Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993/01/13 - Agenda Packet© 0 1~77 CITY OF RANCHO CUCA~ PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY JANUARY 13, 1993 7:00 P.M. RANCHO CUCAMONGA CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 10500 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA ~II · IV. Pledge of Allegiance Roll Call Commissioner Chitiea Commissioner McNiel Commissioner Melcher __ Commissioner Tolstoy Commissioner Vallette Announcements Approval of Minutes Adjourned Meeting of December 2, 1992 Adjourned Meeting of December 9, 1992 Regular Meeting of December 9, 1992 Adjourned Meeting of December 15, 1992 V. Consent Calendar The following 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. DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14263 - G & D CONSTRUCTION - The design review of detailed site plan and building elevations for the development of 32 townhome units on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Related Files: Variance 92-07 and Minor Exception 92-16. VI. 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. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP - A request to construct a 3,183 square foot building containing 1,200 square feet of retail space and a 1,983 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru), within a previously approved commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. (Continued from December 9, 1992.) VARIANCE 92-07 - G & D CONSTRUCTION - A request to reduce the minimum building-to-curb setback from 15 to 8 feet for one building within a proposed 32-unit townhome project on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Related Files: Design Review for Tentative Tract 14263 and Minor Exception 92-16. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14238 - VASS - A subdivision of 0.58 acres of land into 2 parcels in the Low Residential District (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hellman Avenue, south of 19th Street - APN: 202-061-46. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-29 - AROLD - A request to establish a beauty salon within a 640 square foot leased space in an existing commercial center on 2.8 acres of land within the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8870 Archibald Avenue, Suite D - APN: 209-032-42. VII. VIII. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-32 - RANCHO HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH - A request to .establish a church in a 7,530 square foot leased space within an existing 65,000 square foot building on 6.6 acres of land in the Office Professional District located at 7365 Carnelian Street - APN: 207-031-27. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-30 - COLOMBERO - A request to establish a bail bonds.office and warehouse within a 2,000 square foot leased space in a 10,000 square foot building within the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, 'located at 8685 Etiwanda Avenue, Suite E - APN: 209-032-42. 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. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Declaration. Director's Reports USE DETERMINATION 92-03 - ADAMS - A request for the Planning Commission to determine whether fortunetelling is a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Specialty commercial Zone of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. (Continued from November 10, 1992.) 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 J. SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE ON ROUTE 30 - Oral Report K. PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEES 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 A.T.& S.P. F~ CITY HALL CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 13, 1993 Chairman and Members of the Planning Co~nission Brad Buller, City Planner Steve Hayes, Associate Planner DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT 14263 - G & D CONSTRUCTION - The design review of ~etailed site plan and building elevations for the development of 32 townhome units on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street - APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Related Files: Variance 92-07 and Minor Exception 92-16. VARIANCE 92-07 - G & D CONSTRUCTION - A request to reduce the minimum building-to-curb setback from 15 to 8 feet for one building within a proposed 32-unit townhome project on 3.35 acres of land in the Medium Residential District (8-14 dwelling units per acre), located on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street APN: 207-022-54 and 64. Related Files: Design Review for Tentative Tract 14263 and Minor Exception 92-16. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of the Detailed Site Plan, building elevations, Conceptual Grading and Landscape Plans and a Variance. B. Pro~ect Density: 9.5 dwelling units per acre. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Vacant and single family residential; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre) South - Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel; Flood Control District East - Single family residential; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) West - Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel; Flood Control District ITEMS A & C PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 14263 & VAR 92-07 - G & D CONSTRUCTION January 13, 1993 Page 2 General Plan Designations: Project Site - Medium Residential North - Medium Residential South - Flood Control/Utility Corridor East - Low Residential West - Flood Control/Utility Corridor Site Characteristics: The unusually shaped site is vacant and includes a dense row of mature trees along its Carnelian Street frontage. A number of these healthy trees will be required to be removed per Tree Removal Permit 89-58, which was approved with the Tentative Tract Map on October 11, 1989. Curb and gutter exist along the Carnelian Street frontage. The site slopes from north to south at approximately 6 percent. F. Parking Calculations: Type of Number Parking Spaces Spaces Use of Units Ratio Rec'd Provided Residential 32 (3 bedroom) 2/unit 64 64 (garage) Visitor Parking 1/4 Units 8 15 Total 72 79 ANALYSIS: Background: The Tentative Tract Map (including a previously approved Design Review application), was approved by the Planning Comission on October 11, 1989. Since that time, the project has been sold and the new developer is proposing to construct essentially the same site plan with smaller units, which, in the applicant's opinion, would be a more marketable project in the current economy. The previously approved unit sizes ranged from 1,420 to 1,615 square feet. The new units are proposed at 1,310 and 1,450 square feet. Since the new project is in substantial conformance with the previously approved Tentative Tract Map, a modification to the Tentative Map is not necessary. General: The applicant is proposing to construct 16 duplex buildings. The project includes two building types, which are both two-story and include two-car garages attached to each unit. The project includes two sets of recreational amenities in compliance with the City's recently adopted Multiple Family Development Standards. The project's access point has been located to line up with Vivero Street directly across Carnelian Street. A turf block emergency secondary access is provided in the northerly third of the project to comply with the Fire District's requirements for PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DR 14263 & VAR 92-07 - G & D CONSTRUCTION January 13, 1993 Page 3 secondary emergency access to the site. A future connection to the Cucamonga Creek Regional Trail has been designed into the project by providing a gated access from the project to the future trail. Variance: In conjunction with the new Design Review application, the applicant has submitted a Variance application to reduce an interior building-to-curb setback from 15 to 8 feet (see Exhibit "E"). The Variance is required due to the increased building separation reql/irements established with the new Multiple Family Development Standards (Ordinance No. 465), which were adopted after the originally approved Design Review. The applicant contends that the Variance is justified because of their intention to build essentially the same project as the original Design Review approved in 1989, with the only difference being slightly smaller units. In addition, the applicant has worked closely with staff to reduce the number of Variances associated with the original site plan design. By doing so, the Variance request has been limited to one interior setback condition. To avoid other Variances associated with the new Multiple Family Development Standards, the applicant is now providing two full sets of recreational amenities and increasing patio-to-fence separations in critical locations. Please refer to the applicant's letter (Exhibit "D") for further details. The applicant is also proposing to reduce side-to-side building separations and landscape setbacks along Carnelian Street by a maximum of 10 percent. These reductions will be processed by staff through the related Minor Exception No. 92-16, pending action on the Design Review and Variance applications. Staff feels the Variance is warranted in this situation. Design Review Committee: On October 6, 1992, the Committee (Tolstoy, Melcher, Coleman) recommended approval of the building elevations subject to the following condition: A corbel or heavy timber element should be provided to support the second-story balconies, subject to review and approval of the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. In addition, the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve all of the technical issues associated with the Site Plan. Once these issues were resolved to the satisfaction of staff, the Committee directed that the Site Plan could return to the Design Review Committee. Following Resolution of the major technical site planning issues, the Committee (Melcher, Coleman) reviewed the Detailed Site and Grading Plans on November 17, 1992, and recommended approval of these plans subject to the following: The size of the landscape planters between garage doors should be increased to accommodate mature trees. PLANNING CO~ISSION STAFF REPORT DR 14263 & VAR 92-07 - G & D CONSTRUCTION January 13, 1993 Page 4 Additional landscaping (including trees and shrub massing) should be provided in areas previously part of the larger building footprints to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. Special paving within the project should consist of concrete interlocking pavers. Perimeter and retaining walls should consist of decorative materials and the design should be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division. Be The perimeter and private patio wall fence materials and designs should be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. Technical Review/Grading Con~ittees: On October 7, 1992, the Technical Review Committee reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommending conditions of approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances. The Grading Committee reviewed this project on October 6, 1992, and conceptually approved the plan subject to conditions included in the attached Resolution of Approval. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: A. DESIGN REVIEW: That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan. That the proposed design is in accord with the objectives of the Development Code and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. That the proposed design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. That the proposed design, 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. B. VARIANCE: That strict or literal interpretation of enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF R~PORT DR 14263 & VAR 92-07 - G & D CONSTRUCTION January 13, 1993 Page 5 That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the project that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the same district. That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. 5e That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. CORRESPONDENCE: The Variance has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the project has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECO~4ENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for Tentative Tract 14263 and Variance 92-07 through a~)ption of the attached Resolutions of Approval with conditions. Re s~y sub~it~ City Planner BB:SH:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Site Utilization Map Exhibit "B" - Detailed Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Building Elevations Exhibit "D" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "E" - Variance - Enlargement of Variance Area Resolution of Approval with Conditions for Design Review for Tentative Tract ~4263 Resolution of Approval for Variance 92-07 CITY OF: .RAN' .~.::CUCAMONGA PLANNING"D :.FV'!~ION !~I.'1IBIT: tqd~tP SCALH: m BUI~UNDY CI~EEK D CONSTRUCTION INC. COLORADO ILV0. PASADENA, CA el 107 ~ Nove~ber 4, 1992 Variance Justification Statement RE: Tract 14263 - City of Rancho Cucamonga staff variance, building to curb setback. We are requesting a staff variance to allow an eight foot minimum building to curb separation for one unit on tract nnmher 14263, in lieu of the required 15.0 feet as currently exists in the City of Rancho Cucamonga planning ordinance. The justifications for this request are as follows: Due to economic conditions the project has changed owners since the original tentative map was approved. With this change in ownership, it was determined that in order to compete in the present economic market, the size and design of the units would need to be modified. G & D Construction, Inc. originally applied for just a design modification to the units. This new modification would actually increase open space from the originally approved project. However, through staff review it was determined that because of this change, that the entire project needed to be brought back to the commission for detailed review. This meant revising the detailed site plan and conceptual grading plan to reflect the changes in both the units and the current development standards. Tentative tract number 14263 was approved in October 1989. At that time, the minimum landscape setback adjacent to Carnelian Avenue was 25 feet. Since that time, the planning commission has revised the development ordinance for multiple family developments to increase the setback to 35 feet. With this increased setback, the proposed units would not physically fit on the subject site. The requested variance has been determined as the best solution to an unusual situation. The reduction in separation between the building and the exterior curb is in a location away from any public view, therefore causing no harm or effect to the general public of the City of Rancho Cucamonga. We feel this variance request shows our complete attempt to meet the current development guidelines as well as to const.ruct a project that is more favorable than the alternative original plan. ged dard open open 'T'YI E 2 _AL'T -I 1 -AL'T 8-14 d.u./ac tS res: RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW FOR TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14263 FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW OF THE DETAILED SITE PLAN AND BUILDING ELEVATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF 32 TOWNHOME UNITS ON 3.35 AC~ES OF L4%ND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARNELIAN STREET AT VIVERO STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-022-54 AND 64. A. Recitals. (i) G & D Construction has filed an application for the Design Review of Tentative Tract No. 14263 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter, the subject Design Review request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 13th day of January 1993, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga held a meeting to consider the application. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meeting on January 13, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) That the proposed project is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan; and (b) That the proposed design 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 design is in compliance with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code; and (d) That the proposed design, 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. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR FOR TT 14263 - G & D CONSTRUCTION January 13, 1993 Page 2 3. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Com~iesion hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below and in the attached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannina Division 1) A corbel or heavy timer element shall be provided to support the second-story balconies, subject to review and approval of the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 2) The size of the landscaped planters between garage doors shall be increased to accommodate mature trees, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 3) Additional landscaping (including trees and shrub massing) shall be provided in areas previously part of the larger building footprints, to the satisfaction of the Planning Division. 4) special paving within the project shall consist of concrete interlocking pavers. A material sample shall be submitted for review and approv&l of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 5) Perimeter, retaining, and private patio walls shall consist of decorative materials. The design shall be subject to review and approval of the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) Specific details of the common open space amenity areas shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. 7) All patio fence separations for private yards on contiguous buildings shall be increased to a minimum of 10 feet. s) Each unit shall include a lockable storage unit in their private garages with a minimum size of 125 cubic feet. 9) All other applicable conditions from Resolution Nos. 89-135 and 89-136 shall apply. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DR FOR TT 14263 - G & D CONSTRUCTION January 13, 1993 Page 3 En~ineerin~ Division All conditions of approval for Tentative Tract 14263, contained in Planning Commission Resolution No. 89-135 and City Council Resolution No. 89-571, shall continue to apply. 2~ The attached Standard Conditions utilize the updated format and include clarification regarding the right turn lane dimensions on Carnelian Street. 4. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST= Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Those items checked are Conditions of AI3pmval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (714) 9~-1~61, FOR COMPUANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Um#l corn= ~-,- · / 1. A13~roval shall expire, unless extended by the Plantting Commission, if building permits are ~ / not issued or a1313roved use ~ not commence~l wilier 24 ~ from the clare of al~toval. 2. Development/Design Review shell I~ a131xovecl I:xior to I / _._/ / 3. Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted sul~act to the Kolxoval of .__/ / 4. The developer shell commence, pa~tiCil~ate in, anti consummate ~ cause to be commenced, / / participeted in, or cor~ummlted, a Ml#o-Rcoa Cof~nity Flcillttas D~rict (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Prolei~ion Otstfi;I to finance ;~or~tnJctton ar~or maintenance of a fire station to sewe the cllvlloi~,~l,4. The Itation ~ be located, dasigned, and built to all specitications of the Ranct~ CuGamongl Fire Prolection District, and Ittaif become the Dislricrs property ul~n com~n. The equil~ment ~ be selecteel by the District in accordance with its neeall. In any I=u'~ling of a station, the developer sl~if comply with all a13gtica134e laws and regulations. The CFD shell be formed by the District and tl~e cleveioper by the time recordation of the final rnal= occurs. SC - 2/91 Prior to recordation of the final m~o or the issuance of buik~ing permits, whichever comes first, the al~licant shell consent to, or 13articilDate in, the eatal:~N~nent of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the constm(;lion and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any scttool district haS previously astal~iShed Such a Community Facilities District, the al~nt slyall, in the alternative, consent to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District p~c~ to the recorclation of the linal map or the issuance of building permits, wl~ichever comes lirst. Further, if the affected scl'xx)l district has not formed a Melio-Roos Community Facilities District will,in twelve months from tl~e clare of al~mval ol the project ancl prior to the reoorclation of the tinal ma!3 or issuance of I~uiioing pertrots for said IDrOjeCt, this com:lition shall be deem~l null anti void. This condition shall be waived if the City receives notice that the ap131icant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately __=c~'~_ _ minedate any and all SclqOOl impacts as a result of this pro~eot, 6. Prior to recordation of the final mad or I:Xtor to issuance of building Dermits when no map is involved, written certification from the affected water ~__[,~_rict that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be evaila~e Is serve the prepared project shall be submitted to the Department of Community Devaio13ment. Such letter must have been issued by the water district within 90 days IXior to final map al:~Xoval inthe caseof subclNision orprior to issuance of permits in the case of all other resicismlai ~. / / B. SEe Developmorn / 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include site plans, a,c~L, itectural elevations, exterior mate~mla an~ colors, landscaping, sign program, and gra~ng orl file in the PI~ ~, the coadllim~ contained herein, Development Code regulations, and Specific Plan and Planned Community. .__/ / 2. Prior to any use of the project site or bussnero actNity being commenced thereon, all Conditions of Apeoval shall be com131ated to the &steal;itoh of the City Planner. / / Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniterin Building Code and State Fire Marshalrs regulations have been c~n~llad with. Prior to occuI3ancy, plans shall be submitted to the Ranghe Cucanx)nga Fire Prelection Distrk=t and the Building and Safety Division to show compliance. The building shall bl ine13ected for compliance prior to Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Ap13mval shall be submitted for City Planner review and apprOVal prior to issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street imlxovement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any ~ (1~t~ al gra¢ling, tree removal, encroachment, building, e~c.), or prior to final real3 a13gewal in the ca~ of a custom sol sulxINision, or approved use ~ commlm=ed, wfiiohever comes firIt. Approval of this recNast shall n~ wane comG~lan~ with all sections o! the Development Code, all other aPl~.al~ Cly Otcb~_mes, and sl;;l!:-'-la Community Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of ~ Perulit il~uance. A detailed on-site lighting I~n Shell be reviewed and al~XO~ by the City Planner and Shariff's Degartment (989.~11) p~3r to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shell indicate style, illumination, location, heigl'~. and metlx~l el shielding So as not to adversely affect adjacent p~oertles. / / / / / /__ ,S~ - 2/91 9. 10. If no centralized trash recel~acies am provided, all trash pick-up shall be for individual units with all receplaclas shielded from pul~ view. Trash raceDraces(s) are required and shall meet Cily standstall. The final design, locations, and the number of trash rocel~aCles shall be ~ to City Planner review ams aPDrOval pnor to issuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility amurtenances such as translormers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, barming, and/or lartclac, a~ing to the satisfaction of the City 2of 12 11. Street names shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval in accordance witl~ the adopted Street Naming Policy prior to apl3rovai of the final map. 12. All building num13ers 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 _~x~__rdanc~ wilh City Master Trail drawingl, sitall be sul:~'llitted tor City Planner review and al:~roVaila~orto ap13mvai end rl~:~latton of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street irnf)rovement and gradi~ plans. Devato~r shall upgm~ and construct all trails, including fencing and drainag~ d~cee, in conjunction with strut iml)mvernants. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) Shail not I:XOhibit the keeping of equine animals where zoning requirements fortim keeping of ~aid animalel~ve ~ met. Individual lot owners in sul:<itvisions artall havethe ol3llen of keel;~g ~ ertlm~wlll~ut the necessity of al~eailng to beards of directors or ~omeowne~' a~octatio~ for amendment~ to the CC&Rs. 15. The Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Atticlee of Inooqx~ation of the Homeowners' Association are sul~ct to rna al:~rovai of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney, They shell be recon~d con~un'enlty with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permils, wffidi~ever ~ first. A ~ c~:)y shall be provided to the City Engineer. 16. Allparkways, open araee, andlandecaping shatl be pem~anentlymalmalned by the propedy owner, homeowners' association, or omer meam I:;ll}l '-II tO till City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shall be sul~mitt~:l tOt City Piefiner and City Engineer r~vi~w and ap~'oval prior to issuance of building permils. 17. Solar access eassrnents sl~11 be dedicated for the PuW~ss of assuming that eec~ lot or dwelling unit Shall have Me rigIll to rec~ lunltg~ ~ acllloent loll or units tor use of a solar enei~gy system. The eassmems may be oonlalned in · Declaration of Restrictions 1or the $ul:x:livision which t~all be racm~l~l ~or~urtl~ly ~ the rac~dation of the liftel map or issuanc~ of permits, wNcl%ver comes firal. The e~.,~l, aa ~ I~O~ib# the casting of shadows by vegetation, structure, fixtures or any oilier el:~lof, excel tot utility wires and similar ol~ects, pursuant to 18. The projecl comains a designated Hi~torioal Landman. The ~ shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the ~ Lamlml~ Allfallen POm~ · Any further modilications to the site ir~, I~1 nol liffdl<l to, extldor literations and/or interior alterations which aff~lthe exterior of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, reiocation, reconstruction of bu~ling~ or Itmcturel, ~ chartgee to the site, shall require I modification to the Hi.eric Landn'tl~k Alloration Permit suDiect to Historic Preservation Commission review and alN:~wal. / / / / / / __3 / / / / C. Building Design An alternative energy system is required to I:xovide domeerie hot water tot all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or ape, unleel othe~ aittmative energy systems are demonstrated to be of aquivale~ ~ a~ efficiency. All w~i..~;ng M installed at the time of initial deveiopm~rll allall I~ ~1~11,,~1,~1~1 ~ ~ heating. Details sl~ail be included in the Duiiding plans and Shall be submitled for City Planntr review and al~roval prior to lhe issuance of building pem~its. S~-2/91 2. All dwellings shall have the front, side and rear elevations Ul~aCled with architectural treatment, detailing and increased delineation of surface treatment subiect to City Planner review and alereval prior to issuance of building permits. 3of 12 V/ 3. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall I:)e submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shlalded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and streets as fequirlKI by the Planning Divleion. Su~ screening shall be amhitecturally integrated with the building design and constnJcted to the satislaction of the City Planner. Details sinall be included in building plans. D. Perking and Vehicular Acceee (IndiCate alMalie on bulkling pllnl) V/ 1. All parking lot landscape islands shell here a minimum outside dimension of 6 rest and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including cure). mextun~l pedesthen petl~ey; end textured pavement acmes circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect o~wellinga/unito/buildings with open spaces/ plazas/recreational uses. 3. All parking ~acas shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits she, be striped per City standards. 4. All units shall be provided with garage door openers it driveways are less than 18 lest in depth from bec~ of sidewalk. The Covenants, Conditions and Rastrictions shall restdot the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of transportation for the owner and prohibit perking on interior circulation aislas other than in designated visitor parking areas. Plans for any security gates shell be ~J~'nitled for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and splxovet Ixior to i~uance of building permits. E. L.and~ciplng (for puMIcly mllntllned landlcll)e arm, rear to Section N.) v/ 1. Adetailedlandecapeandifrigatibnplan, includinglk:qlleplanlingandmodelheme landscap- ing in the case of residential deveibDmem, ~ be prspar~ by a llcenMd landscape architect and ~bm~ed for Cl~ Planner review and ~R~nw~l pfiorto the issuance of I~uilding pen'nits or prior final map spl~Oval in the ca~ of a cu~om Iof Wn. Existing trees r~luired to be preeerved in place shall be I:XOtected with a construction banier in _acc¢__ manre with the Municipal Co~ Section 19.0~. 110, and so Wed on the grading plans. The location of thoee treee to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detaile I lands. ape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's recommendations regarding preMrvatibn, transplanting and trimming methe~. 3. Aminimumof /-1/~/'~reespergrossacre,comlxisedohhefollowingsizes, shellbeprovided within the project: O %. ,18. in? box or larger, / C~ °/~ 36- inch box or larger, ! O %. 24- inch box of larger, ~'(P % - 15-gallon, and % - 5 gallon. ./ A minimum of .% 01 trees planted within the project shall be specimen size trees- 24.inc~ box or larger. Within parkinQ lots, trees shell be planted at a rate of one 15-gelion tree for every three parking stallS, sufficient to shade 50*/° of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. / / / ./ / I / / __/ / / / / / .__/ / / / / / / / / SC - 2/9t 4 of 12 6. Trees sl~11 be plantm:l in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate ol one tree per 30 linear feet of buiicllng. All private slope banks 5 lest or less in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater slope, but less than 2:1 slope, shall be, at minimum, irrigated and landscaped with ap13e:)priate ground cover for erosion control. ~ planting required by ttV~ ~ctlon shell inclLKle a bermanent irrigation system to be inetlead by the developer prior to occupancy. ~ / .~/ / 8. AIIprivateslopesinexcossof5feet, butle$sthan8 feet invertloalheightandof2:l orgreeter ---/ / slope shall be landscaped and irfigate<l for erosion control and to solten their appearance as follows: one 15..gallon or larger size tree per each 150 sq. ft. of sloe area, 1 -gallon or large r size shrub per each 100 sq. It. of sloe area, and apOropriate ground cover. In ack:litlon, slope banks in execs of 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater slope shall Iaea include one 5*gallon or larger size tree per each 250 ~. ft. of aloe area. Tree~ and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to ~)ften and vmy slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall Inclu~ · permanent Irrigatlo~ Wetare to be installed by the developer prior to 9. For sir~e family residential development, all SlOpe I~ ~ irfigatlo~ SI~11 be continu- ~ / ously rrmintm~ed In a heUhy and trmv~ng condign by the claveloper url, e~ Incllv~ual unit is sok:l and (xx:upled by the buyer. Prior to millling oo~ q~l~.,X for thoee units, an irmpectlon shall be conducted by the Planning DiviMorl to determine that they are in satisfactory 10. For multi-family residential and non-residential bavelopmert, propeW owners are respan- / / sable for the continual mlintenance ~ Ill Ilndsclpecl areas on-site, is well as ConUguQus planted arm within tt~ pul~ic rig~-of.~vay. All lan(Mc:~)~ Ireis s~ll ba ke~X tree from weeds and ~ ancl mlinmined in a I~lhy ancl fly*ring condition, and ~ receive regular I~uning, fertilizing, mowing, ind trireme. Any ClalTmg~, deeCI, diseisecI, or declying ~ matehal sl~lt be repliced ~ 30 clays from the c~te of clm~ge. / / 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the DevslOl~,,,;nt Code and/or · This requiremere sham pe in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 12. The final (:lesion of the podmeter parkways, wails, lancMc~ng, and sidewalks shall be / / included In the required landscape plans and Shall be mZ)tect to City Planner review and a~xoval and coordirmted for car S~tll~.~ t lrly Hrkway landscaping I~n wl~ic~ m~y be required by the Engineering Divilk~. 13. ~ial land~ tealu~ ~ is n~, ~ rock, ~ size t~ees, meander- . / / ing sic~w~lt~ (with ~-,~,"~,.l~.. $.~ cl~nge), and irlensltled landKal~ng, ie required along 14. Landscaling atx:l imgation ~j~tems required to be initIliad wiU'tIn the 13ub~ rigN-of-way on the perimeter of this project area sl~lt be c~'Rinuously rnathtain~t by the developer. 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatmart ff lo~ld in public maintenance areas, the design shall ba coordinate<l with the Engineering Division. 16. Tree maintenance c~erla Shall be developed and sulm~ilt~l for City Planner review and approval prtor to issuance of building permits. These criteda shall eraoutage the natural growth characteristics of the selecteq tree sl:)ecies. 17. Landscaping and irrigation sl~all be clesignecI to consewe water through the principles of Xenscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code. 5o!'12 2/91 F. slgrm The signs indicated on tl~ submilled plans are conceptualonly and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall corr~ly with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any s~gns. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this cleveiopmant shall be submitted for City Plannar review and approval prior to issuance of building pan'n~. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provibed for apartment, condominium, or townhomes prior to ocoupancy and shall require separate aliiCation and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building pam~#s. G. Environmentat __/ / / / The developer shall provide eash prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street RoO< Ctusber pro~lct in a standard format as d~erminad by II~ City Plannar, prior to accepting a cash bepo~it on any property. The beyeloper shall provide eash prosp~ctive buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special S!udies Zone for t~e Red Hill Fault, in a standard fomlat as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash depo~l on any property. The developer shall provide each prospective buyer written notice of tl~e Foothill Freeway pro~ect in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, I~tor to accepting a cash depo~ on any property. A final acoustical report shall be aubmi~ted for City Planner revU~v and amxovai prk)r to the issuance of building permits. The final report sl~ail discuss tbe level of inferior noise aEenuation to below 45 CNEL, tl~ building matedall ancl construction tecl'miques provided, and if a~ate, varify the adlquacy of the mitigation n~a~Jres. The 13uilding plans will be checked for conformance with the mitigation measures contained in the final refx)rt. / / H. Other Agencies V/ 1. Emergencysscondatyai=esssl~ailbeprovicll(linacgxx~lancewilhRanctx)CucamongaFire Protection District S~andan:ll. Emergency access shall be pmvldnd, mainfenanc~ tree and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide at all times ~luring conetraction in accorclanc~ with Ranct~ Cucamonga Fire Protection District requirements. Prior to is~Janc~ of building permits for combustible oonatmction, evidence sitall be submitted to the Rancho Cucamunga Fire Protection O~tict tl~t temporary water supply for fire protecttoo i~ ava#at~, pem~ng coml~stioo of required fire protection system. 4. The al~icanf sl~ail contact the U.S. Postal Seo~ce to d~ermirm the approf~ate type and location of mail bexes. Multi-family reai~lenfiai ciev~opmenfs shall provide a solid ovameed smJcture for mail bexes wi~ a(l~<lUate ligtllng. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overfield Structure sl~all be sul~ect tO City Planner revi~v ~ approval prior to the issuance of building pan~itS. 2/91 For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all suPl:x)rtive information, sitall be ol~ained from the San B~mardino County Departmere of Environmenfal Health and submitted to tile Building Official pdor to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. 6of 12 / / / / / /__ APPLICANT~ SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DIVISION, (714) ~8~.16~3, FOR COMPUANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development // 1. The applicant shall cornply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Cocle, Unitorm Mechani- cal Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Cod®, and idl otrmr ap~ical)ie codes, ordinances, and regularlotto in effect at the time of ilsuance o~ reLIh've permits. Please contact the Bui~ing and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. i// 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new resiclentlll dwelling un#(,) or rnalor ac~ltion to existing unit(s). the apl~icant shall pay clevelol~nent fees it the estn~ishecl rate. Suc~fees may include, ~ are not limited to: City BeauUIk:ation Fee, Park Fee. Dcdinage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees. Incl School Fees. __/ / / / 3. Prior to issuance of building permits for i new CO,,.,LI.Cill Or indultdal develo9ment or / / addition tO an existing development, the al=l~mnl shall pay develot~nem tees at the established rate. Such fee8 may include, but are not liralied to: Syltlml Development Fee. Drainage Fee, School Fees, Peltnit and Plan Checking Fee~. v/ 4. Streetaddresses$ha~bep~vid~bytheBuk~ng~i~ia~a~t~rtract/~3erce~maprec~rdat~n ~ / and prior to issuance Of I~ilcling pem'dts. J. Existing Structurll 1. Provide compliance with the Uniform Building Code for ~e prope~ly line clearances / / consicledng use, area, and fire-resistivene. of existing buildings. - 2. Existing I~jJiding~ $1~11 be midi to (x)fTNc)ly ~ ~ormct I:~lill:lif~] Ind zoning regulations for / / tl~e intended ule or the building 8h~11 be Wished. 3. Exjstings~waged~p~a~faci~ifie~rm~iberem~ved~fi~edand/~rc~`~9edt~c~mp~ywiththe ----/ / Uniform Plumi~ing Code and U~o~m Building Code. 4. Undefground on-~e utililJes are to be Iocmed and ~how~ on I~Oding plans submitted for / /__ ~ildJng pem~ ~ol:dicmion. K. Grading Grading o! the sul:~cl ~ shall be in accordance wilh tim Uniform Building Code, City Grading Standards, and mX~l~l grading ixactioe$. The final grading plan shall 13e in sul~-tantial conformance wtlh tl~e ~ grading / / / 2. A soils report shaft I:~ pr~r~:l by a Qualili~l engineer licens~ by tl~ State of California to /---' - pedom~ suc~ wock. 3. The ctevelopment is located wdhin the soil erosion control boundides: a Soil Disturbance / Permit is required. Please ~ontact San 9~ Courtly OM)lllment of Agltculture at (714) 387-2111 for permit appacation. Documentation of such permit shall be submitted to the City prior to the issuance of rough grading permit. 4. A geological rel~rt shall 13e Ixa13ared by a qualilia<l engineer or geologist and submitreel at the time of a~lication for grading plan check. J 5. Thefina~grading~anssha~becom~:)~eta<~angap~X~vec~:~r~oissuance~f~:~uik:~ingpe~s. SC - 2/9l 70{ 12 6. As a custom-lot sul:x:livision, tl~e following requirements slyall I~e met: a. Surety shall be I~stecl am:l an agreement executed guaranteeing coml~letlon of all on-site drainage facilities necessary for clewatering all 13arcels to tl~e satisfaction o! the Bui~ing anti Safety Division prior to final map al~mval ancl prior to the issuance of gracling permits. 13. A~propdate easements for safe disposal of drainage water that are conducted onto or over acl~ace~t parcels, are to be clelineated and recoro~:l to tl~ satisfaction of the Builtling and Safety Division Ixior to i~ancl of gredlng ~ bulk:ling permits. c. On.site drainage in'~3rovements, necessary for ~watering and ~i~ t~ su~ ~, am to ~ i~ p~or to i~e ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ns~n u~n any ~mel ~t ~y ~ ~ to dr~ f~ e~, ~, or w~ln a ~mel d. Final grading ptan8 for eacl~ I~a~cel are to be submilted to Me Buik~ing and Safety Division for al~l~)Val I:~Ofto i~uance of building and grlcli~ IXm'~ts. (This may be on an incremental or compo~te besi~.) e. All slope benks in exceel Of $ feet in voltfoal heighl shall be IllClOd with native grasses or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon coreMion of gracitng or some other a~temattve meriteel of erosion conlml Ihafl be comaMid to the ~l~l~l~ion of the Bulk:ling Off'~.,iaf. In a(:k:lltion a I~rmanenl ir~galion lyltlm M be I~widl~. This requiremere ctoee not release the al~icanUclevlk~M from ~ with the slope planting requiramenll of Section 17.0~.040 1 of the DevMo~nlnl Code. / / / / / / / __./ / J~,PUCANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (714)~1~,1~ FOR COMPLIANCE THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Dedication and v~k:u,-r Acc~ RigMs-of-way and easements Sitall be bedlcal~l to the CIty for all interior i=u~ic streets, commune/tmi~, 13ul~lic paseo~, i~blic ~ amax, strom trN~, am113~lic manage facilities a~ shown on the I~ ar,=Vor ternafire mal~. I=~lvate illl.,J.~tl for no~ facililill (CI~II-IM clrlittlgt, ~ fN(IM iraill, M~.) M I~t ~ al IttOwn on the plans ariel/or lentalive map. De<~cation $11all I~ ml~ MUlt foIlowirt0 ftOtlI-M-wly 0ll the IX~M' Itrl~t9 tMal INt on total felt 3. An i~3cal~ ~er of cledication IM for all _._/ / 4. Non-vehicular ac=ess shai Ix dedicated to Ihe Cily fix the loNewing atreet$: (~.4ka,.~i tA,-t t,'!":, FrXCF..a'!- ~ &PMk~l~"1:) T,,~t,~P,-.i~r~ Lo~_A'1"I~f,.~ . , I,,"/' 5. Reci~l a(~cee$ easements Shah be i~m,,dcll(I ensudng aoc4~s to all parcels 0y CC&Rs ! or 0y cleecll aria snail be recon:lecl concurfitly with the mao or I)~or to the issuance of .foot wicll n:)ll:lwly tt!.[.,.i, 4 thai bl made --/ / 6. Private clramage easements lot cross-lot clra~nage small ~ pro¥~ec3 anct small ce ;e~nea',ec or noteel on me final map. 7 The final map shall clearly (:lelineate a 10-foot minimum building restriction area on the neigl~Oonng lot adjoining the zero lot line wall and conta,n the foIIowi13g language: '//We lMre~y declicate to the City of Rancho ~ucamong~ the ngl~t to prot~i~it the construction of (residential) Duilclings (or ott~r struckres) wttllin tl'~ose areas des~gnatecl on tfM real3 as Duiiding re~triction areas.' A maintenance agreement sl~all also be grante~:l from each lot to the adjacent lot through the CC&R's. All existing easements lying within future rights-of-way Shall be quitclaimed or clelineatecl on the final map. 9. Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placecl outside the public right-of-way shall be cl~iCale¢l to ~e City wberever they encroacl~ onto p~vate property. 10. Additional street right-of*way shall be dedicatecl along right turn lanes, to ixovibe a minimum of 7 feet maasurea from me face ol cum~. tt cam acliacent sidewalk is usect along tl~e right turn lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement she# be prayicier. 11. The develoDer s13all mike a go<=¢l faith effort to acquire the requirm:l off-site Droparty interests necessa~ to construct t~e required public improvemants, ancl if I~/she should fail to clo so, the clavefaber shall, at least 120 clays pdor to su13mittal of tM final rnap for apfxoval, enter into an agreement to complete the iml~ovements pursuant to Government Code Section 66462 at Such time as the City aCgluires tl~e property interests required for t!~ improvements. Such agreement shall provide for payml~ by tl~ clevelo13er o! all costs incurrace by the City to acquire the off-site pm~rty interIllS rlquir~<! in co~mectlon with tl~ subdivision. Security for a Doreion of illlee coSTS $1~111 be in the form of a cash cllOo$it in the amount given in an alXXaisal rapart ol31alned by the devaloOlr, at bevalot3er's cost. The aDDraiser ~ail have been approved by the City ~ to commencement ol the appraisal. M. Street Improvemorea 2. A rmnimum at 26- fool ~ Dlvement, wtll~ a 40 -feel wide ~<licated rigid.of-way ~all be constructed f~' all hall*lleli~ strletl. 3. Construct I~ foaowi~ perimater street improvements inclucling, but not limited to: STREET NAME CURB & A.¢. ~DE DRIVE S't'"RF.L'T~ COMM. MF..D~Uq OTtIER GU'I~ER PVtdT WALK APPR. L,IGI,rT's ~ 'L'RAII. ISL,MID / / / / / / __/ / Notes: (a) Meclian islan43 inclucles lanclsca~m<~ anti ~rr~gation on meter ;b~ Pavemere r~nst~n and ove~ays will be ~eterm~ned ~un~ plan check. (c) If ~ ma~, s~e- wa~ s~all ~ ~milinear ~r lTD. 304. (d) If ~ ~, an m-lieu of ~nst~on fee smart I~rovement plans a~ ~n~n: a. Street imoroveme~ ~ans i~i~ strut Ir~s a~ ~r~t I~s, ~e~r~ ~y a r~is- ter~ C~il E~i~r. s~l ~ ~ to a~ ~mv~ ~ t~e C~y E~i~er. S~u~y s~# ~ ~ a~ an ~me~m ex~ to t~ ~n of t~ C~ Engineer t~ C~ AEO~y ~am~ ~n of the ~ ~ D~ate ~met im~ove- me~s, ~rto final ~ ~vil ort~ ~a~ ~ ~i~i~ ~s, w~ver ~urs fi~. CL P~tor to any wo~ being I:~ormecl in IX~llc right-of-way. fees sirtall be I~id and a construction I~'mit Shall be otXain~t from the City Engineers Office in actctition to any other permits requirecl. Pavement striping, ma~king, traffic. street name signing, and interconnect conduit shall be installeel to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Signal concluit wi~h gull I:exel alkali be instaltlcI on any new construction or reconstruction __/ of major, sac)onaary or collector streets wl~ch intMeect with other rosier, seco~lary or collector streets for future traffic signals. Pull Ix)xee M be pieced on I=eth sides of the street st 3 feet outsicle of BCR, ECR or any otl~r locations al:)l:xovedl~/the City Engineer. Notes: (1) N1134311 Doxes s~all be NC). 6 unles8 otheMiee Si)ecllied I)y the C~ Engineer. (2) Conduit shall be 3-inC~ Galvanizecl steel wilh I~Jllrope. Wheel Cidlit raml~ shall be installed off all four comers of intersections per City $tanclarcls or as clirectecl 0y the City Enginw. Existing City macIs rlClU'.ing conamJction Ihal remain ol:)en to traffic at all times with aO~ClUate cMtours cIuring conatnJction. A attest ctolum I=Mm4 may I~ requirecS. A cash clel:e~ shall I~ Ixoviclecl to ;over the co~ M grading anci peving. w~icfi shall be refunOed Ul:X)n cornll4elion o! tile conatnJclion to the latlatlc2ion of the City Engineer. g. Concentrated ~rainage flows ~all not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk ctrains shall be instauecI to Cily Standams, excalX 1o~ single family lots. n. HancllCal) aC:CISl ramp clesign sl~lll 0e Is ~ecified I)y me ely Engineer. i. Street names 8Mll t)e al:~mved 0y me City plannM Ixior to sul~m#tal for first plan cr~ct<, 6. Sireel trees, a minin~m of 1S-gallon S~ZO or largec, sitall 134 installed per City Stanctarcls in accoraance w~n tl'~ City's street tree ~'ogram. SC · 2/9[ ~0 of t2 V~ 7. Intersection line of site cles~jns shall De reviewe<~ t~y the Crty Engineer for conformance aclopta<l policy. On collector or larger streets. lines of s~gnt Shall be Dlotle<t for all project intersections, including c~dveways. Wails, s~gns. and Slol~eS shall be Iocatecl outsloe the lines of sight. Landsca,Oing and other obstructions within me lines of s~gnt snail be al~3rovect by the City ;:ngJneef. b, Local residential street intersections Shall have their noticeability improvecl. usually by moving the 2 +/- closest street trees on each side away from the street and place<l in a street tree easement. 8. A persist shall tie obtained from CALTRAN$ for any WOlf< within tl~ following rig~-of-way: _._/ / 9. All public improvements on me following streets sllall bl operationally con131ete prior to the N. Ptellc Maintenance Amae A separate set of lanclsc~oe anti irrigation plans per Engineering Pu1311c Works Startclarets snail be subm~e~l to the City Englnelr for review and al~rovll prior to final ~ aooroval or issuance of bullcling penTtill. whichever occurs fi~t. The following lanclSCal~ parkways, meclians, paleos, easements, trails, or other areas are requim<l to be annexeel ~o the Landscape Maintenance / / / / 2. A signe(I consent and waiver form to ~3in anti/or form the apl~ol~ate Lanaiscape anct Lagging Districts sttall be filed with tne Ctly Engineer I~rior to final ma~ a130rovalor i~suance of buiioing permits wnic~evef oc_~jrs fi~t. Formation ~ ~hall be berr~ II~ the cleveiol~f. 3. All re~uir~:l pu131ic landscal~ and in~gation systems sl~ll be ¢~ntinuously maintained by the cleve~;~r until aCCel~e~l ~ tlll Cil~. V/ 4. Parkway lanclacaping on the following street(s) shall CX~Orm to ~e r~s ~ t~ red. We / / / / O. Drainage an¢l Flao~I Cellini V/ 1. The project (or ~ theme) is lecatecl wit~n a Floecl Hazarcl Zone; therefore, riooct proruction mealUrns M pe pn)vi(licl a~ cenillid 1~/a reoil~erecl Civil Enginw ancl a v cl Engineer. V/ 2. It shall be the devltol~r'$ rll13of~'ffially to have the curt'era FIRM Zona A designaston fen~3v~l from the IXOiect area. The cl~vai~plr'l engineer shall grlGl~a all necessary rel~)~s. ;4inl. anti I~,/,;I(010g'UllyCII'IIjlic CllCl,,~1tOfil. A CQncllionll Lllter of Ma13 Revision (CLOMR) shill I~1 ¢N~llinl~l from FEMA W to linll roll} aliifocal or issuance of t~uil~ling permils, writhevet o~cum fires. A Leller el Map Revi~ien (LOMR) snail De issue~l 0y FEMA I~'ior to occupancy or improvement a~=ll;llanct. whichever occurs tirst, A final drainage study snail be ~bmittecl to an~l a13grov~l l~y the Cily Engineer prior to fina~ map a131~'oval or the issuance ol builtling IDIrmits, wn~:never occurs first. All clrainage facdi~S Shall be ~nstalle<:l as require¢! by me City Engineer. / / ~c 2/9t tt oft2 ~ 4. A pen'nit from t~e County Ftooci Control DistrtCt ~s require(3 for worX wrt~n ~tS ngnt-ot-way 5. 'Trees are prol~ibited within 5 feet of the outside cliameter of any publiC storm Qrain p~pe ' measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. /.__ 6. Public storm (:irain easements sl~all be graded to convey overflows in tile event of a blockage in a sum13 catch basin on the public street. P. Utllltiea ~ddd' 1. Prov,:le separate utility serwces to each parcel includin~ sanitary sewerage system, water, gas, eieclnc power, teiepnone, and calve 'IV (all undergmuncl) in ac~mance w~tn the Utility Standards. Easements shall be provided as required. V~ 2. The developer shall be responsible for the reiocation of existing utilities as necessary. __7 /' V~ 3. Water and sewer Idans sllall be designe(:l and {~nstnjct~;I to meet the requirements of the / / Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Ranctto Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardinc. A letter of compliance lrom the CCWD is require<l prior to final map a131~mval or issuance of permits, whichever OcCurs first. O. Ginifil Requlrentent~ and Al:~n)vail 1. ~e s~arate ~mels ~mai~ w~hin the ~j~ ~s ~a~ ~ ~1~ ~in~ into one ~1 ~r to i~a~e of ~i~ ~s, 2. ~ e~e~m lot a ~im use ddvewly s~l ~ ~ ~r to li~ ~ ~val or assuage of ~i~i~ ~s, w~ver ~j~ fi~, for: 3. Prior to al3oroval of the final map a deDo$it $M# be ~tmed with the City covering the eslimat~l cost of alN3ortioning the a~,ellmenll uncl~ AMlf, lrnent District among the newly c~eated parcels. 4. Etiwancla/San Sevaine Area Regional Mainline, $e(=oncla~/Regional, and Master Plan Drainage Fees shall be ~ IXk)r to final ~ aOl~OVai or IXiOr. to buiMing permit issuance if no real:) is involve(31. / / 5. Permits shall be oDtai~fmmthelollowing agencias forwol'k within their dgfit-of-way: ,, / / 6. A signed (:x)nllnt and waivM form to join and/or form the Law Enforcement Community Fac31itias ~ ~lll be I11~1 with the City Engineer I:mOr to final ~ apMovai or the ,ssuance of building I~rmits. whichever occurs tim. Formation costs $1~11 be Ix)me t3y the Develol)lr. Pnor to finaiization of any clevelooment phase, sufficient iml~ovement i~ans $r~11 be com- pieted beyon¢l the pl'mse boun¢lariel to asiare ~econ¢ll~/~ anti ~ainage Da3tlction to me sateaction of the City Engineer. Phase DOUn~IM~ ~ con'as13ond to lot lines sl'x)wn on the apl:~vm:l tentative maD. / / .5~ 2/gt t2of 12 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING VARIANCE NO. 92-07 A REQUEST TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM BUILDING-TO- CURB SETBACK FROM 15 TO 8 FEET FOR ONE BUILDING WITHIN A PROPOSED 32-UNIT TOWNHOME PROJECT ON 3.35 ACRES OF LAND IN THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT (8-14 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE), LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CARNELIAN STREET AT VIVERO STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-022-54 AND 64. A. Recitals. (i) G & D Construction has filed an application for the issuance of Variance No. 92-07 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Variance request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 13th day of January 1993, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 13, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to a triangular-shaped property on the west side of Carnelian Street at Vivero Street with a Carnelian Street frontage of 634 feet and lot depth of 346 feet and is presently improved with curb, gutter, and streetside landscaping along Carnelian Street; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is developed with single family residences and includes some vacant land, the property to the south of that site is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel, the property to the east is an existing single family residential subdivision, and the property to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 92-07 - G & D CONSTRUCTION January 13, 1993 Page 2 (c) The variance for one interior building-to-curb setback is needed to build the project similar to the previously approved Design Review application (with the only major difference being smaller buildings). The previous Design Review application was approved by the Planning Commission on October 11, 1989, prior to the adoption of Ordinance No. 465 (the Multiple Family Development Standards revisions); and (d) The new related Design Review application incorporates revisions from the originally approved Design Review application that address all other new standards associated with Ordinance No. 465, including but not limited to, additional amenities in common open space areas and increased building and wall separations; and (e} The variance situation will not be visible from Carnelian Street or the future regional trail along Cucamonga Creek, the two primary public vistas to the property. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulations would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of the Development Code. (b) That there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved or to the intended use of the property that do not apply generally to other properties in the same district. (c) That strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. (d) That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district. (e) That the granting of the Variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. VAR 92-07 - G & D CONSTRUCTION January 13, 1993 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Co~mission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 13, 1993 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Bullet, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP - A request to construct a 3,183 square foot building, containing 1,200 square feet of retail space and a 1,983 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru), within a previously approved commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Btiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. On December 9, 1992, the Planning Commission continued this item at the request of the applicant. The applicant wished to discuss some minor plan revisions with the Design Review Committee prior to presentation to the Planning Commission. While not identified in their continuance request, staff's understanding of the minor revisions include modifications to the plaza design, the cornice material, and extent of pre-cast wainscot. In that the Design Review Con~ittee has not reviewed the revised plans at the time of staff report preparation, staff will verbally update the Planning Commission on the modification request and the Design Review Committee's action. Brad ~B,~I 1 e r City ~lanner BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Staff Report dated December 9, 1992 Resolution of Approval ITEM B DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA December 9, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Cor~nission STAFF REPORT Brad Bullet, City Planner Scott Murphy, Associate Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP - A request to construct a 3,183 square foot building, containing 1,200 square feet of retail space and a 1,983 square foot fast food restaurant (with drive-thru), within a previously approved co~nercial retail center in the Regional Related Co~-ercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 229-031-03 through 13, 15, 16, 20, and a portion of 59. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of the conceptual site plan, conceptual landscape plan, conceptual grading plan, and building elevations. Site Characteristics: The site is presently rough graded and improvements have been installed for Price Club and Wal-Mart. Street improvements are being completed for the widening of Foothill Boulevard. C. Parking Calculations: Number of Number of Type Square Parking Spaces Spaces of Use Footage Ratio Required Provided Retail 1,200 I space/ 5.5 5 220 sq. ft. Fast Food 1,983 1 space/ 26.4 27 75 sq. ft. Total: 31.9 32 ANALYSIS: General: Consistent with the approved master plan for the Foothill Marketplace, the applicant is proposing a drive-thru restaurant. In addition, 1,200 square feet of retail is attached. The building has been designed to orient the stacking area to the rear of the building away from Foothill Boulevard. The drive-thru lane will exit to the PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP December 9, ~992 Page 2 parking area to the east, thereby eliminating the drive aisle across the front of the building and providing a plaza/seating area. The design of the building is consistent with the architecture of the center. Design Review Committee: The Design Review Comm%ttee (Melcher, Vallette, Coleman) originally reviewed the application and recomended that the plans be redrawn to address the following concerns: The plans should be redrawn to accurately reflect the building design. The rendering style implied pop-out elements, and relief lines that did not exist. 2. Alternative site plan/parking layouts should be evaluated to provide landscaping along the west side of the building. 3. The level of detailing provided across the storefront should be enhanced over that found with the typical in-line shops. The applicant should explore the possibility of providing a seat wall around the plaza area. A loading area should be provided in close proximity to the building. A possible location is to the south of the building within a turnout. The trash enclosure should be located closer to the fast food restaurant. On October 6, 1992, the Design Review Comittee (Melcher, Tolstoy, Coleman) reviewed the revised plans and recommended approval subject to the following conditions: Shaded seating should be provided within the plaza area. Plans should be reviewed by the City Planner prior to issuance of building permits. A curb or low seat wall should be provided between the landscape areas and the plaza. 3. The wainscot treatment should wrap around the inside corner of all pop-out elements. The applicant should consider the use of a concealed rain gutter system, which can be reviewed by the City Planner as part of the construction documents prior to the issuance of building permits. The plaza area should be included in the overall integrated art work program for the site, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Co~nission prior to the issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP December 9, 1992 Page 3 Since the Co~nittee review, the applicant has provided revised plans depicting an overhead trellis and a seat wall within the plaza area. While subject to City Planner review, these items have been included in the plans for the Comission's information. Environmental Assessment: Conditional Use Permit 90-37 was approved by the City Council on August 21, 1992, and a Negative Declaration was issued for the project. AS pert of that approval, plans for a drive- thru facility at this location were considered in approving the Master Plan for the center. With some fast food square footage being replaced with retail space, the intensity of the project has been reduced. Staff feels that the current proposal is in substantial conformance with the Master Plan and the Negative Declaration previously adopted adequately addresses the potential impacts. Therefore, no additional environmental assessment is required. FACTS FOR FINDINGS: The project is consistent with the General Plan, the Development Code, and the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The project will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or cause significant environmental impacts. In addition, the proposed use and site plan, together with the recomended conditions of approval, are in compliance with all applicable provisions of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, the Development Code, and City standards. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper as a public hearing, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property Owners within 300 feet of the site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Co~nission approve Conditional Use Permit 92-20 through adoption of the attached Resolution. BB:SM:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A# - Master Plan Exhibit "B# - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Landscape Plan Exhibit "D# - Grading Plan Exhibit "E" - Building Elevations Resolution of Approval I I RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF R$=NCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-20, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 3,183 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, CONSISTING OF 1,200 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE AND A 1,983 SQUARE FOOT FAST FOOD RESTAURANT (WITH DRIVE-THRU), WITHIN A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL RETAIL CENTER IN THE REGIONAL RELATED COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION (SUBAREA 4) OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD BETWEEN 1-15 AND ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 229-031-03 THROUGH 13, 15, 16, 20, AND A PORTION OF 59. A. Recitals · (i) The Galardi Group has filed an application for the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 92-20 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 9th day of December 1992, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and continued said hearing to January 13, 1993. The public hearing was concluded on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on December 9, 1992, and January 13, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testi~ony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard between 1-15 and Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of ~225 feet and lot depth of ±145 feet. The property is presently rough graded; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is designated for commercial uses and is developed with single family residences. The property to the south, east, and west is designated for commercial uses and is vacant; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP January 13, 1993 Page 2 (c) The development of the retail and fast food restaurant building is consistent with the Regional Related Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the commercial designation of the General Plan; and (d) The application, with the attached conditions of approval, will comply with all applicable standards of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and the Development Code. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts met forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, the City Council issued a Negative Declaration on August 21, 1991. Further, this Commission finds that the application is in substantial compliance with the original approval for which the Negative Declaration was issued. 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 attached Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Plannin~ Division 1) All pertinent conditions of Conditional Use Permit 90-37 and Parcel Map 13724 shall apply. 2) Shaded seating area shall be provided within the plaza area through the use of a trellis structure. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 3) A low seat wall shall be provided around the plaza area. The final design shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP January 13,1993 Page 3 4) The wainscot treatment shall wrap around the inside corners of all pop-out elements. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 5) The roof drainage system shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner prior to the issuance of building permits. 6) The plaza area shall be included in the overall integrated art program for the center. The final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission prior to the issuance of building permits. 7) The premises shall be kept clean and the operator shall make all reasonable efforts to see that no trash or litter originating from the use is deposited on adjacent properties. Adequate trash containers, as determined by the City Planner, shall be required and employees shall be required daily to pick up trash or litter originating from the site upon the site, and within 300 feet of the perimeter of the site. 8) All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours. 9) No undesirable odors shall be generated on the site. 10) A copy of these performance standards and all Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval shall be posted along with the necessary business licenses and be visible at all times to employees. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-20 - GALARDI GROUP January 13, 1993 Page 4 ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS PROJECT #: SUBJECT: APPLICANT: LOCATION: Those items checked are Conditions of Approval. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION , (714) 988-1861, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. Time Llmltl Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if building permits are not issued or approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. Development/Design Review shell be approved I:Xtor to / / Approval of Tentative Tract No. is granted sul~ect to the approval of / / / / The developer shall commence, pmtioipate in, and consummate or cause to be commenced, pa~tici!3ated in, or cor-.mummated, a Idelio-Roo$ Community Facilities District (CFD) for the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Profaction District to finance construction and/or maintenance of a fire station to sewe the deveioprnefl. The station shall be located, designed, and built to all specifications of the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and shall become the District's properly upon completion. The equiprnant shall be selected by the District in accordanca with its need~. In any building of a station, the developer shall comply with all ap131icable laws and regulations. The CFD shalt be formed by the Disalct and the developer by the time recordation of the final rna13 occum. Prior to recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes first, the alN31icant shall consent to, or parlicipate in, the establishment of a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District for the construction and maintenance of necessary school facilities. However, if any school district haS previously astat)lished such a Community Facilities District, the apf31icant shell, in tim alternative. con,ant to the annexation of the project site into the territory of such existing District 13ior to the recordation of the final map or the issuance of building permits, whichever comes flrat. Furlher, il the affected school district has not formed a Melio-Roos Community Fscilllles District within twelve months from the date of approval of the project and ptfor to the recordation of the final map or issuance of building permits for said project, this condition shall be deemed null and void. 5C-2/91 I This condifion shall be waived if the City receives notice that the applicant and all affected school districts have entered into an agreement to privately accommodate any and all school impacts as a result of this project. Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to issuance of building permits when no map is involved. written certification from the affected water district that adequate sewer and water facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submittad to the Dapmtment of Community Development. Such letter must have been issuad by the water district within 90 days prior to final map aPl:Xoval inthe caseof subdivision or prior to issuance of permits in the case of all other resldentlaf projects. __/ / B. Site Development v'/ 1. The site shall be develol:~d and maintained in acconJance with the approved plans which include site Wars, architectural elevations, extelfor materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and grading on file in the P Dlanni~ion, the conditions contained herein, Development Code regulations, and Spec, ific 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. 4. v/ 6. Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshall's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submiNed 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 occupancy. Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All site, grading, landscape, irrigation, and street improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to issuance of any permits (such as grading, tree removal, encroachment, building, etc.), or prior to final map appzoval in the case ol a custom lot subdivision, or approved use has commenced, whichever comes first. Aplxoval of thiS request shall nol waive cometlance with all sections of the Development Code, all other aliicable Clly Ordinances, and -.;'I~I'.;-LIs Community Plans or Specific Plans in effect at the time of Building Perroll lesuance. A detailed on-site lighting plan shall be reviewed and approvecl by the City Planner and Sheriffs Department (98~6611) p~lor to the issuance of building permits. Such plan shall indicate style, i~mination, location, heigN, and method Of shielding so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties. __/ / SC - 2191 10. If no centraltzed trash receptacles are pmvidad, all trash pick-up shell be for individual units with all receptacles shielded from pu131ic view. Trash receptacle(s) are refiuired and shall mee~ City sfandards. The final design, locations, and the number of trash rec~acle~ Shall be sul:~ject to City Planner review and aplxoval prior to iSsuance of building permits. All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as translormers, AC condensers, etc., shall be located out of public view and adequately screened through the use Of a combination Of concrete or masonry walls, berming, anti/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 adolXed Street Naming Policy prior to approval of the final map. .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 prior to approval and recordation of the Final Tract Map and prior to approval of street improvement and grading plans. Developer shell upgrade and constnJct all trails, including fencing and drainage devices, in conjunction with street improvements. 14. The Covenants, Conditions and RestSorions (CC&Rs) shell not prohibit the keeping of equine animals where zoning requirements for the keeping of said animals have been met. Individual lot owners in subdivisions shall hevethe 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&FIs) and Articles of Incorporation of the 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, whicttever o~curs first. A recorded copy shell be provided to the City Engineer. 16. All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property owner, homeowners' association, or other means a(~,eptable to the City. Proof of this landscape maintenance shell 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 puq3ose of assuming that each lot or 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 of Restrictions for the subdivision which shall be recordad concurrently with the recordation of the final map or issuance of permits, whichever comes first. The easements shall prohibil the casting of shadows by vegetation, stmcturee, fixturas or any other object, excelX for utility wires and similar ob~cts, pursuant to Devalopmerff Code Section 17.08.060-G-2. 18. The project contains a designated Historical Landmad<. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the Historic Landmark Alteration Permit No. · Any further modifications to the site including, but not limited to, extedor alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior of the building~ or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconatmction of buildings or stmcturas, or changes to the site, shell require a modification to the Hlato~c Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval. / / __/ / / / _U / / / _.U / / / / / C. Building Design An alternative energy system is required to provide domestic hot water for all dwelling units and for heating any swimming pool or spa, unless other alternative energy systems are demonstrated to be of equivalenl capacity and etfk~iency. All swimming pools installed at the time of initial development shall be supplemented with solar heating. Details shall be included in the building plans and shall be submitted tot City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. ~-2/91 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 o! building permits. / / D. Parking 1. Standard patio cover plans for use by the Homeowners' Association shall be submitted for City Planner and Building Official review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. All roof apl:)urtanances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent proberries and streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be amhitecturally integrated with the building design and constmoted to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be included in building plans. and Vehicular Acceee (Indicate dMatla on Iwllding plane) All parking lot landscape islands shall have a minimum outside dimension of 6 feet and shall contain a 12-inch walk adjacent to the parking stall (including cu~). Textured pedestrian pathways and textured pavement across circulation aisles shall be provided throughout the development to connect dvvellings/urats/buildings with open spaces/ plazes/recreationel uses. All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances, and exits shall be stripe(I per City standar~l~. All units shall be provided with garage door openers if driveways are less than 18 feet in depth from back of sidewalk. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall restrict the storage of recreational vehicles on this site unless they are the principal source of traftsportation for the owner and prohibit perking on interior circulation aisles other than in designated visitor perking ames. Plans for any security gates shall be submitted for the City Planner, City Engineer, and Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. E. Landscaping (for publicly mainlalnld lindacape Imee, refer to Section N.) · // 1. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home lanctscap- ing in the case of residential development, shell be ~ by a licensod landscape architect and submitted for City Planner review and ~1 prfor to the issuance of building permits or prior final ma~ approval in the case of a custom ~ sulxlivlefon. Existing trees required to be presM~M in place shall be protected with a conetraction barrier in accordance with the Municipal Cxx~ Sectio~ 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading ptans. The location of Ihose treee to be presMved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed lan~ plans. The al~ shall follow all of the a~oorist's recommendations regarding presentation, tran~lanting and trimming methods. A minimum of.. trees per gross acre, comprised of the following sizes, shall be provicle(l within the project: %. 48- inch bOX or larger, % - 36- inch bOx or larger, __ % - 24- inch bOx or larger,. % - 15-gallon, and __ % - 5 gallon. 4. A minimum of ~} % of trees planted within the project shall ba specimen size trees - 24-inc~ bOx or larger. 5. Within parking lots, trees shall be planted at a rate of one 15-gallon tree for every three parking stalls, sufficient to shade 50% of the parking area at solar noon on August 21. Date: / /, _ / / · / /, , / / __/ / __/ / __/ / / / / / .__/ / SC-2/91 < Trees shall be planted in areas o! public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of building. All private slope banks 5 feet or less in vertical height and of 5:1 orgrsater slope, but less than 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. AIIprivateslopesinexcessofSfeet, butlessthen8 feet inverticalheight andof 2:1orgreater 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. ft. of slope area, 1 -gallon or larger size shrub par 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. if. of slo!:)e area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered clusters to soften and va~/slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shell include a permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to .~/ / / / / / For single family residential development, all slope planting and irrigation shell be continu- ously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual unit is sold and occ~Jpied by the buyer. Prlorto releasingoccupancyforthoeeunits, aninspaction shall be conducted by the Planning DiviSion to determine that they are in satislacto~ / / 10. For multi-family residential and non-residential development, proparty owners are respon- sible for the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous I~lanted areas within the pu~ic right-of-way. All lancl~ areas shell 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 matehal shall be replaced within 30 days from the date of damage. ,/ / ,/ ,/ 11. Front yard landscaping shall be required per the Develof:)ment Code and/or · This requirement shell be in addition to the required street trees and slope planting. 12. The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included in the required landscape plans and shall be sul:~ to City Planner review and a3proval and coordiheted for consistency wth any pa~tr~vay landscaping plan which may be required by the Engineering Division. 13. Special landscape features such as mounolng, alluvial rock, specimen size trees, meander- ing sidewalks (with Ilorizontll cllange), and intensified landscaping, i~ required along 14. Landscai~ing and irrigation systems required to be installad within the public right-of-way on the perimeter of tl~s project area shell be continuously maintained by the developer. 15. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the design shell be coordinated with the Engineering Division. / / ._../ / ./ 16. Tree maintenance cdterla sl~ait be developed and su13milted for City Planner review and a1313roval prior to issuance of building pem~s. These criteria shell encourage the natural growth characteristics of the selected tree ai3eclas. __ 17. Landsca13ing and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of XedscKoe as alelined in Chapter 19.16 of the Ranctto Cucamonga Municipal Code. / / / / SC:. 2/91 5 F. Signs The signs indicated on the submitted plans are conceptual only and not a part of this approval. Any signs proposed for this development shall comply with the Sign Ordinance and shall require separate application and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation of any signs. 2. A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to issuance of building parmits. Directory monument sign(s) shall be provided for apartment, condominium, or townhemes prior to occupancy and shell require sapmate applloation and approval by the Planning Division prior to issuance of building permits. G. Environmental The developer shall provk:le each prospective buyer written notice of the Fourth Street Rock Crusher project in a standard fo,'mat as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shell provide each prospective buyer written notice of the City Adopted Special Studies Zone for the Red Hill Fault, in a standard format as determined by the City Planner, prior to accepting a cash deposit on any property. The developer shell provide each prospective buyer written notice of the Foothill Freeway project in a standard format as determined by the City Planner. prior to accapting a cash A final acoustical report shell be submitted for City Planner review and aplxoval prior to the issuance of building permits. The final report shell discuss the level of interior noise attenuation to below 45 CNEL, the builtling materials and construction techniques provided, and if appropriate, verily 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 Agencle~ v'/ 1. Emergency secondary accase shall be pecwlded in a~3oraanca with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Standards. J 2. Emergency access shall be provided, maintenance lree and clear, a minimum at 26 leer wide at all times during cortstruction in aa3oKlanca with Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District re¢luimmants. Prior to issuance ol building permits fro' comi3ustible cormruction, evidence shall be submitted to the RanChO Cucamonga Fire Protection Oi~rict that temporary water supply for fire protection is available, pending completion of required life 13rotaction system. The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Sewice to determine the appropriate type and location of mail boxes. Muiti4amily residential developments shall provide a solid overtmad structure for mail boxes with adequate ligNing. The final location of the mail boxes and the design of the overtmad structure shall be sut~eCt tO City Planner review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits. SC - 2/9] For projects using septic tank facilities, written certification of acceptability, including all supportive information, shall be oblained from the San Bernardino County Department of Environmental Health and submitted to the Building Official prior to the issuance of Septic Tank Permits, and prior to issuance of building permits. / / ___/ / __/ / / / / / / / ___/ / / / APPLICANTS SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAF'I-Iy' DIVISION, (714) 989-1863, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. Site Development v/ 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 Safely Division for copies ol the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable handouts. / / 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for a new residential dwelting unit(s) or major addiflon ~ / to existing unit(s), the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate. Such fees may include, but are not limited to: City Beautitinatlon Fee, Pa~, Fee, Drainage Fee, Systems Development Fee, Permit and Plan Checking Fees, and School Fees. v'/ 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. 4. Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation / / and phor to issuance of building permits. J. Existing Slructure~ 1. Provide con'~llance with the Uniform Building Code for the propeW line clearances / / considering use, area, and fire-resistivenaas of existing buildings. 2. Existing buildings shall be made to comply with correct building and zoning regulations for / / the intended use or the building shell be demolished. 3. Existingsewegedisp~$a~faci~it~esshal~beremoved~~i~ledand/~rcappedt~cornp~ywi~hthe ---/ / Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code. 4. Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans su13mitled for ~_/ /.__ building permit ar ication. Grading of the su13iect pm13erly shall be in accordance with I~ Unifom~ Building Code, City Grading Standan:is, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shell be in substantial contormance with the approved grading plan. K. Grading ,,/ 1. / / v/ 2. A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to ---J / periotto such work. 3. The development is located within the soil erosion control boundaries; a Soil Disturbance / / Permit is required. Please contact San Beman:lino Courtly Del~rtment o! Agriculture at (714) 387-2111 for pamM application. Documentation of such permit shell be submitted to the City prior to the issuance ol rough grading parrail. A geological report shall be prepared by a qualitled engineer or geologist and submitted at the time of al~)lication for grading plan The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building parmits. / /__ SC - 2/91 7 VIN~10_-Ii-I¥O '¥9NO~¥OQO OHONYB -i¥.L/I~]i"IS 'd'l"l'O -F::IZ.LINHOS~:::IN::IIN~ DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 13, 1993 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer Betty A. Miller, Associate Engineer ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP 14238 - VASS - A subdivision of 0.58 acres of iand into 2 parcels in the Low Residential Otstrict (2-4 dwelling units per acre), located on the east side of Hellman Avenue south of lgth Street - APN: 202-061- 46. Staff recommends issuance of a Negative Oeclaratton. PR(XIECT ANO SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Action Reguested: Approval of the proposed Tentative Parcel Map as shown on Exhibit "B" B. ParcA Size: ParcA I 16,48g S.F. 0.38 ac ParcA 2 8~g22 S.F. 0.20 ac Total 25,411S.F. 0.58 ac Existing Zoning: Low Residential Surrounding Land Use: North - Single Family Residential, Lord House South - Single Family Residential East - Tract 14192 under construction West - Single Family Residential Surrounding General Plan and Dev~opment Code Designations: North - Low Residential South - Low Residential East - Low Residential West - Low Residential Site Characteristics: This site contains an existing house fronting onto Hellman Avenue, which has been improved by the dev~oper of Tract 14192. The stte slopes to the southeast at about 3 percent. Do ITEM D PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT PARCEL MAP 14238 - VASS January 13, 1993 PAGE 2 ANALYSIS: The homeowner is proposing to create a separate parcel at the rear of his property with frontage on the Billings ~ace/Mtgnonette Street knuckle, which will be constructed by the developer of Tract 14192. A pad will be created on Parcel 2 per the conceptual grading plan (Exhibit "C") in coordination with lot 18 of Tract 14192. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The applicant completed Part ! of the Initial Study. Staff conducted a field investigation and completed Part II of the Initial Study. No adverse impacts upon the environment are anticipated as a result of this project. Therefore, issuance of Negative Declaration is appropriate. CORRESPONDENCE: Notices of Public Hearing have been sent to property owners and placed in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. the site has al so been completed. surrounding Posting at RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Planning Commission consider all input and ~ements of the Tentative Parcel Map 14238. If after such consideration, the Commission can recommend approval, then the adoption of the attached Resolution and issuance of a Negative Oeclaratton would be appropriate. Respectful ly submitted, Dan James '~ Senior Civil Engineer DJ:BAM:dlw Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Vicinity Map Exhibit "B" - Tentative Map Exhibit "C" - Conceptual Grading Plan Resolution and Recommended Conditions of Approval .... /~ ra .ST£F_ET' ~,~.~ £ LINE. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEEP. I~G DIVISION ,D-- ~ N ~ VI!'INIT'Y MI~P gXZ'EBIT: " Ft " CITY OF ~ RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENGINEERING DIYI~ON CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA ENG~G DIVISION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NUMBER 14238, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF HELLMAN AVENUE SOUTH OF 19TH STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 202-061-46 WHEREAS, Tentative Parcel Map Number 14238, submitted by Mr. Laszlo Vass, applicant, for the purpose of subdividing into 2 parcels, the real property situated in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, County of San Bernardino, State of California, identified as APN: 202-061-46, located on the east side of Hellman Avenue south of 19th Street; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 1993, the Planning Commission held a duly advertised public hearing for the above-described map. NOW, THEREFORE, THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: That the following findings have been made: 1. That the map is consistent with the General Plan. 2. That the improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed development. That the proposed subdivision and improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or public health problems or have adverse effects on abutting properties. SECTION 2: This Commission finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; and further, this Commission hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 3: Tentative Parcel Map Number 14238 is hereby approved subject to the attached Standard Conditions and the following Special Conditions: Street improvements fronting Billings Place shall be installed full width, per the approved street improvement plans for Tract 14192, upon development of Parcel 2 if they have not already been constructed by others. All drainage improvement devices shown on the conceptual grading plan, including the concrete swale, walls, and established flow lines, shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to Final Map approval. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PM 14238 - VASS January 13, 1993 Page 2 The house footprint and driveway location shown on the conceptual grading plan are not part of this approval. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: elm CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: January 13, 1993 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Steven Ross, Assistant Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-29 - AROLD - A request to establish a beauty salon within a 640 square foot leased space in an existing commercial center on 2.8 acres of land within the General Industrial District (Subarea 3) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, located at 8870 Archibald Avenue, Suite D - APN: 209-032-42. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested by Applicant: Approval of a non-construction Conditional Use Permit to allow a beauty salon to locate within the Archibald Auto Center. Applicable Regxllations: Beauty salons are classified as Convenience Sales and Services by the Industrial Area Specific Plan, which requires the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in this subarea. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Retail; General Industrial, Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 3 South - Residential; General Industrial, Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 4 East - Retail; Industrial Park, Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 17 West - Manufacturing; General Industrial, Industrial Area Specific Plan, Subarea 3 Be General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - General Industrial E. Site Characteristics: The site is a new automobile repair complex consisting of five buildings totaling 33,238 square feet. ITEM E PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-29 - AROLD January 13, 1993 Page 2 F. Parking Calculations: Square Footage Type of Use Building A: Convenience Market 1,976 Mexican/Seafood Rest. 3,300 Donut Shop 752 Beauty Salon (4 stations) Vacant 690 Building A Subtotal Building B: Automotive/Light 5,873 Truck Repair - Minor Building C: Automotive/Truck 5,400 Repair - Major Building D: Automotive/Light 8,730 Truck Repair - Minor Building E: Automotive/Light 4,500 Truck Repair - Minor Building F: Automotive/Light 2,800 Truck Repair - Minor Total ANALYSIS: A. General: Number of Number of Parking Spaces Spaces Ratio Reguired Provided 1/250 8 8 1/100 33 33 1/250 3 3 1~ 12 3/station 1/250 3 3 59 59 5 bays x 10 10 2/bay 8 bays x 2/bay 14 bays x 2/bay 16 16 28 30 6 bays x 12 16 2/bay 4 bays x 8 2/bay 14 133 145 The applicant is proposing to operate a beauty salon in the retail portion of the Archibald Auto Center. The proposed hours for the beauty salon are from 10 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Saturday, and from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Sunday. No more than four PLANNING CO~ISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-29 - AROLD January 13, 1993 Page 3 beauticians will work at the salon at any one time. When the project was approved, the easterly half of the southern building was designated for Eating and Drinking Establishments and the number of parking spaces was increased accordingly. Adequate parking exists for the business, which requires more parking than other retail or food services. The current tenants occupying the retail portion of this building include a convenience market, a donut shop, and a Mexican seafood restaurant. Two suites in this portion are still vacant, not including the beauty salon. The remainder of the Archibald Auto Center is occupied by auto repair businesses. Because this portion of Building 1 was designated for retail uses, and because no land use conflicts have been observed, staff does not anticipate any problems with the proposed beauty salon. Furthermore, staff does not foresee any conflicts between the automotive related uses and the retail tenants. Staff feels the two types of services will complement each other well because customers of the automotive service may take advantage of the salon while waiting for their vehicles to be serviced. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recomends that the Planning Co~nission approve Conditional Use Permit 92-29 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. BB:SR/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Resolution of Approval November 24,1992 From: Teresa Bin Chi Arold & Louis J. Arold 2841 Longhorn St. Ontario, Ca 91761 CITY 01- ~NCI-IO To: Planning Department City of Rancho Cucamonga To Whom it may concern The purpose of this letter is to request a conditional uss permit for s Beauty Shop as required In Suheem 4 of the Industrial Specific Plan. This shop will ssrvice the public for the purpossHalrcuting,Shempoa, Perm's, HMr Stlylng, and color finting of hair. The hour~ of operation will be Monday thru Saturday 10:00 a.m.-7:00 p.m. end Sunday 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.. The maximum number of employees at any one time is not expected to exceed four (4). If you need any additional Information please feel free to let us know, thank you Y OF ~(2H'o..'.~UCAMONGA PLAN~ING. DMSION ITEM: CUP ~-2."! TITLE: $ [T~ P~,~/~ EXHIBIT:"~)~' SCALE: - ..... RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PJ%NCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-29 TO ALLOW A BEAUTY SALON TO OCCUPY A 640 SQUARE FOOT LEASED SPACE WITHIN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL CENTER ON 2.8 ACRES OF LAND, LOCATED IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, SUBAREA 3, OF THE INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-032-42. A. Recitals. (i) Theresa Bin Chi Arold has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit No. 92-29 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 13th day of January 1993, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 13, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 8870-D Archibald Avenue with a street frontage of 464 feet and lot depth of 304 feet and is presently improved with six industrial buildings for automotive repair and a limited amount of retail use; and (b) The site was approved for approximately 5,935 square feet of food or retail users under Development Review 88-14; and (c) The property to the north of the subject site is a retail building, the property to the south consists of railroad tracks and single family residential, the property to the east is a retail building as well as single family housing, and the property to the west is a manufacturing building; and (d) The application contemplates the operation of a beauty salon with four beautician stations. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-29 - AROLD January 13, 1993 Page 2 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows= (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code and Industrial Specific Plan, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code, and Industrial Specific Plan. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: Planning Division l) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Industrial Area Specific Plan and all other City Ordinances. 2) If the operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, including but not limited to noise, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for the consideration and possible termination of the ~Be. 3) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshal's regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be submitted to the Foothill Fire Protection District to show compliance. The building shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy. 4) Any signs proposed for the facility shall be designed in conformance with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and any Uniform Sign Program for the complex and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-29 - AROLD January 13, 1993 Page 3 No more than four beautician stations are permitted for the operation. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 13, 1993 Chairm~n and Me~ers of the Planning Co~nission Brad Buller, City Planner Steven Ross, Assistant Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-32 - RANCHO HILLS CO~4UNITY CHURCH - The request to establish a church in a 7,530 square foot leased space within an existing 65,000 square foot building on 6.6 acres of land in the Office Professional District located at 7365 Carnelian Street - APN: 207-031-27. P~DJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: Action Requested: Approval of a non-construction Conditional Use Permit to allow a church to occupy a portion of an office building. Be Applicable Regulations: The Development Code allows churches within the Office Professional district subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. South East West Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Shopping center; Neighborhood Co~nercial Single family homes; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) - Senior housing complex and park; Office Professional and Flood Control - Shopping center; Neighborhood Commercial General Plan Designations: Project Site - Office North - Neighborhood Commercial South - Low Residential East - Office and Flood Control West - Neighborhood Commercial Ee Site Characteristics: The master planned office complex contains a 65,000 square foot multi-tenant office building and a 3,500 square foot bank building. Two vacant pads exist within the complex. ANALYSIS: ae Background: Earlier this year, the church submitted Conditional Use Permit 92-24, which proposed to lease 6,500 square feet on the second-floor of the bu/lding. After the Planning Commission meeting on September 23, ~992, the application was withdrawn because of building and fire code issues encountered with the ITEM F PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-32-RANCHO HILLS CO~4UNITY CHURCH January 13, 1993 Page 2 Ce location on the second-floor. The church has submitted a new application to locate within several suites on the first-floor of the building. Its offices are currently located in Suites 217 and 218 of the building, and the church plans to relocate downstairs once the anticipated approvals have been granted. Church services are presently being held at Alta Loma High School. General: The applicant is proposing to lease and occupy a 7,530 square foot space on the first floor of the Exchange Building. The church originally held services at Alta Loma High School across the street. The church contains offices, Sunday school classrooms, a meeting room, and a 2,400 square foot sanctuary. The primary church services are between 8 a.m. and 12 noon on Sundays. Other limited activities occasionally take place on Sunday afternoons and evenings. Youth Bible study discussions occur T~esday through Thursday evenings. In addition, the church's office will be open daily during regular business hours. No large group activities are proposed during regular business hours. Issues: The primary concerns with locating this type of use within an office complex setting are compatibility with surrounding businesses and parking availability. C~m~atibility With S%~rrounding Uses: A majority of the tenants within the office complex primarily operate during traditional business hours, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. The proposed church activities will take place during off-peak hours in the evenings and Sundays. The City has many churches operating within the industrial business parks with no reports of any problems. Therefore, no compatibility problems are anticipated with this proposal. pardi,g: Parking requirements for this type of use are based upon parking ratio for the potential seating capacity within the sanctuary. Based on the ratio of one parking space for every 35 square feet of non-fixed seating, the 2,400 square foot sanctuary will require 69 parking spaces (the church's 7,530 square foot space is allocated 30 parking spaces). The office complex contains 438 parking spaces, and few, if any of these will be used during the church's hours of operation. Therefore, staff does not anticipate any parking problems because of offset peak parking demand. Builwi-g and Fire Co~e Cx~pLiance: The applicant is working with staff to determine what improvements or alterations are necessary for compliance such as proper exits, fire alarms, and sprinklers, etc. Plans were distributed to staff for review and co~m~ent; however, review had not been completed at the time this report was prepared. Staff will give an oral update tonight on this issue. The applicant states that they are working with the property owner to have the proper fire sprinklers installed to meet City codes. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-32-P4%NCHO HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH January 13, 1993 Page 3 FACTS FOR FINDINGS.- The Planning Commission must make all of the following findings in order to approve this application: 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. That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. C. That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to the adjacent property owners within 300 feet of the project site. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Co~m%ission approve Conditional Use Permit 92-32 through adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval. Respect y submitted, City Planner BB:SR:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Site Plan Exhibit "C" - Floor Plan Resolution of Approval COMMUNITY OHURC H December 10, 1992 Mr. Steve Ross Community Development Department City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Ddve Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Dr. David R. Bancroft · - - ~- ~, Senior Pastor ~A~CH0 C~}C ~,,.,~ . Dear ~Steve: Rancho Hills Community Church is requesting a CUP from the city of Rancho Cucamonga for the 7~ square foot space described in *.his application based on the fciluwirlg usages. Sundays, the facilities are used pdmadly between 8:00 a.m. and 12:00 noon. Occasionally. we have a church lunch served or a small group meeting in the ahernoon. Periodically, we have evening meetings. Last Sunday morning we had about 125 in atte~;dance at the Alta Loma High School. Tuesday through Thursday evenings we will reserve part of the facility for youth Bible studies. We are presently using suites 217-218 for church offices. As soon as we are granted permission, we will move thom to the designated location within the 7,LH~0~'.~O square foot section of the building. As the church grows, we may need to increase the space. We are worK~ng with 'i'he Exchange Building management to have the proper Sl)nnkl~' system insta;led to meet the city codes. A~. you may recall, on T,~ursday, September 17, we were told by the P ann,ng C(tmmission that the buildin~t did not meat the code re:lu'rements. Sunday, September 20 wa~ our last Sunday in Ihe Worship Center. Even though the Commission granted Ave weeks to vacate, we felt we should do so immediately so as to pre~ent any obliga, ion on tr.e Commission. 1'ban;( you for your consideration. You can imagine our interest in returning to The Exchange Building as soon es possible. if there is anything you can do to expedite the process, we would grea~ appreciate it. If we need to do anything further, please let us know. We are more than ready to begin. 7365 Carnelian * Suite 217 * Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 · (714)941-4841 Mr. ~m~B l~c~ DmmmMr 9, 1992 Please convey our thanks to the Commission for their gracious spirit at the last hearing. We realize that they must abide by the codes. We will do our best to comply with them as well. Thank you for your help in this,matter. Sincerely, Senior Pastor BASE LINE RE 116Th St.] FY OF RANCHO. CUCAMONGA PLANNING DIVISION ITEM: CUP EXHIBIT: ~ SCALF_:-- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-32 TO ALLOW A CHURCH TO OCCUPY A 7,530 SQUARE FOOT LEASED SPACE WITHIN AN EXISTING 65,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING ON 6.6 ACRES LOCATED IN THE OFFICE PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BASE LINE ROAD AND CARNELIAN STREET, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 207-031-27. A. Recitals. (i) Rancho Hills Community Church has filed an application for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 92-32 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 13th day of January, 1993, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 13, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 7365 Carnelian Street with a street frontage of 689 feet along Carnelian Street and 683 feet along Base Line Road and is presently improved with a 65,000 square foot office building and a 3,500 square foot office building, as well as parking and landscaping. (b) The property to the north of the subject site is a shopping center, the property to the south of that site consists of single family homes, the property to the east is a senior housing complex and a park, and the property to the west is a shopping center. (c) The applicant proposes to use the site for a church and related functions on weekends and evenings, with minor office use during the daytime. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-32-RANCHO HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH January 13, 1993 Page 2 (d) The church's primary functions will not occur during regular business hours (except ancillary office activities). (e) Although a total of 30 parking spaces are allocated for this leased space, parking conflicts will not result with the other tenants because of the different hours of operation. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3, above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: Plannin~ Division: 1) This approval is limited to church services and other directly related functions. Any substantial increase in the intensity of the use, such as the addition of a day care or a private school, expansion of sanctuary area (i.e., public assembly), or a change in the hours of operation shall require a modification to this Conditional Use Permit. 2) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code and all other applicable City Ordinances. 3) If operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for reconsideration and possible termination of the use. 4) Occupancy of the facility shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and State Fire Marshall regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-32-RANCHO HILLS COMMUNITY CHURCH January 13, 1993 Page 3 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 occupancy. 5) Any sign proposed for the facility shall be designed in conformance with the comprehensive Sign Ordinance and the Uniform Sign Program for the complex and shall require review and approval by the Planning Division prior to installation. 6) Church services, public assembly, or other gatherings of more than 30 persons shall be limited to weekdays after 5:30 p.m. and on weekends (excluding national holidays). In no event shall any activity exceed the available parking for this lease space during business hours. 7) The facility shall be operated in conformance with the performance standards as defined within the Development Code including, but not limited to, noise levels. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCANONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullmr, Secretary I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: T H A NC E C I T Y 0 F II0 C UC A MONC January 11, ~993 Rancho Hills Community Church 7365 Carnelian, ate. 212 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Attn: Dr. David Bancroft Subject: Preliminary review of change of occupancy for proposed church at 7365 Carnellan Street· Dear Dr. Bancroft: The following is a list of gen6ral requirements that will apply to your proposed occupancy change when you submit for formal plan review. These requirements are based on my review of the preliminary floor plan you provided to me on January 6, 1993. Provide a site plan that shows compliance with disabled parking and building accessibility requirements· Also, provide tabulation showing compliance with Planning Division's parking requirements. 2 o 3'o Provide fully dimensioned floor plan that specifies the use and size of all areas and rooms. The floor plan shall also include a detailed seating layout for the classrooms and the sanctuary. Provide complete door Schedule specifying size and type of doors, type of door hardwaP6 and door frame. Provide demolition plan s~0wing location and type of walls to be removed. Provide ~truOtural engineering to justify removal of any bearing and/bF shear walls. Provide complete construction details for all proposed walls, partitions and ceilings. List on the plans the type at construction of the building, the existing occupancy group of the' building, and- the proposed occupancy group for each area or room within the proposed tenant improvement area. 7 o 10500 C:v,c Center Dnve Provide on the plans an allowable area calculation to show that this building will comply with the allowable.area for a mixed occupancy building~ Mayor Dennis L Stout Mayor Pro-Tern William J. Alexander Jack Lain, AICP, City Manaae~ Councilmember D~dne Williams Councilmember Pamela J. Wright Councilmember Charles J, Buquet tl P O Box 807 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729 · (714) 989-1851 · FAX (714) 987-~-'~99 10. 12. 13. 14. Specify on the plans the number of hours per day and per week that the proposed classrooms are going to be used. If it is your intention to use the classrooms for. more than four hours on any given day or for more than twelve hours in any given week the occupancy group classifications for these uses will range from Group E, Division 1 through Group E, Division 3 which will invoke additional building and fire code requirements and additional plan review. The Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District's Ordinance 15 requires the installation of a fire sprinkler system throughout all new Group A-$ and Group E Occupancies. Contact the Rancho C~camonga Fire Protection District for specific details regarding this requirement. Provide complete electrical plans that include type and location of emergency exit signs and emergency exit pathway lighting. Contact the 'Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District regarding possible requirements for low level emergency exit signs and pathway lighting. Provide a detailed emergency evacuation plan for review and approval by the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District. The classroom proposed in rooms 118-119 will require two legal exits. The two exterior doors as shown on the plan provided do not qualify as two legal exits due to their proximity to each other. It appears that it will be necessary to construct a one-hour corridor in order to provide a second legal exit from this room. Provide two legal exits from proposed nursery in room 107. Again it would appear that it will be necessary to construct a one-hour corridor in order to provide the second exit from this room. Provide an one-hour occupancy separation between all Group B-2 Occupancies and any proposed Group E Occupancies. These comments are fairly general in nature based on the tentative review of the general floor plan you submitted. In previous discussions with you regarding this project I suggested that you seek the services of a design professional who is familiar with the requirements for these types o~ occupancies to assist you in the preparation of the necessary improvement plans for this project. State law may require that these plans be prepared by a licensed professional depending on the nature of any proposed structural and exiting changes. Again I strongly recommend that you do so in order that you may save valuable time and money during the formal plan review process and subsequent construction phase. Sincerely, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT B%~41ding and Safgty Division Counter Plans Examiner CC Steve Hayes, Plng. Ron Nee, R.C.F.P.D. R A NC HO C UC A MO N G A I 1E P120T CTION DIoSTl ICT January 12, 1993 Rancho Hills Community Church 7365 Carnelian, Ste. 212 Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91730 Attn: Dr. David Bancroft Subject: Preliminary review of change of occupancy for proposed church at 7365 Carnelian Street. Dear Dr. Bancroft, After reviewing your plan submittals, I'm in agreement with Building and Safety comments and before the Fire District can complete the review or make any additional comments, a complete set of drawings will be required. I can recommend at this time that you contact a licensed architect since the type of occupancy you are proposing is rather complex in nature with regards to life safety and protection of property issues. If you have any questions regarding this letter feel free to contact this office at (909) 987-6405. ..S~n erely' Fire Safety Analyst cc: Phil Mosley, Building and Safety ,~ DMINIST2AT!ON * P O BOX 850. RANCHO C UCAMONGA. CA 91701_0850. (714) 987-2535. FAX (714) 9&7 088! ~ R E SA F E T'¢ · P O B O x 8 O 7 · RAN C H O C U CA M O N GA CA 91729- 0807 · ( 714) 987- 6405 "FAX ( 714) 987- 6499 December 28, 1992 Rancho Cucamonga Pianning Commission c/o Pianning Division P.O. Box 807 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 Re: Conditionai Use Permit 92-32 Rancho Hiils Community Church Oea~ Sirs: I am a tenant o£ the building in question for the Conditional Use Permit for Rancho H~lls 6ommunity 6hutch and I am in Eavor of their being grantsd the permit. Their use of these facilities in the past has made for a desireable relation= ship. Their presence seemed to bring no ill effects upon traffic flow in or around the building. They wii1 be welcomed neighbors to the building once a9ain. Thank you for your consideration of my comments RM:sd 7365 Camelian, Suite 106 · Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 · (714) 989-9888 By Appointment DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 13, 1993 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 92-30 - COLOMBERO - A request to establish a bail bonds office and warehouse within a 2,000 square foot leased space in a 10,000 square foot building within the General Industrial District (Subarea 8) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan located at 8685-E Etiwanda Avenue - APN: 209-032-42. PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION: A. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North - Industrial; General Industrial (Subarea 8) South - Industrial, restaurant; General Industrial (Subarea 8) East - Industrial; General Industrial (Subarea 8) West - Industrial; Heavy Industrial (Subarea 15) General Plan Designations: Project Site - General Industrial North - General Industrial South - General Industrial East - General Industrial West - Heavy Industrial C. Parking Calculations: Type Square Parking of Use Footage Ratio ~mher of Spaces Required Number of Spaces Provided Bail Bonds Office and Storage 2,000 1/400 5 15+ Total 15+ ANALYSIS: ae General: The applicant is requesting approval to operate a bail bonds office in an existing multi-tenant industrial building (see Exhibit "C"). The building faces Etiwanda Avenue and has ample parking in front and at the sides and rear of the building. The ITEM G PLANNING CO~4ISSION STAFF R~PORT CUP 92-30 - COLOMBERD January 13, 1993 Page 2 building is suitable for light manufacturing and other industrial uses which require a minimal amount of office space and a small warehouse. The proposed location is on the southerly end of the building, adjacent to the main entrance driveway, where the greatest proportion of on-site parking is located. The daily operations of the proposed bail bonds office involves general office use and storage of collateral in the warehouse area (see Exhibit "A"). There are typically two employees involved in operating 24-hours a day on an on-call basis. The applicant states that most of their service would be conducted at the West Valley Detention Center or courts, which minimizes in-office activity. The applicant presently owns and operates a bail bonds office in San Bernardino. The Sheriff's Department and Building & Safety Division reviewed the application and voiced no concerns. Compatibility: Subarea 8 is intended to provide for General Industrial activities and to assure for a transition area from the Heavy Industrial category. Activities typically include: Custom and Light Manufacturing, Light and Mediu_n~ Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution, Building Contractor's Offices, Business Support Services. Conditionally permitted uses include: Medium Manufacturing, Office, Financial Services, and Personal Services. Bail bonds offices are classified as a "Personal Service." The proposed business operation is similar to Light Wholesale, Storage and Distribution which is a permitted use within Subarea 8. There is only one other tenant in the building: AFW Sheet Metal. Staff believes that the proposed use is both compatible with surrounding businesses and suitable for the property. Parking: As a multi-tenant industrial user, the parking ratio is 1 space per 400 square feet. A total of 5 parking spaces would be required based upon a 2,000 gross leasable area. There are approximately 20 parking spaces in close proximity to the lease space. The applicant proposes 400 square feet (20 percent) of office area compared to the 700 square feet (35 percent) allowed for multi-tenant industrial buildings. Therefore, the parking demand is considerably less than could potentially be expected for this type of building. Staff recomends that the faded stripes of the parking spaces be repainted. CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspaper, the project has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Letters of support for the application were received from two adjoining property owners (see Exhibit "E"). PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT CUP 92-30 - COLOMBERO January 13, 1993 Page 3 RECOMMENDATION: Staff reco~ends that the Planning Commission approve the request through adoption of the attached Resolution. BB:DC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Applicant Exhibit "B" - Location Map Exhibit "C" - Site Plan Exhibit "D" - Floor Plan Exhibit "E" - Letters from Property Owners Exhibit "F" - Photographs Resolution of Approval FAUL'S BAIL BONDS 115 SOUTH WATERMAN AVENUE SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFOP~WIA 92408 (909) 888-1471 November 17, 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga Community Development Department 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 RE: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 8685 Etiwanda Avenue - Unit E, Rancho Cucamonga Dear Sirs, The use of the proposed location as a bail bonds office would be exclusively directed to general office and light collateral storage. The daily operations of a bail bonds office is affording people the right of release when being detained by law enforcement agencies and judicial facilities. Because of the nature of our business, we are an on-call, 24 hour a day service which can usually be handled by two employees at any given time. In most cases, we meet our clients at the detention facilities or courts, so our in-office activity is kept to a small percentage. On December 1, 1992, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department is closing it's Central Detention Center in San Bernardino and will be booking only at the West Valley Detention Center on Etiwanda Avenue. This will increase the jail population some 1500 inmates monthly. The need for bail will be in higher demand. With limitied availability of office space or suitable building sites in this area, this location would provide us easy accessibility to the West Valley Detention Center. CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PAGE 2 As a licensed Bail Agent, licensed through %he State of California, and the owner of Faul's Bail Bonds at 115 South Waterman Avenue, San Bernardino, I feel the proposed site offers all the necessary requirements, security needs, high visability and traffic signage to service the West Valley Detention Center and the City of Rancho Cucamonga. It is in my hopes that we could become an asset to the community of Rancho Cucamonga. Please feel free to contact me at the above telephone number if you need any further information. Sincerely III1~ & ~111111 !- __ .J ~) MR AND MRS JOSEPH T. GUIDERA, JR. 8762 RED HILL COUNTRY CLUB DR. CUCANONGA, CA 91730 OCTOBER 6, 1991 CITY OF RANCH CUCAMONGA 10500 CIVIC CENTER DR. RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CA 91730 GENTLEMEN: IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THATMR. DAVID STORY IS PLANNING TO MOVE INTO8685-EETIWANDA AVE., RANCHO CUCAMONGA, AND PLANS TO USE THE FACILITYPREDOMINANTLY FOR STORAGE OF COLLATERAL FOR HIS BAIL BOND COMPANY, FAUL'S BAIL BONDS, WITH LIMITED OFFICE USE IN THE FRONT. WE CERTAINLY HAVE NO OBJECTIONSTOTHIS USE IF PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTYAS PRESENTLY ZONED. WE DONOTWISH TO CHANGE THE ZONING. ,~YOURS TRULY~/~ ~ JOSEPH T. GUIDERA, JR. 10681 Foothill Boulevaro, .,re 450 Post Office Box 3900 Rancr~o Cucamonga, Cahfornia 91729-3900 (714) 944-4t00 Fax: (714) 944-4112 Concrete and Steel Pipe Group October 2, 1992 City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91720 Gentlemen: It is our understanding that Mr. David Story is planning to move into 8685-E Etiwanda Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, and plans to use the facility predominantly for storage of collateral for his bail bond company, Faul's Bail Bonds, with limited office use in the front. If this is a permitted use on the property as presently zoned, and there is no intention to change the zoning, then Ameron has no objection. Your truly, Ray A. Lucas Plant & Equipment Engineering Manager RAL:cw RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-30 FOR A BAIL BONDS OFFICE AND STORAGE LOCATED IN THE GENERAL INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT (SUBAREA 8), AT 8685-E ETIWANDA AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN= 209-032-42. A. Recitals. (i) Secondo and Dana Colombero have filed an application for the issuance of the Conditional Use Permit No. 92-30 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 13th day of January 1993, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii} All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 13, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located at 8685-E Etiwanda Avenue with a street frontage of 330 feet and lot depth of 270 feet and is presently improved with a multi-tenant industrial building and parking lot; and (b) The property to the north of the subject site is industrial, the property to the south of that site consists of industrial and restaurant, the property to the east is industrial, and the property to the west is heavy industrial; and (c) The application contemplates the 24-hour daily operation of a 2,000 square foot bail bonds office and collateral storage. 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: PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-30 - COLOMBERO January 13, 1993 Page 2 (a) That the proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located. (b) That the proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. (c) That the proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the Development Code. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below: Planninq Division 1) Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Industrial Area Specific Plan, the Development Code, and all other applicable City ordinances. 2) If the operation of the facility causes adverse effects upon adjacent businesses or operations, the Conditional Use Permit shall be brought before the Planning Commission for reconsideration and possible termination of the use. 3) Any signs proposed for the facility shall be designed in conformance with the Comprehensive Sign Ordinance and shall require review and approval of the Sign Permit by the Planning Division prior to installation. 4) All collateral storage shall be within the enclosed building. 5) The office area shall be limited to up to 700 square feet. 6) Approval shall expire, unless extended by the Planning Commission, if the approved use has not commenced within 24 months from the date of approval. Stop signs or vehicle limit lines shall be installed at driveway exits onto Etiwanda Avenue. 8 Existing parking spaces shall be restriped. 0 -/J PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CUP 92-30 - COLOMBERO January 13, 1993 Page 3 APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: DATE: TO~ F~)M: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 13, 1993 Chairman and Members of the Planning Co~nission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner 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: shopping workshop. The report presents amendments to the Development Code center parking requirements for discussion in a public BACKG~UND: In 1991, the City amended it's parking re9%llations 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 Co~ission 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 sun~aary of the report's findings and recomendations 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 1,000 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 reco~ends that additional parking be required for those individual uses. The specific reco~endations are outlined on pages 19-20 of the report. I'r~4 H PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF BEPORT 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 ~n existing or approved developments. The effect of the proposed recommendations upon seven shopping centers, ranging from small strip centers to large co~uunity 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. RECO~4ENDATION: Staff recomends 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 92-0~ City Council Ordinance for Development Code Amendment 92-01 MEMORANDUM TO: Rmlcho Cucamonga planni,~g Staff FROM: Hughes Investments Lewis Homes. Management Corp. DATE: May 15, 1~1 RE: Proposed Parl~ng Ordinance Reyesiota C~ty of Rancho Cucamonga Per ~ur request, we have analy2~ the City of Rancho O~,'~--onp's proposal to ~l;minate ~ompact psrirlng spaces from ils ora;nam:e and the hues and impacts r~gstding that proposal We have also r,~c-w~l the CJty's current paricing provision r~quirements and off~r, es an alternative, a proposal to addre~ that as well Use, or el;m/nation of, present compact car parking (8' x 16' stall size). Baclq~'ound - P~r the Urban lend In,titute, the ~mtitut~ of Transportation Engineetz, the National Ihrking ,~-qocJstion/Comultant's Council, ENO Foundation for 'rr=mpormtion, snd International Coum:fl of Shopping Centers, the following information is ava/labi~ regarding cornpro '"" · Ap12roodmately 80~ of cars currently in use are 5'- 9" ~ · 1~'-7' long or !,~: ~ is Approximately 20~ of all can are considered 'larse cars: Most of which (8~ of this cata~ory) are no brier than 6'-1' wide by 17'-2" long. Parking space width requirements are generally dztzrmlned by adding 21' for long tern, low turnover park~ ~.m to ~ for bJlh turnover parkinf; 24' is mint co-,,,,only used. Parking space Jenfth requiremenu are typically det~,-;~qd by addinf 6' to 9' to the Jenfth of the vehicle; ~' is most com,~uly used. NOTE: A!~,i,.,,~ate~ 0790 (i.e. 80~ + (20~ x 85q0)) of all cars in usz are no !onset than 6'-1" x 17' .~2~°rmulting in: Appmxim. tedy 80~ of cars needing spaces 7'- Y' widz x IV- 4' ~ Approximately 17% of can needing spm~s ~- 1" ~ · 17~- 11" ~ F-or further backsround regarding the above information, see F. xhibits A-D and Attachments 3,4,5 and 8 (attached hereto). The following Exhibits A-D, (found also in Attachment 4), clearly support this conclusion and serve to illustrate the growing pmminem~ of small cars in tim UnRed Status: Small Car (Compact) Parkin~ Rancho Cucamonga currently allows 8'x 16' compact spaces as a percentage of total project parlrinS. T!~ larger size compact space usually anticipates some mi.,use of these sp _ar~__ and therefore, can handle Oc~dional large can. The most common problems regarding the use of compact parking, entperic _[~__ in l~nncho Cuc~monga~ involve poorly located or identified spaces and enforcement. Solutiom to theso problems for e~ting projects, lie in well-conceived parking lot design, graphics, and enforcement of appropriate CC&R and tenant lease requirements. ~n commei~nl projects, especially retail where customer convenience is primary, compact parking spaces should be located in areas where parking is 1,-~ frequently used. 'l'nese Spaces farthest away Dom bu,'lding entrances Low turnover parking areas such as these ut0;,,~l by employees, includ;n$ parking in rear service areas. Use of these spaces should be enforced by tenants and the landlord, through tenant leases and the CC_~R's to keep full-size spaces conveniently available to customer~ as much as possible. To the extent compact spaces are located in prime areas, developers should always provid~ clear iclenti~ation, pain!-d pavement graphics, and a convenient mix with full-size to encourage small cars to use these spaces inc (See ITE Journal and ULI "Parking Requirements for Shopping Cente~' publications attn._chod). Downsi~,~/A!ternati~.. Many c~ties, Rancho Cucamonga included, st~l hn~ · problem with the uso and enforcement of compact parking and wish to eliminat~ them. Hov~-~, m~t ci~s recognize that the great majority of ~hicles fall into tl~ "small ~ c!~-ifi,,~tlon. ~nny alternatives have be~n axploml, but th~ most com,n~n~y used is to downs~ the padd~ space requi~.ment for all vehicles, resulting in · "one ~ fits all' parking spac~ The most widely used ~ is 8 1/2' x 18', and this st~ works weli for literally all ~hicles with only Since most vehicles are "smali can", the majority of space available should provid~ greater _reo:,__,,,,-¢nded door-opening clearances aw.n wban used by "large cars" (see F. xh~t E). Not~: For further research and ba,'.irgr~und, see Attachments I through 7. This downsG~,~S to · standard 8 1/2' · 18' spaces, w~i Gow for af~ ',.,~mate3y the sam~ number of parking spaca as · lot with 20~ompm can, and totany eliminates the ~ur~ent enfant -2- C~t~tsion: compact parldng sp~ee~ which include su~estious such as; knepi~ the spaces a,ho .r-h The best altemati~ ~d ~ m~ ~e mint ~ ~ ~m~ ~ r~men~a~n of d~ng spn~ to 8 1~-~ for ~cl~. ~ approach h~ ~ ~ ~ne~t. of ~y e~or~ment ~e ~ f~! that stud the plnnnln~ ~io~ m~ ~ m ~mi~r a ~n~~uc~on ~ ~ b~ par~g ~~nL slmnnr m what B. ~: .... Rancho Cucamonga's current ordinance for parking requirements (Sec. 17.12.040 B.1) for commercial/retail and service uses is extremely restrictive and confusing. l~yond normally accepted base indices of 4.0 per 1,000 SF or 1 car per 220 SF of buildins area, there is a ion~ llst of additional uses which require a provision for additional parking. Beyond, perhat~, food cinemas, public assembly and same recreational uses, these requirements are burdensome and do not recognize the shared parkins aspect of tenants within a shopping center, where tenant peak hours quite often do not coincide. It is also presents the de~lopment t~-.nm. and the City, with the dilemma of not knowing how to accurately predict potential versus final tenant mix in order to provide the required parking. l~ck~round The Urbnn Lnnd tnstitute and the Zntemational Council of Shoppins Centers have done exteusive research and study r~sardins parklns requirements for shoppins centen. ~ publication, "Parklns Requirements for Shoppins Centers: Summary R__,.,~_mmendatiom and Research Study Report' (a copy of which is attached hereto for your review) is the nmst authoritative and widely a~'__~pted publication on this subject. It analyzes parkins requirements in relation to center size, uses, method of travel, employee parking, and automobile siz~ and presents its recommendations ULI R__.,-~_mmendations Per the ULI Relx)rt, the folio~ng is a summa~ of their parkins _rein_ rnmendations: "4.0 spaces per 1,000 $F of ~xxs leasable area (OLA) fc~ conterz bavln~ a to 4O0,0O0 SF. From 4.0 to $.0 spaces in a linear progre~ion, ~th an ~ of 4.5 spaces per 1,000 S1r of OLA, for centre havin~ fzom 400,000 to 600,000 SF. 5.0 spaces per 1,000 SF of OLA for centers having a OLA of ov~ 600,000 SF.° Use Consideratlor~ - The fo!lowin~ adjustment recommendations are pmixxed by U~ with the ,,t,,,mption that the base indices stated above are used as the underlying requi~ment~ "~lhln th~ foil 1'8~1~ Of teDSDts fouDd in shopping centers, offiee&, cinemas, and food setvi0es require additional considerntion. -3- Office space amounting up to 10 percent of the total GLA can be accommodated without provid~nS parking in addition to that imiMsed by the application of the overall parlrlng indices. Office space in excess of 10 percent of the center's OI~ requiru t~ition.: par~inf, although _~__ than a freestanding office because of the av-m,bfiity of perL-t..~ ~or dual purposes.' · C'mem~ 'At centers with 100,000 to 200,000 SF of OLA having cinemas with up to 450 seals, and at centers with over 200,000 SF of OLA having cinemas with up to 750 seats, patrons can be _n__r'A~mmodated' without provision of parking spaces in addition to the overall recommended standard. ~.memas havin~ more than this number of seaM, or cinemm located at smaller centers, bowever, require a nominal three additional speces per 100 seats._' 'For food services occupying up to 10 percent of the total OLA at centers with 100,000 SF or less, or up to $ percent of the total OLA of centers larger than 100,000 SF, the differential parking demand is the following: A center with more than 25,000 and less than 100,000 SF of total OLA requires an additional 10 spaces per 1,000 SF of fo~l set~ce tenant area. A center hnvinf 100,000 but less than 200,000 SF of total GLA r~luitu an additional 6.0 spaces per 1,000 SF of food service tenant area. A center havins 2~0,000 but leaf than 600,000 SF of total OLA r~luiru no additional spaces for food ~ A center with 600,000 SF or more of OLA can reduce the required parkinf (as calculated by usin~ the reco,,,,,,ended index of 5.0 spaces per 1,000 SF of OLA) by 4.0 spaces per 1,0O0 SF of OLA devoted to food over 600,000 SF, the ULI ,.'c,,:).....,-'~,tfa-- h' parkins sbouM be applied. Case studies ustn[ the Shoppinf Centers in Rancho Cu~,,~onsa are atticbed. Tnme studies calculate the potential restaurant arem which ~xtld be alk)wed usin~ a 5/1000 bas~ paddns index. For. comparison purposes, the parkins required per Rancho Cucamonga'a current parki~ ordinance, without -4- Case Studie~ I. Vineyards Marketplace Shopping Center:. Buildlei Ar~a Parking (@ 5/1000) Per~.g (@ 4/~00o)* 121,401 SF 607 Cats Difference +121 Cars Add Restaurants: BUII.r~INO PARKIHO RATIO PARKING USE AR~ REOUIRI=.n* REQUIRED ~mme~ 105,~1 SF ~1~ 4~ ~ F~t F~ Rm~n~ ~ SF ~5 ~ Sit ~ Rm~ 9.~ SF 1/1~ 95 To~ 121,~1 SF ~ ~ Conclusion By providing 16,400 SF of restaurant uses (with seating facilities), 121 additional cars would be required above a base index provision of 4/1000. Percenta~ Restaurants; 16,400 SF/121,401 SF - 13..q~ Bm'ldln~ Area P~rtins (@ Part~n~ (@ Add Restaurants: Fast Food Restaurants Sit Down gmt~ur~n~. Total. * Per current C~ty Ordln~a~ Bl.m.nINO 16,600 SF 314,975 SF If ~/10~0 ca~ were provided, the lx~ect would ~mply. 314,975 SF 1,.,~/5 Can +143 Can -5- PARKING RATIO 11~.OU-mm~* l~z20 SF 1/75 1/lOO PARKING: R~.OUIRt~n 1,32g Can 80 166 1,~75 Can 3. Conclusion By providing 22,600 SF of r~tauran~ 143 additional cars would be required above a base ratio of 1/220. If 5/1000 cats were provided, the project would comply. Pcrcentsg¢ Restaurants: 22,600 SF/314,975 SF ~ 7.2~ Studies Central Park P!~,-~ 5hopping Center. Buila;ng Area P~king (@ 5/1000) Pa~tiu~ (@ 4/lOOO}' Difference Add Restaurants: +113 Car~ BUU r~lNO PARK/NO RATIO PARKING USE ~EA R~-OU'IRED* REOUTR~m Fret ~ R~m 3,~ SF ~5 45 Sit ~ ~~m 13.~ 5F ~ 1~ To~ 11~ SF ~ ~ ~nclm~ By providing 17,000 SF of restaurants uses (with seating faculties), 113 additional ca~ would be required above · base index provision of 4/1000. Percentage Restaurants: Terra t/'mta Town C. ent~r:. nundlns Arem Pmr~,,.- (@ S/~000) raft-i,,.- (@ Dil~eren~z +262 Can -6- Add Restaurants: BUN.nlNO PARKINO RATIO PARKINO USE AREA I~.OUIR~.n* R~.OUIRED Commercial 535,359 SF 1/220 SF 2,433 Cars Fast Food Restaurants 9,000 SF 1/75 120 Sit Down Restaurants 33.600 SF 1/100 Total ~77,859 SF 2,889 Can * Per current City Ordinance Conclusion By providing 42,600 SF of restaurants, 262 additional can would be required above a base ratio of 1/'220. If 5/1000 car~ w~re provided, the project would comply. Percentage Restaurants: 42,600 SF/~'/7,859 SF - ?.4~ Since the case studies above propose a base index of 5/1000 (for the purpose of including ~staurants), and the ULI reoommendations allow for similar restaurant pewentails ming a smnller base index requirement, then the allowable restaurant noted above ~ be adjusted slightly higher as indica~d i~ g~ pwlx~l oa P~,e 4. a We reco,,,,,,end that the City of Rancho Co~-,,,,onp ~ setiota consideration to v~isins the current parking ordinances in nc~xx'dance with the t~o proposals mntained herein: 1. Creation of an 8 1/2' · 18' standard parking stall sh~ in lieu of the existing two stall Simpli~catiou of thz eah'tbg parking reZlubem~t~ based o~ individual ~ to a base ratio We ~ that tl:MsO prolx~sa!s will radically simplify the curttilt e~me~t prc~lems whhin the City of Rancho Cuc-~ and bring the treatment of the parking issues in line with Woven, ~ and well-documented solutions to these problems. -7- The founcl~on upon which thl~ cll~cuesion of paddng geom.trics i. baseclisthe cle~ni~on of I small car oomphson to the Itanclard or large c~r. For purposes of thll report. ~ to establish uniform ~ mac~ adapmbM terminology. d lutomo- biles ~nd ,ght tmc~ will be grouped into two da.~es small ~:1 !~rg~. Thl. I~BIC nomenct~um b intended to · mpBfy the prooe~ of vehide c~mttlc~ ~nd ~ub~e- Wed on length tlmeiwidth ex~in temm oflcluarl feet ($F) or.clUere meter. (Sl~). The .y.l~m IMm to "saignment of vehiclel to one of leven d.sse~ imaeclon ~ 11 - 11.00 toll.,~SM 118.40to SM - 8qmlm Mmrl 8F- 8qulm Felt ~Z~ZZZT & One source haa cha~eci..All canlazge car sines i. each caJendar year sb~:e 1970. based o. a bou.da~ car sa~es bounced around !. a ramge betwee. ! 4% and 25% from 1973 to 197~, as shown inF'~ure E. Asteady dae in small car sa/e~ occu~ed 1brough 1981, stabiF, zing then. w~th an average of ~ ama~ cars sokf each year ~m 1983 mnJ 198& Using dam from R.I. Folk Corn. party on ¥ehic~e registrarotto, this same rgference e~- mates that 44% of the vel~!es on the road as of January I, 1009 am 14'-11*xG'.r or smaJ!er. presum. lng that the percentage of smaJI (~m sold each year remains gsnenally stable,th~ percentage of m11MI cars on the road will continue to Increase at an estimated rate of &bout 2% per yem'. Annual Automobile Sales I i i i I i I I i g I I i I I I I I I I I I I I I IA, Ill lIT I ' __1!__JIJII I I#1 I I I I I1 I I ,,~ _~1 I~,t_ I!' ,Ir~,t I III I I I I I I -TTT".r,I 1-1-T'-I-1--r-I-"i"l-'l"f-I-T- Ioi~ r ! I I f ! I I I I I I ! I I I I I I Calemlar yw figure E I~'~rpted ft'~ms Par~.~ Anio"~'ctou/Farkln! CommJ. tancs Couacil ~ach pas~eng~'. c.- model aa reported Automotive Newe ronco 1980 I~we been tabuWed the classes previously (leaned (l=tgure F'"). Class 10 a~d Cias~ 1t vehicles, whioh are generally over 17-6" b~ length and 6'-6' in width, have declined from as much as 14% of annual sales in 1982, to 7% of the market in 1988. los,am UT&IQo II.~l, .'::' FI(~UFLE F It hae ako been reproled that severn Japanese mamdactm~fs intend to pfoduce "lerge" vehicles for the tint time. !low~v:ir, the pmF,oM<l !erge Japanese cam wig sea be Mas th~n ~' x 17', whi~ woMd pl.ce ~m Ole~ ~. O~em ~ave ~ ~e W ~xea~e ~ ~ These vehic~ h~ve not been i~K~udKI in the sengerCarStudy(Ftg~ I~ hJi~zB:]:T "~-,e=, - dmd (~.M~el for 1989~ ~sCLon~ ~s~k2~s'~sso, The clesign vehicle. for ~he n~omd mix of moblies on ~he mad ~ of Jlnumm/1. 198~, ~ been GonserwLtlvely e~mmd ~o be e~ follows: 1114 14.? FIGURE 19~9~ !hC:Lou~..L Ferk:i.u~ .T. 0 ~. Parked Vehicles 20th Highest Hour Excerpted fro~: EXHIBIT · ~?arlL~n~ R~qu~rements for ~._S'nopp~n~ .Ceuc era: SumsLy ~coumnda£~ouo & bmrch Study Report, OLX, Second Pr~u~u$, 1982 Number of Parking Spaces Required I 'e'-','erpced from: "~arkJ~ aequ~remucs for Shopp~ui Centers: Smm~ry Reco~endat~ouo & Research Study e-porl:, UI.I, Second Printing. 1982 B~ P.C., Keai& N,~. · ParL-i~g I.~out D/mension Guideliaes' Imt/tute of Transportat/on F.a~iaeers Iouraal, April 1984 2 Cit~ of Anaheim Planning Deparunent l~nutes o~ September 2~, 1989 Keneipp, ~. M. 'Parking Demand' Keneipp, ;. M. 'Design f~r $~,n Cm' Parking Comultants Council, National Parking Association Washington: Urban Land Institute and Nat/onal Parking Association, 1983 'R_~,.~,~mmen~ed Guidelines for Parking Gcou,cU~.,~", August 1989 Natiomi Part~-g Assochtion/Parking Comultanm Council Pro'king Space 7 *C_mJde. lim h' Parkins Fmnity Location and Desisn; May ~ Weant, R.A., 'The hfluence ~f Smaller Can on Parking Tramporta~m Quartedy, VoL 39, No, 3, luly 1995 Urban Land lmtftute, "Parkinf Requirements h' Sboppinf Centers: Summy l~.~..-.,-,~htiom nd Research Study Report. Wmhfnst~ Urhn Lud hstitute, SHOPPING CENTER PARII'!NG REQ~ STUDY TKE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA 10~00 Civic Center Drive l~nehO Cuc~moaga, CA 91729 P&D TECHNOLOGr~-~ 6~0 East HospitaUty Lane Suite 350 San Bernardino CA, 92408 JULY 199~ CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SHOPPING CENTER PARKING STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page 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 6.0 PARKING SURVEY ........................................... 10 7.0 CASE STUDY ................................................ 11 8.0 USES GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION ......................... 12 9.0 DESIGN DEMAND ........................................... 15 10.0 CONCLUSIONS .............................................. 17 11.0 RECOMMENDED REVISION TO THE CITY PARKING ORDINANCE .... 18 12.0 EFFECT ON EXISTING CENTERS ............................... 21 Table 1. 2. 3. 4. 5,, 6,, 7. LIST OF TABLES Page LIST OF CITIES TO BE SURVEYED ......................... 3 SURVEY QUESTIONS .................................... 3 SUMMARY MATRIX OF SURVEY RESPONSES .............. 3 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY AT SURVEY SITES ............. 11 PARKING SURVEY RESULTS ............................. 11 PARKING CHARACTERISTICS AT CHILI'S RESTAURANT ..... 12 PARKING CHARACTERISTICS AT COCO'S/SALSrrAS RESTAURANT ......................................... 13 EFFECT OF COMBINED RESTAURANT AND CINEMA PEAK PARKING ............................................. 15 COMPARISON OF THE PARKING SUPPLY AT EXISTING CENTER TO THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT .............. 21 Z 3. 4. 5. 6,, 7. 8. LIST OF FIGURES P~e TOWN CEN'I~R SITE LAYOUT AND PARKING ZONES ....... 10 TERRA VISTA VII I AGE LAYOUT AND PARKING ZONES .... 10 TOWN CENTER PARKING ACCUMULATION ................ TERRA VISTA VII I AGE PARKING ACCUMULATION ........ 11 CI-HI PS PARKING ACCUMULATION ....................... 12 COCO'S/SAI grrAs PARKING ACCUMULATION ............. 13 RESTAURANT PARKING COMPONENT OF TOTAL PARKING . . 13 EFFECT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER ........................................ 21 EFFECT OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE ON TERRA VISTA VIllAGE .............................................. 21 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Rancho Cucamonga has experienced extensive growth in recent years. As a part of that growth, retail commercial centers have increased in the City. One aspect of the plnnnlng process for those centers, parldng requirements, has come into question. The City's current ordin,-ce requires that parking equal to the sum of the parking requirements of individual land uses in the center be provided. This figure is ciliacult for staff to obtain as the parking reqnlrement must be fixed in the plnnnlng process, but centers are typically not fully leased until the construction stage. Developers typically must make ass~mptions 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 find uses with .~imilar 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 I~nd ln.stimte (UI.I) "P.~tJiillg Requirements for Shoppir~ Centers". The City retained the services of P&D Technologies to determine the suitability of these requirements for the City of Rancho Cucamonga. P&D Technologies otiliTed a three part approached to thi_~ study: first survey other agencies in 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 in the dty to compare existing parking characteristics with the existing ordinance and proposed requirements. The survey of other agencies reflected a wide range of approaches from snmming individual land uses similar to the current ordinance, to one city that adopted an ordinance very ~irnilar to what was proposed for Rancho Cucamonga. An in depth review of the ULI study revealed ~n impressive amount of survey data. The case studies done by ULI tended to be located east of the Mississippi River (11 out of 1.~), however, a good portion of the questionnaires were done in California. The study is somewhat dated, but the data still appear to have validity. A detailed license plate survey was conducted at the Terra Vista Town Center and Terra Vista Village. Both those surveys found parking characteristics similar to that identified in the UI.I~ 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, ~n analysis of the peak parking demand was made using an aerial photo taken during the peak Christmas shopping sea.son and related to a design day. Based on the study effort, a recommendation is made that: for shopping centers less than 2~,000 square feet parking be reqnlred based on individual uses; and for centers from 2~,000 to 600,000 square feet, parking be required at $ spaces per 1000 square feet of gross leasable area; and for centers from 600,000 to 1,000,000 square feet parking be reqnlred 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 additionnl parking for cinemas of certnin s/ze in combination with certnin sized centers, will be required. The study concludes with a review of the effect of the proposed orainnnce on existing centers. 1.0 INTRODUCTION The City of Rancho Cucamonga has experienced extensive growth in recent years. With that growth has come a large demand for retail commercial services, which is being ~-~vered by a w~mber of shopping center developments currenfiy underway or planned in the City. Processing of these developments has brought to light rllf~culties in implementing the City's exis~ng parking ordinance as it relates to shopping centers. From the City s?n~s perspective, the main dlf~culty with the current 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 rocalculated. The development comm~mlty 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 this situation, members of the region's development community have proposed a modification to the City's ordinance based on recommendations made in the Urban T-~,~d Institute (ULI) 'parldng Requirements for Shopping Centers~. The purpose of this parking study is to ~n~lyze the City's parking requirement and the proposed modification and recommend changes, if any, to the parking ordinance for shopping centers. The approach used in this study entails three steps: first, survey other agendes in the area to dete,,~,ine the/r shopping center parking requirements; second, evaluate the applicability of the ULI recommendations to the City of Rancho Cuc~monga through a detailed analys/s of the report; and ~nslly, 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 2.0 REVIEW OF THE EXISTING CITY PARKING ORDIN,~TCE The City's current parkinS 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-exJsting County of San Bernardino parking ordln~nce. Those elements thought best out of each of the sources were combined into the current CAty parking ordinance. NO parking studies were performed. The City's existing parking code is provided in Appendix A. As can be seen, numerous exceptions exist to the general base rate for commercial developments. These exceptions create great dlf'Fic121ty for the City Pl~nnlng Staff ill determining how much parIcing 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 parking than required for the more intense uses, setting the stage for disagreements over allowable uses. Conversely, ff 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 are prohibited due to lack of parking. Not only does thi~ limit the shopping center developer, but gives City staff the additional task of determining parIcing adequacy for each use before issuing occupancy pe,~its. In s~mmzry, the existlnS code is difficnlt to implement and admlniRter, and at Hines is a constraint to leasing. 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 accompli.~hlng the current parking requirement review, a telephone survey of 13 dries in the Southern California region was undertaken. These dries were chosen due to theix slmilar/ty to Rancho Cucamonga in terms of size and growth parterns. Four of the dries are in San Bernardino County, three each in Orange and San Diego Counties and two each in Riverside and Los Angeles Count/es. The survey was conducted over several days in the first week of February 1992. Table I lists the dries 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 dty used no base rate and several others used a general reta/1 rate for all but cert,in high intensity uses. The majority of the cities surveyed, about 93%, required additional parking for restaurants and other spedal uses, such as fast food, cinema and office. Of all the Cities surveyed, Carlsbad was the only one that required no addition,1 parking for these spedal uses. The range of base rates among the dries surveyed was from a low of 3.3/1000 w 5.5/1000 SF as a high. The City of Corona was not include in this range because subjec'dve judgements 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 ~a~mm~t of the survey responses. TABLE 1 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQULREMENTS STUDY LISTING OF CITIES TO BE SURVEYED CITY RANCHO CUCAMONGA CARLSBAD ESCONDIDO VISTA WEST COVINA SANTA CLARITA IRVINE ORANGE LAGUNA NIGL CORONA MORENO VAT ONTARIO CHINO RIALTO COUNTY SAN BERN. POPULATION ANNUAL SALES Ill 115,ooo $476,610,000 SANDIEGO 63,500 SANDIEGO 104,200 SANDIEGO 67,800 LOS ANGET.~S 94,500 LOS ANGET.~.S 121;200 ORANGE 102,400 ORANGE 107,700 ORANGE 47,700 RIVERSIDE 70,000 RIVERSIDE 114,900 SAN BERN. 129,300 SAN BERN. 59,600 SAN BERN. 70,300 $8492~4,000 $1,523,058,000 $327,832,OOO $754,143,000 $961;257,000 $1,948,010,000 $109,967,800 N/A [31 $792,820,000 $406,550,000 $1,264,753,000 $5O3,324,0OO $327,157,000 PER CAPITA SAL~S $4,144 $13,375 $14,617 $4,835 $7,980 $7,931 $19,024 $1,021 N/A[3] $11,326 $3,538 $9,782 $8,445 $4,654 NOTESi [1] POPULATION FOR CITIES FROM STATE DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, MAY 1,1990 [2] ANNUAL RETAIL SATF$ FROM "TAXABT.~ SAI..ES ~ CAT.rgORNIA", STATE BOARD OF EQUAT-r7ATION, 1990 [3] NOT AVAILABT-~ 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 ordinance have a provision for shared parking? If so, how are shared parking standards calculated? When was current parking ordinance adopted? Please send us a copy. Was a parking study prepared to dete~'~:ine parking standards? If so, please send us a copy. Are you satisfied with your existing parking ordlnnnce? Are you planning tO revise your parLing ordln~nce in the near future? IU 0 0 0 I- 0 w n n 0 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 ocazrring 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 Cuenmonga. Aspects of the developments that were of particular interest were the size, layout, desi~rn; and types of uses. Also, /f any parking problems were evidenced. Centers reviewed for this effor~ were: Vineyards Marketplace Central Park Plaza Foothill V/llage 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 Department store in Rancho Town Center. The centers were observed at various times during the day and no parIcing problems were observed. Due to the t/ming of the study, however, this review took place in March and April, it was a typically slow t/me 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 drculation system, not a shortage of parking. Overnil. that site was small and seemed cramped. Agnln; these observations were obviously influenced by the time of year, vacancies, incomplete projects and a generally down economy. Vineyards Marketplace - Milliken Avenue and H/ghland Avenue Thi.~ project is located on the southeast comer of Mill~en Avenue and Highland Avenue with Woodruff Place to the east and Kenyon Way to the south. Currenfiy the development consists primarily of inllne bu/ldinsS with one satellite pad under construction ~nd four others available for future development. A wtal of 121,401 square feet have been approved for development. Current city code required 494 parking spaces (plus $ for motorcycles), and 526 spaces were provided for a ratio of 4.33/1000 square feet. ! And adjacent to the site is currently vacant. Uses occupying the center included an ~nlmal hospital; pet supply, dentist (future), Sav-On Drugs, Postal ,a, nnex, ~f~ store, kitchen wares store, dry Lie-her, beauty salon, card/~f~a, photo studio, Albertsons, and a ha/1 salon. A Mobfie gas s~afion occupied a pad off the Milliken Avenue access and the pad under construction advertised video tentab, 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 Mi11iken 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 113~75 square feet of gross leasable area. Ralph's Groceries is the anchor tenant and is currenfiy occupying the site. A total of $22 parking spaces were provided, for a ratio of 4.60/1000 square feet. Approximately 86,000 square feet of building will be inllne, 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 inllne buildings for deliveries. A bus turnout and shelter is located on Baseline Road in front of the project. Foothill Village - Foothill Boulevard and Hellmsn Avenue The project is located on the southeast comer of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue extending to Helm~ 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. parking 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 entry. A second freestnnrlln~ 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 Helms 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, Hnilmark, pet supply, shoe store, market/deli, tv repair, video rental. Music Plus Center -Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue. T~e site is located at the northwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue. It is the smallest site reviewed with only 28,.51~ square feet of gross leasable area and was developed under the County jurisdiction. Parking prov/ded on site h 144 for a parking ratio of 5.0/1000 GLA. The development consisted of one inllne sesment and one pad. Music Plus shares the pad with a video rental, while the inlln¢ includes: ClothesTime, Kids Man, Petco, Payless Shoes, nail salon, Super Cuts, ca/e, and an auto parts store. Rancho Tov,~ Center - Foothill Boulevard Thi.~ development is located just west of the Music Plus Center on Foothill Boulevard. The site is a set/es of inllne b~ildin? 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 this center and the Music plus center were developed under the County jurisdiction prior to Rancho Co~monga incorporation. The pl~nning Department 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 chain_ The building is currently vacant. The remaining uses include: Kragen Auto Parts, an art gallery, video rental, H&R Block, insurance, clothing stores, pet store, chiropractor, Chinese restaurant, Standard Brands Paint, dentht, nail salon, photos, travel agent, beauty salon, mattress store, and N-mero Uno Pi-'-- A gas station is located between the two access driveways off Foothill Boulevard. Terra Vista Villgge - B,seline 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 bulldlng 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, clothln~ stores, Mailboxes Etc., professional office suites, beauty salon, S.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 this 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 approved. All of the inline shops have been built, however, a number 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) a.nd a number of restaurants. To date only Chili'S restaurant has been constructed. Thi_~ 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 center, that indusu~ has sought out information on parking demand which could be used as st:~ndards for parking requirements. For that purpose the International Council of Shopping Centers funded a study of parking demand undertaken by the Urban 1 ~nd Institute. The report, enfified ~P, rkir~g Requirements for Shopping Centers: Surnma~y 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 si~i~cant aspect of the study is the abundance of data that was collected. OuestiOnnalres describing site parking demand characteristics were received from $06 shopping centers. Additionally, 135 centers conducted three day parking aco,mulation 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 characteristic~ of the users such as: method of travel, vehicle occupancy, ~ravel time, length of stay, and the season of the year. The primary emphasis of the study was, however, the parking dewsnd observed at the centers. Parking surveys for the study were conducted on the Fr/day after Thanksgiving, ~nd three Saturdays preceding Chrisunas. The holiday period between Thunkzgiving and Ch~,-u~ is considered the peak parking demand period of the year. The Concept of 'Design Hour' Parking lot desi~; 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 dine per year, is not justified by the benefit. Design is typically based on some point below the absolute highest peak that will provide s~,~cient ca.party for most situations. This concept is generally referred to as the design hour, or design vob~me. No fixed rule exists for determining the design hour, however, either the 20th highest hour, or 85th percentfie of demand is often used. The ULI Study utili~-ed the 20th highest hour. Based on the info,,-ation 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 dem:~nd 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 -n:~ble to 6nd park/ng immediately upon entering a center. ULI Recommended Parking Indices The parkinS demand percentages discussed above were ob~=ined by reviewing the ~nnual parking aco~mnlafion 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 s=mple (135) of peak (holiday) survey data. For example: ff the average of the 20th highest hour parking demand vol-roes 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% ~nd a parking indices calculated from that dewand. All of those indices were then averaged to deterr~ine 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 44 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 parking requirements. Uses identified in thi.~ category are offices, cinemas, and food service. With respec~ 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 :~mount 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 th~n 100,000 square feet. In centers of 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of GLA cinemas 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 ?50 seats can be accommodated without additional parking, and for every 100 seats above ?$0 an additional 3.spaces are recordmended. 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 wi.'thout adding parking, but if it exceeds 10% of the GLA then 10 additional spaces are recp~ired for each 1000 GLA of restaurant. Larger centers, however, f~om- 200,000 to 600,000 GLA were found to need no additional parking for food service if 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. Apnlicability to Rancho Cucamonga Although the study sponsored by the ULI drew upon a tremendous amount of dam, issues should be considered when applying the results to the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Lssues of concern include: the report was pubSbed ten years ago, 1982, and the data u6li~,ed was probably somewhat older. At the ~[me of the study several high parking generators, such as video rental store, health clubs and n~i! SalOl~, did not exist or were not as prevalent as they are today. Mr. William Hurtell who participated in the study, stated that some changes in parking generation may have occurred. He specifically mentioned discount stores such as Price Club and Costco and factory outlet 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 st~nrllng 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 l. JI.l recommendations on food service were related to those establish- ments contained in the center, and that free startling restaur:~nt$ should be considered separate because their use is not tied to the center. Finally, although C~llfomia is well represented in the question-aire and again in the three day surveys, ouly 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 parking studies were reviewed. These included: "Shared P*rkir~' also conducted by ULL '~,.~kill~ by the ENO Foundation and the Institute of Transportation En~neers "Parking Generatioj~' 2nd Edition. 6.O 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. Survey 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 I and 2). Survey personnel walked through the site once each hour. They recorded the first or last 3 digits of the liceme number of each car parked. Each space is accounted for on each circuit, ff a space is empty it is left blank. P&D Technologies wrote an nnalysis program in BASIC to analyze the survey data. The primary outputs of the progrnm are the hourly acc~mulation of parked cars, by zone, over the entire site; the hourly and overall uti!i~'ation 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 fo,matted the data so that the accumulation and utilization percentages could be emily graphed. Definitions of these parking characteristics are as follows: 1) Hourly Aco,mula6on - s~m of the w~mber of occupied spaces, by hour. 2) Percent Ut/liT~tion - the hourly accumulation 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 rmmher of different cars, the program reads the license numbers of the cars parked in consecutive hours and then compares them. Each new liceme is flagged and the tabulated. This process is repeated for each succeeding hour. 4) Vehicle Hours - the total ~nmber of vehicles counted in the survey during the entire day divided by the n-tuber of survey periods per hour. 5) Average Duration - the vehicle hours divided by the number of different vehicles. 10 w 3nN3A~ W 'Z W 3nN3^~ N3A~H 0 0 C. ]nN3AV N~AYH m:: 0 7.0 CASE STUDIES Parking surveys were conducted at two shopping centers in the City to use as case studies in analy~ng 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 Vhta Village at Baseline Road and Haven. These centers were determined to be representative of a small to medium and large center. The surveys were perlos'meal on January 31, and February 1, 1992. Some additional surveys were conducted during Februm2t 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 vaunt at each site as well as the number of parking spaces for each site. A sllmmn~'y of that listing is in Table 4. TABLE 4 DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY OF SURVEY SITES Terra Vista Town Center Terra Vista Village Approved Development 579,270 Currently Comtructed 487,549 Vacant 97,183 Occupied During Survey 390,366 Parking Provided 3.306 136,169 136,169 4,070 132,099 704 The results of the hourly parking survey are summarized in Table 5. Figures 3 and 4 illustrates the results graphically. As ~n be seen from both the Figures and Table, parking utilization during the survey period did not exceed 60.4% of the spaces at Terra Vista Village (Friday at noon) or 29_~% of the spaces at Terra 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 Terra Vista Town Center, more than 20% of the leasable floor space is vaunt. Parking Indices Determined During Survey The vacancy factor _,~n be accounted for by excluding vacant floor space from the parking index calculation. For example, diviaing 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 obtain the parking ratio: TERRA VISTA VII.IAGE 426/132 = 3.2 cars parked per 1000 sq. ft. occupied space TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER 1004/390.4 = 2.6 cars per 1000 sq. ft. occupied space 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 17.5 839 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 14.3 8.0 USES GIVEN SPECIAL CONSIDERATION Certain uses that are often included in shopping centers have unique parking characteristics that may not be similar to the over-!l shopping center parking characteristic. These uses were singled out in the ULI Study for special consideration, and similarly are here e~,mlned individually to determine their impact on the overall parking index, ,nd 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 us~.lly broken into categories such as fast food or drive-in and sit down, family or quality, to reflect differences in the turn over rate at different types of food service. Several free sta~dlng restaurants are located at the centers surveyed. This has provided an opportunity to analyze their parking demand separate from the rest of the center. Because parking for all the uses is commol~ it c~n 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 Terra 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 w~th!n 300 feet of the site. The results of the survey are shown in Table 6 and graphically in Figure $. TABLE 6 PARKING DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS CHILI'S RESTAURANT TERRA VISTA TOWN CENTER FRIDAY TIME CARS PARKED UTILIZATION SATURDAY CAR5 PARKED UTILI7A~ON 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 40 393. 37 363. 18:00 88 863. 62 60.7 19:00 81 79.4 69 67.6 20:00 N/D(1) N/A 70 68.6 (1) No data 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 eveni,,g 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 Cites restaurant parking requirement is 10 spaces per 1000 square feet. For purposes of comparison, a similar ~nalysis was performed at the Terra Vista Village center. At that localion a Coco's and Salsitas restaurants occupy the southwest comer. They are between two access drives which tend to separate them from the other uses, in the center. Within the comer formed by the two access drives are two lots of parking. Cars in these lots were ass-reed to be parklnS for the two restaurants for this analysis. Table 7 and Figure 6 show the parkln~ demand characterislics 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 UTrLI?ATION 10:00 47 34.6 71 51.4 11:00 48 34.8 70 50.7 12:00 86 62.3 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 36~2 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 on Friday was 1.3 hours and Saturday 1.32 hours. From the table the peak period can be idearifled as 6 PM for both days, with the Friday peak being slightly higher at 101 cars. The combined square footage of the two restaurants based on the leasing data is 9,776 square feet. That translates into a parking ratio of 10 spaces per thousand (101/9.776 = 10.3). This is the same as the City's restaurant parking req~firement, 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 assuming I percent restaurant of a given center size, then calculating the parking required for the restaurant at 10/1.007 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 159~ restaurant component would leave a ............ (]1~]1~ ~),l~ffVd I.,- Z LU Z 0 ~ Z 0 < < ~.. I.- 0 Z ,< ~ 0 b~er of empty spaces equal to 11% of the total parlerig requirement b~sed on 5 spaces per 1,000 GLA. Cinemas, or movie theaters, as might be expected, tend to experience peak parking demand in the.evening. Thi.~ 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, ide~t/fied as lot 16 in the survey. Observations indicate that lot, and the adjacent food court lot (n~mber 17 in the survey) with 120 spaces, are the pt/mary source of parking for movie patrons. Analysis of the data collected in the Friday survey of Terra 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 ~mber 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 thi.~ 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. 22~ car~/1~00 seats = .15 cars per seat or, inversely, I car per 6.7 seats. The City's ordinance Mils for I space per 4 seats, plus 5 spaces for employees. The Institute of Tran~ponat/on Ea~-ers publication 'Parking Generation', estimates an average rate of demand per seat on Saturday as 0.26 or I car per 3.8 seats. T~ie survey results can be adjusted to an estimated 80% of annual peak demand using data developed in another ULI study, "Shared Parking. That publication developed Cinema Monthly Variation In Peak Par]dng Actn~mulations (Exhibit 12, pa~e 23). That figure shows that in February, Saturday peak demand is 70 percent of the annual peak demand. Converting 22~ then to a peak demand yields $21 cars parked, and 80 percent of that peak will be 2.~?. Adrllng 10 percent for operating efficiency yields 283 spaces, or one space per 5.3 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 atm~uted to the office use. It should be noted that the City's parking requirement for office uses other than medical and dental is 4/1000, the same or less than the UI.I recommended shopping center requirement. Combined Effect Excluding office use, the land uses iden6~ed for special consideration by ULI peak in the evening, a.s the retail peak is t~jpi_~lly declining. It is that offset in the peak time that allow~ those uses to be included in the mix without special parking requirements. Any exces~ parking demand generated by restaurants or cinemas can u611~.e surplus parking norm:~lly used by the retzll uses at the center. Table 8 demonstrates how the Terra Vista Town Center parking supply would accommodate a theoretical combination of uses at 8 PM. The example is based on full build out of the approved square footage, ~nd 15% restaurant USe. TABI.F. 8 EFFECT OF COMBINED RESTAUR.4aNT AND CINEMA PEAK PARKING LAND USE SQUARE FOOTAGE PARKING DEMAND Restaurant 86,890(1) 869(2) Cinem 24,7450) 375(4) Retail 467,635(5) 982(6) Total 579,270 2226 Parking Supply 2896(7) Surplus 670 (23%) 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.: e Asp~mes a maximum 1~% restaurant usage. Based on 10 spaces per 1000 square feet. Edwards actual square footage. Based on ITE parking rate of I space per 3.8 seats. Square footage rem~inlng from 579,270 square feet approved for Town Center, after restaurant and Cinema subtracted. Based on 5 spaces per thousand of remaining square footage, factored by 42% to reflect aconrmi~tlon percentage at 8 PM (as per ULI). Based on 579,270 square feet at 5 spaces per thousand. Th/s =,~,hjsis does not include cons/derafion for reciprocal use. That is the occupants of one car(one parkln5 space) going to both the restm~n~ and c/nema or some other combination of two uses while ns/rig only one parkln.v space. A previous study prepared for the City which investigated redprocal use at the Vir~'nia Dare Center, found and average of 12% of the patrons were reciprocal users. Applying that figure to the above analysis reduces the total parking demand to 1959 spaces and increases the surplus to 937 spaces. 9.O DESIGN DEMAND The LrLI Parking Requirements for Shopping Centers nn d other parking studies, recommend that 80% of the peak parking demand be used for desiguing lots, or setting parking req,~irements. That study had the benefit of many years of parking counts at many different shopping centers m determi,e 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 Chrisunas, at mid- afternoon, is the busiest shopping day and consequenfiy the highest demand parking day of the year. An aerial photo was ts_aken 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 dew-hal for design or ordinance purposes, 85% of the peak was assumed for this study. That figure 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 Design Demand 1853 Total Cars on Site 1951 .85 .8~ 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 Terra Vista Town Center. Parlrln..o indices are expressed in term-~ of 1/1000 square feet of grossed leasable area, which converts to 390.4. Dividing the parirlng demand by the occupied gross leasable square footage yields the following:. Design Dem.,~d Design Dem-na 1575/390.4 = 4.0 1658/390.4 = 4.2 The above calculations es~/m.te the 85th percentile par~n.o dem-nd based on an assumed anton.! peak parking demand determined from an aerial photograph taken at 2 PM on December 21, 1991, the Saturday before Chthtmas. For operational purposes, when desiring a parking lot, or in thh case developing an oraln. nce, from which parking lots will be designed, some parking spaces in excess to the number of parked cars should be prov/ded. This excess is somellmes referred to as a buffer, and accomplishes several thingS. 16 First, it reduces the re, tuber o~ and time, vehicles circulate through the lot looking for empty spaces, thereby reducing internal congestiota It offsets pulses in the arrivals and departures of vehicles by providing 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 vnmber departures during a shor~ period, drivers perceive a parking lot is fit! when it is actually between 80 and 90 percent capacity. Parking buffers typi_~ny range between 5 and 15 percent depending on the use. High turnover uses tend w need higher buffers. Shoppln~ centers typically represent intermediate turn over with parking durations between one and two hours. A reasor~,ble buffer would appear to be 10 percent. Apply/rig that 10 percent bnffer to the design dem"md results in the following,. Demand 1575 Demand 1678 10% Buffer 158 10% B~ffer 168 Supply 1733 Supply 1845 for comparison purposes convening 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 The findings of this study generally indicate that the ULI Study's overall fiadi~gs are valid for the City of .R.~cho Cucamonga. Based on the design demand developed in this report, and additional literature review: "Parkir~" published in 1990 by the ENO Foundation, and "Parldr~g Generation" 2nd Edition published by the Institute of Tr~n~ortation l:.n~neers, however, a base par]dn~ rate of 5 spaces per 1000 square feet of gross floor area rather than the r-nge of 4 through $ per 1000 recommended by the ULI Study, is recommended for Rancho Cu¢~monga. As reported by the-ENO foundat/on the 85 percentfie value of all sized centers surveyed in the TIE "Parkirlg Generation" study is $ per 1000. Eno i~self recommends a range of from 4.5 to 5.5 per thousand. The -n,lysis of peak parking done in thi.~ 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 $ per 1000 has been chosen for all but the largest centers to slrnplif~ the code requirement, prevent applicants from attempting to design a project a few square feet below a bre~i~ point in the code to reduce their parkLug requirement, and finally as a conservative response to the ~mcertainty of the annual peak data due to the current economic conditions and the relative newness of the Terra Vista Town Center. The proposed base rate will allow the development corem,miry to more aggressively market their developments by knowin5 that regardless of the use, the parking supply will be adequate. Inclusion of 1~9b of the gross square footage of the s/re as restaurant can be accommodated by the difference in peak demand periods between restaurant and shopping center usage. Although the restaurant parking demand at Chili's restaurant actually exceeded the City parking requirement, it did so after 6 PM, when the other portions of the 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 over~ll restaurant parking will be less. 18 11.0 PROPOSED ORDINANCE REVISION The following provisions will supersede Section 17.12.040.B.1. "COMMERCIAI; RET~IL AND SERVICE USES" of the City M. nicipal Code. The Citys current parking code included in Appendix A for comparison- B. Commercial/Office 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 nnd less than 1,000,000 square feet of gross leasable area: (0 Shopping Centers of less tbnn 600,000 sq~nre feet, but more than 25,000 square feet of gross leasable area: Five ($) parking spaces for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross leasable area sbnll be provided. (2) Shopping Centers of 600,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of gross leasable area: Five and one half (5.6) 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 conp,mption 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. Cinemas in shopping centers of less than 100,000 square feet: Three (3) additiona! parkin~ spaces per one hundred (100) theater seats sh~]l be provided. (iii) C. inem, s in shoppin~ centers of 100.000 to 200.000 square feet: No addifionni p~___king spaces shall be required for. the first four hundred fifty (450) theater seats; three (3) nddifio,,a! parldn~ spaces per one hundred (100) theater seats for each seat over four hundred fifty (450) shall be provided. Cinemas in shopping centers of over 200,000 square feet of gross leasable area: No additional parLing spaces shall be required for the first seven hundred F~ty (?50) theater seats; three (3) additional parking spaces per one hundred (100) theater seats for each seat over seven hundred fifty (?50) shall be provided. Offices (includln~ medical and dental): If 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 Pl.n~er, shall be prepared by .the applicant at the applicant's expense. Parking requirements for the office use shall be established based on the City Plnnner's review and approval of said special parking sttldyo 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 P1A,~ner, shall be prepared by the applicant at the applicant's expense. pariri~_v requirements for the shopping center shall be established based on the City PlAn,~er's review and approval of said special parki~$ study. 2O 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 ordinnnce. 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 exhting parking supply at the centers reviewed for this study and the amca~ 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. TAB!.R 9 COMPARISON OF THE PARKING SUPPLY AT EXISTING CENTERS TO THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT CENTER EXISTING SUPPLY PROPOSED SURPLUS/ REQUIREMENT (DEFICrr) Vineyards Marketplace Central Park Plaza Foothill Village Music Plus Center Rancho Town Center Terra Vista Village Te,~a Vista Town Center 494 spaces 607 spaces (113) 522 spaces 568 spaces (46) 433 spaces 434 spaces (1) 144 spaces 143 spaces 1 830 spaces 852 spaces (22) ?04 spaces 684 spaces 20 3,306 spaces 2,892 spaces 414 ,,, Z °,9. z ~ ~Oz ~ ,., _ p- APPENDIX A CURRENT CITY PARKING CODE 17.12.040 Parkiag~mauir~m~-uts The following sections list the required ~nount of parking for each category of uses, special requireTents and optional requiterents. A. Residential 1. Single-f~nily detached dyeflings (conventional). Two (2) parking spaces within a garage. Clus{er developTent (condanini~n, tovmhare, etc.) s~ni-detaehed sin&le fa'aily (zero lot line, patio h~,es, duplexes, etc.) and frobile h~ parks: (a) Studio= 1.3 off-street parking space per unit of which one space shall be in a garage or carport. (b) C~e (1) bedroan: 1.5 off-street parking spaces per unit of which one space shall be in a garage or earport. (e) Two (2) bedroans= 1.8 off-street parking spaces per unit. of which one space shall be in a garage or carport. (d) Three (3) or ,~re bedroom= q~m off-street parking spaces per unit of which t~m spaces shall be in a garage or carport. (e) Four (4) or more bedroam: 2.3 off-street parking spaces per unit ~fwhich two spaces shall be in a garage or earport. (f) In addition to the required rimbet of parking spaces for each unit, one off-street uncovered parking space shall be provided for each four units for visitor parking. For single f~nily zero lot line, patio hares, and duplexes, on-street parking may be substituted for visitor parking, where sufficient street paverrent width and distance between driveways has been provided. (g) Fifty percent (50%) of the total required covered spaces shall be within enclosed garage structures. (h) Yor develoixmnts containing five or more units, up to thirty- five (35) percent of the required uncovered spaces may be canpeet car size. (i) The use of earports requires approval frau the Design Beview C~.,dttee. · B. C~.,..-,rcial/Of fiee 1. C~.,=reial, retail and service uses: - 125- Section (a) Neighborhood and general ca.mrcial shopping centers: One (i) off-street parking stall for each t~ hundred and fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area for all buildings and/or uses in the center. (b) C~mimity and regional shopping centers: One (1) off-street parkin~ stall for each t~ hundred-twanty (220) square feet of gross floor area. 7he abo~e requir=,=nts will apply for all ca,.ereial centers in the city; however, whenever delineation of independent uses is required, the following standards shall apply: (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) Aut~,',~bile ~ashing and cleaning establis~,,=nts, except self- service: Sixteen (16) parking stalls. Self-service aut~,'dbile vmshes: 2.5 for eaeh~mshing stall. A~tawbile service and gas station: Three (3) spaces plus two (2) for each service bay. Barber shops or beauty parlors: T~m (2) for each barber chair; three (3) for each beautician station. Buildings uses solely for coin-operated laundr~=ts or dry cleanir~ esta~lis~,~=nts: One for each three (3) washing rmehines. (h) Offices, eu,,,=reial banks, savir~s and lo~n offices, other financial institutions, general retail stores, food stores, superrmrkets, and dru~ stores: One for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor areas. (i) Contractor's storage yards in connection with eontraetor's business; salvage yard; Junk.yard, autambile wrecking yard; storage yard: Six (6) spaces soparat~ fr~ the enelos~ stor~e ar~. (j) Lt~ber yards: One for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor are~ for retail sales, plus one for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of ogen area devoted to display (partially covered, by roof, awning, etc.) or sales. (k) l~rtuaries and funeral hams: One (1) parkin~ stall for every twenty-five (25) square feet or fraction thereof of assorDly roan or floor area. (1) M~tels and hotels: One (1) [~rkir~ space for each ~uest unit and t~m (2) spaces for resident rranager or -126- (11/18/87) (o) Motor vehicle sales and automotive repair, painting, body work or service: One per four hundred (400) square feet of g-:oss Root ~rea. Stores solely for the sale of furniture and appUanees: One for each five hundred (500) square feet of gross floor area. Trade schooL% business colic&es and commercial schools: One for each three (3) student capacity of each classroom plus one for each facu/ty member or employee. 2. Commercial recreation uses: (a) Bowling alleys and/or bLLUard ha/Is= 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. (c) Driving ranges (goLf): One per tee, ~lus the spaces required for additional uses on the site. (d) Golf oourses (re~u~ation ~ourse): Six (6) per hole plus the spaces required for additional uses on the site. (e) ~Pitch and Putt" and miniature golf oourse: Three (3) per hole, plus requirements foe accessory uses. (f) Skating tinks, ice or roller: One for each one hundred (100) square feet of gross fi,oor area, plus the spaces required for additional uses on the site. Swimming pool (commercial): One foe each one hundred (100) square feet of watar surface, plus one stall for each employee, but not less than ten (10) stalls for any such use. (h) Tennis, handball and racquetball factlit/es: Tlu'ee (3) for each oourt plus the spaces required for additional uses on the site. 3, Educational uses= (&) ElementroT and junior Idgh seboois~ Two (2) for each (b) Senior high schools: One for each membe~ of the faculty and each employee, plus one for each six ($) students regularly enrolled. (c) Colleges, universities and institutions of highar learning, parochial and private: One for each three (3) students plus one for each two (2) mereData of the faculty and employees. 4. Health uses.' Denta~ clinics or offices; medical clinics or offices, veterinary hospitals and clinics: One foe each two hundred (200) square feet of gToss floor area. -127- Seetlon 17.lz.d40 (b) Convalescent and nursing homes, homes of aged, rest homes, children's homes and s~nitariums: One for every four (4) beds in accordance with the resident e~pacity of the home as listed on the required license or permit. Hospit,lq: One and seventy-five hundredths (1.75) for each patient bed. (d) Health studios and spas: One for each one hundred fifty (150) square feet of gro~ floor area. (For the purpose of this subsection, 'swim ming pool area shall be counted as floor ~ea. 5. Industrial and like uses: (a) '-~11 industrial uses are subject to the provisions of the paten& 'standards and requirements as contained in the Industrial Specific · ' Plan. (b) Public utility facilities including, but not limited to electric, gas, water, telephone and telegTaph facilities not having business offices on the premises: One for each two (2) employees in the largest shift plus one for each vehicle used in connection with the use. A minimum of two (2) space sh-11 be provided foe each such use regardle$_~ of building speee or numbe~ of employees. : Planes of a~sembly: (a) (b) o (c) Restaurants, taverns, lounges and other establishments foe the sale and consumption on the premises of food and beverages: One (1) space for every one hundred (100) square feet of ~roes floor area up to six thousand (6,000) square feet plus one for each addiUonal fifty-five (55) square feet of ~.oss floor area over six thousand (6,000) square feet. Fast food restaurants (with or without drive-thru): One (1) paricing space for each 75 square feet of ~roas floor area. Auditoriums, sports aretin% stadiums: One for each three (3) seats or one for each thirty-five (35) square feet of ~roes floor area where there are no fixed seats. (d) Theaters, movies: (1) Single Screen: One (1) space per 3 seats, plus S foe employees (2) Multi-Screen: One (1) space per 4 se~ts, plus 5 for employees. (e) Libraries: One for each three hundred (300) square feet of L~ss floor are~. (f) Private elu~, lodge ~,n_% union headquarters: seventy-five (75) square feet of ~russ floor area. One for each -12S- (g) Churches and other places of assembly 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) tlnear inches of bench shall be considered a fixed seat. 7. Other uses: (a) Day humeries, including preschools and nursery schools: One stall for each staff member, plus one for each five (5) children. Special Requirements. The following parking requirements are appUcable to all commercial and office land uses. These special stalls shall be closest to the facility for which they are designated in order to encourage their use. HandieaP9ed: 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 stalls for use by the handicapped. The designation and design sbmll conform to state standards. Motorcycle: Facilities with twenty-five (25) or more parking spaces sh~il provide at least one designated parking area for use by motorcycles. Developments with over one hundred (100) spaces shall provide motorcycte parking at the rate of one percent. Areas delineated for use by ntotoroyctes shall meet standards set forth in subseetioft 17.12.030-C-1. e Compact cars= Facilities with twenty-five (25) or more parking spaces may provide up to thirty-five (35) percent of its perking for use by compact cam. Spaces delineated for compact car use shall meet standards set forth in subsection 17.12.030-A-2. Bicycles: All commercial and office areas sireall provid~ adequate locking facilities for bicycle parking at any location convenient to the facility for which they are designated. Whenever [x~mible, weatherproofing or facility covering should be use~ Car pool~ Off-street parking provided for commereial/offine facilities sl~n provide at least ten (10) percent of the total parking area as designated for use by car pools. Drive-Thru l'aeilities: Drive-thru facilities require special consideration as their design can significantly impact the vehic~J!,~ circulation on a site. The following requirements aP91y to any use with &ire-thru facilities. (a) Each drive-thru lane shall be separated from the circulation routes necessary for ingress or egress from the property, or access. to any parking space. (b) Each drive-thru lane ski! be st.t'i[:~e~, marked, or otherwise dis~netly delineated. JAN Fax Transmittal Memo P rD Januao, 5, 1993 Dan Coleman Principal Planner 10500 Civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, Ca. 91729 ~.~0 El Hos,.3i:abty Lace. Suite 350 =AX 7e4/885.0676 Ae I~mglo:,,ee-Owned CoreDany SUBJECT: PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE VINEYARDS MARKETPLACE As you requested, I have reviewed the latest site plan for the above referenced projec~ dated 8-18-92, compared the identified parki~ supply to both the proposed new parking requirement for shoppin~ centers and the proposed interim requirements for centers under comtm~ion. The followi~lg report is a si?.mma. l~' my findings. ISSUE Will the proposed parki~ supply at Vineyards Marketplace be adequate for the that center in its buildout confi~m.tratmn. ' PROJECT D~RIWFION As currently configured the buildout of the Vineyards Marketplace will result in a total of 120,963 square feet of commercial devel,opment and provide 520 parking soaces for a patk-ln,~ ratio of 4.3 spaces per 1000 ,~]uate feet. T~ts is ~a~ o~ my addition oltre square footage provided for each buJJdlng and va~es from the stemmary provided oa ~e pbms (123., 378). The center is anchored by m3 Albertsons market azzd Sav-on Drags. It a~ t~¢ludes a Mobile ga~ station and Welk Fargo Ba~( ia addition to in]the shops. No food services other than may be in Albertsons and the Mobile Inlnimart currently exist. Three pads remain to be constructed, one of which will be a Taco Bell. Dan Coleman City of Rancho Cucamonga January 5, 1993 Page 2 PARKING Under the proposed new parking requirements ordinance of 5 space per 1000 square feet of devel.op. ment, 605 parking spaces would be re.cjuired for this center. That would result in a deflect of 85 spaces. Using the reduced ratio of 4.5 spnces per 1000 square feet of r ' development the City is considering for projects approved under the current o dmance, 545 space would be required. resuJtin~ in a deficit of 25 spaces. DESIGN HOUR As part 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 parking demand. That percentage lypically corresponds to the 20th highest hour of parking demand. Based on calculations performed on the survey informn~ion collected at Terra Vista Town Center, the design demand for that center was estimated to be between 4.0 to 4.2 cars per 1000 square feet of development, without a buffer., Based on these dam the maximum design hour for the Vineyards Marketplace is eslimated at 508 (42/1000 x 120,963'). The project proposes 520 spaces and therefore would have a surplus of at least 12 spaces. EXISTING DEMAND In order to develop a reference for this analysis, two spot surveys of existing parking demand were conducted. The surveys were conducted on Saturday, December 12, 1992 between 2:30 and 3:00 PM and on Thursday Dec~mber 1.7 from 4:30 to 5:00 PM. As di.~cussed in the Shopping Center Parking Requirements Study the generally acknowledged annual peak parking demand occurs mid-day on the several Saturdays between Thanksgiving and Chris~l'aaa, reflecting the Christmas shopping rush. As a result the Saturday spot survey should have revealed the annual peak for the Vineyards Marketplace Center. On Saturday December 12, 1992, 196 vehicles were observed to be parked in the Vineyards Marketplace parking lot. Because that center is not currently completed, adjustments were made to reflect the currently occupied space. Calculations based oi1 information obtained from the leasing agents for Vineyards Marketplace indicate that 9~,283 square feet are currently leased. The parking demand during the spot nn'vey can then be calculated at (196/94.3) 2.1 spaces per 1000 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 I82 parked vehicles were observed. The parldng dernnnd ratio during that survey was calculated at (182/94_~) 1.93 spaces per 1000 square feet of occupied space. The similarity between the Thursday and Saturday results tends to reinforce the belief tha! the center does not have a strong peaking characteristic. With a strong peak, a greater var/ation between the survey results would be expected. Dan Co[emnn City of Rancho Cucamonga January 5, 19~3 Page UNIQUE SITE CHARACTERISTICS The surveys of the existing demand at the center indicate that the parking ratio at Vineyards Marketplace is below that of the centers studied for the ordinance. There are unique characteristics m the centers that explain the difference. Terra Vista Town Center is a larger center with a larger market area and has a tenant mix that results in strong seasonal peaking (Target, Mervyn's, Montgomery Wards, Ross). Terra Vista Village, which/s similar in size (approx/mately 10% more leased space) has a Burger ICln~ Coca's and Salsita's plus some smaller in-line food services. Vineyards Marketplace on the other hand has only the Taco Bell (future) and about 1,000 square feet (assumed in the project summary) of in llne Although; as discussed in the Shopping Center Parking Requirements Study., restaurants peak at differen! timas 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 demaud relative to that seen at Terra Vista VRLage. The lack of. any major department stores at Vineyards Marketplace reduces seasonal peairlng characteristics 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 commamiry type center, and not oriented toward freeway traffic, it may receive additional demand from traffic accessing the State Route 30 freeway, when that fac/lity is completed. SUMMARY A primary goab of the proposed new parking ordinance are 1) to provide a requirement, in which the City can be confidem will meet the various paxking demands of a wide range of tenant mixes and center sizes, nod 2) s/mpl/fy the method of calculating parking reqnirements 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 he needed. The proponents of a new ord/r~nce agreed with tiffs approach in the interest of simplifying the process and gain/ng the marketing fiexibili~ they, desired. At Vineyards Marketplace, because it is nearly completed, the tenant mix has been generally determined, and less flexibility, in te~,--~ of marketing is needed. Aiso, this is a small center, and as such would be expected to generate parlcing/n the lower portion of the range anticipated by the ordinance. Dan Coleman City of Rancho Cucamonga January 5, 1993 Page 4 CONCLUSION Considering the above, it is reasonable to conclude that the number of parking spaces currently planned at the Vineyard Markerplace should be sufficient to provide adequate parking. Our most recent survey data show existing parking demand during the peak parkiu$ season is 2.1 spaces per 1000 square feet of leased area. Although this can be expected to increase as the surrounding land is built out, unique characteristics of thc Vincyard Markct Place indicate that the parking demand will be less than .typically required. These unique characteristics include a low percent_~$e of restaurant 'use and no seasonally pe.~king uses in the tezmnt mix. It has been a pleasure to assist the City of Rancho Cucamonga in this matter. ff you have any questions or need additional infot'amtion, please do not hesitate to call me. I look forward to working w~th you in the future. Resp~ctfully Subm!tted, P&D TECHNOLOGIES ~-~aarles $pabrnola Senior Transportation Planner cc John Potter, Hughes Investments, Two Corporate Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92658-8700 Rick Mager, Lewis Homes, 1156 N Mountain Avenue. Rancho Cucamonga, CA HU(]HES T~V¥1~ ST~ E N'TS DEV£LOPNI£NT & ACQUI$1TtON OF CONI~£RCIAL pROP£RT~ES 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 Mater 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 paricing 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 parting ordinance which requires an inordinate smount of staff time to enforce, and provides few options for the development community, in both the site planning and budgetary process. The result has been a proposed pariring ordinance prepared by P & D Technologies which in all senses is really a hybrid, which not only draws upon the info, mation provided by professional organizations such as the ULI and the International Council of Shopping Center, but also draws upon the best features of parting ordinances of 13 cities of similar demographics. What P & D has now proposed to be presented to the Plaonlng Commission is really a "state of the art" parting 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 community to plan, process and manage shopping center development and re- development in the City of Rancho Cucamonga. 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 INVESTMENTS ///'~ohn B. Potter JBP/nyc cc: Rick Mager, Lewis Homes RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 92-01 AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.12 OF THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development Code Amendment No. 92-01 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code Amendment is referred to as "the application." (ii) On the 13th day of January 1993, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing on that date. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public hearing on January 13, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application applies to property located within the City; and (b) The proposed amendments will not have a significant impact on the environment as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Initial Study, Parts I and II. 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 paragraph 1 and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) That this amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan and will provide for development within the district in a manner consistent with the General Plan and with related development; and PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. DCA 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO cUCAMONGA January 13 1993 Page 2 (b) That the proposed amendment is consistent with the objectives of the Development Code; and (c) That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and (d) That the proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the objectives of the General Plan or the Development Code. 4. This Commission hereby finds and certifies that the project has been reviewed and considered in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 and, further, this Commission hereby recommends issuance of e Negative Declaration. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraph 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby resolves as follows: (a) That the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment 92-01 to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance. 6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, 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 13th day of January 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 92-01, AMENDING TITLE 17, CHAPTER 17.12, OF THE RANCHO cUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE, REGARDING SHOPPING CENTER PARKING REQUIREMENTS, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Section 17.12.040.B.1 of Chapter 17.12 is hereby amended to read in words and figures as follows: B. COMMERCIAL/OFFICE 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 parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be provided. For centers which were built or approved prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, a parking ratio of four and one half parking spaces for each 1,000 square feet of gross leasable area shall be provided. (2) Shopping Centers of 600,000 to 1,000,000 square feet of gross leasable area: Five and one half parking spaces for each 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, fast food restaurants, taverns, lounges and other establishments for the sale and consumption on the premises of food and beverages): If over 15 percent of the gross leasable area is occupied by CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DCA 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 13, 1993 Page 2 food service uses, one additional space per 100 square feet of the gross leasable area used for food service shall be provided. (ii) Cinemas occupying up to 10 percent of the gross leasable area 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 required for the first 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 square feet of gross leasable area: No additional 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 parking study prepared in accordance with City standards, as specified by the City Planner, shall be prepared by the applicant at the applicant'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. (c) Shopping Center 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 Planner, 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. The above requirements will apply for all commercial centers in the City; however, for uses not located within a shopping center, or when deemed necessary by the City Planner to calculate uses independently, the following standards shall apply~ CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. DCA 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 13, 1993 Page 3 (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (£) (k) (m) (n) (o) (p) Automobile washing and cleaning establishments, except self-service: Sixteen parking stalls. Self-service automobile washes: Two and one half spaces for each washing stall. Automobile service and gas station: Three spaces, plus two spaces for each service bay. Barber shops or beauty parlors: barber chair; three spaces station. Two spaces for each for each beautician Buildings used solely for coin-operated laundromats or dry cleaning establishments: one space for each three washing machines. Offices, commercial banks, savings and loan offices, other financial institutions, general retail stores, food stores, supermarkets, and drug stores: One space for each 250 square feet of gross floor area. Contractor's storage yards in connection with contractor's business; salvage yard; junk yard, automobile wrecking yard; storage yard: Six spaces separated from the enclose storage area. Lumber yards: One space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area for retail sales, plus one space for each 1,000 square feet of open area devoted to display (partially covered, by roof, awning, etc.) or sales. Mortuaries and funeral homes: One space for every 25 square feet or fraction thereof of assembly room or floor area. Motels and hotels: One space for each guest unit and two spaces for resident manager or owner. Motor vehicle sales and automotive repair, painting, body work or service: One space per 400 square feet of gross floor area. Stores solely for the sale of furniture and appliances: One space for each 500 square feet of gross floor area. Trade schools, business colleges, and commercial schools: One space for each three student capacity of each classroom plus one space for each faculty member or employee. CITY COUNCIL O~DINANCE NO. DCA 92-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA January 13, 1993 Page 4 SECTION 2: This Council finds that this amendment will not adversely affect the environment and hereby issues a Negative Declaration. SECTION 3: The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptire legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION 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. ]'AH-1]-lg93 1E:35 F~OM ~LEiSHMAN =~HEP ~, ~ICE~T TO .... ~n P'LEISHMAN, FISHER & MOEb~T (~o) ss74~z7 TE!..ECOlSg~ ~1o) ~anuar~ 12, 1993 Brad Bullet City Planner 10500 Civic Canter Driver Rancho C~¢a~onga, CA 91730 BY F~X: (714) 987-$499 Re: Geeres Ada~ For~u~e=~11inu use Determination Dear Mr. Bullet: Pursuant to my conversations with City Attorney Ralph Hanson and his conversations with staff, I request that the hearing scheduled for January be rascheduled for the first hearing in F~bruary 1993 which understand is on or about February 10. city Attorney Hanson and I have had several conversations in November, December and January regardir~ continuing ~he use of resolving the issues presented, which would require more time and therefore a continuance. ~oreover, I am on the Board of Directors of the Wes=side Urban Forum ~f L~e Aztgele~ and we have a Board meeting tonight. Finally, as ~ have assured City A~orney Hangon, I assure you that my client has not been open for business. The intended business is the retail sale of p~ychic arts related merchandise, including books, crystals and the like, an~ the inciden=al, accessory use of occasional psychic reading. None of these activities or any other activities whatsoever have occurred as the location which is closely ~dJacent ~o several other businesses. Any patron cars that have been scene in the parking lot have been ~cr the other business. BAF:la cc: RalDh ganso~ (by fax) George Adams DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT January 13, 1993 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Bullet, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner USE DETERMINATION 92-03 - ADAMS - A request for the Planning Commission to determine whether fortunetelling is a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Speciality Co~nercial Zone of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. (Continued from November 10, 1992.) BACKGROUND: This item was originally continued from the October 14, 1992, meeting at the request of the applicant's attorney. The item was also continued on October 28 and November 10, 1992, again at the request of the applicant's attorney (see Exhibit "B"). ANALYSIS: No new information has been received from the applicant or his attorney. A letter of opposition was received from a person who attended the October 14, 1992, meeting (see Exhibit "A"). A copy of the original staff report is attached. The fortuneteller began operating last fall at 81~l-D Foothill Boulevard (following submittal of this request and prior to October ~4, 1992); therefore, staff believes it is critical to address the Use Determination tonight, without further delay. BB:DC/jfs Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Letter from Mr. Guy Exhibit "B" - Letter from Attorney Exhibit "C" - Planning Colission Staff Report dated October 14, 1992 Resolution ITEM I STANLEY FLEISHMAN' BARRY A. FISHER" ROBERT C. MOEST DAVID GROSZ MICHAEL B. WEISZ PETER M. KUNSTLER FLOYD CRANMORE FLEISHMAN, FISHER & MOEST LAWYERS 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST SUITE 31~1~e OF [~-~- ~; i ~ -PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS ' ,~NCHD (~j ir~ .,~I~E ADOREeS: ARJUNA LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 PLANNIN.'~-,-7~',,."', '~ oIVI,:~ON OF COUNSEL NOV ~LLAM M. ~MER Brad Buller City Planner 10500 Civic Center Driver Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 BY FAX (714) 987-6499 Re: Georae Adams Fortunetellina Use Determination Dear Mr. Buller: I request that the hearing scheduled for November 10 in the above-mentioned matter be rescheduled for the first hearing in January 1993 which I understand is on or about January 13. BAF:tag cc: Ralph Hanson George Adams DATE: TO: FROM: BY: SUBJECT: CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA STAFF REPORT October 14, 1992 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Brad Buller, City Planner Dan Coleman, Principal Planner USE DETERMINATION 92-03 - ADAMS - A request for the Planning Commission to determine whether fortunetelling is a permitted or conditionally permitted use in the Speciality Commercial Zone of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. BACKGROUND: Staff has received a request from Mr. Georg~ Adams to open a business at 8111-D Foothill Boulevard (in the building south of the Red Hill Care at Grove Avenue). The proposed business involves "fortunetelling and retail sale of psychic arts materials" (see Uniform Application, Exhibit "A"). The property in question is designated Specialty Commercial (SC) in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. The Specialty Com-~rcial designation allows retail sales; therefore, this Use Determination is limited to the interpretation of "fortunetelling." The building in question is a older, non-conforming structure of less than 500 square feet, which has been used by a variety of uses. However, as with any Use Determination, the issue, and its resolution, affects more than just this one building; indeed, it affects more than just Subarea 1. The issue is one of interpreting use and is not a consideration of whether the applicant's business should be allowed at 8111-D Foothill Boulevard. ANALYSIS: ae Land Use: With the adoption of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan (FBSP) in 1987, new land use regulations came into effect. These regulations were tailored to the unique characteristics of Foothill Boulevard (see Exhibit "B#). Prior to the adoption of the FBSP, the Devalopmant Code governed. "Spiritualist readings or astrology forecasting" is a specific use defined by the Development Code which was permitted by right within the General Co~rcial zone (see Exhibit "C"). However, there are no General Commercial zones in the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan. There are seven areas within the City that are zoned General Commercial which permit fortunetelling (see Exhibit "D"). It is significant to note that most of these areas are developed with leasable space. A strip of General Commercial zoning exists just two blocks away from the applicant's desired location on Grove Avenue. This area has a frontage of approximately 2,000 feet along PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UD 92-03 - ADAMS October 14, 1992 Page 2 Grove Avenue. Therefore, staff believes that ample opportunity exists for the intended use within the City of Rancho Cucamonga. Fortunetelling Characteristics: The applicant provides a service to customers by professing to foretell events in the customer's lives (see Exhibit "E"). Similar uses include astrology (i.e., foretelling events by studying the heavens), palmistry (i.e., telling a person's character or fortune by "reading" the lines and marks of their palms), spiritualist readings (i.e., co~nunicating with the spirits of the dead through a third party). Staff believes that fortunetelling should be considered very similar to spiritualist readings or astrology forecasting as listed in the Development Code. However, the applicant's attorney contends that the characteristics of a fortunetelling operation are indistinguishable from professional offices by virtue of the fact that a customer "enters, meets with practitioner, and leaves." The Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code states otherwise in its definition of office professional: "a use providing professional or consulting services in the fields of law, architecture, design, engineering, accounting, and similar professions." An argument could be made that fortunetelling is similar to "Personal Service." The Industrial Area Specific Plan defines "Personal Service" as "information, instruction and similar services of a personal nature" (see Exhibit "F"). Options: Staff has outlined the following options for consideration: Option: Determine that fortunetelling is similar to "Office Professional." Result: Fortunetelling would be permitted by right in all Comercial and Office zones within the City, including Foothill Boulevard, and would be permitted or conditionally permitted in most of the industrial area. Option: Determine that fortunetelling is most similar to "Personal Service" as defined by the Industrial Area Specific Plan (see Exhibit "F"). Result: Fortunetelling would be conditionally permitted in 12 of the 17 industrial subareas. Option: Determine that fortunetelling is the not same as Office Professional. Resu it: Fortunetelling would continue to be permitted by right within the General Co~ercial zones throughout the City. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT UD 92-03 - ADAMS October 14, 1992 Page 3 FINDINGS: The Planning Commission shall base its decision upon meeting the following findings: The use in question is of a similar intensity to other permitted or conditionally permitted uses in the same district. The use in question meets the purpose and intent of the district in which it is proposed. The use in question meets and conforms to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Staff reconm%ends that the Planning Con~nission determine that fortunetelling is not Office Professional (Option 3) through adoption of the attached Resolution. BB:DC:mlg Attachments: Exhibit "A" - Uniform Application Exhibit "B" - Subarea 1 Land Use Regulations (FBSP) Exhibit "C" - Development Code Land Use Regulations Exhibit "D" - Development Districts Map Exhibit "E" - Letter from Applicant's Attorney Exhibit "F" - Industrial Specific Plan Land Use Regulations Resolution 16,5_2 South Gaz-~ Ave/) Pcza:xa, CA 91766 :,t3~,M, - t-k_ SUBAREA ONE LAND USE REGULATIONS 9.3.1 Prima y Function/Location Subarea One is located contiguous to the Foothill Corridor between Grove and Vineyard Avenues. Subarea One will act as a major gateway into the community, dominated by a Specialty Commercial Activity Center, [Foothill and San Bernardino) designed as the primary activity center within the subarea. The following matrix establishes the uses which are permitted IX), conditionally permitted [O), or not permitted in each of the five affected land use subcate- gories. NOTE: Site Development Standards [Section 9.$.3.2 and 9.3.3.3) shell only apply to shaded areas. '\. SUB-AREA I = ACTIVITY CENTER MAP IV-9.10 9.3.2 Permitted and Conditional Uses: Retail commercial Usea - I nnd Use S C C C Antique Shops X Apparel: a) boutiques X X b) general X X Appliance Store (major) X Art, Music, and Photographic Studios, and Supply Stores X X Auto Service Station O Auto Service (including motorcycles, boats, trailers and campers: a) Sales (with ancillary repair facilities) O b) Rentals O c) Minor Repair (does not include major engine work, muffler shops, painting. body work, upholstery, etc.) O cl) Coin-op Washing e) Automatic Washing 1) Parts and Supplies X Bakeries (retail only) X X Barber/Beauty/Hairstylist Shops X X Bicycle Shops X X Blueprint and Photo Copy Services X Bed & Breakfast O Book. Gift. and Stationary Stores X X (other than adult related material) Cancly and Confections X X Catering Establishments X China and Glassware Stores X X O MR P X X Rev~sec~ 4 18 90 SUB-AREA DESIGN STANDARDS AND LAND USE REGULATION SUBAREA ONE Retail Commercial Uses- Continued Land Use S C Christmas Tree Sales lots operated on a temporary basis Churches Cleaning and Pressing Establishments X Cocktail Lounge (bar, lounge. tavern) including related entertainment O Commercial Recreation: a) Indoor uses such as bowling, billiards b) Outdoor uses such as tennis and basketball Convalescent Facilities and Hospitals Curtain and Drapery Shops Day Care Centers Delicatessens and Specialty Food Stores X Drug Stores and Pharmacies: a) over 10,000 sq ft b) pharmacies with or without spe- cialty retail under 10,000 sq ft O Farmers Markets X Floor Covering Shops Florist Shops X Furniture Stores X Hardware Stores Health and Athletic Gyms and Weight Reducing Clinics Hobby Shops X Ice Cream Stores and Soda Fountains X Janitonal Serwces and Supplies Rev,$e0 4 18 90 IV-D.12 CC O MR P X O O O X O O O O O O O O O X O O O X X X X X X X x x x SUB-AREA DESIGN STANDARDS AND L.AND USE REGULATIOIN SUBAREA ONE Retail Commerclel Uses - Continued Land Use SC CC Jewelry Stores x X Laundry (Self Service) X Leather Goods and Luggage Stores X X Liquor Stores O O Messenger and Wire Services X Music, Dance, and Martial Arts Studios O X Newspaper and Magazine Stores X X Nurseries and Garden Supply Stores Within Enclosed Area X Office, Business Machine and Computer Component Stores X Paint, Glass, and Wallpaper Stores X Pet Shops X X Photocopy (Xerox) X Record and Tape Stores X X Restaurants (sit dawn): a) With entertainment and/or the serving of alcoholic beverages 0 0 b) Incidental serving of beer and wine (without a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment, or dancing) X X c) Care, limited to 20 seats (including outdoor seating) X X d) Fast Food (with drive-thru) O (without drive-thru) O O Shoe S~res and Shoe Repair Shops X Specialty Retail O O IV-9.13 0 MR P X 0 0 SUB-AREA DESIGN STANDARDS AND LAND USE REGULATION SUBAREA ONE Retlll Commerclel Uses - Continued Land Use SC CC O Sporting Goods Stores: a) Specialty; backpacking, tennis, skiing,mountain- eering, fishing, etc.) X X b) General; encompassing a variety of sports equipment X Supermarkets X Swimming Pool Services and Sales X Ta Ilor Shops X X Television, Radio, VCR, Stereo and CD Component Sales X Toy Stores X X Variety Department Stores, Junior Department Stores 0 X Veterinary (domestic): a) Non-boarding X O b) Boarding O Watch and Clock Repair Stores X Yardage Goods Stores X MR P Entert~inment and Cultural U~es - Land Use SC CC Arcades O O Cultural/Artist Exhibits: a) Indoor gallery and art sales X b) Outdoor art exhibits X D i scotheques O O Theaters: a) Dinner theatre O O b) Movie (multi-plex) 0 O O MR P IV-g.14 ...... ~ffice and Administrative Um - Land Use SC CC O Administrative, Business, end Professionel Office X X X Business and Office Services X X X Banks, Finance Services and Institutions Without drive-thru X X X With drive-thru O O O Interior Decorating Firms X X X Medical/Dental Offices and Related Health Clinics X X X Optician and Optometrical Shops X X X Realtors and Real Estate Offices X X X Travel Agencies X X X Residential Uses - Land Use SC CC 0 Single Family Detached - - - Single Family Attached (duplex, triplex, fourplex) Multi-family Dwellings: 1) Ancillary Residential Uses 8) Home-care facilities (6 or less) On-site private recreation facilities 2) Accessory Uses a) Accessory structures b) Home occupation Public Use - Land Use SC CC 0 Public Utility Installations MR P MR P X - X X X X X X MR P O IV-9.15 SUB-AREA DESIGN STANDARDS AND LAND USE REGULATION 5U~AREA Section 17.10.030 USE OP NC GC 45. Mortuaries and cemeteries. C C C 46. Motorcycle sales and service. - - C 47. Newspaper and magazine stores, printing - C P and publishing. 48. Nurseries and garden supply stores; - P p provided, in the NC district, all equipment, supplies and material ate kept within an enclosed area. 49. Office and business machine stores. C P P 50. Parking facilities (commercial) where fees C - P ate chatted. 51. Political ot philanthropic headquattats. C C P 52. Pet shop. - P p 53. Plumbing shop and supplies. - - P 54. Photocopy P P P 55. Printing shop~. - - P 56. Restam'ants (other than fast food). (a) With entertainment and/or serving C C P of alcoholic beverages (b) Incidental serving of beer and wine P P P but without a cocktail lounge, bar, entertainment oe dancing 57. Recreational Vehicle Storage Yard. C C C 58. Shoe stores, sales and repair. - P P 59. Second-hand stores and pawn shops. - - P $0. Shopping Center subject to provisions in - C C Section 17.10.030-1:.5. ~ forecasting. ~ 62. Sporting goods stores. - P P 63. Stamp and coin shops. - P P -102- FLEISHMAN. FISHER & MOEST 2049 CENTURY PARK EAST, $UIl"G 3164;) LOS ~GEL~. C~FORNIA ~7 August 5, 1992 Dennis Stout, Mayor William Alexander, Mayor pro tam Charles Buquet,.Councilmember Diana Williams, Councilmember Pamela Wright, Councilmember City of Rancho Cucamonga 10500 civic Center Drive Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730 James Markman, Esq. City Attorney, Rancho Cucamonga Markman, Arczynski, Hanson & King i civic Center Circle Brae, California 92521 Re:.George Adams, fortunetelling Dear City Officials: We have been retained to represent George Adams, who wishes to engage in providing fortunetelling services and in the retail sale of materials related to palmistry and the psychic arts at 8111-D Foothill Boulevard in RanCho Cucamonga. That address is at the western end o£ Foothill Boulevard at Grove, and Mr. Adams would occupy one of a number of individual mDaces located in a single story frame structure located between a lawn-mower store and a hot dog stand. The prospective office falls within sub-area one of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan and is in the SC zone. Under the Rancho Cucamonga development code, however, fortn~telllng is permitted generally only in the GC zone. Because much of the city's GC land has been incorporated into the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, there is virtually no land eonmd GC along the cit¥'s main commercial area on Foothill, and none reasonably suitable or available for Mr. Adams's intended use. The FoothiI1 Boulevard Specific Plan incorporat~ the commercial heart of the city, and leaves only a tiny fraction of city land in the GC zone. Fortunetelling is excluded completely from the area governed by the FOOthill Boulevard Spe~tc Plan, because the plan makes no 'provision for it. Re: Fortunetelling, Rancho Cucamonga Pa~e two The city,~ severe and unreasonable limitation on the placei where fortunetelling may be practiced violate the First Amendment and the California Constitution. Spiritual Psychic ~cience Church of Truth v. city of A~usa, 39 Cal. 3d §01, 703 P.2d 1119, 217 Cal. Rptr. 225 (1985), titablished unequivocally that fortunetelling, in its various forms, is constitutionally protected speech, whether or not it is performed for a ~ee.~ Laws restricting the practice of fortunetelling must, therefore, meet rigorous constitutional standards. The Rancho Cucamonga ordinance fails so to do. Allowed in the SC zone under the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan are a number of commercial uses that are obviously of far greater land use impact ~/lat fortunetelling. Such uses as cafes and pet stores are allowed without restriction, and arcades and dinner theaters are allowed pursuant to conditional use permit. In addition, a number of retail businesses serving the public are generally permitted, including hairdressers and barbers, art and music stores, photography studios, non-adult bookstores and tailors. Finally, the SC zone permits administrative, business and professional offices, medical offices and banks. Except for the words spoken, fortunetelling as a use of land in indistinguishable from professional offices. A client enters, meets with the practitioner, and leaves. Services are provided by means that produce nothing mori than the noise of a normal conversation. Because fortunetellers generally see one person at a time for approximately an hour, there is less foot and automobile traffic generated by for~netelling than by many of the uses allowed in the SC zone~ For land use purposes, there is no means tO distinguish fortunetelling from any other service that providli counseling o= advice. The lack of any rational basis to ban fortunetelling fr~m the SC zone violatIi minimal dul process Itandards. ~~ of ¢~eburne v. Cleburne LivSng Cente~,' 472 U.S. 452 (198S) 'This firm served as counsel for plaintiff in t-he California Supreme Court in Spiritual Psychic, and has been involved in a number of prior and subsequent disputiI concerning the right to engage in fortunitelling. Sep, e.~., Stpvens v. Fountain Valley, No. SA CA 88-376 JSL (RWRx) (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 6, 1988) (challenging a conditional use permit riquirement and ristrictive zoning); Merino v. City of HuntinutonBea=h, No. CA84-9645 R (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 6, 1984)~ Adams v. gi~;y o£ ~.-kewo~, No. CA 84-6404 AWT (B~) (C.D. Cal.' filed Aug. 28. 1984)~ Merino v. City of ~ermos, ~9~q~, No. CA 84-964 AHS (Px) (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 19, 1984); Adams v. City of Downey, No.' CA 85-2840 AWT (Bx) (C.D. Cal. filed Apr. 29, ~985). In addition, o~her cities have agreed to modify their restric~ive zoning of fortunetelling, including Brea and the comprehensively planned City of Irvine. Dennis Stout, Mayor, et el. Re: Fortunetelling, Rancho Cucamonga August 5, 1992 Page three (invaSidating the exclusion of a home for the mentally retarded from an appropriate zoning district). But because fortunetelling is not a mere business, but is protected by the first amendment, banning fortunetelling from all but one zone is even more clearly violetlye of the federal and state constitutions. A municipal ordinance is not immune to first amendment challenge simply because it operates under the rubric of zoning. On the contrary, the intrusion upon constitutionally protected activity by a zoning ordinance may be upheld only If the governmental interest furthered by the restriction is "compelling." City of Santa Barbara v. Adamson, 27 Cal. 3d 123, 131,' 610 P.2d 436, 440, 164 cal. Rptr. 539, 543 (1980); See City of Chula ~i~t~ v. Pagar~, 115 Cal. App. 3U 786, 798, 171 Cal. Rptr. 738, 745 (1981). Under the federal' Constitution as well, "the zoning power is not infinite and unchallengeable; it 'must be exercised within oonstitutlona£ limits.'" Schad ¥~ ~orough of M=. ~h~ai~, 453 U.S. 61, 67 (1981) (~uotin~ Moore v. City of East cleveland, 431 U.S. 494, "[W)hen a zoning law infringes upon a protected liberty, it must be narrowly drawn and must further a suff~ciently substantial governmental interest." ~, 453 U.S. at 68. In reviewing a limitation on protected activity, a court "must not only assess the substantiality of the governmental interest asserted by also determine whether those interests could be asserted but also determine whether those interests could be served by means t~at would be less intrusive on activity protected by the First Amendment." Id. at 70. See Tovar v. Billmeyer, 721 F.2d 1260, 1264 (9th Cir. 1983) ("Under the strict scrutiny standard, zoning decisions mimed at regulating unprotected activities that incidentally limit free expression are valid only if Justifie~ by a compelling state interest,,). "[M]ore than '[c]onclusions alone'" are required to Justify the zoning ordinance, id. at 1266 (quoting Kuzini~h v. Cgun%y of ~a~tua Clara, 689 F.Zd ~345, 1~47 (~th Cir. 1982)), for "there must be.'a factual basis for the . . . Council's conclusion that th~s kind of [zoning] restriction will have the desired effect." T..~E.;~, 721 F.2d at 1266 (quotin~ Youn~ v. American. ~ini-The*tres, 42? U.S. 50, 71 (1976)). There is no apparent factual basis for the decision to exclude fortunetelling from the SC zone and the entire Foothill 5ouleYard specific plan area. cucenonqa oFdl un o provided is Fui ed operace his fo~une~ellin~.of£i~e at 8111 D Y~thill ~l~a~, Should city refuse, i~ should be reminded ~ha~ 42 U.S.C. ~ 19a8 provides that ~he prevailing plaintiff in a civil riq~s action will receive an award of fees and expenses vir~ually automatically. Therefore, if Rancho ~camonga does not refrain from enforcing ~he patently unconstitutional zoning provision against Mr. Adams, it will face not only t~e cost of defending / Dennis Stout, Mayor, et al. Re: Fortunetelling, Rancho ¢ucamonga August 5, 1992 Page four a suit, but the cost of prosecuting one as well. Please let me know within seven days, no later than August 12, 1992, whether an amicable resolution of this matter is possible. Should I not hear from you by that date, I shall assume that the city intends to continue enforcing its unconstitutional zoning ordinance against Mr. Adams. Sincerely yours, BAF/r Barry A. Fisher Personal Services: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: information, instruction and similar services of a personal nature. Uses typically include, but are not limited to: computer training, driving schools, day care facilities, travel bureaus, and photography studtos. p Petroleum Products Storage: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: bulk storage, sale, and distribution of gasoline, ltquified petroleum gas, and other petroleum products. Processing Facilities: Activities typically include collection and processing of recyclable materials. Processing means the preparation of materials for efficient shipment by such means as briquetting, grinding, crushing, mechanical sorting, shredding, cleaning, and remanufacturing. Recreational Facilities: Activities typically include, but are not limited to: sports performed either indoors or ~utdoors which require a facility for conducting the recreational activity. Uses typically include, but are not limited to: health clubs, exercise studios or classes, swimming centers, skating rinks, bowling alleys, tennis courts, sports fields, and golf courses. Repair Services: Activities typically include, but are not limited tO repair services involving articles such as upholstery, furniture, and large electrical appliance repair services. E. CIVIC USE TYPES Administrative Ctvfc Services: Activities typically include, but are not 11mlted to: management, administrative or clerical services performed by public, quasi-public, and public utility administrative offices. Cultural: Activities typically include, but are not 1 lml ted to those performed by the fol 1 owtng institutions: - Public and private non-profit museums and art gal 1 eft es; Public and private non-profit libraries and ebservatories. III-16 REVISED 6/5/91 TABLE II1-1 (Continued) SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY SUBAREA USE TYPES LAND USE IPIGIJGI GI GI GI IP ISUBAREASlHOI 1 I a I 3 I 4 I S I 6 I ? I e I e I ~o~ !!! I.~.! !3! !4! !5! 16! 17 Agricultural/Nursery Supplies & Services P P P P P Animal Care c c c Automotive Fleet Storage c c c c c Automotive Rantai/Leesing P P P c c c Automotive/LightTruckRepaJr-Minor P C P C C P Automotive/TruckRepair-Major P c P C P Automotive Sales C C Automotive Service Court C Automotive ServiceStation C c C C c C C Building Con~'actor'sOffice&Yards P C P c c P Building Contractor's Storage Yard Building Maintenance Service P P P P P P Building & Light Equipment Supplies & Sales p c P c c P P Business Supply Retail & Services P P P P P P P Busin~.s Support Services Communication Services ConvenienceSales &Services c c C c c c c c c Eating&Drinking Establishments P P P P P P P P P Entertainment c C C c c Extensive Impact Commercial Fast Food Sales c c c c c c Financial, Insurance & Real Estate Services p c c P P P c Food & Beverage Sales c C c C c C C c C C Funeral & Cremetory Services C c Heavy Equipment Sales & Rentals c C C C Hotel/Motel C P P Indoor Wholesale/Retail Commercial Laund[y Services P P P MedicaVHeal~ Care Services P C C C C C C Personal Services c c C c c c c Peb'oleum Producls Storage c c Recreation Facilities C C C C C C C C P Repair Services P P C P P P Specialty Building Supplies & Home Improvement c PP P C CC c P PP P CCC C CCCC c P PPP P PPPP PP CP CCP PPPP PP c C P P C P P C P P P C C P P P P C P P p P P P P P P C P P P P C P P CCCCCCCCC PPPPPPPPP CC CC c CC C cc CP PP CCCCCCCC C CCCC P P PP CCCC C¢C P P PP CCCC PC CCCC CC CCC C CCCPPP PP PPP PPC IP Indusldal Park HO - I-~ven Ave Ov~ Dis~'ict ...... GI - General Indu~al MI/HI - Minimum Impac~ H~evy Industrial HI - Heavy InduM~d P - Permitted Uee C - Conditionally Permitted Use [] - Non-marked Use~ Not Permitted 111-5.A Revised :6/03/92 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA REGARDING USE DETERMINATION 92-03, DETERMINING THAT FORTUNETELLING SHALL NOT BE DEEMED AN OFFICE PROFESSIONAL USE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) George Adams has filed a written request for a Use Determination No. 92-03 regarding fortunetelling. Hereinafter in the Resolution, the subject Use Determination request is referred to as "the application." (ii) On October 14, and continued to October 28, and November 10, 1992, and January 13, 1993, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga considered the application at a public meeting. (iii) All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows: 1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Based upon substantial evidence specifically presented to this Commission during the above-referenced meetings on October 14, October 28, and November 10, 1992, and January 13, 1993, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: (a) The application contemplates the establishment of a use involving "fortunetelling" on property zoned by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan as Specialty Commercial at 8111-D Foothill Boulevard. (b) The Specialty Commercial District is intended for uses which promote a special landmark quality or create a special ambience. Activities typically include farmers markets, cafes, bakeries, gift shops, and restaurants. (c) A fortuneteller is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "a person who professes to foretell events in other people's lives." Similarly, Webster's defines astrology as "foretelling events by studying the heavens." Spiritualism is defined by Webster's as communicating with the spirits of the dead through a third party. (d) "Spiritualist readings or astrology forecasting" is a use specifically listed as permitted by right within the General Commercial District. PLANNINe COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. UD 92-03 - ADAMS January 13, 1993 Page 2 (e) The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan does not specifically list fortunetellers, spiritualists, or astrologers as permitted or conditionally permitted land uses. (f) The goal of the General Commercial land use designation of the General Plan is to provide for a broader range of use activities than any other commercial designation. 3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-referenced public meeting and upon the specific findings of fact set forth in paragraphs i and 2 above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows: (a) The fortunetelling use is not similar to Office Professional uses. (b) The fortunetelling use meets and conforms to the applicable goals and objectives of the General Plan. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this Commission hereby determines that fortunetelling shall not be classified as Office Professional as listed in the Development Code. 5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 1993. PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO cUCAMONGA BY: Larry T. McNiel, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Bullet, Secretary I, Brad Bullet, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cuca~onga, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of January 1993, by the following vote-to-wit: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEES AND SUBCOMMITTEES DESIGN R~VIEW COMMITTEE: 10/28/92: Larry McNiel John Melcher Peter Tolstoy (1st Alternate) Wendy Vallette (2nd Alternate) Suzanne Chitiea (3rd Alternate) TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 08/12/92: Peter Tolstoy to 7/27/93 Suzanne Chitiea to 7/27/94 Wendy Vallette to 7/27/93 (Alternate) TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE SUBCOMMITTEE: 11/14/90: Peter Tolstoy John Melcher DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESSING SUBCOMMITTEE: 01/23/91: Larry McNiel Wendy Vallette (Alternate) John Melcher FIRE STATION SUBCOMMITTEE: 03/13/91: Suzanne Chitlea John Melcher VICTORIA GARDENS SUBCOMMITTEE: 05/23/90: Susanne Chitlea Larry McNiel Peter Tolstoy (Alternate) CENTRAL P~.RK LIBR~uRY SUBCOMMITTEE: 11/29/89: Larry McNiel ROUTE 30 SUBCOMMITTEE 09/11/91 Peter Toletoy Wendy Vallette HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE 07/ /92 John Melcher Peter Tolstoy ETIWANDA NORTH SUBCOMMITTEE 10/28/92 John Melcher Wendy Vallette SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SUBCOMMITTEE 10/28/92 Suzanne Chitlea Larry McNiel Committees (10/28/92) ITEM K