HomeMy WebLinkAbout1994/09/14 - Agenda Packet'c cA
~ CITY OF
~% RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
1977
WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 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
III. Approval of Minutes
August 10, 1994
August 24, 1994
IV. Consent Calendar
The fol.lowing Consent Calendar items are expected
to be routine and non-controversial. They will be
acted on by the Commission at one time without
discussion. If anyone has concern over any item,
it should be removed for discussion.
A. VACATION OF THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF A 60 FOOT
DRAINAGE EASEMENT WEST OF BUCKTHORN AVENUE AND
NORTH OF MANZANITA DRIVE - V-129 - STACHE -
APN: 1062-121-25.
B. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-01 - HONG - Review of a
single family residence in the hillside area,
located on Lot 29 of Tract 11626, west Of Beryl
Street on Laramie Drive - APN: 1061-801-29.
V. 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.
C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-20 PARKER - A
request to establish the sale of antiques and
artwork within the existing Demens-Tolstoy
House, a local historic landmark, on 3.16 acres
of land in the Very Low Residential District
(2 dwelling units or less per acre) at
9686 Hillside Road - APN: 1061-561-04.
D. 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 August 10,
1994) (WITHDRAWI~ BY APPLICANT)
VI. Old Business
E. AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 88 - OAS
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 August 10,
1994) (TO BE RESUBMITTED BY APPLICANT)
VII. Direotor's Reports
F. CONVENIENCE FOOD STORE REGULATIONS ORDINANCE -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - Review of proposed
ordinance.
G. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE
DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING PARKING REQUIREMENTS
FOR BARBER SHOPS AND BEAUTY SALONS
H. SCOPE OF SERVICES FOR COMMERCIAL LAND USE
MARKET ANALYSIS AND FISCAL STUDY - 199d - (Oral
Report)
VIII. 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.
IX. Commission Business
X. 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
I
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 14, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer
BY: Maria Perez, Assistant Engineer
SUBJECT: VACATION OF THE WESTERLY 30 FEET OF A 60 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT
WEST OF BUCKTHORN AVENUE AND NORTH OF MANZANITA DRIVE - V-129,
STACHE - APN 1062-121-25
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS: The applicant is seeking to construct a block wall
that would enclose what is curren~y his portion of the drainage easement (see
Exhibit "B"). A~ regrading that is necessa~ on the properties adjacent to
the east will first be approved by the respective owners.
In order to record the vacation, the applicant will either prepare a drainage
stu~ ~ substantiate that the wall construction and the resultant channel
will acco~odate the drainage for this area, or the applicant will real ign the
channel as necessa~ ~ allow for the same cross sectional area.
The subject drainage easement is 184 feet long and 30 feet wide and extends
north weste~y fr~ ~nzanita Drive. The vacation is consistent with the
General Plan. Re ~ture master ~an stom drain ~r this area may.be
accommodat~ without this easement.
RECO~END~ION: Staff reco~ends that the Planning Co~ission make the
finding through minu~ action that the drainage easement vacation conferns
with the General Plan. This finding will be forwarded to the Ci~ Council for
further p~cessing and final approval.
~spectfully submi~ed.
Senior Civil Engineer
~:MEP:sd
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicini~ Map
Exhibit "B" - Easements
S~TF_
N
CITY OF rrn~.,
RANCHO CUCAMONGA Trr~
ENG~G DIVISION ~rg'm~r: ~
,,%TAC:HIE' :LAI,/CHAtED
,_.. VE
~IANZANITA ,,__,_, _- -- ..... : -
LEGEND
C~ OF
~~CHO CUC~ONGA
~G~G D~ON
," CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 14, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Co~nission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-01 - HONG Review of a single family
residence in the hillside area, located on Lot 29 of Tract ~1626,
east of Beryl Street on Laramie Drive - APN: 1061-801-29.
PRDJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: The property is located on the north side of
Laramie Drive within a custom lot subdivision at the top of Beryl Street
(see Exhibit "E"). The lot is currently vacant and slopes at an approximate
average of 10 percent from north to south. The lot slopes more severely
closer to the street (40-50 percent). The entire tract has been graded and
many homes have been constructed in the custom lot subdivision. Curbs,
gutters, and sidewalks are installed and the local equestrian trail has been
installed at the south side of the lot.
ANALYSIS:
A. General: This custom residence requires consideration of the full
Planning Commission due to the proposed cut/fill in excess of 5 feet
(see Exhibit "A"). The lot rises from front to back approximtely 32
feet. The residence has been designed to meet all of the technical
aspects of the Hillside Development Ordinance through various design
features, such as steps in the finish floor, stem walls, and terraces.
The three-car garage is hidden from street views by the U-shaped floor
plan (see Exhibit "B"). Overall the house meets the intent of the
Hillside Development Ordinance and has been designed to be similar in
bulk and profile to other custom residences in the neighborhood (see
Exhibit "C").
B. Design Review Con~nittee: On July 5, 1994, the Committee (Lumpp,
Tolstoy, Coleman) reviewed the project and recommended approval- The
minutes of the Design Review Co~mlittee meeting are attached (see
Exhibit "D").
C. Grading Committee: The Grading Committee reviewed the project and
recomended approval subject to a final soil compaction report and plan
check.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 94-01 - HONG
September 14, 1994
· Page 2
RECO~4ENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Development Review 94-01 through adoption of the attached Resolution of
Approval with Conditions.
City Planner
BB:DC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site and Grading Plan
Exhibit "B" - Slope Profiles
Exhibit "C" - Building Elevations
Exhibit "D" - Design Review Committee Minutes dated
July 5, 1994
Exhibit "E" - Location Map
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
CI'I'Y ()F ~tEm, ',~., ._, i' - - - -= DPA~I-ol
It, ANCI IO CUCAMONGATITI,IE'-~'
ING DIVISICJIxl EXt I1~ ~:AI,IL: __
LEFT
CITY ()F .TE~: .DF_ ~t~.- of
RAN~jIK) CUCAMOI~,A TITI.E:~6 J~-t~Vtk:~
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:00 p.m. Beverly Luttre~l July 5, 1994
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 94-01 - HANG - The review of a 5,074 square foot single family
residence in the Very Low Residential District ( less than 2 dwelling units per
acre), located on Lot 29 of Tract 11626 on Laran~ie Drive - APN: 1061-80~-29.
Design Parameters:
The property is located On the north side of Laramie Drive within a custom lot
subdivision at the top of Beryl Street. The lot is currently vacant and slopes at
an approximate average of 10 percent from north to south. The lot slopes at 40-50
percent more severely ploser to the street. The entire tract has been graded and
many homes have been ~onstructed in the custom lot subdivision. Curbs, gutters
and sidewalks are installed and the local equestrian trail has been installed at
the south side of the lot.
The Hillside Development Ordinance requires Planning Co~=nission review and
approval of projects which have greater then 5 feet of cut or fill. The height of
the slope at the rear of the house is over 5 feet and must therefore be reviewed
by the Design Review Con~nittee and Planning Commission.
Staff ~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 applicant has provided steps within the pad area which is consistent with
requirements of the Hillside Ordinance. Additionally, stem walls (2-foot
maximum) have been provided on a portion of the north and west sides of the
house.
2. The height of the slope along the rear of the house originally was 8 feet in
height. In response to staff comments, the applicant raised the pad height
of portions of the home which has alleviated the 8-foot slope condition. A
series of steps, retaining walls and terraced areas has been located to the
north of the house which also mitigates the height of the original slope.
However, it does provide more bardscape in the rear yard. This condition is
not inconsistent with other homes constructed in the tract.
3. The house fits within the building envelope except for a small portion of the
chimney cap which extends beyond it. The applicant should, however, call out
all materials and colors on the plans.
4. Six Eucalyptus trees are located on the lot which will be preserved.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
DR 94-01 - HANG
J~ly 5, 1994
Page 2
Staff Recesmaendation:
Staff recon~nends chat the Design Review Conm~ittee recommend approval of
Development Review 94-01.
Design Review C--~ttee Action:
Members Present: Heinz Lumpp, Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Beve~ky Luttrell
The Design Review Comittee recon~nended approval with the following conditions:
1. Reconfigure the grading plan to distribute the excess fill over the rest of
the site between the house and row of Eucalyptus trees.
2- Delete rock treatment at corners of the house.
3. Remove all dead trees on the site. These will be delineated by the Planning
staff with orange paint in the field.
NO. 11626
CITY OHGA Title: [49 f_,-A'11O ld
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT
REVIEW NO. 94-01, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 5,074 SQUARE
FOOT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON 0.5 ACRE OF LAND IN THE
VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (LESS THAN 2 DWELLING
UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON LOT 29 OF TRACT 11626 ON
LARAMIE DRIVE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF -
APN: 1061-801-29.
A. Recitals.
1. Steven J. Stiemsma has filed an application for the approval of
Development Review No. 94-01 as described in the title of this Resolution.
Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Review request is
referred to as "the application."
2. On the 14th day of september 1994, the Planning Commission of the
City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a meeting on the application and concluded
said meeting 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 inthe Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced meeting on September 14, 1994, including written
and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located on Lot 29 Of
Tract 11626 on Laramie Drive with a street frontage of 91 feet and lot depth
of 240 feet and is presently improved with curb, gutter, and a driveway
approach; and
b. The properties to the north, south and east are developed
with single family homes, and the property to the west is vacant; and
c. The project has been designed with elements recomended to
minimize the impacts of development in hillside areas, per the Hillside
Development Ordinance.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission
during the above-referenced meeting and upon the specific findings of facts
set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this commission hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 94-01 - HONG
September 14, 1994
Page 2
a. That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives
of the General Plan; and
b. That the proposed use is in accord with the objectives of the
Development code and the purposes of the district in which the site is
located; and
c. That the proposed use is in compliance with each of the
applicable provisions of the Development Code; and
d. 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.
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 and in the
Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this
reference.
Planninq Division
1) The Grading Plan shall be revised to distribute
the excess fill material over the site, between
the house and row of Eucalyptus trees.
2) The rock treatment at the corners shall be
deleted from the front elevation.
3) Remove all On-site dead trees, as marked by the
Planning Division, prior to occupancy.
4) The proposed retaining walls shall not exceed a
maximum height of 3 1/2 feet above proposed grade
as shown in areas down slope from the house, per
the Hillside Development Ordinance.
5) The existing local equestrian feeder trail shall
be cleared of all weeds and debris and all
erosion damage corrected subject to inspection by
the City Planner, prior to occupancy of the
residence.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DR 94-01 - HONG
September 14, 1994
Page 3
Enqineerinq Division
l) City Drawing No. 847, Sheet 5, shall be revised
to reflect the addition of the drive approach and
the street trees.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
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 14th day of september 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
·" DEPARTMENT OF
Ran nga
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STANDARD CONDITIONS
PRojEcT.:
sueJEoT:
LocATIoN:7-
Those items chewed are Cond~ions of ~proval.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 989-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
A. Time LImitS co~,,led,~ D,~
I V/"'l. Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are ---J /
not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval.
2. Development/Design Review shall be approved prior to ! ! , __/ /
3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted subject to the approval of __/ /
4. Thedevelopershallcommence, participalein andconsummaleorcausetobecommenced, ~ /
participated in, or consummated, a Mello-Ro;:;s Community Facilities District (CFD) for the
Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct 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 Fire Protection District, and shall become the
Districts 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
applicable laws and regulations. The CFD shall be formed by the District and the developer
by the time recordation of the final map occurs.
5. Prior tO recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes __/ /
first, the applicant shall consent to, or participate in, the establishment of a Melio-Rcos
Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school
facilities. However, if any school district has previously established such a Community
Facilities District, the applicant shall. in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the
project site into the territory of such existing District prior to the recordation of the final map
or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first. Further, if the affected school
district has not formed a Melio-Roos Community Facilities District within twelve months from
the date of approval of the project and prior to the recordation of the final map or issuance
of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void.
SC- 12/93
This cond~ion sha~ be waived ~: the C~y receives notice that the applicant and aH atfected
.school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school
~mpacts as a result of this project.
v'/" 6. Prior to reoordation of lhe final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is J /
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 letler must have been issued by the water
district within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or priorto issuance
of permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Site Development
t/'/ 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the appmved plans which .__/ /
include site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign
program, and grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein,
Development Code regulations, and
.Specific Plan and
Planned Community.
/ 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. OccupancyofthefacilityshallnotcommenceuntilsuchtimeasallUniformBuildingCodeand J /
State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall
be submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection Distdct and the Building and Safety
Division to show oomplianco. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to
occupancy.
4. Revised site plans and building elevations incoq;x)rating all Conditions of Approval shall be ._J /
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
~ 5. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for J /
consistency pdor to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment,
building, etc.), or prior to final map approval in the case ol a custom lot subdivision, or
approved use has commenced, whichever comes first.
6. Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development / /
Code, all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community Plans or Specific
Plans in effect at the time of Building Permit issuance.
7. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and / /
Sheriff's Departmenl (989-6611 ) pdor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall
indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to adversely
affect adjacent properties.
8. If no cehtralized lrash receptacles are provided, alltrashpick*upshall beforindividualunits ._./ /
with all receptacles shielded from public view.
9. Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, --.-/ /
and the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval
pdor to issuance of building permits.
10. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, AC condensers, etc., shall .--J _ Y -
be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls. berming, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City
Planner.
11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance with .__/ /
the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map.
v/' 12. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner, .__/ /
including proper illumination.
13. A detailed plan indicating trail widths, maximum slopes, physical conditions, fencing, and __/ /
weed control, in accordance with City Master Trail drawings, shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval prio rio approval and recordalton of the Final Tract Map and prior
to approval ot street improvement and grading plans. Developer shall upgrade and construct
all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements.
14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) shall not prohibit the keeping ot equine ~ /
animals where zoning requ iremerits forthe keeping of said animals have been met. Individual
lot owners in subdivisions shall have the option of keeping said animals without the necessity
of appealing to boards of directors or homeowners' associations for amendments to the
CC&Rs.
15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of the _.J /
Homeowners' Association are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering
Divisions and the City Attorney. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or
prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be
provided to the City Engineer.
16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the properly .~/ /
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this
landscape maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
17. Solar access easements shall be dedicated for the purpose of assuming that each lot or _-J /
dwelling unit shall have the right to receive sunlight across adjacent lots or units for use of
a solar energy system. The easements may be contained in a Declaration ol Restrictions for
the subdivision which shall be recorded concurrently with the recordation ol the final map or
issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibit the casting of
shadows by vegetation, structures, fixtures or any other object, except tor utility wires and
similar objects, pursuant to Development Code Section 17.08.060-G-2.
18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. The site shall be developed and .._J /
maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No.
· Any further rnoditications to the site including, but not limited to, extedor alterations and/or
interior alterations which affect the extedor of the buildings or structures, re moval of landmark
trees. demolition, relocation, reconstruction of buildings or structures, or changes to the site,
shall require a modification to the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic
Preservation Commission review and approval.
C. Building Design
1. An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic bet water for all dwelling units .._J /
and lor heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are
demonstrated to be of equivalent capacity and efficiency. All swimming pools installed at the
time of initial development shall be supplernenled with solar heating. Details shall be
included in the building plans and shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval
pdor to the issuance of building permits.
2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations upgraded with architectural / /
treatment, detailing and increased delineation of sudace treatment subject to City Planner
review and approval pdor to issuance ot building permits.
C.~moletion Date:
3. Standard palio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted tor __/ /.__
C~y Planner and Bu~ld~n~ ~fic~81 r~view an~ approval pdor 1o jssuanc~ ol buildin~ pe~.
~. All roof appurtenances, ~nclud~n~ air cond~ljon~rs and o~her root ~u meal equipmere a~/or ~ /
proje~ions, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffe red from adjacent pmpeffies and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be archite~urally
imegrated w~h the building design and ~nst~cted to the satinaction of the Cily Planner.
Details shall be included in building plans.
D. Paffilng and Vehicular Access (Indicate details on building plans)
1. All pa~ing lot landscape islands shall have a mini~m outside dimension of 6 feet and shall J /
~ntain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the pa~ing stall (including ~).
2. Tenured pedestrian pathways a~ tenured pavement across circulation aisles shall be J /
provided throughout the development to conne~ ~elling~unit~buildings with o~n space~
plazaSrecreational uses.
3. All pa~ing spaces shall be double striped per C~y standards a~ all driveway aisles, ~ /
emmnces, and ex~s shall be ~riped per C~y standards.
4. All un~s shall be pmv~ed w~h garage door openers if driveways are tess than 18 feet in J /
depth from back of sidewalk.
5. ~e Covenants, Conditions a~ Restri~ions shall mstd~ the storage of recreatbnal vehicles J /
on this s~e unless they am the principal source of transpoRation for the owner a~ pmhib~
paffiing on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor pa~ing areas.
6. Plans for any secur~y gates shall ~ subm~ed for the C~y Planner, City E~ineer, a~ J /
Ranc~ Cucamonga Fire Proteflon Distr~ review a~ approval pdor to is~a~e of ~ildi~
~rm~s.
E. ~nd~aplng (for publicly malmaln~ landsca~ areas, refer to Se~lon N,)
Z 1. ~detail~landsca~andiffigat~nplan, includings~peplantinga~m~el~melandsc~ J /
mg in the case of res~ential developmere, shall ~ prepar~ by a licensed la~sc~
arch~e~ and submi~ed for C~y Planner review a~ approval prbrto the issuan~ of ~ildi~
pe~s or pdor final map ~roval in the case of a custom lot su~ivision.
2. ~xistingtreesrequiredto~prese~edinplaceshallbepmte~edw~ha~nstm~nbaffier ~ /
~n a~rdance w~h the Mun~ipal C~e Seaion 19.08.110, a~ so not~ on the gradi~ plans.
~e ~ation of those trees to ~ presew~ in place a~ new ~ations for transplamed trees
shall be s~wn on the detail~ landscape plans. ~e ~plica~ shall follow all of the a~rist's
re~m~ndal~ns r~arding prese~ation, tran~lanti~ a~ tdmmi~ met~ds.
3. Aminimumof trees~rgmssacre,~mp~s~ofthefolbwi~s~es, shall~pmvid~ ~ /
w~hin the proj~: % - ~- inch ~x or la~er, % - 3~ inch ~x or la~er,
__ % - 24- inch box or larger, % - 15~al~n, a~ __ % - 5 galen.
4. A minimum of .% of trees planted within the proje~ shall ~ specimen s~e trees -
24-inch ~x or larger.
5. Within pa~i~ lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-galen tree for eve~ three _ J j_
pa~ing stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the pa~ing area at solar ~on on August 21.
SC- 12/93 4 of 12 ~)/~:)
6. Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building. ---/ /
7. AIIprivatesiopebanks5feetorlessinverticalheightandof5:l orgreaterslope.butlessthan ._J /
2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with appropriate ground cover for
erosion control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation
system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
8. AIIprivateslopesinexcessof5leet,butlessthanSfeet inverticalheightandol2:lorgreater ---/ /
slope shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control and to soften their appearance as
follows: one 15-gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. It. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger
size shrub per each 100 sq. It. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope
banks in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one
5-gallon or larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be
planted in staggered clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this
section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to
occupancy.
9. For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shall be continu- / /
ously maintained in a healthy and thdving condition by the developer until each individual unit
is sold and occupied by the buyer. Priorto releasing occupancy forthose units, an inspection
shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that they are in satistactory
condition.
10. For multi-family residential and r~n-residential development, property owners are respen- ---/ /
sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous
planted areas within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from
weeds and debris and maintained in a healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive
regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing, and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or
decaying plant material shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage.
11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Development Code and/or ...._/ /
· This requirement shall be in addition to the required
street trees and slope planting.
12. The linal design of the perimeter pankways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be
included in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and
approval and coo rdinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be
required by the Engineering Division.
13. Special landscape features such as mounding, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- J /
ing sidewalks (with horizontal change), and intensified landscaping, is required along
fl 4. Landsoaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public dgnt-of-way on .__/ /
the pedmeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the~au~er
15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, ..._./ /
the design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
16. Tree maintenance criteria shall be developed and submitted for City Planner review and / /
approval prior to issuance of building permits. These criteda shall encourage the natural
growth characteristics of the selected tree species.
17. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of .--J---.J
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Cede.
F. Signs Completion Date:
1. Thesign~nd~ca~eel~nthesubmittedp~an~arec~ncep~ua~n~yaneln~apart~f~hisapprova~. __J /.
Any signs proposeel for Ibis elevelopment shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall
r~quire separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any
s~gns.
2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and .__/ /
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
3. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhomes ~ /
prior to occupancy and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning
Division prior to issuance of building permits.
G. Environmental
1. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Roc~ __/ /
Crusher project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, priorto accepting a
cash deposit on any property.
2. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted ---/ /
Special Studies Zone forthe Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City
Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property.
3. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway .__/ /
project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash
deposit on any property.
4. A final acoustical report shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the __/ /.
issuance of building permits. The final report shall discuss the level of interior noise
attenuationtobeiow45CNEL, thebuilding materialsand constructiontechniquesprovided,
and it appropriale, verity the adequacy of the mitigation measures. The building plans will be
checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final report.
H. Other Agencies
1. EmergencysecondaryaccessshaifbeprovidedinaccordancewithRanchoCucamongaFire ----/ /
Protection District Standards.
2. Emergencyaccessshallbeprovided, maintenance lree and clear, aminimumof26feetwide ~ /
at all times during construction in accordance with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection
District requirements,
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be ~ /
submitted to the Rancho Cucamenga Fire Protection District that temporary water supply for
fire protection is available, pending completion of required tire protection system.
v// 4. The applicant shall contact the U. S. Postal Service to determine the abpropdate type and ~ /
location of mail boxes. Multi-family residential developments shall provide a solid overhead
structure for mail boxes with adequate lighting. The final location of the mail boxes and the
design of the overhead structure shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior
to the issuance of building permits.
5. For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all --J /
supportive information, shall be obtained from the San Bemardino County Department of
Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic
Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of buiidin, g~r
sc - 12/93 6of 12
Proi,~t
Comoledo~ Date:
APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (909) 989-1863, FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
I. Site Development
1. The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechani- ----/ /
cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable Codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please
contact the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and
applicable handouts.
2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelling unit(s) or major addition ---/ /
toexistingunif(s),theapplicantshallpaydevelopmentfeesattheestablishedrate. Such fees
may include, but are not limited to: City Beautification Fee, Park Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems
Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees.
3. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or
addition to an existing development, the applicant shall pay development fees at the
established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Systems Development Fee,
Drainage Fee, School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
v'/4. Streetaddressesshal~bepr~videdbytheBui~ding~~icia~,affertract/parce~maprec~rdation /___J
and prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Existing Structures
1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for the property line clearances J /
Considering use, area, and fire-resistiveness of existing buildings.
2. Existing buildings shall be made to Comply with correct building and zoning regulations for ---/ /
the intended use or the building shall be demolished.
3. Existingsewagedisp~sa~~aci~itiessha~~berem~ved~filIedand/~rcappedt~Comp~ywiththe .--/ /
Uniform P!umbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for .__/ /
building permit application.
K. Grading
1. Grading ol the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City / /
Grading Standards. and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in
substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.
2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to ---J /
perform such work.
3. The development is located within the soil erosion Control beundades; a Soil Disturbance .--/ /
Permit is required. Please contact San Bemardino County Department of Agriculture at (714 )
387-2111 for permit application. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City
prior to the issuance of rough grading permit.
4.A geological report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer or geologist and submitted at .__/
the time of application for grading plan check.
J 5. The final grading plans shall be Completed and approved prior to issuance of building bennits.
SC- 12/93 ~70f!2~
C,~mDIc,~on Da~c:
6. AS a custom-lot sul:~livision, the lollowing requirements shall be met:
a. Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all on-site / /"'-
drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Building
and Safety Division prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits.
b. Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage water thai are conducted onto ---/ /
or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the
Building and Safety Division prior to issuance of grading and building permits.
c. On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided ---/ /
properties, are to be installed pdor to issuance of building permits for construction upon
any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel
relative to which a building permit is requested.
d. Final grading plans for each pamel are to be submitted to the Building and Safety ---/ /
Division for approval prior to issuance of bu tiding and grading permits. (This may be on an
incremental or COmposite basis.)
e. All slope banks in excess of 5 feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses .-.--/ /
or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other
alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Building
Official. In addition a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. This requirement
does not release the applicant/developer from compliance with the slope planting
requirements ol Section 17.08.040 I ol the Development Code.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 989-1862, FOR COMPLIANCE
WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Dedication and Vehicular Access
1. Rights-of-way and easements shall be dedicated to the City for all intedor public streets .--/ /
community trails, public paseos, public landscape areas, street trees, and public drainage
facilities as shown on the plans and/or tentative map. Pdvate easements for non-public
facilities (cross-lot drainage, local feeder trails, etc.) shall be reserved as shown on the plans
and/or tentative map.
2. Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets / /
(measured from street centedine):
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
total feet on
3. An irrevocable offer of dedication for -foot wide roadway easement shall be made ---J /
for all private streets or drives.
4. Non-vehicular access shall be dedicated to the City for the following streets: / /
5. Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&Rs / /
or by deeds and shatl be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of
building permits, where no map is involved. ~:~
sc - 12/93 8o1' 12
P,ieet No.:DA
Comnletion Date:
6. Privatedrainageeasementsforcress-lotdrainageshallbeprovided andshallbe delinealed
or noted on the final map. ----/ /
7. The final map shall clearly delineate a 1 O-foot minimum building restriction area on the .__/ /
neighboring tot adjoining the zero lot line wall and contain the following language:
"l/We hereby dedicate to the City of Rancho Cucamonga the right to prohibit the
construction Of (residential) buildings (or other structures) within those areas designated
on the map as building restriction areas."
A maintenance agreement shall also be granted from each lot to the adjacent lot through the
CC&R's.
8. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way shall be quitclaimed or delineated on .---/ /
the final map.
9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way ._J /
shall be dedicated to the City wherever they encroach onto private property.
10. Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum .__/ /
of 7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right
turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
11. The developer shall make a good faith effort to acquire the required off-site property interests __/ /
necessary to construct the required public improvements, and if he/she should fail to do so,
the developer shall, at least 120 days prior to submittal of the final map for approval, enter
into an agreement to complete the improvements pursuant to Government Code Section
66462 atsuchtimeastheCityacquiresthepropertyinterestsrequiredfortheimpmvements.
Such agreement shall provide for payment by the developer of all costs incurred by the City
to acquire the off-site property interests required in connection with the subdivision. Secudty
for a portion of these costs shall be in the form of a cash deposit in the amount given in an
appraisal report obtained by the developer, at developers cost. The appraiser shall have
been approved by the City prior to commencement ot the appraisal.
M. Street Improvements
A. All public improvements (interior streets, drainage facilities, COmmunity trails, paseos, __/ /
landscaped areas, etc.) shown on the plans and/or tentative map shall be constructed to
City Standards. Interior street improvements shall include, but are not limited to, CUrb and
gutter, AC pavement. drive approaches, sidewalks, street lights, and street trees.
2. A minimum ol 26- foot wide pavement, within a 40 -foot wide dedicated right-of-way shall be __J /
constnjcted for all half-section streets.
3. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to: .__/ /
STREET NAME CURB & A.C. SLOE- DRIVE STREET STREET COMM VIEDIAN BIIQ5
GUTTER PVMT WALK APPR. LIGHTS TREES TRAIL ;SLAND TRAIL OTHER
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
re¢onstpdction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) II so marked,side-
walk shall be curvilinear per STD. 304. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall
be provided for Ibis item.
V" 4. Improvement plans and construction:
a. Street improvement plans including street trees and street lights, prepared by a regis- J /
tered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and appmved by the City Engineer. Security
shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and
the City Attorney guaranteetrig completion of the public and/or pdvale street improve-
ments, prior to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first.
b. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a .--J /
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permils required.
c. Pavement striping, marking, traffic, street name signing, and interconnect conduit __J /
shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
d. Signalconduitwithpullboxesshallbeinstalledonanynewconstructionorreconsttuction .__/ /
of major, secondary or collector streets which intersect with other major, secondary or
collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the
street at 3 feet outside of BC R, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1) All pull boxes shall be No. 6 unless othe~ise specified by the City Engineer.
(2) Conduit shall be 3-inch galvanized steel with pullrOpe.
e. Wheel chair ramps shall be installed on all four comers of intersections per City /'--/
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with / /
adequate detours during construction. A street closure permit may be required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be
refunded upon completion of the construction to the satislaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be / /
installed to City Standards, except for single family lots.
h. Handicap access ramp design shall be as specified by the City Engineer. / /
i. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check. / /
5. Street improvement plans per City Standards for all private streets shall be provided for / /
review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being perlormed on the pri-
vate streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City
Engineers Office in addition to any other permits required.
V 6. Street trees, a minimum of 15-galicn size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in / /.__
accordance with the City's street tree program.
Proiect No,:D,,~
Completion
7. Inl~r$~ction lin~ of $it~ O~siflns $~lf ~ revi~we~ by th~ Gity ~nOine~r tot contorman~
~. On collator or Iarfl~r remits, lin~$ of siOht s~all b~ ~lou~ for all ~mj~t int~m~ioBs, ~ /
indu~in0 ~riveways. Walls, siOns, an~ slopes s~all b~ iocat~ ou~siO~ ~h~ lines of s~t.
Lan~apinO nnd om~r obstm~ions within t~ lin~s of sifl~l s~nU ~ appm~ ~ m~
Engineer.
b. Local residential ~reet intemections shall have their noticeability improved, usually by
moving the 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and placed in a street
tree easement.
8. A permit Shall be obtained from CALTRANS for any wo~ w~hin the following right-of-way:
9, All public improvements on the following streets shall be operationally complete prior to the ---/ /
issuance of building permits:
N. Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards --J /
shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval pdor to final map approval
or issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscape parkways.
medians, paseos, easements, trails. or other areas are required to be annexed into the
Landscape Maintenance District:
A signed consent and waiver form to join and/orform the appropriate Landscape and Lighting .__/ /
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer pdor to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be Ix}roe by the developer.
3. AIIrequiredpubliclandscapingandirrigationsystems shallbecontinuouslymaintainedbythe .__/ /
developer until accepted by the City.
4, Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective __./ /
Beautitication Master Plan:
O. Drainage and Flood Control
1. The project (or podions thereof) is located within a Flood Hazard Zone; therefore, flood
protection measures shall be provided as certified by a registered Civil Engineer and
approved by the City Engineer.
2. It shall be the developers responsibility to have the current FIRM Zone
designation removed from the project area. The developers engineer shall prepare all
necessary reports, plans, and hydrologic/hydraulic calculations. A Conditional Letter
of Map Revision (CLOMR) shall be obtained from FEMA pdor to final map approval or
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) shall
be issued by FEMA prior to occupancy or improvement acceptance, whichever occurs first.
3. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer pdor to final
map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. All drainage
facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer.
C.~nledon Date:
4. A perTrRil trom the County Flood Control District is required for wor~ within its dght-ot-way.
._J /
v/'/ 5. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe
measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. ---/ /---
6. Public storm drain easements shall be graded to convey ovedlows in the event of a ---/. /
blockage in a sump catch basin on the public street.
P. Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each pamel including sanitary sewerage system, water, .--/ /
gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
v"/ 2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary. ----/ /
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the ---/ /
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District,
and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of
compliance from the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance ol permits,
whichever occurs first.
Q. General Requirements and Approvals
1. The separate parcels contained within the project boundaries shall be legally combined into '--J /
one parcel prior to issuance of building permits.
2. An easement for a joint use ddveway shall be provided prior to final map approval or / L
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first, for:
._J /
3. Prior to approval of the final map a deposit shall be posted with the City covering the
estimated cost of apportioning the assessments under Assessment District
among the newly created parcels.
4. EtiwandaJSan Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, Secondary Regional, and Master Plan J /
Drainage Fees shall be paid prior to final map approval or prior to building permit issuance it
no map is involved.
5. Permits shall be obtained from the following agencies for work within their right-of-way: / /
6. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community
Facilities Distdct shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or the
issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the
Developer.
7. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be com- .--/ /
pieted beyond the phase poundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown
on the approved tentative map.
SC- 12/93 12 of 12
SEP-I4-94 NED 06:24 P. 02
SEP-t4-94 ~ED 06;24 P. 02
SEP-14-94 ~ED 06:24 ?,03
Designated Area: .89 A =res
Dimensions:210' -- north-south
185'+_ eaSt-west
SEP-14-94 NED 06:26 P. 05
THE HISTORIC
Demens- Tols oy
"'~'~ Estate
V,~
/
'{'hc i',nkcr Fanfily
SEP-!4-94 ~4EI) 06'.26 P. 06
THE HISTOPAC
· ~ Demens- Tols oy
Estate
SEP-14-94 NED 06t27 P, 07
~ RECEIVED
AUG 2 1994
'~'~" 5~)~ City ot Ranc~ Cucamonga
m i Coemiss~.on
S r ~d Barker
S UB,JliiOT: CONOZTZONAL USE PERMZT ~.-20 -
Gentlemen:
Z am 8 resident of the Regency Estates. :: live approximately
two blooks north of the h~stortc home, OIIr home was purchased
precisely fOP the "sZow-paoed 11re style'
Z ~NOT want the Damarts-Tolstoy Estate t, be turned ~nto an
:ntique and 8rtwork shop .,, ~Y? Here 8 · 8oN of my
~ d hev~~
SOBSm but lOOks Z~ke 'oZd junk" to ~e end my neighbors.
3, The trmftlo s~tuetton ~s going to b terrible.
s we o s :
near mootdents at that Lntersectj )n, ~o is going
to be heZd 8;countebZe for our trelrto problems?
4. ~et about perking? There is ~ dr Lveey to the estate
only 8 dlrt road. The dust ls golri to be unbearable for
residents ~u 1lye up-w~nd from the proMtry,
5. What kLnd of people w~11 th~m entlg ~elsr~rk shop
8ttreGt?
6- ~et elfsot 1~ this going to have the arket value of
our property,
NOI! NOII Z dO not went this invasion In my lifestyle end
privacy. Z suggest that the Pmrker's purohaselZeeSelrent
oDesrata1 bulldtng that is zoned for th~e rye of comrclal
unfair to the residents of my neg o -
The Perker'lere illre thlt the Elfate ,el not 'zoned' for
oowrotel use ~en they purchases said .roplrty. ~ want to
know ~o premised them that they could ,state · business
reeldental neighborhood? has the nee *oletoy ring · Ml17
~IBH
10788 Civic Center Drive
Cucamonga, California 91730
7 September 1994
..... ~rNANCHO'C~AMONG~
David Barker, Planning Commission Chair "AN~:!NGDWISION
Planning Division, Community Development
City of Rancho Cucamonga AM gE? 121994
10500 Civic Center Drive
C,camo, a. Califor,ia 917 o
RE: Oemens/Tolstoy Adaptive Reuse Application
Dear Chairman Barker and Planning Commissioners:
I was present for the discussion of the application to establish
an antique store at the Demens Tolstoy House on August 24. I will
not attend September 14 but I do wish to have some comments
considered by the Commission.
I was very, very disappointed with the tenor of bitterness and
acrimony which pervaded the meeting. The personal attacks on the
applicants, particularly those made by the residents of the
Regency EquestTian Estates, wets-- to say the least-- mean
spirited and unnecessary. I hope you will be able to confine the
discussion to the issues at the September 14 meeting.
The problem the objectors are having is more with perceived fears
of what might happen than objection to the proposal itself. I see
no valid reason why the Commission cannot approve the application
with condition which alleviate the fears of the neighbors.
The application should be one to approve guided tours of the
Demens/Tolstoy House. The request to sell antiques from the home
should be allowed, but only when such sale is made incidental to
the purchaser's tour of the house. There should be conditions
imposed which prohibit all advertising of antique sales and all
signs of every sort other than one which identifies the house and
its history. There should be further conditions imposed which
allow the tours to be given by appointment or at limited hours and
limited to a maximum number of persons at any one time,
I ask you not to impose any conditions relating to the appearance
of the property. As the owner of a large parcel of land and
struggling remodeler of an old, field stone house, I can testify
to the great expense in time and money which such endeavors
require. I do not find the old wagon offensive. The standards of
the Regency Equestrian Estates should definitely not be imposed on
the Demens/Tolstoy home.
erel~
ames Banks, r,
SEPTEMBER 8, 1994 .... ,~r F~ANCHO C~AM~3NG~,
'~1 ANt,,'iNG DIVISION
SEP 1 :~ ~14
PLANNING DIVISION 411
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ~l~i~l~ll~i~l~ie~
P. O. BOX 807
RANCHO CUCAMONGA CA 91729
RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-20 PARKER
DEAR SIRS:
HAVING BEEN IN RECEIPT OF YOUR CORRESPONDENCE
REGARDING THE PROPOSED NON-RESIDENTIAL USE
OF THE DEMENS - TOLSTOY HOUSE, I WISH TO EXPRESS
MY OPINIONS.
I DO NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE IN THE BEST INTERESTS
OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY TO ALLOW THIS
PERMIT TO BE APPROVED. THE QUIETNESS OF OUR
WEEKENDS COULD AND WOULD BE AFFECTED BY
THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC BROUGHT TO THE IMMEDIATE
AREA. THE REMOTENESS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD
WOULD BE TAKEN AWAY, AND FRANKLY, WE'RE NOT
READY FOR THAT YET.
AND THIS COULD BE JUST THE START OF SOMETHING.
WE ARE NOT BLIND TO THE FACT THAT THERE IS
ADDITIONAL UNUSED PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY. IF THIS
PROPOSED VENTURE WERE HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL,
OTHER SUPPORT ACTIVITIES COULD SPRING UP.
AGAIN, IT IS OUR OPINION AND WISH THAT THIS
CONDITIONAL - USE PERMIT BE DENIED.
IF YOU HAVE THE NEED FOR FURTHER CONVERSATION
RELATIVE TO THIS ISSUE, I MAY BE REACHED AT
909-945--0246.
EDWARD A. HILDEBRAND
9730 PEACH TREE LANE
ALTA LOMA, CA 91737
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO
CONDITIONAL US~E PERMIT 94-20
PARKF, R ~ ~
//'
We, the undersigned Fesidents of ~ncho Cucamong~ hereby oppose the request by D~nn~ and
EFica PaFker, current owners of the historic !)emens-Tolstoy site, to Chsun~ ~ ZOnin~ f~om residential
to B-2 or ally~hin~ OtheF thl~n z~sidellfigl, We further object to the site being used to sell or trade
antiques and as a tOUF site, · ~
TherefoFe, we hereby petition the City ~ouncil and the phi_ COmmimJiOn tO reject any proposal
bmugh~ b~oFe you to ehsn~ae the zonin~ and/oF fallow the sale OF trade of sn~qum and/oF touring of the
!)emens*Tolstoy site at the corner of 14111~ide and AFchibald,
PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-20
PARKF, R
We, the undersigned residents of Rancho Cucamonga, hereby oppose the request by D~nnim and
Erica Parker, current owners of the historic Demen~Tolstoy site, to rhan~me the ZOnin~ from r~jdsD~ml
to B-2 or unythin~ other than residenti-I, We further object to the site b~Ing 11Bed to 8eJ] or trsde
antiques and as a tour site.
Therefore, we hereby petition the City Council and the plnnnln~a COmmiRsiOn to l~ect ally proposal
broilgilt before ~ou to ehan~a~ the zonin~a and/or allow the sale or trade of mntlqOe8 and/or touring of the
Demens-Tolstoy site at the comer of Hill fide and Archibald.
_ U's'~"""~"~t~'"~ ~ _ : '~'/J' /H (-~,,
S~natm~&Ptiat~mc Addms
Siguatu~ & l~iat Natme Addms
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 14, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-20 - PARKER - A request to establish
the sale of antiques and artwork within the existing Demens-
TolStoy House, a local historic landmark, on 3.16 acres of land
in the Very Low Residential District (2 dwelling units or less
per acre) at 9686 Hillside Road - APN: 1061-561-04.
BACKGROUND: This item was continued from August 24 in order to send new
public hearing notices to the surrounding neighborhood using a significantly
expanded radius. At their last meeting, the Commission received testimony
from residents who indicated they may not be able to attend tonight's meeting.
PUBLIC NOTICE: A total of 80 public hearing notices were mailed to property
owners in the expanded area shown on Exhibit "A," including the entire Regency
Equestrian Estates. Five notices were also posted on the property- Copies of
all correspondence received as of the writing of this staff report are
attached as Exhibit "B." In addition, a letter was received by the applicant
(see Exhibit "D").
ANALYSIS: The surrounding residents expressed three basic concerns with the
proposed use:
A. Land Use Compatibility - Residents do not feel that retail is compatible
with the quiet, rural residential character. The applicant is requesting
use of a portion of their residence for antique and art sales. The
primary use will remain as their family residence- The proposed use is
buffered from surrounding residences by the combination of distance
(nearest house is 350 feet away) and existing vegetation. Residents were
concerned that retail activity be done only on the interior of the
house. Appropriate conditions have been included in the draft Resolution
for Commission consideration.
Residents were also concerned that approval might lead to more intense
commercial use, such as fast food restaurants or convenience markets.
Small-scale retail use, such as a beutique, is allowed under the City's
regulations within historic structures to encourage their preservation-
Restaurants, convenience markets, or other full-scale commercial uses are
prohibited within residential zones and would require both a General Plan
Amendment and a Zone Change.
ITM~ C
pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-20 - pARKER
September 14, 1994
Page 2
B. Traffic Residents were concerned that establishing a boutique within
the Demens-Tolstoy Home would result in an increase in traffic along
Archibald Avenue and Hillside Road. Residents expressed a desire for a
four-way stop at the intersection. Traffic counts indicate that the
current traffic volumes are very low which reflects the location near the
foothills and the very low density residential development pattern.
Likewise, the number of reported accidents is also low at this
intersection. The amount of traffic the proposed use would generate is
less than if the property were subdivided consistent with the
neighborhood. The City will continue monitoring this intersection.
C. Property Maintenance - Residents indicated that the property appearance
had deteriorated in the last nine months, citing vehicle storage, items
for sale, debris, and storage of old farm equipment. Many of the
cor~nents regarding "junk" appear directed at several pieces of old farm
equipment, such as a watering tank and wagons. The display of historic
artifacts is consistent with the City's historic preservation goals as a
reminder of the rich agricultural heritage of the Alta Loma area and the
role the previous owners of the house played in establishing the
community. The applicant uses most of this equipment (i.e., disc, manure
spreader, seeder) on a regular basis to maintain the ranch-
Nevertheless, the applicant has moved these pieces into the rear of the
property, as well as their recreational vehicle. As part of their
ongoing efforts to clear up the property, trees have been trin~ed and the
piles of debris were being removed the week of August 22- The Code
Enforcement staff have contacted the Parker's and will continue to
monitor the situation. The applicant was regrading the driveway to
provide a ~2-foot width and crushed stone surface the week of August 29.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve
Conditional Use Permit 94-20 through adoption of the attached Resolution Of
Approval.
Respectfully submitted,
BB:DC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Notification Area
Exhibit "B" - Correspondence
Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated
August 24, 1994
Exhibit "D" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "E" - Draft Planning Comission Minutes dated
August 24, 1994
Resolution of Approval
AUGUST 24, 1994
RANCHO CUCA~ONGA PLANNING COr~I~{ISSION i~ E e E I V E D
10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE
RANCHO CUCAI~{ONGA hUG 2 4 994
ATTENTION: BOARD MEI~{BERS City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
SUBJECT: PROPOSED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
TOLSTOY HOUSE
I and many of my neighbors are opposed to the proposed conditional
use permit for Tolstoy house for the following reasons:
1. Poor and very limited notification was given to the homes
in the emendate area. Only about six home owners were
notified by the city.
2. The staff report does not accurately address the traffic
and parking problems that could have a negative affect
on the other homes in the area.
3. A 4,600 sf store has the potential of generating a large
amount of traffic.
4. There are no other commercial businesses in this area.
5. Use of the existing gravel driveway for retail traffic will
generate a substantial amount of dust and is unsafe due
to it's close proximity to the corner of Archibald and
Hillside.
6. The front yard of the property should not be used as a
storage yard or sales yard for large pieces of "antique
equipment".
7. All parking of vehicles should be screened from ,view
with landscaping and screen walls.
8. Other projects sited as examples are located in mixed use
zoning areas of the City and not in strictly residential
areas.
I am not opposed to the concept of some form of revenue generating
to help improve the property and preserve the historic home.
However this current proposal does not adequately address the
concerns of the surrounding community and the adjacent home
owners.
I urge you to REJECT this proposal due to the disruption it will cause to
the area and because it would create an unsafe traffic condition.
This is a significant issue for the residence in the area and all issues
related to the proposed change of use need to be addressed and
9738 Flying Mane La;~//
Alta Loma CA 91737
September 7, 1994
~,, I uc [{:-NC~O C:JC,a, MC
To: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission ~.27 - 3 1994
Re: Conditional Use Permit 92-20--Parker
This letter is in response to a request filed by the Parkers for a permit to allow the sale of
antiques and artwork in the Demens-Tolstoy house (Conditional Use Permit 94-20).
We are very much opposed to the above-described permit on the grounds that a
commercial activity such as that proposed is not consistent with the strictly residential
nature of the area in which the house is located. A major characteristic of the area
neighboring on the Demens-Tolstoy house is the lack of any conunercial facilities
whatsoever. In fact, a store, if permitted in this location, would be the only commercial
establishment for over two miles in any direction.
Ourselves, like others residing in the area near the Demens-Tolstoy house, paid a
significant premium when we bought our house. This premium was justified by the desire
to live in a quiet, very low density residentially-zoned area. Although seemingly a minor
exception to zoning regulations, approval of this permit would dramatically change the
nature of the area and result in a significant, adverse impact on property values. The
increased traffic, noise, dust, and visual degradation are immediate negative impacts
which are likely. The Planning Commission should be aware that, we, as well as others in
the area, do not want and will not tolerate commercial facilities in this area and intend to
exercise all available legal options to protect our housing investment and quality of life.
We have read where the Staff of the Commission supports the permit. Their view appears
to be that there has been a precedent established previously since other historic houses in
the City have been allowed to have commercial activities, and these activities purportedly
have not cause major problems. This position shows a fundamental lack of familiarity
with the City. The two historic houses with which we are familiar, the Christmas House
on south Archibald, and the house east of Hermosa on 19th Street, are located in
significantly different neighborhoods than the Demens-Tolstoy house. South Archibald is
a major thoroughfare and is heavily congested. The immediate vicinity of the house is an
area of extensive commercial activity. Although the traffic on 19th Street east of Hermosa
is not as heavy as south Archibald Street, the street is a main east-west thoroughfare, and
there are commercial facilities within 1/2 mile of the house.
1
Unlike the other two historic houses, the Demens-Tostoy house is located in an area
which has relatively little traffic as Archibald terminates 1/2 mile north and Hillside
Street is not a major arterial. There are no commercial facilities within a radius of over
two miles from the house. It is clear that to use the other two historic houses as support
for allowing commercial activity in the Demens-Tolstoy house is without foundation and
shows a fundamental lack of awareness and understanding of the City--a City for which
the Planning Comnussion is supposed to represent.
In summary, we urge you to reject the proposed permit to ensure that the area in which
the Demens-Tolstoy house is located retains its strictly residential nature.
Sincerely,
/
James and Stephanie Cuillier
9761 Cinch Ring Lane
Alta Loma, CA 91737
2
~ Paul and Karen Mock
5506 Malachite Avenue R E 0 E | V ~ D
Alta Loma, CA 91737
AUG 199
City of Rancho Cucamonga City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission Planning Division
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERI~LIT 94-20 - PARKER
Dear Sir:
We submit this letter in opposition to the granting of a
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) at the Demens-Tolstoy House, a local
historical landmark, 9686 Hillside Road.
This rural area is ideal as a quiet residential/equestrian area.
I, Paul Mock, commute one hundred miles per day to the City of
Los Angeles where I work. I commit to this commute to reside in
a beautiful area which is low in crime and free of commercial
establishments.
Approval of the CUP will result in increased traffic and crime.
The beauty of the Demens-Tolstoy house, and surrounding area,
will be degraded by the addition of antiques in public view,
signs, parked vehicles and increased public pedestrian traffic.
The intersection of Hillside and Archibald is hazardous now.
There are boulevard stop signs only for east-west traffic.
Southbound traffic on Archibald is particularly hazardous due to
speeds acquired due to the steep downhill grade. Increased
traffic, particularly those vehicles turning west on Hillside
from northboundArchibald will be particularly vulnerable to
potentially deadly accidents.
We recommend that the Planning Committee not approve the request
for the CUP. If it is approved in any form we will appeal to the
City Council.
Sin Fely,
Karen Lee Mock
RECEIVED
Oit~ Of Ranche Cucamonga
Planning Divis~n
~~~ RECEIVED
""""~" ~~(~-r' City O~ Rancho Cucamonga
planning Division
.?~ 9758 CZNCH RING E~ ALTA LOMA~ CA 91701:
TO: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission
Commission ChaiPman - David BaPkeP
SUBJECT: CONDITZONAL USE PERMZT 94-20 - pAR KER
GentZemen:
I am a pesident of the Regency Estates. I live apppoximately
two blocks noPth of the histoPic home. OuP home was puPchased
ppecisely fop the 'slow-paced life style'.
I DO NOT want the Demens-ToZstoy Estate to be tuPned lnto an
antique and aPtwoPk shop ..- WHY? HoPe ape some of my concePns:
1. WHat assuPances do we have that it won't look like a
'CIRCUS'. Balloons~ advePtisement signs, clowns, etc.
We alPeady have to 1lye with Snow White and hIP clwaPf
friends that pesAde on the gpounds of the estate.
2. What assuPanoes do we have that At won't look lake a
"junkyaPd'. The utA1Aty and tPanspoPt papaphePnalAa
cuPPently displayed on the pPopePty may be antAques to
some9 but looks 11ks 'old junk' to me and my neighhoPs.
3. The tPafflc situation As going to be tePPtbZe. We
have many ppoblems with the stop sAgn on Hillside and
Apchlbald. I have seen sevePal accidents and
neap accidents at that lntePsectlon. Ilho As going
to be held accountable fop cup tpafflc ppoblems?
4. What about paPklng? ThePe ls NO dPlvsway to the estate
only a dlrt poad. The dust ls going to be unbaaPabZe fop
peeldents who 1lye up-wlnd fPom the pPopaPty.
5.What kind of peopZe wall this anttquelaPtwoPk shop
6. set ls thls golng to have on the liPkit value of
cup pPoperty.
NO!! NO!! I do not want thls lnvasion Anto my 11festyZe and
pPAvaoy. Z suggest that the Parker's pupohaaellaasslPant a
commePctal building that is zoned fop thle type of comicPetal
use. I DO NOT WANT A BUSINESS in my backyaPd- ThAs iS $0000
unfatP to the pesl~ents of my netghboPhood-
The PaPkeP's wIPe swaps that the Estate was not 'zoned' fop
commeP{laZ use when they puPchased sald pPopQPty. Z want to
know who ppomtsed them that they could opePata a busAnise In
pestdental neighboPhood? Does the name Tolstoy Ping a bell?
Yes~ the same person who aZso sits on the PZanning Commission,
What a coincident! My oh My!!
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 24, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-20 - PARKER - A request to establish the
sale of antiques and artwork within the existing Demens-Tolstoy
House, a local historic landmark, on 3.16 acres of land in the Very
Low Residential District (2 dwelling units Or less per acre) at
9686 Hillside Road - APN: 1061-561-04-
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
A. ~roposal: The new owners of the historic Demens-Tolstoy House desire to
sell antiques and artwork from their home and use the proceeds for the
onguing restoration and maintenance of the estate (see Exhibit "E").
Patrons would also be given tours of the landmark house. Retail activity
would be limited to the living areas on the first floor and the
basement. The City's Development Code conditionally permits such low-
intensity uses within landmark buildings lying in a residential zone. The
potential for adaptive reuse was discussed during the landmark designation
hearings in 1989.
B. Site Characteristics: The historic house stands on a 3.16-acre lot and is
set off by a small vineyard, a few rows of citrus, and a terraced
garden. The house sits beck approximately 175 feet from Hillside Road and
125 feet from Archibald Avenue (see Exhibit "A"). The house is served by
a circular dirt driveway that features several pieces of farm machinery.
The house is a potential State and National historic structure.
C. Parkin~ Calculations:
N-mher of Number of
Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces
of Use Foota~e Ratio Required Provided
Antique/Art Sales 4,607 1/250 18 18'
Single Family Detached 1,799 2 car 2 2'
Residence garage
TOTAL 20 20
* Refer to Analysis Section.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-20 - PARKER
AUgUSt 24, 1994
Page 2
ANALYSIS:
A. General: The applicant intends to use the first floor and basement for
retail sales of antiques and artwork, for a total of 4,607 square feet of
retail area (see Exhibit "D"). The proposed hours of operation are Monday
through Friday from 9 a.m. until 2 p.m., closed On Wednesdays, and
Saturday and Sunday from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m. The retail activity would
be operated exclusively by the Parker family. Patrons and visitors can
access the site from Hillside Road via the existing circular driveway.
The applicant anticipates no more than five to ten customers at any given
time which is similar to the boutique operation in the historic Albert
House at 10323 19th Street.
B. Issues: In reviewing this request, there are several specific issues
which the Commission should consider.
1 · Land USe Compatibility: The non-residential USe of historic
structures is encouraged by the City's Development Code as a means of
preservation; provided the use does not disrupt the neighborhood.
Residential development exists or is planned on all property
contigUous to the subject property; however, at present, the nearest
house is approximately 350 feet to the east across Archibald
Avenue. Currently, citrus orchards, vineyards, vacant fields, and
Eucalyptus windrows that surround the house would buffer the proposed
use from neighbors. The proposed retail activity is secondary in
nature to the primary residential use of the Demens-Tolstoy House.
Therefore, staff does not anticipate adverse impacts from vehicular
traffic or noise.
2. T~rove~ents: As a condition of Using an historic structure, the
Development Code requires the site and structure to be fully improved
to include landscaping, parking, street improvements, etc. The
streets are improved to full width with curb, gUtter, and drive
approaches. The estate has extensive landscaping in addition to the
vineyard and citrus grove. The planned Co~nunity Trails along both
street frontages would be installed at such time as the surrounding
property develops.
The applicant intends to provide parking south of the house off the
circular driveway. The site plan submitted by the applicant (see
Exhibit "C" ) indicates removing the existing driveway closest to
Archibald Avenue and construction of a new driveway using the
existing drive approach approximately 330 feet from the
intersection. Based upon the local landmark status, and potential
State and National historic status, it is important to preserve the
setting for the house. The proposed driveway changes would
necessitate removal of a portion of the vineyard directly in front of
the house. Staff recommends against the driveway changes at this
time and feels that the existing circular driveway can adequately
serve the needs of the intended use without disrupting the grounds of
the estate (see Exhibit "B"). Driveway relocation should coincide
with construction of the Co~mRlnity Trail. No further improvements
are reco~nended.
pLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 94-20 - pARKER
AuguSt 24, 1994
Page 3
3. parking: The proposed retail use requires one parking space for
every 250 square feet of the house devoted to retail sales and
display (see Exhibit "D")- With 4,607 square feet of retail area,
the parking requirement is 18 parking spaces. The site plan
indicates that the area for parking measures approximately 185 feet
long which could accommodate 15-20 cars.
4- Building and Fire Codes: The applicant is proposing no physical
changes to the landmark at this time; therefore, a Landmark
Alteration permit application was not filed. However, the proposed
retail use requires a change to a B-2 occupancy which may require
certain improvements to the structure- Depending upon the nature and
extent of the changes necessary for Code compliance, a Landmark
Alteration permit may be required to be approved by the Historic
preservation Co~unission. As a landmark, the applicant can use the
Historic Building Code. Staff is working with the property owner to
address this issue- The conditions of approval require Code
compliance-
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Co~unission approve
Conditional Use Permit 94-20 through adoption of the attached Resolution of
Approval.
BB:DC/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Landmark Designation Plot Plan
Exhibit "B" - Vicinity Map
Exhibit "C" - Site Plan
Exhibit "D" - Floor Plan
Exhibit "E" - Letter from Applicant
Exhibit "F" - Building & Safety Division Cor~nents
Exhibit "G" - Fire Safety Division Cor~nents
Resolution of Approval
Designated Area: ,89 Acres
Dimensions:210' - north-south
185'+_ east-west
r '
· ~ coe/c~. ,;~c zz
k/IL60H AVE
., VICINITy MAP eN 27 26
· SKETCH/AREA TABLE ADDENDUM
9686 Billside Road
Rancho Cucamonqa San Bernardino Ca. 91701
Wells Farqo
10' 5'6'~ 13' ' BEDROOM
BATH BEDROOM BATH
BEDROOM
' ~ I ~2'
SECOND STORY 35' 7 3.5' 8'
pAN,
FIRST STORY ~9' KITCHEN DINING
BATH .5 R~OM
~s' MUSIC UBRARY LIVING ........:""
ROOM F/P STAIRS E~ ROOM ::::::: ;-
CALCULATIONS ADDENDUM
First Floor (GLA1) Second Floor (GLA2)
Total for Area: 2783.74 ~e ·
Total for Area: 1798.75
Basement (BSMT) Sleeping Porch (POR)
zg,00 X 33.00 957.00 17.00 X S.oo - 85.00
40.00 X is,go 600.00
Total for Area: 1823, 10 V Total for Area: 85.00
Porch (POR) ScreenedPorch (POR)
10,0o X 18,00 = 180.00 10,00 X 19.00 -- 190.00
ucs Total for Area: 180 00 T__ QIa~
THE HISTORIC ' _
Dcrncns- Tolstoy
Estate
Plann~n9 Dept. Conc~erat~on:
We would like to operate a business of selling Antiques
and Artwork from our Historic Landmark home.
The home has a community interest that has been fantastic.
On any given day we have five to ten cars stop and say hello.
Take pictures and ask for a tour of the house. This triples
on week-ends. We have held tours an~ offered tours to the
Brownies, Cub Scouts, elementary and middle schools, and many
more organizations in the past few months.
The support we have recieved, to save the one hundred
and four year old Washington Navel trees has again been great.
Durling nursery out of Fallbr~ook, Ca., a specialist in Citrus
from British Columbia, and a '~pecialist from the state of
Washington, the University of Riverside is doing testing,
all time and material has been donated, Mr. Tolstoy has been
a tremendous help and support with information and donating
farm equipment to help preserve the Orchard and Historic
value of the property.
We would like to be open from 9am until 2pm except
Wednesday we would close. My wife takes our children to school
and picks them up after school. This would fit in with our
daily family routine. Saturday and Sunday we would like
to be open from ~0am till 5pm for the convenience of our
customers.
We were donated a portable small watering tank, from
Peter Tolstoy, that we would like to paint a small lettered
sign, saying:
Welcome
The Historic Demens - Tolstoy Estate
Antiques * Artwork
By Erica
Hours 9-2 M-F
Closed Wed..
Sat-Sun 10-5
909-948-02~1
The Varkcr Family ~4~{~~
9686 Hillside Roa~]~ California 91737
THE HISTORIC
Demens Tolstoy
Estate
Parking would be provided along the front of the property
next to the wall. This would be a good distance from Hillside
and customers cars would be hidden behind the grape vines
and out of view most of the time. Parking would easily hold
twenty-five cars, and we expect to have fewer than five to
ten customers at any given time. This is fewer cars than
we now have parked on Hillside taking pictures on a Saturday.
This business would be run by my wife and I with no pay-
roll and no employe~'s. We do not expect to make a living
from the sales, only a little to help support the restoration
cost to maintain the house and orchards, so we may continue
to improve the Historic "Beautiful" gardens and grounds for
the pure enjoyment of the people of Rancho Cucamonga.
Thank You
Dennis & Erica Parker
9686 Hillside , alifornia 91737
CITy OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
THE HISTORIC ~.~:'~!xs DIVisiON
Demens - Tolstoy
Estate
·
~ .y~ T, TK~ ~ ~'
~~s - r,~ s r,y' No ~.
The Parker Family
9686 Hillside Road, Alta Loma, California 91737
PLANNING DIV',SION
,,, S: 1994
THE HISTORIC ~ . ~ t, ~ ,, ~ u -
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
AUG ~ 9 1994
August 25~ 199 '
Planning Dept: ,
Hearing Sept 24th.
Our family enjoyed our first encounter with the city
governmentl A Planning Dept. Hearing brings out the best
in neighbors; and their concerns (real or make believe).
Our desire to enhance the Historical value of the city
and local area was what we thought everyone wanted. Were
we wrong? We don't think so. A sma!~ group Of selfish neighbors
"do not make up a city" every person in the city should enjoy
it's history and the Demens - Tolstoy E~tat~ is this city's
history.
The ~nmplaint's we heard had ~ery. jlittle merit. All
will be cczrected before our next hearingi' The traffic issue
is out of context. There will beminimal traffic increase
created by an in home antique shop.
In Summary:
Our school children need ~hlSoH~story class, it's real,
it's alive, they can touch it and learn fr6m it.
The Historical Preservation Commission ordinance set
up by the city of Rancho Cucamonga is a great achievemen'c
to save~ the history of the area. We read our copy again East
night.
THE HISTORIC
Demens- Te stey
"Thank God" there are still people with foresight and
creativity for the long term in city government.
The Parker Family,
Thank you,
The Parkcr Family
9686 Hillside Road, Alta Loma, California 91737
· The H~story o
ALTA LOMA
California
1.880 198(t
A SUNDAY AFTERNOON DRIVE IN THE FOOTHILLS ABOVE ALTA LOMA
ABOUT 1900
THE HISTORY
OF
A I.TA LOMA, CALIFORNIA
1880 - 1980
By
Martha Gaines Stoebe
in collaboration with
Hazel Stoebe Billings and Wallace Stoebe
Library of Congress Number 81-66581
l'ublished by
I.I & S l'ublishing Corntinny
P.O. Box 55
Alta Loma, California 91701
1981 Martha Gaines Stoebe
Printing By PRINT-AD
247 S. Riverside Ave.
DEMENS
Captain l'eter [)elllt:lls canit: l~,) h~anl{)sa ill 1891 h~,)king for a liDlist: ant] ranch ill the
ctmnlry; h~ anJ hi~ family lived in Los Angeles bui he wanled a place for holidays and sun~mers. He
~d a charming, lhree-slory stone house on ltillside just west of Archibald, a house recently built by
Green, a relative ~f 1lie Charley brothers, for his bride. Since Ihe bride didn't want to live in
loan~osa, ll~e house was for sale and Capl. Demens promptly boughl it and a large acreage back into
the foolhills. All ol Ibis lamt was purchased by Mr. Green and by Capt. Deme,s from William
Whilfield.
Pcler l)cnR:ns {l'iolr l')cmcticffJ had been a captain in the hnpcrial (;uard at the palace of
Czar Alexander II, and lhcrcforc was always referred Io as Caplain. tlc was a n~ember of the old
Russian nobility and owned vasl cslalcs in Russia, hut he was not saltsfled with ihe government: he and
and many of his friends wanled a coaslimlional governmcnl (see Appendix D). When ihings did not
improve in Russia, hc I~rought his wife and four children to America in 1880, settling first in Florida.
lie Icfl his I{nssian cslalcs Io rclalives and arrived in America
;):2:';~'j'%'7~':} {' with very little m,mey. ('apt. Dcmens was }ust 36 years old at the
.,T'i' ~ lime, bnl he had lldenl Inul ahilily and was always able io find
someone Io finance his in'l~jccls. The Demons family lived first in
f,,L a very snutll t:onmnmily in I':h~rida which had rcccnlly beea
~ Ionndcd by Mr. Willtams from Delroit; some orange trees were
: being planted by Ihal lime bnt the area was qnile isolalcd from
the rest of {he stale. Mr. Willtams offered Capt. Demens an
inlcrcsl in the land if hc would build a railroad into file town.
Capt. Dcmcns went Io New York where he nmde friends with
Coilis P. Hnnlinglon, ihc railroad magaale who I~lped finance his
railroad, wilh l'hilil~ Armonr, American .} merchant and
philanlhropist, who helped finance some of Demens' later
projects, and with Erncsl Goerlitz, manager of ihc New York
Melrop~ditan Opera Company. The Demens railroad, called the
Mrs, Demens I)range Belt Line, reachud lhu new town in Florida in 1888 when
Ihc comnmnily had a popnlalion of 30. Willtams and Demens
agreed m loss a coin Io decide who shonld name the Iown; Capt.
Demons won Ihc loss and named Ihe Iown SI. Petersburg after the
city in Russia where he had been born. SI. Petersbnrg, Florida,
~ilh a polndalion al presenl of more Ihan 3~,000, recently
dcdicaled a marble nl(}llnnl~lll it) the memory of Captain
l)emcns. Capt. l)en~ens' gs'amlson, Peler Tolstoy, and his wife,
wlu~ now live m Alia I.mna, allended lhe dedicalion ceremony.
~.f .......
Capt. Peter I~emens The Demens house In Ioamosa when Capt. Demens first saw It.
While the Demens family lived in Florida,
two sons were bor,~, Engene and Vladimir who was ~,
familiarly czlled Bab. After Ihe railroad was finished
and tha town named. f mny n,,,'ed to North
Carolina, then 1o Idaho, aud finally made their
permanenl honie in Los Angeles. 1t was in Asheville,
North Carolina, thai ihe Demens' youngest child, a
daughler Vera, was borul by that time her brothera
and sisters who had been born in Russia were nearly
grown up so she hardly knew them. in Los Angeles,
Capt. Demens started a steam laundry which was
financially successful, as were all his projects which
included several wise real estate investments. Soon Innn,
after they were settled in Los Angeles, Capt. Demens Vorn, Vlndlmlr ("Bnb'}, In~ Eu00n$ D0m0n$.
bought the ranch in loamosa which was enjoyed by the whole family during holidays and summers,
although some summers were spent at Redointo Beach or Santa Monica. The children attended schools
and colleges in or near Los Angeles, and ihe older ones soon left hon~e.
The I)emens ranch in loamosa had ils own canyon in the foothills, and grapes and oranges
were planted on the land while the grounds around ihe honse were beautifully landscaped. Capt.
Demens hired Loyal Strieby as the firsl foreman of his ranch, and afler the Slriebys moved Io Imperial
Valley. Vladimir Cherbak took over as foreman and remained so for 39 years. Capt. Demens sometimes
came to Ioamosa wilhonl his family, to look over the ranch or for business reasons. and after the Toews
family moved in across the road in 1910, he usually had dinner with them on those days. Irene Toews
Maurer remembers thai her father hanled loads of furniture from Los Angeles to the:Demens ranch with
his wagon and mules. Capt. I)emens was a real leader in loamosa aud was esp. c~ally influential.in
remarkable man. In an article by Robert V. Alleu in the July, 1977, Quarterly Journal of the Library
Congress, Peter ~emens' occupations were listed as a sawmill owner, (actually he owned all the sawmills
between Cdnada and Mexico at one lime), road promoter, contraclor. banker, grower of citrus fruits in
both Florida and California, president of the Cucamonga Citrus Fruit Grower's Association, secretary of
a firm manulactnr[ng shaving soap, and a 20-year contribulor of articles on American affairs to a
Russian journal.
The old slone Demens ranch honse is one of a kind, as charnfing inside as it is outside with its
interesting terraces and landscaping; it has been the scene of many parties over the years, bolh for
friends from Los Angeles and for loan~osa or Alia Loma neighbors. Various members of the family have
lived in the house at differera finms. Vladimir married Lucy Thorpe in 1909 and they lived in the
Demens house until 1911; their daughler Muriel was born later in Los Angeles. Capt. and Mrs. Demens
Vladlmlr ("Bab") Demens el the
CSD ,..., .,o., ,,. ,,-.,...'
Lucy Thorpe were married.
lived ,:mtile ranell mnch of the time after 1912 ' -,:ier,.a~.,~.~.
becanse of his hard work as chairman of the Pacific ~
Electric right-of-way committee and then his :::~x::..:~._:~- ~ ...,
interesl in his own packing house. Dnring these
)years, two of the Dcmens danghters, Inns who was
tile youngest child born in Russia, and Vera, lived
there with their parents. After Capt. Demens' death
in 1919, Mrs. I}umens stayed on in the ranch honse
wilh her daughters nnlil her dealh in 1921. Inns
live. d there in I.he late twenties and thirties, and ~
during part of hlal lime her neice Muriel lived wilh ..........
h~r while she wenl Io Charley Junior College. The lhi bssu!llul house as It looks Iodsy.
Demons house is now ihe retirement home of Vera Demens and her husband, Andrey Tolstoy. They
lived in Hollyw,~od where Mr. Tolstoy was lechnical direcl,n' of Rnssian piclnres for MGM nntil he
relirud in 1945~ Vera is especially arlislic, has been on the Arl Foumlalion Board at Scripps College
and is a friend ~f Millard Sheets and Richard Armonr. Wilh lhe help of her husband, and her son who
lives nearby, Vcl'il keeps Ihu hua.liful ~hl honsu .i,st as h~r pill'ellis wcmhl havu wanled il.
ARAIZA
Mr. a.d Mrs. William Araiza
came to leamesa in 1890, bnying
10 acres m~ the norlh side of 191h
Slreet just west of the
schoolhouse which had recenlly
been buill on ihe corner of 191h
and Amelhysl. Mr. Araiza's
parehis were h'om Madrid, Spain,
and he had been born in Santa
Barbara; his wife, nee Constance
Valdez, was also of Caslilian
Spanish background and had
been born in Los Angeles.
William and Constance were
married at Ihc San Gabriel
Mission in 1879, and they lived in
Penlena before conling Io
Mrs. Aralza leamesa. On tile leamesa ranch,
Mr. Araiza had a honsc bnilt for ~ ..
his family and lie planted cilr.s trees; he also owned a Mr. Araiz8 with two of his daughters,
large vincyar, I, eltsl ~1[ hlllln{lsil anti ~lhcr prol~erly in Beatrice, lhe eldesl, and Rosa.
differenl parts of California. The Araizas I,ad nine children: Beatrice, Bill, Louis, Rose, Ann,
Jo~el~hine, Lucillc, Andy, and Esther. School records ~how Ihal all these children artended Ihe
h~amosa School ahmg with Ihe chihlren of the other pioneer families. Many of the Araizas arc
~membered by ohl-limers, but especially Lncille beearise she was known as the beautiful girl whose
cmre slill decorales each box of Snn-Maid raisins.
William Araiza owned the Livery Stable in Cucamonga, on San Bcrnardino Road jnsl east of
Chinalown; in abnul 1916, Ihc family moved inlo a two-story house cast of the Livery Slable. Beatrice
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Regular Meeting
August 24, 1994
chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cuc ga
Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the~il
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Larry ~Niel, John Melcher,
Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: Heinz Lumpp
/
STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buller, City Pl~finer; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Nancy Fong, Planner; Ralph Hanson, Deputy
City Attorney; Dan Senior Civil Engineer; Gail
Sanchez, Plannin( ~ Secretary; LeAnn Smothers,
Redevelopment
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Brad Buller, City suggested that Item B be moved to be first under
public hearings.
Commissioner McNie that he had to leave at 8:15 p.m. to return to a
class that his ox on was presenting.
APPROVAL
Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 with Lumpp absent,
to the minutes of July 27, 1994.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 94-20 - PARKER - A request to establish the sale of
antiques and artwork within the existing Demens-Tolstoy House, a local
historic landmark, on 3.16 acres of land in the Very Low Residential
District (2 dwelling units or less per acre) at 9686 Hillside Road -
APN: 1061-561-04.
Commissioner Tolstoy excused himself from hearing the item.
.Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that all legal noticing requirements had
been met; i.e., the item was noticed in the paper, notices were mailed to
property owners in the minimum 300-foot radius, and the property was properly
posted. He reported that the week that the agendas were mailed out, .an
inspection was made of the property and the applicant proposed making some
changes to the application. Therefore, the item had to be continued to
September 14, and that was so noted on the agendas which were mailed to the
agenda subscription list. He stated that after the agenda had been mailed to
the agenda subscribers, the applicant contacted staff and indicated they did
not wish to continue the item. He recommended that the Commission continue
the item to September 14 because of the possible confusion. He suggested that
the Commission Open the public hearing to receive testimony from those who
could not be present on September 14. He recommended that the item be
readvertised.
Chairman Barker stated that he intended to continue the item. He said that if
anyone in the audience could not attend on September 14, the Commission would
want to hear their testimony tonight. He said he was uncomfortable making a
decision because there may be people in the community who thought the item
would be continued and had intended to be present. He requested a count of
those people in the audience who were present regarding the item.
Mr. Bullet counted 35.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report. He reported that
a memorandum from the Building Official indicated some minor changes that
would be needed on the inside of the structure based upon a change of
occupancy. He said he had received six telephone calls and two of those
individuals had also written letters which had been forwarded to the
Commission. He said the residents were opposed to the request and had
expressed the following concerns: 1) Did not feel retail is consistent with
the quiet, rural atmosphere of the residential area; 2) potential increase in
traffic and the desire for a stop sign on Archibald at the intersection of
Hillside; 3) the amount of items being stored on the property--i.e., vehicles
and general clutter; and 4) an assumption that if this use is approved on a
limited basis that there would be the potential for other commercial uses on
the property such as a bed and breakfast, convenience market, or fast food
restaurant. He pointed out that such uses as a convenience market or fast
food restaurant would not be allowed by law.
Commissioner Melcher asked who would be responsible for installing the planned
community trails which are to be installed when the surrounding property
develops.
Mr. Colaman responded that they would be installed by the adjoining developer.
Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer, stated that the subdivision has an
improvement certificate On the map which indicates that the adjoining parcel
will be responsible for those improvements.
commissioner Melcher observed that the memorandum from the Building Official
indicated that only the basement area was inspected but Exhibit D indicated
Planning Commission Minutes -2- August 24, 1994
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
,that the first floor would be use for sales areas and tours and the upper
story would be used for tours. He asked if the house is a residence and if
the entire building is proposed to be used as a commercial enterprise.
Mr. Coleman responded that the owners live there. He said the entire
structure will not be a commercial venture as the tours are something they
have stated they would like to provide only as a way to educate the community
and allow the community to experience the house. He remarked the Parkers had
indicated they would provide the tours for school children, scout troops,
etc. He said that when the inspection was performed, the Parkers indicated
during the field meeting that they were changing their application to only use
the basement so they only allowed the inspection to occur in the basement. He
said the next day they changed their mind and decided to include sales on the
first story.
Chairman Barker stated that based upon need, the staff report would be
repeated at the September 14 meeting and he asked that Mr. Coleman attempt to
incorporate the questions raised by Commission Melcher in the revised staff
report. He opened the public hearing.
Dennis Parker, 9686 Hillside Road, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that he, his wife
Erica, and their six children live at the house. He said they had been
impressed with the historical aspect of the property and they had been
informed that the home is a well known, historical landmark in the City and to
the people of Rancho Cucamonga. He remarked they purchased the property
because it fits their family. He said they had no idea when they purchased
the property of the number of people who would come to the property to take
pictures and walk up to the door and ask if they could see the property. He
commented that their children attend the public grammar and junior high
schools and the school administrators and cub scouts have all expressed an
interest in being able to have tours of the property to learn about the
history. Me said as the interest increased, they decided to try to find a
reason to allow more people to enjoy the property. He remarked that over the
years they had accumulated antiques and dishes which are their personal
property, and they decided to perhaps sell some items. He stated their
preliminary plan was to utilize the center floor and the downstairs as a sales
area. Me noted that after talking to the Planning Department, he found that
some of the requirements are based on square footage of the area used for
commercial purposes. He said they then decided to use only one room of the
downstairs for sales in order to reduce the square footage and to provide
easier access to help move the application through the process; and therefore,
the inspection was only of the basement level. Me said that following the
inspection, the Planning Division contacted him and suggested that a
continuance would be needed to September 14 because a revised staff report
would have to be prepared based on the change in the application and the new
information. He reported he then asked if it would be possible to hold the
hearing tonight and was informed that if they did not change the original
proposal, the hearing could be held. He said they do not expect a large
number of clients or a lot of income from the business. He commented that his
wife and children are in the home full time, and they are merely trying to
make it easy and convenient for the people of the community to visit the
property. Me stated they have plans for extensive landscaping and they have
Planning commission Minutes -3- August 24, 1994
DRAFT
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSe.?,
.made an offer to purchase the adjoining 8-1/2 acres. He felt if they are able
to purchase the remaining acres, it would better accent the corner and the
house, because there will eventually be a housing development wrapping around
the corner if they are unable to purchase the property. He said the
development on the 8-1/2 acres would be responsible for putting in the horse
trails and the landscaping improvements on Hillside and Archibald but the
investment group has indicated there are no plans for development in the near
future and the land is currently for sale. He indicated he is currently
performing the weed control on the Hillside and Archibald frontages. He said
he and his wife are willing to work with the City, perhaps on a low interest
bond, to try to improve the corner prior to development by the investment
group. He said they are currently working with experts in trying to save the
104 year old Washington navel trees. He hoped that the people in the City
would enjoy the property. He said they plan to concentrate the sale of
antiques in one room of the basement with the sales and tours being handled by
his wife and older children. He said they do not expect a large volume of
people, but rather a maximum of 4 to 5 people going through at a time. He
noted that their driveway is approximately 150 to 200 feet off the road and he
thought that the cars would be screened from Hillside when the grapes are in
bloom. He said they don't expect more traffic than they already have. He
agreed it would be nice to have stop signs On Archibald.
Chairman Barker reiterated that the hearing would be continued to September 14
and requested testimony from those who felt they could not attend at that
time.
The following residents spoke in opposition to the project:
Eugene Rich Illsley, Sr., 8375 Vicara Drive, Rancho Cucamonga
Randy Alfieri, 9739 Cinch Ring Lane, Rancho cucamonga
Owen Belletto, 9763 Flying Mane Lane, Rancho Cucamonga
Allen Shapiro, 9737 Flying Mane Lane, Rancho Cucamonga
Dale Cummins, 9738 Flying Mane Lane, Rancho Cucamonga
Jeff Unger, 9717 Cinch Ring Lane, Rancho Cucamonga
Michael Ponce de Leon, 9827 Flying Mane Lane, Rancho Cucamonga
In addition, a letter Of opposition signed by 11 residents was presented along
with individual letters of opposition from the following people:
Ronald G. Shelton, 9853 Cinch Ring Lane, Rancho Cucamonga
Paul E. and Karen Lee Mock, 5506 Malachite Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga
Eleanor Shollenberger, 9758 Cinch Ring Lane, Rancho cucamonga
Concerns were raised about the following: that the area would be turned from
a residential to a commercial area, inoreased traffic and accidents, potential
for lowering property values, property not being well kept, front yard storage
or sale of antique wagon and equipment, fear of a convenience store or fast
food restaurant being built, traffic going into and out of the driveway, poor
and limited notification given to homes in the area, dust from use of a gravel
driveway, driveway proximity to the intersection of Archibald and Hillside,
lack of screening of vehicle parking, safety of children, increased crime,
potential for advertising or signs, type of clientele. Pictures were
Planning Commission Minutes -4- August 24, 1994
FOR D SCL 'SS.,'O, P[r pOc c ON,,
· presented of an RV and a covered wagon parked in the driveway and the posting
notice.
In response to a question as to who was mailed notices, Mr. Coleman replied
that notices were mailed to all property owners within 300 feet, which
amounted to 10 notices.
A request was made that the notification area be expanded.
Nancy Kettle, 9588 Wilson, Rancho Cucamonga, stated that she had read about
the hearing in the newspaper. She questioned how many people in the audience
were in favor of preserving historic structures. She stated that she owns an
historic structure and has spent a great deal of time and money in trying to
rehabilitate and maintain that structure. She suggested that the owners may
have discovered that the maintenance costs are extremely high. She noted that
another historic structure in the community had recently burned because it
lacked care and money.
Chairman Barker announced that the hearing would be continued to September 14,
1994. He questioned when large posting signs are used.
Mr. Buller responded that 4 x 8 foot plywood signs are used for in-fill
projects. He noted they run several hundred dollars to install.
Chairman Barker did not feel an 8-1/2 x ll inch notice is sufficient. He
asked that the notification be expanded.
Mr. Bullet suggested that all the property owners in the Regency Equestrian
Homeowners Association could be notified if the HOA would supply an up-to-date
mailing list.
Chairman Barker felt that would be good.
Commissioner Melcher asked what state law requires.
Mr. Bullet replied that state law requires notices be mailed to property
owners within 300 feet, but City law expands upon the state requirements by
also requiring that a notice be placed in a newspaper of general circulation
and that the property be posted.
Commissioner Melcher stated the City is already going above and beyond what is
required by state law and he felt that no matter how far the notification area
is expanded, it would never satisfy all of the people. He favored not making
any changes.
Chairman Barker felt that people in the immediate vicinity are impacted and he
thought the area should be expanded.
Mr. Buller encouraged any of the residents or representatives of the HOA to
contact the staff to discuss any of the issues.
Planning Commission Minutes -5- August 24, 1994
FoR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 94-20 FOR ANTIQUE AND ARTWORK SALES TOTALING
4,607 SQUARE FEET WITHIN THE HISTORIC DEMENS-TOLSTOY
HOUSE, ON 3.16 ACRES OF LAND IN THE VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT (2 DWELLING UNITS OR LESS PER ACRE), LOCATED AT
9686 HILLSIDE ROAD, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 1061-561-04.
A. Recitals.
1. Erica Parker has filed an application for the issuance of
Conditional Use Permit No. 94-20, 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 24th day of August and continued to the 14th day of
September 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 August 24 and September 14,
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 9686 Hillside
Road with a street frontage of 411 feet on Hillside Road and a lot depth of
379 feet, is presently improved with the historic Demens-Tolstoy House, and
has curbs and gutters along Hillside Road and the Archibald Avenue frontage;
and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is a vacant
citrus grove, the property to the south is vacant, the property to the east
includes single family residences, and the property to the west consists of a
citrus orchard; and
c. The Demens-Tolstoy House, in which the application is
proposed, was designated as an Historic Landmark by the City Council on
September 10, 1989; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-20 - PARKER
September 14, 1994
Page 2
d. The application contemplates the sale of antiques and
artwork utilizing the first floor and basement of the existing house; and
e. The Development Code, Section 17.08.030.E7, permits small-
scale, non-residential uses in historic residential structures subject to
review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit; and
f. The applicant proposes operating the business from 9 a.m. to
2 p.m., Monday through Friday, and from l0 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturdays and
Sundays; and
g. No additional employees other than the property owners will
be employed in the business.
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 n'ot be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare Or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
c. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable
provisions of the Development Code.
4. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the project
identified above in this Resolution 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 project will have a significant effect on
the environment and, therefore, the proposed project is exempt pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of the State SEQA Guidelines.
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
l) Approval of this request shall not waive
compliance with all sections of the Development
Code and all other City ordinances.
2) If operation of the facility causes any safety
problems or adverse effects upon adjacent
residences, the Conditional Use Permit shall be
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-20 - PARKER
September 14, 1994
Page 3
brought before the Planning Commission for
consideration and possible termination of the
use.
3) The proposed use shall not commence until such
time as all Uniform (or Historic, as applicable)
Building Code and Uniform Fire Code regulations
have been complied with. Prior to commencement
of retail use, 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 retail occupancy.
4) construct 18 parking spaces directly adjacent to
the circular driveway to accommodate patrons.
The design Of the parking area shall conform to
current code requirements while utilizing
materials that are sensitive to the historic
significance of the site. The specific parking
lot design shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner, and shall be constructed prior to
utilizing the residence for retail sales.
5) Any permanent sign(s) shall reflect the
architectural character and history of the
Demens-Tolstoy House and shall be reviewed a~d
approved by the Planning Division prior to the
issuance of building permits.
6) Hours of operation shall be limited to weekdays
9 a.m. to 2 p.m., closed on Wednesdays, and
10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends. Any request for
expanded business hours shall require review and
approval of the Planning Commission.
7 ) Approval is granted for antique and artwork
sales as ancillary to the primary residential
use. Any change in the business operation shall
require review and modification to this permit.
8 ) All antique and artwork display and sales
activity shall be conducted completely inside
the house. There shall be no change in the
outward appearance of the building or premises,
except for a sign not exceeding 4 square feet in
area.
9) The use Of the house for antique and artwork
sales shall be clearly incidental and
subordinate to its use as a private residence.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 94-20 - PARKER
September 14, 1994
Page 4
10) No persons, other than members of the family who
reside on the premises, shall be engaged in the
antique and artwork sales.
ll) The applicant shall obtain a city business
license prior to commencement of use.
Enqineerinq Division
1) Upon development of the adjacent property west
and north of the project site (Parcel 2 of
Parcel Map 10783), the driveway immediately west
of the intersection BCR for Hillside Road at
Archibald Avenue shall be closed. The ultimate
driveway plan for this site shall be reviewed by
the City Planner and City Engineer prior to the
installation of perimeter parkway improvements,
which includes Community Trails On both Hillside
Road and Archibald Avenue.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 1994.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, 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 14th day of September 1994, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS':= '
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 14, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Bullet, City Planner
BY: Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SUBJECT: 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 August 10, 1994)
AMENDMENT TO UNIFORM SIGN PROGRAM NO. 88 OAS 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 94-05. (Continued from August 10, 1994)
BACKGROUND: The above items were continued to this meeting at the request of
the applicant. With the approval of the Sign Ordinance Amendment on
September 7, 1994, by the City Council, the applicant has withdrawn the
Variance application. The applicant has agreed to revise the Uniform Sign
Program to meet the new standards and resubmit for staff review at a later
dat e.
RECO~4ENDATION: Staff recomends the Comission take no action on the
Variance application and direct the applicant to revise the Uniform Sign
Program and resubmit for staff review through minute action.
BB:NF:Sp
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter
ITEMSD&E
FROM: Panasonic TAD/FAX PHDNE ND. : Sep. 08 1994 09:08AM P2
September 9, 1994
Me. Nancy Fong
City of R~ncho Cucamonga
Planning Department
10500 Ctvlc Center Drive
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Dear Nancy,
After discussions withmy client Omar at O.A.S. Investors0
we agree to withdraw of our application for a variance and will
redssign, .reeubmlt& Work with staff on to the Uniform S~gn
Program for 'Thomas W~nery Plaza.
September 14, 1994.
Sincerely,
Vice President
Marketing/Sales
KMC/Jw
10980 8oatman Avenuc, Slanton. California 90680 744/761-8200 Fax 714ft6[-2451 Contr'~ctor License #624675
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 14, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
BY: Larry J. Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: CONVENIENCE FOOD STORE REGULATIONS ORDINANCE - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - Review of proposed ordinance.
BACKGROUND: This report is an update on the progress and schedule for the
Council-requested Convenience Food Store Ordinance based on Crime Prevention
Through Environmental Design (CPTED) concepts. Staff is seeking the Planning
Com~aission ' s input On the draft Ordinance and the points raised at the
August 23, 1994, City/Chamber workshop which are highlighted below.
At the City Council meeting on July 6, 1994, the City Council requested that
within 90 days, City staff work with the Chamber of Comerce and the Planning
Commission on developing an ordinance based upon CPTED principals and
patterned after the Gainsville, Florida Ordinance. A copy of the schedule,
summary of the ordinance provisions, and the draft ordinance are provided for
reference.
A City/Chamber of Comerce Cornunity Workshop to discuss the draft ordinance
was held on Tuesday, August 23, 1994, at 3:30 p.m. in the Tri-Couununities Room
of the Civic Center. All the affected stores and their owners were notified,
as well as the California Grocers Association (CGA). The highlights were as
follows:
Approximately 4 of the 23 convenience store owners attended along with
representatives from Southland Corporation and the CGA and three board
members from the Chamber of Co~nerce.
2. A majority of the attendees indicated that they felt a mandatory program
would place unfunded mandates on the owners and lead to some businesses
failing. Costs quoted included $25,000 per year in payroll costs to
require a second employee after 8 p.m. and $5,000 to $7,000 for black and
white camcorder equipment.
3- Concerns were also raised with who would handle enforcement; what level of
enforcement would be taken; and what, if any, penalties there would be.
Some concerns were expressed over the costs for the enforcement program.
4. Some pointed out that Police Department figures currently indicate that
there is no acute problem with convenience stores at this time.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
FOOD CONV. STORE ORDINANCE - CITY OF R.C-
September 14, 1994
Page 2
5. The CGA recommended a voluntary outreach and education program ,be
considered instead of an ordinance. A copy of the CGA correspondence is
attached for reference. The Chamber of Commerce indicated their
willingness to assist in a voluntary outreach and education program.
6. Staff indicated that the Planning Commission would review the Ordinance in
at their meeting on September 14, 1994- It was also noted that staff has
tentatively set October 5, 1994, for City Council to hear the matter.
Staff requests that the Planning Commission receive testimony from all
interested persons, discuss the issues relative to the proposed ordinance, and
forward any comments or recommendations to the City Council.
BB:LJH/jfS
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Schedule
Exhibit "B" - Letter and Attachments dated August 22, 1994
from the California Grocers Association
Exhibit "C" - Revised Draft Ordinance
CPTED CONVIENCE STORE ORDINANCE
SCHEDULE
7/3- 7/10- 7/17- 7/24- 7/31- 8/7- 8/14- 8/21- 8/28- 9/4- 9/11- 9/18- 9/25- 10/2-
7/9 7/16 7/23 7/30 8/6 8/13 8/20 8/27 9/3 9/10 9/17 9/24 10/1 10/8
8/8
FOLLOW
UP
INTER.
DEPT.
MTG.
7/6 7/19 7/25 '8/3 S/10 8/4 8/23 ~/14 10/5
CC MTG. PRELIM FINAL DRAFT STAFF COMMU- PC MTG CC MTG
REQUE- NOTI- STAFF SCHED. ORDIN. MTG. NITY 1ST RD
ST (90 FIC. MTG.RE APPROV DISTR- W/ WORK-
DAYS) SENT 'SCHED. & BUTE CHAM- SHOP
TO ~& ROUTED TO ~BER
DEPT.S CON- CHAM-
TENT BER
\( 8/15 9/15
PC AGE]|DA CC MTG
sET NOTIF.
DEADLII[E
SCHEDULE NOTES: Schedule reflects optimum number of days. As can be seen the PC mtg. is set before the
Community workshop is even held. Likewise the PC Mtg. is at the same time as the CC advertising
deadline. This schedule is very optimistic and may need to change. It assumes we will present an
Ordinance for both Commission and Council action on 9/14 and 10/5. If this schedule can not be met, we
will, at a minimum, tentatively schedule a City Council stausd report for the October 5th meeting.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES SECURITY MEASURES ORDINANCE
(CFSSMO)
PURPOSE:
TO MINMIZE OR ELIMINATE A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF
POTENTIAL INCIDENTS OF HOMICIDE AND/OR ROBBERY AT
CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES.
SUMMARY OF ORDINANCE REGULATIONS:
1. TWO EMPLOYEES BETWEEN 8 PM AND 4 AM.
2. WINDOWS ARE TO BE LEFT C~ -E~R AND UNOBSTRUCTFT~, IN ORDER
TO PROVIDE A VIEW OF THE CASH REGISTER AND SALES AREA FROM
THE STREET AND/OR PUBLIC PARKING AREA.
3. SAI .ES AREA TO BE LOCATED SO THAT THE CI -ERK AND CUSTOMER
ARE FULLY VISIBLE FORM THE STREET AND/OR PUBLIC PARKING
AREA AT THE TIME OF SALES TRANSACTION.
4. POST A CONSPICIOUS SIGN WHICH STATES $50.00 OR LESS IN
REGISTER.
5. NO MORE THAN $50.130 CASH READILY AVAILABLE TO
EMPLO yI~_S.
6. MAINTAIN A DROP-SAFE OR TIME RELEASE SAFE BOLTED OR
INSTALLED IN THE FLOOR, OR WEIGHING AT I-EAST 500 POUNDS.
7. CUSTOMER PARKING AREA MUST BE I1 .I -UMINATED DURING ALL
HOURS OF DARKNESS.
8. PROVIDE SECURITY CAMCORDER AT ,~1 .I. TIMES.
9. OWNER OR EMPLOYEES WORKING BETWEEN 7 PM AND 5 AM
SI-IP, I .t . COMPi .lrIE A COURSE IN ROBBERY PREVENTION THROUGH THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA POLICE DEPARTM~-NT.
California Grocers Association
SlURrING 1]tE FOOD INDllb'FRy OF C.~IFO~NI,~ S~NCE I8~}~ k~t~cnrt~ C~ 9~1 I
c .......,:,~ ..,..,,...,,August 22, 1994 ~,~ m,~.. ~,~ ~>s~ .o~
n,--,,':~¢<~,.~. Mr. Dave Barker
' .........~ ...... ....,,,,President, Plasg Co~nission ~IA F~
~,~,, 'r~.,~,~ City of Rancho ~monga
~.,,,¢, 105~ Civic Center
r-.~,~,,,.~,~,,,,.,.,..,.:~,.~Rancho Cuc~ong~ CA 91730
· ~.,, ,. Dear CoSssioner Barker:
"'~"'"~'~"'~"' This letter is in response to the proposed ordinance which would create
,,...~¢~ Chapter 9.28 of the Rancho ~monga Mu~cipal Code re~lating
i.c,l}lleCiO convenerice stores.
~,,a,., ,,,..,~.....,,,, ,,,,~e Califor~a Grocers ~sociation/Calffornia ~soeiation of Neighborhood
,..~,~,,. Stores, which represenB more than 8,000 members including supermarket
chin stores, mid-s~e ~dependent grocers and smaB neighborhood stores,
,.,, shares many of your concerns reg~d~g convenience stores and the potential
';"" """'~r"~ for theft and robbe~. In hct. we have always taken a pro-active stance on
':'""'"'""" this issues and have ~stituted volunta~ progra~ such ~ our Nei~borhood
.,,~ ~,*o, Outreach Program to foster co~unication ~d cooperation between retail
~"'¢ ~':~ """" "'~ ' .........grocers. local goremerit, law e~orcement and the community.
/.,~, ,,,~'~-, ,,,,,,~.,.,'As you ~11 note on the enclosed booMet. many of the sugestions
..... ......,.,, ,,,~,,,encompassed in the proposed ordinan~ are addressed by ~is program. In
':::.i,:',~.X: ..........~.,.hct, we offer ly more operational standards as well as much needed
"'~' "~"" guidelines for alcohol and tobacco sales, cr~e aw~eness. and commmfi~
'~"' ~""'~ involvemere. We also provide an 800 number which sexes as a clear~ghouse
,:',h"'.,,','-,~,., for both the stores and the ~ to help solve concerns before they
""~ ','~ become major problems. We hope that ~e Ci~ would chose to p~cipate in
..,, .~.,,~ this program.
.,., ~,~, Regard~g the operational guide~nes outl~ed in the proposed ordinance. we
.~, .... cannot support a requirement that stores hke additional st~f nor can we
....... , ,,.~..., .........,suppoR the mandato~ installation of securi~ systems, Such requirements
und~y pensive the nei~borhood store by incre~ing the cost of doing
business and therefore jeopardking their ability to compete M~ other stores.
Additional personnel and expensive security syste~ will not deter a criminal
from an akeady seineless act.
The installation of video cameras would require stores to p~.ffchase video
cameras with an estimated cost of $10.000 each. Additional cc. sts would
include installation~ maintenance, monthly service fees and t:se training.
Depending upon the size, some stores coul~j require multiple cmneras.
All this, when there is no evidence to show that video cameras are effective
in deterring criminal behavior much less help with criminal apprehension.
While there is only !imlted data on apprehension, figures from the Los
Angeles Police Department show that less than half of the suspects captured
ira L.A. bank robberies last year were apprehended through the use of
surveillance cameras. In fact. ~tespite the mandated use of cameras in banks.
264 suspects were never caught.
Furthermore, three studies conumssioned by the National Association of
Convenience Stores found that 1) over 80% of all U.S. convenience stores are
robbe~ free and 2) that one clerk vs. two clerks was not statistically
significant on robbery rate reduction. And, in.f..ormation released by th~
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in late 1993 reported that convenience
stores had outpaced all other categories recorded in reducing the incidence
of robbery (see attachment).
We hope that you will share our thoughts w~th the Plartr~ng Commission.
Please don't hesitate to call me at 310/432-8610 if you have further questions
or concerns. We stand ready to work with the city of Rancho Cucamonga to
find a fair and reasonable approach to this difficult problem.
Sincerely,
CALIFORNIA GROCERS ASSOCIATION
BETH BEEMAN
Director of City/County
Governmental Relations
Enclosures
cc: City Council
City Planner
NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH PROGRAM
OPERATIONAL POLICY
As a member of the California Association of Neighborhood Stores (CANS) and participant in the
Neighborhood Outreach Program, the undersigned agnes to stricdy adhere and take all reasonable
action necessary to ensure complianc~ with these standards.
1. The Neighborhood Oulxeach Program member decal must be placed on the front door in dixect
view of customers entering ate store.
2. Every reasonable means must be used to eliminate when: necessary loitering on store prolxa-ty
including parking lots to work with local law enforcement;, including posting "No Loit. eting" signs.
3. Best efforts must be used to keep all store property, parking lots lind any adjacent property clean
and free of customers' litter.
4. Parking lot must have adequate lighting according to building code standards and lights must be
replaced as needed.
5. Train employees to pass Neighborhood Outreach Program providr, A or equivalent company
provided test so they fully understand and can enforce state laws and regulations regarding the sale
of alcohol and tobacco. Store must utilize the in-store decsis provided by Neighborhood Ouu'each
Program (or equivalent company provided clecals) zcgarding alcohol and tobacco sales to minors.
6. Employees will be trained in crime awareness techniques and provided with the materials
necessary for crime awareness.
7. Strictly prohibit the use or sale of illegal substances on store property including parking lots. To
discourage sales or narcotics on store property and will be reported to authorities. All outsicl~ pay
telephones should be switched by telephone company to aCCOrnmoda~ outgoing calls only.
8. Not more than on third (1/3) of front windows can be covered with signage. W'mdows near the
sale s counter and enu'ance doors must remain clear of signage. For security pttrposes, a clear vie w
of the store should be visible from the s~reet and parking lot, In order to improve community
relations and the appearshe= of your store, beer and tobacco product signs should not.be ov,r used,
so ~at your customers and the community do not have the Imp. ression that you are only interested
in sellin g beer and tobacco products. No neon signs adverdsin g producls can be placed in windows
or doors.
9. Display all Federal, State, County a~d City signs that are required by law. They ax~ listed in the
Program Signage Section of this rr~a,~ual,
I0. All banns hung outside the storc should be rotated or changed and cleaned and the
r~commendadons ar~ as follows:
Loucry Banners - change as neccssary
Grand Openings - change within 30 days
New Management - change within 30 days
Monthly Specials - change ever/30 days
l~nnants - change every 30 days
11. Mainta~n a c~se w~ridng r~a~nship wi~h1~ca~ law ~nf~rcement ag~nci~s and l~ca~ c~rnmuni~y
organizations,
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CALL 1-800-794-3545
W~',R'mL'q' OF CITY OF SACRAMENTO .~,' c, uus'rrcs
~'OLIC]~ C.~FO~NIA 81 ~ ~[XTH
~AC~NTO, CA
9~81~-2~95
Ap~ 8, 1991
gl~4~2t
R~ ~20 JOHN P
CHIEF OF POLICE
Chuck Beaver, D~rector
California Grocers A.~ociation
90~ G Street, Suit~ 700
Sacramento, CA 958~
Deax Mr. Beaver,
We have reviewed the materials associated with the United Neighborhood Outreach
Prograxa which is being sponsored by the California Asst~tion of Neighborhood Stor~s.
am very pleased tO see the Assodation ~itiating mob a positive program aimed at reducing
both the real and the perceived problem~ assodated with cQnvenience
hnplernent/ng steps such as those ou-~incd in the program wtl not only knprove the
quality of life in neighborhoods served by your paricipating membc~ but also reduce the
real danger o( criznc tha~ their employees face on a daxly basis.
The Sacramento Pol(ce Dcpa~ucnt is 131c~ed te support this progum. and I x~ll
have a representative present at your Ivhy 1st kick-off. ff we may be of any further
assistance your crime prevention efforts, please contact our Community Resources Section
at 449-5731.
Sincerely,
~olice
YE'~Ig
Robbery
Five Year Analysis
lS92 Up, i/arm Or!me
Federal Bureau ot tm/esti~adon
:i tiy ' ':':'f:' '- '.: ".' '.; '~"
:' 71;; · . . "
":.:iL~ ~i::,i,"."-:.-.. :~:,':''~
:,.!I':Lfjf
· ' .::L.'.!. , .....~,~,'::' :"':'Lt """
/:C~: - z -,-,..;7'~--,':::: %L" ' ,-;:.,Z;, '
1988" -' 1989 ' 1~ ' 1991 '. 1~ 1988 ' 19~ 19~ 1~1 199~
,
---
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, ADDING A NEW CHAPTER 9.28 TO THE
RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING REGULATIONS
pERTAINING TO CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES.
WHEREAS, the number of homicides and robberies at Convenience Food
Stores exceed the number of such incidents at other establishments between the
hours of 8 p.m. and 4 a.m.; and
WHEREAS, such excess demonstrates a greater likelihood that such
incidents will occur unless precautionary measures are taken at Convenience
Food Stores; and
WHEREAS, the occurrence of such incidents may result in loss of life
and/or property and is contrary to the public health and safety and the
welfare of the employees and customers of Convenience Food Stores; and
WHEREAS, these regulations provide essential requirements that will
minimize or eliminate a significant number of incidents of homicide and/or
robbery at Convenience Food Stores; and
WHEREAS, on August 23, 1994, a public workshop was conducted to
obtain public input; and
WHEREAS, on , 1994, the City Council conducted and
concluded a duly noticed pubic hearing concerning the subject amendment to the
Municipal code; and
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this
Ordinance has occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of
Rancho Cucamonga, California:
SECTION 1: The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal code is hereby amended to
add a new Chapter 9.28, to read, in words and figures, as follows:
Chapter 9.28
CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES.
Sections:
9.28,010 Definitions.
9.28.020 Regulations.
9.28.010 Definitions. The following terms and phrases, when
used in this Chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in
this Section, except where the context clearly indicates a different
meaning:
CITy COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES - CITY OF R.C.
1994
Page 2
A. "Convenience Food Store" is a business establishment that:
1. Derives 50 percent or more of its gross income,
excluding motor fuels, from the sale of goods, merchandise, or other
articles Of value in their original containers; and
2. Offers a limited quantity and variety of food,
household, and sundry items; and
3. Operates at any time between the hours of 8 p.m. and
4 a.m.; and
4. Does not sell or have for sale prescription drug
items.
B. "Owner" is the person, corporation, partnership, joint
venture, or other group enterprise having lawful possession of the
premises upon which the Convenience Food Store is operated.
C. "Employee" is the person, corporation, partnership, joint
venture, or group enterprise legally responsible for the day-to-day
operation of the Convenience Store.
9.28.020 Requlation~. All Convenience Food Stores shall comply
with the following regulations:
A. If Open for business after 8 p.m., the Convenience Food
Store must employ two persons continuously on duty on the premises
from 8 p.m. until closing or 4 a.m., whichever event occurs first.
B. Locate any signs posted in the windows so as to provide a
clear and unobstructed view of the cash register and sales area from
the street.
C. Locate the sales area so that the clerk and customer are
fully visible from the street at the time of the sales transaction.
D. Post a conspicuous sign, not exceeding 2 square feet in
area, in the window which states the cash register has $50.00 cash or
less in it.
E. Have no more than $50.00 cash available and readily
accessible to employees.
F. Maintain a drop-safe or time release safe at the
Convenience Food Store which is bolted to the floor or installed in
the floor or weighs at least 500 pounds.
G. Post a conspicuous sign, not exceeding 2 square feet in
area, in the window which states that there is a safe at the store
and it is not accessible to the employees.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
CONVENIENCE FOOD STORES - CITY OF R.C.
1994
Page 3
H. The entire area of the parking lot area utilized by
customers of the Convenience Food Store must be lighted during all
hours of darkness when the employees and/or customers are on the
premises as follows:
1. Minimum average maintained illuminance must be two
foot candles or greater with a uniformity ratio (average to minimum)
of no more than 5:1.
2. Additionally, all such lighting shall be in accordance
with the applicable city's Lighting Code requirements, and shall be
verified through the submittal of a detailed lighting plan to the
Planning Commission and the Crime prevention Bureau of the Rancho
Cucamonga Police Department.
I. Install a security camera of a type and number approved by
the City Manager or his designee. Said camera must be capable of
producing a retrievable image on film or tape that can be made a
permanent record and that can be enlarged through projection or other
means. Cameras meeting the requirements of this section shall be
maintained in proper working order at all times and shall be subject
to periodic inspection by the city Manager or his designee.
J. Any owner or employee who works between the hours of 7 p.m.
and 5 a.m. at a Convenience Food Store shall complete a course in
Robbery Prevention to be given by the Rancho Cucamonga Police
Department, or a program certified by the City Manager or his
designee, within 30 days after he or she begins employment. If the
Rancho Cucamonga Police Department's Robbery Prevention course is
utilized, the City Manager or his designee shall determine the cost
of training per employee to the City and the Convenience Food Store
shall pay the cost to the Rancho Cucamonga Police Department prior to
the training of the employee.
SECTION 2: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or
portion Of this Ordinance is for any reason deemed or held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this
Ordinance. The City council of the city of Rancho Cucamonga hereby declares
that it would have adopted this Ordinance and each section, subsection,
sentence, clause, phrase, or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that
any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or other
portions might subsequently be declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk
Shall cause the same to be published within 15 days after its passage at least
Once in the 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.
INTEROFFICE MEMO
Date: August 19, 1994
To: Dave Baker, Lieutenant
~cho Cuc~onga Police Dep~ent
Subject: Convenience Stores - Statistics
Attached is a list that shows the number of reports that have been drawn for
Larceny and Violent type crimes at the locations that you requested. The report is
a summary report that is broken down by location and totals for each year at that
location. The detail data is available at your request.
DW/dw
Summary repoa of Larceny and Violent crimes ~ design~ed locations by year
Address Year Count
10050 WILSON AV 1994 1
10110 FOOTHILL BL 1987 3
1988 12
1989 24
1990 19
1991 29
1992 13
10120 25TH ST 1990 1
10277 FOOTMILL BL 1990 1
1991 1
1992 1
1994 2
10451 LEMON 1989 5
1990 14
1991 15
1992 7
1993 5
1994 2
12854 FOOTHILL BL 1987 1
1988 9
1989 11
1990 13
1992
1994 1
12962 FOOTHILL BL 1988 2
1989 1
1990 1
1991 1
1993 4
1994 1
Page
Summary report of Larceny and Violent crimes at designated locations. by year
Address Year Count
6760 CARNELIAN ST 1987 6
1988 14
1989 8
1990 23
1991 25
1992 20
1993 14
1994 10
7172 ARCHIBALD AV 1991 2
1993 1
7270 VICTORIA PARK LA 1991 3
1992 2
1993 4
1994 4
7278 ARCHIBALD AV 1990 1
7287 ARCHIBALD AV 1987 1
1989 5
1990 7
1991 16
1992 5
1993 12
1994 3
7900 HAVEN AV 1987 1
1988 6
1989 8
1990 7
1991 11
1992 4
1993 13
1994 5
8045 VINEYARD AV 1992 1
1993 2
1994 1
Page 2
Summary report of Larceny and Violent crimes at designated locations by year
Addre s s Year Count
8081 ARCHIBALD AV 1987 1
1988 4
1989 5
1990 17
1991 29
1992 19
1993 7
1994 4
8114 ARROW RTE 1988 1
1991 2
1992 1
1993 1
8161 FOOTHILL BL 1994 1
8401 HAVEN AV 1993 2
8694 ARROW ROUTE 1987 1
1988 1
1989 2
1990 3
1991 2
1993 4
1994 1
8847 ARCHIBALD AV 1990 1
1993 1
9032 ARCHIBALD AV 1991 1
9255 BASELINE RD 1991 1
1992 2
1993 2
1994 1
Page 3
Summary report of Larceny and Violent crimes at designated location~ by year
Address Year Count
9464 BASELINE RD 1987 5
1988 14
1989 10
1990 33
1991 32
1992 20
1993 17
1994 21
9477 FOOTHILL 1987 1
1989
1990 8
1991 7
1992 1
1993 6
1994 3
9677 FOOTHILL BL 1990 2
1993 1
1994 1
9755 ARROW RTE 1989 2
1990 1
1991
1992 2
1993 1
1994 1
9794 19TH ST 1988 2
1990 4
1991 3
1992 1
9950 FOOTHILL BL 1988 9
1989 7
1990 16
1991 11
1992 14
1993 14
1994 7
Page4
Violence Prevention Procedures
In Case of Robbery
KEEP IT SHORT AND SMOOTH. The longer the robbery takes, the more nervous the
robber becomes.
· Handle the entire procedure as if you were making a sale to a customer.
· The average robbery takes less than two minutes.
OBEY THE ROBBER'S ORDERS. Robbers seldom hurt people who cooperate
with them.
· Let the robber know that you Intend to obey.
· ff you are not sure of what the robber is telling you to do, ask.
· Keep calm and observe what the robber looks like and what he is wearing. Remember
exactly what he says.
· Try to note the robber's exact height as he exits the store (if it is safe to do so).
TELL THE ROBBER ABOUT ANY POSSIBLE SURPRISES.
· ff you must reach for something or move in any way, tell the robber what to expect.
· If someone is in the back room or is expected in the store, tell the robber.
CALL THE POLICE. Don't hang up until they tell you to do so. Call your supervisor as
soon as possible.
· Keep their numbers near the phone.
· Stay on the telephone until they tell you they understand and have all the information
they need.
· Then stay by the phone.
· Fill in your robber description form when you are waiting for the police. Write down
exactly what the robber said and list ell "distinguishing" features.
uh
· Protect the crime scene. Discontinue business until the police are finished. Don't to c
any evidence.
DON'T ARGUE WITH THE ROBBER.
· Give him all the cash and merchandise he wants.
· Once the robbery has started, it is too late for the robber to change his mind.
DON'T FIGHT THE ROBBER.
· The money isn't worth risking harm to you.
· Trying to attack an armed robber is foolhardy, not heroic.
DON'T USE WEAPONS.
· Company policy prohibits weapons in a store.
· Weapons breed violence. -
· The robber's weapon is already one too many.
DON'T CHASE OR FOLLOW THE ROBBER.
· To chase a robber is to invite violence.
· The police, too, could shoot, mistaking you for one of the robbers.
DON'T ESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF THE LOSS.
· If you are certain of the exact amount, tell the police.
· Don't make g.esses.
What All Clerks Should Know
MAKE THE STORE ATTRACTIVE TO CUSTOMERS,
UNATTRACTIVE TO ROBBERS.
· Keep the store neat and clean.
· Keep it well stocked.
· When there are no customers in the store, get away from the sales counter by sweeping,
dusting, cleaning, stocking, etc.
KEEP THE SALES COUNTER IN CLEAR VIEW FROM OUTSIDE THE STORE.
· Move any posters or displays that block the registers from view outside.
· After dark, remove any displays a robber could possibly hide behind.
· If you stock firewood, keep it low.
· Make sure you can see out and the police or passarsby can see in.
SPOT POSSIBLE HIDING PLACES OUTSIDE THE STORE.
· Notice possible escape routes from the store.
· Locate outside phone booths or other hiding places.
· After dark, observe lighting and dark corners.
KEEP ALERT AT ALL TIMES.
· Notice what is going on outside the store.
· Be aware of cars parked across the street or off to one side of the lot.
· Look for anyone who may he watching the store or loitering in or around it.
· If they do not leave, call the police and ask for a patrol check.
GIVE A FRIENDLY GREETING TO EVERYONE WHO ENTERS THE STORE.
· Look them directly in the eyes.
· Ask the customer ahead of someone suspicious, "Are you together?" The customer will
usually turn around to look at the person and then may be able to help make an
identification.
· Ask persons alone if they need assistance. Customers likethe attention and
robbers don't.
KEEP THE CASH REGISTER FUND TO A MINIMUM. .
· Drop all $10 and $20 bills as soon as you receive them. Drop all checks and food stamps.
· Let customers see you making drops, and tell them why you are doing it.
· Ask customers for exact change or the smallest bill possible.
· Keep a $2 bill beneath your $1 bills. Record the serial number and put it in a safe place. If
you are robbed you will be able to identify it later.
TAKE EXTRA PRECAUTIONS AFTER DARK.
· Drop money into your safe. Don't hide it in a drawer or under the counter.
· Check each night to see that outside lights are on and working.
· In money order sales, collect the money and make the drop before printing the money
order.
· Operate one register late at night through early morning. Open the empty unused
register drawer and tip it for display.
· Run an "empty register"... just $5's, $1 's, and change.
IN CASE OF ROBBERY
NOTIFY POLICE AND FILL IN THE BLANKS, GIVE THE TOP COPY TO THE FIRST POLICE OFFICER ON THE SCENE.
RETAIN THE SECOND COPY FOR YOUR SUPERVISOR OR FIELD REPRESENTATIVE.
COMMON WEAPON TYPES
SEX RACE AGE HEIGHT WEIGHT "
HAT
HAIR (COLOR, TYPE) LONG BARREL REVOLVER SNUB NOSE REVOLVER
EYES TIE ~ ~
' r LARGE AUTOMATIC SMALL AUTOMATIC
GLASSES TYPE COAT ~ BOLT-ACTION
LEVER
TATTOOS SHIRT
SAWED-OFF RIFLES
PUMP
SCARS/MARKS TROUSERS ~ AUTOMATIC
SINGLE SHOT
COMPLEXION SHOES SAWED-OFF SHOTGUNS
BAIT MONEY SERIAL NUMBER
AUTOMOBILE DESCRIPTION
(LICENSE NUMBER, MAKE, COLOR)
STAY ON THE PHONE! DON'T HANG UP! w. AT.o,,,,ERsA,D
RP-8 Iorm 1700059 12/80 *,~1980THE SOUTHLAND CORPORATION
ROBBERY / VIOLENCE
PREVENTION AGENDA
· Welcome
· Introduction
· Presentation
· Questions and Answers
· HISTORY OF ROBBERY PREVENTION PROGRAM.
a) Started 1979.
b) Robberies down 50% since start.
c) Results shared with industnj.
· GENERAL OVERVIEW OF ROBBERY/VIOLENCE PREVENTION BOOK.
a) Outlines program of avoidance/prevention.
b) What to do after an incident.
c) Keep for reference at counter.
· LOSS PREVENTION P.O.P. IN PLACE.
a) Advertise you have prevention program.
b) If program missing, call Loss Prevention Department.
· CUSTOMER SERVICE.
a) Goes a long way to make or break a situation.
b) Good deterrent factor.
· AWARENESS / ALERTNESS AT ALL TIMES.
a) Your best defense is a good offense.
b) Keep busy and look alert.
MONEY HANDLING PROCEDURES.
a) Low cash in registers, use Tidel Property.
b) Nothing under tray, no large bills in register.
· DE-ESCALATING SITUATIONS WI~EN CONFLICTS ARE OCCURRING.
a) De-escalate the situation.
b) Lower voice.
c) Don't argue or take things personally.
d) Be assertive, not aggressive.
· CHASING SUSPECTS.
a) Never chase anyone out of the store.
b) Never let frustration override common sense.
· NOTIFICATION OF POLICE, EMPLOYER AND HOTLINE.
a) Call 911, then Hotline, and then employer.
· PROSECUTION (IMPORTANCE OF FOLLOW THROUGH),
a) Keeps positive rapport with Police.
b) Sends message to violators.
c) Not cooperating alienates Police - negative relationship.
· WEAPON RECOMMENDATIONS,
a) No weapons in store.
b) Civil and criminal liability.
c) Danger to clerks.
· CONDITION OF STORE FOR NEATNESS AND CLEAR WINDOWS FOR
VISUAL OBSERVATION.
a) Will send message to potential criminals.
b) Will allow in/out visibility by Police and clerks.
c) "Fish Bowl Effect".
· LIGHTING / CAMERA EQUH?MENT,
a) Be sure all lighting is working at all times prope~y.
b) Be sure all camera equipment is working at all times prope~y.
· RECAP OF BASICS OF PREVENTION:
"A Positive Environment"
-Awareness
-Low Cash
-Lighting
-Visibility
-No Weapons
-Don't Chase or Resist
-Clean, Neat Store
-Customer Service
ROBBERY PREVENTION
(2) Push/Pull Stickers - Red and White Design Front Doors
(2) Height Markets - 4-1/2' Height Trim Front Doors Inside
CCTV Monitored Sticker Left Front Doors As
You Are Looking
Out
"Make That Drop" Sticker All Re~ister Drawers
"No. 10's, No. 20's" Stickers In Rel$ister Drawers
(2) Robbery Prevention Posters Restroom Walls
(Dos and Don'ts)
(Prevention Standards)
COME OF AGE
Yellow Triangle "We ID" Message Beer/Wine Doors
"Valid ID Required" Sign On Register
SAFETY PROGRAM
Hotline Information Card & Hotline Phone No. Attached to Phone
Other Materials which are available, but not
required include:
"Come of Age" Patches: Smocks
Come of Age - ABC Training Guides: Front Counter for Reference
Robbery &Violence Pictorial Booklets: Front Counter for Reference
DATE September 6, 1994
TO/ Franchisees, Franchise Employees and 7-Eleven Corporate Employees
LOCATION
FROWn/ Art Perez
COLAnON Loss Prevention Manager, Las Vegas/Nevada
PHONE
SUBJECT Robber~/Violence Prevention Procedure~ Traiui~g
In our continuous efforts to provide a safe working environment for franchised/corporate
personnel, The Southwest Loss Prevention Department will be conducting one (1) hour
training seminars. The seminars will be held at:
Southland Corporation
1771 E. Flamingo
1 st Floor Conference Room
Las Vegas, NV 89119
September 22, 1994: l:00pm-2:00pm 2:30pm-3:30pm
September 23, 1994: 8:00am-9:00am
9:30am-10:30am
We stronly encourage that all personnel attend. Please sign up for your class by calling
Linda (the "Operator") on (702) 791-0711.
Please contact me should you have any questions or comments.
Thanks.
Sincerely,
Art Perez
Loss PreventionManager
form 3150002 6/89 rtqR INTEROFFICE CORRESPONDENCE ONLY
1. 1.
2. 2.
3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
6. 6.
7. 7.
8. 8.
9. 9.
10. 10.
11 11.
12. 12.
13. 13.
14. 14.
15. 15.
16. 16.
17. 17.
18. 18.
19. 19.
20. 20.
21. 21.
22. 22.
23. 23.
24. 24.
25. 25.
26. 26.
1.
2. 2.
3. 3.
4. 4.
5. 5.
6. 6.
7. 7.
8. 8.
9. 9.
10. 10.
11. 11.
12. 12.
13. 13.
14. 14.
15. 15.
16. 16.
17. 17.
18. 18.
19. 19.
20. 20.
21. 21.
22. 22.
23. 23.
24. 24.
25. 25.
26. 26.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 14, 1994
TO: Chairman and Members of the Planning Cor~nission
FROM: Brad Buller, City Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT CODE REGARDING
PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BARBER SHOPS AND BEAUTY SALONS
BACKGROUND: DUring the public comment portion of the Planning Commission's
regularly scheduled meeting on August 24, Mr. Rick Spurlock, representing the
owner of Arrow Plaza Shopping Center at 9755 Arrow Route, requested that this
matter be placed on the next Planning Commission agenda. The Commission
agreed to place the matter on the September 14, 1994, agenda for discussion.
A letter from Mr. Greg Sakissian, owner of Arrow Plaza, has been included (see
Exhibit "A"). No additional information has been submitted by either Mr.
Spurlock or Mr. Sakissian at this time. Mr. Spurlock had indicated he may
have additional information to present to the Planning Commission at the
September 14 meeting.
The Planning Commission last considered the City's parking requirements in a
comprehensive review in early 1993. This review was in response to a request
made by property owners and perspective tenants. The City hired a traffic
engineer to study the City's parking requirements for shopping centers,
particularly with respect to calculating parking based upon the sum of
individual users and the higher parking ratio for service users such as beauty
salons, medical offices, and food services.
Copies of the full staff report and the consultant's report are attached (see
Exhibit "B"). The recommendation was to not alter the parking regulations for
the very small shopping centers in town (25,000 square feet or less). It was
believed that small shopping centers do not have the parking "buffer" that
larger centers have which allows more flexibility in use. The City's parking
standards are based upon 85 percent of the peak parking demand.
At the Planning Commission meeting of August 24, staff offered several options
addressing this center's desire for a barber shop that would not require
amendments to the City's current policies.
1. Shared parking, if justified by a study (allowed by Development
Code).
2. Modify the parking layout of the shopping center to increase the
actual number of available parking spaces.
3- A parking variance (not recommended).
ITEM G
pARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR BEAUTY/BARBER SHOPS
ARROW PLAZA SHOPPING CENTER
September 14, 1994
Page 2
4. Lease 1,000 square feet for the barber shop (possible with the
current vacancies) and install 2 chairs. (The tenant indicated this
is acceptable.) Installing a third chair would require two
additional spaces Or increasing the leasable area 500 square feet.
RECOMMENDATION: If the Planning Commission, after considering the proponent's
testimony, believes consideration of an amendment is warranted, staff should
be directed to initiate an amendment when the application and fee are
submitted.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad
City Planner
BB:DC:Sp
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from the Applicant
Exhibit "B" - planning Con~nission Staff Report dated
January 13, 1993
Exhibit "C" - City Council Ordinance No- 508
QUALITY DEVELOPMENT CO., INC.
CITy o~ RANCH{;) CUCAMONGA
PLANNING DIVISfON
~lllBilitlltllllllllll~Ut; 24 1994 Itl A~g~st 22, ~994
Mr. Brad euZler
C&ty ~lanner
The City oE ~ancho Cucamon~a
Re.: Arrow Plaza at 9755 Arrow Route
Dear Mr. Brad,
Further to our meeting last week, when we indicated that we
would like to have a barber shop in our shopping center-the Arrow
Plaza-at 9755 Arrow Route, and the parking requirement in the City of
Rancho Cucamonga for such use( two stalls per seat), we contacted the
planning departments in the Cities of Ontario, Fontana, Rialto and
Los Angeles, to find out their requirements for barber shops. All of t
require one parking space per 250 square feet of gross area.
AS we do have such parking space available in our shopping centez
(37 stalls for 9374 square feet of retail space), please allow us to
have the barber shop, as presently we have 40% vacancy in our shoppin~
center and are facing severe financial problems.
~Greg Sakissia~
cc.Mr. Rick Gomez
EX/~' //3 /7" 74"
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91730 Tel: (818) 705-4487
30-1248 FONTANA CI'FY CODE
Parking Spaces Parking Spaces
Use Required Use Required '
5 Boardinghouses and ! space for each t6. Bowling alleys 5 spaces for each lane.
clubs. lodges, fraterni- guestroom, suite or plus the aggregate re-
ties and sororities. other accommodation. quiremerits of other
group care facilities or for each 2 beds. uses such as restau-
and similar establish- whichever is greater, rants and sales areas
ments providing plus 1 space for each 2 171 Theaters i space for each 4
sleeping accommoda- employees. seats. plus 1 space per
tions 250 squ~Je feet of gross
16~ Hotels and motels 1 space for each floor area of accessory
guestroom or rental uses.
unit, or 1 space for ~8) Amusement enter- 1 space for each em-
each2beds, whichever prises of all types, pieyea on the max-
is greater, plus 1 space skating rinks, disco- imum shift, plus such
per employee on max- theques. courses for additional spaces as
imum shift. minibikes, motor bikes may be prescribed by
Ibl Commercial and business As required in this or small pewered cars, the planning cornmis-
uses. subsection, provided and similar types of sion,
that not less than 6 commercial recreation
spaces shall be re- / establishments
quired for each u~e. /~ (9} Barbershops and I space for each 250
ll} Medical. dental, and 1 space for each 175 beauty shops, shoe re- square feet of gross
related health care of- square feet of gross pair shops, self-sen, ice floor area.
~ces and clinics floor axea. with a rain. or coin-operatec[
imum of 3 spaces per cleaning establish. "'
office. ments and laundries
(2) Professional and ad- 1 space for each 250 and similar service es-
ministrative offices, square feet of gross tablishments
real estate and busi. floor area, with a win- (10) Neighborhood conve- I space for each 150
hess offices imum of 3 spac~s per nience facilities and square feet of gross
office. similar commercial floor area, provided
(31 Banks and financial I space for each 200 uses not in a shopping that, if parking re-
institlltions, andpublic square feet of gross center quirements for a spa-
and private utility of- floor area. A minimum ci~c use s. re prescribed
~ces of 6 onsite aggregate elsewhere in this divi-
stacking spaces shall sion, the requirement
be provided for each for the specific use
drive-through service shall apply.
facility. (11) Retail stores and ser. 1 space for each 250
(4) Restaurants and other 1 space for each 50 vice establishments square feet of gross
eatinganddrinkinges- square feet of gross not in a shopping floor area.
tablishments having floor area, plus 1 space center
outdoordrive-in, drive- for each 2 employees (12) Retailsteresandother I space for each 225
through or walkup ser- on the mayAmum shift, commercial establish- square feet of gross
vice Drive-through stack- ments in a shopping floor area, excluding
ingrequirementsshal! center floor area used exclu-
be determined by the sively for truck load-
planning commission ing.
or design review be~d.
15) Restaurants, night- l space for each 3 seats
clubs, cocktail lounges or 150 square feet of
and similac establish- gross floor area, plus 1
ments for the saJe and space for each 2 era-
consumption of food or ployees on the max-
beverages on the pre- imum shift.
9-3.2510
(2) Professional and administra-
tive of~c~s and business offices I space for each 300
square feet of gross floor
ar~a
(3) Banks and financial institu-
lions, and public and private
utility offices I space for each 180.
square feet utility of
gross floor ar~a
{4) Restaurants and other eating
and drinking establishments
having outdoor drive-in, drive-
through~or walk-up service I space for each 75
square feet of gross floor
area, including outdoor
seating ~ if applica-
ble (credit may be pro-
vided for drive-through
establishmcnB based on
I space for every 24 lin-
eal feet of painted drive-
through lane)
(5) Reslaurants, soda fountains,
cocktail lounges, and similar
establishmen~ for the sale and
consumption of food or bev-
erages on the premises (free-
standing buildings) I space for each two
seats, ~hs I space for
each employee on 'the
/ maximum shift
"/' (6) Bafoer and beauty shops, shoe
/\ repair shops, self-service or
./ coin-operated cleaning estab-
lishmcn~ and laundries, and
similar service establishmen~
not within a shopping cent-r I space for each 250
squan feet of gross floor
ar~a
(7) Neighborhood convenience
facilixies and rel~d uses, and
similar commercial uses not in
a shopping center, but not
18.38.050 i' :~' / ' '. -
..:
7. ELtraimre, major appliance or other re':aZ[ store de~jjn~ pfi. ma_H. i7 ~. b~E~,' items: oa~ space
ror eve~ Eo~ bu~eed ~e Eee= orZoss floor ~3:
8. Day ~e center, 2aciu~D~ pr~boo] ~d au~cD' schook ode spies Eor ~2cb s*~T=eab~:,
~ 9. B~r or ~u~ shop, ~' cZese~, ~s~a~z' or s~ sendce-oHeat~d ~bHsb~es~: one
space for ev¢~ ~o hundred ~z' ~s Eee: of Zo~ floor
~0. B~k or ~a~C~ m~jtuaoa: o~¢ ~s Eor eyeD' ~'o bua&-ed ~u~e E~t of Zoss floor
t k Se[E-~oaSe (mmiw~bo~): ~o oa-ske spaces ~ius one space Eor resident manager or o~c~.
~ ~o be located o~ide s~ur~d ~e;
~ ~enlo~inmuiti:enan~shoppingcentenp~ogspacerequiremen~oftheshoPPin~
center sh~ apply,
b. ~en located on in&~dd~ p~cet of ~en~ ~homnd ~u~e fee: of ne~ ~e~: one space for
eve~ ~o hunted ~e fee~ of ~o~ floor
c. ~es located on in&~du~ p~cel ~th ne~ uea o~more than ~en~y t~o~nd ~uue fee~: o=e
space for eve~ ~o hundred ~ ~e fee~ of~o~ floor
J. Ind~
I. Nian~a~ufin~emblyorproc~ingesmblishment:onespaceforeve~vehundred~uue
f~ of ~o~ floor ~e~ or one space ~r emp oy~ on the i~es~ shift if approved by ~he planning
&re,or, plus addidon~ space if required by su~cdon (j) (~) of ~s semiore
2. W~ho~ or storage establishment: one space for eve~ one ~hou~d ~u~e f~*~o~ floor
~es up to ten thou~nd ~e feet, plus one space for eve~ ~o thou~nd ~u~e fee~ of floor
beyond ten ~ou~nd ~u~e f~L pl~ addition~ spaces if required by subszion (j) (4) of ~is ~on;
3. Ve~cle ~mant~ng y~d, r~ding o~m~ons of v~o~ m~e~s, and simil~ esmb~sh-
men~: one space for eve~ three hundred ~u~ fee~ of ~o~ building floor ~e~ plus one space for
eve~ ~en thornrid ~u~ feet of~o~ y~d ~a;
4. One spac~ of appropdate size sh~l ~ prodded on-site for each vehicle ~ed in conjunc~on
~ an ind~ u~ and s~or~ ovemi~ on ~h= ske a~ any dine.
~ Other us~:
I. A~culmre: none except required spac~ for sinCe-family residence. if applicable;
2. ~bfic bu~ng or fadiity: one space for e~ch employee on the m~imum shift, plus addidon~
p~ng ~ de~e~ined by the plannin~ &r~tom
3. ~vate lib~, mu~um, m ~le~ or sim~ ~blishmen~: one space for each employ~
~he m~mum shi~ plus ad~fion~ p~ng ~ de~e~ined by the pinning
4. T~ stand: a minimum of~o and a m~mum of five spac~ at esch loc~tion.
k. S~ ~n~ Requirement. ~e fo~o~ng pu~ng requ~emen~ ue applicable to ~ o~ce,
commerd~, ~d ind~ land ~ (unl~ othe~ s~i~ed). %es¢ speci~ s~ls sh~ be locat~
clo~ ~ pm~ ~o the fa~i~ entrance w~ch would ~ ~d for acce~.
1. H~p~d p~ng spac~ sh~ be prodded ~ fo~ows:
To~ Num~r of H~di~pp~d ~ng
~ng Sp~c~s Sp~ces Required
5_~ 1
~1- 80 2
81-120 3
~i~o ~-~ 3724
~a~n~ per
12.21A4(c) L.A.M.C.
Commercial Parking Table (spaces per sq. ft
total floor area*)
-business or commercial (other than uses 1 per 500
listed below)
-health club, athletic club, bath
house, gymnasium, dance studio,
dance hall, or similar establishment
(see exceptions in 12.21A4(c)2) 1 per 100
-office (other than medical -see 12.21A4(d)) i per 500
-research and development 1 per 500
-restaurant without seating and exclusively
dispensing food/refreshments to be eaten
off-premises 1 per 250
-restaurant, cafe, coffee shop, tea room,
fast food establishment, bar, night
club or similar establishment
-greater than 1,000 sq. ft. 1 per 100
-1~'00 sq. ft. or less:
-without separate bar, or not providing
dancing or live entertainment i per 200
-with separate bar, or providing dancing
or live entertainment 1 per 100
-retail store not in a mini-shopping center,
and discount wholesalers selling 'to the
general public (exception in 12.21A4(j)3) 1 per 250
-trade school, business col!eges,~.professional
or scientific school, music school,
chiropractic schools, or similar commercial
school
-classrooms and assembly areas 1 per 50
or 1 per 5
fixed seats,
whichever is
greater
-classrooms where heavy equipment is
used for training 1 per 500
-warehouse, including storage buildings
for household goods t per 500
(first 10,000)
~ per 5000
(over 10,000)
*- This Code Section includes "gross floor area" in some
paragraphs. For the application of this Section the
Department interprets "gross" to be interchangeable
with "total" as used in 12.21.1A5 and 12.21.1B4.
*- These changes became effective May 21, 1990
, )
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE: January 13, 1993
TO: Chairman and Members of the planning Comz~ission
FROM: Brad Buller, City planner
BY: Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 92-01
- CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend title 17,
Chapter 17.12 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
regarding parking requirements within shopping centers.
ABSTRACT: The report presents amendments to the Development Code
shopping center parking requirements for discussion in a public
workshop.
BACKGROUND: In 1991, the City amended it's parking regulations to
require "one-size-fits-all" parking spaces. Two of the developers who
participated in the amendment process also suggested changes to the way
the City calculates parking requirements for shopping centers. Hughes
Investments and Lewis Homes Management Corporation offered to fund an
independent study by a transportation engineer. The Planning Conmlission
directed staff to add the item to the Planning Division Work Program.
The City contracted with P & D Technologies to prepare the report
(distributed August 26, 1992, under separate cover)-
ANALYSIS: The Shopping Center Parking Requirements Study supports the
developers' request to modify the existing ordinances. A summary of the
report's findings and recommendations is found on page i of the
document. Currently, the City's ordinance requires that parking for
individual uses be calculated individually (i.e., retail, restaurant,
office, beauty salon, etc.). Retail use requires 4 spaces per 1,000
square feet and greater amounts of parking are required for other types
of tenants. This cumbersome process dictates that parking requirements,
and the related tenant mix, be fixed at the time of approval. This
means that developers and staff must make assumptions about the tenant
mix that may change in the actual leasing phase or over time as tenants
turn-over.
In order to simplify the process of determining parking requirements for
shopping centers, the report recommends essentially that a flat rate of
5 spaces per ~,000 square feet be established for all but the largest of
shopping centers, with a certain percentage of restaurant and office
uses allowed. Beyond these percentages, the report recommends that
additional parking be required for those individual uses. The specific
recommendations are outlined on pages 19-20 of the report.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
January 13, 1993
Page 2
EXISTING CENTERS: One issue that must be addressed with any Code
amendment is the impact said change will have on existing or approved
developments. The effect of the proposed recon~nendations upon seven
shopping centers, ranging from small strip centers to large con~nunity
shopping centers, is presented on page 21 of the report. In some cases,
the proposed parking requirements would require a greater number of
parking spaces for the existing uses; hence, it may affect future
leasing. Because these centers were approved under a different parking
standard, staff does not believe it is reasonable to require compliance
with the proposed standard. Therefore, staff proposes a parking
requirement of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 square feet for existing centers.
For example, the Vineyards Marketplace (Albertsons) shopping center
would require 545 spaces at 4.5 spaces per 1,000 versus 607 spaces at 5
spaces per 1,000. The master plan for this shopping center will provide
520 parking spaces; hence, the difference would be 25 spaces
(545 - 520 = 25) under the 4.5 spaces per 1,000 standard. A detailed
analysis prepared by the City's consultant is contained in Exhibit "C."
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Staff has completed Parts I and II of the
Initial Study and did not identify any adverse environmental impacts
which could result from this amendment. Therefore, the issuance of a
Negative Declaration is recommended.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recon~mends that the Planning Commission conduct a
workshop review of the report and recommendations, and take public
testimony. If the Commission can support the proposed changes, then
adoption of the attached Resolution recommending approval to the City
Council would be in order.
BB:DC:mlg
Attachments: Exhibit "A" - May 15, 1991, Memorandum from Developers
Exhibit "B" - Parking Study
Exhibit "C" - Addendum to Parking Study
Exhibit "D" - Letter from Hughes Investments
Resolution Recommending Approval of Development Code
Amendment 92-01
City Council Ordinance for Development Code
Amendment 92-01
MEMORANDUM
. TO: Rancho Cucamonga Planning Staff
FROM: Hughes Investments '~ "~-/~" '~- "7'~ ~' ·
Lewis Homes Management Corp. '.. - .- ,
DAT iS, '. <7:
RE: Propoe, ed Parking Ordinance Revisions
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Per your request, we have analyzed the City of Rancho Cucamonga's proposal to eliminate compact
parking spaces from its ordinance and the issues and impacts regarding that proposal We have
also reviewed the C, ity's current parlclng provision requirements and offer, as an alternative, a
proposal to address that as well
A. hue:
Use, or elimination of, present compact car parking (8' x 16' stall size).
Backmound - Per the Urban I--~nd Institute, the Institute of Transportation Engineers, the
National Paricing Associatlon/Consultant's Council, E~TO Foundation for Transportation, and
International Council of Shopping Conten, the following information is available regarding compact
· Approximately 80~ of cars cun'ently in use are 5'- 9' wide x 15'-7 long Or less. This is
the defined small to mid-size car.
· App/cutlmately 213% of all cats are considered *large cars*. Most of which (8595 of this
camgory) are no laxget' than 6'-1" wide by 1T-2* long.
· Parking space width requirements are generally determined by adding 21' for long term, low
turnover parking areas to 2g' for high turnover parking;, 24' is most {:OwnmOldy
· Pig space length requirements are typically determined by adding e to 9" to the length
of the vehicle; 9" is most commonly used.
· Therefore:
· Approximately 97% (Le. 80% + (20% x 8595)) of all can in use are no longex
6'-1' x 17' .~*resulting im
· · Appn:Mmately 813% of cats needing spaces ?'- 9' wide x 16'- 4' long.
· * AppmximateJy 1795 of can needing spaces 8'- 1' wide x I'P- 11' long.
NOTE: For further background regarding the above information, see Exh,'bits A-D and
Attachments 3,4,5 and 8 (attached hereto).
The following Exhibits A-D, (found also in Attachment 4), clearly support thi~ conclusion and serve
to illustrate the growing prominence of small cars in the United States:
Small Car (CoreDact1 Parking.
, Rancho Cucamonga currently allows 8'x 16' compact spaces as a percentage of total project
parking. The larger s/ze compact space usually anticipates some misuse of these spaces and
therefore, can handle occasional large can.
· The most common problems regarding the use of compact parking, experienced in Rancho
Cucamonga, involve poorly located or identified spaces and enforcement Solutions to these
problems for existing pwjects, He in well-conceived parking lot design, graphics, and
enforcement of appropriate CC&R and tenant lease requirements.
· In commercial projects, especially retail where customer convenience is primary, compact
parking spaces should be located in areas where parking is less frequently used. These
areas would primarily be:
· · Spaces farthest away from building entrances
· · Low turnover puking areas such as those utHi~,ed by employees, including parking
in rear sen, ice areas. Use of these spaces should be enfoE_.~cl_ by tenants and the
landlord, through tenant leases and the CC&R's to keep full-size spaces conveniently
available to customers as much as possible.
· To the extent compact spaces are located in prime areas, developers should always provide
clear identification, painted pavement graphic-~, and a convenient mix with full-size to
encourage small can to use these spaces tint (See ITE Journal and ULI 'Parking
Requirements for Shopping Centers' publications attached).
· Many ~itiea, Rancho Cucamonga included, still have a problem with the use and
enforcement of compact parking and wish to eliminate theln. Howe~r, most cities
recop.~_~ that the great majority of vehicles fall into the 'small cat' classification. Many
alternatives have been explored, but the mint commollly ~ iS tO dowlBize the parkillg
spaco requir~nent for all vehicles, resulting in a *one aize fits all* parking since__-_ The meat
widely used size iS 8 1/2' x 18', and this size work~ 'wP..ll for literally ali vehicle~ with only
and Lca Angele~ have all adopted this standard. 'l'ae ci~e~ mentioned above, nithough
currently larger in population then Rencho Cucamonga, are appwpriate for comparison
putlx~r~ given the pcojected substantial population gnn~th of Rancho Cucamong~.
Since mint vehicles at~ "small cars", the majodty d space available should pmvidc greata
recommended door-opening clearances even when used by "large cats= (see Exltibit
Note: For funha rcsearch and baclqround, see Attachments 1 through 7.
Tnis downsi~nJ to a standard 8 1/2' · 18' spaces, will allow for appp.-:mnte, ly the same numba
of parlrin.q spaces as a lot with 20~paa cars, and totidly eliminates the curt, cot enforcement
-2-
Conclusio.: -
In our re~an:h?~,~ have r~ other pm~ ~lu~om ~d ~/ema~ ~ ~e
~mpact par~g spa~, w~ch ~lude su~fio~ such ~: k~p~g ~e spa~ ~e ~e ~d~ but
a shower len~ do~ tenth of st~dard spa~ o~, or o~er ~mb~a~o~ ~e~
~t ~temat~ ~d ~ men~[he ~t ~de]X ~ mma~ ~e r~mmenda~on
~y e~or~ment ~uei'~ ~ f~l that st~d th~ Phnn{ng ~mm~O~ may ~h to
~uc~on ~ [h~ b~ic paring ~r~men~ s~m{l~ ~o what ~ done
R~cho Cu~onga's cu=ent ord~an~ for par~g r~emen~ (~ 17.1~ B. 1) for
~mmerciaUretafl and ~ ~ ~ ~remely t~t~c~ ~d ~g. ~nd notary
b~ ~ of 4.0 ~r 1,~ SF or 1 ~r ~r ~0 SF of bufl~g m ~e~ ~ a Ion
add[tional ~ w~ch r~u~e a pro~ion for addition~ p~ ~n{ ~rha~ f~
~em~, pubic ~mbly ~d same r~r~[ional ~, ~ ~u~emes~ ~ burde~m~
not r~ the sh~ par~E ~t of tenan~ ~[~ a shopp~g ~n~r, where tenet
hou~ quite eflea do not ~ci~ It ~ a~ pr~en~ ~e d~Iopmen/t~ ~d ~e C~,
· e dilemma of not ~g h~ [o a~ura[ely pr~ct ~n~ ~sm ~ tenet ~ ~
~ pro~de the r~u~
~e U~ ~d ~fitute ~d the htema~ion~ ~un~ of Shopp~g ~a~ h~ done'
~ ~d st~ mgardhg ~g r~u~men~ for shopp~g ~n~ ~ pub~o~
?~g R~emenB for Shopp~g ~nte~: Summ~ R~mm~m ~d R~
Re~n* (a ~ of wM~ h at~ herelo for ~ ~) ~ ~e m~t au~ofi~ ~d ~d~
~pt~ pub~on on ~ sub~ I~ ~al~ par~g ~m~ ~ ~h~a m ~n~
~, me~ of ~a~ empl~ p~g, and au~mobfle s!-~ ~d p~a~ i~
~ R~endatio~
Per ~e ~ Re~ ~ fo~g ~ a su~ of ~ p~g ~m~om:
~ ~,~ SF.
· From 4.0 ~ &0 spa~ ~ a ~ pm~ ~ ~ ~ of 4~ spa~ ~ I,~
of G~ for ~ ~ ~m ~,~ ~ ~,~ SF.
· 5.0 spa~ ~ 1,~ ~ of G~ for ~ate~ ~g a G~ of ~ ~,~ ~.*
~ ~on~ ~i~
Offic~
Office space amounting up to lO percent of the total GLA can be accommodated without
providing parking in additinn to that imposed by the application of the overall parking
indice~ Ofce space in exce~ of 10 petTent of the center's GLA require~ additional
parking, although le~ than a f:ree~tanding office because of the avm']ability of parking for
dual puxposes."
· Cinemas..
'At centers with 100,0C0 to 200,000 SF of GLA having cinemas with up to 450 seats, and
at centers with over 200,000 SF of GLA having cinemas with up to 750 seats, patrons can
be accommodated' without provision d parking spaces in addition to the overall
recommended standard. Cinemas having more than this number of sea~ or cinemas located
at smaller centers, however, require a nominal three additional spaces per 100 Sea~_'
"For food services occupying up to 10 percent of the to~ GLA at centers with 100,000 SF
or le~_~. or up to 5 percent of the total GLA of centers larger than 100,1300 SF, the
differential parking demand is the follo~ng:.
· · A center with more than 2~,000 and less than 100,000 SF of total GLA require~ an
additional 10 spaces per 1,000 SF of food set~z tenant area.
·. A center having 100,000 but less than 200,000 SF of total GLA t'~lires an
additional 6.0 spaces per 1,000 SF of food service tenant area.
·- A center having 200,000 but less than 600,000 SF of total GLA r~lui~es no
additional spaces for food
·. A center with 600,000 SF or more of GLA can reduce the required parking
c~-~lat~l by using the recommended index of 5.0 spaces per 1,000 SF d GLA) by
4.0 spac~ ~ 1,000 SF of GI.A devozd to food services'.
Co,~mltion may wish to consider the ~ for additional parking only being provided for cinema
revise and simpli~ their parking requirements for r. hopping tenten to provi~ a bas~ index of
can per 1,1X}0 SF of GI.A for all sites. Funhermoz, this pwvision should ~ up to
r=t~urants (food uses with seating fanlilies) without requiting any additional parking for.centen
Vineyards Mark~tpl-n<~-~ V'wtotia Counynffi, Tetra Vista Town Center, and Ceitral Park
lopping Centen in Rancho Cucamonga are attached. The~ studie~ caln~a~ the l~tentinl
restaurant a~ens which would be allowed ,L, inl a 5/1000 ~ pn.,'king ~ For. comparison
purpus~ the parking requi~i per Rancho Cucamonga's current pnrt. l,~ Otdl,,Anee, without
consideration of uses, is also sho~n,
Case Studie~
1. Vineyards Marketp|ac~ Shopping Center.
Building Area 121,401 SF
Parldng (@ 5/1000) '607 Ca~
Parking (@ 4/1000)* 486
Difference +121 Ca~
~ddR~taurants:
BUTLrKNG PARKING RATIO PARKING
Commercial 105,001 SF 4/1000 420 Can
Fast Food Re~taurant~ 6,900 SF 1/'75 92
Sit Down Restauram~ .9,500 SF 1/100
Total 121,401 SF ~ Can
Conelusiozl
By provedins 16,400 SF of restaurant u.~ (with ~eatins facilities), 121 additional cars v,~uld be required
abo~e a base index provision of 4/1000. If 5/1000 ca~ were pwvided, the 9rejea ~ould comply.
16,400 SF/121,401 SF = 13.5~
Buffdins Area :t14,975 $F
ParidnS (@ 5/1000) 1,5'75 Ca~
Parldns (@ 1/220)*
Differenc~ +143 Can
BUn ,r~lNG PARKING RATIO PARKING?
Co,,,,,,ercial 2~2,375 SF 1fz20 SF 1,32~ Cars
Fast ~ Restauranl. ~,000 ~F 1/75 80
Sit Down Restaurants ~ 1/100 166
Total . 314,~7~ $F 1,5'75 Can
Conclusioq
By pwviding 22,600 SF of rcstauran~ 143 additional can would be required above a base ratio of 1/'220.
Y~ 5/1000 can were provided, the project w~uld comply.
Perccntae. g~B~JR~taurants: :
22,600 SF/314,9~/5 SF =
Cs.sc Studlcs
3. ' Central Pa.--k Plaza Shopping Center:.
Building A~a 112,998 SF
Parldng (@ 5/1000) ~x5 Can
Parking (@ 4/1000)* 45:2
Difference +113 Cars
Add Restaunnts:
BUn-DING PARKING RATIO PAKEING
USE AREA ~ REQUIRED
Commercial 95,99~ SF 4/1000 . 384 Can
Fa~t Feed Restaurants 3,400 SF 1]7~ 45
Sit Down Restauran~ 13.600 SF 1/100
Total 112,998 SF 565 Can
Conclub/on
By prov/dinZ 17,000 SF of restaurants ~ (with ~eadng fac~ities), 113 additional can ~uld be required
abo~e a ba~e index provision of 4/1000. If 5/1000 can were provided, the pn~ject ~ulcl comply.
~nm~urantsl
17,000 SF/I12,gS6 SF = 15.0%
4. TaTa V'ata Town Center:.
Buffdins ~ 577~59 SF
Park~ (@ Sn000) 2~9 Ce~
Park~ (@ lr~20)* Z6~
D~erence +2~2 Can
,Add Restaurants;
BUII,r~ING PARKING RATIO PARKING
Commerc{al ~35,359 SF 1/220 SF 2,433 Can
Fast Food Restaurants 9,000 SF 1/75 120
Sit Down Restaurants 33,600 SF 1/100 336
Total 577,8,59 SF 2,889 Can
* Per current City Ordinance
Conclusion
By providing 42,600 SF of restaurants, 2452 additional can would be recluired above a base ratio of 1/220.
If 5/1000 can were provided, the project would comply.
42,600 SF/S77,8.59 SF --
Since the case studies above propog a base ind~ of $/10(]0 (for the purpose of 'including
re~talLrlllt$), and the UT..[ recommendatiom allow for sim~r restaurant percentages using a sm~lbn.
base index requirement, then the allowable restaurant noted above could be adjmted slightly higher
as indicated in the pmlxasal on Page 4.
We r~commelld that the C~ty of Ra!lcho Cucamonga give serious comideratlon to rt'vising the
GiltfeDI' patkizlg ol~[;nnnc{:S ill aCCOtdSDCC with the ~ Dmpce, aJ8 conraffled
1. Creation of an 8 1/2' x 18' standard parking stall size in ~ of ~ hiring two stab siz,.
2. Simplification of tim eftsting parking requirements bagcl cm individual urns, to
Wc believe that tbcm prolx~!s w~l radically simplify tim currnt ctron:emcnt problems
C~ty of Rancbo Cucanmga, and bring the rotmerit of tl~ parking iu, in line with
effecti~ and vtcll-doctme~t~l sohtiom to these problems.
The foundtalon upon which this discussion of
pa~kjng geometrics is based is the definition of a stud car
in comparison to the standard or large car.
For purposes of this report and to establish a
uniform and macr~y adaptable terminology. oil a~tomo-
bilas and light trucks will be grouped into two classes o
sm~ and large. This basic nomenclmum is intended to
simplify the process of vehicle classification and subse-
quent parking facility design.
Extensive consideration has been given to the
ctasstcation of automobiles and light trucks according to
their footprint - the ground area covered W each vehicle
based on length t~mes width expressed in terms of square
feet (SF) or square meters (SM). The system leads to
=_~_~gnment of vehicles to one of seven classes, based on
the vehicle ,,tea in meters. Because the sin-nest cars
cove r an area of no less than 5 meters, the smaJest class
is Class 5. likewise, the largest vehicles ate in Class 11.
SMALL C).R9
Class 5 - 5.00 to 5,99 SM 53.82 to 64,57 SF
Class 6- 6.00 to 6.99 SM 64.58 to 75.34 5F
Class 7 - 7.00 to 7.99 SM 75.35 to 86.10 $F
LARGE CARS
Class 8 - 8.00 to 8.99 SPA 86.11 to 96.75 SF
Cbss 9- 9.00 to 9.9gSM 96.77 to107.63 SF
Class 10-10,00 to10.99 SM 107.64to 118.39SF
Class 11 - 11.00 to11.99SM 118.40to 129.065F
,_ SM = Square Meters
SF · Square Feet
August, Z989; liat:Lo-,,1
par~4n_~ Aesociat2.ou/
One scx~rm~ f~e,s chaz~e~, .all c~-/lazge ~ ~es
ol~¢'-~?x~-~ns~d~e~~ 8m~l
~ sal~s boun~d ~u~ tn ~ ~e be~en 14% ~d
~% from 1973 to 1~8, ~ ~n inR~m ~ A~e~
Hse in sm~l ~ ~f~ ~d timugh 1981, ~ili~ng
then, ~th ~ ave~e ~ ~% sm~ m ~ e~ ye~
~m 1983 ~m 19~. U~ng d~ from R.L Po~ ~m.
p~y on vehi~e reg~ons. ~s ~e mffimn~ e~-
~es ~at ~% of ~e ~Mdes on ~e mad M of
J~u~ I, 1989 ~ 14'-11'x~-r orsm~er. P~m-
Ing ~ ~e pe~e of m~ ~ sold e~ ye~
romans gene~ ~e, the pememge of sm~ m on
· e mM ~11 ~nue to in~e ~ ~ e~m~ ~e of
~ 2% per ye~.
Annual Automobile Sales
so.x, i i I I'1 I J"' I i I I I I i I I 'l I
~ -d----!--4--I--t-4--~-4-_!_~_d._t_j,-.4-t-~--!-4--
..,-~I~J-L-LJ-.-.LJ ~ .._ ._',', .?._
_¢_,_, ,_,,,, ,,,, ,_, i_, ,_
3o~~'~ 'tI I t ! ! I ! t m I ! ! I !
II II I'111111111
mo%'T j'T'~'i'F'r'FT'i'I"T'FT'
,rm -I--4--I.--!--+-I--~--f--!-+-
Figure E
w~ecommmo~ed C,,4del 4.es
August, 1989; Nat:Loual.
ZXItIBIT B Consultants Council
~'~'~ach passenger c.,.- model as mr~orted t~
Automotive News ~n~ 1980 have been ~ul~ ~
· e ~ses pm~ou~ ~fined (Rgure ~. CI~ 10 ~d
CI~ 11 ~hldes, ~i~ ~ gene~ ~er 1~' In
bn~ ~d ~ in ~, ~ve de~n~ ~m ~ mu~ ~
14% of ~nu~ s~es in 1982, to ~ of~e m~et in 1988.
~J~ A~O ~ BY ~ '
FIGURE F
It has also been repoded thin several Japanese
manufacturers iraend to produce "large" vehicles forme
first time, However, the proposed large Japanese cars
will stir be less than ~ x 1T, which would place them in
Class 9.
Others have noted the marked Increase In light
truck, van, and ublty vehlc~e sales, and the increasl~
use of those vehlc~es in everyday personal transport
actlvffie~
These vehicles have not been included in the Pas-
sengerCa'Study (Figure F")
Zxcerpted
wRj~comende~t Gu.'l~e, 14nes f~oF
Vark~ug Geometz~-c~"· August
1989; Naci~'~ par~'~ssoc
Paricing CotmuStangs Counci~
In a study of~q4~l vehfde saJ,..he 851h percan-
tile ve - es 5 to 7 has been stable since
10;~t l4'-8*xS'-r,$imiJ~rtoal985FordTemPo. while
ecDned fro -2' x 6'-5't "17'-2'x6'-1'(Figu ).
hielee, it is mason~ly ~onsistent with previous studies.
The previously referenced study m which used vehicle
registrations nationwide as of January 1,1983. found the
851h percentile vehicles to be 14'-8' x 5'-7' for smaJl ca~s
~nd 18%4® x 6`-7' for large cars.
The design vehicles for the na~onal mix of auto-
mobiles on the road as of January 1, 1989, have been
Conservatively estlmmed to be as follows:
$maJI Cars 14'-8' x
Large Cars 18'-0' x 6'-8'
It Is Interesting to note tha~ during this period
(1983-1988), the design vehicle for sm;dl cars has re-
mained quite stable. but that the design vehicle for large
cars has declined. aspedidly In length.
DESGN VEHICLES BY CALENDAR Y'r. AR SALES.'
..... leelCa'(ctaee~l-/'l t, eWCw(Claeml- I1)
TeN 14.7 L7 13J I1,/ M 114J
FIGURE H
park4ng Coastalcants CouDc~LJ.
LARGE CAR: 36~ ///~ /
~ , SMAlI. CAII~64~ 24'T~
~ '~ 'tARGE CAR' - 6'-5' X 17'-6° i 90°
COMPACT/FULL SIZE PARKING
z-s--4'~z-~-~,~_s_z_s.4,~ ,t~z_9.USING 8 1/2" X 18' SPACE FOR ALL
I~l(jtlre 5 ~
Observed Design Hour
Parking Demand ,
m--Observed Center Perking Demand ·
(Note Ihlt larger m:luarel depict multlpl/ob~erfsllonl )
lot Je
t8 l~lex
R~re 1
ecommended Shopping Cenler
Parking Indices
Z
8.000
_:t
7.000
H 6.000
~.1
C~ ~ cn
~ ::~
4,000
2.000
,.0 e Grosl Leasable Area (1,000 square feet)
rs ~ ~ q I. The 8munt o! dell above this potnl is limited. bul suggests · ~lec~eeelng Index.
BrBLIOGRAPffy
Attachment
I Box, P.C, K~nig, N.S.
'Parking Layout Dimension C, uidetinem'
Iastitut~ of Trart~portatjon Engineers Journal, April 1984
2 City of Anahcim Planning Department
pl.nnlng Commk~ion Meeting
Minutes of September 2~, 1989
3 Ke. neipp, J'. M. 'Parking Dem,,d'
Kencipp, I. M. 'Design for Small Can'
Parking Consultants Couacfi, National Pa~king Association
'l'ae Dimensiom of Parking', Second Edition
Washington: Urban Land Institute and National Paxking Auociation, 1983
4 'Recommend_~d Guidelines for Parking Gu:nnettics", August 1989
National Parking Association/Parking Cons~tn.~ CoLm~ Parkiag Spa~ Staadanh
'5'hopping Center Parking: The fn~uenc~ of Chnging Car Sizes'
Chapter 3, 'Car Size and Parking Stall/Aisle C, gomewy
International Council of Shopping C, cnte, n, 1984
6 Technical Councfi Com,,,Ittec 5D-8, Imtitum of 'rtamponadon Engineen
'Cvuide./ines for Parking FacUlty Ltx:a~on and D,~d.m,", May 1990
7 Weaat, ~ 'The In~UPuaC~ Of SmaH@.Z Carl oa Plrlcin.~ C. wt~:}llgtl~
Transportation Quaz~, VoL 39, No. 3, July 191~
8 Urban T~,,d Iastitut~, 'l'ar~g Requbcments Eor Shopping Centco: Summ~,
Rea~,mendadom and Research Study Report. W,~h;,,Sto,,- Urban T ~ lmtitutc,
SHOPPING CENTER PARKING
REQUIREMENTS STUDY
Prepared for:.
TWE CITY OF RANC'~O CUCAMONGA
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cur~monga, CA 91729
pn~n TECHNOLOGIES
650 1~ Hosplt~llty lane
Suite 350
San Bernardlno CA 92408
JTdLY1992
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SHOPPING CENTER PARKING STUDY
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SectiOn p~g~
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................ i
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................. 1
2.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING CITY ORDINANCE ......................... 2
3.0 SURVEY OF OTHER CITIES ..................................... 3
4.0 REVIEW OF SELECTED EXISTING CENTERS ....................... 4
5.0 EVALUATION OF URBAN LAND INSTITUTE PARKING STUDY ......... 7
(i.0 PARKING SURVEY ........................................... 10
7.0 CASE STUDY ................................................ 11
8.0 USES GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ......................... 12
9.0 DESIGN DEMAND ........................................... 15
10.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................. 17
1L0 RECOMMENDED REVISION TO THE CITY PARKING ORDINANCE .... 18
12.0 EFFECT ON EXISTING CENTERS ............................... 21
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. L/ST OF CITIES TO BE SURVEYED ......................... 3
2. SURVEY QUESTIONS .................................... 3
3. SUMMARY MATRIX OF SURVEY RESPONSES .............. 3
4. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY AT SURVEY SITES ............. 11
5 PARKING SURVEY RESULTS ............................. 11
6. PARKING CHARACTERISTICS AT CI--~I.I'S RESTAURANT ..... 12
7, PARKING CHARACTERISTICS AT COCO'S/SALS1TAS
RESTAURANT ......................................... 13
8, EFFECT OF COMBINED RESTAURANT AND CINEMA PEAK
PARKING ............................................. 15
9. COMPARISON OF THE PARKING SUPPLY AT EXISTING
PROPOSED REQUIREMENT 21
CENTER TO THE ..............
LIST OF FIGURES
Fi_n~e Pa,ee
1. TOWN CENTER SITE LAYOUT AND PARKING ZONES ....... 10
2, TERRA VISTA Vu I AGE LAYOUT AND PARKING ZONES .... 10
3 TOWN CENTER PARKING ACCUMULATION ................
4 TERRA VISTA V~tlAGE PARKING ACCUMULATION ........ 11
5 CIffu .rS PARKING ACCUMULATION ....................... 12
6. COCO'S/SALSHTAS PARKING ACCUMULATION ............. 13
7. RESTAURANT PARKING COMPONENT OF TOTAL PARKING .. 13
8. EFFECT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON TERRA VISTA
TOWN CENTER ........................................ 21
' ORDINANCE ON
9. EFFECT OF pROPOS~'~B TERRA VISTA
Vrr IA. GE ..............................................
EXEC~ SUIVI1VxARY
The City of Rancho Cucamonga has experienced extensive growth in recent years. As a pan
of that growth, retail commercial centers have increased in the City. One aspect of the
planning process for those centers, parking requirements, has come into question~ The
City's current ordinance requires that parking equal to the sum of the parking requirements
of individual land uses in the center be provided. This figure is difficult for staff to obtain
as the parking requirement must be fixed in the planning process, but centers are typically
not fully leased until the construction stage.
Developers typically must make assumptions about their tenant mix in order for the staff
to determine the parking requirement. If that tenant mix is not obtainable in the leasing
process, the developer must fred uses with similar or lower parking requirements to fill the
space or provide more parking on site. As a result, staff might be required to recalculate
parking requirements several times for the same site using different tenant mixes.
In order to simplify the process of determining parking requirements for shopping centers
several developers proposed adoption of the Urban Land Institute (ULI) "Parking
Requirements for Shopping Centers". The City retained the services of P&D Technologies
to determine the suitability of these requirements for the City of Rancho C'ucamonga.
.P&D Technologies utiliTed a three pan approached to thi~ study: first survey other agencies
m the area to determine their shopping center requirements; second, make a detailed
.analysis of the ULI recommendations; and, finally, perform an in depth survey of two sites
m the city to compare existing parking characteristics with the existing ordinance and
proposed requirements.
The survey of other agencies reflected a wide range of approaches from samruing individual
land uses similar to the current ordinance, to one city that adopted an ordinance very similar
to what was proposed for Rancho Cucamonga. An in depth review of the ULI study
revealed an impressive mount of survey data. The case studies done by ULI tended to be
located east of the Mississippi River (11 out of 15), however, a good portion of the
qtiestionnnires were done in C~Hfornia. The Study iS somewhat dated, but the data sill
appear to have validity.
A detailed Hcense plate survey was conducted at the Tetra Vista Town Center and Tetra
Vista Vffiage. Both those surveys found parking characteristics Similar tO that identified in
the UIJ; further correlating that study to the City. Additional analysis of the survey data
revealed information about restaurant and cinema use which was considered in the
recommendation Finally, an analysis Of the peak parking demand was made using an aerial
photo taken during the peak Christmas shopping season and related to a design day.
Bused on the study effort, a recommendation is made that: for shopping centers less than
25,000 square feet parking be required based on individual uses; and for centers from 25,000
to 600,000 square feet, parking be required at 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of-gross
leasable area; and for centers from 600,000 to 1,000,000 square feet parking be required at
:5.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross leasable area. The parking requirement will include
food service uses up to 15% of the gross leasable area, but some additional parking for
cinema-~ of certain size in combination with certain sized centers, will be required. The
study concludes with a review of the effect of the proposed ordinance On eXiSting centers.
,P- .,.~
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The City of Rancho Cuc~monga has experienced extensive growth in recent years. With
that growth has come a large. demand for retail commercial services, which is being
anqwered by a vnmber of shopping center developments currently underway or planned in
the City. Processing of these developments has brought to light dff-ficultles in implementing
the City's existing parking ordinance as it relates to shopping centers.
From the City staffs perspective, the main difficulty with the currein ordinance is having to
obtain the type of use proposed for every space in a proposed center, then calculating
individual and total parking requirements. If a lessee changes during the process, the
parking requirement must be recalculated. The development community iS constrained by
the ordinance because they generally do not know the specific use that might lease a
particular space. They must either provide parking for the most intense use or choose a
particular use, then limit their marketing to those category of businesses. This can result
in a limited tenant mix, plus, while spaces are ~mleased, loss of City sales tax revenue.
In response to thi~ situation, members of the region's development COmmunity have
proposed a modification to the City's ordinance based on recommendations made in the
Urban Land Institute (ULI) "Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers". The purpose
of this parking study iS to analyze the City's parking requirement and the proposed
modification and recommend changes, ff any, to the parking ordinance for shopping centers.
The approach used in thi.~ study entail-~ three steps: first, survey other agencies in the area
to determine their shopping center parking requirements; second, evaluate the applicability
of the ULI recommendations to the City of Rancho Cuc~monga through a detailed analysiS
of the report; and finally, perform a license plate parking survey at Terra ViSta Town Center
to compare actual parking characteristics at a known site to the existing Ordinance, proposed
OrdinanCe and other typical parking requirements.
1
,, ~.,r~ _~..
2.0 REVIEW OF THE EXISTING CITY PARKING ORDINANCE
The City's current paxking ordinance was adopted in 1984 and has only been modified
slightly since then, The code was derived from two sources; a telephone survey of other
cities and the pre-existing County of San Bernardino parking ordinance. Those elements
thought best out of each of the sources were combined into the current City parking
ordinance. No paxking studies were performed. The City's existing parking code is provided
in Appendix A.
A~ can be seen, numerous exceptions exist to the general base rate for commercial
developments. These exceptions create great dlf-~culty for the City P]~nnln~ Sta.~ in
determining how much paxking a shopping center must provide. A developer does not
always know what type of use will occupy leasable area. As a result, the developer often
provides less paxking than required for the more intense uses, setting the stage for
disagreements over allowable uses.
Conversely, if a particular use is anticipated in a space, and parking is provided at the rate
of that use, but the lease is not signed, certain other uses axe prohibited due to lack of
parking. Not only does this limit the shopping center developer, but gives City staff the
additional task of determining parking adequacy for each use before issuing occupancy
permits. In summary, the existing code is dif~cult to implement and administer, and at
times is a constraint to leasing.
2
3.0 SURVEY OF LOCAL AGENCIES
It 'has been about eight years since the City did a survey of other dries to assist in
determining its parking requirements. As the first step in accomplishing the current parking
requirement review, a telephone survey of 13 dries in the Southern C.,qllfornla region was
undertaken These cities were chosen due to their similarity tO Rancho Cucamonga in terms
of size and growth patterns. Four of the dries are in San Bernardlno County, three each
in Orange and San Diego Counties and two each in Riverside and Los Angeles Counties.
The survey was conducted over several days in the first week of February 1992. Table 1 lists
the cities surveyed and some population and sales data about each.
The response of the dries surveyed was quite mixed. Some provided for one base rate for
all shopping centers regardless of size, others had rates for different sized centers. One city
used no base rate and several others used a general retail rate for all but certain high
intensity uses. The majority of the dries surveyed, about 93%, required addlrional parking
for restaurants and other special uses, such as fast food, cinema and office. Of all the Cities
surveyed, Cadsbad was the only one that required no additional parking for these special
uses. The range of base rates among the cities surveyed was from a low of 33/1000 to
5.5/1000 SF as a high. The City of Corona was not include in this range because subjective
judgemerits would have been required regarding the percent of aisle and turning space
provided. Table 2 lists the survey questions while Table 3 is a matrix summary of the survey
responses.
3
TABLE 1
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQUIREMENTS STUDY
LISTING OF CITIES TO BE SURVEYED
CITY COUNTY POPULATION ANNUAL SALES PER CAPITA
[1] [2] SAI,F-S
RANCHO SAN BERN. 115,000 $476,610,000 $4,144
CUCAMONGA
CARLSBAD SANDIEGO 63,500 $849~84,000 $13,375
ESCONDIDO SANDIEGO 104,200 $1,523,058,000 $14,617
VISTA SANDIEGO 67,800 $327,832,000 $4,835
WEST COVINA LOS ANGELES 94,500 $754,143,000 $7,980
SANTA CLAR1TA LOS ANGELES 121~00 $9612.57,000 $7,931
IRVINE ORANGE 102,400 $1,948,010,000 $19,024
ORANGE ORANGE 107,700 $109,967,800 $1,02 1
LAGUNA NIGL ORANGE 47,700 N/A [3] N/A[3]
CORONA RIVERSIDE 70,000 $792,820,000 $11,326
MORENO VAL RIVERSIDE 114,900 $406~50,000 $3,538
ONTARIO SAN BERN. 129.300 $1~264,753,000 $9,782
CHINO SAN BERN. 59,600 $503.324,000 $8,445
RIALTO SAN BERN. 70.300 $327,157,000 $4,654
NOTESi
[1] POPULATION FOR CrHES FROM STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
MAY 1,1990
[2] ANNUAL RETAn, SAI-~S FROM 'TAXABLE SA~ -~S IN CA~ ,rvORNIA",
STATE BOARD OF EQUAI-17.&TION, 1990
[3] NOT AVAIl ABI
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQ'UIREMENTS
.~ ,~
TABLE 2
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQUIREMENTS STUDY
SURVEY OF OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES PARKING CODES
SURVEY QUESTIONS
1. What is the base parking rate required under your current parking code for shopping
centers?
2. Does the parking rate vary depending on the size and type of shopping center?
3. Are there special parking standards in addition to the base rate for such uses as
restaurant? office? cinema? other?
4. Does your parking oralnnnce have a provision for shared parking? If so, how are
shared parking standards calculated?
5. When was current parking ordinance adopted? Please send us a copy.
6. Was a parking study prepared to determine parking standards? If so, please send us
a copy.
7. Are you satisfied with your existing parking ordinance?
8. Are you plnnning to revise your parking OrdlnnnC~ in the near future?
4.0 REVIEW OF EXISTING CENTERS
A review of several representative centers in the City was undertaken to establish a base
line of the type commercial development occurring in the City. That baseLine can then be
considered when comparing the ordinances of other cities and the ULI Study to the City of
Rancho Cucamonga. Aspects of the developments that were of particular interest were the
size, layout, design, and types of uses. Also, if any parking problems were evidenced.
Centers reviewed for this effort were:
Vineyards Marketplace
Central Park Plaza
Foothill Village
Music Plus Center
Rancho Town Center
Terra Vista Village
Terra Vista Town Center
In general the centers were of the neighborhood size, being less than 200,000 square feet.
The retail centers at Vineyards Marketplace, Central Park Plaza and Terra Vista Town
Center have not yet been completely built out. They still have additional phases to come.
Foothill Village and Rancho Town Center both had a number of vacant spaces, one was
especially large, a former Gemco Dep~Laxent store in Rancho Town Center.
The centers were observed at various times during the day and no parking problems were
observed. Due to the timing of the study, however, this review took place in March and
April, it was a typically slow time for retail centers. Some operational conflicts were
observed at the Music Plus Center, but they appeared to be related to the grade differential
between the street and the site, a restricted entry drive and the internal cixculation system,
not a shortage of parking. Overall, that site was small and seemed cr~mped. Agnin, these
observations were obviously influenced by the ~me of year, vacancies, incomplete projects
and a generafly down economy.
Vineyards Marketplace - Milliken Avenue and Highland Avenue
This project is located on the southeast corner of MilHk:en Avenue and I--Ij~hland Avenue
with Woodruff Place to the east and Kenyon Way to the south. Currently the development
consists primaxily of inline buildingS with one satellite pad under construction and four
others available for future development. A total of 121,401 square feet have been approved
for development. Current city code required 494 parking spaces (plus 5 for motorcycles), and
526 spaces were provided for a ratio of 433/1000 square feet.
Land adjacent to the site is currently vacant. Uses occupying the center included an ~nlmal
hospital, pet supply, dentist (future), Say-On Drugs, Postal Annex, gift store, kitchen wares
store, dry cleaner, beauty salon, card/gifts, photo studio, Albertsons, and a nail salon A
Mobile gas station occupied a pad off the Millil~en Avenue access and the pad under
construction advertised video rentals, a comic books store, balloons and a printers. Future
pads were located adjacent to the other access drives into the site.
4
Central Park Plaza - Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road
This project is located on the south east comer of Milliken Avenue and Baseline Road with
Terra Vista Parkway to the south and to the east, Ellena West. The project is only partially
constructed, but will ultimately contain 113,575 square feet of gross leasable area. Ralph's
Groceries is the anchor tenant and is currently occupyLag the site. A total of 522 parking
spaces were provided, for a ratio of 4.60/1000 square feet
Approximately 86,000 square feet of building will be inline, including the Ralph's. The
remaining 27,500 square feet will be located on five satellite pads along the west and north
sides of the site. One access driveway is provided from each of the adjacent streets except
for Satellite West, which has an additional access point into the rear of the inline buildings
for deliveries. A bus turnout and shelter is located on Baseline Road in front of the project.
Foothill Village - FOOthill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue
The project is located on the southeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue
extending to Helms Avenue on the east. The site is served by three access points, one from
Foothill Boulevard another from Hellman Avenue and the last from Helm~ Avenue. The
site consists of 86,801 square feet of building forming an L shape along the east and south
sides of the site. Parlcing required was 432 spaces and 433 spaces are provided, for a
parking ratio of 4.99/1000 GLA. ..
A free standing building on the west side of the site is adjacent to the Hellman Avenue
enkn7. A second freestanding building is adjacent to the Foothill Boulevard entry in the
middle of the site on the north side. A Taco Bell is free standing at the comer of Foothill
Boulevard and Helm~ Avenue. A number of vacancies existed at the time of the review.
Uses occupying the site at the time included: a dry cleaners, House of Fabric, clothing
store, nail salon, Chuck E. Cheese, Century 21, Hallmark, pet supply, shoe store,
market/dell, tv repair, video rental.
Music Plus Center -Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue.
The site is located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue. It
is the smallest site reviewed with only 28,515 sq,,~re feet of gross leasable area and was
developed under the County jurisdiction. Parking provided on site is 144 for a parld~g ratio
of 5.0/1000 GLA. The development consisted of one inline segment and one pad. Music
Plus shares the pad with a video rental, while the inline includes: ClothesTime, Kids Mart,
Petco, Payless Shoes, nail salon, Super Cuts, care, and an auto parts store.
Rancho Tow~ Center - Foothill Boulevard
This development is located just west of the Music Plus Center on Foothill Boulevard. The
site is a series of inline buildings arranged in a U shape away from Foothill Boulevard. The
site consists of 170,410 gross leasable square feet and was required 852 parking spaces, 830
were provided giving a parking ratio of 4.88/1000 GLA. Both thi~ center and the Music
plus center were developed under the County jurisdiction prior to Rancho Cucamonga
incorporation. The planning Depa~Lment was unable to definitively determine the
conditions of approval.
The anchor tenant had been a Gemco Department store which closed with the rest of that
cbain_ The building is currently vacant. The remaining uses include: Kragen Auto Pans,
an art gallery, video rental, H&R Block, insurance, clothing stores, pet store, chiropractor,
Chinese restaurant, Standard Brands Paint, dentist, nail salon, photos, travel agent, beauty
salon, mattress store, and Nnmero Uno Pro. A gas station is located between the two
access driveways off Foothill Boulevard.
Terra Vista Villa~e - Baseline Road and Haven Avenue
The center is located on the northeast comer of Baseline Road and Haven Avenue with
Valencia Avenue framing the site on the north and west. The development consists of a
series of shops inl~ne along the north and west side of the site. The site totals 136,740
square feet of gross leasable building area~ Parking required was 704 spaces and 704 spaces
were provided. Equivalent parking ratio is 5.1/1000 square feet.
The anchor tenants are Hughes Market and Longs Drugs. The site also includes: Cloth
World, Tarbell realtors, a bank, clothing stores, Mailboxes Etc., professional office suites,
beauty salon, J.C. penny catalog outlet, and several restaurants, Noble House, Coco's,
Salsitas and Burger King. This center was the site of an in-depth parking survey discussed
later in thug report.
Terra Vista Town Center - Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue
This center iS located on the northeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Haven Avenue.
It is currently the largest shopping center in the City with 578,341 square feet of
development approve& All of the ~nline shops have been built, however, a n~mber of the
satellite pads are yet to be constructed. Total parking requirement for the site was 3,271
spaces and 3,306 spaces were provided for a parking ratio of 5.7/1000 GLA.
Anchor tenants include: Target, Mervyn's, Montgomery Ward, and Service Merchandise.
An Edwards theater which seats 1426 is a major tenant, as is Ross. The center also
includes: a food court, suites for professional offices, a financial court (to be constructed)
and a ~mber of restaurants. To date only Cl~il~'s restaurant has been constructed. This
center was the site of an in-depth parking survey, discussed later in the report.
5.0 EVALUATION OF THE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE STUDY
Because adequate parking is one of the most important components of a shopping cemer,
that industry has sought out information on parking demand which could be used as
standards for parking requirements. For that purpose the International Council of Shopping
Centers funded a study of parking demand undertaken by the Urban I And Institute. The
report, enti~ed "Parldn~ Requirements for Shopping Centers: Summary_ Recommendations
and Research Study Report" summarizes the results of that study and recommends parking
ratios based on shopping center size and make-up.
The most siLZnificant aspect of the study is the abundance of data that was collected.
Questionnaires describing site parking demand characteristics were received from 506
shopping centers. Additionally, 135 centers conducted three day parking accumulation
studies. Twenty-two centers provided data for an entire year. Fifteen in-depth surveys were
done at selected centers.
The ULI Study considered the size, location and employment at centers, as well as the
characteristics of the users such as: method of travel, vehicle occupancy, travel time, length
of stay, and the season of the year. The primary emphasis of the study was, however, the
parking demand observed at the cemers. Parking surveys for the study were conducted on
the Friday after Thanksgiving, and three Saturdays preceding Christmas. The holiday period
between Thanksgiving and Christmas is considered the peak parking demand period of the
year.
The Concent of "Desitm Hour"
Parking lot design, as with highway design, is not aimed at the absolute annual peak period.
Experience has shown that the cost of supplying highway, or parking lot capacity, for a peak
period which may only occur for a brief period a few time per year, is not justified by the
benefit Design is typically based on some point below the absolute highest peak that will
provide s-fficient capacity for most situations. This concept is generally referred to as the
design hour, or design volume. No fixed rule exists for determining the design hour,
however, either the 20th highest hour, or 851h percentlie of demand is often used. The ULI
Study utilized the 20th highest hour.
Based on the information in the study report, the 20th highest hour would equal
respectively, 80% of the parking demand for centers larger than 400,000 square feet, 90%
of the demand at centers between 60,000 and 400,000 square feet and 95% of demand
between 25,000 and 60,000 square feet. The study further reports that the selected design
hour will result in 19 hours over 10 days, each year, in which some patrons will be nnable
to find parking immediately upon entering a center.
ULI Recommended ParIcing Indices
The parking demand percentages discussed above were obtained by reviewing the Annual
parking acc~,mulation data (22 samples) and locating the 20th highest hour of demand. The
percentage of the peak demand the 20th highest hour represented was then calculated. It
was those percentages that were applied to the larger sample (135) of peak (holiday) survey
7
data. For example: if the average of the 20th highest hour parking demand volumes
represented 80% of the peak demand at centers of a particular size, the peak holiday
-demand recorded at other centers of that size range were factored by 80% and a parIcing
indices calculated from that demand. All of those indices were then averaged to determine
the recommended parking indices, by shopping center size. The recommended ULI parking
indices were as follows:
4.0 spaces per 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area (GLA)
for centers having a GLA of 25,000 to 400,000 square feet;
· from 4.0 to 5.0 spaces in a linear progression, with an average
of 4.5 spaces per 1000 GLA, for centers having from 400,000 to
600,000 square feet;
5.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of GLA for centers having a
GLA of over 600,000 square feet.
Because certain uses in shopping centers affect parking demand more than others, these
uses are given special consideration in determining p.arking requirements. Uses identified
in thi~ catego~/are offices, cinemas, and food serwce. With respect to office uses the
recommendations of the ULI Study are that 10% of the total gross leasable area GLA can
comprise office space without providing additional parking.
The ULI Study found that peak parking demands at cinemas typically do not coincide with
shopping center peak demands and therefore require only a nominal amount of additional
parking based on the size of the center and theater. ULI recommendations are 3 additional
parking spaces for every 100 seats for cinemas occupying up to 10% of the GLA in centers
less than 100,000 square feet. In centers of 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of GLA cinema-q
up to 450 seats need no additional parking and a nominal 3 spaces per 100 seats above 450
seats. Shopping centers over 200,000 square feet of GLA up to 750 seats can be
accommodated without additional parking, and for every 100 seats above 750 an additional
3 .spaces are recommended.
The ULI study determined that for centers more than 25,000, but less than 100,000 up to
10% of the GLA could be food service without adding parking but ff it exceeds 10% of the
GLA then 10 additional spaces are redluired for each 1000 GLA of restaurant. Larger
centers, however, from-200,000 to 600,000 GLA were found to need no additional parking
for food service' ff those uses did not exceed 5% of the total GLA of the center. More than
5% would require and additional 6 spaces per 1000 GLA of food service. For centers over
600,000 square feet, the ULI indices allow for a reduction of parking of 4.0 spaces per 1,000
GLA of food service.
AnDlieabilitv to Raneho Cueamon~a
Although the study sponsored by the ULI drew upon a tremendous amount of data, issues
should be considered when applying the results to the City of Rancho C'ucamonga. Issues
of concern include: the report was publhhed ten years ago, 1982, and the data utilized was
probably somewhat older. At the lime of the study several high parking generators, such
a~ video rental store, health dubs and n~tll Salons, did not exist or were not as prevalent as
8
they axe today. Mr. William Hurrell who participated in the study, stated that some changes
in paxking generation may have occurred. He specifically mentioned discount stores such
as Price Club and Costco and factory ou~et stores.
In its discussion of both office and cinema, the study specifically included both free standing
and incorporated facilities. In food service, no mention was made of free standing uses.
This may be a reflection of changes in design in the ten years since the study was prepared,
as few of the in-depth case studies had any free standing uses. Today most all centers have
a m~mber of satellite pads for fast food or other uses. In conversation with Mr. Hurrell he
indicated that the ULI recommendations on food service were related to those establish-
ments contained in the center, and that free standing restaurants should be considered
separate because their use is not tied to the center.
Finally, although California is well represented in the questionnaire and again in the three
day surveys, only four of the 15 in-depth studies were conducted west of the Mississippi.
Three were in California; two in the north and one in San Diego.
Other Literature Reviewed
As another method of evaluating the ULI Study other paxking studies were reviewed. These
included: "Shared Parking" also conducted by ULI, "Parking" by the ENO Foundation and
the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Parking Generation" 2nd Edition
&0 PARKING SURVEY
In order to determine the effect of these issues of the application of the ULI study to
Rancho Cuc~monga, a detailed parking study was conducted.
urve Methodolo
A license plate parking survey was conducted on January 31, 1992 and February 1, 1992 at
the Terra Vista Town Center and Terra Vista Village. These dates are a Friday and
Saturday, which are typically the peak parking days at shopping centers. Parking at the
centers was subdivided into zones of parking, defined by internal circulation roads (see
Figures 1 and 2). Survey personnel walked through the site once each hour. They recorded
the first or last 3 digits of the license m~mber of each car parked. Each space is accounted
for on each circuit, if a space is empty it is left blank.
P&D Technologies wrote an analysis program in BASIC to analyze the survey data. The
primary outputs of the program are the hourly acc~,mulation of parked caxs, by zone, over
the entire site; the hourly and overall utilization percentage of existing parking spaces, by
zone, and over the entire site; the turnover rate of parked cars, the total vehicle hours and
the average duration of parking. Also the program formatted the data so that the
acc~mulation and utilization percentages could be easily graphed. Definitions of these
parking characteristic~ are as follows:
1) Hourly Accumulation - s~m of the number of
occupied spaces, by hour.
2) Percent UtiliT-ation - the hourly accHmulation
divided by the total number of spaces.
3) Turnover - the number of different cars parked
divided by the number of parking spaces. In
order to determine the number of different cars,
the program reads the license m~mbers of the
c~rs parked in consecutive hours and then
compares them. Each new license is flagged and
the tabulated. This process is repeated for each
succeeding hour.
4) Vehicle Hours - the total ~mber of vehicles
counted in the survey during the entire day
divided by the m~mber of survey periods per
hour.
5) Avenge Duration - the vehicle hours divided by
the Dnmber of different vehicles.
10
, , INDICATES
, , FUTURE
L .....J BUILDING
EDWARDS
C I NEMA
5
TARGET MERVYN 'S
-~ ~ 11
' ' !~~_~~,1 ~ IDNTGDMER
Z
bJ T
> ~
Z
L_ 3 8
FBBTHILL 9DULEVARD
TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER 8 P&D Technologies FIgure
650 Hospitality Lane, Ste 350
SITE LAYOUT &PARKING ZONES San Sernardino, Ca 92408 1
~ ~ LDNGS
~RUG
~LOTHE
IORLD
SALSITA 4
223
__ HUGHES
~[~] I MARKET
~ 7 8
BASE LINE RDAB
TERRA VISTA VILLAGE'i FIgure
7.0 CASE STUDIES
- Parking surveys were conducted at two shopping centers in the City to use as case studies
in analyzing parking ratios. The surveys were conducted from 10AM to 8PM on a Friday
and Saturday at each center. The centers surveyed were the Terra Vista Town Center at
Foothill and Haven and Terra Vista Village at Baseline Road and Haven. These centers
were determined to be representative of a small to medium and large center. The surveys
were performed on January 31, and February 1, 1992. Some additional surveys were
conducted during February to augment data lost due to rain.
In order to convert the survey results into a parking ratio, it is necessary to know the total
occupied square footage. Lewis Homes, the owner and manager of both sites provided a
listing of the square footage leased and vacant at each site as well as the number of parking
spaces for each site. A sHmmal'y of that listing iS in Table 4.
TABLE 4
DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY OF SURVEY SITES
Tern Vista Town Center Tern Vista Village
Approved Development 579,270 136,169
Currently Constructed 487,549 136,169
Vacant 97,183 4,070
Occupied During Survey 390,366 132,099
Parking Provided 3,306 704
The results of the hourly paricing survey are summarized in Table 5. Figures 3 and 4
illustrates the results graphically. As can be seen from both the Figures and Table, parking
utiliTntion during the survey period did not exceed 60.4% of the spaces at Terra Vista
Village (Friday at noon) or 29.5% of the spaces at Tetra Vista Town Center (Saturday
2:00PM). Those results should be viewed with the understanding that the survey was
conducted during a relatively slow time of the year for retail sales, and in the case of Tetra
Vista Town Center, more than 20% of the leasable floor space is vacant.
Parking, Indices Determined Durin~ Survey
The vacancy factor can be accounted for by excluding vacant floor space from the parking
index calculation For exnmple, dividing the total number of parking spaces occupied (as
determined by the parking survey Table 5) by the square footage of occupied leased space,
in thousands (from Table 4), you obtnln the parking ratio:
TERRA VISTA VY[ .1 AGE 426/132 = 32 GLrS parked per 1000 sq. ft. occupied space
TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER 1004/390.4 = 2.6 cars per 1000 sq. fL occupied space
11
.:,|
TABLE 5
PARKING SURVEY RESULTS
TERRA VISTA VILLAGE
FRIDAY SATURDAY
TIME CARS PERCENT CARS PERCENT
PARKED UTILIZED PARKED UTILIZED
10:00AM ' 260 36.8 281 38.6
11:00 316 44.8 391 57.3
1:00 PM 383 54.3 345 49.5
2:00 332 47.0 312 46_3
3:00 317 44.9 323 47.0
4:00 327 46.3 304 44.3
5:00 373 52.9 280 40.0
6:00 407 57.7 316 41.0
7:00 364 51.6 282 35.9
8:00 PM 303 42.9 253 31.0
TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER
FRIDAY SATURDAY
TIME CARS PERCENT CARS PERCENT
PARKED UTILIZED PARKED UTILIZED
10:00AM 511 12.8 410 12.0
11:00 731 16.2 609 17.9
12 NOON 804 20.1 761 22.4
1:00 PM 798 20.7 902 26.5
3:00 657 19.8 914 26.9
4:00 579 175 839 24.7
5:00 640 16.5 631 18.6
6:00 592 16.1 602 17.7
7:00 571 17.2 560 16.5
8:00 PM 563 15.9 487 143
TERRA VISTA VILLAGE FRIDAY AND SATURDAY PARKING DEMAND
800
700 w. · · · ,ss. · -w- ss. .w · ·
I I Friday
600
~ Salurday
500
City Requlremenl
~ 400
,~,
""' ~>
300
200
100
0 i
10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 1000 19,00 Z01~u
Tinle of Day
TERRA VISTA VILLAGE m P&D Technologies FlOurs
650 Hospitality Lane, Ste 350
PARKING ACCUMULATION sanBernardino, Ca 92408 3
TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER FRIDAY AND SATURDAY PARKING DEMAND
3500
3OO0
2500 I I Friday
~ Saturday
2000
City Requlremenl
1500
1000
I I I I t I I
10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00
TIme of Day
TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER g P&D Technologies Figure
650 Hospitality Lane. Ste 350
PARKING ACCUMULATION san Bernardino, Ca 92408 4
8.0 USES GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION
Certain uses that are often included in shopping centers have unique parld.ng characteristics
that may not be slmila/' to the overall shopping center parking characteristic. These uses
were singled out in the ULI Study for special consideration, and similarly are here exnrnined
individually to determine their impact on the overall parking index, and consequently, how
they should be addressed in any parking ordinance.
Restaurant
A use identified in the ULI study as requiring special consideration, and one included as an
exception to base rates in the phone survey for all cities that had exceptions was the
restaurant category. It is usually broken into categories such as fast food or drive-in and sit
down, fnrnily or quality, tO reflect differences in the turn over rate at different types of food
service.
Several free standing restaurants are located at the centers surveyed. This has provided an
opportunity to analyze theix parking demand separate from the rest of the center. Because
parking for all the uses is common, it can not be definitively determined that cars parked
in the vicinity of those restaurants are those of restaurant patrons. However, based on the
proximity of the lots chosen for the restaurant analysis and the time those uses peaked most
other stores in the centers were closed, the assumption is reasonable.
The most clearly delineated parking situation is for Chili's at Tetra Vista Town Center. The
restaurant site is located on the southern most boundary of the site, next to an access
driveway. Adjacent to the building and separated from other parking by drive aisles is a one
hundred space parking lot No other business is within 300 feet of the site. The results of
the survey are shown in Table 6 and graphically in Figure 5.
TABLE 6
PARKING DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS
CHILI'S RESTAURANT TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER
FRIDAY SATURDAY
TIME CARS PARKED UTILIZATION CARS PARKED UTn,17.4zTION
10:00 3 2.9 7 6.8
11:00 6 5.8 6 5.8
12:00 66 64.7 32 31.3
13:00 19 18.6 43 42.1
14:00 46 45.0 44 43.1
15:00 22 21.5 28 27.4
16:00 35 34.3 33 32.3
17:00 40 39.2 37 36.2
18:00 88 86.2 62 60.7
19:00 81 79.4 69 67.6
20:00 N/DO) N/A 70 68.6
(1) No data
TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER CHILI'S PARKING DEMAND
I Frlday
~ Saturday
00
~" Required Parking
70
I
~ 50
" ~ 40
30
20
0
10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00
TIme of Day
mP&D Technologies Figure
CHiLI'S PARKING ACCUMULATION 650 Hospitality Lane, Ste 350 5
San Bernardino, Ca 92408
The average duration of parking on Friday was .73 hours and on Saturday it was 1.01 hours.
As can be seen from the above Table the peak parking period occurred Friday evening
'during the 6 PM survey period. That peak demand was 88 cars. The restaurant is shown
to be 6000 square feet on the lease records. That equates to a parking ratio of 15 cars per
1000 square feet of leasable space (88/6 = 14.7). The City's restaurant parking requirement
is 10 spaces per 1000 square feet.
For purposes of comparison, a s~rnilar analysis was perfomed at the Tetra Vista Village
center. At that location a Coco's and Saisitas restaurants occupy the southwest comer.
They are between two access drives which tend to separate them from the other uses, in the
center. Within th~ comer formed by the two access drives are two lots of parking. Cars in
these lots were assumed to be parking for the two restaurants for this analysis. Table 7 and
Figure 6 show the parking demand characteristics observed during the survey period.
TABLE 7
PARKING DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS
COCO'S/SALSITAS RESTAURANTS TERRA VISTA VILLAGE
FRIDAY SATURDAY
TIME CARS PARKED UTILIZATION CARS PARKED UTII.I/ATION
10:00 47 34.6 71 51.4
11:00 48 34.8 70 50.7
12:00 86 623 76 55.1
13:00 83 60.1 71 51.4
14:00 62 44.9 49 35.5
15:00 35 25.4 47 34.1
16:00 33 23.9 46 33.3
17:00 63 45.6 50 362
18:00 101 73.2 97 70.3
19:00 99 71.7 87 63.0
20:00 99 71.7 88 63.8
The average duration of parking dn Friday was 13 hours and Saturday 1.32 hours. From
the table the peak period can be identified as 6 PM for both days, with the Friday peak
being sligh~y higher at 101 cars. The combined square footage of the two restaurants based
on the leasing data is 9,776 square feel That translates into a parking ratio of 10 spaces
per thousand (101/9.776 = 103). This is the same as the City's restaurant parking
requixement, but less than what was seen at Chili's at the Town Center.
An analysis was conducted to determine the effect the percentage of restaurant use is of the
total GLA of a center. This was done by assnming I percent restaurant of a given center
size, then calculating the parking required for the restaurant at 10/1000 and the remainder
of the center at 3.5/1000. 3.5/1000 was used to reflect the ULI rate without restaurant uses.
This was repeated for 2%, 3% etc up to 15%. The results, shown graphically in Figure 7
indicate that for a 135,000 square foot center, a 15% restaurant component would leave a
TERRA VISTA VILLAGE COMBINED COCO'S AND SALSITA'S PARKING DEMAND
[ "~ Saturday
~ Friday
120
=-- Required Parking ._,
tO0 · · : ·
80
0
10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00
TIme of Day
11% BUFFER
EFFECT OF RESTAURANT PERCENT OF GLA ON TOTAL PARKING DEMAND
600
500
i400
>~'~REMA, N,NG G~AT3.5/looo .~ 300
-) I I RESTAURANT REQUIREMENT
200
e-- TOTAL PARKING AT 5/1000
100
0
RESTAURANT PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL GLA
RESTAURANT PARKING AS A COMPONENT m P&D Technologies FIgure
OF TOTAL PARKING DEMAND 650 Hospitality Lane, Ste 350
San Bernardino. Ca 92408 7
buffer of empty spaces equal to 11% of the total parking requirement based on 5 spaces
per 1,000 GLA.
(~inema
Cinemas, or movie theaters, as might be expected, tend to experience peak parking demand
in the evening. This is offset from the typical Saturday afternoon peak experienced by most
shopping centers. It does, however, correspond with a smaller peak that typically occurs
Friday evening. In fact, it may have a si~ificant role in the occurrence of that secondary
peak.
Terra Vista Town Center is the site of an Edwards six-screen theater. The theater is located
next to a 448 space parking lot separate from parking for the remainder of the shopping
center, identified as lot 16 in the survey. Observations indicate that lot, and the adjacent
food court lot (number 17 in the survey) with 120 spaces, are the primary source of parking
for movie patrons.
Analysis of the data collected in the Friday survey of Tetra Vista Town Center showed a
distinct surge in parking demand in lot 16 at 8 PM, the final hour of the survey. That surge
peak is assumed to be related to the cinema. Any analysis of the x~umber of cars parked
must be done with the caveat that those cars have not been positively linked to the theater
use, and it is likely that some are associated with other uses. Conversely, it is likely that
some patrons of the theater have parked in lots other than those considered in the analysis.
Despite these anomalies it is assumed that the survey data is acceptable for this parking
analysis.
Total parking in lot 16 and 17 at 8PM on Friday is 187 cars and on Saturday it is 225 cars.
The lease for Edwards Cinema is for a 1500 seat theater. ?~ cars/1500 seats: .15 cars
per seat or, inversely, 1 car per 6.7 seats. The City's orttinance call~ for 1 space per 4 seats,
plus 5 spaces for employees. The ln-~titute of Transportation En~neers publication "Parking
Generation', estimates an average rate of demand per seat on Saturday as 0.26 or 1 car per
3.8 seats.
The survey results can be adjusted to an estimated 80% of annual peak demand using data
developed in another ULI study, nShared Parking'· That publication developed Cinema
Monthly Variation In Peak Parking Accn,mulatioas (Exhibit 1.2. page 23). That figure shows
that in February, Saturday peak demand is 70 percent of the annual peak demand.
Converting 225 then to a peak demand yields 321 cars parked, and 80 percent of that peak
will be 257. Adding 10 percent for operating effidency yields 283 spaces, or one space per
53 seats.
Office
The last category for which the ULI Study recommends special consideration is Office.
Neither of the sites had an observable parking demand that could be attributed to the office
use. It should be noted that the Cit~fs parking requirement for office uses other than
medical and dental is 4/1000, the same or less than the ULI recommended shopping center
requirement.
14
Combined Effect
Excluding office use, the land uses identified for special consideration by ULI peak in the
evening, as the retail peak is typically declining. It is that offset in the peak time that
allows those uses to be included in the mix without special parking requirements. Any
excess parking demand generated by restaurants or cinemas can utilize surplus parking
normally used by the retail uses at the center. Table 8 demonstrates how the Tetra Vista
Town Center parIcing supply wou/d accommodate a theoretical combination of uses at 8 PM.
The example is based on full build out of the approved square footage, and 15% restaurant
nse.
TABLE 8
EFFECT OF COMBINED RESTAURANT AND CINEMA
PEAK PARKING
LAND USE SQUARE FOOTAGE PARKING DEMAND
Restauxant 86,890(1) 869(2)
Cinema 24,745(3) 375(4)
Retail 467,635(5) 982(6)
Total 579,270
Parking Supply 2896(7)
Surplus 670
1. Assumes a ma~rn~ 15% restaurant usage.
2. Based on 10 spaces per 1000 square feel
3. Edwaxds actual square footage.
4. Based on lYE parking rate of 1 space per 3.8 s~ats.
5. Squaxe footage remnlnlng from 579,270 square feet approved for Town Center, after
restaurant and Cinem~ subtracted.
Based on 5 spaces per thousand of remfl~n~n~ square footage, factored by 42% to
reflect acc~,mulation percentage at 8 PM (as per ULI).
7. Based on 579,270 square feet at 5 spaces per thousand.
This ~nfdysis does not include consideration for reciprocal use. That is the occupants of one
car(one parking space) going to both the restaurant and cizlemn or some other combination
of two uses while using only one paricing space. A previous study prepared for the City
which investigated reciprocal use at the Vir~nla Dare C~nt~r, found and average of 12%
of the patrons were reciprocal users. Applying that figure to the above nn:~ly~iS reduces the
total paxking dern~d to 1959 spaces and increases the surplus to 937 spaces.
9.0 DESIGN DEMAND
The ULI Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers and other parking s.mdies, recommend
that 80% of the peak parking demand be used for designing lots, br setting parking
requirements. That study had the benefit of many years of parking counts at many different
shopping cemers to determine peak demands.
Extensive historical data of that type was not available for thi~ project. Consequently,
another technique was used for thi~ project. It is generally accepted in the industry and
stated in the ULI as well as other studies, that the Saturday before Christmas, at mid-
afternoon, is the busiest shopping day and consequently the highest demand parking day of
the year. An aerial photo was taken of the Terra Vista Town Center at 2 PM on December
21, 1991, the Saturday before Christmas, in an effort to establish a peak parking demand
at the center.
The results of analysis of that photo are as follows:
Total Cars Parked 1853
Cars in Aisle 34
Cars Circulating 64
Total on site 1951
To determine a parking demand for design or ordinance purposes, 85% of the peak was
assumed for thi~ study. That riffle is more conservative than the ULI Study and is based
on recommendations in the ENO foundation report. It also reflects a broader size range of
centers.
Total Cars Parked 1853 Total Cars on Site 1951
.115 .85
Design Demand 1575 Design Demand 1658
To determine the parking index thi~ demand equates to we use the total occupied leased
square footage referenced earlier as provided by Lewis Homes. That figure was
390,270 for Tetra Vista Town Center. Parking indices are expressed in terms of 1/1000
square feet of grossed leasable area, which converts to 390.4. Dividing the parking demand
by the occupied gross leasable square footage yields the foliowing:
Design Demand 1575/390.4 = 4.0
Design Demand 1658/390.4 = 4.2
The above calculations estimate the 85th percentfie parking demand based on an assumed
~nnnnl peak parking demand determined from an aerial photograph taken at 2 PM on
December 21, 1991, the Saturday before Christm:~. For operational purpOSes, when
desiLming a parking lot, or in thi~ case developing an ordinance, from which paxking lots will
be designed, some parking spaces in excess to the nmber of parked cars should be
provided. Thi~ excess is sometimes referred to as a buffer, and accomplishes several things.
16
First, it reduces the number of, and time, vehicles drculate through the lot looking for
empty spaces, thereby reducing internal congestion. It offsets pulses in the arrivals and
departures of vehicles by provj~ng a reservoir of empty spaces, and finally, it addresses the
perception that lots are full when they are not. Studies have shown that because of the need
to "search" for spaces or when arrivals out number departures during a short period, drivers
perceive a parking lot is full when it is actually between 80 and 90 percent capacity.
Parking buffers typically range between 5 and 15 percent depending on the use. High
tunaover uses tend to need higher buffers. Shopping centers typically represent intermediate
turn over with parking durations between one and two hours. A reasonable buffer would
appear to be 10 percent. Applying that 10 percent buffer to the design demand results in
the following.
Demand 1575 Demand 1678
10% Buffer 158 10% Buffer 168
Supply 1733 Supply 1846
Ag~'~n, for comparison purposes converting the supply to a parking ratio:
PARKING SUPPLY 1733/390.4: 4.4 spaces per 1000 square feet occupied space
PARKING SUPPLY 1846/390.4: 4.7 spaces per 1000 square feet occupied space
17
10.0 CONCLUSIONS
T~ae findings of this study generally indicate that the ULI Study's overall findings are valid
for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Based on the design demand developed in this report,
and additional literature review: ~ published in 1990 by the ENO Foundation~ and
~ 2rid Edition published by the Institute of Trangponation Engineers,
however, a base parking rate of 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area rather than
the range of 4 through 5 per 1000 recommended by the ULI Study, is recommended for
Rancho Cucamonga.
As reported by the-ENO foundation the 85 percentile value of all sized centers surveyed in
the FIE ~ study is 5 per 1000. Eno itself recommends a range of from
4.5 to 5.5 per thousand. The analysis of peak parking done in this study revealed a parking
indices of between 4.4 and 4.7 spaces per thousand when a 10% buffer is included. A base
rate of 5 per 1000 has been chosen for all but the largest centers to simplify the code
requirement, prevent applicants from attempting to design a project a few square feet below
a break point in the code to reduce their parking requirement, and finally as a conservative
response to the uncertainty of the annual peak data due to the current economic conditions
and the relative newness of the Tetra Vista Town Center.
The proposed base rate will allow the development commnnity to more aggressively market
their developments by knowing that regardless of the use, the parking supply will be
adequate. Inclusion of 15% of the gross square footage of the site as restaurant can be
accommodated by the difference in peak demand periods between restaurant and shopping
exceeded the City parking requirement, it did so after 6 PM, when the o p
centers were at their lowest usage. Also, when other less intensive food service uses, such
as those at the food court, are factored in, the overall restaurant parking will be less.
18
11.0 PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISION
The following provisions will supersede Section 17.12.040.B.1. "COMMERCIAL RETArl,
AND SERVICE USES" of the City Municipal Code. The City's current parking code is
included in Appendix A for comparison.
1. Commercial, Retail and Service Uses:
(a) Shopping Centers of less than 25,000 square feet. The parking
required will be the sum of parking requirements for the
individual uses.
(b) Shopping Centers of more than 25,000 square feet and less than 1,000,000
square feet of gross leasable area:
(1) Shopping Centers of less than 600,000 square feet, but more than
25,000 square feet of gross leasable area: Five (5) parking spaces for
each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross leasable area sha[l be
provided.
(2) Shopping Centers of 600,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of gross leasable
area: Five and one half (5_~) parking spaces for each one thousand
(1,000) square feet of gross leasable area shall be provided.
(3) In addition to the above parking requirements, the following special
parking provisions shall apply:.
(i) Food Service (defined as restaurants, taverns, lounges and other
establishments for the sale and consumption on the premises of
" food and beverages): If over fifteen percent (15%) of the gross
leasable area is occupied by food service uses, one (1)
additional space per one hundred (100) square feet of the gross
leasable area used for food service shall be provided.
(il) Cinem~ in shopping centers of less than 100,000 square feet:
Three (3) additional parking Spaces per one hundred (100)
theater seats shah be provided.
(iii) Cinem~ in shopping centers of 100,000 to 200,000 sqtlare feet:
NO additional parking Spaces shall be required for the first four
hundred fifty (450) theater seats; three (3) additional parking
Spaces per one hundred (100) theater seats for each seat over
four hundred fif'W (450) shall be provided.
19
(iv) Cinemas in shopping centers of over 200,000 square feet of
gross leasable area: No additional parking spaces shall be
required for the first seven hundred fi~ty (750) theater seats;
three (3) afiditional parking spaces per one hundred (100)
theater seats for each seat over seven hundred fi~ty (750) shall
be provided.
(v) Offices (including medical a~d dental): I~ over ten percent
(10%) of the gross leasable area is occupied by office use, a
special parking study prepared in accordance with City
standards, as specified by the City Planner, shall be prepared
by the applicant at the applieant's expense. Parking
requirements for the office use shall be established based on
the City planner's review and approval of said special parking
study.
(13) Shopping Centers of over 1,000,000 square feet of gross leasable area: A
special parking study prepared in accordance with City standards, as specified
by the City plnnner, shall be prepared by the applicant at the applicant's
expense. Parking requirements for the shopping center shall be established
based on the City Planner's review and approval of said special parking study.
20
12.0 EFFECTS ON EXISTING CENTERS
Adoption of the proposed ordinance will effect different centers differently. Older centers,
such as the Music Plus and Rancho Town Center were developed under the County juris-
diction and had less parking required than under the current City ordinance. Those centers
will be more impacted than newer centers constructed under the existing ordinance. As was
seen in the case study of Terra Vista Town Center, the current ordinance has resulted in
more parking being provided than would be required under the proposed ordinance.
Table 9 provides a ~omparison of the existing parking supply at the centers reviewed for this
study and the amount of parking that would be required at those centers under the proposed
ordinance. Figures 8 and 9 show the comparison graphically for the two centers surveyed.
TABLE 9
COMPARISON OF THE PARKING SUPPLY
AT EXISTING CENTERS TO THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT
CENTER EXISTING PROPOSED SURPLUS/
SUPPLY REQUIREMENT (DEFICIT)
Vineyards Marketplace 494 spaces 607 spaces (113)
Central Park Plaza 522 spaces 568 spaces (46)
Foothill Village 433 spaces 434 spaces (1)
Music Plus Center 144 spaces 143 spaces 1
Rancho Town Center 830 spaces 852 spaces (22)
Terra Vista Village 704 spaces 684 spaces 20
Terra Vista Town Center 3,306 spaces 2,892 spaces 414
TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER FRIDAY AND SATURDAY PARKING DEMAND
3500 · · .-= -"
~ Friday
2500 _gilit~ilg~] SattJrday
. .m City Requlrement
2000
a ' proposed Reqtmlrement
10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 14:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00
TIme o1 Day
m &,D~"""""
EFFECT OF pROPOSED FlOurs
ORDINANCE ON 8
TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER _______
TERRA VISTA VILLAGE FRIDAY AND SATURDAY PARKING DEMAND
900 ~ Friday
800 ~ Saturday "
e · · · · · · · ~= CIty Requirement
700 D
600 -- n Proposed Requirement
,-, 500
300
200
0
10:00 11:00 12:00 13:00 !4:00 15:00 16:00 17:00 18:00 19:00 20:00
TIme of Day
EFFECT OF PROPOSED l P&D Technologies FIgure
ORDINANCE ON Xi00'Tor. ac Count~. Ste 300
TERRA VISTA VILLAGE orange, CA 9~e68 9
ApPENDIX A
CURRENT CITY pARKING CODE
~--e-ction 17.12.040
Seetire 17.12.040 Parking Bequir~ents
~he following sections list the required ~unt of parking for each category
of uses, special requir~nts and optional requir~,~nts.
A. ~sidential
1. Single-f~ily detached ~llings (conventional). ~ (2) parking
spaces within a gar~e.
2. Clus{er develo~,~nt (eond~ini~, t~, etc.) s~i-detaehe~
sidle f~ily (~ero lot line, patio h~s, duplexes, etc.) and ~bile
h~ parks:
(a) Studio: 1.3 off-street parking space per ~it of ~ieh one
space shall be in a gar~e or ear~rt.
(b) ~ (!) bedro~: 1.5 off-~treet parki~ spaces per unit of
~ieh one space shall be in a gar~e or ear~rt.
(e) ~ (2) bedro~: 1.8 off-street parki~ spaces per unit. of
~ieh one space 8Mll ~ in a gar~e or ear~rt.
(d) ~ree (3) or ~re b~ro~: ~ off-street parking spaces ~r
~it of ~ieh ~ spaces 8~11 be in a gar~e or .ear~rt.
(e) Four (4) or ~re b~ro~: 2.3 off-street parking spaces per
~it ~f ~ieh ~ 8pace/shall be in a gar~e or ear~rt.
(f) In addition to the re~ir~ n~er of parki~ spaces for each
~it, one off-street ~eover~ parki~ space shall be provided
for each four ~its for visitor ~rki~. ~or sidle f~ily ~ero
lot line, patio h~8, ~d d~lexes, on-street parki~ ny be
s~stituted for visitor parki~, ~ere 8uffieient street
pavement width ~d di~t~ee ~en driv~y8 has been provide.
(g) Fifty ~reent (~) of the total re~ir~ covered spaces shall
~ within en~los~ gar~e itru~ture8.
(h) ~or develo~nt8 eontaini~ five or ~re ~its, up to thirty-
five (~8) ~reent of the requir~ ~eover~ 8pa~e8 ~y be
e~aet ~ar 8i;e.
(i) ~e u8e of ear~rt8 require8 ~proval fr~ the ~8i~ ~vi~
~.,d t tee.
1. ~h~reial, retail ~d service uses:
( 11/18/87 )
Section 17.12.040
(a) Neighborhood and general carrmrcial shopping centers: One (1)
off-street parking stall for each :~ hundred and fifty (250)
square feet of gross floor area for all buildings and/or uses in
the center.
(b) Cu.,-nity and regional shopping centers: One (1) off-street
parking stall for each t~ hundred-twenty (220) square feet of
gross floor area.
The abo~;e requirerents will apply for all cu,..=rcial centers in the
city; however, whenever delineation of independent uses is required,
the following standards shall apply:
(c) Antu,~bile washing and cleaning establish,s:nts, except self-
service: Sixteen (16) parking stalls.
(d) Self-service autu~bile washes: 2.5 for each washing stall.
(e) Autu,~bile service and gas station: ~hree (3) spaces plus %~wu
(2) for each service bay.
(f) Barber shops or beauty parlors: Two (2) for each barber chair;
three (3) for each beautician station.
(g) Buildings uses solely for coin-operated laundra~ats or dry
cleaning establish,.=nts: Cue for each three (3) washing
machines.
(h) Offices, euu,~reial banks, savings and loan offices, other
finaneial inst i rut ions, general retai 1 stores, food stores,
supemmrkets, and drag stores: Cue for each two hundred fifty
(250) square feet of gross floor areas.
( i ) Curttractor's storage yards in eoune~t ion with contractor's
business; salvage yard; junk.yard, autcumbile wrecking yard;
storage yard: Six (6) spaces separated frau the enclosed
storage area.
(j) l.a~er yards: Cue for each three hundred (300) square feet of
gross floor area for retail sales, plus one for each one
thousand (1,000) square feet of open area devoted to display
-- (partially oovered, by roof, awning, etc.) or sales.
(k) lVbrtuaries and funeral hu,is: Cue (1) parking stall for every
twenty-five (25) square feet or fraction thereof of asse~ly
roan or floor area.
(1) lVbtels and hotels: Cue (l) parking space for each guest' unit
and twn (2) spaces for resident rmnager or ommef.
-126-
( n/m/BY )
(m) Motor vehicle sales and automotive repair, Paintinl~, body work or
service: One per four hundred (400) square feet of ~ross floor ares.
(n) Stores solely for the sale of furniture and appliances: One for each
five hundred (500) square feet of ~ross floor area.
(o) Trade schools, business colleges and commercial sehoois: One for
eaoh three (3) student capacity of each classroom plus one for each
faculty meml~er or employee.
2. Commercial recreation uses:
(a) Bowlir~ alleys and/or billiard bAll~: Five (5) for each alley and/or two
(2) for each billiard table contained therein.
(b) Commercial stables: One (1) accessible space for each five (5) horses
boarded on the premises.
(e) Drivir~ ranges (goLf): One per tee, plus t~e spaces required for
additional uses on the site.
(d) Golf courses (regulation course): Six (6) per hole plus the spaces
required for additional uses on the site.
(e) "Pitch and Putt" and miniature 8:olf course: Three (3) per hole, plus
requirements for accessory uses.
(f) Skatin~ rinks~ ice or roller: One for eseh one hundred (100) square
feet of groes floor erea~ plus the spaces required for additional uses
on the site.
~) Swimmir~ pool (commercial): One for each one hundred (100) square
feet of water surface, plus one stall for each employee, t~ut not le-~
man ten (10) st-l~ for any such use.
(h) Teenis, handleall and raequet~all facilities: Three (3) for each oour~
plus the spaces required for additional uses on the site.
3. l-'-du~ational uses~
(a) Elementary and junior ~ schools: Two (2) for each classroom.
Senior Mgh schoois~ One for each member of the faculty and each
employee, plus one for each six (6) s~udents re~,ularly enrolled.
(e) Colleges, universities and institutions of hi~her learning, parochial
and private: One for each t~ree (3) students plus one for each two (2)
members of the faculty and employees.
4. Health uses:
(a) Dental elihies or offices~ medical elinies or offices, veterinary
hospitals and elihies: One for each two hundred (~-00) square feet of
gross floor area.
Section 1L12.040
(b) Convalescent and nursing homes, homes of aged, rest homes,
ehildren's homes and sanitariums: One for every four (4) beds in
accordance with the resident capacity of the home as listed on the
required license or permit.
(e) Hospitals: One and seventy-five hundredths (1.75) for each patien{
bed.
(d) Health studios and spas: One for each one hundred fifty (150) square
feet of Eross floor area. (For the purpose of this subsection,
'swimming pool area shall be counted es floor area.
5. Industrial and like uses:
I
(a) ~li industrial uses are subject to the p~ovisions of the parkinE
"standards and requirements as contained in the Industrial Specific
(h) public utility facilities including, but not limited to electric,
water, telephone and tele~Taph facilities not havinE business offices
on the premises: One for each two (2) employees in the larEest shift
plus one for each vehicle used in connection with the use. A minimum
of two (2) s[:mce shall be provided for each such use reEardless of
bulldinE space or number of employees- :
6. Places of assembly:
(a) Restaurants, taverns, lounges and other establishments fo~ the sale
and consumption on the p~emises of food and beveraEes: One (1)
space for every one hundred (100) square feet of Eross floor area up to
six thousand (6,000) square feet plus one for each additional fifth-five
(55) square feet of Eross floor area over six thousand (6,000) square
feet.
(b) Fast food restaurants (with or without drive-thru): One (l) parkin~
space for each 75 square feet of Zross floor area,
(e) Auditoriums, sports arenas, stadiums= One for each three (3) seats or
one for each thirty-five (35) square feet of EToes floor area where
there are no fixed Hats,
(d) Theaters, movies:
(1) Single Screen; One (1) space per 3 Hats, plus 5 for employees
(2) Multi-Sureen: One (1) space par 4 seats, plus 5 for employees.
(e) Libraries= One for each three hundred (300) square feet of ~---~ floor
are8.
(f) Private clubs, lodge tmn% union headquarters: One for each
seventy-five (75) square feet of ~ross floor area,
(g) Churches and other places of essembly not specified above: One for
each four (4) fixed seats within the main auditorium or one for each
thirty-five (35) square feet of seating area within the main auditorium
where there are no fixed seats; eighteen (18) linear inches of benoh
shall be considered a fixed seat.
7. Other uses:
(a) Day nurseries, including preschoois and nursery schools: One stall for
each staff member, plus one for each five (5) children.
C. Special Requirements. The following parking requirements are applicable to all
commercial and office land uses. These special st~Jh shall be closest to the
facility for which they are designated in order to encourage their use.
1. Handicapped: Those facilities with twenty-five (25) or more 'spaces shall
designate two (2) percent or one (1) space, whichever is greater, of the total
number of st~lh for use by the handicapped. The designation and design
shall conform to state standards.
2. Motorcycle: Facilities with twenty-five (25) or more parking spaces shall
provide at least one designated parking area for use by motorcycles.
Developments with over one hundred (100) spaces sh~lJ provide motorcycle
parking at the rate of one percent. Areas delineated for use b.v motorcycles
sb~n meet standards set forth in subsection 17.12.030-C-1.
3. Compact cars: Facilities with twenty-five (25) or more perking spaces may
provide up to thirty-five (35) percent of its parking for use by compact
cars. Spaces delineated for compact car use shall meet standards set forth
in supsection 17.12.030-A-2.
4. Bicycles: All commercial and office areas shall provide adequate locking
faeiLltios f~r bicycle parking at any location convenient to the facility for
which they are designated. Whenever possible, weatherproofing or facility
covering should be used.
..
i. Car pools: Off-~treet perking provided for commereiaYoffiee facilities shall
provide at least ten (10) percent of the total perking area as designated for
use by ear pools,
6. Drive-Thru l=aeLlities: Drive-thru faeKtties require speeia~ consideration as
theh- desi~m can siBni~antty impact the vehictLtar circulation on a site. The
following requirements a~ply to any use with drive-thru facilities.
(a) Sach drive-thru lane shaB be separated from the eir'eulation route
necessary for ir~ross or e~ress from the property, or access. to any
ib) F-aeh drive-thru lane sh~n be striped, marked, or otherwise distinctly
delineated,
SUBJECT: PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VINEYARDS MARKETPLACE
As you requested, I have reviewed the latest site plan for the above referenced project,
dated 8-18-92, compared the identified parkin~ supply to both the proposed new parking
requirement for shopping centers and the proposed interim requirements for centers under
cousu'uctio~ ]"he following report is a SlJmmary my f~dlnZ~.
ISSUE
Will the proposed parking supply at Vineyards Marketplace be adequate for the that center
in its buildout configuration.
PROJ'ECT DF. SCRIPTION
As currently configured the buildout of the Vineyards Marketplace will result in a total of
120,963 sq?are. feet of commercial development and provide 520 parking s~aces for a
par~n~ ratio of 4..3 spaces r 1000 square feet. This is based o~, y ~dditiofi o'f the square
footage provided for each budding and varies from the s~,mn'm'yprovided on the plans (121,
378). The center is anchored by an Albertsons market 8~fl Say-on Drugs. It also includes
a Mobile gas station and Wells Fargo Bank in addition to inline shops. No food services
other than may be in Albertsons and the Mobile minlmart currently exist. Three pads
remain to be constructed, one of which will be a Taco Bell.
.. I
ban Coleman
City of Rancho Cucamonga January 5, 1993
Page 2
PARKING REQUIREMENT
Under the proposed new parking requirements ordinance of 5 space per 1000 square feet
of developmen:, 605 parking spaces would be required for this center. That would result
in a deficit of 85 spaces. Using the reduced ratio of 4.5 spaces per 1000 square feet of
development tbe City is considering for projects approved under the current ordinance, 545
space would be required. resulting in a deficit of 25 spaces.
DESIGN HOUR
As pan of the Shopping Center Parking Requirements Study, an analysis of the design hour
was conducted. That study documented the generally accepted parking demand for design
purposes as 85% of peak park~ing demand. That percentage typically corresponds to the
20th highest hour of parking demand, Based on calculations performed on the survey
irdorm~tion collected at Tetra Vista Town Center, the design demand for that center was
esl~ated to be between 4.0 to 4.2 cars per 1000 square feet of developmen:, without a
buffer. Based on these data the max/m.m design hour for the Vineyards Markerplace is
estlm~ted at 508 (4,2/1000 x 120,963'). The project proposes 520 spaces and therefore
would have a surplus of at least 12 spaces.
EXISTING DEMAND
,,,,., two ,pot s,rv of e,dst,,g de, d
ys e conducted on S
· aturday, December 12, 1992 between 2:30
and 3:00 PM and on Thursday December 17 from 450 to 5:00 PM. As disansexl in the
Shopping Center Parking Requirements Study the generally acknowledged annual peak
parldng demand occurs mid-day on the several Saturday~ between Thanksgiving and
Christmas. refiectino the Chrislmas shopping rush. As a result the Saturday spot survey
should have reveale/] the annual peak for the Vineyards Markerplace Center.
On Saturday December 12, 1992, 196 vehicles were observed to be parked in the Vineyards
Markerplace parIcing lot. Because that center is not currently completed, adjustments were
made to reflect the currently occupied space. Calculations based on information obtained
from the leasing agents for Vineyards Marketplace indicate that 94,283 square feet are
currently leased. The parking demnnd during the spot survey can then be calculated at
(196/943) 2.1 spaces per 100~ square feet of leased space.
A second spot survey was conducted between on Thursday, December 17, 1992 between 4:30
and 5:00 PM. In that survey, a total of 182 parked vehicles were observed. The parlc/n~
demand ratio during that survey was calculated at (182/943) 1.93 spaces per 1000 squar~
feet of occupied space. The similarity between the Thursday and Saturday results tends to
reinforce the belief that the center does not have a strong peaking characteristic. With a
strong peak, a greater variation between the survey results would be expected.
Dan coleman January 5, 1993
City of Rancho Cucamonga Page 3
UNIQUE SITE CHARA~RISTICS
The surveys of the existing demand at the center indicate that the parkbig ratio at Vineyards
Marketplace is below that of the centers studied. for the ordinance. There are unique
characteristics in the centers that explain the difference, Tetra Vista Town Center is a
larger center with a larger market area and has a tenant mix that results in strop4g seasonal
peaking (Target, Mer~n's, Montgomery Wards, Ross). Tetra Vista Village, which is similar
in size (approximately 10% more lease~l space) has a Burger King, Coca's and Salsita's plus
some smaller in-line food services. Vineyards Marketplace on the other hand has only the
Taco Belt (future) and about 1,000 square feet (assumed in the project summary) of in line
food service.
Although, as discussed in the Shopping Center Parking Requirements Study., restaurants
peak at different times than shopping centers, major chain restaurants on satellite pads are
an intense use and have 70 - 85% utilization factors during the centers peak. The absence
of such tenants at the Vineyards Marketplace reduces the parking demand relative to that
seen at Tenca Vista Village. The lack of any major department stores at Vineyards
Marketplace reduces seasonal peaking characteristic~ and further reduces the parking
demand.
Finally, the land surrounding the Vineyards Marketplace is not yet buildout and the center
has not reached its full demand potential. This condition is also reflected in the low traffic
volumes reported on adjacent street Similarly, although Vineyards Marketplace is a
community type center, and not oriented toward freeway traffic, it may receive additional
demand from trnffic accessing the State Route 30 freeway, when that facility is completed.
SUMMARY
A primary goals of the proposed new parking ordinance are 1) to provide a requirement,
in which the City can be confident will meet the various parkin~ demands of a wide range
of tenant mixes and center sizes, and 2) simpli~ the metl~od of calculating parking
requirements for a wide range of shopping center types.
As such, the ordinance was structured to be conservative, which means in some cases
providing more parking than is likely to be needed. The proponents of a new ordinance
agreed with this approach in the interest of simplifying the process and gaining the
marketing flexibility they desired. At Vineyards Marketplace, because it is nearly
completed, the tenant mix has been generalIv determined, and less flexibility in terms of
marketing is needed- Also, this is a small cenir, and as such would be expected to generate
parHnE in the lower portion of the range anticipated by the ordinance.
JAN IS '93 20:38 FF-'OI' P/D TECh SAd ISERN.
I .[' PAGE · ~4
15an Coleman
City of Ra~cho Cucatnonga January 5, 1993
Page 4
CONCLUSION
Considering the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the number of parking spaces
curren~y planned at the Vineyard Marketplace should be sufficiem to provide adequate
parking. Our most recent survey data show existing parking demand during the peak
parking season is 2.1 spaces per 1000 square feet of leased area. Although this can be
expected to increase as the surroundhag land is built out, unique characteristics of the
Vineyard Market Place indicate that the parking demand ~itl be less than .typi~lly required.
These unique characteristics include a low percentage of restaurant use and no seasonally
peaking uses in the ten.'mt mix.
It has been a pleasure to assist the City of Rancho C'ucamonga in this matter. If you have
any questions or need additional information, please do not hesitate to call me. I look
forward to worldrig with you in the future.
Respectfully Subn~ttect.
P&D TECHNOLOGIES
Charles $pagnola
Senior Tr~,msportation Planner
cc JOhn Potter, Hughes Investments Two Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA
92658-8700 '
Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 N Mountain Avenue. Rancho C'ucamonga, CA
HUGHES INVESTMENTS
October 22, 1992
Mr. Dan Coleman
Principal Planner
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
RE: SHOPPING CENTER
PARKING ORDINANCE REVISIONS
Dear Dan:
As you know, I have been involved with Rick Mager of Lewis Homes, yourself and Chuck
Spagnola of P & D Technologies in the research and preparation of a proposed revision to
the current Shopping Center Parking Ordinance in Rancho Cucamonga. Over the past
several months all of us have been involved in attempting to create a logical common sense
approach to revising an existing parking ordinance which requires an inordinate amount of
staff time to enforce, and provides few options for the development community, in both the
site pinnning and budgetary process.
The result has been a proposed parking ordinance prepared by P & D Technologies which
in all senses is really a hybrid, which not only draws upon the information provided by
professional organizations such as the ULI and the International Council of Shopping
Center, but also draws upon the best featares of parking ordinances of 13 cities of similar
demographics. What P & D has now proposed to be presented to the planning Commition
is really a "state of the art" parking ordinance that embodies a methodology that is in
keeping with today's realities in the shopping center development arena. The proposed
ordinance provides a useful vehicle for both the city and city staff as well as the
development COmnlUldty tO plan, process and manage shopping center development and re-
development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga.
TWO CORPORATE pLAZA · BUITE 250- NEWPORT BEACH, CA B~680-79~9
P. O-BOX 6700' NEWPORT BEACH, CA 9~658-BTO0
(7141 759 - 9531 FAX ~ (7141759-
Mr. Dan Coleman
October 22, 1992
Page Two
We wholeheartedly endorsed the proposed revisions to the existing parking ordinance and
look forward to the public hearing process so that we can demonstrate the benefits of this
new parking ordinance to the Planning Commission, City Council and the community at
large.
Very truly yours,
HUGHES INVES~TMENTS
,//John B. Potter
JBP/nyc
co: Rick Mager, Lewis Homes
ORDINANCE NO. 508
AN ORDIINIANCE OF THE Ul'r]~ COUNCIL OF THE ~£'£'Y OF
CODE ~ 92-01, AM~qDING TITHE 17,
17.12, OF THE RANC~O CUCAMDNGA MUNIca~AL CODE
REGARDING SHOPPING C~l~rl'~,~< pARKING ~, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPO~ THEPZOF.
THE uu,~ (IX3~CIL OF THE u'rf OF RANCHO C~CAM~NGA DOES H~R~Y O}~3kIN AS
SEuriON 1: Section 17.12.040.B.1 of ~lap~r 17.12 is hereby aE~-a~a to
r~a in words and figures as follows:
B. COM4ERCI/L~
1. C~lercial, Retail and Service Uses:
(a) ShoRoing Centers of less than 25,000 sc~,-~e feet. The
parking r~ired will be the s~n of parking ~~ts for
the individual uses.
(b) Sb~v~ing Centers of more than 25,000 sc~m~e feet and less
than 1,000,000 square feet of q~oss l~hle area:
(1) ~in~ Centers of 1~ than 600,000 square feet, but
more than 25,000 sc[mve feet of ~o~s ]~hle area:
Five parkir~ ~paces for each 1,000 square feet of
l~hle area shall be ~-ovia~a. For centers which were
built cr ap[~oved prior to the effective date of this
o~lin~fe__~ a parking ratio of f~r m~ ~e half parkin~
spaces for each 1,000 sc~m~e feet Of ~ues l~hle area
shall be
(2) ~4~ing Ce~a~ of 600,000 to 1,00O,0O0 e~re f~ of
for each 1,000 sc]~Bre feet Of ~es l~hle area shall
be ~o-¢ia~a.
(3) In ~aa~tion to the above parking requirements, the
foll~ing special parking provisions shall apply:
(i) Food Service (defined as restaurants, fast food
ee~hlishments for the sale and cc~ion on
the premises of food and beverage): If over
15 perce~t of the gross l~hle area is occupied
by food service uses, one ~a~ticTal space per
100 square feet of the ~s l~hle area used
for food service shall be provided.
Ordinance No. 508
Page 2
(ii) Cinemas occupying up to 10 percent of the gross
leasable are in shopping centers of less than
100,000 square feet: Three additional parking
spaces for every 100 theater seats shall be
provided.
(iii) Cinemas in shopping centers of 100,000 to 200,000
square feet: No additional parking spaces shall
be rec~ed for the fil~L 450 theater seats;
three additional parking spaces for every
100 seats over 450 shall be provided.
(iv) Cinemas in shopping centers of over 200,000
sc~,~e feat of gross leasable area: No
adaitional parking spaces shall be required for
the first 750 theater seats; three additional
parking spaces for every 100 theater seats over
750 shall be provided.
(v) Offices (including medical and dental): If over
10 percent of the gross leasable area is occupied
by office use, a special park/rig study pz~pared
in accordance with City standards, as specified
by the City Planner, shall be prepared by the
applicant at the applicant's ~. Parking
requjrements for the
office use shall be
established based on the City Plaruler's review
and approl~l of said special parkin~ study.
(c) Shopping Center of over 1,000,000 square feet of gross
leasable area: A s~ecisl parkin~ sh ~ [i~red in
accordance with City standards, as specified by the City
Pi.~, ,shall be P]-'~d. by the applicant at the
The above re~ will apply for all ~_n~ial centers in the City;
however, for uses not located within a
necessary by the City Planner to calculate uses ~y, the following
standards shall apply:
(d) ~ile w~hing and cleaning es~hl~ exuept self-
service: Sixteen parking stalls. ' '
(e) Self-service automobile washes: Two and one half spaces for
each washin~ stall.
(f) Automobile service and gas station: Three spa~, plus two
spaces for eac~l service bey.
Ordinance No. 508
Page 3
.. (g) Barker sho~e or beauty parlors: Two spa~ for each bar~
chair; three spaces for each beautician station.
(h) Buildings used solely for coin-operated lauraremits or dry
cleaning est~hlislments: one space for each three washin~
(i) Offices, c~Lercial banks, savings and loan offices, other
fi/klncial institutions, general retail stores, food st~_r~es,
supermarkets, and drug stores: One space for each 250
feet of 9=~s floor are.
(j) Contract~r's storage yards in connection with contractor's
business; sal~-age yard; junk yard, automobile wrecking yard;
storage yard: Six spaces separatea f=ut~ the enclose storage
(k) Lumber yards: One space for each 300 serene feet of groes
floor area for retail sales, plus one space for each 1,000
sc~mve feet of open ares devoted to di-~play (partially
covered, by roof, awning, etc.) or sales.
(1) Mor~,~vies and funeral homes: One space for every 25 s~e
feet Or fraction thereof Of assembly rocsn Or floor area.
(m) Motels and hotels: One space for each guest unit and two
spaces for residerrt manager Or owner.
(n) Mo~ vehicle sales m~ automotive re~air, paintir~,
work Or service: One space per 400 square feet of
floor area.
(o) S~n~es solely fOr the sale of furniture and appl'_~a~fe~_~: One
space fOr eac~ 500 square feet Of %~ues floor area.
(p) Trade schools, business colleges, and ~ercial schools:
One space fOr eac~h three s~nt capacity of each classroan
plus one space fOr each faculty member Or m~loyes.
SEctiON2: T~ Council finds that t_his amendment will not adversely
affect the environment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration.
El'iON 3: The City Council declares that, should any provisic$1, section,
paragraph, sentence, Or wurd of this Ordinance be rena_-~ed Or a~lared imalid
by any final ccurt action in a court of c~L~tent jurisdiction, Or by r~n
of any preventive legislation, the remaining provisi~ls, secti~ls, para~n~hs,
sentences, and words of t_his Ordinance shall re~ain in full force and affect.
Ord/nanceNo. 508
SECT/ON 4: The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance
and shall cause the same to be Published within 15 days after its passage at
least once in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, a newspaper of general
circulation published in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in
the City or Rancho Cucamonga, California.
PASSED, APE, and ADOPI.~D this 17th day of Marc_h, 1993.
AYES: A/exander, Buquet, Gutierrez, Stout, Williams
NOES: None
ABS~A~T.' None
I, DB3~A J. AD~.MS, ~I'AY CLERK of the City of ]~%-~ho cucamcrr3a' califo~x~ia,
do h~ ~ ~t ~e for~o~ ~ ~ ~ at a ~
~ of ~e ~il of ~e Ci~ of ~o ~ ~ld ~ ~ 3M ~y of
~, 1993, ~ ~ f~lly ~ at a ~ ~ of ~ Ci~ ~il
of ~ Ci~ of ~ ~ ~ld on ~ 17~ ~y of ~, 1993.
~ ~ 18~ ~y of ~, 1993, at ~ ~, ~,,~.
' ~ J- ~, ~ C~
~'-14-199,~ 15:3,9, FRB~ J(]H~ 198_C}-8~, RIR TO cj~11313 P.~
14 Se~tendmr 1994
.T~°'14-J. 994 15:35 F~C~'T ~ t"e._CJ-F_R, .ql~ TO 9411313 P.03
David Barker
C"m*N"'c*laJ-
14 Se*p~r 1994
Parje 2
the negotiations, 811 zematnt~ fee euvglq~es are ~C~d
~ se~-r~d f~es p~ ~ ~d ~d ~a~, ~ so
~ ~x-~~ ~ ~ ~, ~ at hut
~ s~ff's ~r~l ~ ~ ~ ~ pmJe~ is of c~u.
W11. ~ Z ~n~ it, s~f ~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~ of work,
~u es~4m-~ ~ 1~1y f~, ~ ~ ~ sc~ ~ fit ~ ~t of
at~ p~Je~ ~t~,, e~ w~ ~ P~s~, a~ ~ ~011
of ~ ~a ~t ~ ~ ~ ~~u ~ ~ c~d stay
TOTP~_ P. ~3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Barker
FROM: Commissioner's Melcher and Lumpp
DATE: September 13. 1994
SUBJECT: Commercial Land Use Market and Fiscal Analysis preliminary Scope
of Work.
Based on your request, Commissioner Melcher and I have reviewed the staff prepared
Commercial Land Use Market and Fiscal Analysis preliminary scope of work. While
we believe staff did an excellent job of preparing this initial scope outline for the
Commissions review, the phraseology should be more direct in its content.
Restructuring the language of the questions, as follows, would be more helpful in the
final preparation of the Request for Proposals (RFP's).
1. Without taking away from the existing commercially zoned.land, how much new
commercially zoned land is enough?
2. What type of commercial uses are needed to satisfy the City's fiscal balance?
For example, commercial uses such as;
Regional commercial
· Community commercial
Neighborhood commercial
· Specialty commercial
3. Are the currently designated commercial land use areas fiscally balanced in
context with the other land uses?
4. If not, where should the additional commercially zoned land be located
geographically in-the-City?
5. In the aggregate, how much commercially zoned land does the City currently
contain?
6. Are we currently over or under our fiscal needs based on the future build out of
the City?
7. Does development of commercial uses in the Industrial Area Specific Plan dilute
the City's fiscal balance'~and to what extent?
g. How does adding new commercia 'rapact t existing occupied commercial
areas in terms of a vacancy factor?
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
Commercial Land Use Market Analysis and Fiscal Study - 1994
Economic development is an integral component of planning activity in .emerging
growth centers like Rancho Cucamonga. This aspect of community development is
now doubly important within the current statewide fiscal environment. Towards this
end, our attention has been focused on the retail commercial sector of the community
as a result of recent land use amendments which have added acreage to the City's
commercial land inventory. These land use amendments have raised certain
questions about this trend:
What community opportunities/amenities and constraints influence
commercial activity?
How much commercial land and development is beneficial to the City?
What are the commercial shortfalls and leakages?
What is the commercial land absorption forecast - 5yrs, 10 yrs.?
What is the fiscal cost-benefit of these different types of commercial
land uses within the City?
In order to provide an accurate projection of the development potential, staff believes a
"Commercial Land Use Market Analysis and Fiscal Study" for the City should be
completed. This study should provide detailed information about the land use
character of the City, its economic implications,and planning and fiscal prospects. The
analysis should focus on four specific types of activities: retailing, service
businesses, office/professional activities and quasi-industrial retail
services (for the general public).
The items which should be included in the study are as follows:
1. City wide commercial land use inventory (developed and
undeveloped).
What are the current levels of developed and vacant commercial land
within the City?
2. A review of new major commercial activity.
Identify new commercial market opportunities.
3. Analysis of neighboring communities' commercial 'activity and
their influences in Rancho Cucamonga.
What is the rate of growth of commercial acreage and commercial
development in the area (by city)?
What are current thoughts from "experts" on the levels of commercial
developmentJland in the area, state and nation? What danger signs
do we need to look out for to avoid "boom/bust" scenarios along
Foothill, Archibald, Haven 'a la Holt Avenue?" What land use
strategies can be implemented to avoid such scenarios.
4. Performance of retail and services businesses in financial
terms over time.
- absorption rates and fiscal impact to the City
- consequences of conversion of industrial to
commercial land use
Are there any signs of a change in government revenue distribution
(sales tax) that could significantly alter the cost-benefits of retail
commercial activity in the City?
At what point may the city experience a significant diminishing rate of
returns with additional commercial development?
5. Market profiles of commercial users in the primary trade area
and forecasts of future needs for development opportunities.
The intent of the study would be to anticipate the further commercialization and
thereby aid in formulating land use policy which can facilitate future commercial
activity and help answer the following:
What levels of commercial development establish a threshold
beyond which it is likely that a healthy business environment and
stable tax base will be significantly eroded?
The estimated time to produce the study is approximately 400-500 City staff hours
(includes use of GIS personnel for map and some statistic analysis).
An estimate for consultant services to perform entire study is $30,000 to $50,000
based on the above reference hours and details of study analysis.
CommStdyMem2bRick