamonga
5/92) 114-14
9.24.040
person shall complete and sign all application forms re-
quired of an individual applicant under this chapter, how-
ever, only one application fee shall be charged. The cor-
poration's or partnership's responsible managing employee
must, at all times, meet all of the requirements estab-
lished for permittees by this chapter or the corporation or
partnership permit shall be suspended until a responsible
managing employee who meets such requirements is designat-
ed. If no such person is designated within ninety days,
the corporation or partnership permit shall be deemed can-
celed without further notice and a new initial application
for permit must be filed;
15. The director may require the applicant to fur-
nish fingerprints when needed for the purpose of establish-
ing identification. Any required fingerprinting fee will
be the responsibility of the applicant;
16. Two portrait ("passport") photographs of the
applicant, two inches by two inches in size;
17. A description of any other business to be
operated on the same premises, or on adjoining premises,
owned or controlled by the applicant;
18. The name and address of the owner and lessor
of the real property upon or in which the business is to be
conducted. In the event the applicant is not the legal
owner of the property, the application must be accompanied
by a copy of the lease and a notarized acknowledgment from
the owner of the property that a massage establishment will
be located on his/her property;
19. Authorization for the city, its agents and em-
ployees to seek information and conduct an investigation
into the truth of the statements set forth in the applica-
tion;
20. The applicant shall submit any change of ad-
dress or fact which may occur during the procedure of ap-
plying for a massage establishment permit;
21. The applicant, if an individual, or designated
responsible managing employee if a partnership or corpora-
tion, shall personally appear at the administrative ser-
vices department and produce proof that the application fee
has been paid and shall present the application containing
the required information as described in this section;
22. A certificate of compliance from both the city
community development department, building and safety divi-
sion, and the San Bernardino County health department must
be submitted prior to the application approval. Any re-
quired inspection fees shall be the responsibility of the
applicant.
If the certificates of compliance are not received by
the director within ninety days of the date of filing, the
(Rancho Cucamonga
114-15 5/92)
9.24.050
application shall be deemed void. If any land use permit
or other entitlement for use is required, such permit or
entitlement for use shall be applied for and received prior
to the massage establishment permit becoming effective;
23. The director shall have up to sixty calendar
days to investigate the application and the background of
the applicant. Upon the completion of the investigation,
the director shall grant the permit if he or she finds:
a. The required fee has been paid,
b. The application conforms in all respects to
the provisions of this chapter,
c. The applicant has not made a material mis-
representation in the application,
d. The applicant, if an individual, or any of
the stockholders of the corporation, or any officers or
directors, if the applicant is a corporation, or any part--
ner if the applicant is a partnership, has not been con-
victed in a court of competent jurisdiction of an offense
involving conduct which requires registration under Cali-
fornia Penal Code Section 290, or of conduct which is a
violation of the provisions of California Penal Code Sec-
tions 314, 315, 316, 318, 647, or any other crime involving
dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or moral turpitude,
e. The applicant has not had a massage estab-
lishment, massage technician, or other similar permit or
license denied, revoked, or suspended by the city, or any
other state or local agency prior to the date of approval,
f. The applicant is at least eighteen years of
age,
g. The massage establishment as proposed by the
applicant would comply with all applicable laws, including,
but not limited to, health, zoning, fire, and safety re-
quirements and standards;
24. If the director, following investigation of
the applicant, determines that the applicant does not ful-
fill the requirements as set forth in this chapter, the
director shall deny said application by dated written no-
tice to the applicant. The applicant shall have the right
of appeal as set forth in Section 9.24.440. (Ord. 485
§l(part), 1992).
9.24.050 Seme--O~eratinq requirements. No person
shall engage in, conduct, or carry on, or permit to be
engaged in, conducted, or carried on, any massage estab-
lishment, unless each and all of the following requirements
are met:
A. Each person employed or acting as a massage tech-
nician shall have a valid permit issued by the director.
(Rancho Cucamonga
9.24.050
It shall be unlawful for any owner, manager, operator,
responsible managing employee, or permittee in charge of or
in control of a massage establishment to employ or permit a
person to act as a massage technician who is not in posses-
sion of a valid, unrevoked massage technician permit issued
pursuant to this chapter and which is worn clearly visible
during working hours.
B. The possession of a valid massage establishment
permit does not authorize the possessor to perform work for
which a massage technician permit is required.
C. Massage and bath operations shall be carried on or
conducted, and the premises shall be open, only between the
hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m.
D. A list of services available and the cost of such
services shall be posted in an open public place within the
premises, and shall be described in readily understandable
language. No owner, manager, operator, responsible manag-
ing employee, or permittee shall permit, and no massage
technician shall offer or perform, any service other than
those posted.
E. The massage establishment permit and a copy of the
permit of each and every massage technician employed in the
establishment shall be displayed in an open and conspicuous
place on the premises.
F. Every massage establishment shall keep a written
record of the date and hour of each treatment, the name and
address of each customer or client, the name of the massage
technician administering the treatment, and the type of
treatment administered. Such written record shall be main-
rained in form approved by the director. Such records
shall be open to inspection only by officials charged with
enforcement of this chapter and shall be used for no other
purpose, including use of the file by owners and employees
of the establishment. Any unauthorized disclosure or use
of such information by any officer or employee of the city
or the county, or the owner or employee of the massage
es{ablishment shall constitute a misdemeanor and such per-
sons shall be subject to the penalty of the provisions of
this chapter in addition to any other penalties provided by
law. Such records shall be maintained on the premises of
the massage establishment for a period of two years.
G. Massage establishments shall at all times be
equipped with an adequate supply of clean, sanitary towels,
coverings, and linens. Clean towels, coverings and linens
shall be stored in enclosed cabinets. Towels and linens
shall not be used on more than one customer or client,
unless such towel or linen has first been laundered and
(Rancho Cucamonga
114-17 5/92)
9.24.050
disinfected. Disposable towels and coverings shall not be
used on more than one customer or client. Soiled linens
and paper towels shall be deposited in separate, approved
receptacles.
H. If male and female customers or clients are to be
treated simultaneously at the same massage establishment, a
separate massage room or rooms, separate dressing facili-
ties and separate toilet facilities shall be provided for
male and female customers or clients.
I. Wet and dry heat rooms, steam or vapor rooms or
cabinets, toilet rooms, shower and bath rooms, tanning
booths, whirlpool baths and pools shall be thoroughly
cleaned and disinfected as needed, and at least once each
day the premises are open, with a disinfectant approved by
the county health department. Bathtubs shall be thoroughly
cleaned with a disinfectant approved by the health depart-
ment after each use. All walls, ceilings, floors, and
other physical facilities of the establishment must be in
good repair and maintained in a clean and sanitary condi-
tion.
J. Instruments utilized in performing massage shall
not be used on more than one customer or client unless such
instruments have been sterilized, using approved steriliz-
ing methods.
K. All employees, including massage technicians,
shall be clean, and wear clean, nontransparent outer
garments. Said garments shall not expose their genitals,
pubic area, buttocks, or chest. Massage technicians shall
maintain the massage technician permit visibly on their
person during business hours.
L. NO person shall enter, be or remain in any part of
a massage establishment while in the possession of,
consuming, under the influence of or using any alcoholic
beverage or drugs except pursuant to a prescription for
such drugs. The owner, operator, responsible managing em-
ployee,~ manager, or permittee shall not permit any such
person to enter or remain upon such premises.
M. No massage establishment shall operate as a school
of massage, or use the same facilities as that of a school
of massage.
N. No massage establishment granted a permit under
this article shall place, publish or distribute or cause to
be placed, published or distributed any advertising matter
that depicts any portion of the human body that would rea-
sonably suggest to prospective customers or clients that
any service is available other than those services de-
scribed in subsection D of this section, nor shall any
massage establishment or out call massage service employ
( Rancho Cucamonga
9.24.060
language in the text of such advertising that would reason-
ably suggest to a prospective patron that any service is
available other than those services as described in subsec-
tion D of this section.
O. No service enumerated in subsection D of this
section may be carried on within any cubicle, room, booth
or any area within a massage establishment, which is fitted
with a door capable of being locked.
P. All exterior doors shall remain unlocked from the
interior side during business hours.
Q. A massage shall not be given and no customer or
client shall be in the presence of a massage technician or
other employee unless the customer's or client's genitals
are fully covered by a nontransparent covering and, in
addition, a female customer's or client's breasts are fully
covered by a nontransparent covering.
R. No massage establishment shall be open for busi-
ness without at least one massage technician on the premis-
es at all times who is in possession of a current, unre-
voked permit. (Ord. 485 §l(part), 1992).
9.24.060 Same--Facilities. Every massage establish-
ment shall maintain facilities meeting all of the following
requirements:
A. Any signs shall be in conformance with the current
ordinances of the city.
B. Minimum lighting shall be provided in accordance
with Article 220 of the National Electric Code or successor
provision or provisions, and, in addition, enough lighting
shall be provided in each room or enclosure where massage
services are performed on customers or clients to provide a
minimum of seventy-five-foot candle light intensity at
three feet above the floor and the same shall be energized
and operational at all times when massage services are
being performed therein.
C. Minimum ventilation shall be provided in accor-
dance with Section 1105 of the Uniform Building Code or
successor provision or provisions.
D. Adequate equipment for disinfecting and steril-
izing instruments used in performing the acts of massage
shall be provided.
E. Hot and cold running water shall be provided at
all times.
F. Closed cabinets shall be provided for storage of
clean linens.
G. Adequate bathing, dressing, locker and toilet
facilities shall be provided for customers or clients. A
minimum of one tub or shower and a dressing room containing
(Rancho Cucamonga
114-19 5/92)
9-24.070--9.24.080
separate lockers which are capable of being locked must be
provided for each customer or client. Separate toilets and
wash basins must be provided for male and female customers
or clients.
H. A minimum of one separate wash basin for employees
shall be provided at all times. The basin shall be located
within or as close as practicable to the area devoted to
performing of massage services. Sanitary towels shall also
be provided at each basin.
I. Pads used on massage tables shall be covered with
a durable, washable plastic or other waterproof material
acceptable to the county health department.
J. Proof of compliance with all applicable provisions
of this code and all applicable laws, ordinances and regu-
lations shall be provided prior to the issuance of any
permits. (Ord. 485 §l(part), 1992).
9.24.070 Same--Inspections. The chief of police,
director of cor~nunity development, director of the county
health department, or their authorized representatives,
shall have the right to enter the massage establishment for
the purpose of reasonable unscheduled inspections to ob-
serve and enforce compliance with applicable regulations,
laws, and provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 485 §l(part)
1992). '
9.24.080 Permit nonassiqnabl~. No massage establish-
ment permit may be sold, transferred or assigned by the
permittee, or by operation of law, to any other person or
persons, and any such sale, transfer or assignment, or
attempted sale, transfer or assignment, shall be deemed to
constitute a voluntary surrender of such permit and such
permit shall thereafter be deemed terminated and void;
provided and excepting, however, that if the permittee is a
partnership and one or more of the partners should die, one
or more of the surviving partners may acquire, by purchase
or otherwise, the interest of the deceased partner or part-
ners without effecting a surrender or termination of such
permit and in each case the permittee shall thereafter be
deemed to be the surviving partner(s). One or more pro-
posed partners in a partnership granted a permit hereunder
may make application to the director, together with the fee
established by the city council therefor, to amend the
original application providing all information as required
for partners in the first instance and, upon approval
thereof, the transfer of the interests of one or more part-
ners to the proposed partner or partners may occur. If the
permit is issued to a corporation, stock may be sold,
transferred, issued, or assigned to a person not listed on
the application as a stockholder, the permit shall be
(Rancho Cucamonga
9.24.090--9.24.120
deemed terminated and void; provided, however, the proposed
transferee may submit to the director, together with a fee
established by the city council, an application to amend
the original application providing all information a-s re-
quired for stockholders in the first instance, and, upon
approval thereof, the transfer may then occur. (Ord. 485
§l(part), 1992).
9.24.090 Change of location or name. A. A change of
location of a massage establishment may be approved by the
director provided all ordinances and regulations of the
city are complied with.
B. No permittee shall operate under any name or con-
duct any establishment under any designation not specified
in the permit.
C. Any application for an expansion of a building or
other place of business of a massage establishment shall
require compliance with Section 9.24.060. (Ord. 485 §1
(part), 1992).
9.24.100 Massage establishment notification of
change. A. The holder of the permit to operate or conduct
a massage establishment shall notify the director, in writ-
ing, of the name and address of each person employed, in-
cluding massage technicians, at such establishment within
five days of said person being employed.
The requirements of this section are in addition to
the other provisions of this article, and nothing contained
herein shall relieve the permittee of the responsibility of
ascertaining, prior to employment, whether an employee has
a current, unrevoked massage technician permit.
B. if, during the term of a permit, the applicant has
any change in information provided on or concerning the
original application or permit renewal application, notifi-
cation must be made to the director in writing, within ten
business days of the change. (Ord. 485 §l(part), 1992).
9.24.110 Same--Renewal of permit. A massage estab-
lishment licensed under this chapter shall submit an appli-
cation for renewal thirty days prior to the expiration
thereof. The renewal application shall be submitted to-
geTher with the requisite fee as established by the city
council. Approval of the renewal application shall be
contingent upon satisfactory compliance with all pertinent
prcvisions of this chapter. {Ord. 485 §l(part), 1992).
9.24.120 Applicability of regulations to existin~
businesses. The provisions of this article shall be appli-
cable to all persons and businesses described herein wheth-
114-21 (Rancho Cucamonga
9.24.200--9.24.210
er the described activities were established before or
after the effective date of this article, except that mas-
sage establishments legally in business prior to the ef-
fective date hereof shall have one hundred eighty calendar
days or until the expiration of their current business
license, whichever is greater, to comply with the terms
hereof. (Ord. 485 §l(part), 1992).
ARTICLE II. MASSAGE TECHNICIANS
9.24.200 Message technicians--Permit required. A.
It is unlawful for any person to engage in the bus~ness of
acting or to act as a massage technician unless such person
holds a valid massage technician permit issued by the city.
Each message technician permi~ holder shall be issued a
photo identification badge which will also serve as a mas-
sage technician permit. The permit holder shall maintain
the massage technician permit visibly on his or her person
during business hours. Each permit holder shall immediate-
ly surrender to the director any massage technician permit
issued by the city upon the suspension, revocation, or
expiration of such permit.
B. A permit under this section shall be valid for
twelve months from the date of issuance unless revoked or
suspended.
C. Upon payment of all fees, submittal of the re-
quired application and proof of completion of fingerprint-
ing and photographing, the city council, or its designee,
may issue a temporary massage technician permit which shall
be valid if the applicant certifies under penalty of perju-
ry that there are no grounds for denying the applicant a
permit under the provisions of Section 9.24.430 of this
chapter. A temporary massage technician permit may be
terminated by the city at any time by written notification
of termination to the holder of the temporary massage tech-
nician permit if an investigation by the city determines
that grounds for denial of a permit exists under Section
9.24.430 of this chapter. Any temporary permit shall auto-
matically terminate upon the issuance of a regular massage
technician permit to the applicant after the completion of
the sheriff's investigation. (Ord. 485-B §1, 1993: Ord.
485 §l(part), 1992).
9.24.210 Same--Application. A. Each applicant for a
massage technician permit shall make application under.
penalty of perjury to the director. Prior to submitting an
application, a nonrefundable fee as established by the city
council shall be paid to help defray the costs of investi-
gation and report required by this article. A copy of the
receipt shall accompany the application.
(Rancho Cucamonga 114-22
11~931 ~O
9.24.210
B. Permit fees required under this section shall be
in addition to any license, permit or fee required under
any other section or chapter of this code.
C. The application for permit does not authorize the
applicant to practice massage until such permit has been
granted.
D. Each applicant for a massage technician permit
shall submit the following information:
1. Each and every fact or inquiry set forth in
Sections 9.24.040(D)(3) through (D)(7);
2. Acceptable written proof that the applicant is
at least eighteen years of age.
E. The applicant must furnish a diploma or certif-
icate of graduation from a minimum one-hundred-hour course
of instruction from either:
114-22a (Rancho Cucamonga
9.24.210
1. A recognized school of massage as definedin
Section 9.24.010(H); or
2. An existing school or institution of learning
outside the state, together with a certified transcript of
the applicant's school records showing date of enrollment,
hours of instruction and graduation from a course having at
least the minimum requirements prescribed by Title 5, Divi-
sion 21, of the California Code of Regulations, wherein the
theory, method, profession and work of massage is taught,
and a copy of the school's approval by its State of Educa-
tion.
F. The massage establishment's full name, address and
telephone number where the massage technician will be em-
ployed at a fixed place of business. In the event the
applicant seeks to conduct out call massage services not
listed in the original application, a separate application
and fee must be submitted.
G. Such other identification and information as the
director may require in order to discover the truth of the
matters herein specified as required to be set forth in the
application.
H. Two portrait ("passport") photographs of the ap-
plicant, two inches by two inches in size.
I. The director may require the applicant to furnish
fingerprints when needed for the purpose of establishing
identification. Any required fingerprinting fees will be
the responsibility of the applicant.
J. A certificate from a medical doctor licensed to
practice in the state stating that the applicant has, with-
in thirty days immediately preceding the date of applica-
tion, been examined and found to be free of any contagious
or communicable disease.
K. Authorization for the city, its agents and employ-
ees to seek information and conduct an investigation into
the truth of the statements set forth in the application.
L. The director shall have up to sixty calendar days
to~investigate the application and the background of the
applicant. Upon completion of the investigation, the di-
rector shall grant the permit if he or she finds in accor-
dance with Section 9.24.040(D)(23)(a) through (f), inclu-
sive; and
1. The applicant has furnished an acceptable di-
ploma or certificate of graduation from a recognized
school; or
2. The applicant has furnished written proof from
a recognized school that the minimum number of hours of
instruction have been completed.
M. If the director, following investigation of the
application, determines that the applicant does not fulfill
the requirements as set forth in this section, the director
114-23 (Rancho Cucamonga
9.24.220--9.24.310
shall deny said application by dated, written notice. Any
applicant for a permit who is refused a permit by the di-
rector may appeal the denial as set forth in Section
9.24.440. (Ord. 485 §l(part), 1992).
9.24.220 Same--Requirements for renewal. A. A mas-
sage technician licensed under this chapter shall file an
application to renew the permit thirty days prior to the
date of expiration thereof. Approval shall be contingent
upon satisfactory compliance with all pertinent sections of
this chapter, including a current medical clearance. A
renewal fee, as established by the city council, shall be
charged to defray, in part, the cost of the renewal inves-
tigation required by this chapter.
B. Each licensee seeking to renew a massage techni-
cian license shall, together with the application for
renewal, provide written proof that the licensee has suc-
cessfully completed at least twelve hours of continuing
education from a recognized school of massage during the
previous twelve months. The application for license renew-
al shall be denied if such written proof is not provided at
the time the application for renewal is filed. (Ord. 485-A
§1, 1992: Ord. 485 §l(part), 1992).
9.24.230 Same--Notification by technician. If, dUr-
ing the term of a permit, the massage technician has any
change in information submitted during the original appli-
cation, or renewal thereof as the case may be, the massage
technician shall notify the director of such change within
ten business days thereof, in writing. (Ord. 485 §l(part),
1992).
ARTICLE III. OUT CALL MASSAGE SERVICES
9.24.300 Out call massaqe services--Special endorse-
ment required. It shall be unlawful for any massage es-
tablishment or massage technician to provide, or to offer
to provide, massage at any location except at the place of
business approved for a massage establishment hereunder;
provided, however, that a massage establishment or massage
technician may obtain a special endorsement to the permit
issued thereto specifically authorizing out call massage
services. (Ord. 485 §l(part), 1992).
9.24.310 Same--Application. Any massage establish-
ment or massage technician desiring to provide out call
massage services shall submit to the director, together
with the requisite nonrefundable fee therefor as estab-
lished by the city council, an application to provide out
call massage services within the city. In addition to the
12/92)
9.24.310
requirements set forth herein pertaining to massage estab-
lishment perTnit or massage technician permit application,
as the case may be, the applicant shall submit detailed
information setting forth the manner and means of trans-
porting, to and from the premises where out call massage
services are to be performed, the clean, sanitary towels,
lt4-~a (Rancho Cucamonga
INTEROFFICE MEMO
DATE Nay 25, 1994 PHONE
FROM H, W. Lorett, Sergeant MAIL CODE
Rancho Cucamonga Police Department
TO Bruce Zeiner, Captain
Rancho Cucamonga Police Department
SUBJECT BUSINESS INVESTIGATION OF "LILY PAD", 8645 Haven
On 5/4/94, Detective Scaturro, along with officers from the
Vice Detail conducted an investigation in reference to
information received that massage and prostitution was taking
place at the "Lily Pad" in Rancho Cucamonga.
The information came to our office by way of WeTip , as well
as individual informants. With this information, an
undercover operator was sent to the business, identified as
"The Lily Pad", at 8645 Haven, Suite 550.
The undercover operator was offered a massage and sex for
money at "The Lily Pad". During a search of "The Lily Pad", a
large supply of condoms were found, also indicating ongoing
prostitution activity.
BZ/HWL:la
I{IAIE REPORT
~fi~ ~Y ~ in~mplete. ~ ad~ ~t ~1 ~u~o~ ~ve ~n uked. It is We Tip's ~ m ~o~a~ a
.... v. ~EC;NE~:
SP'OK~: V:L:.: ST:
2ATE CALLE~: TIME: ~ ....
_.r.=~ ~s~ :lE-TEiVEE:iZ/3db'i99.! TZ>:E:Z-~:ij:j? ~EFkR~AL MEDIA:E.2~L
'CRIME: SEX CRIMES CRY/ME DATE: TR/ME CZME: ZiP: .gj ~;
.......... : HAt'~N/~TE 559 , _ .2
~ CiTY: R.zJjCHC :i'C'C~4ONGA ST; CA
2CUNTY: .~AN B.E'ENARZ?iNO DRUG TYPE:
........ ~ a ..... NZIE: UNK FIRST:
A~7~: UNK PHONE ~:
STREET: t?.'K ZlTv:
/OUNTY;
A3E: 7 9 SEX: ~ ~iE:W i. OB: E!'R:LI'K HAIR:~i.,ND
' - .......... ~= MARKS; AP~R/TATTCL-SUTTE.{FSY CN THIjM
WL~.KS; PR'.TgTiTUTE i !IiE LiZY PA.C,"'jEE ~,'1. O. S/EC'iL:
:':~2JGOU TS:
,.,. ADDITTONAL SUSPE.:iX'5
=v"'-x"'.4S PEa ~':F'Rva'.'T" A BUSZNESS ,%~MED "THE LiLY [AS~' AT AB~V~ .~:PREF.g
~PgRTED TO aE A~RTiSiNG TbL~T THEY CAN ",~ELiEVE STRX'SS" WHEN ACTUAil' iS ..~
.7EVER FOR PRCST.TTUTiON/THE CLIENT =~'~=~ ~=~ r:C'~A B~L=='F~IG ~'MA~ :z~ '14:. ~_7 .'
~jiU~ BACK K4SSAGE FOR $i5 FOR 15 Mh%'/AFTES TH~ PROSTTTUTE DETER24iNES '=AT
'liEfiT ~ NCT ,UJ L~:TERCGVER OFFICE.~, THE CLiE:'F .'~ OFFERED O.~L SEX FCi ~'
2.*SiEAr .iF ?Hk* U$UAL $~0 FEE/'SAFE SiX" (AjTtl~L SEX ACT; WITH CCV;D,~M ij
7fR Pk'S ,?F $206, U,%l~ LENGTH OF T.T~/A B-~UI';ETTI, 5 BLOffDES, I 9LE FE~L~ZE Aa.~ :7
n~ T.~'ERE/THE PROSTITUTES ALL A~P~R T3 ~E (?N SPEE2/AN ALA~', (LONG
~LERTS .~ROSTiTUTES IF A SUSPECTEj~ 5~%~ERCOVE~ CFFiCER HAS ENTERED THE
~ USjNESS/NFD
:-.~;~S: N,,'A METHC~ Z'F APPRCH:
.zEAl iEE ~AK~: MODEL; COLOR:
fEAR: U-};K LICENSE: STATE:
ll~S: WHERE:
lEgS: WHEPE:
i:;F WILL CALL BACK: l' '.';~iL.Ei. EEFORE:;.' ' REFFRK~L NO:
iYTE 'DF INFC: FIRS'TheirS RiWARE: y ~ OPERATOR }1,-: 5 ,'
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, REVOKING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 93-45, THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STRESS REDUCTION
CLINIC WITHIN AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX IN THE
INDUSTRIAL PARK DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 6) OF THE INDUSTRIAL
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED AT 8645 HAVEN AVENUE, SUITE
550, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 209-144-54.
A. Recitals.
1. Debra Hildenbrand filed an application for approval of
Conditional Use Permit No. 93-45 as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. The application was approved by the Planning Commission on
November 10, 1993, subject to certain conditions of approval as contained
within Resolution No. 93-96.
3. On May 25, 1994, the Planning Commission conducted a periodic
review of the application. The Planning Commission determined that sufficient
evidence was presented to demonstrate that the application was operating in
violation of the conditions of approval.
4. On the 13th day of July 1994, 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.
5. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution
have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the
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 July 13, 1994, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to leased space on a property located
on the east side of Haven Avenue, at 8645 Haven Avenue, Suite 550, which is
partially developed with a multi-tenant industrial park; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 93-45 - HILDENBRAND
July 13, 1994
Page 2
b. The property to the north of the subject site is designated
for industrial uses and is vacant, the property to the south and east are
designated for industrial uses and are developed with warehouse/manufacturing
buildings, and the property to the west is designated for industrial uses and
is vacant; and
c. The application, as approved, proposed various stress
reduction techniques including light therapy, aroma therapy, relaxation
breathing exercises, stretching, and sensory deprivation; and
d. Section 9.24 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
establishes the requirements under which Massage Establishment Permits may be
allowed and the requirements for Massage Technician Permits. Because the
application did not meet the requirements of Section 9.24, a condition of
approval was placed on the application prohibiting massage from being
conducted on the premises; and
e. Based upon information received that massage was being
performed at the subject property in violation of the conditions of approval,
an investigation was conducted by the Police Department to review activities
being conducted at the site; and
f. An undercover operator was sent to the site as part of the
investigation of the business activity; and
g. After being in 'the establishment, the operator was offered
massage for money, in violation of the conditions of approval for the
application; and
h. As a result of the Police investigation, arrests were made at
the applicant's business for prostitution and drug possession; and
i. Massage establishments may be permitted in only the General
Commercial designation subject to review and approval of a Conditional Use
Permit. The application is located in the Industrial Park designation of the
Industrial Area Specific Plan. Massage establishments are prohibited within
the Industrial Area Specific Plan. Therefore, the use is not consistent with
the intent of the zoning designation in which the site is located; and
j. Because the applicant is prohibited by the conditions of
approval from conducting massage and the proper modifications to the
Conditional Use Permit and Massage Permits were not obtained, the use is in
violation of the Municipal Code Requirements of the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
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 proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan,
the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in
which the site is located.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 93-45 - HILDENBRAND
JUly 13, 1994
Page 3
b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use does not comply with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this commission hereby revokes Conditional Use Permit
93-45.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, 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 13th day of July 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
-- II!CllVED --
CiTy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISION
Planning Commission J U L 13 1994
City of Rancho Cucamonga V[~1[~141~
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cuc~monga, Ca. 91729 h
Dear Sirs,
I ~m writing in regard to the Oasis Spa Conditional Use Permit hearing that
is on the agenda for the July 13,1994 meeting.
I recently went to the Oasis Spa to see what it was like prior to the hearing
so I could see for myself what my neighbors were t~ll~ing about.
I noticed several violations of the code that the city needs to enforce:
1. 9.24.050 Paragraph A. Massage technicians must wear a photo permit
dearly visible during world n g hours.
2. 9.24.050 Paragraph E. Massage establishment permit and permit of each
and every massage technician employed in the establishment shall be
displayed in an OPEN AND CONSPICUOUS place on the premises.
3. 9.24.050 Paragraph F. Each massage establishment shall keep a written
record of date and hour of each treatment, the name and address of each
client, the name of the massage technician, etc.
4. 9.24.050 Paragraph K. Massage technicians shall msintaln the massage
permit visible on their persons during business hours.
All of the above were in violation when I visited the establishment on Friday,
July 8,1994 and again on Monday, July 11,1994. These and all other
conditions need to be met or the establishments permit revoked.
David Williams
Rancho Cucamonga
.-- REC!IVED --
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
R_ANNING DIVISION
Planning Commission JUL !2 ~
P.O. Box 807 ~~
Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 ~
Re. APN - 1077-401-29
Oasis Spa
Hearing 7-13-94
Dear Sirs,
I ~m against extending their hours of operation. Thi.~ establishment is
responsible for downgrading our great city by ignoring the rules and
regulations that it is required to operate under.
A case in point. In reviewing their Fictitious Business Name Statement I
bec~me aware that they have people LIVING on the premi-,~s in violation of
Our zoning laws. I confirmed this with a visit and tour of the facility. They
have two sleeping areas-one in front and one in back, plus a full kitchen,
bathroom, showers, etc.
Instead of giving them extended hours and ajdlng them, they should be
forced to dose down. They are carpetbaggers who are not willing to abide by
the rules and regulation governing them.
They broke the law in both hours of operation and in the living on the
premi.~es.
Thanks for your con-~ideration.
' * I COUN;I'Y ,~..L.F.,RK'C~,FiLI~G
NAME ~, , ,, *r'~'r""~ ": "" '~' """ ..~c.-. ""~L ]:.: ~ ' ~ ~ ~'~' ';'2, , ~.~?, ic.C
/ 13179..',~: :~' i. o ......
ADORESS ...... ,-., F..&.
.... 03
b=-,t, ' "~' MAYI993
X First Filing E) Renewal FIling ~'~ ~ ,~4 & uEi~U,ry
Current Registration No,
FICTITIOUS BUSINESS NAME STATEMENT
THE FOLLOWING PERSON(S) iS (ARE) DOING BUSINESS AS:
Fictitious Business Name(s)
1. O,q~t-q
7~ Street Address, City & State of Principal place of Business in California Zip Code
2. Tsqo Hr V I'J - R cHo gucnNo 6n,
~' Full name of Registrant ' (if Corporation - show state of incorporation)
Sestdence Address Cny 'J~ ~P ~1~ Zip Code
Full name of Registrant / (if corporation · show state of incorporat[(~'t}tJG0,? b,~j.: "-
Residence Address City State Zip Code
Full name of Registrant (if corporation - Show state Of Incorporation)
Residence Address City State Zip Code
Full name of Registrant (if corporation - show state of incorporation)
Residence Address City State Zip COde
,,~
" This Business is i~ an individual { ) a general partnership ( ) Joint venture ( ) s business trust
, conducted by: ( ) co-partners ( } husband and wife ( ) a corporation ( ) a limited partnership
~ee ?, t ICHECK ONE ONLY) ( ) an unincorporated association other than a partnership ( ) other--please specify
' 5. T~s~a~c~m"~"cod~r~c~""~""~rt~c~`~"~"~"~""~m~na~""~s~Od~"~v~"
I6A. ,he ~'~ 6B. ,,Reg,s,,..,aco,po,a,,ons,o.--,ow:
Signed 7 ~ Corporation Name
Type or Print
Ofllcerl Name & Title
~"~Th~s statement was filed with the County Clerk of _ County on (date in~licated by file Stamp above.)
~> I HERESY CERTIFY THAT THIS COPY IS A CORRECT COPY
NOTICE - THIS FICTITIOUS NAME STATEMENT EXPIRES
FIVE YEARS FROM THE DATE IT WAS FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE ORIGINAL STATEMENT ON FILE IN MY OFFICE.
OF THE COUNTY CLERK, A NEW FICTITIOUS BUSINESS
NAME STATEMENT MUST BE FILED BEFORE THAT TIME,
THE FILING OF THIS STATEMENT DOES NOT OF ITSELF COUNTY CLERK
AUTHORIZE THE USE IN THIS STATE OF A FICTITIOUS DEPUTY
BUSINESS NAME IN VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF BY
A.oT.E. ON.E. FEDE.AL STAT.. O. CO.MO. ~A.14857'1
(SEE SECTION 14400 ET SEQ., BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS ~ File NO.
CODE). I ·
'~CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, Inc. Re. BOX 8022, EL MONTE, CA 91734
LOS ANGELES SACRAMENTO SAN OIEGO SAN FRANCISCO SANTA ANA
FILE WITH COUNTY CLERK
PLANNING COMMISSION
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
-- IECEIVED _
P.O. BOX 807 C#TY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA. 91729 PLANNING DIVISION
JUL 1
I am writing concerning the Oasis Spa Conditional Use Permit hearing on
July 13, 1994. (APN-1077-401-29) (92-33).
I am against changing the conditional use permit for the Oasis Spa.
The ownerof the establishment has shown disreguard for the city of Rancho
Cucamonga and its rules and regulations.
It has consistantly broken the rules for the last yea~ and three months by
staying open later than allowed even though she was fully aware of the
regulations.
Also, they are running an outcall service with a M~_LE PROSTITUTE from
this location. I am enclosing a business card with phone number that is the
same number that is on the males advertisment. Also, the male does not
have a license which is a violation.
PLEASE CLOSE THEM DOV/N. They are a blight on our community. Do
not reward them with extra operating hours.
Sincefly,
m ~ Wfison OASIS
7890 Haven Ave. Suite 14
"1' [ III I II I ~ll lu
' Great Hanbs
Tberaputic MassaOe
/" ~ ,. ' . Dallas · Locateb in l~ancbo Cucarn
" '~ - :' ~':.' · Relax Sore Muscles
[-_-,-,-"' "'~' FIG dab tY f ° 9-98-
~ .,,.__~.. ~. ~/~; . ' ee O0 ou ourse
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 13, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION TO MODIFY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-33 - OASIS SPA -
A request to modify a condition of approval to extend the hours of
Operation to 10:00 p.m. for an existing massage establishment
located at 7890 Haven Avenue, #14 - APN: 1077-401-29
BACKGROUND: This item comes to you as a result of code enforcement action.
During a staff inspection on May 5, 1994, it was determined that the business
was in violation Of their Conditional Use Permit. The Planning Commission
conditionally approved this Conditional Use Permit for a massage establishment
on February 24, 1993, through adoption of their Resolution 93-15 (see Exhibit
"D"). Condition No. 6 specifically requires the business to close at
9:00 p.m. Subsequently, the Administrative Services Director approved the
Massage Establishment Permit.
ANALYSIS: Section 9.24.050 of Massage Ordinance No. 485, states that the
hours of operation for massage establishment shall not be earlier than
7:00 a.m. nor later than 10:00 p.m. The Planning Comission has the authority
to establish more restrictive hours through the Conditional Use Permit
process. The original applicant, Claudine Eubank, requested hours of
operation from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Condition No. 6 was recommended by
staff on that basis.
A copy of the conditions contained in Resolution 93-15 was read and accepted
by the current business owner, Elisa Ice, prior to receiving approval of the
change of ownership for the business (see Exhibit "A2"). Nonetheless, the
business has been operating until 10:00 p.m. The hours posted on the front
door are 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. The applicant states that she has invested
in advertising with a 10:00 p.m. closing time as a result of her health club
patrons in the community.
Staff supports the request because the Massage Ordinance establishes
10:00 p.m. as the latest closing time for massage establishments. In
addition, the applicant has invested in advertising with a 10:00 p.m. closing
time. The applicant also feels it is necessary to stay open until 10:00 p.m.
to accommodate patrons who come after working out at local health clubs. The
extension of hours would not adversely affect adjoining businesses.
IT~4 F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 92-33 - OASIS SPA
June 8, 1994
Page 2 O
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the request through adoption of
the attached Resolution 93-15A.
Respe lly s itt d,
BB:DC:Sp
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letters from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Letter from Original Applicant
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Resolution 93-15
Exhibit "E" - Commission Minutes
Resolution 93-15A
May 28, 1994
· -h ~..'~,~1~G DIVISION
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission ~ MAY ~ ] ~994
0s00 civic Cel ter nr.
P. 0. Box 807 ~
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 ~
Subject: July 13 th Agenda
CUP 92-33 Oasis Spa
Dear Commission;
I would like to take a brief moment of your time in response
to a letter that I received from Richard Alcorn of the
Community Development Department. It seems that I had over-
looked a portion of the CUP 92-33. I had my business hours
from 9A~ - 10PPf, I origionally based this on my reference
to the parameters set in the city ordinance ~485 section
9.24.050(c), which puts my hours within the prescribed limit.
At this time, upon being notified of this matter I have changed
my business hours to 9A~{ - 9P~{. This is in compliance with
CUP 92-33. I spoke briefly with a plaI]ning commission
representative who suggested that I schedule a meeting so
as to revise my CUP. He said that this was the proper
procedure that needed to be taken to solve the problem.
I am requesting the 10PP{ closing time due to established
relationships with Family Fitness, LA Fitness and the California
Athletic Club of which members utilize my services in their
overall fitness therapy. In addition, Advertising in telephone
directories and local advertising have been printed with a
10P~ closing time.
In conclusion, with committed monies in advertising, relationships
with local fitness centers and the fact that a 10PH closing
time is still withill the City OrdinalIce requirements, I
would like to request a 1 hour closing time change to my
conditional use permit.
Sincerely,
Elisa Ice ~
Oasis Spa /
claudlne Eubank
5465 Triple Crown
Bonsall, Ca. 92003
16 December 1992
Steve Ross
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Community Development Department ~=~ ]
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. Ross:
This letter is forwarded to state my intent for the business named
Oasis Spa, located at 7890 Haven Ave, Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730.
The phone number at the established business is (714) 944-0338.
The service we will provide are therapeutic skin and massage
treatments. These treatments will be available for both male and
female clients. My intent is to provide the following specific
services in the city of Rancho Cucamonga:
HERBAL TREATMENTS
FACIAL AND SKIN TREATMENTS
EUROPEAN BODY WRAP
BEAUTY SUPPLIES
!c ~zli be a pleasure ~c ~rve Ehe f<~ncho Cucamonge puD!ic. '
Sincerely,
Claudine Eubank
:~. Deer Creek Village
""' .. 7900 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
-- 40-LANE BRUNSWICK Tvp.
"' DEER CREEK LANES IIII a,~l'~-..~ -~.~.
-
-- ,,-, T
E 7930 51TF.
' ~llll
__
~ IIIIIIIIIIIIII1~I'111~IIIl~hllllll'llWll tlT~Tli
~/~""'~11111111111 '- ~_ ~,
' ~ IIIIIIIIIIII ~ ' """"" "':
Z __ rzs~;,tlFSO, ~. EL POLLO CALIFORNIA
-- -- r~4 LOCO STATE BANK ~
JIIIIlllllll ~ -
'1 '111 IIIIIIIIIIllllllllllllllll'l: -7900=-,~z
~ HAVEN AVE. J
~z
0m
,g',,~o' TOWN
$
DRIVE
OF RANCHO, CUCAMONGA
PLANNING. DMSION TITLE: 5~T~ Pt_~h/ Cb~-~L)
EXHIBFF: C- SCALE: --"
RESOLUTION NO. 93-15
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 92-33 ALLOWING A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN
A 1,610 SQUARE FOOT LEASED SPACE IN AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 9 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 7890 HAVEN AVENUE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 1077-401-29
A. Recitals.
(i) Claudine Eubank has filed an application for the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-33 as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application."
(ii) On February 10, 1993, and continued to February 24, 1993, 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.
(iii) 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 February 10, and February 24,
1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, this Coramission hereby specifically finds as follows:
(a) The application applies to property located at 7890 Haven
Avenue, #14, within the existing Deer Creek Village Shopping Center; and
(b) The property to the north of the subject site is the Deer
Creek Channel and Flood Control Basin, the property to the south is the
Virginia Dare Shopping Center, the property to the east is the Terra Vista
Town Center and vacant office property, and the property to the west is the
Deer creek Channel and graded industrial land; and
(c) The application applies to massage services which will
operate from 9 a.m. to 9 p.m., Monday through saturday.
(d) In addition to massage, the salon will provide herbal
treatments, facial and skin treatments, and european body wraps. Beauty
supplies will also be sold at the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-15
CUP 92-33 - CLAUDINE EUBANK
February 24, 1993
Page 2
(e) The business clientele will be limited to female customers
only, until such time as a separate restroom/locker facility is provided for
male customers to the satisfaction of the City Planner and the Administrative
Services Director.
(f) Rancho Cucamonga Municipal code Section 9.24.040 requires
that this application be applied for and approved prior to the Massage
Establishment Permit becoming effective.
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 i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan,
the objectives Of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in
which the site is located.
(b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
(c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to
each and every condition set forth below.
Planninq Division
1 ) Approval of the required permits for the
massage establishment and the massage
technicians must be granted by the
Administrative Services Director prior to the
Operation of the Massage Establishment, in
accordance with the provisions of Ordinance No.
485.
2 ) Approval of this request shall not waive
compliance with all sections of the Development
Code and all other applicable City Ordinances.
3) If operation of the facility causes adverse
effects upon adjacent businesses or operations,
the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought
before the Planning Commission for
reconsideration and possible termination of the
use.
4) Any sign proposed for the facility shall be
designed in conformance with the comprehensive
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-15
CUP 92-33 - CLAUDINE EUBANK
February 24, 1993
Page 3
sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for
the complex and shall require review and
approval by the Planning Division prior to
installation.
5) The facility shall be operated in conformance
with the requirements as defined in Rancho
Cucamonga Municipal Code Chapter 9.24,
regulating massage establishments and shall
comply with all provisions of the Massage
Establishment Permit.
6)Hours of operation shall be from 9 a.m. to
9p.m.
7) The business clientele shall be limited to
female customers only while one restroom/locker
facility exists. If a separate restroom/locker
facility is provided to the satisfaction of the
City Planner and the Administrative Services
Director, male customers may also be permitted.
Such a change in the use shall not require
modification to this Conditional Use Permit.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 1993.
2 ~..ANN~S,~ THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
~ ~arr cNie 'rman
ATTEST:
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 24th day of February 1993, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER
Chairman McNiel remarked that the applicant had requested a continuance.
Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Chitiea, to co ' ariance 93-01.
otion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS. TIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: CO RS: NONE
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-33 CLAUDINE EUBANK - A request to allow a
massage establishment within a 1,610 square foot leased space in an
existing commercial center on 9 acres of land in the General Commercial
District located at 7890 Haven Avenue, Suite 14 APN: 1077-401-29.
(Continued from February 10, 1993.)
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, stated that staff had analyzed the Ordinance
and discussed its implications with the applicant. He reported that the
applicant had agreed to restrict her services to female customers until a
second restroom/locker facility is added. He stated that the Administrative
Services Director had agreed that would be in compliance. He commented that
the applicant had indicated she plans to construct separate facilities to
allow her to treat male customers. He suggested the addition of two
conditions limiting the business to female customers until a separate
restroom/locker facility for males is provided to the satisfaction of the City
Planner and Administrative Services Director.
Chairman McNiel opened the public..hearing.
claudine Eubank, 4565 Triple Crown Drive, Bonsall, stated she was willing to
comply with the City ordinance in order to serve both female and male
customers. She said she would like to see health clubs allowed in other areas
of the City.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the conditional use permit would have to return
to the Planning Commission for modification to allow male customers when the
facilities are upgraded to accommodate men.
Brad Bullet, City Planner, stated the resolution was worded to require only
the approval of the City Planner and Administrative Services Director.
Motion: Moved by Vallette, seconded by Tolstoy, to adopt the resolution
approving Conditional Use Permit 92-33 with modifications to limit the
business to female customers unless a separate restroom/locker facility is
provided to the satisfaction of the City Planner and Administrative Services
Director. Motion carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: MELCHER -carried
Planning Commission Minutes -2- February 24, 1993
B. TIME EXTENSION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 13835 - HOMESTEAD - A request for a
time extension for a residential subdivision of 78 sinq~e [~' 1~ %n
25 acres of land in the Low Residential ' (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) located at the north orner of Highland and Rochester -
APN: 225-152-01 th 4 and 18.
25 soacref land in the~
Motion- ved by C~it~ ~nH~a h~, V~]]~tt~. carried 4-0-1 with Tolstoy
PUBLIC HEARINGS
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-33 - CLAUDINE EUBANK A request to allow a
massage establishment within a 1,610 square foot leased space in an
existing commercial center on 9 acres of land in the General Commercial
District located at 7890 Haven Avenue, Suite 14 - APN: 1077-401-29.
Steve Ross, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner Melcher asked when the application had been submitted.
Mr. Ross responded December 17, 1992.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing.
Claudine Eubank, applicant, 5465 Triple Crown Drive, Bonsall, stated she has
been a masseuse for the past 20 years in Europe and South Africa. She said
she had started to process her application in June or July 1992 but had not
formally submitted until December. She said she has been providing skin care
including body wraps and electrolysis and would like to add massage to the
list of services. She stated she was sorry her business was classified as
adult entertainment because she did not feel her business should be in that
category.
Commissioner Melcher felt there may be some security problems in the
commercial center in which the business is located, in that the bank has had
two hold-ups in the last 60 days.
Ms. Eubank stated the center has a security guard.
Commissioner Melcher asked if Ms. Eubank had previously run a massage business
in the United States.
Ms. Eubank replied she had formerly had such a business in San Diego and also
in Orange County.
Hearing no further testimony, Chairman McNiel closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated he was in favor of the business, but he feared
that all the requirements of Ordinance No. 485 might not be met. He noted
that Section 9.24.060(g) of the ordinance requires adequate bathing, dressing,
Planning Commission Minutes-2- February 10, 1993
F E,x/,,'/,,'t 'Eg-"
L
locker, and toilet facilities including separate toilets and wash basins for
male and female customers. He observed that the floor plan provided did not
appear to show most of the necessary facilities and he was not sure if the
Business License Section is used to reviewing plans. He thought the matter
should be clarified before approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman McNiel stated that the business would have to comply with the terms
of the ordinance.
Commissioner Melcher remarked that staff had indicated that the Administrative
Services Director would issue the Massage Establishment Permit after the
lO-day appeal period following approval of the Conditional Use Permit.
Chairman McNiel asked if the conditional Use Permit were approved and
conditioned, if the Business License section would automatically approve the
Massage Establishment Permit.
Brad Buller, City Planner, noted that a business license is not a regulatory
device and cannot be used as such. He thought if tenant improvements are
necessary to comply with the ordinance, those tenant improvements would be
required. He said the Massage Establishment Permit can be issued once the
requirements of the ordinance are met. He noted that the Administrative
Services Division is responsible for administering certain aspects of the
ordinance including ensuring that the conditions are met. He felt the
Commission could withhold action or they could approve the Conditional Use
Permit and the applicant would still have to comply with the requirements
listed in the ordinance.
Commissioner Melcher thought the.City council felt the issue is sensitive. He
preferred that the questions about reviewing be answered prior to Planning
Commission approval since the application is the first under the new
ordinance.
Mr. Bulter asked if the applicant understood that the current plan does not
comply with the ordinance requirement for shower, locker, and separate
restroom facilities for the clients and she would be required to make
amendments to the floor plan and comply with all building codes as well as the
ordinance.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
Ms. Eubank stated she thought she could comply with the regulations but she
said she works by appointments and men and women would not be scheduled at the
same time. She did not feel she should have to provide separate toilet
facilities since men and women would not be there at the same time. She said
she has only one restroom which is intended for both men and women.
Mr. Buller said that the question was raised because the ordinance states that
if the service is provided for both men and women, separate toilet facilities
must be provided. He noted that with three to four treatment rooms it would
be difficult for the City to ascertain that male and female clients were not
scheduled at overlapping times. He thought it may be possible to condition
Planning Commission Minutes -3- February 10, 1993
the application to have only one massage client on premises at any one time,
but that would be difficult to enforce.
Ms. Eubank said it would be difficult to run the business with a restriction
of only one client at a time. She thought she should not be required to go to
the expense of adding another restroom so long as men and women are not
scheduled at the same time, but indicated she would go to the expense of
adding another restroom if the City insisted.
Mr. Buller suggested that if the other Commissioners agreed the issue should
be further investigated before approving the Conditional Use Permit, staff
could meet with the Administrative Services Director and the Building Official
and return the matter in two weeks.
Chairman McNiel again closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Melcher stated he understood the Planning Commission's role, but
he feared the review process may not provide the safeguards that were intended
by the Council, and he thought perhaps the Planning Commission may need to
expand its role. He felt the matter should be resolved prior to voting On the
Conditional Use Permit. He stated that he did not oppose the use, but noted
that the regulations had recently been strengthened through a new ordinance
and he wanted to be sure the intent was met.
Chairman McNiel concurred that the ordinance is specific, but he felt it may
be over-restrictive for a three-station facility. He thought the separate
restrooms should definitely be required of a larger facility. He thought
perhaps the matter should be clarified before voting.
Commissioner Melcher noted that the facility has four treatment rooms and he
did not see the required tub or shower depicted on the floor plan. He thought
someone needs to be sure the requirements are being met.
Chairman McNiel agreed.
Mr. Buller thanked Commissioner Melcher for questioning the matter. He
suggested that the matter could be continued for a two-week period to allow
staff an opportunity to investigate further or the Commission could approve
the application with a condition that the Administrative Services Director not
approve the Massage Establishment Permit until all conditions of Ordinance
No. 485 are met.
Chairman McNiel felt perhaps the ordinance should be reviewed in terms of the
number of facilities in relation to the number of stations. Me thought the
ordinance may be more restrictive than needed for a small operator.
Commissioner Chitiea agreed Commissioner Melcher's point was good. She felt
the commission should be sure that everything is in order and precedent is
appropriately set since this was the first application under the new
ordinance. She said she would feel more comfortable having the matter
returned to the Commission after the questions are answered.
Planning Commission Minutes -4- February 10, 1993
Commissioner Vallette said she would agree to having the matter return to the
Planning Commission but she would also support immediate approval of the
resolution with the administrative staff handling the matter.
Chairman McNiel felt that either the requirements of the ordinance would be
met or the permit would not be granted.
Commissioner Vallette suggested they could approve the application and add a
condition requiring two restrooms.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Chitlea, to continue Conditional Use
Permit 92-33 to February 24, 1993, to address the questions regarding
Section 9.24.060(g) of Ordinance No. 485.
Chairman McNiel reopened the public hearing.
The motion to continue Conditional Use Permit 92-33 to February 24, 1993,
carried by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MCNIEL, MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: TOLSTOY -carried
Highway and the A.T. & $.F. Railroad tracks north of 8th Street.
Chairman McNiel opened the public hearing. Hearing no te he closed
the hearing.
Motion: Moved by Melcher, seconded by Vallet adopt the resolution
approving Street Name Change 92-02. Motion ca by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, MC~ MELCHER, VALLETTE
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: -carried
DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
E. USE DETERMI~ 92-03 - ADAMS - A request for the Planning Commission to
determine fortunetelling is a permitted or conditionally permitted
use Specialty Commercial Zone of the Foothill Boulevard Specific
Continued from January 13, 1993.)
Cha McNiel observed that the city had received a letter from the
applicant's attorney requesting that the item be withdrawn.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- February 10, 1993
RESOLUTION NO. 93-15A
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, MODIFYING HOURS OF
OPERATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-33 ALLOWING A
MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT WITHIN A 1,610 SQUARE FOOT LEASE
SPACE IN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 9 ACRES OF LAND
IN THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 7890 RAVEN
AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 1077-401-29.
A. Recitals.
1. Elisa Lee has filed an application for the modification of
Conditional Use Permit No. 92-33, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On July 13, 1994, 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, 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 July 13, 1994, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to an existing massage establishment
located at 7890 Haven Avenue, #14, within the existing Deer Creek Village
Shopping Center; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is the Deer
creek Channel and Flood Control Basin, the property to the south consists of
the Virginia Dare Shopping center, the property to the east is the Terra Vista
Town Center and vacant office property, and the property to the west is the
Deer Creek Channel and industrial land; and
c. The application contemplates extending the hours of operation
from 9 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., Monday through saturday; and
d. The City of Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code Section 9.24.050
provides that massage establishments shall only be open until 10:00 p.m.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-15A
CUP 92-33 - OASIS MASSAGE
July 13, 1994
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 forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the
objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable
thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby modifies Condition No. 6 in their
Resolution No. 93-15 to read as follows:
6) Hours of operation shall be from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 1994.
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 13th day of July 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 13, 1994 ~ ~
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Conm~ission ~ ~
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-19 - COOK (ACCU-CENTER) - A request to
allow a massage establishment within a leased space of
approximately 1,350 square feet in an existing conunercial center on
9 acres of land in the General Commercial District, located at
7890 Haven Avenue, Suite 11 - APN: 1077-401-29.
BACKGROUND: The original business license was approved in January 1993 as a
beauty salon offering nails, facials and tanning, with incidental
accupressure. The City's Massage Ordinance No. 485, requires any massage
service to obtain a Massage Establishment Permit, which ,the applicant obtained
in August of 1993. In addition, massage establishments require a Conditional
Use Permit. Staff conducted an inspection of the massage establishment on May
5, 1994 and determined that the primary business was accupressure (i.e.,
massage). The applicant was duly notified on the Conditional Use Permit non-
compliance. The applicant has indicated that the business has changed such
that the primary service now offered is accupressure.
ANALYSIS:
A. Applicable Regulations: The Development Code defines a massage
establishment as a place where massage treatments are provided, including
accupressure. These businesses are restricted to the General Commercial
zones and require the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The business
also requires an annual Massage Establishment Permit, and each massage
practitioner is also required to obtain a Massage Technician Permit, both
of which may be granted by the Administrative Services Director.
If male and female customers are to be treated simultaneously, the Massage
Ordinance requires separate dressing facilities and separate toilet
facilities for male and female customers. The current business
improvements include only one restroom (see Exhibit "B"). Therefore,
consistent with past Commission practice (ref. Oasis Spa), a condition of
approval has been added to restrict the business to one sex until such
time as a second restroom is provided.
Business Description: The applicant's letter describes their operation as
including accupressure, sun tanning, skin care/facials, and nail care
(see Exhibit "A"). Nail services would be Offered by appointment only.
The proposed hours of operation are daily from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.,
including weekends. The Massage Ordinance states that no massage
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-19 - COOK
July 13, 1994
Page 2
establishment shall remain open later than 10:00 p.m. The applicant
anticipates a maximum of three employees; however, staff notes that the
business could employ twice as many staff based upon the floor plan and
different services offered. There are currently two Massage Technician
Permits and three temporary Massage Technician Permits issued for this
business.
C. Compatibility of Uses: The business has been operating for approximately
one year at this location without complaints from surrounding
businesses. The proposed use would occupy space in the middle of a long
retail building occupied by a variety of conunercial and office uses.
Nearby businesses include a massage establishment (Oasis Spa), a
restaurant, and financial offices. Richard's Beauty College is located at
the extreme north end of the same building. The applicant's business
would provide similar services as some of the full-service beauty salons
in the City, such as facials, tanning, and nails. There is sufficient
parking for the extended use. Compatibility conflicts are not anticipated
based upon the lack of any complaint history during the past twelve
months. The Police Department has reviewed this application and does not
object to the request.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper and the project has been posted. No
public co~unents have been received to date.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the
attached Resolution approving the applicant's request for a Conditional Use
Permit.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:DC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Resolution of Approval
ATTORNEY AT LAW ~ 194o w, Orangewood Ave.
Cal~ornla Stale Bar No. 75055 Suite 110
Orange, CA 92668-2069
Tel.: (714) 978-6781
June 13, 1994 Fax: (714) 978-7250
O g01S. MarjanSlreel
Anaheim, CA 92806
· eL: (714) 777-0252
Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Post Office Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re: Letter of Intent and
Application for Conditional Use Permit
Terry Lee Cook, dba "Uccu-Center"
7980 Haven Avenue, Suite 11
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Dear Mr. Coleman:
This letter is provided pursuant to our meetings of May 26
and June 9, 1994 at your offices and our several telephone
conversations wherein you and I discussed the operations of
that establishment originally known as "Stress Management",
owned by Mr. Terry L. Cook and operated at the above-
described premises. Substantial discussions took place
concerning the nature of the business both as it originally
operated and as it evolved as a result of a drop-off in nail
care business, and whether there was a need for a
conditional use permit for the use of the premises whereby
accupressure is part of the services offered.
You suggested that it might be more appropriate if we were
to apply for a conditional use permit, especially since the
business has evolved and since the business has undertaken a
change of name. Consequently, please accept this letter as
and for the application letter requested in the Non-
Construction Conditional Use Permit application form, item 4
thereof, and please be advised that the above-referenced
establishment proposes to provide the following services:
Sun tanning
Skin Care/facials
Nails
Accupressure
The proposed hours of operation are: Daily, including
Saturdays and Sundays, 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. ~
Mr. Dan Coleman, Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
June 13, 1994
Page Two
The anticipated maximum number of employees at any one time,
including the applicant, is: Three.
It is anticipated that there will not be any new or
additional construction or tenant improvements necessary to
undertake the operations herein requested. Submitted
herewith is a floor plan which coincides with the floor plan
currently on file with the City of Rancho Cucamonga Building
Department.
The reason for making the application for a Conditional Use
Permit at this location is because accupressure services
come under the City ' s massage ordinance; because the
operation of a massage establishment is limited to areas
zoned for General Commercial uses, which is the zoning
designation for the commercial center wherein the current
business is located; because the city' s ordinance for
licensing of a massage establishment requires an operator
obtain a conditional use permit; because the applicant
entered into a long-term lease for the use of the premises;
because the applicant has expended substantial sums in
installation of the partition walls as shown on the enclosed
floor plan and for development of the business; and because
the nature of the business has changed and is moving toward
one wherein accupressure has become increasingly important
to the viability of the business and is now the major
profit-making activity of the business.
The applicant intends to offer nail services by appointment
only if the Conditional Use Permit herein requested is
granted. However, in the event the application should be
denied, the applicant makes this application without
prejudice to his right to return to the original plan of
operation wherein nail services will be offered on a full-
time basis as part of the business there.
If you require additional information, please feel free to
contact the undersigned at either of the addresses or
telephone numbers stated at the top of this letter.
Very truly yours,
Guido R. Smith
GRS: tn
cc: Terry Lee Cook
SUN TAN ROOM REST ROOM
BATH
(TUB
KITCHEN
' SCA~: 1/4" ~ l'
.... ~
7980 ~V~ AVENUE, SUITE 11 [EXISTING FLOORp~]
:~. Deer Creek Village
o. 7900 Haven Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, California
40-LANE BRUNSWICK k24',4
DEER CREEK LANES
7930
EL POLLO CALIFORNIA
LOCO STATE BANK ',
HAVEN AVE. n O~ No,.: ,., .,...,..p,,,..,.,.t..,,,, .....hi.=, ,o ,,.., ,,oo, ,,, ....
,~Z
rr<~
0m
0
OO
nO
D~.IVE
:"'.. ',: :-:~i ~TEM: CUP q2-,~
OF ~CHO. CUC~ONGA T~E: ~IT E PL~N Cb~u) ~ =
P~NING. D~SION
E~: C'2 SCALE: ~
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 94-19 ALLOWING A MASSAGE ESTABLISHMENT
WITHIN A 1,350 SQUARE FOOT LEASED SPACE IN AN EXISTING
COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 9 ACRES OF LAND IN THE GENERAL
COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, LOCATED AT 7890 HAVEN AVENUE,
SUITE 11, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 1077-401-29.
A. Recitals.
1. Terry Lee Cook has filed an application for the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit NO. 94-19, as described in the title of this
Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use
Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 13th day of July 1994, 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 Co~unission 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 July 13, 1994, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Coffunission hereby
specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to an existing business, Accu-Center,
within a leased space located at 7890 Haven Avenue, #11, within the existing
Deer Creek Village Shopping Center; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is the Deer
Creek Channel and Flood Control Basin, the property to the south is the
Virginia Dare Shopping Center, the property to the east is the Tetra Vista
Town Center and vacant office property, and the property to the west is the
Deer Creek Channel and graded industrial land; and
c. The application contemplates accupressure massage services
which will operate from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday through Sunday; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-19 - COOK
July 13, 1994
Page 2
d. In addition to accupressure massage, the salon will provide
sun tanning, facial and skin treatments, and nail care. Beauty supplies will
also be sold at the site; and
e. The application applies to a leased space with one toilet
facility and one bathroom with tub.
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 proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the
objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which
the site is located.
b. That the proposed use, together with the conditions
applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable
provisions Of the Development Code.
4. Pursuant to the State CEQA Guidelines, it has been determined
that the proposed project does not have the potential for causing a
significant effect on the environBent. The project has been determined to be
exempt from CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). The Planning Commission,
having final approval over this project, has reviewed and considered this
exemption prior to the approval of this project.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs
1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject
to each and every condition set forth below:
Planninq Division
1) No adult business is approved by this permit.
2} Approval Of this request shall not waive compliance with all
sections of the Development Code and all other applicable
City Ordinances.
3) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon
adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit
shall be brought before the Planning Commission for
reconsideration and possible termination of the use.
4) Any sign proposed for the facility shall be designed in
conformance with the comprehensive Sign Ordinance and the
Uniform Sign Program for the complex and shall require review
and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-19 - COOK
JUly 13, 1994
Page 3
5) The facility shall be Operated in conformance with the
requirements as defined in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Chapter 9.24, regulating massage establishments, and shall
comply with all provisions of the Massage Establishment
Permit.
6) Hours of Operation shall be from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m., Monday
through Sunday.
7) The accupressure clientele shall be limited to one sex of
customer only while one rest room/locker facility exists.
This restriction shall be clearly posted with the prices of
various massage (accupressure) services. If a separate rest
room/locker facility is provided to the satisfaction of the
City Planner and the Administrative services Director, both
sexes of customers may be permitted. Such a change in the
use shall not require modification to this Conditional Use
Permit.
8) Use shall not be expanded without modification to this
Permit.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THI$.13TH DAY OF JULY 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning dommission 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 13th day of July 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: JUly 13, 1994
T0: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: VARIANCE 93-05 - 0AS PARTNERSHIP - A request to increase the
sign area for the Project Identification Monument Sign from
24 to 49 square feet; increase the sign area for the Tenant
Identification Monument Signs from 24 to 49 square feet; and
increase the maximum number of tenant names on the Tenant
Identification Monument Signs from three to five per face,
for Thomas Winery Plaza, located at the northeast corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-101-22
through 25. Related File: Amendment to Uniform Sign Program
No. 88. (Continued from May 25, 1994.)
BACKGROUND: The above-noted variances are the result of a request from
the applicant to amend the Uniform Sign Program for the Thomas Winery
Plaza. The reasons for the variances, as stated by the applicant, are
as shown in the attached letter, Exhibit "A."
ANALYSIS: This section of the report focuses on reviewing the merits of
each of the variances and examines the facts to support the legal
findings as required by law. The analysis of the design and technical
issues of the proposed signs are under a separate report for the related
item, Amendment to the Uniform Sign Program NO. 88.
A. Increase the sign area from 24 to 49 square feet for a Project
Identification Monument Sign.
The applicant proposes to place a Project Identification Monument
Sign at the corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue as
show~ in Exhibit "B." The sign would be placed on top of an
existing 6-foot high river rock wall where the fountain is
located. The applicant feels that one of the reasons why Thomas
Winery Plaza does not have many customers is the lack of a sign
identifying it. However, he did not state the reasons for the
request to increase the sign area for this sign.
Staff Comment: Staff supports the use of Project Identification
Monument Signs within the limitation of current codes, as amended by
the City Council on December 1, 1993. Project Identification
Monument Signs are allowed at one per street frontage not to exceed
two per center. The maximum sign area is 24 square feet with a
maximum height of 6 feet and shall only identify the name or a
graphic logo of the center.
IT~MH
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 93-05 - OA8 PARTNERSHIP
July 13, 1994
Page 2
In reviewing this Variance, staff believes that the site is unique
in that it contains two historically landmarked buildings. This
uniqueness is an advantage to the site because of the historic
Thomas Winery, built in 1839 and in use until 1985, which
established a strong community identity. Staff did not find any
extraordinary conditions on the site that created a physical
hardship to warrant a Variance to increase the sign area. Further,
the effective height of the sign because of the 6-foot wall obviates
the need for a larger sign area because of its prominent location.
The applicant has not been deprived of his privilege to have signs
that identify his center. In January of 1989 and March of 1990, the
Planning Commission approved four center identification wall signs
on the Still Building (see Exhibit "E"), two monument signs with the
center' s name on ( see Exhibit "F" ), and one wood barrel sign to
identify Thomas Winery as the oldest winery in California. The
applicant installed the two monument signs and the barrel sign but
did not use the four wall signs on the Still Building. In 1991 the
applicant modified the two existing monument signs by replacing the
center's name with Knowlwood's (now Frontier Restaurant) name.
Recommendation: Staff believes that the design of this sign can be
modified to meet the standards and still provide a center
identification. Staff finds that the granting of this Variance will
set a precedent for all centers in the City. Therefore, staff
cannot make the required findings to support this Variance.
B. Increase the Sign Area for the Tenant Identification Monument Sign
and the Number of Tenants Per Face.
The applicant proposes to increase the sign area for the monument
sign from 24 to 50 square feet and the tenants from three to five.
The applicant feels that the existing signs are ineffective because
the signs are non-illuminated, the visibility into the site is
significantly reduced by the way the buildings are arranged around
the Winery and Still Buildings, and the monument signs are set back
further from the street frontages than other centers because of the
right turn lanes.
Staff Comment: The Thomas Winery Plaza is similar to most other
shopping centers which include freestanding pad buildings that
inhibit views into the center. Further, all shopping centers
developed along major arterial streets require right turn lanes, bus
bays, and deceleration lanes. Although this places monument signs
further away from the travel lanes, their visibility is improved
because no parking is allowed along the shoulder · The use Of
internally illuminated monument signs does not require a variance
and is supported by staff.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
VAR 93-05 - OAS PARTNERSHIp
July 13, 1994
Page 3
Based upon the recommendations of the Sign Task Force, the City has
initiated an amendment to the Sign Ordinance to increase the sign
area to 48 square feet and allow up to two Tenant Identification
Monument Signs per street frontage. The proposed amendment would
also allow as many tenant names as desired by the center's owner.
The Planning Commission will be considering the final version of the
sign amendment at the meeting on July 27, 1994. The applicant has
been informed of the proposed amendment. He stated that he is
willing to work with staff in making minor modifications to the sign
in order to meet the standards.
Recomnendation: Staff recommends that the Commission table this
portion of the Variance and direct the applicant to work with staff
in resolving any design and technical issues.
FACTS FOR FINDINGS: In order for the Commission to approve the Variance
in part or in whole, the following legal findings must be made:
A. 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
this Code.
B. 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 zone.
C. That strict or literal interpretation and 'enforcement of the
specified regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same zone.
D. 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 zone.
E. That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare Or materially injurious to
properties or improvement in the vicinity.
The Planning Commission has never granted a variance request to increase
the monument sign area or the number of tenants displayed thereon.
Staff believes that the findings are not supportable because the site
layout is not unique and the applicant is not being denied privileges
enjoyed by other shopping centers.
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 the adjacent property owners within 300
feet of the project.
PL~NING CO~ISSION STAFF ~PORT
VAR 93-05 - OAS PARTNErHIP
July 13, 1994
Page 4
~CO~MENDATION: Staff reco~ends that ~e Co~ission deny Variance
93-05 throu~ the adoption of the attached Resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:NF/jfS
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "B" - Proposed Project Identification Mon~ent
Si~
Exhibit "C" - Proposed Tenant Monument Si~
Exhibit "D" - Chronolo~ of the Variance and Si~ ProWam
~en~ent Application
Exhibit "E" - Project I.D./Still Building
Exhibit "F" - Existing Monument Si~
Resolution Of Denial
TO: The City of Rancho Cucamonga ~[jG , ~ 7~~
V~CE FOR ~OMAS WI~RY
REQUEST: TO ALLOW TWO (2) NEW FIVE (5) TENANT I.D. INTERNALLY
ILLUMINATED MONUMENT SIGNS IN PLACE OF THE TWO (2) EXISTING THREE
(3) TENANT I.D. MONUMENT SIGNS AND TO ALLOW QNE (1) CENTER
IDENTIFICATION SIGN. ~.ttv...c. ffrc
Thomas Winery Plaza is a beautiful center and a great example of the city and developer
maintaining some feel and look of an existing historical site, while providing retail
opportunities to residents, employees and visitors in Rancho Cucamonga.
It has become quite apparent, however, that Thomas Winery Plaza does not enjoy the
amount of visitation a center of its size should experience, and upon researching this, the
major factor we believe is the ineffectiveness of the tenant monument signage on Foothill
Blvd. and o~ Vineyard Avenue, as well as the lack of a sign identifying the center itself.
Several facts help to support our position:
1. Because of the way the center was built, more or less around the
Still building and the winery, much of the center is not visible
from the corners of Foothill and Vineyard, thus not relating the
size and tenants of the center to passing motorists.
2. Whereas traffic on Foothill is approximately 50% greater than that
of Vineyard, there is significantly less frontage on Foothill than that
of Vineyard and the sign on Foothill experiences a significant set-back
due to the turning lane indentation.
3. A specialty use center with multiple anchors and limited street visibility,
Thomas Winery Plaza requires a multiple tenant monument sign to better
display their tenant mix and attract individuals to the center.
4. The color combination and lack of internal illumination make the existing signs
very poor at properly identifying the tenants.
By providing a center I.D. sign at the corners of Foothill and Vineyard and placing new,
more effective, while still attractive, multi-tenant signs in place of the existing signs,
Thomas Winery Plaza will better communicate its tenant make-up and attract the level of
users a center of this size, use, and history was built to accomodate and most certainly
deserves.
EXHIBIT A
FooTHIL-u f'~LUD
SINGLE FACED- PLAZA I.D. MONUMENT SIGN SCALE.' 1/2"= 1'-0"
Location: VINEYARD AVE. / FOOTHILL BLVD.
SIGN CABINET FABRICATED FROM ALUMINUM WITH FACES ROUTED OUT
FOR COPY AND BACKED WITH WHITE PLEX, GRAPHICS TO BE CUT OUT
FROM TRANSLUCENT VINYL
· ~ DOUBLE FACED - TENANT MONUMENT SIGN SCALE.' ~/2' = ~'~'
x Location: VINEYARD AVENUE
,.,,
SIGN CABINET FABRICATED FROM ALUMINUM W1TH FACES ROUTED OUT
FOR COPY AND BACKED WITH WHITE PLEX, GRAPHICS TO BE CUT OUT
F-, FROM TRANSLUCENT VINYL. rt
TRiM ALONG TOP & ONE SiDE TO BE WOOIUMINATED WITH C.W.-H.O.
FLUORESCENT LAMPS.
.-,,~
~ DOUBLEFACED-TENANTMONUMENTSIGN SOAL~E' 1/2'=
-,' Location: FOOTHILL BLVD.
H SIGN CABINET FABRICATED FROM ALUMINUM WITH FACES ROUTED OUT
n FOR COPY AND BACKED WITH WHITE PLEX, GRAPHICS TO BE CUT OUT
~ FROM TRANSLUCENT VINYL.
TRIM ALONG TOP &ONE SIDE TO BE WOOD - ILLUMINATED WITH C.W.-H.O, ~J'~"'
FLUORESCENT LAMPS,
C~RO~OLOGY FOR VARIANCE 93-05 AND
SIGN PI~0~RAM NO. 88 AMENDr~ENT
August 9, 1993 - City received the Variance and Sign Program Amendment
applications.
September 2, 1994 - Letter sent to applicant informing him of the incompleteness
status for the two applications, the several technical and design issues of the
proposed signs, and the need to revise the existing sign program.
December 28, 1993 - Staff met with the applicant who submitted revised plans that
addressed the incompleteness items for the two applications. At this meeting,
staff discussed with the applicant the improvements that can be made to the Sign
Program. Staff gave him a copy of the Sign Program with comments and notes which
were intended to help him in revising and updating it.
March 3, 1994 - Letter sent to applicant informing him of the completeness status
of the two applications. Also informed him that prior to scheduling the two
items for Planning Commission review, a copy of the revised Sign Program with all
the updates and changes must be submitted to the City. Staff also informed him
of a change in the Sign Ordinance which allows for a Project Identification Sign
with 24 square feet of sign area.
March 17, 1994 - Staff received a progress copy Of the Sign Program showing the
revisions made to it.
April 11, 1994 - Staff scheduled the two applications for the Planning Commission
meeting on May 11, 1994.
April 13, 1994 - Staff returned progress copy with comments and notes for further
refinement as well as informed him of the April 20, 1994 deadline for submitting
a final revised copy of the Sign Program for the Commission meeting of May 11,
1994.
April 28, 1994 - Staff received a final revised copy and found some existing
parts of the sign program missing. Staff determined that there was not enough
time to prepare a staff report for the item to be heard on the meeting for May
11, 1994. Staff discussed this with the applicant and they agreed to a two week
continuance.
May 11, 1994 - Planning Con~nission, with the consent of the applicant, continued
the two applications to the meeting on May 24, 1994.
May 12, 1994 Applicant informed staff that he has a time conflict with the
meeting on May 25, 1994. Staff stated that he could request another
continuance. Because of a heavy agenda for the meeting on June 8, 1994, staff
will be recommending a continuance to the meeting on June 22, 1994, instead.
May 17, 1994 - City received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance
to the meeting on June 22, 1994.
May 25, 1994 - At the public hearing, the applicant requested that the Commission
continue the hearing to the meeting on June 8 instead of June 22 because he has a
time conflict with the June 22 date. The Commission, at this meeting, continued
the two applications to the meeting on July 13, 1994.
Souplantation
~' ~ ~- ~,,
/
Scale: I '-0 '
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCANONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING VARIANCE NO. 93-05
TO INCREASE THE SIGN AREA FOR THE PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
AND TENANT IDENTIFICATION MONUMENT SIGNS FROM 24 TO 49
8QUARE FEET AND INCREASE THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF TENANT
NAMES ON THE MONUMENT SIGNS FROM THREE TO FIVE PER FACE
FOR THE THOMAS WINERY PLAZA, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD AND VINEYARD AVENUE IN THE
SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 208-101-22 THROUGH 25.
A. Recitals.
1. OAS Partnership has filed an application for the issuance of
Variance No. 93-05 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter
in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the
application."
2. On May 11, and continued to May 25, and July 13, 1994, the
Planning commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted duly noticed
public hearings on the application and concluded said hearings 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, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced public hearings on May 11, May 25, and July 13,
1994, including written and oral staff reports, together with public
testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the northeast
corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a street frontage of
1,845 feet and lot depth of 795 feet and is presently improved with a
commercial center; and
b. The properties to the north and west of the subject site are
vacant, the properties to the south and east are zoned for commercial uses;
and
c. The site is developed in a typical shopping center layout
with a combination of in-line retail shops and freestanding pad buildings; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAN 93-05 - OAS PARTNERSHIP
July 13, 1994
Page 2
d. The site contains two historic landmark buildings which
provide a recognized community identity because Thomas Winery is the oldest
winery in California; and
e. The design of the signs can be modified to meet the standards
as well as meet the applicant's need to identify the center; and
f. The proposed project identification monument sign would be
located on top of a 6-foot high wall that provides a significantly more
prominent and visible sign than typically allowed in commercial centers; and
g. The subject property has an approved Uniform Sign Program
which provides ample opportunity for project identity. Specifically, the
following project identification signs are allowed: four wall signs on the
Still Building (the tallest structure on the site}, one monument sign on each
of the two major street frontages, and one sign on the wood barrel located on
the street. The applicant chose not to install the four wall signs on the
Still Building. Further, the applicant chose to remove the project name and
logo from the two monument signs at the streets; and
h. The subject property frontage along Foothill Boulevard is
improved with right turn lanes and deceleration lanes. This essentially added
an additional, continuous lane along the shoulder and provides greater
visibility Of any monument signs because of the prohibition on parking within
the lane.
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 i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
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 property involved or to the intended use of
the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same
district.
c. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would not deprive 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 properties
classified in the same district.
e. That the granting of the Variance will be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
VAR 93-05 - OAS PARTNERSHIP
July 13, 1994
Page 3
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in
paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this commission hereby denies the application.
5. The Secretary to this commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JULY 1994.
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 13th day of July 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: July 13, 1994 ~ ~
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 88 - 0AS PARTNERSHIP - A
request to amend the Sign Program to allow a Project Identification
Monument Sign, internally illuminated Tenant Identification
Monument Signs, and various changes to the sign criteria for Thomas
Winery Plaza, located at the northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard
and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-101-22 through 25. Related File:
Variance 93-05. (Continued from May 25, 1994)
BACKGROUND: This application was continued from the May 25, 1994 Planning
Commission meeting. Attached to this report is "Exhibit "D", which is a
chronology for this item and the related Variance application. The Uniform
Sign Program was originally approved by the Planning Commission on January 25,
1989. It was modified when the Commission approved the renovation plans for
the Thomas Winery and the Still buildings on March 14, 1990. The proposed
addition of a Project identification Monument Sign necessitated this
amendment.
ANALYSIS: This section of the report describes and analyzes the proposed
Project Identification Monument Sign, the proposed changes to the Tenant
Identification Monument Sign, and miscellaneous changes to the Uniform Sign
Program.
A. Addition Of one Pro~ect Identification Monument Sign: The proposed
monument sign sits On top of an existing 6-foot high river rock wall where
the fountain is located at the intersection (see Exhibits "A9" and
"A12"). It is 49 square feet in area with a dimension of 7 by 7 feet.
The material for the sign is aluminum with internal illumination on the
outer arch frame. The sign copy consists of a non-illuminated graphic
logo and the center's name illuminated.
Staff Comment: The sign exceeds the maximum sign area of 24 square feet
and, therefore, requires a Variance. The analysis of this non-conformity
is addressed in the related Variance 93-05 staff report. Staff is also
concerned that the design of the sign and the use of aluminum material is
not sensitive to the historic context of the Winery and Still buildings.
Since the two buildings and the site are designated as Local Historic
Landmarks, adding the proposed sign with such a contemporary design does
further compromise the historic integrity of the site. Staff believes
that there are other design solutions that can satisfy the need to
PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT
SP NO. 88 - OAS PARTNER. SHIp
July 13, 1994
Page 2
identify the center which can better maintain the historic integrity of
the site. Upon determination by the Commission to either approve or deny
the related Variance application, staff recommends that the Commission
direct the applicant to work with staff in re-designing this Project
Identification Monument Sign to be more sensitive to the historic context.
B. Chan~es to the existin~ Tenant Identification Monument Signs by increasing
the sign area, increasin~ the number of tenants listed, and addin~
internal illumination: The applicant proposed to replace the two existing
monument signs with two new ones as shown in Exhibits "A10" and "Al1."
The new monument signs have a sign area of 50 square feet each, with a
total of five tenants per face, and carry the same design theme of wood
beams framing the aluminum sign cabinets. The new monument signs will be
internally illuminated.
Staff Comment: The sign exceeds the maximum sign area of 24 square feet
and exceeds the maximum number of tenant identification of three
tenants. The applicant has submitted a Variance application to request
the increase in sign area and number of tenants. As indicated in the
staff report for the related Variance 93-05 application, the City is in
the process of amending the Sign Ordinance to increase the sign area for
Tenant Identification Monument Signs to 48 square feet with the number of
tenant names to be determined by the owner of the center. The sign design
could be adjusted to meet the future standards. Staff supports an
internally illuminated design. Staff recommends that the Commission table
this portion of the Variance application and direct the applicant to work
with staff in resolving any technical issue and design issues.
C. Miscellaneous chan~es to the Uniform Sign Pro~ram~. In reviewing the
current UnifoI~n Sign Program, staff noticed several areas that should be
updated. For example: changes to the sign criteria for the Winery and
Still buildings approved in 1990 have not been incorporated, accurate
elevations for certain buildings have not been updated, obsolete sign
criteria have not been deleted, etc. Also, the applicant has requested to
add specific sign criteria for the tenant occupying Unit K-2 Of the Thomas
Winery building. The proposed revised Sign Program are as shown in
Exhibit "A" with the housekeeping items (minor change) being notated in
the program. Significant changes to the Sign Program are suTmnarized
be 1 ow:
1. Still Building. Change the sign criteria from painted sign of
24 square feet to a free standing sandblasted wood sign of 6 square
feet with a total height of 4 feet and as shown in Exhibit "A26."
Staff Comment: Although historical precedent exists for painted
signs on corrugated tin, they are high maintenance. Therefore, staff
supports the change to a more durable sandblasted wood sign that is
ground mounted.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SP NO. 88 - OAS PARTNERSHIp
July 13, 1994
Page 3
2. Winery Building. Add sign criteria to allow an internally
illuminated channel letter sign (24 square feet) suspended from the
trellis at the south elevation and a sandblasted or painted wood sign
(16 square feet) at the north elevation for Unit K-2 to replace the
existing sign criteria of painted signs and as shown in
Exhibit "A23." The tenant in Unit K-2 is Coffee Klatch.
Staff Co~unent: To review whether the proposed sign criteria is
appropriate for Unit K-2 in the Winery building, the Cormnission
should examine the history of this project. In a workshop on
January 4, 1990, the Historic Preservation Comission and the
Planning Commission jointly stated that the Winery and the Still
buildings should have minimal signs and that any signs should be
painted on the walls. The Commissions felt that typical illuminated
signs would clutter the building and attaching signs to the building
would create a maintenance issue as tenants come and go. In March of
1990 the Commissions approved painted only signs for the Winery and
Still buildings except for one illuminated sign, which was for
Knowlwood Restaurant (now Frontier Restaurant) where the sign is
mounted onto a wine barrel. Attached for the Co~unission's reference
are copies of the January 4, 1990, staff report and workshop minutes
and the February 8, 1990, Design Review Committee Action comments.
The applicant, representing the tenant of Coffee Klatch, proposed to
mount the illuminated letters on a raceway and suspend the raceway
from the trellis (See Exhibit "A23"). By mounting the sign onto the
trellis, the applicant may have addressed the maintenance concerns of
creating holes in the walls. However, the trellis is an integral
part of the Winery building and by adding an illuminated sign on, it
will detract from the historic context. Staff does not support the
use of individual letters mounted on a raceway because of the
unattractive appearance of the raceway structure and the hanging
members, particularly where applied here on the trellis of an
historic landmark building. AS for the proposed sandblasted wood
sign at the north elevation, staff feels that the design is more in
keeping with the design of the Winery building. If the Comission
concurs, it should direct staff to work with the applicant in setting
parameters for this sign criteria as an option to the painted signs
for the tenants in the Winery building. Such parameters of signs
should include maximum sign area, dimensions, and locations for
placement of signs. However, staff still believes that painted
signs, as originally approved by the Planning Commission, should be
maintained.
3. Add sign criteria for tenants that lease multiple in-line retail
units to have a maximum sign length of 60 percent of the leased store
width.
Staff Co~nent: Staff supports this new criteria which is typical of
other shopping centers.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SP N0. 88 - 0AS PARTNERSHIP
July 13, 1994
Page 4
RECOMMENDATION: Staff would recommend denial without prejudice of the changes
to the Uniform Sign Program as currently proposed. However, if the applicant
is willing, staff recommends that the Planning Comm~ission direct the applicant
to work with staff to resolve the design and technical issues prior to
bringing back a revised Uniform Sign Program for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:NF:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Proposed Uniform Sign Program
Exhibit "B" - Historic Preservation Co~=nission and Planning
Commission Workshop Staff Report and Minutes
dated January 4, 1990
Exhibit "C" - Design Review Committee Action Comments
dated February 8, 1990
Exhibit "D" - Chronology Of the Variance and Sign Program
Amendment Applications
THOMAS WINERY PLAZA
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California
Approved: January 25, 1989
Revised: April 5, 1989
Revised: I ~q0January
Tenant Sign Criteria
These criteda have been established for the purpose of assuring an outstanding
shopping center for the mutual benefit of all tenants. Conformance will be stdctly
enforced and any installed, non-conforming or unapproved signs will not be allowed.
A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
1. Tenant shall submit, or cause to be submitted, to landlord and the city of Rancho
Cucamonga for approval, before fabrication, three copies of detailed drawings
indicating the size, layout, design and color of any proposed sign, including all
lettering and/or graphics.
2. Signs shall be in accordance with State and Local sign code regulations and all
permits for signs and their installation shall be obtained by the Tenant or its
representatives.
3. Landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga shall administer and interpret this
criteria.
4. All signs shall be constructed and installed at Tenant's expense.
5. Non-conforming signs will be removed at the expense of the Tenant.
6. Landlord shall reserve the right-toarn_end this criteria necessary approvals from
the city.
B. NON PERMI'R'ED ITEMS
1. No signs of any kind shall be installed or suspended from any area not approved
by the landlord and the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
2. No painted lettering will be permitted, except as specifically allowed.
3. No animated, flashing or audible signs will be permitted.
4. No posters, banners, or other signs without the approval of the Landlord and the
City of Rancho Cucamonga.
5. No window signs in excess of 30% of window area.
C. SIGN LOCATIONS
1. The location of any sign must conform to the approved sign location plan, a part
of this criteria, and must be approved by the Landlord and the City of Rancho
Cucamonga.
D. CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS
1. No exposed raceways will be allowed.
2. All raceways, transformers, or other wiring shall be located behind the building
face.
3. All fasteners, clips or other hardware, whether exposed or non-exposed, shall be
of non-corrosive material.
4. No labels will be permitted on exposed surfaces of the sign except those
required by local and state ordinance, and those shall be in an inconspicuous
location.
5. Electrical service to all signs shall be separately metered to the meter of the
Tenant and not be part of common area operation costs.
E. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS
1. Installation of any sign shall be promptly and safely installed with as little
disruption to business and traffic as possible and with a minimum of
inconvenience to the Landlord and to the other Tenants.
2. Upon removing any sign the Tenant shall, at his own expense, repair any
damage created by such removal and shall place the area from which the sign
was moved back to its original condition.
3. Tenant shall be responsible for the maintenance of his own sign as required for
normal operation. Such maintenance should include, but not be limited to
broken, faded, chipped and peeling signs, and burned out or inconsistent
illumination.
F. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
1. Sign contractor shall carry property damage and public liability insurance which
shall protect him, Tenant and Landlord against damage caused by or connected
with the installation, use or structural sufficiency of the sign.
2
L
G. PROJECT'S SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS
1. General
a~project Identification Monumentl~ G'I~J
One Project Identification Monuments sign will be allowed for the project.
~This monument will inciude the project logo and logotype.
* See Exhibit/~_and Location Plan 1 ~I~D P/-~/~ ~
· Tenant I.D. Monument Siqns
T~fqo Monument Signs will be Ilowed for the project. One for street
f-,~(pL~,~/' ach Monument will be allowed 5 Tenant names and maximum
50 sq. ~, -
c. Directory
A directory will be installed at the primary project entrance (off Foothill
Boulevard) as required by the city's fire department for easy identification
of building locations. Buildings are to be identified on this Iocator map
Ae needed and as approved by City of Rancho Cucamonga, on-site
Tenant directories wiZl be aftowed per Exhibit ~ and Location Ran.
e. PFoieCt Address
Individual numerals, 8 inches in height located on pFoiect rock waU at
project entries, facing street and dim'ctly below ProjeCt Identification
.
~nantc~rit~riar~,~,,J ~,,~ - z-~.4-T~J P/-A-~J ! A-~Jb ~m/'&~T ._~ All Tenant signing consists of individual, internally illuminated letters.
a. Quantity: A maximum of three signs will be allowed for any business.
These signs include one per building elevation and identification on one
of the Project Identification Monuments.
Typestyle: Tenant's option, an capital or capital and lower Case, with the
approval of the Landlord and City of Rancho Cucamonga.
c. Loclo Tenant option with the approval of the Landlord. Internaily
illuminated and City of Rancho Cucamonga.
d. Material: Primary copy to be fabricated metal channel letter with
translucent acrylic face.
3
e. Location: Centered on Tenant store front.
f. Colors: Two types of tenant spaces exist in the project. Major
Tenants (Bldgs. A, D, G and K), .and Other Tenants. Major Tenants may
utilize a variety of colors for their signs face (see approved color plate
below). All other tenants will use white faces. The return color of all signs
will be the same throughout the project (Dunn Edwards Q11-49D green).
1. Major Tenants (BIdgs. A, D, G, and K)
Face: Translucent Acrylic - Rhom & Haas
Red 2415
Orange 2119
Yellow 2465
Green 2108
Blue 2648
White 2380
Return Color match Dunn Edwards Q11-49D
Trimcap color - Gold
2. All Other Tenants
Face: Translucent Acrytic - Rhom & Haas
White - 2380
Return and Trimcap: Color to match Dunn Edwards Q11-49D
g. Size:
1. Major Tenants ,'
Bldg. A --
West Elevation
60 Sq. Ft. (Maximum area: 60 sq. ft.)
24" maximum letter height
12" minimum letter height
NO 5 inch return
South Elevation
32 Sq. Ft. (Maximum area: 32 sq. ft.)
24" maximum letter height
Note: 18" letter if different user
12" minimum letter height
5 inch return
D:
6o Sq. Ft. (Maximum area: 6O sq. ft.)
24" maximum letter height
12" minimum letter height
5 inch return
4
-60 Sq. Ft. (Maximum area:~O sq. ft.) APi 2 ; 1994
24" m~imum le~er height
12" minimum le.er height
5 inch return
ncal Budd~n~: ~C~T~o~
Still building- 8L~. L
M~ (2) 6 sq. ft. single-face sandbla~ redwood signs will be
permi~ed. Signs mounted on (2) 4" X 4" po~s 4' above
grade, located at the East & West elevations in the planter
area. N~T~
~ne~ Building - s~.K ,
Unit K-1
South Elevation - internally illuminated or non-illuminated
channel le~ers mounted on "barrel" a~ifa~ will be allowed.
18" tall m~imum height
12" tall mimimum height
5 inch return for illuminated le~ers
1 inch return for non-illuminated
Unit K-2
South Elevation -One internally illuminated channel letter sign
suspended from trellis will be allowed. Logo permissible
with planning approval.
18" maximum letter height
12" minimum letter height
5 inch return
copy white $1f,,~. . .,, .
Max 24 sq. ft.. ,==;=.==.~ :7:_.~ F:='-':~"-'=
North Elevation - (1) 10 sq. ft. single face sandblast or
painted~ood sign will be allowed.
Unit K-3
North,East and South Elevations - Painted wall signs will be
permi.tted on (3) elevations. Max 2t/.sq. ft. signs on each
elevabon. 5
3. All Other Tenants lir, l APR 2, ~; 1994
~1 othe~ tenants are separated into ~o oaegodes mlaive to sign
sizes. Th~s6 sign sizes, ~ 6 sq. ~. an~ 24 sq. ~. aF~ pmdi~te~ on
available sign am~ relative to store frontages. ~eie~ to ~i~its tot
th .... d specific location of these signs. t ~Tt~M
16 Sq. Ft. (M~imum area: 16 sq. ~.)-- ~6IT ~4
18" m~imum le~er height
12" minimum le~er height
5 inch return
24 Sq. Ft. (M~imum area: 24 sq. ~.) ~ ~6l? ~ ~
18" m~mum le~er height
12" minimum le~er height
5 inch return
For tenants with multiple store fronts, the m~imum length of sign shall be
60% of lease hold width.
Tenants shall be responsible for the fulfillment of all the requirements and
specifications contained in these documents.
6
VINEYARD AVENUE
S I T E P LA N -, .oT To
DOUBLE FACED - TENANT MONUMENT SIGN (EXHIBIT:
DOUBLE FACED - TENANT MONUMENT SIGN (EXHIBIT:. 16
SINGLE FACED - PLAZA I.D. MONUMENT SIGN (EXHIBIT::
DOUBLE FACED HISTORIC WOOD BARREL SIGN (EXHIBIT 3)
SITE PLAN
/ DOUBLE FACED -
· TENANT MONUMENT SIGN
Location: FOOTHILL BLVD
' SCALE.' 1/16"= 1;0"
FOOTHILL BLVD.
F-c~T HIL-t-- r%l.-dp
DOUBLE FACED - TENANT MONUMENT SIGN SCALE,,' 1/2' =
Location: VINEYARD AVENUE '
SIGN CABINET FABRICATED FROM ALUMINUM W1TH FACES ROUTED OUT -'~
FOR COPY AND BACKED WITH WHITE PLEX, GRAPHICS TO BE CUT OUT
~ FROM TRANSLUCENT VINYL.
"""" TRIM ALONG TOP &ONE SIDE TO BE WOOD iMINATED WITH C.W.-H.O. ~'f-- ~.'
FLUORESCENT LAMPS. ¢ ~ :~'
7 "-~'
DOUBLE BCED - TENANT MONUMENT SIGN SCALE'
Location: FOOTHILL BLVD.
SI~ CABIN~ F~RICATED FROM ~UMINUM WITH FACES ROUTED OUT
FOR COPY AND BACKED ~ ~1~ PLEX, G~PHICS TO BE CUT OUT
FROM m~SLUCENT VINe.
TRIM ALONG TOP & ONE SIDE TO BE WOOD - I~UMINATED WITH C.W.-H.O.
FLUORESCENT ~PS.
SINGLE FACED- PLAZA I.D. MONUMENT SIGN SCALE.' I/2'= 1'-0"
Location: VINEYARD AVE. / FOOTHILL BLVD.
SIGN CABINET FABRICATED FROM ALUMINUM WITH FACES ROUTED OUT
FOR COPY AND BACKED WITH WHITE PLEX, GRAPHICS TO BE CUT OUT
FROM TRANSLUCENT VINYL
,r-- Z _, . Z
I
VINEYARD AVENUE
S I T E P LA N -, .oT To so,,LE,
O SINGLE FACED- TENANT I.D. SIGN/DIRECTORY/(EXHIBIT:ij,a)
I~ SINGLE FACED - VEHICULAR DIRECTIOjSIGN (EXHIBIT~b)
SCALE.' 3/4" = I'-0'
SINGLE FACED - TENANT I.D. SIGN
(DIRECTORY)
PANEL: 1/4" ALUMINUM PLATE ON 2" DIA. TUBE FRAME
GRAPHICS SILKSCREENED, ONE SIDE ONLY
COLORS: GREEN BACKGROUND
WHITE GRAPHICS
GREY TUBE FRAME
SIGN TO BE EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED.
NOTE: BLDG ADDRESS TO BE 1" HIGH LETTER
(DRAWING IS TOO SMALL TO SHOW ACCURATELY).
PANEL: 1/4"ALUMINUM PLATE ON 2" dlA. TUBE FRAME
~ 4_ 4~ ATFACHED WITH TABS WELDED TO METAL PIPE FRAME
'I i't F'~ ' GRAPHICS SILKSCREENED, ONE SIDE ONLY,
,2_.~_~' O' l:::~.,a,-, COLORS: GREEN BACKGROUND TO MATCH EXISTING
WHITE GRAPHICS
~l_ ~ . Ceor~') . GREY TUBE FRAME
· * NUMBER OF TENANT NAMES: 3 MIN. 5 MAX.
AND UMIT TO '1'~/O LINES FOR EACH NAME
· LETTER STYLE: TIMES ROMAN
· LETTER SIZE: 2-1/2"
WITH ARROWS EQUAL TO LETTER SIZE
+ CARD[O FIT
~ +TENANTNAME ! ~.q'+ CARDIO FIT
~! ~ b -
~up, o~,s~o ~T'+TENANT NAME
~,gs'r,~u~,T~' ~.F+ SOUPLANTATION
~'~t"+ KNOWLOOD
BURGERS
· + ZENDEJAS
SGALE.' ~/4~ -- 1: 0~
$,~ ~o~_ RESTAURANT'
} VEHICULAFq DI~F::GTIONAL SIGN
~" FOB MULTI-TENANT NAMES
VINEYARD AVENUE '"
SITE PI AN
Scale: f/re'
' " VII~IEYARD AVENUE '~""~'
SITF PLAN
H'T~, r---H-~HHB, LEC:,
akC,~ I-z-,, - h4,4,./oP-,_ TP---,,d4-~ T
SIGN TYPE: K-2a SCALE: 3/8" -- 1'-0"
INDIVIDUAL CHANNEL LEI'I'ERS & LOGO ON RACEWAY
CHANNEL LTRS FABR. FROM ALUMINUM, RETURNS PAINTED DK. BRONZE
CHANNEL LTRS FACES: RED PLEX W/BRONZE TRIM CAP EDGES
LOGO: WHITE PLE× BACKGROUND (GRAPHIC AS REQUIRED)
RACEWAY & SUSPENDING STEEL TUBES: PAINTED DK. BRONZE
Exhibit,~-:.
SIGN TYPE: K'2b SCALE: 1"= 1'-0"
SINGLE FACED, SANDBLASTED REDWOOD SIGN
Exhibit: ~ A :~--'~
~ PA~[TfAL)
SIGN ~PE: L SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
SINGLE FACED, SANDB~STED WOOD SIGN- MOUNTED ONtO POSTS ~ z
SANDB~STED BACKGROUND - PAINTED BROWN
BORDER & COPY - PAINTED WHITE
· "' : ~:_..,i ,-:; . Jll~, . = .. ~ =_
_ .: ~ ~ ~ , '-, /
~.~,, .. .,.. '~
VIN~ARD AVENUE
~PICAL 16 SO. F~ STORE FRONT
VINEYARD AVENUE -"' ~ tO ~ .-
~PICAL 24 SO.
SITE
# rb~ MA-XV ~' FA/~ ,X41,4/.
dPl, dF~ : NHZTB F,464~ kVIrJ ~ i~TNM~
I [~Y"~'I"
/~f f~ ~/,r?~/,~9~ ~
Scale: 3/,,s" = :1 '-0"
Scale:: 1 '-0"
General Specifications
Wall or other suitable
mounting surface.
Raceway with
transformer
f~ M.4-T'dh'/V/A/D~ ~d~//--/Xp/g,k
'PK Housing
W/F/;'~ Pl, l-x p.4-/Ae ~
Neo~ tu~
Glass stand
~ount~ng hardware
as required.
INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED
CHANNEL LETTER
Sermon
Scalo:~/4" ~ ~"
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE: January 4, 1990
·
TO: ~ Ch ' man and Members of the Planning Commission
FR Brad Bul ler, City Planner
BYL: Nancy Fong, Senior Planner
SU JECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-26 MODIFICATION NO. I - SANDERSON
PETOY/OAS - The request to rehab the existing 10,570
square foot Winery building and the 738 square foot Still
building for office, retail and restaurant uses, within the
Thomas Winery Plaza, in the Specialty Commercial District of
the Foothill Specific Plan, located at the northeast corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 208-101-10
and 11.
I. PURPOSE: The overall objective is to determine the proper extent
of rehab work to be done on these two historic landmark buildings
and to find a balance of functionality and marketability without
conl~romising the historic integrity of the building. The purpose
of this workshop, then, is to identify areas of concerns and
issues from the Historic Preservation Commission and Planning
Commission and to provide direction to the develope as they move
forward with their project.
II. BACKGROUND: In 1987, both the Historic Preservation Con~nission
and Planning Con~nission conducted a joint workshop to review the
Thomas Winery Plaza. The workshop enl~hasized on the review of
the new speciality retail center that was designed around the two
historic buildings. Subsequently, the Planning Commission
conditionally approved the Conditional Use Permit for the center
and the Historic Preservation Commission approved the Landmark
Alteration Permit. Presently, Phase I is conM>leted, Phase II is
under construction, while building permits for Phase III have not
been issued yet.
The developer, OAS, with a new partner, Sanderson, Ray, and
Petoy, are proposing to rehab the Winery and Still building for
the mixed use of office, retail and restaurant. Attached for
your reference is a descriptive assessment of the rehabilitation
for the two buildings as proposed by the developer.
III. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS: The proposal to rehabilitate the Winery
and still buildings would require the processing of the following
app 1 i cat ions:
,/
MEMO TO: PLANNING ~MISSION
RE: CUP 87-26 - Mb_.
January 4, 1990
Page 2
1. Modification to the Conditional Use Permit subject to
review and approval by the Planning Commission.
2. Landmark Alteration Permit to be reviewed and approved
by the Historic Preservation Commission.
Both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Planning
Commission will conduct separate public hearings to consider the
appropriate applications.
IV. IDENTIFIED DESIGN ISSUES: The developer is proposing to have two
or three r~st~urant tenants on the ground flour of the Winery
building and office tenants on the second floor. The Still
building will be planned for retail space. In order for the
building to be functional to accommodate these speculative users,
the developer proposes to alter the exterior of the building by
adding openings, such as windows, exit doors, stairs, for public
safety purposes. The following are concerns and issues
identified by staff based on review of the proposed development
plans. These identified issues are in addition to the concerns
and issues identified by the Historic Preservation staff. A copy
of the Historic Preservation staff report has been attached for
your reference.
A. Winer), Building: '
1. Roof Materials. The developer is proposing to replace
the existing tile and asphalt shingle roof material
with a rated wood shingle similar to the original
roof. Preliminary comn~nts from the Design Review
Committee indicated that they would prefer to see a
wood shake, which is a bit thicker than the shingles
that will provide n~re richr~ss and shadow patterns.
2. South Elevation.
a) A total of four new windows and two new entr. ies are
proposed.
b) The existing and new entries are provided with new
storefront glass doors. Staff believes that the
design and n~terials are inappropriate for the
building. The developer should refurbish the
existing entries with the same or replica of the
existing heavy duty wood doors.
MEMO TO: PLANNING 1MMISS~ON
RE: CUP 87-26 - Mb~.
January 4, 1990
Page 3
c) The existing wine barrel (cask) is proposed to be
installed next to the existing entry. Staff's
concern is '~ith the feasibility of the proposal
because of the limited space at this location.
d) A shed roof is added over the existing and new
building entries. The addition of such shed roof
would disrupt the continuous arbor which is the
main feature of the existing building.
3. North Elevation.
a) A total of eight new windows are added to the
roof. This side of the roof is n~st visible from
Vineyard Avenue going south. The primary issue is
the appropriateness of these new openings. Staff
believes that the new openings conl~romise the
historic integrity of the winery building.
b) Exposed roof mechanical equipment. The developer
has indicated that all roof-mounted equipment will
be located within a well in the shed roof.
However, the exhaust fan wil 1 be exposed. The
concern with this exposed exhaust fan is how to
architecturally treat it. Staff suggests the use
of galvanized metal material with architectural
design that reflects the agricultural heritage.
The goal is not to draw attention to the equipment.
c) A new door and stairwell enclosure is added to the
easterly side of this north elevation. This
addition is needed to provide exiting for the
second sto~ office space. This design consists of
shed roof and dormer which provides conl~atibility
to the existing building.
d) Although the existing windows are proposed to be
refurbished with wood-framed windows, the building
entries are replaced with new aluminum glass
storefront. Staff believes that this design and
material are inappropriate to the building.
4. West Elevation.
a) Two new wood windows are added to the upper portion
of the building. Staff believes that the two
windows would add interest to this side of the
e 1 evat i on.
MiSMO TO: PLANNING ~MMISSION
RE: CUP 87-26 - Mb~.
January 4, 1990
Page 4
b) There are two doors that open out to the public
right-of-way. Doors along this elevation would not
be acceptable.
5. East Elevation. There is minimal change to this
elevation. The existing entry is replaced with
woodframe windows. Staff does not have a concern with
th is proposal.
6. Architectural Details (Windows and Doors).
a) The pattern, rythm and design of the windows,
especially along the north elevation, are two
varied. It appears that the square-shaped windows
are utilized more often. Therefore, staff suggests
the use of woodframe square windows instead of
storefront glass windows.
b) All doors should use the heavy wood as in the
existing ones.
c) Wood trim should be provided along the woodframe
windows.
B. Still Building:
1. Developers plan to carefully remove the tin siding and
roof so as to allow for seismic strengthening and
installation of waterproofing and insulation. The tin
would then be carefully reinstailed to the exterior
walls. There are minimal changes to the still
building. There are only two new windows being added
to the east elevation and one window added to the south
e 1 evat i on.
C. Signs:
1. Winery Buildin9.
a) The developer is proposing two different styles of
signage, one being painted and the other internally
illuminated individual channel letters. Staff
believes that the painted sign on wood or plaster
is more appropriate to the style of the building.
b) The developer claims that the painted sign on the
roof that says California's Oldest Winery is part
of the historic significance. There is evidence
that the roof sign was a part of the building for
MEMO TO: PLANNING ~MMISS~ON
RE: CUP 87-25 - Mbu.
January 4, 1990
Page 5
many years. However, according to the current Sign
Ordinance, roof signs are not permitted.
Therefore, allowing this roof sign may set a
precedence for future requests. Staff believes
there are other options available for identifying
the Winery as the oldest winery without putting it
on the roof.
2. Still Buildin9. The developer also proposed two
painted signs on the still building. The design of the
signs appear to be appropriate, however, the current
Code only allows a maximum of three signs on each
building.
O. Artifacts: The developer is proposing to display large
agricultural and winery artifacts, such as barrels, wine
press, wagon, etc. and including a plaque that provides the
proper description within the site as shown in the
conceptual artifacts plans. Staff is concerned with the
maintenance of these artifacts. There is still no proposal
for a museum to display small artifacts. Also, an inventory
of the artifacts has not been provided to the Historic
Preservation staff for review.
E. Lighting: Any wall -mounted light fixtures should be
designed to compliment the winery building. Staff suggested
a study should be done by a lighting consultant to provide a
special lighting affect that signifies the winery building
as a focal point in this activity center.
BB: NF :ko
Attachment: Historic Preservation Staff Report
CITY OF RANCH0 CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 4, 1990
TO: Chairman and Members of the Historic Preservation
Con~lission
OM Larry Henderson, Principal Planner
Arle Banks, Associate Planner
ne
SUBJECT: THOMAS WINdY/JOINT PLANNING AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COItIISSION WORKSHOP
I. .BACKGROUND:
A. Overview: The Thomas Winery Plaza project is nc~v reaching its
last phase which includes rehabilitation of the winery building
and distillery. A separate parcel has been created for the two
buildings, which are being developed by the joint partnership
of OAS Investors and Sanderson Jay Ray Perry Associates. The
plans are being designed by Thirtieth Street Architects.
The app]icants are requesting a Landmark Alteration Permit from
the Historic Preservation Conmnission. In addition, they will
need from the Planning Commission an amendment to the original
Conditional Use Permit and design approval.
B. Purpose: ?he purpose of the workshop is to enable the two
Commissions to discuss the overall project, each Commission
stating its preferences, but making no final decisions. The
enl~hasis will be on areas of nutual concern, such as exterior
design, landscaping, and signs. Creation of a well-designed,
functional project that preserves the significant hisboric
features of the buildings is the common goal, and it is hoped
that any potential differences can be identified and resolved
at this meeting. ·
C. Historic Preservation Commission Role: The Historic
Preservation Conmnission two years ago considered overal 1 plans
that dealt with the entire project and briefly addressed the
winery and still buildings. It v~is agreed that the Secretary
of Interior Standards and ~idelines would be followed in
rehabilitating and seismically strengthening the buildings.
However, the details of the winery modification plans were not
HPC STAFF REPORT
TH(]IAS WINERY
January 4, 1990
Page 2
known at the time of the review, thus, now requiring Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval through a Landmark
A1 teration Permit.
A major focus of the Commission 's task is to ensure that the
Secretary of Interior Standards and Guidelines are followed.
The Standards are attached. Of particular note are standards
1, 2, 6, 9, and 10.
F}. Importance of the Winery: The Thomas Winery is a State and
local Historic Landmark. Its adobe walls were constructed in
1839, and additions were made in 1860. After being damaged in
the flood of 1969, the eastern addition was completely
reconstructed. It is one of the mast treasured of Rancho
Cucamonga's historic resources; not only is it associated with
the founding of the rancho, it is also claimed to be the oldest
winery in the state. Furthermore, wineries are an important
part of the City's heritage and identity.
E. Restoration vs. Rehabilitation: In view of the importance of
this winery, staff's position has been to emphasize protection
of the integrity of the buildings, especially the winery's
adobe walls, so that they will be preserved for the long term
future. However, staff recognizes the need to adapt the
buildings to new, marketable uses. The developers have pointed
out that their task is not restoration, but rather
rehabilitation for adaptive reuse. Thus, some changes are to
be expected. However, staff has been urging that changes be
the minimum needed to make the project work.
II. ~STIFICATION OF WORK: Landmark Alteration Permit applications
contain a section for justification of the alterations. The
attached report from Ihirtieth Street outlines the rationale behind
the changes to the buildings as sho~n in the blueprints in your
packets.
III. HISTORIC PRESERVATION STAFF COMMENTS ON PROPOSAL: Con~nission
me~iDers may ~nt to refer to their copy of Secretary of ~nterior
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings to determine the
suitability of the proposed changes.
Staff's general recomrendations for this project are as follows:
1. Minireel changes that are absolutely necessary to make the
buildings safe, functional, and marketable are acceptable.
2. Changes shoulc] be compatible with the buildings.
HPC STAFF REPORT
THOMAS WINERY
January 4, 1990
Page 3
3. Changes should be disting.uishable as modern alterations or
additions, and not mislead observers into thinking the new
features are part of the original.
4. As little as possible of the original adobe should be
disturbed; new entries and windows are more acceptable in the
concrete replacement walls built after the 1969 flood.
5. Future tenants must be made aware of restrictions in making
changes to the buildings.
6. An acceptable artifacts plan must be a condition of approval.
Comments follow the format of Thirtieth Street's report.
Winery Building-
A. Roofing and Skylights: Staff thinks that bringing the winery roof
back to its 1920's appearance with asphalt shingles would be
acceptable from an historic preservation perspective; however,
treated wood shingles are also acceptable.
The proposed wood and glass windows on the north elevation change
its appearance quite markedly and are acceptable only if there is a
coni>elling need to include them. Windows that are mo~ recessed
may be p~ferable. ll~e north elevation is highly visible from
Vineyard Avenue.
B. The proposed changes for seismic strengthening will not
disfigure exterior walls.
C. Exit Stairs and Stair Enclosure: Assuming that the Historical
Building Code would not have alternative requirements for
second story access, and assuming the need for use of the
second story, staff does not object to the proposed changes and
appreciates that the addition echoes the existing shed roof and
dormer but will also be distinguishable from the original.
D. Doorways: There are fever wind0vs and doors proposed in this
revised plan, and staff acknowledges the nesponsiveness of the
applicant to staff's concern to limit the number and size of
new openings. It appears that one new doorway was placed where
the adobe wall had been damaged and repaired with cen~nt,
making it the least objectionable spot to cut into the walls of
the adobe building.
HPC STAFF REPORT
THOMAS WINERY
January 4, 1990
Page 4
Staff still questions whether all the proposed doorways will be
needed if there are only two rather than three first floor
tenants. Staff is also concerned with the removal of the east
doorway and its replacement with a large window. In this
instance, a doorway has been removed and another close by has
been added, changing the appearance of both the south and east
elevations.
Staff proposes that the applicants devise a minimum-change
alternative and make final improvements when the i~nants are
known. Improven~nt plans for both two and three first floor
i~nants could be approved and final building permits could be
issued for three by a certain date, or, if it can be worked
out, for two, thereby possibly lessening the number of
alterations.
It is unclear exactly what the new doorways will look like.
Sinl>le wood frame is appropriate. Staff would like to see more
detailed drawings of the proposed storefronts.
E. Windows: Retention and repair of all existing wood windows is
preferred, and putting sliding service doors in a fixed
position is acceptable to staff. The proposed wood frames
rather than aluminum is an improvement. More detailed sketches
Of the storefronts are needed to determine if they are
acceptable. Again, if possible, changes should be compatible
but not appear original. The revised plans show one less entry
and fewer and smaller windows on the south elevations, a vast
improvement over earlier plans, with a total of three in the
adobe portion of this elevation. The wind~s will be recessed,
showing the thickness of the adobe. Staff is concerned with
ho~ they can be made to look compatible but not original.
F. Walls - Plans appear acceptable.
G. Floor and New Machanical Equipment: Staff would like further
explanation regarding the necessity for matching the flour
levels since ramping could provide a transition.
There is a need for more specific information on the appearance
of the mechanical equipment on the roof. Also, the use of
ground level mechanical eduipm~nt should be explored.
H. Signage: The proposed roof sign is a copy of a sign used
during the ig20's which ~s probably painted on asphalt
shingles rather than on wood shingles, which will be the new
roof material. Staff has doubts about whether this sign will
enhance the project and thinks it might look out of place on a
HPC STAFF REPORT
THO4AS WINERY
January 4, 1990
Page 5
wood shingle roof. The Conmnission can see what it thinks of
the sign after seeing a 1920's photograph (showing the sign)
which the applicant is bringing to the raeeting. Staff is not
entirely closed to the idea of a painted roof sign if it can
work with the rest of the signs and design of the project, but
staff's initial response is that it will be overkill with the
signs on the still and all the other signs on site.
Internal ly illuminated channel letters are inappropriate for
this project.
I. Interior Features: - Wine casks should be retained within the
bui ldiog if possible.
Still Building-
A. Exterior Tin Siding and Roofing: There is no explanation of
why new corrugated siding wil 1 be instal led on the roof.
B. Windms and Doors: Restoration of existing windows and doors
is good. Rationale for new windows and doors has not been
provided.
C. Signage: Painted signs are acceptable; however, signs on all
four sides exceed code limits, and appear excessive.
D. Artifacts: The "?hematic Artifacts Location Plan" is a
promising but sketchy beginning. What is needed is more detail
and explanation of how the artifacts will be integrated
visually and conceptually into the landscaping and building
site.
Also, an inventory of the artifacts is necessary, as ~ell as a
plan for their preservation, n~intenance, and protection. How
will they be protected from the sun, rain, and wind, from theft
and vandalism? How long will they last? W~nich will be
indoors? What will happen to the artifacts that cannot be used
on site? How can the City be assured of their continued
pneservation? Finally, ~hy is the still building no longer
planned to house them?
IV RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Historic Preservation
Commission becoma familiar with the proposed plans for the winery
and still buildings and prapare to discuss common concerns and
possible differences of opinion with the Planning Conmnission.
HPC STAFF REPORT
THOMAS WINERY
January 4, 1990
P~e 6
Re sp ec tfu 1 ly submitted,
Larry Henderson
Principal Planner
LH:AB:mlg
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
January 4, 1990
L'na~,,..n McNiel and Chairman Schmidt called the joint meeting of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission to
order at 9:15 P.M. The meeting was held at the Rancho Cucamonga Neighborhood
Center, 9791 Arrow Highway, Rancho Cucamonga, California. The purpose of the
workshop was to facilitate review and discussion between the two Commissions
over the proposed rehabilitation work for the Winery and Still buildings at
Thomas Winery Plaza &nd to provide direction to the developers.
ROLL CALL
PLANNING
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Blakesley, Suzanne Chitiea,
Larry 'McN~el, ~etsy Weinberger
ABSENT: Peter Tolstoy
HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: Melicent Arner, Marsha Banks,
Gene Billings, Steve Preston, Bob Schmidt
ABSENT: Ada Cooper, Alan Haskvitz
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Bullet, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Nancy Fong, Senior Planner; Jeff Gravel,
Assistant Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner;
Otto Kroutil, Deputy City Planner
Brad Buller, City Planner, introduced the Commissions and staff to the
developers and their professional teams.
John Loomis, 30th Street Architects, Inc., presented the proposal to the two
Commissions. He gave a definition of what rehabilitation is. He further
explained the unsuccessful attempt to nationally register the win~ry building
as a National Historic Landmark. The prol%osed rehabilitation is to focus on
the period of significance between 1920's to 1930's. The rehabilitation work
will distinguish the new work from the old in a subtle way. The purpose is to
identify the old and the new with a contemporary interpretation of the old.
John Perry, Sanderson, Ray, and Petry, explained the needs of future tenants.
Planning and HPC Minutes - 1 - January 4, 1990
Chairman NcNiel disagreed with the architect in that there should be a
distinction between the original adobe wall and the I969 portion.
He felt the wall materials and color between the old and new should not be
highlighted at all.
Commissioner Banks stated that the landmark, overall, is being detrimentally
affected by a cluttered look. She thought the parking lot lights, interior
illuminated signs, added windows, skylights, and roof sign contribute to the
cluttering up of a simple architectural structure. She felt if a historic
period is selected, it should be 1839, since the significant historicam ~spcct
is the claim that this is the oldest winery in the state and the second oldest
in the nation. She agreed with Chairman McNiel that there does not need to
be a subtle difference in stucco colors between the old and the new portions
of the building. She felt the architecture of the new center buildings
detract from the simplicity of the winery architecture. She stated a
preference for wood shingles or shake and that there should not be any roof
mounted equipment, particularly on the northern exposure because of the
proximity to Vineyard Avenue. She liked the idea of dormers, but not the
skylights.
Commissioner Preston stated that he felt the period of historical significance
should also be 1839. He felt the landscaping was historically respectful
except for the selection of some of the ornamentals that are proposed which
look out of place. He requested details on the public outdoor furniture. He
recommended the use of wood as the primary material for any outdoor furniture
and that its design be appropriate for the historical period of the
building. He was also' concerned with the types of decorative pavement that
would be used around the building. He had a problem with the roof and
interior illuminated signs as proposed since it would give it a cluttered
look. He felt an artifacts plan/list is needed with sufficient details. He
stated he would like to see any new windows recessed as much as possible. He
requested that the architect submit the National Nomination papers and
correspondence records to the Historic Preservation Commission for
verification of ineligibility. He too had a problem with the roof equipment,
'particularly on the north side of the building. He was also concerned with
the loss in the different floor elevations and its effect on the spacial
character of the interior.
Commissioner Chitiea requested that additional details concerning the doors
and window frames be brought back for review and consideration and designed to
be consistent with the existing doors and windows. The landscaping around the
building should reflect the image of a winery and not a desert. She agreed
the street furniture should be simple, but of wood and metal materials with
details to be brought back for review.
Commissioner Weinberger stated that she was concerned about the speculative
nature of the occupants of the building causing many changes which may not be
desirable or necessary.
Commissioner Blakesley questioned the decision as to whether the upper floor
needed to be used for offices and that perhaps it should remain a storage area
or an artif act display area since the change in use was going to cause
additional openings (skylights, windows, and doors) in the structure.
Planning and HPC Minutes - 2 - January 4, 19g0
Commissioner Preston concurred with this perception.
The consensus of the Historic Preservation' Commission and the Planning
Commission, based on reviewing the proposal, was as follows:
1. The old and new improvements to the original winery should not be
highlighted.
2. The period of significance for rehabilitation should be the year 1839.
3. The changes to the buildings, the additions of skylights, new entries,
signs, and etc., made the winery building look too cluttered.
4. The use of wood shake for the roof material is preferred.
5. Concern was raised with roof mounted equipment/projections. Exhaust
pipes and fans should not be exposed. The Commissioners understood
that some of the kitchen equipment might have to be exposed. The
concern is then how to minimize the visual impact of the new vents and
how to architecturally treat them.
6.The choice of plant palette immediately adjacent to the winery building
should reflect the winery heritage.
7. Minimal street furniture should be used near and around the winery
building. The design of the street furniture and hardscape must be
submitted for Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission
review and approval.
8. Minimal signs should be placed on the buildings. Painted signs are
preferable. Identifying the winery building as the oldest winery is
acceptable, but n~t through a painted roof sign. Make use of the
existing monument sign to identify businesses.
.g. Submit .an. ~nventory' of artif acts and a plan to display them for
Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission review. This
should be dene prior to scheduling the project for public hearing.
10. The addition of skylights is unacceptable.
11. All ground and wall mounteq equipment, such as meters and conduits,
must be screened.
12. The types of doors, windows, stairwags, railings, and numbe~ of entries
must be sensitive to and incorporate historic patterns, materials,
colors, and styles.
13. Concerns--Imere raised with the speculative users for the building, which
caused the numerous changes.
14. Night highlighting is encouraged.
Planning and HPC Minutes - 3 - January 4, 1990
***** ·
ADJOURNMENT
The joint Planning Commission and Historic Preservation Commission
meeting/workshop adjourned at 11:50 PM.
Respect~lly submitted,
Secretary
Planning and HPC Minutes - 4 - January 4, 1990
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
7:00 - 7:30 Nancy February 8, !990
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 87-25 MODIFICATION #1 SANDERSONm RAY &
PETRY/OAS - The request to rehabilitate the existing 10,570 square foot
winery building and 738 square foot still building for office, retail
and restaurant uses, within the Thomas Winery Plaza, in a Specialty
Commercial District of the Foothill Specific Plan, located at the
northeast corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -
APN: 208-I01-10 and 11.
Background:
On January 4, 1990, the Historic Preservation Con~nission and the
Planning Commission conducted a joint workshop to review the proposed
project. The purpose of that workshop was to facilitate review and
discussion between the two Commissions over the proposed rehab work for
the two buildings and to provide direction to the developer. Attached
for your reference is a copy of the January 4, 1990 joint staff report
and approved workshop minutes. Also, a copy of the previous plans have
been attached for the Committee to compare with the revised plans.
Staff Commmments:
1. The two Commissions stated that the old and the new improvements to
the original winery building should not be highlighted.
Comment: The developer agreed not to highlight the original adobe
wall and the 1969 portion.
2. The period of significance for rohabilitation should be the year
1839.
Comment: The developer agreed to rehab the building back to the
year of 1839.
3. The two Commissions stated that the changes to the buildings
including the additions of skylights, new entries, etc., make the
winery building look cluttered.
Comment: The revised plans (Sheet No. 5) show that the skylights
have been eliminated except for the two which are located at the
north elevation of the 1969 portion of the winery building. New
entries and windows have been minimized.
4. The Commissions stated that the use of ~ood shake for the roof
material is preferred.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
CUP 87-26 - MODIFICATION #!
SANDERSON, RAY & PETRY/OAS
Page 2
Comment: The revised plan shows that the roof material is wood
shake. The developer has not indicated the thickness of the wood
shake nor has he submitted a sample for review. However, this item
could be conditioned so that both the Historic Preservation
Commission and the Design Review Committee will review the final
sample prior to issuance of building permits for the rehab work.
5. The Cormmissions raised concerns with the roof mounted
equipment/projections. Exhaust pipes and vents, for example,
should not be exposed. The Commissions also understand that some
of the kitchen equipment my have to be exposed. However, the
concern is how to minimize and architecturally treat it.
Comment: The revised plans show that there is no visible roof
mounted equipment or projections. However, the developer has
indicated that certain kitchen equipment will be located on the
roof because of potential restaurant uses (see attached letter).
The developer proposed to locate the roof equipment and show the
details at a later date since the tenant and their needs are
unknown. It is staff's opinion that the developer is delaying the
addressing of this issue. Detailed plans to show how the exposed
kitchen equipment is treated architecturally, should be submitted
for both the Historic Preservation Commission and the Design Review
Committee for review and approval prior to scheduling the project
for public hearing.
6. The Commissions stated that the choice of plant pallere immediately
next to the winery building should reflect the winery heritage.
Comment: This could be conditioned.
7. The Comissions stated that minimol street furniture should be used
near and around the winery building. The design of the street
furniture and bardscape most be submitted for Historic Preservation
Comission and Planning Commission review and approval.
Comment: The developer has submitted some samples of hardscape and
seating benches. The issue is whether the design is appropriate in
the historic context.
8. The Co--issions stated that minimal signs should be placed on the
buildings. Painted signs are preferable. Identifying the winery
building as the oldest winery is acceptable but not as a painted
roof sign. Make use of the existing monument sign to identify
businesses.
Comment: The developer has revised his plans by proposing painted
wall signs with external lighting. The proposed maximum sign area
for the wall signs is 24 square feet. There is one proposed sign
DESIGN REVIEW COMi...~TS
CUP 87-26 - MODIFICATION #1
SANDERSON, RAY & PETRY/OAS
Page 3
on the west elevation of the winery building which is 60 square
feet. Staff believes that the proposed signs of 24 square feet and
60 square feet is too big and that the signs become a dominant
feature instead of the building. As for the still building, the
revised plans still show four (4) wall signs. This is inconsistent
with the Sign Ordinance as the maximum number of wall signs is
three (3) for any building.
The developer is also proposing to add a 15 foot high monument sign
at the landscape setback area off Vineyard Avenue. The design of
this monument sign is a replica of a previous wood monument sign
that was removed. (See attached plan and postcard). This proposed
monument sign is inconsistent with the Sign Ordinance and would set
a precedent for the entire City, in that, the addition of this sign
would exceed the maximum number of monument signs by one. The
Commissions stated that the developer could make use a wood barrel
to identify the winery building as the oldest winery.
g. Submit an inventory of artif acts and a plan to display them for
Historic Preservation Commission and Planning Commission review.
This should be done prior to scheduling the project for public
hearing.
Comment: The developer has submitted an inventory of artifacts as
shown in the attachment. The information submitted appears to be
incomplete in that it did not show where the artif acts are being
displayed, how they are being restored and maintained, etc. The
developer also has not addressed the issue of providing an indoor
museum to display the smaller artifacts. However, the Historic
Preservation Contnission and HPC staff will be taking the lead in
reviewing the completeness of the artifacts inventory and plan.
10. The Commissions stated that the addition of skylights are
unacceptable.
Cormant: The revised plans show that the majority of the skylights
have been eliminated except for the two on the north elevation at
the 1969 portion of the winery building.
11. The Commissions stated that all ground and wall mounted equipment
such as meters and conduit must be screened.
Comment: The revised plans show that gas meters are proposed at
the north side of the west elevation. There is also an existing
fire sprinkler riser at the south side of this elevation. Since
the west elevation is the closest to Vineyard Avenue and it is
encroaching into the public right-of-way, staff recontnends that the
gas meters should be relocated to the north elevation at an area
where it could be screened by landscaping.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMa,iTS
CUP 87-26 - MODIFICATION #I
SANDERSON, RAY & PETRY/OAS
Page 4
12. The Commissions stated that the types of doors, windows, the number
of entry stainways and railings must be sensitive to and
incorporate historic patterns, materials, colors and style.
Comment: The revised plans show that all the doors are compatible
with the existing one. The doors at the east elevation are being
salvaged and refurbished.
13. The Commissions raised concerns with the speculative user for the
building which causes the numerous changes.
Comment: None.
14. The Commissions stated that night highlighting is encouraged.
Comment: The developer is proposing to add wall mounted uptighting
and downlighting and ground mounted flood lights, in order to
highlight the winery building. Detailed designs of the light
fixtures have been attached for your review. The wall mounted
uplighting and downlighting are located' at the east and west
elevations and along the trellis work in front of the building.
Staff found that the number of light fixtures on the west and east
elevations are excessive. Staff recommends that the number of
light fixtures be reduced. Also, staff recommends that the free
standing light fixtures in front of the winery building be removed
since the developer is proposing to use ground mounted flood
lights. The remainder of the free standing light fixtures in the
parking lot in front of the winery building need to be repainted to
emulate an "aged copper/bronze color."
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Suzanne Chitlea, Betsy Weinberger, Otto Kroutil
Staff Planner: Nancy Fong
The Conm~ittee reviewed the revised plans and recommended approval with
the following conditions:
1. Any ground mounted equipment such as, AC units, should be screened
with a combination of decorative walls and landscaping.
2. Certain kitchen equipment such as, a grease hood, may be allowed to
be extended from the roof. However, it shall be kept to a minimum,
subject to Design Review Committee review and approval. In
addition, the developer should submit two alternative screening
methods using a dormer design or other agricultural style design
element for Design Review Committee review and approval. The City
DESIGN REVIEW COM~.,..~TS
CUP 87-26 - MODIFICATION #!
SANDERSON, RAY & PETRY/OAS
Page 5
Planner, upon a site inspection, may require the developer to use
one of the approved screening methods for screening the roof
equipment/projection, prior to the release of occupancy.
3. The proposed drought tolerant plant pallere in front of the
original winery building (the adobe portion) is acceptable. If
these plant materials are to be extended around the entire winery
building, then it shall be brought back to Design Review Committee
for review and approval prior to issuance of any building permits.
4. The heavy redwood outdoor furnishings are acceptable as a
concept. Detailed design of all bardscape shall be submitted for
Design Review Committee review and approval.
5. Signs:
a. A low profile free standing monument sign identifying the
winery as the oldest winery in California is acceptable. The
final design shall be subject to Design Review Committee
review and approval prior to issuance of any sign permits.
b.The size of the wall sign on the west elevation should be
reduced.
c. The south and north elevations of the still building shall
maintain the winery !.Ogo sign as originally approved. The
linear signs on the east and west elevations are acceptable.
6. The wall mounted equipment, ~uch as gas meters, should be relocated
to the north side and be screened.
7. The light fixtures underneath the roof eaves of the west elevation
should be eliminated.
CuI{OI~IOLOGy FOR VARIANCE 93-D5 AND
SIG~I PROGRAM NO. 88 AMENDMENT
August 9, 1993 - City received the Variance and Sign Program Amendment
applications.
September 2, 1994 - Letter sent to applicant informing him of the incompleteness
status for the two applications, the several technical and design issues of the
proposed signs, and the need to revise the existing sign program.
December 28, 1993 - Staff met with the applicant who submitted revised plans that
addressed the incompleteness items for the two applications. At this meeting,
staff discussed with the applicant the improvements that can be made to the Sign
Program. Staff gave him a copy of the Sign Program with comments and notes which
were intended to help him in revising and updating it.
March 3, 1994 - Letter sent to applicant informing him of the completeness status
of the two applications. Also informed him that prior to scheduling the two
items for Planning Commission review, a copy of the revised Sign Program with all
the updates and changes must be submitted to the City. Staff also informed him
of a change in the Sign Ordinance which allows for a Project Identification Sign
with 24 square feet of sign area.
March 17, 1994 - Staff received a progress copy of the Sign Program showing the
revisions made to it.
April 11, 1994 - Staff scheduled the two applications for the Planning Commission
meeting On May 11, 1994.
April 13, 1994 - Staff returned progress copy with comments and notes for further
refinement as well as informed him of the April 20, 1994 deadline for submitting
a final revised copy of the Sign Program for the Commission meeting Of May 11,
1994.
April 28, 1994 - Staff received a final revised copy and found some existing
parts of the sign program missing. Staff determined that there was not enough
time to prepare a staff report for the item to be heard on the meeting for May
11, 1994. Staff discussed this with the applicant and they agreed to a two week
continuance.
May 11, 1994 - Planning Con~ission, with the consent of the applicant, continued
the two applications to the meeting on May 24, 1994.
May 12, 1994 - Applicant informed staff that he has a time conflict with the
meeting on May 25, ~994. Staff stated that he could request another
continuance. Because of a heavy agenda for the meeting on June 8, 1994, staff
will be recommending a continuance to the meeting on June 22, 1994, instead.
May 17, 1994 - City received a letter from the applicant requesting a continuance
to the meeting on June 22, ~994.
May 25, ~994 - At the public hearing, the applicant requested that the Commission
continue the hearing to the meeting on June 8 instead of June 22 because he has a
time conflict with the June 22 date. The Commission, at this meeting, continued
the two applications to the meeting on July 13, 1994.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
D,~E: July l~, l~ STAFF REPORT ~
TO: C airman and Members of the Planning Commission
FRO rad Buller, City Planner
C N I I
for election of Chairman and Vice Chairman at the first regular meeting in
July of each year.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission should elect a Chairman and Vice
Chairman to serve for one-year terms.
BB:gs
IT[}4 J