HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997/03/11 - Agenda Packet - Adj (Workshop)CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
TUESDAY MARCH 11, 1997 7:00 PM
Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center
Council Chamber
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California
I. CALL TO ORDER
Pledge of Allegiance
Roll Call
Chairman Barker
Vice Chairman McNiel
Commissioner Bethel __ Commissioner Macias __ Commissioner Tolstoy
II.ANNOUNCEMENTS
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
February 12, 1997
February 26, 1997
IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS
The following items are public hearings in which concerned individuals may voice
their opinion of the related project. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman
and address the Commission by stating your name and address. All such opinions
shall be limited to 5 minutes per individual for each project. Please sign in after
speaking.
A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square
foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres
of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest comer of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related
file: Pre-Application Review 95-04. (Continued from February 26,
1997)
Co
Do
F°
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT g6-01 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the satellite dish antenna
regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal Communications
Commission recent regulations. (Continued from February 12, 1997)
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-04 - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the satellite dish
antenna regulations in all zones to be consistent with Federal
Communications Commission recent regulations. (Continued from
February 12, 1997)
SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-0! - CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the satellite dish
antenna regulations to be consistent with Federal Communications
Commission recent regulations. (Continued from February 12, 1997)
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 - MILLER
FAMILY AND ASSOCIATES. INC. - A request to add Funeral and
Crematory Services as a conditionally permitted use in Subarea 8
(General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
AMENDMENT 97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request
to change the zoning from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per
acre) to General Commercial to be consistent with the General Plan
for approximately 4.34 acres of land on the east side of Archibald
Avenue, south of Arrow Route -APN: 209-041-27, 41, and 47. Staff
has prepared a Negative Declaration of environmental impacts for
consideration.
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-01 - TEXACO - A request to
amend the Sign Ordinance by adding regulations to allow the
identification of sub-tenants within service stations.
V. OLD BUSINESS
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - A review of the car wash
facility for the Mobil gas station within Masi Plaza, located at the
southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive -
APN: 229-011-36.
Page 2
Vl. DIRECTOR'S REPORTS
REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN
ORDINANCE WITHIN THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL
CODE TO ADD AUTO CENTERS AS A CLASS OF SIGNS WITHIN
SECTIONS 14.20.100 SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE ZONES
AND SECTION 14.20.110 SIGNS - INDUSTRIAL ZONES.
VII. 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.
VIII. COMMISSION BUSINESS
J. DESIGN AWARDS NOMINATIONS
K. SIGNS/MULTI-FAMILY TASK FORCE UPDATE (Oral report)
L. FOOTHILL BOULEVARD/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TASK
FORCE UPDATE (Oral report)
IX. ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission has adopted Administrative Regulations that set an
11:00 p.m. adjournment time. If items go beyond that time, they shall be heard only
with the consent of the Commission.
I, Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga, or my designee, hereby certify that a true, accurate copy of the
foregoing agenda was posted on March 6, 1997, at least 72 hours prior to the
meeting per Government Code Section 54964.2 at 10500 Civic Center Drive,
Rancho Cucamonga.
Page 3
VICINITY MAP
· . .... ........... -........... ...... . ........ ....... .....-.-.....-...... ......... .... · · . .............-.....-.................. ......... ..:.:.: ....... ......... .....:.:.:.~ ...... ·
- ~......:.:.:.:.:~i~:~i.:.!.i~i3;:!:i:!~i.i.i.i......~~.~:.:.:.:~!.:.:.i.i.i.i~i.f.i.i.i:i:i:i:i:i~f.i.!.i~.~...~~...!..."..".-~~....i:i:!:!:!3i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i:i.i~!.!.i.i.................v.v~.~......:.3i:i:i.!.i.!.v.v.v~i.....~...~...:
I:::::: :.:.: :.:-:-:.:.:.:.:::::::::::: :.:.Z.:.:.:.:.:-:-:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:. ::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :':':':':':':'e
I .:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:............:.:.:.:.:...:.:.:.:.:.........-...-.-..................:.:.:.:.:.: ......:.:.:.:.:.:.-..:.:.:.:............:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.: ....:..:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.........-..........:-:-:-:.:.:.:.: ....:.:.:.:.... .-.....,
. Ii I 'i' 'i'i i i' '--~--' 'i'I i i,,,, i I I i .. ........ : ...... :.'.'.'.'.-...'.............-.-.... .........:.:.:.: .....'.'.'.-......-:'~ .... ·
I · .:.:...:.:.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.'.':':.:.:.:.:.:..Z..:.~.-:.:.'.:.:..:.:...:.:.:.:.'...........C.'-:-:-'-'/,..:.. ·
! _,,~=,~ ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::...;;.:.:
I c.,,,,~ . .....:-:.:.:.'.-.'.-.'.'.'.'........ ......:':'__:':'"L~:':' ':':':''""'"""'"'"'"'"'"I .....
_ ~ · ...........:.:.:.-.-.........-.......-~.,,,~........~.:.......-.....-.....-.. · ....
I .... :.'.'.'.'.'.'.':':':':':':-:.:.:.' '. .-.......-..;-:.:.:.:-:-:-:.:.:.:.1 ... 4
I:' .:.:.:.:-:.'.:.'.'.'.'.'.-:':':':'L--. I':':':-:':""-':': I'.:.:.:..
~ W~ I:: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::..'.'! ".'.';-.~:':'~ ' :- ~
~ ~ ~: ~' 1" ' =
A,T.A S.F. AR
CITY HALL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA --
STAFF RF, PORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
March 11, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 -
RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a
5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial
designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue- APN: 207-211-12 and 13. (Continued
from February 26, 1997).
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the above-referenced
project at its meeting on February 26, 1997. Because of the significant number of recommended
Conditions of Approval and the overall lack of information on certain issues, the Planning
Commission continued this item until March 11, 1997, for the purpose of having staff prepare a
Resolution of Denial. Both the original Resolution of Approval and the new Resolution of Denial
have been attached to this staff report.
Staff has met with the applicant on two separate occasions since the last Planning Commission
meeting to identify those issues which are being conditioned that normally would have been
addressed prior to a request for Phase One approval. The applicant has indicated an interest in
preparing a draft set of Design Guidelines for his project as soon as possible. Staff will present at
the meeting any updated information from our meetings with the applicant. The applicant has
stated his desire to work with the Commission and staff and address any unresolved issues.
If the Planning Commission denies the current application, no application for a Conditional Use
Permit for the same or substantially the same use on the same or substantially the same site shall
be filed within one year per Development Code Section 17.04.030.H.
RECOMMENDATION: At the direction of the Planning Commission a Resolution of Denial has
been prepared for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 26, 1997
Resolution of Approval with Conditions
Resolution of Denial
ITEM A
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
February 26, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Steve Hayes, AICP, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 -
RODRIGUEZ - A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a
5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial
designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at the southwest corner
of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13. Related
File: Pre-Application Review 95-04.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North Vacant; Community Commercial
South Vacant; Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
East Service Station and Condominiums; Community Commercial and Medium High
Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre)
West Vacant; Flood Control and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
eo
General Plan Designations:
Project Site - Commercial
North Commercial
South Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
East Commercial and Medium High Residential (14-24 dwelling units per acre)
West Flood Control/Utility Corridor and Medium Residential (8-14 dwelling units per acre)
Site Characteristics: The site currently contains the historic Klusman House and related on-
site improvements in the north central portion of the property. The balance of the site is
currently vacant, and curb and gutter exist along the entire property frontage.
Parking Calculations:
Square
Type of Use Footage
PHASE ONE
Drive-thru Facility 2,900
Restaurant 5,548
Outdoor Eating Area 2,000
Proposed & Existing
Pad Buildings 11,0;30
PHASE ONE TOTAL 21,478
Number of Number of
Parking Spaces Spaces
Ratio Required Provided
1/75 39
1/100 55
1/100 20
1/250 44
158
230
MASTER PLAN TOTAL
74,478 1/200 372 414
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
February 26, 1997
Page 2
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 93-04 of the
project on April 14, 1993; however, the scheme was considerably different from Conditional Use
Permit 95-25. The Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application Review 95-04 of the new
project on October 25, 1995. The Commission identified a number of significant design issues.
Staff identified several setback deficiencies, (see attached Exhibits "J" and "K"). The applicant
formally submitted their request for this Conditional Use Permit on August 29, 1995. Unfortunately,
the originally submitted development plans did not address the Commission's concerns and
required a Variance. During the public hearing for Variance 96-01, the applicant requested a
continuance when it appeared that the Commission would not support the request. At the
applicant's request, the Commission continued indefinitely the hearing for Variance 96-01 on April
24, 1996. The project was subsequently redesigned to conform to required building and parking
setbacks. Attached in Exhibit "L" is a chronology of the processing of this project.
ANALYSIS:
Ao
General: The applicant is proposing to develop Phase One of a larger shopping center with
this application. The phase considered specifically under this application includes a Burger
King drive-thru facility, a sit down restaurant with outdoor eating area and all related
landscape and parking lot improvements, including the on-site improvements within the
pedestrian activity center, as shown on the proposed phasing plan (see Exhibit "C"). As part
of this phase of development, the existing parking area for the historic Klusman House
(labeled as "Existing Building" on the Site Plan) will be modified and upgraded. Even though
shown as part of Phase One, Buildings 1, 2, and 3 are shown in concept only and are not
proposed to be built at this time; they will be required to go through a separate application
through the Development Review process.
The primary vehicular access to the project is proposed to be provided from driveways off
both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. A secondary service driveway access is
shown in concept on the Master Plan; this driveway would be intended to serve as access
for large service vehicles only for the major tenants within the next phase of development.
An extension of the pedestrian activity center is being proposed on-site near the intersection
of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The use of the diagonally spaced Crape Myrtle
trees and special paving is incorporated into the project design along the public right-of-way
along both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the first driveway access. Within the
on-site expansion area is a proposed fountain with seating around its perimeter and
expansive use of special paving in a circular pattern. In addition to these amenities, the
applicant has also stated that additional seating areas will be provided and tenants within the
buildings flanking the activity center will be carefully selected to enhance the pedestrian use
of this area.
Burger King has been designed to be consistent with the Interim Design Policies for drive-thru
facilities established by the Planning Commission. The building and drive-thru lane is set
back 45 feet from the ultimate face of curb along Vineyard Avenue and a combination of low
walls and landscaping is proposed to completely screen activity in the drive-thru lane from
view of Vineyard Avenue. The vehicular circulation pattern proposed for the Burger King is
similar to that utilized at the Taco Bell at the southeast corner of Highland and Milliken
Avenues; the drive aisle directly adjacent to the Burger King is proposed to be one-way so
that traffic does not overflow into the main driveway entrance off Vineyard Avenue. In order
to make it more obvious that this drive aisle is intended to be one way for southbound traffic
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
February 26, 1997
Page 3
Co
only, on-site directory signage and painted arrows on the asphalt will be used to properly
direct customers to the drive-thru lane, the parking spaces lining the adjacent drive aisle have
been angled at 45 degrees, and the planter islands at the south end of the drive aisle have
been expanded by using rolled curbing and turf-block, thus narrowing the width of the access
to the main east/west drive aisle at this location.
The proposed Master Plan includes a 41,250 square foot major tenant (i.e. a supermarket)
and shop buildings totaling approximately 13,750 square feet. These buildings are shown
south of and adjacent to the main east/west drive aisle with the main entrances facing the
field of parking north of the buildings. On the south side of these buildings are potential
loading docks with service drive areas for large vehicles. The Master Plan is not being
considered at this time and is conceptual only.
Design Review Committee: The Design Review Committee reviewed this item on numerous
occasions as courtesy reviews prior to staff deeming the application complete. Most recently,
the project was reviewed by the Committee (Bethel, Coleman) on February 18, 1997. The
Committee determined that the applicant had not submitted the previously requested Roof
Plan for Burger King nor provided sufficient information to explain the roof equipment. The
applicant also wasn't sure whether the chimney element was to remain or if it was no longer
functional and would be removed. The applicant indicated that his architect was not
cooperating in providing plans. The Committee did not recommend approval and asked the
applicant to provide plans and answer a number of specific questions regarding roof
equipment, prior to tonight's meeting.
Technical Review Committee: On January 2, 1997, the Technical Review Committee
reviewed the project and determined that, with the recommended special and standard
Conditions of Approval, the project is consistent with all applicable standards and ordinances.
Grading Committee: The project was reviewed on several occasions by the Grading
Committee but was rejected each time for incomplete plans and drainage problems. Most
recently, the project was reviewed by the Grading Committee on February 18, 1997. The
applicant chose to drain approximately two-thirds of the site to a drainage facility at the
southwest corner o; the site which consists of graded berms designed to direct surface runoff
into a basin, which feeds into a 36-inch pipe connecting into Cucamonga Creek Flood Control
Channel. The proposed drainage system was rejected for the following reasons:
The overflow spillway height is 3 feet higher than the berm at the southeast corner of
the basin area; therefore, water will overflow the berms before reaching the spillway.
The overflow would drain uncontrolled onto the property to the south. The applicant has
not obtained a letter of acceptance from this property owner.
If not maintained properly, the drain pipe inlet may become plugged with mud and
debris which would result in water ponding up to 10 feet deep. Historically, staff has
recommended no greater than 18 inches of ponding to avoid creating an attractive
nuisance and safety hazard. The area could be enclosed with a 6-8 foot high wrought
iron fence.
o
Surface runoff from the southerly parking lot is collected into a graded swale along the
south property line which is proposed to drain westerly; however, the grade is 5.5 feet
lower than the basin berm height. The plans simply do not show how the site will be
graded to get the water from the parking lot swale uphill to the basin. To achieve the
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
February 26, 1997
Page 4
necessary 1 percent flow grade, the parking lot would have to be raised about 9 feet
higher than shown on Grading Plan. This would result in a fill condition of
approximately 7 feet and create a 13-foot high wall along the south property line.
At the time this report was prepared, staff was working with the applicant to revise the
Grading Plan and drainage design to resolve these issues. The applicant was directed to
submit a revised Grading Plan prior to tonight's meeting. An oral update will be provided.
Environmental Assessment: Part I of the Initial Study has been completed by the applicant.
Staff has completed Part II of the Initial Study. A portion of the site is located with a fault
study zone; hence, a geologic report was prepared. Staff found that although the project
could potentially have a significant effect on the environment in several areas (i.e. traffic,
noise, air quality, geology, water, aesthetics) the project will not have a significant impact on
the environment with the recommended mitigation measures being incorporated into the
project design and/or being monitored on a periodic basis by staff. All of the recommended
mitigation measures have been incorporated into the attached Resolution of Approval. Refer
to attached Initial Study for detailed analysis.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item has been advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property has been posted, and notices were sent to all property owners
within a 300-foot radius of the site.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit 95-25 through
adoption of the attached Resolution of Approval with Conditions and issuance of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration.
Attachments: Exhibit"A" - Site Utilization
Exhibit "B" - Phase One Site Plan
Exhibit "B-2" - Master Plan
Exhibit"C" - Phasing Plan
Exhibit "D" - Conceptual Landscape Plan
Exhibit "E" Conceptual Grading Plan
Exhibit "F" Building Elevations (Burger King)
Exhibit "F-I" - Roof Screen Alternatives
Exhibit "F-2" - Burger King Roof Plan
Exhibit "F-3" - Burger King Roof Equipment Plans dated Feb. 4, 18, & 20, 1997,
thru "F-5" consecutively
Exhibit "G" Building Elevations (Restaurant)
Exhibit "H" Design Review Committee Comments
Exhibit "1" Initial Study, Part II
Exhibit "J" Pre-Application Review 93-04 Minutes
Exhibit "K" Pre-Application Review 95~04 Minutes
Exhibit "L" Project Chronology
Exhibit "M" Photographs of Site
Resolution of Approval with Conditions ~(~ ~,
ZA
Tl
ON
NAP
CC = COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
~C $ P £C1.~ I.'rY COSI.M ERCL~ L ~
MII R- ,M EDII.:31-IIIGII R£$1D£NTL4, L COMM£RCIAL
M~ 51EDIL'.M RESIDENTL~.L $-14
~=n'~,.,c p p
o~orr,c~ O0
FUTURE BUILDINGS
fROPOSED BL ILDINGS
VACANT LAND
I
Z
z ~
> i,
~,,
[
._J
0
0
L
Z -
-
%
?/
CONCEPTUAL M~s'/'~r ~ I[]
SITE PLAN
CONCEPTUAl I ANDSCAPF P ~
NOT
l,.i
~Cx~Y ~)ATA
Cfl'Y O~: RANCHO CUCAMONGA
CONCEFTUAL GClADe~ F'I_AN
I I
z
o
z
0
DINING
DRIVE I~'D~
THRU WI ~
ROOF EQUIPMENT PLAN
[I
12'-0' 2g'-O' 0'-0'.
x -'
DINING
'WINDOW
RECEIVED
FEB £ 0 19,97
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:00 p.m. Steve Hayes May 14, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ -
A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7
acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located
at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard'mad Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
(Continued from May 1, 1996)
Design Parameters: The site is currently developed with a single family residence that has been
converted to commercial uses. The Klusman House is designated as a Local Landmark. The balance of
the site is undeveloped with a gradual slope from north to south. The intersection of Foothill Boulevard
and Vineyard Avenue is designated by the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan CFBSP) as an activity center.
Background: On October 25, 1995, the Planning Commission conducted a Pre-Application workshop
on the application. The Commission considered a site plan almost identical to the plans submitted with
the current application. The Commission felt that the location of the drive-thru facility adjacent to the
Klusman House was not acceptable. Also, the Commission did not believe introduction of a drive-thru
facility within the activity center was appropriate. The complete minutes of the Pre-Application are
attached for the Committee's reference.
Related Application: In conjunction with the Conditional Use Permit application, the applicant has
submitted a Variance application to address building and parking setback deficiencies along both Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue. The Variance application was originally scheduled for Planning
Commission consideration on March 27, 1996, but was continued to April 24, 1996, at the request of the
applicant. If the variance application is denied, the project site plan would have to be significantly
modified.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
The comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue is designated by the FBSP as an activity
center. The intent of the activity center is to allow buildings to be pulled closer to the street to
create a pedestrian friendly environment. The FBSP encourages public entrances to be oriented
toward Foothill Boulevard. Also, buildings should be designed and sited to minimize
pedestrians/vehicular conflicts and avoid locating driveways and service areas which interfere with
the flow of Foothill Boulevard pedestrian movements. The design provided by the applicant
introduces the drive-thru lane for Burger King in the middle of the activity center block. Not only
is the access to Burger King oriented away from Foothill Boulevard, but the wall necessary to
screen the drive-thru lane inhibits pedestrian access across the frontage to specific points.
9
The Klusman House is designated as a Local Landmark. The exterior of the house has been
improved over the past few years and man>' improvements were made to the interior to
accommodate commercial uses. As a local landmark, staff believes that the site should be
designed to "show off' this local feature. The area west of the building has been maintained open
to the drive aisle and, ultimately, to the street. A 40-foot landscaped setback is provided between
the drive aisle and the structure. The applicant, however, has introduced a drive-thru lane and 4-
foot high wall within 25 feet of the east side of the building. Also, the proposed Burger King is
sited 15 feet closer to Foothill Boulevard than the existing house. The combination of the wall
and the building location obscures visibility of the historic structure. The site should be
redesigned to open up visibility of the Klusman House.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
May 14, 1996
Page 2
The current drive-thru policies adopted by the Planning Commission require drive-thru lanes to
be screened from public view'. The drive-thru lane can be screened through building orientation,
a combination of Low walls, and/or landscaping, and trellis work. While the applicant is
proposing walls and a trellis, the drive-thru stacking area is located parallel to the street, resulting
in the highest visibility. The drive-thru lane is also located adjacent to the activity center which
is designed with hardscape and formal tree planting - little opportunity for landscaping exists. As
suggested in the Pre-Application workshop, the drive-thru facility could be located to other areas
of the site where the stacking lane could be screened by the building and/or more extensive
landscaping.
While the Design Review Committee does not review the Variance application, it is important to
note the design implications of the reduced setbacks requested by the applicant. Along both
Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue the formal hardscape/landscape treatment required by
the FBSP is interrupted. The double row of Crape Myrtle trees is reduced to a single row along
the drive-thru lane and the restaurant building. The colonnade feeling of the double tree rows will
be eliminated.
The current drive-thru policy requires the drive-thru lane to be setback 45 feet from the face of
curb. As proposed, the drive-thru lane is only 20 feet from the Foothill Boulevard curb. The plans
should be revised to comply with the policy.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the Committee
will discuss the following secondary design issues:
The architecture proposed varies between the drive-thru facility and the restaurant. The drive-thru
facility is designed with stucco walls, large roof overhangs with exposed rafter tails, vertical wood
siding on the roof screen parapet, and a brown, flat concrete tile. The restaurant is designed with
stucco walls, large roof overhangs with exposed rafter tails in some areas, clipped eaves in other
areas, and a terra cora barrel tile roof. While, individually the styles may be acceptable, the
building(s) should be redesigned to provide a consistent architectural theme for the center.
Additional architectural treatment should be provided to the south elevation of the drive-thru
facility and the east elevation of the restaurant to break up flat stucco walls.
The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan calls for the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for
the activity center to extend from Vineyard westerly to beyond the Klusman House. Logically,
the activity center treatment would stop at the Foothill Boulevard drive approach.
To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment of the activity' center
should extend from the public sidewalk to the house ento'. Pedestrian amenities (benches, a
fountain, etc.) can be incorporated into the hardscape area.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. A decorative cap should be provided on the 4-foot screen wall adjacent to the drive-thru facility.
2. Where river rock is proposed, native stone should be used as the veneer (as opposed to
manufactured stone).
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
May 14, 1996
Page 3
Recommendation: Staff recommends that revised plans be provided to address the concerns listed
above. The plans should be resubmitted for additional Committee review.
Attachment: Pre-Application Workshop Minutes dated October 25, 1995
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Larry McNiel, Heinz Lumpp, Larry Henderson
Staff Plarmer: Steve Hayes
The Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to revise the Site Plan to address the follow'ing
concerns:
The plotting of the Burger King building, as shown on the proposed Site Plan, was not acceptable
to the Committee as previously stated in the October 25, 1995 Pre-Application Workshop. The
building should be relocated to another area of the property such as west of the Foothill Boulevard
driveway access or along the Vineyard Avenue frontage, possibly "swapping" locations with the
proposed Zendejas Restaurant.
Because it does not appear that the applicant has responded to the October 25, 1995 comments and
because of time constraints other issues were not discussed by the Committee. Therefore, the Committee
recommended that the applicant work with staff to address this concern and revise the plans accordingly
for further review of the Committee. The Committee agreed to hear this item again at the next regular
Design Review Committee meeting if the applicant desired, however, the preference of the Committee
was for the applicant to work with staff to address the Committee's concerns prior to further review of
the Committee.
5:40 p.m.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
Steve Hayes September 3, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERaM-IT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
- A request to construct a 2,900 square foot driv'e-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on
3.7 acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and
13.
Background:
The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on May 14, 1996, where the Committee
directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated with the Burger
King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the Burger King be
relocated to another area on the property away from the pedestrian Activity Center area. Comments
from the May 14th Design Review Committee meeting as well as the October 25, 1995 Planning
Commission Pre-Application Review meeting have been attached for your convenience.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion
regarding this project:
The Site Plan has been revised to position the Burger King and Zendejas at the minimum
required setbacks. In doing so, the field of par 'king south and west of the restaurants has been
modified to a more standard configuration, Mthout the pedestrian pathway that leads to the
future Master Planned shopping center. The applicant has made these revisions in an attempt
to address previous concerns of the Planning Commission and Design Review Commirtee
without significantly modifying the Site Plan. However, it has been requested by members
of the Planning Commission and Design Review Committee in the past to relocate the Burger
King away from the Activity Center. Therefore, the Committee should determine if the
setback modifications are significant enough to allow the applicant to move forward with the
Site Plan as modified. Staff feels that the setback modifications still do not adequately address
previous Commission comments regarding the re-positioning of the Burger King to another
area on the property nor the potential conflict of having a drive-thru facility in such close
proximity to the pedestrian Activity Center.
Now that the Burger King has been set back 25 feet further from Foothill Boulevard, the
historic Klusman House is no longer as hidden from view for westbound traffic on Foothill
Boulevard. A low retaining wall is proposed to be constructed for the Burger King project that
is closer to the street than the Klusman House, but it should not detract from the viewing of
the house. The drive-thru lane is still proposed to be within 24 feet of the east side of the
house, which is significant enough to insure that the existing trees on the east side of the house
will not have to be removed. A majority of the east side of the house is already screened by
existing landscaping. Therefore, staff feels that, with the combination of the Burger King
DRC AGENDA
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
September 3, 1996
Page 2
being moved southerly 25 feet and the existing landscaping on the east side of the building
slated to remain in-place, that the viewstied to the Klusman House from westbound Foothill
Boulevard should not be significantly altered.
With the additional setback area between Foothill Boulevard and the drive-thru lane for Burger
King, a better opportunity exists to provide additional screening of the lane, through the use
of landscaping, berming, and low walls. The building and drive-thru lane have not been re-
oriented, so that the stacking area is still the closest element to Foothill Boulevard and the
Pedestrian Actiyity Center area. However, with the increased setback, staff feels that the
concerns of having the drive-thru lane adjacent to the street and the Activity Center can be
completely mitigated.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary design issues:
All of the required improvements within the Pedestrian Activity Center should be installed on-
both street frontages, including the double row of Crape Myrtle trees and the appropriate width
of decorative hardscape, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer.
The Committee should consider if the contrasting types of architecture between the Klusman
House and the new buildings is acceptable. If the Committee finds the architectural style to
be acceptable, then staff would recommend that the south elevation of the drive-thru facility
and the east elevation of the restaurant be upgraded.
To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the
Activity Center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Pedestrian
amenities (benches, a fountain, etc.) could be incorporated into the hardscape area.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. A decorative cap should be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project.
Where river rock is proposed, native stone should be used as the veneer.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that, if the Committee deems the new Site Plan acceptable, then the Committee
should recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission. However, if the Committee
still feels that the location of the two new buildings should be modified, then the Committee should
recommend that the applicant make the appropriate changes and resubmit the project for further
Committee review.
Attachments ~,~5~;1
DRC AGENDA
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
September 3, 1996
Page 3
Design Review Committee Action'
Members Present: Pdch Macias, Larry McNiel, Brad Buller
Staff Planner:
Dan Coleman
The Committee did not recommend approval of the revised Site Plan concept for the following
reasons:
The plotting of Burger King restaurant drive-thru lane creates an island that impedes
pedestrian circulation contrary to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan goal to create a
pedestrian oriented "activity center." The use is automobile oriented which is contrary to the
intent to have "destination" land uses which generate pedestrian activity and a synergy
between commercial tenants.
No information was provided regarding the future use of the pad between Burger King and the
intersection. A Master Plan is needed to show the relationship between uses and buildings.
The latest scheme deleted the strong diagonal pedestrian access from the intersection through
the site to the future major anchor.
No information was provided regarding the impact of the latest site plan on overall parking
of the entire shopping center. Calculations were only provided for Phase I.
The Committee repeated their May 14, 1996 recommendation that if a drive-thru restaurant is to be
located within th/s project that consideration should be given to locating it either west of the project
entry on Foothill Boulevard or south of the project entry on Vineyard Avenue. The Committee
indicated they were willing to consider a third alternative which s~vapped the Burger King and
Zendejas pads subject to suitable site plan analysis. The Committee requested site plan alternatives
for their review.
.... DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
5:15 p.m. Steve Hayes
December 3, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERaMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ -
A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7
acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the FootNil Boulevard Specific Plan, located
at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
Background:
The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on September 3, 1996, where the Committee
directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning issues associated with the Burger King
and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee recommended that the Burger King restaurant be
relocated to another area on the property a~vay from the pedestrian Activity Center area. Comments from
the September 3rd and May 14th Design Review Committee meetings as well as the October 25, 1995
Planning Commission Pre-Application Review' meeting have been attached for your convenience.
The purpose oftonight's meeting is to review the revised Site Plan prepared by the applicant to determine
if it is in compliance with past recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review
Committee. Based on the comments that come out oftonight's meeting, the applicant will then formally
address any outstanding issues related to the Site Plan and resubmit it along with the building elevation
for Phase 1 development for additional review and consideration of the Conunittee.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues ~,411 be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. Master Plan - The following issues should be discussed regarding the new Master Plan:
The main entrance driveway from Foothill Boulevard should align with a focal point (i.e.,
tower element on Major Anchor, plaza, major landscape element, etc.).
The Master Plan does not indicate that sufficient par'king is being provided for Phase II at
ultimate build out.
The distribution of par 'k/ng in relation to structures is such that the Phase I buildings will
consume all of the central parking lot (west of Burger King) and result in a lack of parking
to serve the future retail buildings west of Zendejas restaurant.
There is no loading area capability provided at the rear of the first future retail building
west of Zendejas restaurant. Also, parking rows should be revised to eliminate dead-ends.
Ten foot wide planters, at a minimum, should be provided along both sides of the main
north-south drive aisle to Foothill Boulevard ent~.
The new Site Plan layout sho~vs two smaller buildings flanking a circular hardscape and
activity area on-site that acts as an extension of the pedestrian Activity Center. Building
2 has a circular element on the side adjacent to the Activity Center. These buildings are
proposed as part of a later phase of the Master Plan and will not be developed at this time.
Hence, the type of tenants anticipated for these buildings is also not known at this time.
Staff feels that the concept of these buildings at the Activity Center could promote and
stimulate pedestrian activity in this area but questions the reality of getting appropriate
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
December 3, 1996
Page 2
tenants and buildings oriented in this manner. The Committee may wish to consider
options or conditions that would guarantee pedestrian oriented buildings and tenants in this
portion of the site.
The original schemes showed a strong diagonal pedestrian connection from the Activity
Center area at the comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the major line of
tenants. This pedestrian connection has been revised to a small sidewalk behind the
Burger King trash enclosure and requires customers to cross the drive-thru lane twice.
Staff feels that a stronger pedestrian connection between the Activity Center and the major
tenants should be introduced back into the Site Plan. (The Committee directed the
applicant to incorporate this element back into the Site plan at the last Design Review
Committee meeting).
2. Burger King
The Burger King restaurant has been relocated to be on the Vineyard Avenue frontage,
consistent ~Sth past recommendations of the Design Review Committee and Planning
Commission. However, staff is concerned that the right mm into the drive-thru lane from
the Vineyard Avenue entrance is too tight and the stac 'king area in the lane is limited such
that the flow of traffic may be impeded entering the shopping center. An alternative drive-
thru lane layout should be considered by the Commitlee.
Adaptive reuse of existing historic buildings for quick service restaurants has been
successful in many communities across the country. Attached for your consideration is
an article that references several examples. The Committee may wish to consider and
comment on whether the Klusman House may be a viable structure to house a quick
service or sit down restaurant.
The Burger King restaurant is oriented so that the elongated portion of the drive-thru lane
is the closest element to the street. Screen walls and trellises are proposed to screen the
drive-thru area. Given that the required setback is being provided along Vineyard Avenue,
there should be ample opportunity to provide sufficient screening of the lane through the
use of dense landscaping and herming in addition to the elements already provided.
Secondary Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitling, the Committee
will discuss the following secondary design issues:
All of the required improvements within the Pedestrian Activity Center should be installed on both
street frontages, including the double row of Crape Myrtle trees and the appropriate width of
decorative hardscape, to the satisfaction of the City Planner and City Engineer.
2. Additional areas of special paving should be provided throughout the project.
To accentuate the Klusman House, the formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activih,
Center should extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Pedestrian amenities (benches,
a fountain, etc.) could be incorporated into the hardscape area.
The Burger King restaurant trash enclosure should be relocated to a place where it would not have
as high of potential to interfere with vehicular circulation.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
December 3, 1996
Page 3
o
Significant screening of the site should be provided along the southern property line to screen the
proposed par'k/ng lot, as well as any future loading and unloading areas from view of the
residentially zoned land to the south.
The offset 4-way intersection on-site near the northernmost Vineyard Avenue vehicular access
location to the project should be modified to that the offset is eliminated.
The driveway throat for the southernmost vehicular access to Vineyard Avenue should be
elongated to avoid blockage of parked vehicles related to stacking of cars leaving the site.
Policv Issues: The following items are a matter of Planning Commission policy and should be
incorporated into the project design without discussion:
1. A decorative cap should be provided on all screen and retaining walls throughout the project.
2. Where river rock is proposed, native stone should be used as the veneer.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that, if the Committee deems the new Site Plan acceptable, then the Committee should
recommend that the site plan, building elevations and all other required plans be resubmitted for formal
review and consideration of the project as a whole by the Design Review' Committee. However, if the
Committee still feels that the location of the building(s) should be modified or if the adaptive reuse of
the Klusman House has validity and should be pursued, then the Committee should recommend that the
applicant make the appropriate changes and resubmit the project for further Committee review.
Design Revie~v Committee Action:
Members Present:
Also Present:
Staff Planner:
Larry McNiel, Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Councilmember Paul Biane
Steve Hayes
The Design Review Committee recommended that the Site Plan be revised and the project return to the
Committee as a full item, along with the building elevations and revised Grading and Landscape Planq
consistent with the revised Site Plan. Requested revisions to the Site Plan are as follows:
The Master Plan should be revised to reflect that the shopping center as a whole meets the
minimum parking requirements of the CID'.
The pedestrian connection from the Activif-y Center to the major tenant in the Master Plan should
be completed by providing a north/south walkway along the east side of the main vehicular
entrance off Foothill Boulevard. Palms and decorative paving should be used to denote the main
pedestrian routes throughout the project.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
December 3, 1996
Page 4
The parking and vehicular circulation around the Burger King building should be revised as
follows:
The drive aisle immediately west of the Burger King should be made for one-way travel only
(southerly) and the southern end of the drive aisle should be enhanced to discourage any
northbound traffic by necking down the width of its access by extending the planter south
of the entrance to the drive-thru lane.
b. Turf block and a rolled curb should be used in the planter extension area.
Go
Special paving should be provided in a raised manner in the drive aisle between planters and
in the two locations where the pedestrian spine crosses the drive-thru lane.
The parking spaces should be angled accordingly on both sides of the drive aisle west of
Burger King to promote the one-way traffic scheme.
Signage should be strategically used to denote proper vehicular circulation in the area of
Burger King.
Seating should be provided in the main on-site extension of the Activity Center area to
promote the use of the Activity Center for patrons of Burger King and other future users in
the immediate vicinity.
The nortk/south drive aisles west of Burger King and west of the restaurant should be aligned to
form a 4-way intersection south and west of Burger King.
All other Secondary and Policy design issues shall become recommended conditions of approval
for the project.
In addition to these comments, the applicant agreed to eliminate the southernmost vehicular access to
Vineyard Avenue to address concerns raised by the Engineering Division. This area will now be
landscaped.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
6:50 p.m. Steve Hayes
December 30, 1996
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ -
A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7
acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located
at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
Background: The Design Review Committee (Macias, McNiel, Fong) last reviewed the project on
December 3, 1996, where the Committee directed the applicant to work with staff to resolve site planning
issues associated with the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Basically, the Committee
recommended that the area around the Burger King be upgraded to include elements to provide safer
vehicular and pedestrian circulation around the building. See attached minutes.
The purpose oftonight's meeting is to review the revised Site Plan prepared by the applicant to determine
if it is in compliance with past recommendations of the Planning Commission and Design Review
Committee. Also, it is intended that the architecture be reviewed formally for the first time during the
review process for this project. Based on the comments that come out of tonight's meeting, the applicant
will then formally address any outstanding issues related to the Site Plan and resubmit it along with the
building elevation for Phase One development for additional review and consideration of the Committee.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion.
Major Issues: The following broad design issues will be the focus of Committee discussion regarding
this project:
1. MASTER PLAN: The following issues should be discussed regarding the new Master Plan:
The Design Review Committee specifically requested that the Master Plan be revised to
meet the minimum parking requirements of the City. The Master Site Plan is still 60
spaces deficient, based on the required ratio of one parking space per 200 square feet of
building area. Please note that the parking calculations shown on the Site Plan are
incorrect: the project requires 452 spaces and 392 are provided.
The distribution of parking in relation to structures is such that the Phase I buildings will
consume most of the central parking lot (west of Burger King) and result in a lack of
parking to serve the future retail buildings west of Zendejas restaurant.
The 4-way intersection on-site near the Vineyard Avenue vehicular access has been
aligned, per the request of the Design Review Committee. As a result of the alignment and
the drive aisle west of Zendejas shifting westerly, the amount of hardscape on the west
side of the building has been increased greatly. The Landscape Plan shows a majority of
this area being landscaped, but the Site Plan shows it'as hardscape. Staff would
recommend that the area be designed consistent with the Landscape Plan.
The north/south pedestrian link from the Activity Center to the Major Tenants has been
incorporated into the Site Plan along the east side of the main driveway entrance off
Foothill Boulevard, per the request of the Design Review Committee.
The southerly driveway entrance off Vineyard Avenue has been eliminated, per the request
of the Engineering Division, and the area labeled "Not-a-Part", since it is a separate parcel
under different ownership. It is anticipated that the applicant will attempt to purchase this
parcel and develop it as part of the shopping center with development of the Major
Tenants. As a result of this modification, a landscape planter should be provided at the
very southeast comer of this phase of the pr~2~ec~w~t of the "Not-a-Part" parcel.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 - RODR/GUEZ
December 30, 1996
Page 2
The applicant desires to have all other applicable comments related to the Master Plan
from the attached December 3, 1996 Design Review Comments placed as recommended
Conditions of Approval for the project.
BURGER KING: The following issues should be discussed regarding the development around
the proposed Burger King building:
The parking and vehicular circulation around the Burger King building has been revised consistent
with the direction of the Design Review Committee, as follows:
The drive aisle west of the Burger King has been made one-way and the width of the
planter at the south end of this drive aisle increased to discourage northbound traffic.
During peak times cars waiting to get into the drive-thru lane will obstruct the parking
spaces adjoining the west side of Burger King. The Taco Bell at Milliken and Highland
Avenues solved this problem by having parking only on one side (opposite the entry).
b. Turf block and a rolled curb are being shown in the extended planter area
c. Parking spaces have been angled on both sides of this drive aisle
d. The location of all directional signage has been indicated on the Site Plan.
However, staff would recommend that the parking spaces be-placed at more of an angle and any
"dead" space at the ends of rows of angled parking stalls be landscaped. Also, the requested raised
special paving is not shown on the revised Site Plan. If acceptable to the Committee, staff will
place this as a Condition of Approval and staff will work with the applicant on how the special
paving application will occur. Finally, the seating situation in the main Activity Center area
should be identified better so that staff can verify that adequate seating will exist to promote the
use of the Activity Center to patrons of Burger King; this can also be placed as a Condition of
Approval if acceptable to the Committee.
3. ARCHITECTURE: The following issues should be considered regarding the proposed
architecture:
Additional architectural treatment should be provided on the south elevation of the Burger
King and the east elevation of the Zendejas restaurant to break up flat stucco walls.
Secondarv and Policv Issues: Once all of the major issues have been addressed, and time permitting, the
Committee will discuss the following secondary and policy design issues:
Reduce height of the Zendejas wall sign on the east elevation, measures 48 inches. In situations
like this, where building is at setback line, the Commission has limited signs to 18 inches. Further,
the Commission has reserved 48 inch high letters for major anchor tenants.
o
All applicable secondary design comments (comments 1-5 from the attached December 3, 1996
comments) and all applicable policy design issues are recommended to be placed as Conditions
of Approval for the project. The applicant has agreed to this direction.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
December 30, 1996
Page 3
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised Site Plan and building elevations
acceptable, that the Committee recommend approval of the project with any unaddressed issues be
incorporated as Conditions of Approval for the project.
Desi~on Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Rich Macias, Nancy Fong
Staff Planner: Steve Hayes
The Committee recommended that the applicant revise plans to address the following design issues and
submit for further Committee review:
1. Master Plan.
ao
Revise the total square footage for the major anchor to address the deficiency in the required
parking spaces.
b. The applicant agreed to modify the Site Plan to be consistent with the Landscape Plan.
Increase the width to a minimum of 10 feet for the noah/south pedestrian link on both sides
of the main driveway entrance off Foothill Boulevard. Increase the width of the landscape
planters at each end of two pedestrian links. Provide tree wells with tree grates along the
two pedestrian links.
d. Revise Master Plan to address any technical issues.
2. Burger King.
Provide 45 degree parking stalls for the parking bay (double loaded parking spaces with a
drive aisle) located west of Burger King building. Provide a double white or yellow line
to show two lanes for one way direction. One lane is to be signed for the drive-thru lane.
The row of parking spaces immediately west of the building should be striped for handicap
spaces and a loading zone. Provide landscaping to the "dead" space at the ends of rows of
the angled parlong spaces. Show location of direction signs for the drive-thru lane.
Provide additional architectural treatment to the south and west elevations. Examples of
architectural treatment are but not limited to recessed areas with metal trellis and vines,
additional windows, surface treatment to the building plane, etc.
Go
Consider reducing the height of the parapet wall and the chimney, and design them to be
more integrated with the building design.
d. Reduce the size of the proposed signs.
DRC COMMENTS
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
Page 4
Zendejas.
a. The Committee recommended further discussion on mixing or maintaining a variety of
architectural styles within a shopping center and providing a policy direction to staff and to
the applicant on this subject.
b. Reduce the size of the proposed signs.
c. Provide additional architectural treatment to the east elevation.
The applicant has agreed to address all applicable secondary design issues and policy issues of the
December 3, 1996 Design review comments.
DESIGN REVIEW CON~vIENTS
6:10 p.m. Steve Hayes January 14, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ -
A request to construct a 2,900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5,548 square foot restaurant on 3.7
acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located
at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
Background:
The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on December 30, 1996, where the Committee
directed the applicant to work with staff.to resolve site planning and architectural issues associated with
the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. Comments from this most recent Design Review Committee
meeting have been attached for your convenience.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion:
At the time of comment preparation, revised plans had yet to be received by staff. An oral update will be
presented to the Committee at the meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised site plan and building elevations
acceptable, that the Committee recommend approval of the project with any unaddressed issues be
incorporated as conditions of approval for the project.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Peter Tolstoy, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner:
Steve Hayes
The applicant was unable to submit revised plans for Committee review prior to the meeting. The plans
the applicant brought to the meeting were incomplete in that a grading plan was not included as part of
the submittal package. Furthermore, the Burger King elevations have not yet been revised to reflect the
currently proposed configuration of the building and outdoor eating areas on Vineyard Avenue. The item
was continued to their next meeting on February 4, 1997 contingent upon submittal of complete sets of
revised plans by January 23.
DESIGN REVLEW CON'k-MENTS
8:30 p.m. Steve Hayes February 4, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AN'D CONDITIONAL USE PERa¥IIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ -
A request to construct a 2900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5548 square foot restaurant on 3.7
acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located
at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
Background:
The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on December 30, 1996, where the Committee
directed the applicant to work with staff.to resolve site planning and architectural issues associated with
the Burger King and Zendejas restaurants. The item was then scheduled for the January 14, 1997 meeting
with the understanding that the plans could be revised in a timely manner to allow staff and the Committee
ample opportunity to review the revised plans prior to the meeting. Given that the plans did not arrive
until after an item on the meeting had already started, the Committee did not have time to review the plans
and therefore; did not formally review the project on January 14th. Comments from these most recent
Design Review Committee meetings have been attached for your convenience.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee discussion:
The revised plans should be reviewed to determine if the direction fi-om the two most recent Design
Review Committee meetings has been adequately followed by the applicant. Specific issues are as
follows:
Signage for the Burger King has been reduced in size to be consistent with the new Jack in
the Box at Foothill Boulevard and Masi Drive, but the location of the sign should be removed
from the proposed roof screen element;
The roof screen on the Burger King has been changed from a wood sided to a stucco element
to be more consistent with the building architecture;
No information regarding the roof equipment and plan has been submitted to staff at the time
of preparation of these comments. An oral update regarding this issue will be discussed at
the meeting;
Street dimensions still require correction as deemed necessary by the Engineering Division;
and
Revised ~ading plans had not yet been submitted the time of comment preparation, any oral
comments regarding the grading plan will be discussed at the meeting.
Staff Recommendation'
Staff recommends that, if the Committee generally finds the revised site plan and building elevations
consistent with the direction given to the applicant at the previous meetings, then staff would recommend
that the Design Review Committee recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with
Conditions.
DRC AGENDA
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
February 4, 1997
Page 2
Design Review Committee Action'
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Rich Macias, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner:
Steve Hayes
The Desi=m~ Review Committee directed the applicant to return to the Committee on February 18, 1997
with a specific roof plan that show all of the necessary roof mounted mechanical equipment and a more
detailed solution for the roof screen parapet. The Committee also recommended that all other items
included in the above comments as well as previously referenced comments from past design reviews that
have not yet been resolved will be incorporated as recommended Conditions of Approval for the project.
DESIGN REVIEW COMMENTS
6:40 p.m. Brad Buller February 18, 1997
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ -
A request to construct a 2900 square foot drive-thru facility and a 5548 square foot restaurant on 3.7
acres of land in the Community Commercial designation of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan,
located at the southwest comer of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue - APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
Background:
The Design Review Committee last reviewed the project on February 4, 1997, where the Committee
directed the applicant to have a specific roof plan and possible architectural enhancements for the
proposed roof parapet available for review at the next meeting.
Staff Comments: The following comments are intended to provide an outline for Committee
discussion:
At the time of comment preparation, the requested roof plan had not yet been received by staff. An oral
presentation will be provided at the meeting.
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the Committee forward the project to the Planning Commission for their
consideration at the February 26, 1997 meeting.
Design Review Committee Action:
Members Present: Bill Bethel, Dan Coleman
Staff Planner: Brad Buller
The applicant was unable to submit a Roof Plan for Burger King and did not submit revised elevations
which accurately depicted the roof elements. Further, the applicant stated that the chimney element
would probably be deleted. The Committee did not recommend approval of roof screen Alternatives
A,B orC.
The Committee did not recommend approval and requested the applicant to address the following, prior
to the Planning Commission meeting:
1. Submit a Roof Plan for Burger King.
2. Submit revised elevations for Burger King which correct all inconsistencies.
3. Explain why the chimney, that was previously indicated by the applicant as functional, is no
longer necessary?
DRC AGENDA
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
February 18, 1997
Page 2
Submit documentation that the four condensation units can fit onto the 5-foot x 5-foot platform
indicated and meet manufacturer's specifications for proper air circulation around the units.
5. Verify the dimension of the 10 ton A/C units, particularly the height.
The applicant was also advised of the Grading Committee recommendation to not approve the
Conceptual Grading Plan. The applicant was reminded to submit a complete set of colored plans,
including the Site Plan, Landscape Plan, and elevations, as well as, 8 ½ inch x 11-inch reductions of all
sheets within the development package.
I:\STEVE\CUP9525.ENV City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
Project File: CUP 95-25
2. Related Files: Pre-Application Review 95-04
3. Description of Project: Shopping center Phase I including 2,900 s.f. Burger King and
5,548 s.f. restaurant on 3.7 acres at SWC Foothill and Vineyard.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: U.S. Properties
759 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91786
5. General Plan Designation: Commercial
6. Zoning: Community Commercial (Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan)
7. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Vacant to the north, south and west. Service station
and condominiums to the east. Existing single family residence at SEC of site (not a part). The
project site includes the Klusman House a local historic landmark.
o
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
o
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Steve Hayes
(909) 477-2750
10.
Other agencies whose approval is required: Caltrans, San Bernardino County Flood
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, including
"Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact"
as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning
( ) Population and Housing
(x) Geological Problems
(x) Water
(x) Air Quality
(x) Transportation/Circulation
( ) Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
(x) Noise
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
( ) Public Services
( ) Utilities and Service Systems
(x) Aesthetics
(x) Cultural Resources
( ) Recreation
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
()
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment.
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
()
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
()
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
()
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
(x)
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
LAND
a)
b)
c)
d)
Potentially
Sign~ant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantMitigation SignificantNo
Imoact IncorooratedImpact Im0act
USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal.'
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
o
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
Potentially
Sign~cant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantMitigation SignificantNo
Impact Inceq~oraleclImpact Imoact
c)
POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) () (X)
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 4
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving.'
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
g)
h)
i)
Fault rupture?
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche hazards?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Lass
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImpact
NO Impact
() (x) () ()
() (x) () ()
() (x) () ()
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
(x)
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
()
(x)
(x)
(x)
Comments:
a-c)
The northwesterly portion of the project site is located within the City adopted
Special Study Zone for the Red Hill fault. A geologic report was prepared for the
project site (Rasmussen, January 29, 1996) and reviewed by the City's geologist
(Reeder, December 5, 1996). The geologic report concludes that no faults cross the
site, and further concludes that none of the following are expected: ground rupture,
landsliding or other slope stability hazards, or liquefaction. The geologic report
concludes that "severe seismic shaking of the site can be expected within the next
100 years from an earthquake along the Cucamonga fault." The report contains a
number of recommended mitigation measures that will be included as
recommended conditions of approval for the project. A revised geologic report was
prepared in response to comments from the City's geologist; however, was not
available at the time the Initial Study Part 2 was completed. A mitigation measure
should be included that requires review and acceptance of a final geologic
report by the City's geologist prior to issuance of any permits. All mitigation
measures in the final geologic report be incorporated into the project, and
verified during plan check, prior to issuance of any permits.
The geologic report concludes that "surficial materials on the site are considered to
be moderately susceptible to erosion by water." The report contains a number of
recommended mitigation measures that will be included as recommended
conditions of approval for the project. A revised geologic report was prepared in
response to comments from the City's geologist; however, was not available at the
time the Initial Study Part 2 was completed. A mitigation measure should be
included that requires review and acceptance of a final geologic report by the
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 5
City's geologist prior to issuance of any permits. All mitigation measures in
the final geologic report be incorporated into the project, and verified during
plan check, prior to issuance of any permits.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
WATER.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Potenbally
Significant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignScant Mitigation Signd~cant No
tml~act IncorooratedIml~act Impacl
Will the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability? ( ) ( ) (X) ( )
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies? ( ) ( ) ( ) (X)
Comments:
a-b)
The proposed project will result in changes to the absorption rates, drainage
patterns or the rate and amount of surface water runoff through increases in
developed area, buildings, and paved areas. The project will result in a surface
water runoff of Q10o=18.0 cubic feet per second for the majority of the site, which is
proposed to drain southwesterly. The project design includes a drainage system
that will divert and collect surface water runoff into a pipe that will connect into
existing Cucamonga Creek Channel. Permit required from San Bernardino County
Flood Control District for all work within their property or easement area.
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 6
The project will pave over 3 acres of land thereby reducing percolation into ground
water. The project design includes a drainage system that will divert and collect
surface water runoff into a pipe connected into existing Cucamonga Creek Channel,
which ultimately drains into the Prado Basin spreading grounds where it can
recharge the ground water.
o
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
Potentially
Sign hr~'.,an t
Impact Less
Potential{yUnless Than
SignifcantMitigation SignificantNo
Impact IncorooratedImpact Irnoact
AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation?
() () (x) ()
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
() () (x) ()
c)
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate?
() () (x) ()
d) Create objectionable odors?
() () (x) ()
Comments:
a)
The project will generate vehicle trips, as well as car idling in the drive-thru lane,
which will contribute air pollutants. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan EIR address the shod term and long term cumulative
impacts of traffic upon air quality.
b)
The land to the south is planned for residential and the land to the east is developed
with residential condominiums. There are no schools, hospitals or convalescent
home facilities nearby. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic
pollutants upon sensitive receptors. Impact considered less than significant.
c)
The project include development of buildings and paved areas which will act as a
heat sink increasing temperatures at or near the site. The project design includes
extensive landscaping, particularly shade trees around buildings and within parking
areas, to reduce this heat sink effect to a less than significant level.
d)
Although the project includes parking areas and a drive-thru restaurant which will
produce vehicle exhaust that may be objectionable, the level of emissions produced
is not considered significant in comparison to that which will be produced by
vehicles traveling on the two major streets fronting the site.
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 7
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
proposal result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
0
g)
Would the
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( )
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( )
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( )
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
Rail or air traffic impacts? ( )
Potenbatly
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unlass Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImpact
() (x) ()
No
Impact
() () (x)
() () (x)
() () (x)
() () (x)
()
()
()
()
(x)
(x)
Comments:
a)
The project includes 19,748 square feet of commercial space which will increase
vehicle trips on both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue, and impact the
intersection thereof. The City's General Plan EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific
Plan EIR address the short term and long term cumulative impacts of traffic upon
these streets. The project design includes completion of both streets to their full
width across the full frontage; therefore, the impact is considered less than
significant. The project design also includes a bus turnout on Vineyard Avenue to
support the use of public transit.
Issues and Supposing Information Sources:
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b)
Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantM~tigation Signify. antNo
Imoact IncorporatedImpact Impact
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)?
d)
Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Lass
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImpact
No
Impact
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
issues and Suppocting Information Sources:
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
proposal:
a)
b)
c)
Would the
Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State?
Polentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
SignScent
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigat~o~ Significant
IncorporatedImpact
No
Impact
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
Issues and Suppotl~ng Information Sources:
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve.'
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b)
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
c)
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
d)
Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
S~gnif~.,ant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation S~gnificant
IncorporatedImpact
No
Impact
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 9
Issues and $upportir~ Information Sources:
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
Potentially
Sigmficant
Impact
Potentially
Signn~cant
Impact Less
Unless Than
M~t~gation Signr~cant
Incc~orated Impact
No
() () () (x)
10.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources;
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Sigmficant
IncorporatedImpact
No
Impact
() (x) ()
() () (x) ()
Comments:
a)
The project will generate vehicle trips which will increase existing noise levels,
particularly for the existing residence at the southeast corner of site and the land to
the south that is planned for residential. The project design includes a 6 foot high
screen wall along the common property line with the existing residence to provide
buffer and reduce noise to an acceptable level.
b)
The project includes buildings, outdoor dining areas and plazas near both street
frontages which could expose people to traffic noise. The City's General Plan
indicates future noise levels at build out of the community at greater than 70 Ld,,
and acknowledges that the outdoor environment will seem noisy. The General Plan
does not require sound attenuation mitigation measures for exterior areas. The
General Plan does require a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements
and incorporation of needed noise insulation features in the project design;
however, indicates that conventional construction with closed windows and fresh air
supply systems or air conditioning will normally suffice. An acoustical study
should be prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer to address interior
noise levels of all buildings within project prior to issuance of building
permits.
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
11.
Issues and SuppoMing Information Sources:
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the foilowing areas:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Fire protection? ( )
Police protection? ( )
Schools? ( )
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
Other governmental services? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Imoact
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 10
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImoact
No
Impact
() () (x)
() () (x)
() () (x)
() () (x)
() () (x)
12.
Issues and Supporting Infomlatlo¢l Sources:
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Power and natural gas?
Communication systems?
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentialty
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImoact
No
Impact
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
13.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
AESTHETICS. Would the proposal.'
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
()
Potenhally
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
Inco~orated
()
Less
Than
S~nificant
Impact
()
No
tmoact
(x)
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect?
c) Create light or glare?
Comments:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 11
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Potentially Unless Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Imoact
() () () (x)
() (x) () ()
c)
The project will include parking lot lights and various lighting on and around
buildings which could create light or glare on surrounding properties, in particular
the existing single family residence at the southeast corner of site and the property
to the south which is planned for residential. Light fixtures should be shielded
and directed away from residential areas. A detailed lighting plan, including
a photometric diagram, should be prepared prior to issuance of building
permits to provide proper shielding of light sources from adjoining
properties.
14.
Issues and Supporting Infonmation Sources:
CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical or cultural resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area?
Comments:
Poter~tiaily
S.~nificent
Impact Less
Potentially Unless Than
Significant Mitigation Sig nif*v'_..an t NO
Impact Incorporated Impact Imoact
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
() () (x) ()
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
c)
The project site includes the Klusman House, a local historic landmark of
considerable significance to the community. The project has been designed to
preserve this landmark structure as a major focal point at the main entrance to the
site from Foothill Boulevard. The nearest proposed structure lies 43 feet to the east.
No alterations to this landmark are proposed with this application.
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
15.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Sigmficant
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 12
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
Incomorated impact
No
Iml~act
() () () (x)
() () () (x)
16.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
Potenlially
Significant
Impact
b)
c)
d)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( )
Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( )
Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) . ( )
Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigalion Significant
Incc~r'poratedImpact
No
Impact
() () (x)
() () (x)
() (x) ()
() () (x)
U. $.PROPERTIES ~14985~950 P. ~1
SENT BY: R CUCAMONGA COM DEV~ 2-19-97 3;30PM; ~0i~ 477 2847 => 7149850950;
#14/14
Initial Study for
CUP 95-25
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Co, .'t~rpenta:
c) The prOJeot will generate b'affic, vehicle emissions, noise and Ilght. These effects
were analyzed by the Ci(y'$ General Fian EIR and Foothill Boulevard Specific Pian
EIR and were found to be not signifJoent or were found to be significant but
irreversible and a atatement of overriding consideration was adopted.
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EiR, or other CEQ,~ process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed irl the following eadJer document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Tlle
following eadier analylle$ were utilized in completing this II~itial Study and are avallab!e for review
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all
that apply):
(x)
General Plan E1R
(Certified April 6, 1981 )
(X) Master Environmental Assessment for the 198g General Plan Update
($CH tlt88020115, cadiliad January 4, 1989)
iX)
Foothill Boulevard S~oecific Plan EIR
(SCH #87021615, certified Se13tember 16. 1987)
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I cert;fy that I am the applicant for the project described in this initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Irtitial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
pmjecl plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a poinl where clearly no significant environmental effects would
04:cur.
j-- -- · ~,'~.' ,. .. .:
40' 0 40'
Scale: 1" = 40'
0
o
.71
m
::13
rrl
ITI
F:NCI.O.~UI(I.: 3
TRI':NCII I~OCA'I'ION MAP
P.)jccl No. ~?)].1
I clLc m~l
~ 'l',cnch a,M su~vc)'cd lads
I*,ccommcr.lcd l(,.'~;t r icl,.'d
[lOlllid;if)'
(icolol.;y by I:l'J
I ),;Ll'tcd by
I"ch~u;u'y 19. 1997
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
April 14, 1993
Chairman McNiel called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Commission to order at 9:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the De Anza
Room at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho
Cucamonga, California.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
PRESENT:
Suzanne Chitiea, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy, Wendy Vallette
ABSENT: None
STAFF PRESENT:
Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal
Planner; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James,
Senior Civil Engineer; Beverly Nissen, Associate Planner
PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 93-04 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of site plan for a proposed
grocery store, existing historic structure, and related pads on approximately
10 acres at the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -
kPN: 207-211-05, 12, 13, 14, 15, 38, and 40.
An introduction to the project was provided by the applicant, Gil Rodriguez.
He explained that the proposed grocery store would most likely not be built
because of the approval of the Smith's Food and Drug Store on the northwest
corner of Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard. He did state, however, that
they still desired comments on the plan from the Commissioners in the event
that another user expressed interest in the project site. Mr. Rodriguez
indicated that at this point, they are anxious to utilize the Klusman House as
an office building and want to proceed with this before going forward with the
entire conditional use permit for the corner. He explained that they are
interested in pursuing the 5,000 square foot proposed building fronting on
Foothill Boulevard as part of Phase I. He indicated this building would be
utilized as a delicatessen and specialty food store.
Staff presented the main points regarding the site plan to the Commissioners,
who then made their comments.
Commissioner Melcher felt the site plan is beautiful, however, 'probably not
workable because of the lack of visibility from Foothill Boulevard to the main
tenant. He thought the Klusman House should have a more enhanced setting to
the south which would create a more appealing sense of entry into the
building. He also felt that the parking along the west side of the main
building would be virtually worthless.
Coramissioner Vallette stated that she would support moving the building back
if it could make the proposed site plan more workable. She felt there are
other options for the major tenant besides a market, such as a theater.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated the designer did a nice job on the site plan but
he was concerned with the lack of visibility from Foothill Boulevard. He felt
that the site plan should be opened up to increase visibility. He felt that
relocating the free-standing building from Foothill Boulevard to Vineyard
Avenue might solve the problem. Me also felt the parking along the rear could
provide a buffer to the residential area to the south, but would probably not
be used. He cited the example of the NuWest center at the southeast corner of
Foothill Boulevard and Hellman Avenue as a similar condition.
Commissioner Chitiea said the project was very innovative, but she voiced
concerns regarding the lack of view corridors into the center. She thought
perhaps one of the buildings along Foothill Boulevard could be shifted to
Vineyard Avenue to provide greater visibility. She liked the pedestrian
connection from the corner to the main building. She felt a buffer of some
sort is needed on the south side of the project. She thought the parking
along the west side of the project site could be workable if additional
connections to the front of the site are provided.
Chairman McNiel stated that the front of the building is more oriented towards
Vineyard Avenue and that he did not have a problem with visibility of the
structure to Foothill Boulevard. He liked the innovative concept of the site
plan and thought it might be able to work with another tenant rather than a
grocery store. He thought the Klusman House needs a better setting along the
south side. He indicated that he would support a reduction in parking spaces
if it would provide additional area to upgrade the back of the house.
Bob Schmidt, Historic Preservation Commissioner, indicated he was
participating in this workshop as an observer and remarked that he was pleased
with the project and agreed that the rear of the Klusman House would be
addressed.
Mr. Rodriguez concluded by indicating that he felt in the past, anchor tenants
would drive retail sites, but that is not the case in today's market. He felt
all tenants are of equal value and that high visibility of the anchor tenant
is not an absolute necessity. He observed that a traffic/view study was
conducted from both Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue indicating that
visibility was not a problem. He felt that rear parking was acceptable since
there is a connection to the front of the site. (Staff noted earlier in the
presentation that the site is deficient in the number of parking stalls
provided.) He indicated that employee parking is proposed for the rear of the
site.
Mr. Rodriguez was informed that he could proceed with the utilization of the
Klusman House as an office building by processing a Minor Development Review.
The Commission concluded that the concerns noted and the technical issues
mentioned by staff need to be addressed.
P C Workshop Minutes
-2-
April 14, 1993
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
P C Workshop Minutes
-3-
April 14, 1993
CITY OF ~ANCHO CUC~MONGA
PLANNING CO~M!SSION MINUTES
Adjourned Meeting
October 25, 1995
Chairman Barker called the Adjourned Meeting of the City of Rancho Cuc~onga
Planning Commission to order at 6:05 p.m. The meeting was held in the Rains Room
at the Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga
California. Chairman Barker then led in the pledge of allegiance.
ROLL CALL
COMMISSIONERS:
STAFF PRESENT:
PRESENT:
David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, John
Melcher, Peter Tolstoy
ABSENT: None
Brad Buller, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Dan
James, Senior Civil Engineer; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were no announcements.
NEW BUSINESS
A. PRE-APPLICATION REVIEW 95-04 - RODRIGUEZ - Review of a proposed fast food
restaurant (with drive-thru) and restaurant pad in the Community Commercial
designation (Subarea 2) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at
the southwest corner of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue -
APN: 207-211-12 and 13.
Gil Rodriguez, Jr., the applicant, gave a brief presentation of the project.
Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff issues and concerns"which
included the following:
1. Consistency with the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan
a. Building setback
b. Parking setback
2. Master Plan requirements
3. The Planning Commission drive-thru policy
a. Drive-thru lane setback
b. Distance from intersection
of the drive-thru lane
d. Potential revisions to the policy contemplated by the Planning
Commission subcommittee reviewing the policy.
4. Relationship to the Ktusman House
Vice-Chairman McNiel asked what was anticipated for the future pad identified as
"multi-use."
Mr. Rodriguez stated that the anchor tenant for the center will decide if a
building will be permitted at all. He said that if no building is allowed, the
pad would be used for special seasonal events such as pumpkin patches, Christmas
tree lots, etc.
Commissioner McNiel stated that rarely does fast food contribute to an activity
center other than introducing cars to the area. He felt the fast food restaurant
does nothing for the intersection. He acknowledged Burger King's desire to be
at the corner but he did not feel that was the appropriate location because
Burger King would dominate the corner. He suggested locating Burger King on the
west side of the Foothill entry. Commissioner McNiel liked the location of
Zendejas restaurant and the future pad.
Commissioner Melcher stated that no Master Plan is available at this time and the
Master Plan should be the first item complete~ to market the project. He felt
the architect had done a good job disguising the Burger King; however, Burger
King does nothing to respect the Klusman House. He thought the proper setting
is essential for the Klusman House and the setback provided on the east side of
the Klusman House should match the west side of the building. He felt the
diagonal pedestrian walk through the center is the boldest and most imaginative
attempt presented to the City. He did not think the parking lot layout is
workable because there are an excessive number of turning movements over 120
degrees that would be necessary to pull into the parking stalls.
Commissioner Lumpp indicated that if Burger King feels it is essential to be at
the intersection, the more appropriate location may be along the Vineyard
frontage. He suggested the Burger King and Zendejas' locations could be
reversed and such a switch would make the drive-thru less dominant. He thought
the orientation might even allow some pedestrian play off Burger King into the
activity center area. He acknowledged Burger King probably wants to be on
Foothill Boulevard because of the greater traffic volumes; however, he felt
Burger King should not be located adjacent to the K!usman House. Commissioner
Lumpp stated that if Burger King had to be located on Foothill Boulevard, the
building should be on the west side of the Foothill entry, as suggested by
Commissioner McNiel. He felt the architecture was acceptable, although he
believed Burger King should be designed more consistent with the K!usman House.
He noted some elements of the Burger King drive-thru design are consistent with
the direction being taken by the Planning Commission Subcommittee studying the
drive-thru policy; however, he reiterated his desire to see Burger King relocated
to the Vineyard frontage.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented that the site design approved for the Christmas
House on Archibald Avenue results in a very hemmed in appearance. He felt the
same situation will occur with this project if the site plan is approved as
submitted by the applicant. He thought Burger King should be relocated to the
west side of the Foothill entry or closer to the act£vity center to share seating
with the other restaurant. He noted the drive-thru lane is however in conflict
with the activity center goal of pedestrian orientation. He agreed relocating
Burger King to the Vineyard frontage may be a good alternative. He thought the
angled parking arrangement provided by the applicant is not workable.
PC Adjourned Minutes -2- ~--~ O.~obe~ 25, 1995
Chairman Barker indicated his appreciation of the major entry at the activity
center and the link into the site. He had not given much thought to relocating
Burger King to Vineyard Avenue but felt ~hat Burger King might be interested.
He suggested the Planning Commission should look at the 19-foot setback proposed
for Vineyard Avenue and provide direction to the applicant. He liked the
architecture proposed by the applicant. Chairman Barker stated that the Burger
King on Base Line Road and Haven Avenue has a serious circulation problem with
the drive-thru lane obstructing the pedestrian access to the building. He
indicated his support for another large, outdoor plaza/eating area.
Mr. Rodriguez indicated he has been working with Burger King for the past six
months on various design schemes. He observed the location on the west side of
the Foothill entry is not desirable because the trees within the San Bernardino
County Flood Control District block visibility of the site. He said he had
reworked the site to make it economically feasible. He stated that the
contrasting design between the Klusman House and the Burger King was intentional
in order to set the two structures apar% rather than trying to blend them
together.
Chairman Barker asked the Commissioners to address the setback deficiency
questions.
Commissioner Melcher stated that when working with a large parcel such as this,
there is no reason to sacrifice the minimum standards. He observed that streets
are being widened by developers throughout the City and in some cases, greater
dedications and improvements are required than will be required of this site.
He stated that Wohl Properties had a willing tenant for their site on Foothill
Boulevard but it is not the right site for that tenant. He said that Burger King
may be proposed on this site but that does not mean it is right.
Commissioner Lumpp agreed with Commissioner Melcher. He felt sufficient land is
available to accommodate the design.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked what would happen if Burger King was shifted
southerly.
Commissioner Lumpp felt that Burger King should not be located adjacent to the
Klusman House.
Commissioner McNiel stated that the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires a
45-foot building setback everywhere except the activity centers where the setback
is reduced to 25 feet. He thought the applicant needs to adhere to, that
criteria. He observed that if the Planning ComMission approves a variance for
a reduced setback, it would clearly set a precedent for future actions. He did
not think shifting Burger King to the south would be good for the Klusman House
or for the activity center. He stated that Burger King is not a point of
destination with the nature of the business being that people get in and out of
the facility quickly.
Brad Bu!ler, City Planner, recapped the Co~nission's discussions. He stated that
Burger King was not acceptsiDle next to the Klusman House and other options should
be considered. He noted there was no support for a variance for building
setbacks because of a shift in the street centerline.
PUBLIC COM. MENTS
PC Adjourned Minutes October 25, 1995
There were no public comments.
CO~MISSION BUSINESS
There was no Commission business at this time.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
Secretary
PC Adjourned Minutes
October 25, 1995
Chronology of Rodriguez Project
CUP 95-25
April 14, 1993-
Pre-Application review presented to Planning Commission. Commission
provides specific direction regarding major issues.
August 29, 1995 - Application formally submitted to City.
Sept. 21, 1995 -
First incompleteness letter mailed to applicant; suggested that another Pre-
Application review on new site plan and elevations occur with the
Planning Commission to discuss major design issues relative to site plan.
October 25, 1995 -
Pre-Application review workshop with Planning Commission.
Commission provides specific direction on how to addresss site planning
and architectural concerns.
November 30, 1995 -
Applicant requests time extension to address completeness items raised by
staff in 9/21/95 letter. Staff informs applicant via letter of acceptance of
time extension on 12/7/95.
February 13, 1996 -
Applicant resubmits plans. Design issues, technical problems still not
addressed as previously raised by staff via letter and by the Planning
Commission at the Pre-Application Review.
February29,1996-
Second incompleteness letter sent out by staff with numerous second
requests for identical information and or to address identical design issues
identified in the first review 5 months earlier.
March 12, 1996 -
Applicant submits Variance request for numerous setback reductions for
proposed next phase development along Foothill Boulevard. Variance
agendized for March 27, 1996 Planning Commission meeting. One of the
Completeness items, a Geologic study, submitted by applicant, which was
originally requested on 9/21/95.
March 13, 1996 -
Letters requesting a second review by registered Geologists mailed out by
staff.
March 27, 1996 -
Variance reviewed by Planning Commission but continued to April 24,
1996 at the request of the applicant.
March 28,1996-
Staff selects geologist to conduct second review of plans and asks
applicant to submit deposit ($350) to cover cost of review.
April 24, 1996 - Variance again continued at request of applicant.
April 30, 1996 -
Application scheduled for courtesy review (application still incomplete)
for Grading Committee, DRC and TRC on May 1, 1996. These items
were continued for two weeks at the request of the applicant, who made
his request on April 29, 1996.
May 14, 1996 -
Application receives courtesy review by all three Committees (TRC on
May 15, 1996). All three Committees provide specific direction regarding
revisions to plans and any other issues and recommend that the applicant
revise plans and have project return to Committees once deemed complete.
Sept. 3,1996-
Application again reviewed on courtesy basis by Grading and Design
Review Committees. Previous direction regarding major site planning
issues (first passed on at the 10/25/95 Pre-Application Review) still not
addressed and DRC reinterated these concerns.
Sept. 9, 1996
Staff prepares third incompleteness letter to remind applicant of all
outstanding completeness items and other technical and design related
issues, including need for $350 deposit to have geology study reviewed,
first requested on 3/28/96.
November 7, 1996 -
Staff receives check to review Geology study. Geologist selected and
information mailed to geologist on 11/24/96. Other incompleteness items
from 9/9/96 letter still not addressed.
December 3, 1996 -
Application again reviewed on courtesy basis (still incomplete) for third
time by DRC. Major site planning issues starting to be selectively
addressed by applicant, but embellishments necessary to Master Plan and
area around proposed tenants which require furtl/er review of Committee.
December 5, 1996 -
Staff receives comments from our Geologist and FAXes comments to
applicant and original geologist same day. (As of 1/17/97, staff has yet to
receive revisions from original geologist thereby making application still
incomplete).
December 30, 1996 -
Application reviewed on a courtesy basis again (Still incompleteness
items) by DRC and Grading Committees (and TRC on 1/2/97). Site plan,
Master Plan reviewed again by DRC. Some specific issues from 12/3/96
DRC meeting still not addressed regarding Master Plan. Architecture
reviewed for first time, minor revisions requested and information needed
from applicant before a recommendation of approval could be forwarded.
Grading Committee deems plans incomplete and requests additional
information previously asked for on May 14, 1996.
Applicant states that modifications to plans can be made in sufficent time
to allow staff, Grading Committee and DRC members to review for 1/14/
97 meetings.
January 2, 1997 -
TRC reviews plans and has repeat comments of information that should be
shown on plans from previous 5/15/96 TRC meeting.
January 7. 1997 -
Staff meets with applicant to go over DRC and Grading Committee action
from 12/30/96 meeting. Reminds applicant of incompleteness of
application and asks him to check on status of Geology study revisions.
Staff gives applicant deadline of 1/9/97 to get revised plans to staff for
review and distribution to Committees (one week less review time than
usually requested for other projects).
January 9, 1997 -
Applicant leaves voice mail message approximately 5:20 p.m. saying that
revisions are being worked on. No plans reveived by end of day.
January 13, 1997 -
Staff reveives one copy (eight sets requested on 1/7/97) of plans. Grading
plan reviewed by Grading Commitee on January 14, 1997 and information
specifically requested at staff/applicant meeting on 1/7/97 still missing.
Scheduled for Grading Committee review again on February 4, 1997.
January 14, 1997 -
Applicant submits plans 45 minutes before item is to be reviewed on
courtesy basis by DRC (application still incomplete). The DRC meeting
has already started, as another item is being reviewed, so DRC members
have no opportunity to review plans ahead to time. Due to this, DRC
recommended that the item be scheduled for the next (February 4, 1997)
meeting.
January 15, 1997 -
Applicant sends FAX to clarify. issues and submittal deadlines of plans for
2/4/97 meetings. Staff responds back via FAX immediately, adding
several issues to applicant did not include.
January 16, 1997 -
Applicant sends revised FAX incorpoating items staff included in original
FAX previous day. FAX looked accepatable and accurate to staff.
January21,1997-
Called to verify submittal dealines for 2/4/DRC meeting with applicant.
Talked to engineer and informed him of changes and submittal deadline
(end of Day - 1/22) to remain on 2/4 Grading Committee.
January22,1997-
Site, landscape and architectural plans received by deadline given to
applicant (end of work day). This deadline was established after 1/14
DRC meeting and acknowledged by applicant in 1/15 and 1/16 FAX.
However, revised grading plan not received by deadline.
January 23, 1997 - Left message for applicant early a.m. to check on status of grading plans.
January. 28, 1997
January 30, 1997 -
February 4, 1997 -
February. 5, 1997 -
February12,1997-
February13,1997-
February18,1997-
Applicant returned call and said that the grading plan would be here by
tomorrow (1/29).
Grading Plan finally received.
Project reviewed by DRC and Grading Committee. Neither Committee
recommends approval; addittional information previously requested by
both Committees not yet received. Despite this, staff still keeps item pre-
scheduled for February 26th Planning Commission hearing. Staff informs
applicant of opportunity to review project at the February 18th Grading
Committee and DRC meeting. Staff gives applicant submittal deadline of
February 12th for additional information.
Staffv~xites DRC follow-up letter to the previous days meeting, which
includes final submittal deadlines for additional information needed for
Planning Commission meeting.
Staff calls applicant regarding status r)f requested submittal information.
Not received by end of day.
Staff receives DRC information and revised Grading Plan in early
afternoon. Final submittal requirements for Planning Commission not
received, even though due on this date.
Grading Committee and DRC again review project and do not recommend
approval. However, Conditions of Approval incorporated into the
Resolution of Approval to cover remaining issues.
PHOTOGRAPHIC LO
MAP
CATION
RECEIVED
C.U.P. 95-25
h02~C rrl
1504g
Ci:y oT Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
6
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 95-25, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT
DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AND A 5,548 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT
ON 3.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN,
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF - APN: 207-211-12 AND 13.
A. Recitals.
1. Gil Rodriguez, Jr. has filed an application for the issuance of Conditional Use Permit
No. 95-25, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 26th day of February 1997, and continued to the 11th day of March 1997, the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on February 26, and March 11, 1997, including written and oral staff
reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 644 feet
and lot depth of approximately 608 feet and is presently improved with a historic residence and
related landscape and parking lot improvements; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south
consists of vacant land, the property to the east is a service station and apartments, and the property
to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and vacant land; and
c. The application contemplates the construction of a portion of Phase One
improvements, which includes a fast food restaurant with a drive-thru facility, a sit-down restaurant,
and an on-site extension of the pedestrian activity center area near the intersection of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue; and
d. The application contemplates the removal of the interim parking lot for the existing
historic Klusman House as part of Phase One development; and
e. The balance of the buildings shown in Phase One around the on-site pedestrian
activity center area will not be constructed initially and will be required to be reviewed under a
separate application through the City's development review process in the future; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 2
f. The application indicates Phase Two of the Conceptual Master Plan as being the
balance of the 3.7 acre site and includes a 41,250 square foot major tenant, such as a supermarket,
and approximately 13,750 square feet of shops space. This portion of the development will also be
required to be processed through a separate development review application(s) in the future.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located.
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
c. The proposed use complies with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and adopts a Negative Declaration based upon the
findings as follows:
a. The Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. Based upon the changes and alterations which have been incorporated into the
proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby approves the application subject to each and every condition set forth below
and in the Standard Conditions, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.
Planning Division
1)
Approval is for Phase One development only, as shown on the
proposed Phasing Plan. The remainder of the Master Plan is shown in
concept only. A new Conditional Use Permit or Development Review
application (as applicable) shall be submitted for review and approval
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 3
2)
3)
4)
5)
of the Planning Commission or City Planner (as applicable) for all
buildings within future remaining phases.
6)
Temporary fencing with a green mesh or similar material shall be
provided around Phase Two as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan,
prior to occupancy of any buildings within Phase One.
7)
All construction activities and traffic for Phase One shall be within its
parcel. A detailed construction activities plan showing the area for
storage of earth materials, building materials, the staging of
construction equipment such as skip loader, excavator, etc., the
construction traffic route, shall be submitted for City Planner review and
approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for Phase One,
as shown on the proposed Phasing Plan. All construction activities and
traffic for Phase One shall not negatively impact any business activities
at the Klusman House.
A Uniform Sign Program for the shopping center, indicating provisions
for major tenants, other in-line tenants and pad buildings, shall be
submitted for review and approval of the Planning Commission, prior to
the issuance of any building permits for Phase One development. The
standards shall be designed to be compatible with the architectural
style of the shopping center. The size of the sign copy shall be visually
balanced and proportionate to the buildings and the architectural style.
A comprehensive Design Guideline supplement, which shall include
integrated architectural and landscape themes and examples of
architectural styles for the shopping center, including, but not limited to,
major tenants, in-line shops, and freestanding pad buildings, shall be
prepared for review and approval of the Design Review Committee,
pdor to issuance of any building permits for Phase One construction, as
shown on the Phasing Plan. In addition, a uniform hardscape and
street furniture treatment, including trash receptacles, freestanding
potted plants, trellises, special paving, bicycle racks, light bollards,
benches, etc., shall be utilized for the shopping center and shall be
designed to be compatible with the architectural style. Detailed designs
shall be included in the Design Guidelines supplement.
Parking lot light standards shall be designed to be architecturally
compatible with other pedestrian level lighting used within the Activity
Center area along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue and shall be
limited to a maximum height of 15 feet above finished grade. Details
of the parking lot lighting shall be included on the on-site Photometric
Lighting Plan, which shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Division and the Sheriff's Department, prior to the issuance of any
building permits for Phase One construction.
There shall be provisions for the following design features in the trash
enclosures to the satisfaction of the City Planner (the exact location for
the trash enclosures shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits):
a)
Architecturally integrated into.~ d_esign of this project;
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 4
b)
Separate pedestrian access that does not require opening the
main doors;
c) Large enough to accommodate two trash bins;
d) Trash bins with counter weighted lids;
e) Architecturally treated overhead shade trellis; and
f)
Chain link fencing on top to prevent trash from blowing out of the
enclosure. The screen shall be designed to be hidden from view.
8) The following trees shall be at least 36-inch box size:
9)
10)
11)
12)
13)
a) Trees framing the main focal point;
b)
Entry access trees framing the main drive aisles throughout the
project; and
c)
On-site Activity Center trees at the intersection of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.
The final landscape and irrigation design of the 10-foot wide
landscaped areas flanking both sides of the main entrance off Foothill
Boulevard shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division,
prior to issuance of any building permits for Phase One development.
A pedestrian walkway incorporating the special paving scheme used
throughout the project shall be provided on the east side of the drive
aisle to provide a continuous pedestrian access route from the Foothill
Boulevard sidewalk to the front of the major and shops tenants, as
shown on the conceptual Master Plan.
All slopes and any area disturbed in Phase Two, on the conceptual
Master Plan, shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control. Detailed
plans shall be included within the Landscape and Irrigation Plans and
shall be submitted for Planning Division review and approval, prior to
the issuance of building permits for Phase One.
All future projects within the shopping center shall be designed to be
compatible and consistent with the architectural program established,
as determined by the Planning Commission and City Planner (as
applicable).
A Security Patrol Plan for the shopping center shall be submitted for
City Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building
permits for Phase One development.
A bus shelter on Vineyard Avenue shall be installed with Phase One
improvements. The final design and location shall be submitted for City
Planner review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building
permits for Phase One development.
Any modifications to the proposed Phasing Plan shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Commission.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 5
14)
15)
16)
17)
18)
19)
20)
No restaurant use (other than that proposed with Phase One) is
proposed for the center. If over 15 percent of the gross leasable area
is occupied by food service uses, one additional parking space per 100
square feet of gross leasable floor area used for food service shall be
provided. Likewise, if a cinema or offices are proposed, then additional
parking may be required.
Truck loading and unloading zones shall be propedy marked to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
The pedestrian Activity Center shall be continued for a distance west
along the Foothill Boulevard frontage to the first driveway and south
along Vineyard Avenue to the first driveway. The final design of the on-
site extension of the pedestrian Activity Center, including the art piece,
pedestrian furniture, and focal elements such as a water feature, shall
be submitted for review and approval of the City Planner, prior to the
issuance of any building permits for Phase One development, as shown
on the Phasing Plan.
A podion of the amenities within the on-site pedestrian Activity Center
area shall be completed with Phase One development, including the
plaza between Buildings 1 and 2. The final design of the Activity Center
and the phasing of improvements shall be submitted for City Planner
review and approval, prior to the issuance of any building permits for
Phase One development, as shown on the Phasing Plan.
The final design of the enhanced storefronts and the focal point within
the Phase Two Master Plan area shall be reviewed and approved by
the Design Review Committee, prior to the issuance of building permits
for any development within Phase Two, as shown on the Phasing Plan.
An art piece at the Activity Center plaza shall be installed within 180
days after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for either
building in Phase One, whichever occurs first.
The final design of the sidewalk connections from the Foothill
Boulevard sidewalk to the pad buildings, where applicable, shall be
reviewed by the Design Review Committee as part of each Design
Review application for the development of the pad buildings.
21) The property owner and/or trustee shall be responsible to maintain the
two art work focal elements for the life of this commercial center.
22)
23)
24)
Public telephones shall be placed inside the building. Placement of
outside public telephones may be allowed and shall be subject to City
Planner review and approval, prior to installation.
Placement of newspaper racks and other street furniture may be
allowed if consistent with the approved street furniture guidelines and
subject to City Planner review and approval, prior to installation.
Any outdoor vending machines shall be recessed into the building faces
and shall not extend into the pedestrian walkways. The design details
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 6
25)
26)
27)
28)
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner, prior to the
issuance of building permits.
No permanent outdoor storage of shopping carts shall be permitted,
unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. The shopping
carts shall be collected and stored at the approved designated place at
the end of each work day.
The entire site shall be kept free of trash and debris at all times, and in
no event shall trash and debris remain on the site for more than 24
hours.
Graffiti shall be removed within 24 hours.
Trash collection shall occur between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 10:00
p.m. only.
29) The business shall be conducted to comply with the following
standards:
30)
31)
32)
33)
a)
Noise Levels: All commercial activities shall not create any noise
that would exceed an extedor noise level of 60 dB^ during the
hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and 65 dBA during the hours of
7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
b)
Loading and Unloading: No person shall cause the loading,
unloading, opening, closing, or other handling of boxes, crates,
containers, building materials, garbage cans, or similar objects
between the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., unless otherwise
specified herein, in a manner which would cause a noise
disturbance to a residential area.
Any outdoor displays of merchandise shall be limited to specific areas
that will be considered as part of Phase Two development, as
applicable.
Berming, low walls, dense hedgerows of evergreen shrubs, or any
combination thereof, shall be provided to sufficiently screen all parking
areas, drive-thru lanes and any other vehicular activity areas from
public view of perimeter streets, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
The detailed Landscape/Irrigation Plans shall indicate compliance with
this requirement.
The applicant shall resolve any Building Code compliance difficulties
(with construction of canopies, property lines in relation to walls and
other openings, and roof tile installation to withstand severe winds) with
the Building and Safety Division, prior to the issuance of any building
permits.
Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided on the property in
accordance with current City regulations. Security racks shall be
provided for each storage space and shall be located near the main
building entrances in highly visible areas to minimize theft and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 7
34)
35)
36)
37)
38)
39)
4o)
41)
42)
vandalism. An aisle or other space shall be provided for bicycles to
enter and leave the storage spaces with a minimum width of 5 feet to
the front or the rear of a standard 6-foot bicycle parked in the space.
The final design, material use, and height of the parapet and chimney
on the Burger King building shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Planner, prior to the issuance of building permits.
The Burger King building and drive-thru lane shall be shifted westerly
3 feet to comply with the minimum 45-foot setback from the ultimate
face of curb along Vineyard Avenue. Since this shift will cause a
reduction in the amount of landscaped area on the west side of the
building, the final landscape and irrigation design of this area shall be
reviewed as part of the detailed Landscape/Irrigation Plan, and
approved, prior to the issuance of building permits for Phase One
development.
The parking spaces along the drive aisle immediately west of the
Burger King building shall be angled at 45 degrees and painted arrows
shall be used to identify the proper travel direction, to the satisfaction
of the City Planner.
Directional signage shall be used to properly direct vehicular traffic to
the drive-thru lane and one-way drive aisle west of Burger King, to the
satisfaction of the City Planner.
Rolled curbing, turf block, and raised special paving consistent in
design with that used throughout the shopping center, shall be used at
the narrowed (south) end of the one-way drive aisle west of Burger
King, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
The landscape palette along the southerly and east property lines shall
be selected so as to provide a dense landscape buffer between the
shopping center, the existing residence, and any future development on
the vacant residentially zoned parcel to the south, to the satisfaction of
the City Planner.
Additional areas of special paving shall be used throughout the project,
especially at all vehicular entrances to the site, key pedestrian routes
across vehicular drive aisles and to demarcate primary pedestrian
walkways and gathering areas within the shopping center, to the
satisfaction of the City Planner. This shall include the circular
"compass rose" pattern treatment where each entrance driveway
intersects with the first interior drive aisles (see Exhibit "D" of Staff
Report).
The formal landscape/hardscape treatment used for the Activity Center
shall extend from the public sidewalk to the house entry. Amenities
used within the Activity Center such as benches, a fountain, etc., could
also be used in this area, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
A decorative cap shall be provided on all screen and retaining walls
throughout the project, to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 8
43)
Native river cobble shall be used (as opposed to a manufactured rock
veneer product) in all areas where rock is proposed on the building and
wall elevations throughout the project.
44) The final design of the radius curve south and west of the on-site
pedestrian Activity Center area shall be reviewed and approved by the
City Planner and the Fire District, prior to the issuance of building
permits for Phase One development.
45) A uniform hardscape and street furniture including seating benches,
trash receptacles, free-standing potted plants, bike racks, light bollards,
etc., shall be utilized and be compatible with the architectural style.
Detailed design shall be submitted for Planning Division review and
approval, prior to issuance of building permit.
46)
Textured pavement shall be provided across circulation aisle,
pedestrian walkway, and plaza. They shall be of brick/tile pavers,
exposed aggregate, integral color concrete or a combination of them.
Full samples shall be submitted for City Planner review and approval,
prior to issuance of building permit.
47)
All future building pads shall be seeded and irrigated for erosion control.
Detailed plan shall be included in the Landscape and Irrigation Plans to
be submitted for Planning Division approval, prior to issuance of
building permits.
48) Revise southerly parking lot to provide a minimum two-way drive aisle
width of 24 feet in all drive aisles.
Engineering Division
1)
The project as proposed will require the processing of a Lot Line
Adjustment.
Note: All conditions referencing project frontage or APN's are with
respect to lot lines subsequent to the Lot Line Adjustment.
2)
Along Foothill Boulevard a total of 64 feet is required as measured
between the street center line and ultimate curb face. Additional right-
of-way is required for the proposed parkway improvements (Activity
Center) to include both rows of tree wells and pedestrian corridor. The
right-of-way dimensions are subject to Caltrans approval during
Technical Plan Review.
3)
4)
Along Vineyard Avenue a total of 35 feet plus an additional 11 feet, to
accommodate a bus bay right-turn lane is required for a total of 46 feet
as measured between the approved survey line and ultimate curb face.
Additional right-of-way is required for the proposed parkway
improvements (Activity Center) to include both rows of tree wells and
pedestrian corridor.
The Activity Center pedestrian corridor along Vineyard Avenue shall
include two rows of tree wells, similar to the corridor as shown along
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 9
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
10)
Foothill Boulevard to provide a colonnade feeling, pursuant to the
Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
Pursuant to the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan a minimum spacing of
10 feet is required between center line of tree wells. In addition, a
minimum distance of 6 feet is required from center line of tree well to
curb face to allow for a 2-foot minimum planting area.
Easements will be required for the cross-lot drainage and any proposed
on-site drainage facility. All on-site drainage facilities are subject to
review by the Building and Safety and Engineering Divisions.
A separate set of Landscape and Irrigation Plans for the Foothill
Boulevard median island, per Engineering Public Works Standards,
shall be submitted for review and approval, prior to issuance of building
permits, and shall be constructed thereof. The developer may request
a Reimbursement Agreement to recover one-half the cost from future
development as it occurs on the opposite side of the street. Said
Reimbursement Agreement shall be submitted within 6 months of the
public improvements being accepted by the City, or all rights of the
developer to reimbursement shall terminate. However, if Caltrans does
not allow the construction of a median island, and subsequent
landscaping, then an in-lieu fee as contribution to one-half of the future
cost of constructing and landscaping said median island shall be paid
to the City, pdor to the issuance of building permits. The amount shall
be as determined during Technical Plan review times the length of the
project frontage to the center line intersection of Foothill Boulevard and
Vineyard Avenue.
Full frontage improvements shall be constructed across the Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue frontages. A right-turn lane shall be
constructed for the Foothill Boulevard driveway. The driveway on
Vineyard Avenue shall be constructed as a bus bay right-turn lane.
Driveways shall be standard commercial type, per City standards, with
no ramps or pavers. All right-of-way necessary to construct right-turn
pockets, bus bays, driveways, and transitions on Foothill Boulevard
and/or Vineyard Avenue shall be dedicated and constructed as a part
of this project, all to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding of the
existing overhead utilities (telecommunications and electrical) on the
north side of Foothill Boulevard shall be paid to the City, prior to the
issuance of building permits. The amount shall be one-half the City
adopted unit amount times the length from the center line intersection
of Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue to the project's westerly
boundary.
An in-lieu fee as contribution to the future undergrounding and/or
previous undergrounding of the existing overhead utilities
(telecommunications and electrical, except for the KV electrical) on the
east side of Vineyard Avenue shall be paid to the City, prior to the
issuance of building permits. The fee shall be one-half the City adopted
unit amount times the length from the center line intersection of
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 10
Vineyard Avenue and Foothill Boulevard to the project's southerly
boundary and/or the reimbursable amount for the previous
undergrounding improvements pursuant to the Reimbursement
Agreement, whichever is applicable, at the time of payment of the in-
lieu fee.
11)
12)
A cash contribution in lieu of construction towards one-fourth the cost
of construction of special pavers within the Foothill Boulevard/Vineyard
Avenue intersection shall be paid to the City, pdor to the issuance of
building permits and shall be based on the calculated amount as
determined for the project located on the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.
The parkway Activity Center shall be constructed per the Foothill
Boulevard Specific Plan fronting Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard
Avenue to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, City Planner, and
Caltrans.
13)
Modification and relocation, as necessary, of the traffic signal at the
Foothill Boulevard/Vineyard Avenue intersection shall be the
responsibility of the developer. The modification and relocation shall be
to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Caltrans.
14)
Construct the local storm drain pipe in Foothill Boulevard from the
existing connection at the intersection of Vineyard Avenue to
Cucamonga Creek to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15) "No Parking/Stopping" signs shall be posted along the frontages of
Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue.
16)
The proposed project is draining 70 to 80 percent of the site to the
southwest corner and conveying the drainage flows directly into
Cucamonga Creek Drainage Channel. San Bernardino County Flood
Control Distdct approval and permit is required, prior to the issuance of
a building permit. The connections shall be sized to accommodate the
drainage for the whole site in its ultimate condition. Since this is a
sump condition, a secondary overflow is required. The sump condition
shall pond a depth of water no greater than 18 inches.
Building and Safety/Fire Protection District
1)
Submit comprehensive foundation soils report, prior to issuance of
grading permits, including recommendations for existing uncompacted
fill.
2)
Assembly-type occupancy uses within building will require additional
and specific review and comments.
Environmental Mitigation Measures
1)
A final geologic report shall be submitted to the Planning Division for
review and accepted by the City's geologist, prior to issuance of any
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 11
permits. The applicant shall pay the cost of the review by the City's
geologist by depositing funds for this purpose.
2)
The recommendations of the final geologic report shall be incorporated
into the project, and verified during plan check, prior to the issuance of
any permits. These recommendations include, but are not limited to,
the following:
a)
No human occupancy structures shall be placed within the
approximate restricted use zone as shown on Plate One unless
a subsurface engineering geology investigation finds this portion
of the site to be free of active faulting. The recommended
restricted use zone applies to proposed structures only. The
restricted use zone on the site can be used for purposes other
than the placement of human occupancy structures, such as
parking areas.
b)
The southeast boundary of the recommended restricted use zone
shall be surveyed. This restricted area zone shall be shown on
all site development plans, including Grading Plans.
c)
Positive drainage of the site should be provided, and water shall
not be allowed to pond behind or flow over any cut or fill slopes.
Where water is collected in a common area and discharged,
protection of the native soils shall be provided, as the native soils
are moderately to highly susceptible to erosion by running water.
d)
The maximum inclination of all cut slopes shall be two horizontal
to one vertical up to a maximum height of 10 feet.
e)
All cut slopes shall be planted as soon as possible to minimize
erosion, as material on-site may be susceptible to erosion from
wind and water.
The final Grading Plan for the site shall be reviewed and
approved by an engineering geologist, prior to any grading.
g)
The trench backfill was not compacted. The suitability of this
material for future use shall be determined by the geotechnical
engineer if any man-made use of this area is planned.
3)
A detailed acoustical study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical
engineer, pdor to issuance of building permits, to address interior noise
levels of all buildings within the project.
4)
Light fixtures shall be shielded and directed away from residential
areas. A detailed Lighting Plan, including a photometric diagram, shall
be prepared, prior to issuance of building permits, to provide proper
shielding of adjoining properties from light and glare.
The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 12
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT
STANDARD CON DITIONS
PROJECT#:
SUBJECT:
APPLICANT:
LOCATION:
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-25
BURGER KING AND 5,548 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT
U.S. PROPERTIES
SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD & VINEYARD AVENUE
ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY TO YOUR PROJECT.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION, (909) 477-2750, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING
CONDITIONS:
Time
1.
Limits
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.
Completion Date
/
Prior to recordation of the final map or prior to the 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 submitted to the
Department of Community Development. Such letter must have been issued by the water district
within 90 days prior to final map approval in the case of subdivision or prior to the issuance of
permits in the case of all other residential projects.
B. Site Development
The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved plans which include
site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors, landscaping, sign program, and
grading on file in the Planning Division, the conditions contained herein, Development Code
regulations, the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
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.
Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence until such time as all Uniform Building Code and
State Fire Marshal regulations have been complied with. Prior to occupancy, plans shall be
submitted to the Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District and the Building and Safety Division
to show compliance. The buildings shall be inspected for compliance prior to occupancy.
SC - 10196
Project No. CUP 95-25
Coml~letion Date
Revised site plans and building elevations incorporating all Conditions of Approval shall be
submitted for City Planner review and approval prior to the 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 approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision, or approved
use has commenced, whichever comes first.
I /
Approval of this request shall not waive compliance with all sections of the Development Code,
all other applicable City Ordinances, and applicable Community or Specific Plans in effect at the
time of building permit issuance.
/ /
A detailed on-site lighting plan, including a photometric diagram, shall be reviewed and approved
by the City Planner and Police Department (477-2800) prior to the issuance of building permits.
Such plan shall indicate style, illumination, location, height, and method of shielding so as not to
adversely affect adjacent properties.
/ /
Trash receptacle(s) are required and shall meet City standards. The final design, locations, and
the number of trash receptacles shall be subject to City Planner review and approval prior to the
issuance of building permits.
/ /
All ground-mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, 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, and/or landscaping to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
10. All building numbers and individual units shall be identified in a clear and concise manner,
including proper illumination.
11.
All parkways, open areas, and landscaping shall be permanently maintained by the property
owner, homeowners' association, or other means acceptable to the City. Proof of this landscape
maintenance shall be submitted for City Planner and City Engineer review and approved prior to
the issuance of building permits.
12.
The project contains a designated Historical Landmark. Any further modifications to the site
including, but not limited to, exterior alterations and/or interior alterations which affect the exterior
of the buildings or structures, removal of landmark trees, demolition, relocation, reconstruction
of buildings or structures, or changes to the site, shall require a modification to the Historic
Landmark Alteration Permit subject to Historic Preservation Commission review and approval.
13.
Six foot decorative block walls shall be constructed along the project perimeter of APN: 207-211-
05. If a double wall condition would result, the developer shall make a good faith effort to work
with the adjoining property owners to provide a single wall. Developer shall notify, by mail, all
contiguous property owner at least 30 days prior to the removal of any existing walls/fences
along the project's perimeter.
C. Building Design
All roof appurtenances, including air conditioners and other roof mounted equipment and/or
projections, shall be shielded from view and the sound buffered from adjacent properties and
streets as required by the Planning Division. Such screening shall be architecturally integrated
with the building design and constructed to the satisfaction of the City Planner. Details shall be
included in building plans.
SC - 10/96
Parking and Vehicular Access (indicate details on building plans)
Project No. CUP 95-25
Coml~letion Date
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 curb).
All parking spaces shall be double striped per City standards and all driveway aisles, entrances,
and exits shall be striped per City standards.
Handicap accessible stalls shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Designate two percent or one stall, whichever is greater, of the total number of
stalls for use by the handicapped.
Motorcycle parking area shall be provided for commercial and office facilities with 25 or more
parking stalls. Developments with over 100 parking stalls shall provide motorcycle parking at the
rate of one percent. The area for motorcycle parking shall be a minimum of 56 square feet.
Bicycle storage spaces shall be provided in all commercial, office, industrial, and multifamily
residential projects or more than 10 units. Minimum spaces equal to five percent of the required
automobile parking spaces or three bicycle storage spaces, whichever is greater. After the first
50 bicycle storage spaces are provided, additional storage spaces required are 2.5 percent of the
required automobile parking spaces. In no case shall the total number of bicycle parking spaces
required exceed 100. Where this results in a fraction of 0.5 or greater, the number shall be
rounded off to the higher whole number.
Carpool and vanpool designated off-street parking close to the building shall be provided for
commercial, office, and industrial facilities at the rate of 10 percent of the total parking area. If
covered, the vertical clearance shall be no less than 9 feet.
Trip Reduction
1. Transit improvements such as bus shelters, bus pullouts, and bus pads shall be provided.
/ /
Landscaping
A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping
in this case of residential development, shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and
submitted for City Planr~er review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior
final map approval in the case of a custom lot subdivision.
SC -
Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in
accordance with the Municipal Code Section 19.08.110, and so noted on the grading plans. The
location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be
shown on the detailed landscape plans. The applicant shall follow all of the arborist's
recommendations regarding preservation, transplanting, and trimming methods.
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.
Trees shall be planted in areas of public view adjacent to and along structures at a rate of one
tree per 30 linear feet of building.
All private slopes of 5 feet 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 appropriate ground cover for erosion
Project No. CUP 95-25
Coml~letion Date
control. Slope planting required by this section shall include a permanent irrigation system to be
installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
All private slopes in excess of 5 feet, but less than 8 feet in vertical height and of 2:1 or greater
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 per each 100 sq. ft. of slope area, and appropriate ground cover. In addition, slope banks
in excess of 8 feet in vertical height and 2:1 or greater slope shall also include one 5-gallon or
larger size tree per each 250 sq. ft. of slope area. Trees and shrubs shall be planted in staggered
clusters to soften and vary slope plane. Slope planting required by this section shall include a
permanent irrigation system to be installed by the developer prior to occupancy.
/ /
For multi-family residential and non-residential development, property owners are responsible for
the continual maintenance of all landscaped areas on-site, as well as contiguous planted areas
within the public right-of-way. All landscaped areas shall be kept free from weeds and debris and
maintained in healthy and thriving condition, and shall receive regular pruning, fertilizing, mowing,
and trimming. Any damaged, dead, diseased, or decaying plant material shall be replaced within
30 days from the date of damage.
/ /
The final design of the perimeter parkways, walls, landscaping, and sidewalks shall be included
in the required landscape plans and shall be subject to City Planner review and approval and
coordinated for consistency with any parkway landscaping plan which may be required by the
Engineering Division.
Special landscape features is required along Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue per the
Activity Center guidelines of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan.
10. Landscaping and irrigation systems required to be installed within the public right-of-way on the
perimeter of this project area shall be continuously maintained by the developer.
11. All walls shall be provided with decorative treatment. If located in public maintenance areas, the
design shall be coordinated with the Engineering Division.
12. Landscaping and irrigation shall be designed to conserve water through the principles of
Xeriscape as defined in Chapter 19.16 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code.
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.
A Uniform Sign Program for this development shall be submitted for City Planner review and
approval prior to issuance of building permits.
H. Other Agencies
The applicant shall contact the U.S. Postal Service to determine the appropriate type and location
of mail boxes. The final location of the mail boxes and their design shall be subject to City Planner
review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits.
/ /
SC - 10196
,PPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE BUILDING AND SAFETY DivISION, (909)
COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
Project No. CUP 95-25
Completion Date
477-2710, FOR
I. Site Development
The applicant shall comply with the latest adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform Mechanical
Code, Uniform Plumbing Code, National Electric Code, and all other applicable codes,
ordinances, and regulations in effect at the time of issuance of relative permits. Please contact
the Building and Safety Division for copies of the Code Adoption Ordinance and applicable
handouts.
Prior to issuance of building permits for a new commercial or industrial development or addition
to an existing developrnent, the applicant shall pay development fees at the established rate.
Such fees may include, but are not limited to: Transportation Development Fee, Drainage Fee,
School Fees, Permit and Plan Checking Fees.
Street addresses shall be provided by the Building Official, after tract/parcel map recordation and
prior to issuance of building permits.
J. Existing Structures
Existing sewage disposal facilities shall be removed, filled and/or capped to comply with the
Uniform Plumbing Code and Uniform Building Code.
/ /
Underground on-site utilities are to be located and shown on building plans submitted for building
permit application.
K. Grading
Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Standards, and accepted grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the approved grading plan.
A soils report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer licensed by the State of California to
perform such work.
3. The final grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE ENGINEERING DIVISION, (909) 477-2740, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
L. Dedication and Vehicular Access
Dedication shall be made of the following rights-of-way on the perimeter streets (measured from
street centerline): Please see Engineering Division's Special Conditions in the Resolution.
Reciprocal access easements shall be provided ensuring access to all parcels by CC&R's or by
deeds and shall be recorded concurrently with the map or prior to the issuance of building
permits, where no map is involved.
3. Private drainage easements for cross-lot drainage shall be provided.
SC - 10/96
Project No. CUP 95-25
Completion Date
Easements for public sidewalks and/or street trees placed outside the public right-of-way shall
be dedicated to the City.
Additional street right-of-way shall be dedicated along right turn lanes, to provide a minimum of
7 feet measured from the face of curbs. If curb adjacent sidewalk is used along the right turn
lane, a parallel street tree maintenance easement shall be provided.
Street Improvements
1. Construct the following perimeter street improvements including, but not limited to:
/ /
Curb & A.C. Side- Drive Street Street Comm Median Bike Other
Street Name Gutter Pvmt walk Appr. Lights Trees Trail Island Trail
Foothill Blvd. v' b ~' ,/ ,/ ,/ v' e
Vineyard Ave. b ,/ ,/ v' ,/ e
/ /
/ /
SC - i Ct9"5
Notes: (a) Median island includes landscaping and irrigation on meter. (b) Pavement
reconstruction and overlays will be determined during plan check. (c) tf so marked, sidewalk shall
be curvilinear per STD. 114. (d) If so marked, an in-lieu of construction fee shall be provided for
this item. (e) Activity Center.
Improvement Plans and Construction:
a. Street improvement plans, including street trees, street lights, and intersection safety lights
on future signal poles, and traffic signal plans shall be prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer and shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be
posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the City
Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior
to final map approval or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first.
Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a
construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any
other permits required.
Pavement striping, marking, traffic signing, street name signing, traffic signal conduit, and
interconnect conduit shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Signal conduit with pull boxes shall be installed with any new construction or reconstruction
project along major or secondary streets and at intersections for future traffic signals and
interconnect wiring. Pull boxes shall be placed on both sides of the street at 3 feet outside
of BCR, ECR or any other locations approved by the City Engineer.
Notes:
(1) Pull boxes shall be No. 6 at intersections and No. 5 along streets, a maximum of 200
feet apart, unless otherwise specified by the City Engineer.
(2)
Conduit shall be 3-inch (at intersections) or 2-inch (along streets) galvanized steel
with pull rope or as specified.
Handicapped access ramps shall be installed on all corners of intersections per City
Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.
/ /
/ /
/ /
Oo
Po
f. Existing City roads requiring construction shall remain open to traffic at all times with
adequate detours during construction. Street or lane closure permits are required. A cash
deposit shall be provided to cover the cost of grading and paving, which shall be refunded
upon completion of the construction to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
g. Concentrated drainage flows shall not cross sidewalks. Under sidewalk drains shall be
installed to City Standards, except for single family residential lots.
h. Street names shall be approved by the City Planner prior to submittal for first plan check.
3. Street trees, a minimum of 15-gallon size or larger, shall be installed per City Standards in
accordance with the City's street tree program.
4. A permit shall be obtained from Caltrans for any work within the following right-of-way: Foothill
Boulevard.
Public Maintenance Areas
1. A separate set of landscape and irrigation plans per Engineering Public Works Standards shall
be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to final map approval or issuance
of building permits, whichever occurs first. The following landscaped parkways, medians,
paseos, easements, trails or other areas shall be annexed into the Landscape Maintenance
District: Foothill Boulevard (see Special Conditions).
2. A signed consent and waiver form to join and/or form the appropriate Landscape and Lighting
Districts shall be filed with the City Engineer prior to final map approval or issuance of building
permits whichever occurs first. Formation costs shall be borne by the developer.
3. All required public landscaping and irrigation systems shall be continuously maintained by the
developer until accepted by the City.
4. Parkway landscaping on the following street(s) shall conform to the results of the respective
Beautification Master Plan: Foothill Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue (Acitivitv Center).
Drainage and Flood Control
1. A permit from the San Bernardino County Flood Control District is required for work within its
right-of-way.
2.. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any public storm drain pipe measured
from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk.
Utilities
1. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including sanitary sewerage system, water, gas,
electric power, telephone, and cable 'IV (all underground) in accordance with the Utility
Standards. Easements shall be provided as required.
2. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary.
3. Water and sewer plans shall be designed and constructed to meet the requirements of the
Cucamonga County Water District (CCWD), Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District, and the
Project No, CUP 95-25
Coml)letion Date
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
SC - 10196
Project No. CUP 95-25
Completion Date
Environmental Health Department of the County of San Bernardino. A letter of compliance from
the CCWD is required prior to final map approval or issuance of permits, whichever occurs first.
O. General Requirements and Approvals
A non-refundable deposit shall be paid to the City, covering the estimated operating costs for all
new street lights for the first six months of operation, prior to final map approval or prior to building
permit issuance if no map is involved.
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE FIRE PREVENTION/NEW CONSTRUCTION UNIT, (909) 477-2730,
FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
/ /
R. General Fire Protection Conditions
1. Fire flow requirement shall be 2,000 gallons per minute.
/ /
A fire flow shall be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by fire department
personnel prior to water plan approval.
For the purpose of final acceptance, an additional fire flow test of the on-site hydrants shall
be conducted by the builder/developer and witnessed by the fire department personnel
after construction and prior to occupancy.
/ /
/ /
Fire hydrants are required. All required public or on-site fire hydrants shall be installed, flushed
and operable pdor to delivery of any combustible building materials on site (i.e., lumber, roofing
materials, etc.). Hydrants flushing shall be witnessed by fire department personnel.
Existing fire hydrant locations shall be provided prior to water plan approval. Required hydrants,
if any, will be determined by the Fire District. Fire District standards require a 6" riser with a 4"
and a 2-1/2" outlet. Substandard hydrants shall be upgraded to meet this standard. Contact the
Fire Safety Division for specifications on approved brands and model numbers.
Prior to the issuance of building permits for combustible construction, evidence shall be submitted
to the Fire District that an approved temporary water supply for fire protection is available,
pending completion of required fire protection system.
Hydrant reflective markers (blue dots) shall be required for all hydrants and installed prior to final
inspection.
6. An automatic fire extinguishing system(s) will be required as noted below:
X Per Rancho Cucamonga Fire Protection District Ordinance 15.
Note: Special sprinkler densities are required for such hazardous operations as
woodworking, plastics manufacturing, spray painting, flammable liquids storage, high piled
stock, etc. Contact the Fire Safety Division to determine if sprinkler system is adequate
for proposed operations.
Roadways within project shall comply with the Fire District's fire lane standards, as noted:
X Special provisions would be required for rolled curbs in FIRE LANES.
Emergency access, a minimum of 26 feet wide, shall be provided, and maintained free and clear
of obstructions at all times, during construction in accordance with Fire District requirements.
SC - 10196
Project No. CUP 95-25
Completion Date
9. A Knox rapid entry key vault shall be installed prior to final inspection. Proof of purchase shall
be submitted prior to final building plan approval. Contact the Fire Safety Division for specific
details and ordering information.
10. Plan check fees in the amount of $0 have been paid. An additional $1,290.00 shall be paid:
X Prior to final plan approval.
Note: Separate plan check fees for fire protection systems (sprinklers, hood systems,
alarms, etc.) and/or any consultant reviews will be assessed upon submittal of plans.
11. Plans shall be submitted and approved prior to construction in accordance with 1994 U BC, UFC,
UPC, UMC, NEC, and RCFD Standards 22 and 15.
S. Special Permits
1. Special permits may be required, depending on intended use, as noted below:
a. Places of assembly (except churches, schools, and other non-profit organizations).
b. Compressed gases (storage, handling or use exceeding 100 cubic feet).
APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, (909) 477-2800, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
- Security Lighting
1. All parking, common, and storage areas shall have minimum maintained 1-foot candle power.
These areas should be lighted from sunset to sunrise and on photo sensored cell.
2. All buildings shall have minimal security lighting to eliminate dark areas around the buildings, with
direct lighting to be provided by all entryways. Lighting shall be consistent around the entire
development.
3. Lighting in exterior areas shall be in vandal-resistant fixtures.
U. Security Hardware
1. One-inch single cylinder dead bolts shall be installed on all entrance doors. If windows are within
40 inches of any locking device, tempered glass or a double cylinder dead bolt shall be used.
2. All roof openings giving access to the building shall be secured with either iron bars, metal gates,
or alarmed.
V. Building Numbering
1. Numbers and the backgrounds shall be of contrasting color and shall be reflective for nighttime
visibility.
W. Alarm Systems
1. Install a burglar alarm system and a panic alarm if needed. Instructing management and
employees on the operation of the alarm system will reduce the amount of false alarms and in
turn save dollars and lives.
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/ /
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, DENYING CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 95-25, A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A 2,900 SQUARE FOOT
DRIVE-THRU RESTAURANT AND A 5,548 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT
ON 3.7 ACRES OF LAND IN THE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL
DESIGNATION OF THE FOOTHILL BOULEVARD SPECIFIC PLAN,
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF FOOTHILL BOULEVARD
AND VINEYARD AVENUE, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF- APN: 207-211-12 AND 13.
A. Recitals.
1. Gil Rodriguez, Jr. has filed an application for the approval of Conditional Use Permit
No. 95-25, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject
Conditional Use Permit request is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 26th day of February 1997, and continued to the 1 l th day of March 1997, the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the application and concluded said hearing on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on February 26, 1997, and continued to March 11, 1997, including written
and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as
follows:
a. The application applies to property located at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Vineyard Avenue with a Foothill Boulevard street frontage of approximately 644 feet
and lot depth of approximately 608 feet and is presently improved with a historic residence and
related landscape and parking lot improvements; and
b. The property to the north of the subject site is vacant, the property to the south
consists of vacant land, the property to the east is a service station and apartments, and the property
to the west is the Cucamonga Creek Flood Control Channel and vacant land; and
c. The application contemplates development of Phase One of a two-Phased
shopping center. The major tenants for the center are not pad of the proposed Phase One
development. Phase One includes a 2,900 square foot drive-thru restaurant and a 5,548 square foot
restaurant on 3.7 acres of land. The total land area of Phase One and Two is 8.9 acres; and
d. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires compliance with community design
guidelines and that streetscape and architectural palettes be sensitive to and attempt to create a
"heritage" statement along Foothill Boulevard. This application does not give any indication that this
statement will occur since Master Plan Design Guidelines for the majority of the two-phased
shopping center, including all potential major tenants, as well as the buildings flanking the proposed
on-site pedestrian activity center, have not been provided with the application; and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25 - RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 2
e. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan specifies that special landscape and
architectural features should be provided at major intersection locations. Elements such as changes
in paving materials, plant materials, lighting, and the siting of major structures within and around the
pedestrian node area are recommended and encouraged to be used. While an area has been
specified on the site plan to receive this type of treatment, this area has yet to be conceptually
designed to the level that will give assurance that the specific proposal will comply with the goals
and objectives of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan; and
f. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires that a Conceptual Master Plan shall
be submitted for Planning Commission approval, together with any development proposals and shall
address all other parcels as they relate to the Master Plan. The "Conceptual Master Plan" submitted
in conjunction with the "application" is, in fact, an illegible reproduced copy of the "Conceptual
Landscape Plan" with only the title changed, and does not provide the comprehensive development
scheme, in words and drawings, required by the Development Code. Specifically, the "Conceptual
Master Plan" does not indicate, beyond Phase One, conceptual grading and drainage for future
phases, areas to be used for landscaping and plazas, and does not include a statement of
architectural intent and/or conceptual elevations indicating the architectural concepts including style,
various product types, form, bulk, height, orientation, and materials. Further, the Uniform Application
and Initial Study Part I, as submitted by the applicant, includes only those parcels affected by Phase
One: APN 207-211-12 and 13; and does not include those four parcels in future phases:
APN: 207-211-14, 15, 38, and 40; and
g. The project would be contrary to the City's goals for Historic Preservation
specifically as it relates the existing Klusman House. The KJusman House was designated as a local
histodc landmark because of its architectural significance as one of the more outstanding examples
of high style architecture in the City of Rancho Cucamonga and as the foremost example of a
domestic interpretation of the Spanish/Mediterranean style which has stood as a significant element
to the Route 66/Foothill Boulevard streetscape since 1928. The house is a potential State Landmark
and is eligible for the National Register. The Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan requires that any
buildings identified as architecturally significant should, where feasible and if necessary, be restored
and integrated into the development. The project proposes to construct a row of parking spaces
along the entire south elevation of the landmark structure; however, the area between the parking
and the landmark has yet to be designed to assure a proper setting for the landmark, including, but
not limited to, sufficient setback.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. The proposed use is not in accord with the General Plan, the objectives of the
Development Code, and the purposes of the district in which the site is located; and
b. The proposed use, together with the conditions applicable thereto, will be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity; and
c. The proposed use does not comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
Development Code.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby denies the application.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
CUP 95-25- RODRIGUEZ
March 11, 1997
Page 3
5. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
March 11, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
DI::VELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMOGNA -
A request to amend the satellite dish antenna regulations in all zones to be
consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations.
(Continued from October 9, November 13, and December 11, 1996, and
February 12, 1997).
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMFNT 96-04 - CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the satellite dish antenna regulations in all
zones to be consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent
regulations. (Continued from October 9, November 13, and December 11, 1996,
and February 12, 1997).
SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 96-01 CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA - A request to amend the satellite dish antenna regulations to be
consistent with Federal Communications Commission recent regulations.
(Continued from October 9, November 13, and December 11, 1996, and
February 12, 1997).
BACKGROUND: As a result of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, The Federal Communications
Commission adopted new regulations affecting municipal regulation of satellite dishes and other
antennas. Essentially, the Federal Communications Commission rules preempt local control of
satellite dish antennas 2 meters or less in diameter in Commercial or Industrial Zones, and 1 meter
or less in diameter in Residential and all other zones. Also, the Federal Communications
Commission rules allow limited "reasonable" local control of larger antennas. A "reasonable"
regulation is one which "has a clearly defined health, safety, or aesthetic objective without
unnessarily burdening the Federal interests in ensuring access to satellite services and in
promoting fair and effective competition among competing communications service providers." The
Federal Communications Commission has indicated that aesthetic concerns alone, or fear of
electric and magnetic fields "EMFs" does not constitute a reasonable basis for regulation. Local
regulations may not favor one type of television reception over another.
ANALYSIS: The City Attorney's office has drafted an Ordinance consistent with the Federal
Communication Commission's recent rule making. The Ordinance is a comprehensive set of
regulations for all radio, television, and satellite dish antennas, excepting amateur radio and
citizen's band antennas. The Ordinance establishes the rear yard as the preferred location for such
ITEMS B,C,& D
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 96-01, SPA 96-04, SPA 96-01 - CITY OF RC
March 11, 1997
Page 2
antennas, with the side yards as the secondary choice, and a permit process (Minor Development
Review) where it becomes necessary for an antenna to be mounted in a front yard or on a roof.
Screening requirements are imposed, excepting satellite dish antennas 2 meters or less in diameter
in Commercial or Industrial zones, and 1 meter or less in diameter in residential and all other
zones. The attached table summarizes our current and proposed regulations (Exhibit "A").
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The amendments are exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated
thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3).
CORRt=SPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution recommending approval of the Ordinance.
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:DC:mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Table of Current and Proposed Regulations
Resolution Recommending Approval
Ordinance
SUMMARY OF ANTENNA REGULATIONS
Regulation Current Proposed
Maximum Antenna Height
Maximum Size
Maximum Number
50 feet when in use
(35 feet when not in use)
I meter if roof mounted;
Unlimited if ground mounted
Unlimited
Location
Not allowed in any setback
area (front, rear, or side)
Screening Required?
Yes if antenna is >1 meter dia.
Permit * Required? Yes if antenna is >1 meter dia.
Commercial I Indus~iaI,Zone~,, i~, ,,, ,,,, :, ,,
Maximum Antenna Height
Maximum Size
Maximum Number
Location
55 feet (40 feet within 100 feet
of residential zone) / 75 feet in
industrial unless approved with
CUP
Unlimited
Unlimited
No limitation
Screening Required? Yes
Permit * Required?
Yes
10 feet above peak roof line
10 feet 6 inches in diameter
Unlimited if antenna is < 20 s.f. in area;
Two if antenna is > 20 s.f. in area
1. Not allowed in any setback area
(front, rear, or side); and
2. Antennas <20 s.f. allowed in rear or
side yard or on roof. Allowed in
front yard with permit *; and
3. Antennas >20 s.f. allowed in rear
yard. Allowed in front or side yard
or on roof with permit *
Yes if antenna is > 20 s.f. in area or in
front yard
Varies (see Location above)
10 feet above peak roof line
10 feet 6 inches in diameter
Unlimited
1. Not allowed in any setback area
(front, rear, or side); and
2. Antennas <20 s.f. allowed in rear or
side yard or on roof. Allowed in
front yard with permit *; and
3. Antennas >20 s.f. allowed in rear
yard. Allowed in front or side yard
or on roof with permit *
Yes if antenna is > 20 s.f. in area or in
front yard
Varies (see Location above)
* Permit means approval of a Minor Development Review application.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT 96-01, INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENT 96-04, AND SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN
AMENDMENT 96-01, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION OF RADIO AND
TELEVISION ANTENNAS, INCLUDING SATELLITE DISH ANTENNAS, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for the amendments described
in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Development Code,
Industrial Area Specific Plan, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendments are referred to as "the
application."
2. On the 9th day of October, and continuing to November 13, and December 11, 1996,
and February 12, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga continued said
headng.
3. On the 11th day of March 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga concluded said hearing.
4. All legal prerequisites pdor 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 the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on October 9, 1996, 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.
3. Based upon the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public headng and upon the specific findings of facts set forth in paragraphs I and 2
above, this Commission hereby finds and concludes as follows:
a. These amendments do 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
These amendments promote the goals and objectives of the Development Code;
and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DCA 96-01, ISPA 96-04, & SUBAREA 18 AMEND. 96-01 - CITY OF R.C.
March 11, 1997
Page 2
c. The proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or
welfare or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity; and
and
The subject application is consistent with the objectives the Development Code;
e. The proposed amendments are in conformance with the General Plan.
4. This Commission hereby finds that the project has been prepared and reviewed in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines
promulgated thereunder, and further, specifically finds that based upon substantial evidence, it can
be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed amendments will have a
significant effect on the environment and, therefore, the proposed amendments are exempt pursuant
to State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3).
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development Code Amendment No. 96-01,
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 96-04, and Subarea 18 Specific Plan Amendment 96-01
as shown in the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 1 lth day of March 1997, 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, AMENDING TITLE 17 OF THE RANCHO
CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE; PART III, SECTION IV.A.5 OF THE
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN; AND SECTION 5.4 (PAGE 5-30) OF
THE SUBAREA 18 SPECIFIC PLAN, PERTAINING TO THE REGULATION
OF RADIO AND TELEVISION ANTENNAS, INCLUDING SATELLITE DISH
ANTENNAS.
A. Recitals.
1. On the 11th day of March 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, and
recommended the adoption of this Ordinance as set forth below.
2. On the ~ day of 1997, the City Council of the Rancho Cucamonga
conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing, as required by law, with respect to the
adoption of this Ordinance.
3. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Ordinance have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2: The City Council hereby finds and determines that the adoption of this
Ordinance is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of
Division 6 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
SECTION 3: Part III, Section IV.A.5 of the Industrial Area Specific Plan is hereby amended
by deletion of the words "satellite dish antennas," wherever the same shall appear.
SECTION 4: Section 5.4 (Pages 5-30) of the Subarea 18 Specific Plan is hereby amended
by deletion of the words "satellite dish antennas," wherever the same shall appear.
SECTION 5: Section 17.06.020.C.5. is hereby amended to read, in words and figures, as
follows:
"5. The construction and/or placement of silos, antennas not regulated
by Chapter 17.26, water tanks, roof- or ground-mounted mechanical
equipment visible from public view, or similar structures and equipment as
determined by the City Planner;"
SECTION 6: Section 17.08.060.1.4. of Chapter 17.08 of Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code is hereby repealed.
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ANTENNA REGULATIONS - CITY OF R.C.
,1997
Page 2
SECTION 7: A new Chapter 17.26 is hereby added to Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga
Municipal Code to read, in words and figures, as follows:
"Chapter 17.26
REGULATION OF TELEVISION. SATELLITE DISH. AND RADIO
ANTENNAS IN ALL ZONES.
Sections:
17.26.010
17.26.020
17.26.030
17.26.040
17.26.O5O
17.26. O6O
Purpose.
Definitions.
Prohibited antenna placement.
Antennas in residential zones.
Antennas in commercial or industrial districts.
Antenna permit application.
17.26.010 Purpose. Consistent with applicable federal regulations,
including the limited preemption created by the Federal Communications
Commission as to local regulation of satellite dish antennas, this Chapter is
designed to provide local regulation of television, satellite dish, and radio
antennas in order to promote and protect the health, safety, and welfare of
the people of the City by minimizing significant visual impacts resulting from,
and reducing safety hazards associated with, the size, height, and
placement of such antennas. The standards set forth herein are designed
to balance the City's concern for the public safety and aesthetic interests
with each person's right to transmit or receive radio and/or television signals
without imposing unreasonable limitations on antennas or preventing the
transmission or reception of radio and/or television signals, or imposing
unreasonable costs on applicants seeking to install such antennas.
17.26.020 Definitions. For purposes of this Chapter, and except
where otherwise indicated, the following terms shall be defined as set forth
in this subsection:
A. 'Antenna' shall mean any antenna, together with any associated
support structure or related equipment, used for purposes of transmitting or
receiving radio, television, and/or satellite broadcast signals, and not
otherwise subject to the sole regulatory authority of any federal agency or
authority. 'Antenna' shall not include any antenna used solely for amateur
radio or citizen's band radio purposes.
B. 'Antenna Permit' shall mean an approval of a minor development
review application as provided for in Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code
Section 17.06.020. For purposes of utilizing the minor development review
process, the provisions of this Chapter shall prevail where inconsistent with
any provision of said Section 17.06.020.
C. 'Screening' shall mean, and be accomplished, if such antenna is
to be mounted directly, or through a supporting structure, to the ground
through the use of appropriate plants,~.trees~___.or shrubbery, or a combination
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ANTENNA REGULATIONS - CITY OF R.C.
,1997
Page 3
of such plants, trees, shrubbery, and wood lattice or other material
compatible with the residence or other adjacent structures. Plants, trees,
or shrubs to be utilized for screening purposes shall have a minimum
container volume of 10 gallons at the time of planting. All such screening
shall be sufficiently high so as to screen at least 90 percent or more of the
antenna from public view. Each antenna which is permitted by this Chapter
to be roof mounted, shall be screened with materials compatible with the
structure upon which such antenna is mounted and shall be screened to the
satisfaction of the City Planner. Such screening shall be sufficiently high so
as to screen at least 90 percent of the antenna from public view.
D. 'Surface Area' shall mean the sum of that area existing between
the outer dimensions of such antenna, as measured in three dimensions.
Surface area shall not include the surface area of any antenna support
structure.
17.26.030 Prohibited antenna placement. No antenna, regardless of
size, location, or zone district, may be placed, erected, or maintained in
violation of the standards as follows:
A. Maximum Height. No antenna shall exceed 10 feet in height
above the peak roof line of the building on the lot where the antenna is
located.
B. Maximum Size. No satellite dish antenna shall exceed 10 feet,
6 inches in diameter.
C. Setbacks. No antenna shall be installed in any required setback,
within 5 feet of any property line, or in any other location which would
impede emergency access to any portion of the property.
17.26.040 Antennas in residential zones.
A. Location.
1. Any antenna less than 20 square feet in area may be
mounted in the rear yard, side yard, or roof or, subject to approval of a
permit as provided herein, in the front yard.
2. Any antenna greater than 20 square feet shall be installed
in the rear yard except with the approval of a permit.
B. Screening. Every antenna greater than 20 square feet which is
visible to the public from any public property, or any antenna of any size
which is permitted by this Chapterto be mounted in the front yard, shall be
screened to the satisfaction of the City Planner.
CITYCOUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ANTENNA REGULATIONS- CITY OF R.C.
,1997
Page 4
C. Permit Required. Any antenna less than 20 square feet
proposed to be mounted in the front yard and any antenna greater than 20
square feet in any area other than the rear yard shall require a permit.
D. Construction Material. Each satellite dish exceeding 5 feet in
diameter shall be earth-tone or neutral in color and shall be constructed of
a 'see-through' mesh or open gdd design.
E. Exemption. Except for the absolute policy set forth in Section
17.26.030, any dish I meter in diameter or less shall not be subject to any
of the requirements set forth in this Chapter.
17.26.050 Antennas in commercial or industrial districts.
A. Location. Any antenna greater than 2 meters in diameter shall
be installed in the rear yard except with the approval of a permit.
B. Screening. Every antenna greater than 2 meters in diameter
which is visible to the public from any public property or any antenna of any
size which is mounted in the front yard, shall be screened to the satisfaction
of the City Planner.
C. Permit Required. Any antenna greater than 2 meters in diameter
in any area other than the rear yard shall require a permit.
D. Exemption. Except for screening standards and the absolute
policy set forth in Section 17.26.030, any dish 2 meters in diameter or less
shall not be subject to any of the requirements set forth in this Chapter.
17.26.060 Antenna permit application.
A. VVhere a permit is required, or application therefore is authorized
under any provision of this Chapter, each person desidng a permit shall
apply to the Planning Division and shall submit a non-refundable processing
fee in such amount as set by resolution of the City Council and a completed
application on a form provided by the Division containing, at minimum, the
following:
1. Name, address, and telephone number of the applicant;
2. The specific location where the applicant proposes to install
the antenna, including a detailed description of the antenna design and any
supporting structure proposed to be utilized, including size, weight, and such
other information as the Division may require;
3. A description of the screening proposed to be utilized by the
applicant or facts establishing that screening is not required;
CITYCOUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ANTENNA REGULATIONS- CITY OF R.C.
,1997
Page 5
showing:
A sketch or other drawing, satisfactory to the City Planner,
a. Location of physical features on the subject property;
b. Approximate dimensions (plus or minus 1 foot) of the
subject lot and physical features thereon;
c. The specific location where the antenna and
screening, if required, are proposed to be installed;
d. Any other physical features in the area of the subject
property which applicant feels would adversely affect reception in those
areas set forth herein as 'preferred'; and
The design of the antenna and proposed support
structure.
5. If applying for a permit pursuant to subsection C, below, a
statement setting forth what the applicant contends are exceptional
circumstances justifying a waiver of any of the requirements of this Chapter.
B. All applicants for an antenna permit shall be required to show,
to the satisfaction of the City Planner, that circumstances preclude
installation in a preferred area, or that reception quality in the preferred area
or areas is insufficient, as herein prescribed. For purposes of this Chapter,
the preferred order of placement of any antenna is rear yard first, then side
yard, roof, and front yard. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the preferred
location shall be that location which results in the greatest screening of the
antenna from public view by existing landscaping, structural, and/or
topographical features.
C. Any person aggrieved by any provision of this Chapter due to
exceptional circumstances may apply for an antenna permit in accordance
with the provisions of this Section.
D. The City Planner shall provide the applicant with a written
decision approving, denying, or conditionally approving an antenna permit
application within 21 calendar days following submission of a completed
application pursuant to this Chapter. The City Planner's decision shall
contain findings in support of the decision. The City Planner's written
decision shall be final and shall become effective within ten days following
the date of said decision unless, during such ten-day pedod, an aggrieved
applicant files a written appeal with the City Planner. Upon receipt of a
wdtten appeal, the City Planner shall cause the matter to be placed on the
Planning Commission's agenda for public headng and consideration by the
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall decide the appeal,
CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO.
ANTENNA REGULATIONS - CITY OF R.C.
,1997
Page 6
with written findings, within 60 days of submission. The Planning
Commission may sustain, reverse, or modify the decision of the City
Planner."
SECTION 8: Preemption of inconsistent Municipal Code, specific plan, and community plan
provisions.
The provisions of this Ordinance shall preempt and supersede any and all provisions
contained in Title 17 of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, and in any specific plan or
community plan in effect, as amended from time to time, which are inconsistent herewith, provided,
however,. that the enactment of this Ordinance shall not be deemed to excuse any violation of any
provision of the Rancho Cucamonga Municipal Code, including Title 17, or of any provision of any
specific plan or community plan, occurring pdor to the effective date hereof.
SECTION 9: Penalties for violation of Ordinance.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership, or corporation to violate any provision
or to fail to comply with any of the requirements of this Ordinance hereby adopted. Any person,
firm, partnership, or corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance or failing to comply with
any of its requirements shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof,
shall ~ punished by either a fine not exceeding $1,000.00 or by imprisonment not exceeding six
mont;~o, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Each and every person, firm, partnership, or
corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or any portion
thereof dudng which any violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance is committed,
continued, or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed
punishable therefore as provided in this Ordinance.
SECTION 10: Civil Remedies Available.
The violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance hereby adopted shall constitute a
nuisance and may be abeted by the City through civil process by means of restraining order,
preliminary or permanent injunction, or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of
such nuisances.
SECTION !!: Severability.
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 preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections,
paragraphs, sentences, and words of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 12. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause
the same to be published as required by law.
CITY COMMERCIAL MANAGEMENT, INC.
RECEIVED
Thursday, March 6, 1997
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Post Office Box 807~.
Rancho Cucamonga CA 91729
0 6 ' 997
City ot Rancho cucamonga
planning Division
Re:
Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment 97-01
Miller Family and Associates, Inc.
Please accept this letter in vehement opposition to the change in permitted uses in Subarea
8 to permit a mortuary and crematory services. The proposed location on Arrow Route is
directly across the street from my business, and I believe that the operation of a mortuary
and, in particular a crematory, ~vill be highly detrimental both to the value of my property'
as well as the continued success of my business and the business of my nearby tenant.
This area is properly zoned to permit light industrial and office uses, and should not have
to tolerate a facility which will introduce into the local atmosphere the odor and other
products of combustion associated with the cremation of human remains.
Should the applicant wish to amend the request in order to establish a mortuary-only facility
at this location, I could potentially reconsider my opposition, based upon review of that
amended application. But a crematory? Out of the question!
Wallace M. Schultz, President
Property owner of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 0208-053-01, -02, and -07
10722 Arrow Route - Suite 500 · Post Office Box 548 · Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729-0548
Phone 909-948-1662 ·Tol[ Free ,>u,oo/o-C[ .5 [] Fax 909-948-[349
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
RECEIVED
0
or Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
We the undersigned are o~oosed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory services.
Company: Continental Flooring, Inc.
Address: 10763 Bell Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: (909) 941-8305
Signed:
Signed:
Date: ~/~-~ -~
Signed: ~'~/_.~/~ ~~,~-~._Date: ~--¢/~//~¢~"
Signed:~. ~~~ ~~e: f/¢o/?7
Sign~~ Date:/F
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Signed: Date:
Si ' ~ ',~,/~ Date:~,/~/~'/~
Signed: ~'~4 .~X..:~ Date:
/~ -~ ~ . ,
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allcw Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company: CARBURETOR SHOP
Address: 8460 RED OAK ST.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA,CA 915~9
Phone:
909-481-5815
Signed:~,--¢--'~/'~ :- (~~ Date:
S ig ned: ~,]~" ~%'~ ~,~,~ Date:
Signed: ."/:vj.,t.~ ,~. -~ Date:
Signed: '
Signed: ~-,~
Date:
Date:
3-07-97
3-07-97
3~o7- 97
March 6, 1997
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807,
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Attn.: Planning DMsion
Dear Sirs,
Re: Industrial area specific plan amendment 97-01- Miller Family & Association Inc.,
A request to add funeral and crematory service as a conditionally permitted use
in Subarea 8 (general industrial) of the industrial area specific plan
This letter serves as my NOTICE OF OBJECTION for the above project base on the
following negative impacts:-
(1) It will sharply reduce tile property value of the surrounding area immediately.
(2) It will create a strong uncomfortable feeling to tile residents or owners
in the vicinity area.
(3) It will discourage new investors for any new potential investments to the
surrounding area.
(4) It may also make tile existing tenant in the surrounding area to move out after
lease expired.
(5) It will damage the tax income of the city in the long run.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Yours truly.
I am looking forward to hearing tile cancellation of the above project soon.
Chung, Kwok Biu: Owner
8580 Oakwood Place
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
RICHARD V. MCMILLAN
ATTORNEY AT LAW
1205 NORTH BROADWAY
SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA 92701
(714) 542-5882
RECEIVED
March i0, I997
MAR 1 1 1997
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Chairman of the Planning Commission
C/O Dan Coleman
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91730
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
FAXED AND MAII.ED
Re: Objection to application for Conditional Use Permit in Subarea 8 by Miller Family &
Associates
Dear Chairperson:
Mr. Katelaris is the property and business owner,of the property adjacent to east of the
proposed site for the Miller Family & Associates proposed Mortuary site. My Client is opposed
to Miller Family's proposed use of the site, on the following grounds:
1. The specific location of the crematoria on this property is unknown to my client, but it
is his understanding that the crematoria will be within a hundred and fifty feet of his restaurant.
My client is concerned that the crematoria's discharge into the air of the by-products of the
process may at worst result in noxious odors or at best in visible smoke which would be
objectionable to my client's customers. As this use is permitted in other subareas where these
concerns would not be present, my client requests that this application be denied.
2. This proposed use will have a significant negative impact on the traffic in the area. We
are unaware on any other type business which would by design draw twenty or more vehicles to
· one site at a time, and then by design, place all of those vehicles on the street at one time, in a
convoy, which by design stops all traffic in its path as it passes. Further, there is no limitation on
the time of day these processions occur, nor is there any limitation on the number of processions
per day. In addition, even the 30% of the Miller Family's customers who do not require a funeral
procession will have some impact, for Rosary's and Funeral Services which do not require a
"procession" will gather numbers of people to the site at a specific time and will discharge those
vehicles at one time. Further, if this proposal includes facilities which are large enough, more than
one funeral at a time could be held on the site which would cause significant traffic congestion,
and business disruption to my client.
Absent additional information concerning this proposed use, these are my client's
concerns, and form the basis for his objection to the proposed use.
Very truly yours,
Richard V. McMillan
CREMATORY EQUIPMENT CO.
FULLY AUTOMATIC
Fast Efficient Operation
· Newest high temperature technology
con,rolled air or starved air incinera6on.
· Guaranteed smokeless and odorless.
· Easy loading, simple cremains removal.
· Automatic gas burners with controls in
accordance with the latest safety
requirements.
· Top-fired burners that make it possible to
handle all c~skets slike.
· High temperature, heavy duty refractory
materials throughout.
· Automatic cycle time and temperature
controls on main burner and afterburner.
· Factory assembled and tested.
· Two year written guarantee furnished with
every unit.
CREMATORY EQUIPMENT GO,
DONALD L. RIDGEWAY
8130 ALLPORT AVE. ~ SANTA FE SPRINGS, CA 90670
(310) 693-5~39 FAX: (310) 693-5601
Advanced Coating
Parylene Conformal Coating Specialists
10723 Edison Court · Rancho Cucamonga, California · 91730
Phone: (909)481-1400 · Fax: (909) 481-1427
TO: Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Amendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
As residents, property owners, and voters, we are stroncdv opposed to the
proposed zoning change for Subarea 8 to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
We have received a tremendous amount of support in our position from our
business neighbors in the area.
Enclosed are letters and petitions from 42 companies with over 150
signatures opposing the subject zoning change.
Our reasons for opposition include the following:
1. The City zoning currently has provisions for Funeral & Crematory
Services within sub areas 4, 6, and 16. There is no pressing reason to amend
zoning for another area.
2..Subarea 8, especially the proposed site on Arrow Highway, is a light
industrial area with a professional atmosphere which is conducive to all of the
businesses currently located therein. A Funeral Home & Crematorium does not
fit in with the neighboring businesses.
3. Amending the zoning could have a negative impact on property values
in the immediate area.
4. We purchased our property on Edison Court in August 1996 after a
lengthy search for the ideal location. Part of our selection process was based on
the types of neighboring businesses in the area and the strict zoning parameters
that we believed to be in place. Amending the zoning completely subverts our
selection and purchasing process.
5. A Crematorium located in Rancho Cucamonga would possibly be
providing cremation services for a wide area of Southern California based on the
extremely limited number of Crematoriums within the area. This could mean a
very large amount of business activity with regard to the delivery and cremation
of bodies.
6. The proposed site location is in an area we feel is "The Heart of The
City" (i.e. The Courthouse, City Hall, High Profile Office Buildings and Quakes
Stadium etc.) and as such should be afforded extra scrutiny in the development
and planning of future growth.
7. A funeral home at the proposed site would create traffic, parking and
police enforcement problems. Arrow highway is a major artery for the area and
would be adversely affected.
8. A funeral home & crematorium would have an undesirable
environmental impact on the area due to odor, air emissions and waste water
emissions generated from both cremations and embalming. In addition, there
would be additional hazard of explosion and fire with the chemicals involved in
embalming.
We hereby urge the planning commission to disapprove the subject
amendment and any future like proposals.
Thank You,
Steven J. Doltar
Ja~oltar
Rudy J. Doltar
Universal Food Company
10646 Fulton Court
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
TEL: (909)98?-0470
FAX: (909)98?°0920
March 11, it~)7
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P, O. Box g(Y7
Rancho Cueamonga. CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Amendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
As citizens and concerned business members affected by the subject proposal, we would like to w)ice our strong
opposition to the proposed amendment for and not limited to the following reasons:
Cu~tomermre~tion~ and cultural barriers ,
Universal ~ood Coral?any is a manufacturer of processed meat products for the Asian populations. ()he of ~hc
reasons for the estabhshment of our facility in ~e subject area is the actual and perceived conditio~ of the envi-
in rovidin a sanitary and healthy condition for our products. We believe the addition of a funeral and
ronment p g ........ ' - · ' r ) · s with
crematory service so close to our faethty will dtsrupt the tendmen and affect the reputatmn of ou pr~ duct.
our customers. As our clients are mostly Asian, there are strong customs and cultural believes in regards to
funeral services. In turn, these associations will 'affect the reputation and perceptions regarding the quality and
sanitation of our products because of our close vlelnky to the proposed addition.
Employee Opposition
We do have employees who come to the t)acility late in the evening and also early shit~s. Upon hearing this
possible change, many employees have expressed concerns. There has been employees who has expressed
wishes to change shifts if the funeral home should be built. Whether these fears are validated or nor, employee
feelings and morale cannot be Ignored. As employers, we would like to offer a eomt'ortuble working environ-
ment tbr our employees which would obviously be affected as already evident.
Chm~ge in zoning
When we chose tl~e location and purehacked the facility in which we now occupy, it was ~vith the understandin~
of the current zoningstatus.. By changing the zoning, we will fi~en hold a piece of property dift~rent
we had purchased. Had th~s proposal been made prior to our purchase of our facility, we would nol have estab-
lished our business at this location.
Sincerely,
Tony C. Kan
Oeneral Manager
Vice President
'l~lichael l.u
..... Owner and Prc.4denl
I i
ins' l
Company, Incorporated
110 North Market Street, East Palestine, Ohio 44413-2095 · Phone: 216-426-4151
Planning Divison
City Of Rancho Cucamonga
P. 0. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, California 91729
February 26, 1997
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
As a business person owning Wagner-Insul Company, Inc. in the
area before the park was ever conceived, I strongly object to the
use of land in the park for the use of funeral and or crematory
service.
It is an unhealthy and environmentally incorrect concern for
all, not only physically but mentally. It is not the type of
business that was intended for this great industrial business
park.
People have spent a great deal of money to come into what was
intended and anticipated to be a superior business park. Much
income has been spent on taxes to achieve this end.
I am sure that there is land available that would better suit
a business of this type in another area where it is not so
congested.
Again with great concern I object to the use of any land in
this industrial business park being used for funeral and or
crematory service.
Sincerely yours,
· - NEW MAILING ADDRESS: P. O. BOX 151, EAST PALESTINE, OHIO 44413-0151 - ·
K£NNE BELL
HI TECH PERFORMANCE PRODUCTS
March 6, 1997
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: Subarea Zoning Amendment
Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We are one of the many companies in this area opposed to
a Funeral Home & Crematory in Subarea 8.
Let's keep the Funeral Homes & Crematories in the areas
that current zoning allows, i.e., Subareas 4, 6 and 16.
Sincerely,
President
JB/ff
Attachment
10743 BELL COURT · RANCHO CUCAMONGA,~A~_.91730-4834 · FAX: (909) 944-4883
I AuTol
· ~, ESTORATORS,
COL I~N REPAIR CENTER
March 11, 1997
Planning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Dear Sir,
I have received information regarding the proposed site
location for.adding funeral and crematory"services to sub
area 8 which would allow a funeral home and crematorium to
be built on the south side of Arrow Highway.
As a resident, business owner, and multiple property owner
in Rancho Cucamonga I strongly oppose this usage to be
permitted at the proposed locatlon and wlll continue to
solicit support agalnst any permitted use.
8605 Utica Avenue
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 · (909) 980-7421
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Signed: ~ ~~ Date:
3-/6
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
Phone:
Date:
Date: 3- '7- ¢7
TO: Planing Commission
City of= Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonge Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are oD~3oeed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea
to Allow Funeral & Cremato~ Services.
Company;_
Address:
Phone:
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
:',;.:EL'_~?,,ION ,"IFG & ~LIBgER TEL:7!4-941-1592 f,'lar 11,97 11:24 No.002 ?'.01
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA g1729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission;
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea'8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Date:
Date: _' _' _'¥ .---//
Date: ,2) .-~{
TO: Planing Commission
City of Ranc-'~o Cucamonga
P.O, Box 80;'
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubAre~ 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are oDoosed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services,
Address:
Signed~h
Signed:% ~,~
TOTAL P.8~
OFFICE OF r'~ADHU KAL~A PHONE No. : 9899895~68 Mat-, 1! 1997
TO: Planlag Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cuoamonga, CA 917'29
Subject' SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
B~.ar Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are oo~oosed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funer~I & Crematory 8ervi(:~8.
Phon~:
Signed:
Signed:.
Date:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
[)ate:
r'IAR-- 1 !--97 ..TUE 10:02 AM hl~TALL IC OPTICS INC 1 909 9451965 F'. 01
TO: Planing Commission
City of RAncho Cuc~monga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 0 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Signed: Date:
Signed:_ Date:
Signed: _ Date:
'Signed: _ Date:
~qA~--I 1--9~ TUE 1~ :~l AM AE~O--FAB~ INC. 909 9:BE)594:E: P. 0I
TO: Pinning Commission
City of Rnncho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are or~t~osed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
Phone:
Signed:
Signed: /~~~,*~---,.-
/
Date: '-¢ '"/0---~'~
Date:
Signed:
Signed:
Date: ~ -//-~'7
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
Lowell S. Hill Enterprises
8555 Red Oak Street
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: (909) 941-8785
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
--'"' LENZCO
PI'tODUCT$ FOR INDUSTRY
10722 Arrow I..hvy *~ 4]2
Rancho Cucomor~o. CA 9173~
Signed: '~' ~
Date:
Date:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed: Date:
TO: Planing Commission
· City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga. CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
Phone:
Date:
Date:
Date:
S~ncd: ~.~
Signed: ,/~J/~ ~'~.
Signed:
Date:
¢-//73o
Signed:
Date:
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
Phone:
Signed:
Date: --~- ~z'_ q~'
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral 8, Crematory Services.
Address:
Phone: ~o'9- ~)~?-5~g(.
Signed: F/~--.-- ~-,-,_ '~-4 j Date:
Signed: ~~ Date: ~"- ~'~'7
Date: ~ ' '7---- ?"'7
Signed: /~,.<~~ Date:
Signed: Date:
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral 8, Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
Phone:
10~"~-J5 ~6-l_.u Couer
qoq. qq~q.. q-O~
Date: ::~.(o.CI-7
Date:
Date: ~-~- ? -
Date:'~J 7~" ? ~
Date:
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucam0nga"
P,O. Box 807 '
Rancho cuca~onga, lCA 9172,9
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Aremerriment
Dear Rancho Cucamonge Planni.ng Commission:
We the undersigned are j;li;ll~l'to the proposed zonirtg'.~J'~ange..for Subarea '8
to Allow Funeral &:Ci~,...'~a~..,.t~ $1~'ices. ' ....
. ~-:..-. ':~.:. ?,:'i:.-::i~-'? ·,. ~:.. ,:.
Company:
Address:
[0 39~d SO00~ ~IZNB~BO [~S~685808
BO
TO: Planing Commission.
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are oDffosed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
Phone:
Signed:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
,-,,,.
Date:
~3/8~/iBg7 12:53 909-B80-8622 TRI BEST PRODUCTS PAGE
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are r,,~u;~oeed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Cremetory Services.
Company: TRI-BEST VISUAL DISPLAY PRODUCTS
Address: 8620 RED OAK STREET.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CAL. 91730
Phone:
Signed:
Signed:
980-9982
Date:
3/6/97
Signed: ..
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
IT APPEARS T~AT
CURRENTLY UNDER
Date:
T}[IS PRO$~CT WILL B~ LOCATED NEXT TO A RESTAURANT
CONSTRUCTION. 'WHAT INPACT DOES THIS HAVE ON OWNER?
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are o~3DOsed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow. Funeral & Cremetory Services.
Company: j & j
Address: 1 0681
Interior$/DeFloodMaster
Pullman Court
Phone:
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
(909)944-7925
Signed:
Signed:
Date: '-z~..~ .~..~
Date: ~ '~---' ~ -7
Date:
Date: '~ - ~- ?'7
Mar-O6-g? 02:0gP NUG£N INS. S~R. gog 941 g4~3 P.01
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807"
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho..Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are o~osed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Atlow Funeral & Cremat0ry Services.
S,gned. / /, ~ Date: '~""
Sigrt.~.d: Date:
FOLdLER PROPERTIES 90'D 94? 07~,5 F'. ~1
TO: Ptaning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are .opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:..~
Address: /'0__/,,0,.~_ ,,~..Z~t~¢
Phone: ~77
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed: . _ Date:
FOWLE~ PROPERTIES 909 ~7 0765 P. 02
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendmenl:
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services,
S ig ned',~~~
D at e..~-,/O' ¢~'~
Signed: __ Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed:. Date:
Signed: ._ Date:
,3'-_",. ,. [/[ '_=."_.37 ~ 1: 0~. c38cJg4872~a2 SCCR.,STES FTNANCT~,L Ph~GE ~3:
TO: Planing Commission
.City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Amrnendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are oooot~ed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Signed: _..-"~- ' ~ " Date:
03,10;97 08:43 FAX 909 944 7386 FLE)IING PTG ~091
,/
TO: Planing Commission
City, of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We t.he undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to AIIow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
10722Arrow Route, Suite 808
Rancho ~mon~a. ~,~ q17~q
Slgne .d...C~.~ · Date: ~ "'
Signed:
Date:'
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Address: /¢2? ~ .~ ,4~.~// ~_~,..,-7'
,~'"~4~ ~. ,,(,~
Phone:
Signed: ~~~'~~
Signed:
Signed: ~~
Date:
Date:
Date:
Date:
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
Phone:
Signed:
Signed: ,~/'.~
Signed:
Date:
Signed:
Date:
Signed: Date:
Nar-10-97 04:48P P.01
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendmenl
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are oDj3osed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
Phone:
Signed:
TO:
Ptaning Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Post-it" Fax Note
To
Pho-~e If
F~tx ~
7671
From
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission;
We the undersigned are O~l~Osed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Cremetory Services.
Company:
Address:
Phone:
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Signed:
Signed: _ Date:
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company: //2~/~,'¢~,,.) ,,~..'~,"?.d~')~/£'-,/'~/
Address:
Phone:
Co. ¢/2..:7,'2
Signed:(~'//'~- ~ Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
TO: Planing Commission
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the undersigned are onnoled to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Cramatory Services.
Company: Paramount Nadine Co., Inc.
Address: 10824 Ed.iscm ~
_ Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Phone: (909) 484-3600
Date: ,.~/l 1//q 7
TO: Plm'~g'~'-c~n'mieeion
CRy.. ilc~J~. Ri~n:.~_,.C.,Lic, a m o nga '
.'De~....R~, CUcamoi-lga Planning Commtssioil:..;...~.,:
-, !
TO: Planing.Commi~ion
City af Reno:fro Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807
· .R~.C~a, CA g1729
Zoning Ammendment
·Dear. R .m3cho~ C~ga Planning Commission:
TO: Plarlln~ 0o~mlssloH
· Oily Ut ~lhcho CUcamb13ga
P.o. ~ox 80i
Rancho CUcamonga, CA 9i 729
Subject: SubArea 8 zoning Ammendmen{
Dear Rancho CucamoHga Planning Commisalot1:
We the undersigned are opposed to the proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Crematory Services.
Company:
Address:
PhoMe: ~
Stg~-ed: ~
bate: }-'"//- ~
TO: Planthg Commission
Cily of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box 807. ,'
Rancho ll;Licamonga, CA 9t 72g
siJbjec--,{~ SubArea E! Zoning Ammendmenl
Dear Rancho CUcarnonga Planning Commission:
- tO Allow
We the undersigned are p~313osed to the proposed zooming olm~ag~ I,~ Suburea
FUtlier~ll & Cremalory SerVices.
Cofhp.ny:
TO: ~IaMIMI;tl Co~missloM
Cily bf Ratlcho CUcamonga
P.o. ~ox Bo?
Ranchd Cucamonga, CA gt 729
Subject: SubArea B Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission:
We the Undersigned are o~13osed to the proposed zdntng change for Subarea 8
to Allow FUMetal & Crerrtatory ServiceS.
Address:
Date:
Signed: Date:
signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
o3/to/1997
ELITE SUPPLIES
· , :~ ~: ..
P~GE
01
~ J
I:}ei-I~,wrld~.OUbef,horlga I~lanhing ~ommlgslo~: ....:.. .,: : :.'..
':
Ha,~ i0 i~97 4: 14PM
.illI
FROM : INLP~,II) EPIPIK~IE IBLIiL!:~s PNONE I,~. : Ilar, ~0 1997 01: 16PM Pt
To 9~?~t.~ I
TO:Planihg C~hmlsslun '
Ci~ ~ Ra~u CU~monga
· .. ~M'~ ~Ucamonga, CA g~72g
~.~ . ..:'
~.. ~ . Subje~'. GU.~a ~ Zoning Ammendmenl .. "
Dea~.Ran~o OU~mohga Planning Commiesion' . ,~.. ::.. :.
to AII~ F~tel & Cremato~ Se~l~s. ~. :=
l
'"'.' O '~ .... ' '
.,'i, '. . . ....~ : ..... '~';
t2t24
· I~ubJed: 'SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendmant
Dear Rnri.oho.cUc~l~mMga Planning Cornrots'sion:
0 AIIoW'~tll & Cmmatory 8africa.. . .. ~ for e
P.e2
01
:t:~3H ; I~STER F'f:~I CORP
1,1~. t0. t997 2:4GPH
NO. : cjID9 c:jG? 5657
Hn~ ~ ,~? ~&~3 HUrst nN~ ~O~TgNn
~ubje~:.gubArea 8 Zoning Ammendnmnt · :' ' ..'
A ~d~u (:u ng ' '
Dear a o~o a Planning Ct~r,mls~ton~ ..,~..,.... ,..
.~ fwSubJre. e.
'...,.;.,. . . ..,,.,:.. · .; .',, . ',.~ :. ,~.;. f . ~..;. ~., , .
~." ;-. . '' ~ ~ ....., I....: . . .. , .
.~!.~ ..............~.u~p,.~,.. :./.. '~ .....,.....,. ,,,...,
"~,~ I'- · ,. ,. '.- ,: , t . '. /", ~ ',':' ' '".''.F' ·
; '~ .;.. . . , , . . - , · .. . . .' '~:.. .. '.
, ~-'... . ....,.,'. . · ,,.'..~ , !. - . ..-..
.',':~'~...', '" .'.' ':'.' ":' ) .' H' ~'~_
tt ..... . ..: '. . ~ ' .'.' · ~. '1'. ' . · .., ~." :'
F~::, '.' . ','.~". · ". ::-;.." , )': - '-~v ....... ;~'~'*~ .. ,,'.-. ) ~4~;,f, ~.,~"/;"'.'.:., '
I,'r;': ' . ' ". , .,.I.'. '. ..., .' : ',,.../ ., . ", '.; , · ':t, , · ·
.... .. ,..,:,..,,':.',,!. '- : .' , ,'It'" ~ , , ;'..~
: ..','G.~i."",~";:.,,' ",,-,,: '..~.~,r ', '. ,;," '
TO: Planing Commissioti
City of Rancho Cucamonga
P.O. Box
Rancho CUcamonga, CA 9'1729
Subject: SubArea 8 Zoning Ammendment
Dear Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commisslon:
We the undersigned are opposed {o {he proposed zoning change for Subarea 8
to Allow Funeral & Cremalory Services.
Signed: Date:
Signed: Date:
Signed: : Date:
.~ubjed: .~'ub,~-ea t~ Zoning Ammendmen[
bale: ':
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
March 11, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Brent Le Count, Associate Planner
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01 - MILLER FAMILY AND
ASSOCIATES - A request to add Funeral and Crematory Services as a conditionally
permitted use in Subarea 8 (General Industrial) of the Industrial Area Specific Plan.
BACKGROUND: At it's December 1, 1996, meeting, the Planning Commission initiated an
amendment to the Industrial Area Specific Plan to conditionally permit Funeral and
Crematory Services in Subarea 8. Funeral and Crematory Services are already
conditionally permitted in Subareas 4, 6, and 16 which lie along Archibald and Haven
Avenues.
The issue arose in response to a request by Miller Family and Associates to open a
mortuary within Subarea 8 on the south side of Arrow Highway between Utica Avenue and
Red Oak Street. Mortuaries are classified as "Funeral and Crematory Services" by the
Industrial Area Specific Plan:
Funeral and Crematory Services: Activities typically include, but are not
limited to, services involving the care, preparation, and disposition of human
dead other than in cemeteries. Uses typically include, but are not limited to:
funeral homes, crematories, and mausoleums.
ANALYSIS: The intent of land use categorization is to group together uses which are
compatible because of similar intensities in order to reduce potential conflicts. Therefore,
in a Subarea where more intense uses are permitted (such as Heavy Industrial) lighter uses
(such as Administrative and Office or Assembly) are not permitted.
Subarea 8 functions to provide for General Industrial activities and to assure for a transition
area from the Heavy Industrial category south of the subarea. In general, Subarea 8
contains many of the same allowed uses as Subareas 4, 6, and 16 (where Funeral and
Crematory Services is allowed) and it has a wider range of permitted and conditionally
permitted uses than the other subareas. This is especially true for commercial uses within
these subareas (see Exhibit "C").
ITEM E
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
IASPA 97-01 - MILLER FAMILY & ASSOCIATES
March 11, 1997
Page 2
In general, Funeral and Crematory Services does not appear to conflict with the land uses
already allowed in Subarea 8 and proliferation of the use is not likely. Funeral and Crematory
Services within Subarea 8 would be conveniently located for serving the Rancho Cucamonga
community as well as neighboring communities. As a conditionally permitted use, Funeral
and Crematory Services would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit which involves
a public hearing, the ability to attach conditions, and revocation authority. Through the
Conditional Use Permit process, the Commission would consider the compatibility of the
specific location desired by Miller Family & Associates and the Cowboy Burger restaurant
under construction on the adjoining parcel to the east.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed amendment is not defined as a project by
the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15378 and is therefore exempt from
environmental review per CEQA Section 15061 b.1
FACTS FOR FINDING: The proposal is consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and
the General Plan. The proposal will not be detrimental to adjacent properties or uses and will
not cause adverse environmental impacts.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspaper and notices were mailed to all property owners in Subarea 8 and
within 300 feet thereof.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of this amendment and issuance of a Negative Declaration by the City Council
through adoption of the attached Resolution.
City Planner
BB: BLC/mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
Exhibit "B"
Exhibit "C"
Exhibit "D"
Exhibit "E"
Exhibit "F"
- Subarea Map
- Subarea 8 Map
- Summary of Land Use Types
- Letter from Applicant
- Location Map (Applicant's Proposed Site)
- Planning Commission Minutes dated December 11, 1996
Resolution Recommending Approval to City Council
Figure III- 1
SUBAREAS
C
COMMERCIAL
HAVEN OVERLAY
DISTRICT
INDUSTRIAL PARK
GENERALINDUSTRIAL
MINIMUM IMPACT
HEAVYINDUSTRIAL
CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONG~
IHDUSTRIAL AREA PLAH
III- 6
Revised: 9/17/86
2/17/88
9/07/B8
10/03/90
10/17/~0
!.-iG. IV-10
Aeeooe ~
I~re mellm~1
d~ of · ohe ~ af~ ~atM o! · ~o~ted ~e ~ ~ My h
~t~ ovm t~ oe ~ Cl~y ~v~.
Rovltod: 3/15/69
./'ng':tscric[ .~.rez Sweci?'.'c P[cn Pc,.;/.;/. Sec.
TABLE 111-1
USE TYPES
SUMMARY OF LAND USE TYPE BY SUB.~EA
SU~AR~SIHOI112 31-~15 5 7 .~
MANUFACTURING
Custom
Light
Medium
Heavy
,M;nimum ImDa~ Heavy
JOFFIOE PROFESSIONAL. DESIGN & RES~RCH
Azmin~s:radv~ &
Medium
Jc~!~e~c~ F~ :~ik;es
Sc:~2
S:VIC
~u:[ic SMe:y & gdl~'/Sewices
Re~igicus ~sembly
¢;OT5S:
.'.%'H[ · ,',l~nLmum :,moa=: Hear./
MU,'OS . ,%I~xed Use/Open
Icc c l jP
I I
P P P
P P P
P
P
t-
cfc
PIP
I
PIC
PIc
t
7
7171P
I t
I I
I.=l.=
I I I
j P
[
F7
I lcl
I PIP IP
c Ic Ic
Iclct
Jc Iclc
IoJPIotc
Ic171cIc
7
cl I 7 c Ic
71PI7 7 .=
¢1 I ~ 7
cl I P Icl
7II 7
Icl I c
I I
7 '7
C
C C
C
P 7 P
C C
clclc
clcl
clclc
,~1 I~lP
~1 1~17
71711
1711
71PI7 7
1717 7
I I 7
Ic
Ic
I?
Ic
CC
C?
CCCC
PPP
CCC
CCC
CCC
CCC
P P
C
j71717
Iclctc
I I Ic
Ic
lc
cJc C C
cl
PIP P P
clclclc
clctc c
clclc c
clclc c
- 7e,.'m,.JT. ed Use
- N=n-,.ma:ked Uses r,=,: 2er.m.i:ted
. A"u:: En:e:~a~nmen: Z:nin~ 7er.--.,i: Re;uireJ
J?
t
C
? P 7
c clc
Iclc
Iclcl
P ~
P
j T,hi.~ i$ an ez.-e~t from the /ncust~al Area Soecifc Plan (ISP). Please re:~.' :~ Te.~,'e III. 2 of t.'~e FSP/or a com¢,'ete description o! the ;and use
I de,'Tnit;'on3. If you need neJ,o in dete,rm, ining the land use .~/~e o; a 3':.sirtess. ~;eese contact t,-.e P!antt. ing ~iv;$:'on at (ggg) 477.2750.
Sec. ;,
[CO~'IMERCIAL -' '. :. ~ ·
Adult
Agricultural/Nursery Supplie~ & S~ice~
Animal Clr~
Automotive ~leet S:=rage
Au:omo:ive Ren:a{
Au::motive&igh: Tm~ Repair - Miner
A::a,ma:ive~ruck Repair - Major
Au:ami:ive Sales and Leasing
Su~l~in~ C~n:r~o~s ~ & Yards
~u~lding C=n:ra~o~s Storage Yard
~uiidin~ Maintenan~ Se~i~s
Building & Light E=ui=men~
~us[ness Supply Retail & Se~i~s
Business Su:~om Semi~s
C:,mmuni~don
~on~enlen~ Sa~es & Se~i~s
Eztens;ve I,m~n~ Commer~nl
lFin~n~aL Insv~an~ & Real ~s:~:e Ser~i~s
Heavy ~:u~:me~: Sales & Rent, is
Ha:e~Mc:el
',ndoor Wh=~s~{e/Re:~[I Ccmmer:~l
LaunCh/
M_.,~ ..... ..,h Care Semites
Pe:r:feum Produszs
Re:tea:ion Fn :il~/es
RectOr Services
Res:aur~n:s wiZh ~ar or ~n:e~inmen:
NOTES; - [~us:rial Park
- Haven Avenue Over',~'/ Ois~ric:
- General
,,,,/, J . Minire, urn [mp~c: Heavy
HI - He~,~ Industrial
MU,'OS- ' =~
&fix_. Use/Open
TABLE Ili-1 (Continued)
C C
P P
P PiP
P PJ
cct
t
Plclc
9' P P
P' P P C
P P P P
c'lc Ic I.= P
!p p
C C
C
P
P P
P C
P P
JC :C
P P
P
P C
P
P C
P P
C
?
C'
C
C
P P P
C C C
lc
C C C
P
P P
C C C
P P C P
P
C
~ P
C
C
C
P
P
C
clc
C
C C
P P
P P
P P
C C
C C
C C
P P
C C
C
P P
P P
P P
C C
P P
C C
Ic
lip lal lal I~l lip tip t :.;u/os
A A
P
C
C P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
P
C
P
JA A
P
P
P
C
P P
P
C P
P
C P
P P
C
C
Ic
C
C C
" C
P P
P
C
Icc
c
t I .~
P
cJc C
Ic I
C cJc C
I P
cJc P
P PiP P
P PiP P
P PIP P
c J c
ccI c
Ic Icc
C C
P C C P
c Ic
C
C C P
C C C
P P P P
P P
C
P P
P PtC
P
Pe rmL-._*d Use
Cmn,"i:!r'naUy Permir.e: Use
N:n-,.mar'.,:ed Uses nc~ ~ermk:ed
A~ul: Er,;.e~ainmen~' Zoning Per.mi: Re;uired
Refer :o Haven Avenue Overlay Ofs::i~ f:r additional res:ri~i:ns
, i._s. r .... o Tab,,~ //[-2 :me ,'SP for a ::m.;;ete des"~:t;bn cf t,~e ~= .... s. ]
This is ~n exse.~t frcm the l~s'stn'al Area Spec/fi= P~an (ISP). ~ ~= ~ ~'=r · of '-~ , ~
~erTn/:/c~s. If you need hel~ in ~e:e~ining the land use ~/2e :,' = 2s's~;nes~. -,~ = ~ · ~' '~ .~,'anning Di.zt'st~n at (90g) 477.2750.
November 26, 1996
Chairman and Planning Commission
City Of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
Subject:
Funeral and Crematory Use Within Subarea Eight
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission:
Miller Family & Associates is interested in establishing the city's first mortuary. We propose a 10,000
square foot mortuary on a 1.6 acre site on Arrow Route east of Haven Avenue. This location is
within Subarea Eight of the Industrial Specific Plan, which does not currently reference funeral and
crematory services.
The primary concern with mortuary activities is typically related to funeral processions and the
potential impedance of traffic flow. Not all services are held at the mortuary, and less than 30% of
the families served will actually require a funeral procession. Further, these services are normally held
between 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM, thus avoiding peak comnluting areas. The use of traffic control
escorts and secondary routes to access the freeways will sufficiently avoid any traffic conflicts. Any
other concerns regarding the day to day operations of the mortuary can be addressed through the
regulation by the Funeral Directors and Embalmers Law, found in the California Health and Safety
Code.
In the past year, there were 500 deaths in Rancho Cucamonga. As there are no mortuaries in the city,
local citizens must drive to Upland or Ontario to obtain these basic services. The neighboring
mortuaries, without exception, are all owned by large, out of state funeral conglomerates. We intend
to be the only local, family owned and operated mortuary in the greater Rancho Cucamonga area.
Mortuaries provide a basic service, integral to the daily function of any' community, and are
traditionally centrally located. This site, just east of Haven Avenue, which is serviced by an off ramp
of Interstate 10, is ideal for our purposes as it provides a visible, easily accessible location not only to
the citizens of the community, but their relatives and other visitors unfamiliar with the area.
We ask the Planning Commission's support in amending Subarea Eight of the Industrial Specific Plan
by allowing funeral and crematory services within this area. We wish to emphasize that this action
will not initiate a proliferation of funeral homes within the area, as the population of most cities is not
large enough to sustain more than one mortuary. This is evidenced by the many neighboring
communities that have only one mortuary, if at all.
We look forward to making our professional services available to the community. If you should have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (909) 737-3244.
Sincerely,
Christopher B. Miller
Miller Family & Associates
JUL Y,~9,J
LJ
Par. $.W. I/4, Sec. 12, T. 18., R7W., S.B.B. ~ M.
..... ~,~, ....A.now ..............................
Po~ I
Rancho Cucumonc]a City
7bx /tale Area
15051
5 EC
Parcel Mop No. IOO01t, P.M. IIG/q?-4~J Po~.pmcel Mop No. r2o,iu, I?M. 140/10-20
I~rcel Mop No. 9301, P.M. 104/42-4.] Po~ Pi.vcel Mop No. I10.,~.,
[)or: Potcel Mop No. 4594, P.M. 47/2-3
.~,,~ Par. 2
"~' I?M 38/64'5'5
Por. Purccl Mop No. '1256, P.M. 3~?/64-65
Pot. Potcol Mop No. 1993, P.M. 17/22
)
Ibr. Putcol Mop No. 1lSG.~, I.M. 135/57-5U
/",or. I)drc¢l 61o1' too. 10237, I?l',f. I2B/IG -tO
Puteel Mop No. 1054.7,, [.~I',1. 117/67-6tl
PmcelMop Not Idd57, P.M. I}'8/86-88
Parcel Map No. 1360l, /? At. 17'l/22-23
Parcel Mop No. 11410, I.~ M. I50/30-.7,1
.;'/,"/",if' ,,?
Mr. Denman responded red and white.
Commissioner McNiel asked if this sign is being used at another location.
Mr. Denman stated the Brea store uses the same sign.
Commissioner McNiel asked the operating hours of the business.
Mr. Denman responded the scuba instruction begins at 7:00 a.m. and the main store opens at
10:00 a.m.
Commissioner Tolstoy stated his support of the proposed sign.
Commissioner Macias concurred with Commissioner Bethel's contingency proposal.
Chairman Barker invited public comment regarding Item I.
Dennis Stout, Federal Sign, 871 North Maplewood Street, Orange, indicated Hollywood Video is
a large corporation with plans to open 60 to 100 stores in Southern California and strives to
maintain a cohesivehess throughout the chain. He pointed out the Uniform Sign Program allows
intermediate tenants with established logo graphics to utilize their custom colors with approval of
the landlord and the City. He asserted Hollywood Video's name is their logo, trademark, and
identity. He pointed out other tenants in the center using white in their signage.
Commissioner McNiel asked if Federal Sign plans neon signs inside the building and if so, what
color.
Mr. Stout answered in the affirmative, but did not know which treatment had been chosen.
Mr. Hayes reported conditions have been placed on Hollywood Video tenant improvement plans
regarding interior neon being placed a minimum of 10 feet from any outside window.
Commissioner McNiel felt the white color might be a better choice to apply than the red.
Commissioner Tolstoy asked if the word "Hollywood" is to be in red, and the word "Video" in white.
Mr. Stout answered in the affirmative.
Commissioner Bethel commented that the building in Loma Linda looks nice.
Commissioner Macias supported the use of white.
Chairman Barker announced unanimous approval of Items H and I by minute action.
M. MILLER FAMILY & ASSOCIATES - A request to cdnsider initiation of text changes to the
Industrial Area Specific Plan to add Funeral and Crematory Services as a conditionally
permitted use in Subarea 8.
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, presented the staff report.
Planning Commission Minutes -10-
December 11, 1996
Commissioner Bethel questioned air quality issues with regard to cremation.
Chairman Barker invited public comment.
Chris Miller, Thomas Miller Mortuary, 1 11 8 East Sixth Street, Corona, reported the firm that installs
the crematorium equipment handles all Air Quality Management District permits.
Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Macias, to direct staff to process-the amendment upon
submittal. Motion passed by the following vote:
AYES: BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE -carried
PUBLIC COMMENTS
There were no additional public comments.
COMMISSION BUSINESS
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, suggested that the Commission may wish to move the Design
Review Committee meeting from Tuesday, December 31, to Monday, December 30, because of
the holiday conflict.
The Commissioners agreed to schedule the meeting on Monday, December 30.
Mr. Coleman then brought up subcommittee appointments in conjunction with the City Council.
Chairman Barker indicated, per City Council direction, a task force will be set up to consider each
of the following topics: Economic Development, Foothill Boulevard, Multi-Family Development, and
Signage. He recommended the two newest Commissioners each serve with one of the two veteran
Commissioners, allowing himself to act as alternate.
The Commission concurred: Commissioners McNiel and Bethel will serve on the task forces for
Foothill Boulevard and Economic Development, while Commissioners Tolstoy and Macias will serve
on the task forces for Multi-Family Development and Signage.
N. COMMERCIAL LAND USE STUDY DISCUSSION- (No report)
The Commission agreed to discuss the issue at a later date.
Planning Commission Minutes
D~c_mb_r 11, 1996
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
INDUSTRIAL AREA SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT 97-01, TO ADD
FUNERAL AND CREMATORY SERVICES AS A CONDITIONALLY
PERMITTED USE IN SUBAREA 8, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT
THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. Miller Family and Associates has filed an application for Industrial Area Specific Plan
Amendment No. 97-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 11th day of December 1996, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga initiated this amendment through minute action.
3. On the 11th day of March 1997, 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.
4. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 11, 1997, 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
and
The proposed amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment;
Subarea 8.
The proposed amendment will allow refinement of the list of allowed uses in
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. This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan or the General Plan and will provide for development, within Subarea 8, in a manner
consistent with the Industrial Area Specific Plan and the General Plan and with related development;
and
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
ISPA 97-01 - MILLER FAMILY & ASSOCIATES
March 11, 1997
Page 2
Do
Plan; and
This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Industrial Area Specific
c. 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. The subject application is consistent with the objectives of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan, and the purposes of Subarea 8; and
e. The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. The Planning Commission hereby finds and determines that the amendment identified
in this Resolution is not defined as a project and is therefore exempt from the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated
thereunder, pursuant to Sections 15061b.1 and 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Industrial Area Specific Plan Amendment
No. 97-01, amending Table II1-1 and page IV-54 as attached.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Bullet, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
TABLE Ill-1 (Continued)
USE 7'YPES
Adult En:e~ain,,ment
Agricultural/Nurser-/Supples & Seaices
Au:omot~v~ FI~t St=rage
Au:2,motive~ight TPJ~ Repair - ,Minor
Au:ami:ive Sa(es and Leasing
A:::mc:ive Se~?~
~usiness Supsty Retmil & Se~i~s
~us~ness SuspoK Se~i~s
Conve~ien~ Sales & Se~i~s
IFas: F=cd Sa(es
Heavy E=u(~,men: Sales &
In,ocr Whe~s~lelRe:ail Ccmmer:~al
Medici/Heath Care Se~(ces
Pers=r, al Se~i~s
Res:aur&n:s w~h ~ar ~r ~n:e~a~nmen:
NOTES:
· ~2~ustriai Park
- H~ve~ Ave=ue Over~7
G[ - Gene:al Industrial
MI/HI - Minimum Impact Heavy
NI - He~/ industrial
MU/OS . ,Mixed Use,'O~e~ SDa:e
C C
P P
PIP
PIC P
I
PIP
ctclc
P P P
P
P C
P
P C
P
C
C
P P
C C
P C P
P
f
IP
I
Ic
PI
t
Pt
cl
I
P
Pl.= lc
P P P
P P
C
C
C C
Ic
C
P
p-
P P
cl
c'l
C' C
C
P
P
? P
(
(c c
I
I
A A A
P
C
C
P P
P
C C
C P
C C C
P
P
P P P
P
P P P
P P P
C C
C C C
C
C C C
P P P
c
C C
P
P P P
P P P
C C
C C P
P P
P P
tc
9 I10 I1
A IX A
C
P P
C P
C
C
Ic
Ic
I
clc
I
clc
Ic
lclc
Iclc
I I~
I Ic
I I
lip lal tol I~I t,P lip
^IAIAIA
t
Ic cl
I
P P
C C C
C
clclc
I P
PIP P
tC C P
PIP P
PiP P
PIP P P
cl c
)C 'C C
C C
P C C
C C
C
C C P
P
C C C
? P
P P P P
P P
C
P P
P P C
C C
P ?
C
P P
P P
P P
P
C
P
P
P
· Per.mi%ed Use
- Condi:icna!P/Permiced Use
- A'~u[: En:e~ainmen: Zoning Permi.' Required
- Refer to Haven Avenue Oreday Ois:~ for additional restt::~cns
This is .=n ex:erst fr=m the ln~,,'stn'al Area $,~eci5c Plan (IS.~). Please ~=
de:Tn~:/cns. If you n_.. n_l~ in ~ete~ining the land use 2/2e ci a bus;'ness ¢,~ase contact the Planning Oi'Asion at (909) 4 77-2 750.
Land Use Designation
Primary Function
Permitted Uses
Conditional Uses
SUBAREA 8
General Industrial
This area functions to provide for General Industrial
activities and to assure for a transition area from the
Heavy Industrial category located north of this
subarea. North of Arrow and west of Milliken, the
industrial uses should be allowed to continue and
expand with all service according to the development
standards of the plan. Subarea 8 extends north of
Arrow approximately 1000' east 'of Cleveland to the east
Plan boundary including a portion south of Arrow along
the eastern plan boundary.
Custom Manufacturing
Light Manufacturing
Research Services
Public Storage
Light Wholesale, Storage, and Distribution
Medium Whol esal e, Storage and Distribution
Agricul rural/Nursery Supplies and Services
Automoti re/Light Truck Repai r-Minor
Automoti re/Truck Repai r-Maj or
Building Contractor's Offices and Yards
Building Maintenance Services
Building Supplies and Light Equipment Sales
Business Supply Retail Sales and Services
usiness Support Services
ommuni cati on Services
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Laundry Services
Recreation Facilities
Repair Services
Admi ni strati ve Ci vi c Services
F1 ood Control/Util i ty Corridor
Medi~ Manufacturing
Admi ni strati ve and Office
Professional/Design Services
Animal Care
Automotive Fleet Storage
Automotive Rental/Leasing
Automotive Service Stati on
Convenience Sales and Services
Entertainment
Fast Food Sales
Financial, Insurance and Real Estate Services
Food and Beverage Sales
Heavy Equipment Sal es and Rental s
Medical/Heal th Care Services
Personal Services
IV-54
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
March 11, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Bullet, City Planner
Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner
ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENTAND DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTAMENDMENT
97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA - A request to change the zoning from
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to General Commercial to be consistent
with the General Plan for approximately 4.34 acres of land on the east side of
Archibald Avenue, south of Arrow Route - APN: 209-041-27, 41, and 47.
PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION:
Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North - Commercial Center and Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center; General Commercial
and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
South - Elementary School; Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
East Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center and single family residential; Low Residential
(2-4 dwelling units per acre)
West Industrial Complex; General Industrial District, Subarea 3 of the Industrial Area
Specific Plan
General Plan Desianations:
Project Site - Commercial
North- Commercial
South - Elementary School
East - Civic Community
West - General Industrial
Co
Site Characteristics: The project site is located on the west side of Archibald Avenue, south
of Arrow Route. The east side of the project site wraps around the southwest corner of the
intersection of Malvern Avenue and Salina Court. The project site consists of three parcels,
two of which are currently developed. The third parcel is vacant and vegetation consists of
grasses and weeds.
ANALYSIS:
General: The project site contains three separate parcels that total approximately 4.34 acres
of land (see Exhibit "D"). Parcel "A" contains 0.97 acres of land, fronts onto Archibald
Avenue, and contains an office building that was previously occupied by the Chino Basin
ITEM F
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 97-01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
March 11, 1997
Page 2
Municipal Water District. Parcel "B" contains 1.23 acres of land, fronts onto Archibald
Avenue, and contains an office building currently occupied by a dental clinic and The
Assistance League of Upland. Parcel "C" contains 2.14 acres of land, fronts onto both
Archibald Avenue and Malvern Avenue, and is currently vacant.
So
Consistency with the General Plan: The 1981 General Plan identified the land use
designation for entire frontage along Archibald Avenue from Arrow Route south to the existing
Cucamonga Elementary School site as "Commercial" (see Exhibit "B"). The Commercial
Land Use designation has not changed in the General Plan. The current proposal to change
the land use district from "Low Residential" to "General Commercial" will bdng the zoning into
consistency with the General Plan as required by state law.
Co
Land Use Compatibility: The current office land uses are considered legal non-conforming
uses existing within a Residential District. If this request is not approved, these uses would
not be allowed to expand nor would they be allowed to continue if discontinued for more than
180 days. The change in the land use district from "Low Residential" to "General
Commercial" (see Exhibit "C") will be consistent with existing land uses as various office uses
are permitted within the General Commercial District. Office use on these parcels has existed
since the City's incorporation without complaint or evidence of incompatibility with the
surrounding uses. The office use serves as a transition of land use intensity from the fast
food restaurant and shopping center to the elementary school.
Environmental Assessment: Pads I and II of the Initial Study have been completed as
required by the California Environmental Quality Act. Under the Environmental Impact Report
for the 1981 General Plan, the site was planned for commercial development. The current
proposal to change the zoning designation from Residential to Commercial would not appear
to introduce any greater impact not previously analyzed. The Initial Study determination is
that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a
Negative Declaration should be prepared.
FACTS FOR FINDING: Based on the facts and conclusions listed above, staff believes the
Planning Commission can make the following findings regarding this application:
A°
The property is suitable for the uses permitted in the land use and development district
designation in terms of access, size, and surrounding land use.
Bo
The proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the environment nor the
surrounding properties as evidenced by the conclusions and findings of the Initial Study,
which indicates that no significant impacts would be expected as a result of this land use
change.
The proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan and Development Code
due to the site's ability to promote the goals and objectives for the General Commercial
District.
CORRESPONDENCE: This item was advertised as a public hearing in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspaper, the property was posted, and notices were mailed to all property owners within
a 300-foot radius of the project site.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DCA 97-01 CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
March 11, 1997
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
Resolution, thereby recommending that the City Council issue a Negative Declaration and approve
Development District Amendment 97-01.
Respectfully submitted,
Brad Buller
City Planner
BB:TG/mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" Applicant's Letter dated January 31, 1997
Exhibit"B" - General Plan Land Use Map (Excerpt)
Exhibit"C" - Development District Map (Excerpt)
Exhibit"D" - Assessors Map
Exhibit"E" - Initial Study Part 2
Resolution Recommending Approval
Office Bo~ 927 · Uz:a~'c Ca::-'~'-t~a-a''35 · 309.
January 31, 1997 i?. u ,~' & 2.'
! 996-1997 ~- r- 7'~ - ;'~ "' ' '
BOARD OF I)lRECTOIL'; F
['rt.~idcnt
J~:,,~',vania Mr. Dave Barker
%icel'rt.~idcut Chairman, Planning Commission
l'h>llisShainbcrg City of Rancho Cucamonga
Rcc.rdklgS~.~:retaQ' 10500 Civic Center Drive
V;dcdc L:,:~da Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
C.I rr~.pouding 5or'rolm r)'
R~hSc~ttz Re: 8555 & 8593 Archibald Avenue
Trcasu£cr
Mary Lynn Bro~n Dear Chairman Barker:
$ACHDen{a]Ceater Assistance League of Upland requests that the
Chairlu. an
PatEiwcH Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
initiate an amendment to adjust the zoning maps of
Opcratim~ $ch..I
Chairman the above properties (currently showing as residential)
N~acy~t,.'¥'u~ to correspond to the zoning of these properties
(commercial) as called out in the City's General Plan.
~ I~.'t'ia] Prujccts
hc~m:SuUi,~. It has been brought to our attention that when the
~.'u.aral, i,,e General Plan was adopted, the adjustment of zoning
Chainua,, maps for this property was overlooked.
Esther Nh)tt
'rh~rtShop Assistance League of Upland would like the ~roperties
Chainuan to be in compliance with the General Plan as it was
S:.'l'.iaR.ose originally set forth.
Education
Chinas, Sincere!v,
['at Ludovici
Lou?, Rzm~e Pla:mi.ug
Chairman' //7,
~C~.~ n e Wallin
Public Relations .
Chainumt ~ r' e S 1 d e n t
Miki Fisher
Chuinuatl
:\nn¢
.-k~sis t t"ttkS
C.ordh~at,r
Barbara
CC:
Rancho Cucamonga City Council
Brad Bu!ler, City Planner ~~
l,a:~ Ti:,s .4u,dli-D'
l,iai.,un
l'at[?' I)unki.
luJm~¢l
I'r,) fu, si(maI. k
Aux~liac¥
l.iai. gam'
t<act:.a u[ I:ucCtc
Serving the comrnun/tze$ of A,'ta Lama, Etiwanda, ,Concana, A'lonccla/r, Ontarzo, Rancho Cucamonga, and U~nland
Vineyard
Archibald
Project' 'D~A '~-'-01
Title: (~.,t',4~ ~
Exhibit: ~ ~ Date:
CITY OF RA'N .CEI~3<.(~,EICAMONGA
~ ...........!;i....~..,'.' "L ..~.~ ...........
Project: '[~2,N '~-~"'~) / t~~
Title: 't2~~'~P..~T
Exhibit: "(--)' Date:
Par. $.W.I/4,$ec. I I, T.I$.,R. 7W.,$.B.B.E~ M.
Parcel Map No, 4875, RM, 46/91,92
/~oncho Cucomonga Oily
Tax Code Area
15013
~o~-04
tj
Assessor's Mop
Bool~ RO9 Page 04
Son Bernardino County
Project'
Title: ~~
Exhibit:
I:\TOM~PC~DDA97-01.PT2 City of Rancho Cucamonga
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
INITIAL STUDY PART II
BACKGROUND
Project File:
Development District Amendment 97-01
Description of Project:
A request to change the zoning from Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre) to
General Commercial to be consistent with the General Plan for approximately 4.36 acres
of land.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
General Plan Designation:
Commercial
Zoning:
Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
o
Surrounding
North -
South -
East -
West -
Land Uses and Setting:
Commercial center and Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center, General
Commercial and Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
Elementary School, Low Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center and single family residential, Low
Residential (2-4 dwelling units per acre)
Industrial Complex, General Industrial District, Subarea 3 of the Industrial
Area Specific Plan
Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730
o
Contact Person and Phone Number:
Thomas Grahn, Associate Planner
(909) 477-2750
Other agencies whose approval is required:
None.
Initial Study for
Development District Amendment 97-01
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless
Mitigation Incorporated," or "Less Than Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
( ) Land Use and Planning
( ) Population and Housing
( ) Geological Problems
( ) Water
( ) Air Quality
( ) Transportation/Circulation
( ) Biological Resources
( ) Energy and Mineral Resources
( ) Hazards
( ) Noise
( ) Mandatory Findings of Significance
( ) Public Services
( ) Utilities and Service Systems
( ) Aesthetics
( ) Cultural Resources
( ) Recreation
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
(v') I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepay'ed.
()
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described
on an attached sheet have been added to the project, or agreed to, by the applicant. A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
()
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
()
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based upon
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant
Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but must analyze only the effects that
remain to be addressed.
()
Signed:
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects
1) have been ana,yzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Th'omas Grahn
Associate Planner
February 25, 1997
Initial Study for
Development District Amendment 97-01
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, an explanation
is required for all "Potentially Significant Impact," "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation
Incorporated," and "Less Than Significant Impact" answers, including a discussion of ways to
mitigate the significant effects identified.
The proposed project is a zone change to bring the project site into conformance with the General
Plan. Under the Environmental Impact Report for the 1981 General Plan the site was planned for
commercial development. The subject property has been used for offices since before the City's
incorporation in 1977. The current proposal to change the zoning designation from residential to
commercial would not appear to introduce any greater impact not previously analyzed. As
development occurs on the project site each related application will be subject to a separate
environmental analysis to determine specific project related environmental impacts.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
LAND
a)
b)
c)
d)
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantMitigation SignificantNo
Impact IncorporatedImpact Impact
USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposah
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
POPULATION AND HOUSING.
a)
b)
c)
Potentially
S~gnific..ant
Impact Less
PotentiallyUnless Than
SignificantMibgation SignificantNo
Imoact {ncorooratedImDact Impact
Would the proposal.'
Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~)
Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( ) ( ) ( ) (v~)
Initial Study for
Development District Amendment 97-01
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in
or expose people to potential impacts involving.'
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
Fault rupture?
Seismic ground shaking?
Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
Seiche hazards?
Landslides or mudflows?
Erosion, changes in topography, or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
Subsidence of the land?
Expansive soils?
Unique geologic or physical features?
Potentially
Significant
IreDact
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 4
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorooratedImpact
No
Irnl~aCt
() () ()
() () () (~)
() () () (v)
() () () (~)
() () ()
() () ()
() () ()
() () ()
() () ()
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
WATER. Will the proposal result in:
a)
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,
or the rate and amount of surface water runoff?
b)
Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
c)
Discharge into surface water or other alteration
of surface water quality (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, or turbidity)?
d)
Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e)
Changes in currents,-or the course or direction
of water movements?
Change in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer by cuts or
excavations, or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mit~gatim~ S*gnificant
IncorporatedI,'noact
No
IreDact
() () ()
() () () (~)
() () ()
() () ()
() () () (¢)
() () () (~)
Initial Study for
Development District Amendment 97-01
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 5
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
g)
h)
i)
Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
Impacts to groundwater quality?
Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?
Potentially
Signif"~.,ant
Impact
()
()
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImpact
() ()
() ()
No
Impact
(v,)
() () () (¢)
o
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
AIR QUALITY.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Would the proposal.'
Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ( )
Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( )
Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
cause any change in climate? ( )
Create objectionable odors? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
M~bgation Sig~if~..ant
IncorporatedImpact
No
Impact
() () (~)
() () (~)
() () (~)
() () (v)
o
Issues and SuppOrting Information Sources:
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
proposal result in:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
g)
Would the
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( )
Hazards to safety from design features (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? ( )
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( )
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ( )
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ( )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
Rail or air traffic impacts? ( )
Potentially
S,gn~cant
Impact
Potentially
S~gnif~.ant
Impact Lass
Unless That1
Mitigation Significant
IncorooratedImpact
No
Impact
() () (v)
() () (~)
() () (~)
() () (~)
() () (~)
()
()
()
()
(,,,)
(~,,)
Initial Study for
Development District Amendment 97-01
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal
result in impacts to:
a)
Endangered, threatened, or rare species or their
habitats (including, but not limited to: plants,
fish, insects, animals, and birds)?
b)
Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees,
eucalyptus windrow, etc.)?
c)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g.,
eucalyptus grove, sage scrub habitat, etc.)?
d)
Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal
pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
InCOrl:x~atedImpact
No
Imoact
() () () (v)
() () () (¢)
() () () (v)
() () () (¢)
() () () (¢)
Issues and Suppo~ng Information Sources:
ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation
plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
mineral resource that would be of future value to
the region and the residents of the State?
Potentially
Sign~cent
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImpact
No
Impact
( ) ( ) ( )
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve.'
a)
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited
to: oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation)?
b)
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Potenhal~y
Signif'~u'~t
Impact
Potentially
Sign~cant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
Incor~:,ratedImpact
No
Impact
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
Initial Study for
Development District Amendment 97-01
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 7
d)
e)
Supl~rting Information Sources:
The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard?
Exposure of people to existing sources of
potential health hazards?
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees?
Potentially
Significant
ImDac~
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedImpact
No
Impact
( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
( ) ( ) ( ) (v')
() () ()
10.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
NOISE. Will the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
impact Less
Unles~ Than
Mitigat~ Significant
IncorporatedIra oat1
No
() () ()
() () ()
11.
Issues and $ut~po~ Information Sources:
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an
effect upon or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Fire protection? ( )
Police protection? ( )
Schools? ( )
Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( )
Other governmental services? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Imoact
Potentially
Significant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
Incoq3oretedImoact
No
Impact
() ()
() (v)
() ()
() () (v)
()
12.
Issues and Supporhng Information Sources:
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power and natural gas?
b) Communication systems?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
()
()
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Unless
Mitigation
Incorl:~orated
()
()
Significant
Impact
()
()
No
ImDact
(v')
Initial Study for
Development District Amendment 97-01
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
Sewer or septic tanks?
Storm water drainage?
Solid waste disposal?
Local or regional water supplies?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 8
Potentially
Significant
Impact Lass
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
Incorporatedfrn~act
No
Impact
() () () (¢)
() () () (¢)
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
() () ()
13.
issues an~ Supporting Informa:ion Sources:
AESTHETICS.
a)
b)
c)
Would the proposal.'
Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect?
Create light or glare?
Potentially
Impact
Potentially
S~gniticant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mit~gabon Significant
IncorporatedtrnDact
No
IrnDact
() () () (¢)
() () () (~)
() () () (~)
14.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Would the proposal.'
Disturb paleontological resources?
Disturb archaeological resources?
Affect historical or cultural resources?
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values?
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within
the potential impact area?
Potentially
Significant
Irnoact
Pmentially
S~gnificant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncocporatedIreDact
No
Impact
() () () (~)
() () () (v)
() () () (~)
()
()
()
()
()
()
(,,,)
Initial Study for
Development District Amendment 97-01
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 9
15.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources:
RECREATION. Would the proposal.'
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
S ign~fic. ant
Impac~ lass
Unless Than
Mitigation Significant
IncorporatedIreDact
No
Impact
(; () () (~)
() () () (~)
16.
Issues and Supporting Infonmation Sources:
Potentially
Significant
Impact
b)
c)
d)
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Potential to degrade: Does the project have
the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of
a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal,
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? ( )
Short term: Does the project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term
impact on the environment is one which occurs
in a relatively brief, definitive period of time.
Long-term impacts will endure well into the
future.) ( )
Cumulative: Does the project have impacts that
are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects.) ( )
Substantial adverse: Does the project have
environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? ( )
Potentially
Sign~cant
Impact Less
Unless Than
Mitigation S~gn~ficant
Incor~=oratedImpact
No
Impact
() () (¢)
() () (~)
() () (~)
() () (~)
Initial Study for
Development District Amendment 97-01
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Page 10
EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration per
Section 15063(c)(3)(D). The effects identified above for this project were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in the following earlier document(s) pursuant to applicable legal standards,
and such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. The
following earlier analyses were utilized in completing this Initial Study and are available for review
in the City of Rancho Cucamonga, Planning Division offices, 10500 Civic Center Drive (check all
that apply):
(v')
General Plan EIR
(Certified April 6, 1981 )
Master Environmental Assessment for the 1989 General Plan Update
(SCH #88020115, certified January 4, 1989)
APPLICANT CERTIFICATION
I certify that I am the applicant for the project described in this Initial Study. I acknowledge that I
have read this Initial Study and the proposed mitigation measures. Further, I have revised the
project plans or proposals and/or hereby agree to the proposed mitigation measures to avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant environmental effects would
Occur.
Signature: Date: /~' ~
Print Name and Title: Tnrn ~r~hn A.~.~nrt. i~fP. Pl~nn~.r
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AMENDMENT 97-01, A REQUEST TO AMEND
THE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS MAP FROM LOW RESIDENTIAL TO
GENERAL COMMERCIAL FOR 4.34 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE
EAST SIDE OF ARCHIBALD AVENUE, SOUTH OF ARROW ROUTE, AND
MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF - APN: 209-041-27, 41, AND
47.
A. Recitals.
1. The City of Rancho Cucamonga has filed an application for Development Distdct
Amendment No. 97-01, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution,
the subject Development District Amendment is referred to as "the application."
2. On March 11, 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 11, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows:
a. The application applies to approximately 4.34 acres of land, basically a rectangular
configuration, located on the east side of Archibald Avenue, south of Arrow Route and presently
contains both developed and vacant land. Said property is currently designated as Low Residential;
and
b. The property has been in use as offices since before the City's incorporation; and
c. The City's 1981 General Plan designated the property as General Commercial and
said land use designation has not changed; and
d. The property to the north of the subject site is designated General Commercial and
is developed as a commercial center. The property to the west is designated General Industrial and
is developed as an industrial complex. The property to the east is designated Low Residential and
is developed as the Rancho Cucamonga Senior Center. The property to the south is designated
Low Residential and is developed as Cucamonga Elementary School.
Fig
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DCA 97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
March 11, 1997
Page 2
and will provide
and with related
This amendment does not conflict with the Land Use Policies of the General Plan
for development, within the district, in a manner consistent with the General Plan
development; and
f. This amendment promotes the goals and objectives of the Land Use Element; and
properties and
properties.
This amendment would not be materially injurious or detrimental to the adjacent
would not have a significant impact on the environment nor the surrounding
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 subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed district
in terms of access, size, and compatibility with existing land use in the surrounding area.
b. That the proposed amendment would not have significant impacts on the
environment nor the surrounding properties.
c. That the proposed amendment is in conformance with the General Plan.
4. Based upon the facts and information contained in the proposed Negative Declaration,
together with all written and oral reports included for the environmental assessment for the
application, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial evidence that the project will
have a significant effect upon the environment and recommends that the City Council adopt a
Negative Declaration based upon the findings as follows:
a. That the Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the State CEQA guidelines promulgated
thereunder; that said Negative Declaration and the Initial Study prepared therefore reflect the
independent judgment of the Planning Commission; and, further, this Commission has reviewed and
considered the information contained in said Negative Declaration with regard to the application.
b. That no significant adverse environmental effects will occur.
c. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 753.5(c) of Title 14 of the California Code of
Regulations, the Planning Commission finds as follows: In considering the record as a whole, the
Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the project, there is no evidence that the proposed project
will have potential for an adverse impact upon wildlife resources or the habitat upon which wildlife
depends. Further, based upon substantial evidence contained in the Negative Declaration, the staff
reports and exhibits, and the information provided to the Planning Commission during the public
hearing, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect as set forth in
Section 753.5(c-l-d) of Title 14 of the Califomia Code of Regulations.
5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above,
this Commission hereby recommends approval of Development District Amendment No. 97-01.
6. The Secretary to this Commission shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DCA 97-01 - CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
March 11, 1997
Page 3
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
March 6, 199'7
Civil · Planning · Surveying ·Environmentai
Ms. Nancy Fong
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re.'
Sign Ordinance Amendment #97-01
Proposed Texaco Facilities
RECEIVED
t.4AR ! 0 1997
Cily of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division
In regards to the proposed sign ordinance amendment, Texaco Refining and Marketing
Inc. (Texaco), has two main concerns regarding your draft ordinance:
Texaco requires two (2) signs per each subtenant. With the requirement established
by the city to orient the building towards the property interior (with the rear of the
building addressing the street), one sign is needed to identify the building as a
subtenant use from the street, and a second sign is needed to identify the subtenant
use from the property interior. The signs are needed to associate the subtenant with
the Texaco station, since subtenants such as quick service restaurants have not
traditionally been affiliated with service stations.
The draft ordinance has defined a subtenant as one that "occupies a minimum of 33%
of the ~oss floor area of a building." This is an unacceptable criteria for our projects
as currently proposed. The two subtenants for the proposed facility at Foothill/Elm
combined barely meet the 33% criteria. We implore you to revise the subtenant
criteria to satisfy the condition of the approved floor plan per Conditional Use Permit
#96-21.
We greatly appreciate your time and consideration or~ this matter. If you have any
questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
T A IT ff :.A-,q S O C I ATE S.~A~S ..~//
K~ RICHARD TAIT
Vice President
cc: Cliff Markins, TRMI
1100Towr~&Countn/ Road · Suite 1200 · Orange, CA92868 · (714)560-8200 · (714) 560-8211 FAX
Other Locations: San Diego, CA · Concord, CA · Sacramento. CA ·Phoenix. AZ · Tucson. AZ
Established 1964
MAR-li-1997 ~5:.5~ TAIT ~ ASSOCIATES P.Oi/O~
TAft &ASSOCIATES, INC,
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
CMI. Planning - Sun,eying · Envi~tal
March ~l, 1997
Ms. Nancy Fong
Senior Planner
City of Rancho Cueaunonga
10500 Civic C~ntor D~.
Ran~o Cucamonga, CA 91729
Proposed Texaco Facilities
Sign Code Amendment
Dc~r Nancy:
In regards to the definition of %ubtenanr' in the pmposexi sign code amemdmcm (sac
attache), Texaco is concerned that their carant projects may be excluded from the
application of~he code.
The dcfinitio~ appears to exclu& the "subtenant" use if the use is owned and operated by
the ownor/oporator of the primary facility.
For the record, Texaco will own and opa-ate the Quick Servic~ Restaurant (QSR)
Ol:~mtions as a franchise owaer. Therefore, Texaco owns and operates the "subtenants."
As you can imagine, the distinction is absolutely critical to ~ applicability of~he sign
code amendment m Texaco. We request a clarification of the definition, or an allowanc~
for operations such as Tcxaco's. Perhaps in addition to "subtenant," you might include
the cod~ amendment applicable to "secondary uses."
Thank you for your consideration on this matter.
Very Iruly yours,
TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC
. CHARD TAIT
Vice President
cc: CliffMafidns, TRMI
Jack Ayers, TRMI
Bill Hicl~, TRMI
1100Town & Country Road , Suite 1200 · Orange, CA92868 · (714) 560-8200 · (714) 56043211 FAX
O~her L_,'-x=ti_ 'ons: San Diego. CA - Gon~o~l. CA · $imramsnto, CA * Phoenix. AZ . Tucson. AZ
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
March 11, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 97-01 - TEXACO - A request to amend the
Sign Ordinance by adding regulations to allow the identification of subtenants within
service stations.
ANALYSIS:
Background: On December 11, 1996, the Planning Commission reviewed a request from
Texaco to allow the identification of subtenants within their new service stations that would
be built in the future. At the meeting, the Commission determined that there is a need to
respond to the new subtenant market trend and directed Texaco to submit an application
for amending the Sign Ordinance. Attached for your review is a copy of the December 11,
1997, staff report and minutes. On February 4, 1997, staff received the Sign Ordinance
amendment application from Texaco.
Proposed Sign Regulations: Staff created a subtenant sign category under the service
station classification. The new regulations define a subtenant and establish the maximum
number of signs and the sign area for them. Another new regulation would require a
Uniform Sign Program for a service station that has subtenants, which would apply to new
stations that have received Commission approval and existing stations with subtenants or
plan to have subtenants. The purpose is to ensure that the design and the placement of
the different types of signs for the service stations and the subtenants relate to and are
compatible with the building design and the site improvements. The proposed change is
shown in the attached Exhibit "D" with new sign regulations in bold italics.
Other Sign Issue: At the meeting on December 11, 1996, staff reported that the market
trend of combining uses under one roof extends to banking services within supermarkets.
Staff did not address this issue because the amendment was filed by Texaco. Staff
anticipates that the issue of subtenant signs will surface again in other situations, such as
supermarkets.
ITEM G
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
SOA 97-01 - TEXACO
March 11, 1997
Page 2
Environmental Assessment: The proposed new sign regulations are categorically exempt
per Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the attached Resolution
recommending that the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:NF/mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" - Applicant's Letter of Request dated January 28, 1997
Exhibit "B" - Planning Commission Staff Report dated December 11, 1996
Exhibit "C" - Planning Commission Minutes dated December 11, 1996
Exhibit "D" - Existing and Proposed Sign Code for Service Stations
Resolution Recommending Approval
Proposed Ordinance
TAIT &ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Civil · Planning · Surveying · Environmental
Janua.D.' 28, 1997
Ms. Nancy Fong
Senior Planner
City, of Rancho Cucamonga
10500 Civic Center Dr.
Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91729
Re:
Letter of Justification
Sign Code Amendment
Proposed Texaco Facilities
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Dear Ms. Fong:
On behalf of Texaco Refining and Marketing Inc., we respectfully request an amendment
to the City Sign Code (code section 14.20.100) to allow wall signs for quick service
restaurants (QSRs) at service stations with food marts.
The marketing of gasoline has become increasingly competitive over the past years.
Additionally, the cost of land, construction and labor has been increasing, resulting in the
profit margin on gasoline being very narrow. As a result, our client is required to find
new revenue streams for their gasoline sales facilities.
Texaco is proposing to construct a convenience-oriented food mart at both locations. In
addition, they are proposing to install QSRs in the food marts. The QSRs are nationally
recognized fast food operations, and will run in the same manner as a stand-alone fast
food restaurant, except on a smaller scale and the emphasis will be on off-site
consumption.
We must stress that the QSRs, as well as the food mart, are distinct business operations
within a single structure. As distinct business operations. they must retain their own
individual external signage in order to attract customers and to survive as business
entities. Texaco's QSR parmers require their corporate identities to be represented on the
exterior faces of the building as well as on other signage which will identify their product
to potential customers. With the advent of credit card and debit card readers at the fuel
dispensers, a majority of those purchasing fuel never enter the building and remain
unaware of any additional business inside the building. Unless these customers have
1100Town & Country Road · Suite 1200 · Orange, CA92868 · (714) 560-8200 · (714) 560-8211 FAX
Other Locations: San Diego, CA - Concord, CA · Sacramento, CA · Phoenix, AZ - Tucson, AZ
Established 1964
kno~vledge of the additional facilities within the building, these businesses will not be
able to sustain sufficient sales to sustain operation.
Currently, the code allo~vs for only one wall sign per frontage with a maximum of two
wall signs, and does not allow for any wall signage for other distinct business operations
within the building. As previously stated, wall signage is essential for the sustainability of
the proposed QSRs.
We recognize that the city is allowing QSR identification on the Texaco monument signs,
for which we are greatly appreciative. However, monument signage alone does not
accomplish the signage needs for the QSRs. The average customer does not normally
identify fast food with gasoline service stations. Once the customer is attracted off the
street by the QSR monument sign, he/she is likely to become confused by lack of wall
signs to identify the location of the QSRs. The customer needs the wall sign to direct
him/her to the desired services.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this correspondence, please feel free to
contact me.
Very truly yours,
TAIT & ASSOCIATES, INC.
K. RICHARD TAIT
Vice President
cc: D.C. Matkins, TRMI
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAiMONGA
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
December 11, 1996
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
DIRECTOR'S REPORT 96-03 - TEXACO - A request to determine if new sign
regulations should be added to allow signs identifying sub tenants within a primary
business.
BACKGROUND: The applicant, Texaco, recently submitted two Conditional Use Permit
applications for the construction of two service stations, located at the northeast corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Elm Avenue and at the southwest corner of Base Line Road and Milliken Avenue.
In addition to a mini-market, Texaco intends to feature drive-thru quick service restaurants (QSRs)
for the two facilities such as Taco Bell, A & W, Del Taco, or Baskin Robins, within the same
structure that contains the mini-market. Attached is a copy of the letter from Texaco requesting
additional signs for their sub tenants (Exhibit "A").
ANALYSIS: This section of the report examines whether there is a need to allow sign
identifications for sub tenants that are within a primary business.
Current Siqn Codes and Applicant's reeuests: The Sign Ordinance allows service stations
to have one wall sign per building face or elevation and up to a maximum of three signs,
which could consist of a combination of wall and monument signs. Texaco requests to
have two sub tenant wall signs, one for each QSR, on the same building elevation as the
primary wall sign. In addition to the wall signs, Texaco also requests QSR signs on the two
monument signs, one on each street frontage. Exhibit "C" shows an example of the
proposed primary wall sign and sub tenant wall signs.
Past action of the Planninc~ Commission: The Commission has seen similar cases of
independent uses combine under one roof and previously had similar discussions on the
subject with Wal-Mart and McDonalds, Shell service station and Churchs Fried Chicken,
Smiths Food, and El Pollo Loco and Fosters Freeze. The Commission has consistently
required that those sub tenants must rely on the signage for the primary tenant or modify
the name of the primary tenant to incorporate its sub tenant(s).
Market Changes: Staff has observed an increase of combination of uses within a primary
business or tenant to provide more services for customers. Examples are banking services
within supermarkets such as Albertsons with Wells Fargo Bank and Luckys with Bank of
America. Because of this business trend, staff senses that the pressure is building up from
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
DR 96-03 - TEXACO
December 11, 1996
Page 2
the sub tenants to have their signs. The question is whether the City should allow sub
tenants' signs and, if so, what limits should be established. If each sub tenant such as a
liquor store, a dell, a Kodak service, an ATM service, etc., is allowed a sign on the same
building face as the primary business of a supermarket, then the building will be
overcrowded with signs. Staff believes that this approach is inconsistent with the goals of
the Sign Ordinance and General Plan.
Options: StafFs opinion is that there are other approaches which could address this issue.
One option, which is already in place, is to require the primary tenant to include the sub
tenant's name within their sign. An example is El Pollo Loco and Fosters Freeze. This
option would not necessitate an amendment to the Sign Ordinance. A second option is to
develop criteria to allow sub tenant signs, such as requiring a separate entry, using a
significant percentage of floor area, establishing maximum sign area, etc. This option
would require amending the Sign Ordinance.
RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, staff believes that there is merit in studying
the sub tenants' sign issue and that new criteria could be established to address them. Therefore,
staff recommends that the Commission direct the applicant to submit a Sign Ordinance amendment
request.
Respectfully submitted,
City Planner
BB:NF/mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A" -
Exhibit "B" -
Exhibit "C" -
Texaco's Letter of Request
Excerpt of Sign Ordinance for Service Stations
Example of Proposed Wall signs
before during the Best Buy project and should remain. He stated if the applicant does no
mapping prior to the building permit issuance, they will be required to complete all fr~ age
improvements along that parcel; however, if the applicant completes a lot line ad or a
parcel map, they will only be required to complete the frontage along the Texaco site.
the bus bay issue will be addressed during a later phase if the applicant does a lot lin, djustment,
but the Terra Vista Planned Community does need Church Street as a designate. route.
Chairman Barker closed the public hearing.
Commissioner McNiel remarked that a monument sign, with or without le, is needed to
balance both corners. He concurred with staff~s opinion regarding the concrete condition
to provide other architectural elements acceptable to the City Plato He stated his concern
regarding the austere appearance of the cornice work around tht }erimeter of the top of the
building.
Mr. Buller clarified the scope of the uniform design theme
to encompass the Texaco project only.
this Conditional Use Permit
Commissioner McNiel felt because the traffic signal issL was deferred once already, the condition
should remain.
Commissioner Tolstoy agreed.
Commissioner McNiel concurred with staff
the lot line adjustment.
Mr Buller recommended adding a final to the condition requiring a monument sign to
read, "Install the gateway prior to of occupancy or, if a new request has been submitted
for processing of a new monument ram, the City Planner may approve the installation at a later
date."
Chairman Barker and Commi
McNiel concurred.
Mr. Buller suggested th,
"Material subject to Cit'
requiring precast concrete cornices be changed to read
review and approval."
Motion: Moved b
resolution a
carried by the
seconded by Macias, to issue a Negative Declaration and adopt the
Use Permit 96-21 with modifications outlined above. Motion
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
BARKER, BETHEL, MACIAS, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NONE
NONE -carried
The Planning Commission recessed from 8:50 p.m. to 8:58 p.m. during which time Mr. Buller left
the meeting.
'_. ~,J. DIRECTOR'S REPORT 96-03 - TEXACO - A request to determine if new sign regulations
should be added to allow signs identifying sub tenants within a primary business.
Planning Commission Minutes
EXHIBIT "C"
December 11, 1996
Nancy Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner McNiel supported staff"s position and stated, if a sign ordinance amendment is
presented, the Commission can proceed on that basis.
Commissioner Tolstoy commented the building needs to provide reasonable architectural space
to accommodate signage.
Chairman Barker indicated the issue is one which the Commission has agreed to address and will
appoint committee members later in the meeting.
DIRECTOR'S REPORT 96-04 - LEWIS DEVELOPMENT CO. - A request to determine
architectural design guidelines should be developed for a proposed Mixed Use center
96-20) within the Terra Vista Community Plan, located on the north side of Foothill Bo~ card
between Elm and Milliken Avenues.
Nancy' Fong, Senior Planner, presented the staff report.
Commissioner McNiel felt the City needs basic design guide. lines on any develc
if it's a complex. He concurred with staff.
particularly
Commissioner Tolstoy felt it is extremely important to have a plan.
project specifically and its connection to the rest of the proposed
and the subsequent traffic circulation.
mentioned the Texaco
the connecting driveway
Chairman Barker suggested a workshop with Lewis Homes.
Commissioner Bethel concurred.
Commissioner Macias acknowledged the importa
design guideline requirement waived.
of an open dialogue but did not want the
Greg Hoxworth, Lewis Homes, asked if the
or the overall plan for the site. He
building plan, layout, and uses, but
will make sure their design guide
development and will be reviewe~
Commission to advise staff of
architectural guidelines for
was discussing the architectural details
Homes has no problem providing the physical
detailed architectural guideline. He further stated they
are compatible with the Texaco project during future
the Planning Commission at that time. He then asked the
willingness to allow the Texaco project to proceed without
of the site.
Ms. Fong stated the is to be developed using a master plan and staff has asked for
architectural Jidelines for a typical anchor so that the architectural flavor can be
established, site furniture and landscaping. She indicated if the Commission could grant
the applicant s, e flexibility in the timing, staff could require both the Master Plan and the
architectural guidelines with the first major anchor. She voiced her awareness of the
residential ion of the project in the future and that it does need to be fully planned at this time,
but rese for residential development.
Principal Planner, pointed out that the approval of the shopping center, in no way
the timing of the Texaco project.
Planning Commission Minutes
-7-~-- OC2 December 11, 1996
14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones
subject to the provisions listed:
CLASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM HEIGHT
AREA
4. a. Service Station Wall One per street frontage, 10% of building face not to Not above roof line or 20
Identification and maximum two. exceed 150 square feet. feet.
Pricing
and Monument One per street frontage, not 36 square feet. Up to 8 feet.
to exceed a total of two per
station.
b. Special Service Wall or Ground One for each pump island, 2 square feet.
Signs not to exceed a total of four
~ per station.
c. Special Window or Two per station. 6 square feet.
Advertisement Ground
d. Subtenant Wall
Signs
Monument
One per subtenant,
not to exceed a total
of two per station.
One per subtenant
per monument sign.
12 square feet, to be
included as part of the
10% of the building
face for the service
station.
If mounted on a wall or
pole of the canopy, it shall
be no higher than 8 feet.
Ground signs shall not
exceed 6 feet in height.
A ground sign shall noi
exceed 6 feet in height, a
window sign shall not
exceed 6 feet in height.
Not above roof line
or 20 feet.
REMARKS
a. A combination of monument and wall may be used,
but not more than a total of 3 signs.
b. The monument sign shall be designed to include the
identification of the station and gasoline prices. No
other price signs are allowed.
c. Uniform Sign Program shall be required
for service stations with a subtenant.
Special service signs shall be limited to such items as self
serve, full serve, air, water, cashier, and shall be
nonilluminated.
Special advertisement shall be limited to advertising
special sales or services.
A subtenant is defined as a business that is
not owned or operated by the station
and/or the franchisees of the station, or a
subsidiary of the station; and, whose
operation is separate from, unrelated to,
and different from the station. A subtenant
occupies a minimum of 33 percent of the
gross floor area of a building.
The identification of subtenants may be
allowed on the monument sign. Products,
services, price signs for the subtenants are
not allowed.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF
SIGN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 97-01, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING NEW REGULATIONS FOR SUB-TENANT
SIGNS WITHIN THE SERVICE STATION CLASSIFICATION, AND MAKING
FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. Recitals.
1. Texaco has filed an application for Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 97-01, as described
in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Sign Ordinance Amendment
is referred to as "the application."
2. On the 11th day of March 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said hearing
on that date.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby found, determined, and resolved by the Planning Commission
of the City of Rancho Cucamonga as follows:
1. This Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals,
Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above-
referenced public hearing on March 11, 1997, including written and oral staff reports, together with
public testimony, this Commission hereby specifically finds and concludes as follows:
a. The Amendment will provide for development of a comprehensively planned urban
community within the District that is superior to development otherwise allowable under alternate
regulations.
b. The Amendment will provide for development within the District in a manner
consistent with the General Plan and with related development and growth management policies of
the City.
c. The Amendment will meet the purpose and intent of Title 14 of the Municipal Code.
d. The amendment will not have a significant impact on the environment.
3. This Commission hereby finds and determines that the proposed amendment is exempt
from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality of 1970, as amended, and the
Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, and 3 above, this
Commission hereby recommends the City Council approve Sign Ordinance Amendment No. 97-01
to modify the Municipal Code per the attached Ordinance.
The Secretary to this Commission shall cedify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
SOA 97-01 - TEXACO
March 11, 1997
Page 2
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH 1997.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
BY:
E. David Barker, Chairman
ATTEST:
Brad Buller, Secretary
I, Brad Buller, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the
Planning Commission of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, at a regular meeting of the Planning
Commission held on the 1 lth day of March 1997, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
ORDINANCENO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RANCHO
CUCAMONGA, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING SIGN ORDINANCE
AMENDMENT 97-01, AMENDING TITLE 14 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING NEW REGULATIONS FOR SUBTENANT SIGNS WITHIN THE
SERVICE STATION CLASSIFICATION.
A. Recitals.
1. On the 11th day of March 1997, the Planning Commission of the City of Rancho
Cucamonga conducted a duly noticed public hearing with respect to the above-referenced Sign
Ordinance Amendment. Following the conclusion of said public headng, the Planning Commission
adopted Resolution No. 97- , thereby recommending that the City Council adopt Sign Ordinance
Amendment No. 97-01.
2. On the __ day of April 1997, the City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga
conducted a duly noticed public hearing and concluded said hearing prior to its adoption of this
ordinance.
3. All legal prerequisites prior to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. Ordinance.
The City Council of the City of Rancho Cucamonga does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones is hereby
amended as shown in the Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2: The Council hereby finds and determines that the proposed amendment is
exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality of 1970, as amended, and
the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA
Guidelines.
SECTION 3: The Mayor shall sign this Ordinance and the City Clerk shall cause the same
to be published within fifteen (15) days after its passage at least once in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Ontario, California, and circulated in the
City of Rancho Cucamonga, California.
14.20.100 Permitted Signs - Commercial and Office Zones - The following signs may be permitted in the commercial and office zones
subject to the provisions listed:
CLASS SIGN TYPE MAXIMUM NUMBER MAXIMUM SIGN MAXIMUM HEIGHT
AREA
4. a. Service Station Wall One per street frontage, 10% of building face not to Not above roof line or 20
Identification and maximum two. exceed 150 square feet. feet.
Pricing
and Monument One per street frontage, not 36 square feet. Up to 8 feet.
to exceed a total of two per
station.
b. Special Service Wall or Ground One for each pump island,
Signs not to exceed a total of four
per station.
2 square feet.
c. Special Window or Two per station. 6 square feet.
Advedisement Ground
Monument
One per subtenant,
not to exceed a total
of two per station.
One per subtenant
per monument sign.
d. Subtenant Wall
Signs
12 square feet, to be
included as part of the
10% of the building
face for the service
station.
If mounted on a wall or
pole of the canopy, it shall
be no higher than 8 feet.
Ground signs shall not
exceed 6 feet in height.
A ground sign shall not
exceed 6 feet in height, a
window sign shall not
exceed 6 feet in height.
Not above roof line
or 20 feet.
REMARKS
a. A combination of monument and wall may be used,
but not more than a total of 3 signs.
b. The monument sign shall be designed to include the
identification of the station and gasoline prices. No
other price signs are allowed.
c. Uniform Sign Program shall be required
for service stations with a subtenant.
Special service signs shall be limited to such items as self
serve, full serve, air, water, cashier, and shall be
nonilluminated.
Special advertisement shall be limited to advertising
special sales or services.
A subtenant is defined as a business that is
not owned or operated by the station
and/or the franchisees of the station, or a
subsidiary of the station; and, whose
operation is separate from, unrelated to,
and different from the station. A subtenant
occupies a minimum of 33 percent of the
gross floor area of a building.
The identification of subtenants may be
allowed on the monument sign. Products,
services, price signs for the subtenants are
not allowed.
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
March 11, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Nancy Fong, AICP, Senior Planner
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 91-24 - MASI - A review of the car wash facility for
the Mobil gas station within Masi Plaza, located at the southwest corner of Foothill
Boulevard and Masi Drive - APN: 229-011-36.
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this report is for the Commission to review the request from Mobil to
reverse the direction of cars entering and exiting the car wash and determine whether this reversed
direction is acceptable and whether it meets the intent of the Drive-Thru Design Policies.
BACKGROUND: On January 8, 1997, staff met with John De Frenza, the applicant, and Oscar
Etemadian, the owner.of the Mobil station, to review the proposed change of having the cars enter
the car wash from the east and exit to the west. They requested the change because a
representative from the manufacturer of the car wash equipment stated that the approved direction,
which is to enter from the west, creates difficulties for some drivers to negotiate and maneuver the
turns when entering the car wash. He claimed that it would lead to an increase in damage to the
equipment, curbs, and walls of the facility as well as damage to the patrons' cars. Because the site
is along a Special Boulevard and the proposal is a substantial change to the original approval, staff
determined and informed the applicant that the proposed change would have to be reviewed by
the Commission. On February 13, 1997, staff received a letter from the applicant requesting the
Commission's review, as shown in the attached Exhibit "A." The station and the mini-market are
in business now but the car wash is not because the equipment has not been installed. On
January 23, 1997, the owner of the station was notified of the requirement to submit a separate
plan check and an electrical permit for the car wash equipment. At the writing of this staff report,
neither the plans nor the permit have been submitted to the Building and Safety Division.
ANALYSIS: To consider this item, the Commission should review the background section of this
report, analyze the pros and cons of the two options for entering and exiting the car wash, and
review the requirements of the established Design Policies for Drive-Thru facilities.
Approved Direction - Enter from the West and Exit to the East: A driver would make a right
turn after getting gas from the pump island and enter the west drive-thru lane queuing for the
wash unit. Once the wash is completed, the driver would exit the unit and exit the station
from the second driveway as shown in Exhibit "C." The applicant claims that the cars exiting
at the east side would be parallel to incoming cars from the first driveway which may create
potential side impact accidents between these cars. He also states that this direction forces
the cars to be on the outside radius of the drive-thru lanes which could create difficulties for
ITEM H
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
March 11, 1997
Page 2
some drivers to negotiate the turns. As a result, they feel it would lead to an increase in
damage to the equipment, curbs, and walls of the facility as well as damage to the patrons'
cars.
Comment: The first driveway off Masi Drive was not recommended by staff but accepted as
an entry driveway only and is designed at an angle to discourage drivers from using it as an
exit. The primary purpose of this driveway is to provide an easy access for a gas tanker truck
to enter and unload the fuel to the undergrounded tanks. Because of its location, the first
ddveway is a conflict point whether the cars enter or exit the car wash unit at the east drive-
thru lane. When the applicant brought up the issue of the tight turns at the west drive-thru
lane, staff suggested eliminating the 5-foot wide pedestrian walkway at the west property
boundary and widening the drive-thru lane to allow more space for drivers to maneuver and
negotiate the turns. The applicant did not accept this solution. However, he did construct the
walkway at the same grade as the drive-thru lane, which in essence widened it from 12 feet
to 17 feet (see Exhibit "D"). Staff believes that a 17-foot wide drive lane would have enough
space for drivers to negotiate the turns. With regards to the pedestrian connection from
Foothill Boulevard, it would then lead to the landscaped plaza area of Building I and that is
acceptable to staff. Further this Mobil station is not the first one to have such a setup where
cars enter the car wash from the west. The Mobil station at the southeast corner of Milliken
and Highland Avenues has a similar setup and staff has not received negative comments
regarding that facility.
Proposed Direction - Enter from the East and Exit to the West: A driver would have to make
a left turn after getting gas from the pump island, circle around the pump islands and move
north to enter the east drive-thru lane queuing for the wash unit. Once the wash is
completed, the driver would exit the unit, head south, and exit at the second driveway as
shown in Exhibit "E." The applicant claims that having cars enter the car wash at the east
drive-thru lane may remove the potential side-impact traffic conditions and put the cars on
the inside radius which would make it easier for drivers to negotiate the turns. He stated that
there will be at least a four-car stacking distance for the east drive-thru lane.
Comment: As mentioned previously, the first driveway is a conflict point because of its
location. By switching the car wash entrance to the east side, it creates other traffic conflict
such as cars queuing for car washes which may block incoming cars and impact public
streets. The applicant suggests using orange cones as a device to direct cars to enter at the
second driveway when there is a temporary high volume of cars queuing for car washes.
According to the City's Engineering staff, this mitigation may create rear-end traffic collisions
off Masi Drive. Another problem created by this proposed change is the lack of screening for
the east drive-thru lane. According to the Drive-Thru Design Policies, a drive-thru lane must
be set back 45 feet from the curb and be screened from public view. The east drive-thru lane
is set back only 25 feet from the curb because it is planned as an exit and not an entrance.
The applicant proposes to add fifteen (15-gallon size) shrubs for screening, which in staff's
opinion is inadequate in meeting the Drive-Thru Design Policies.
Conclusion: Based on the above analysis, staff concluded that the proposed change in the
direction of entering and exiting the car wash does not substantially improve the on-site flow
of circulation, would create other problems that are inconsistent with the City's policies, and
that there are options for the applicant to consider in improving the west drive-thru lane.
Therefore staff recommends that the approved direction be maintained.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
CUP 91-24 - MASI
March 11, 1997
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Commission, through minute action, deny the
applicant's request and uphold the previously approved site plan and direct the applicant to work
with staff in modifying and improving the west drive-thru lane.
Respe y~
/~~rt~y Planner
BB:NF/jfs
Attachments: Exhibit"A"-
Exhibit "B" -
Exhibit "C" -
Exhibit "D" -
Exhibit "E" -
Exhibit "F"
Applicant's letter of request
Approved Master Plan for Masi Plaza
Approved Site Plan for Buildings I and 2
Current flow of on-site circulation
Proposed flow of on-site circulation
Drive-Thru Design Policies
IFax: (714) 261-8053
February 9, 1997
John A. De Frenz~t, Architect
20301 S. W. Birch Street, Suite 101, Newport Beach, Cal~.'fornia 92660
Voice: (714} 261-8805
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division, Nancy Fong
10500 Civic Centcr Drivc
Rancho Cueamonga, California 91729
RE: Mobil Gas Station, 8118 Masi Drive, Building Two of Masi Plaza
Dear Nancy,
Please schedule the car wash drive-thin issue for review by the planning commission.
I am including with this letter a copy of the previous letter from January 10th, 1997 describing our
meeting on this same issue held on January 8th, 1997.
We have instructed Designscapes (the on-site landscape contractor) to proceed with installation of
(15) 15gal. wax leaf privets along the back side of the existing mow strip. Our intend is to
significantly screen the cars that would stack to enter the car wash.
Please confirm with me the February 26th date and start time of the commission meeting.
Architect
Oscar Etemadian
Michael Scandiffio
Jack Masi
WASH_MTG.WPD
-RECEIVED-
CiTY OF RANCHO CUCAMQNGA
I ~ f%
FL~,NNIIqG DIV.,.,I~,N
FEB 1 3 1997
AM PM
~819~10~tEillg~St41St6
1Fax: (714) 261-8053
January 10, 1997
John/t. De Frenza, ,4rchitect
20.101 S. W. Birch Street, Suite 101, Newport Beach, California 92660.
Voice: (714) 261-8805
City of Rancho Cucamonga
Planning Division, Nancy Fong
10500 Civic Center Drive
Rancho Cucamonga, California. 91729
FEB i997
RE: Mobil Gas Station, 8118 Masi Drive, Building Two of Masi Plaza
Dear Nancy,
On Wednesday, January 8th, we met to discuss the on-site access to the car wash component of this
gas station. Auending the meeting were yourself, Oscar Etemadian (owner of this parcel), Mike
Martorano of Mark IIV Car Wash Equipment, Jack Masi and myself. We met to review any options
available that would improve the current ill fated design. The following is a summary of the
conditions now present and the proposed re-design.
The existing access entering the car wash unit from the west was created by myself and the planning
department during the conceptual approval stage. Based on our desire to minimize site traffic, a car
would enter the pumping island from the east (Masi Drive), then if a wash was desired, turn right
(north) to enter the stacking for the wash unit. Without having the benefit of the car wash equipment
manufacturer's knowledge, this seemed like a very good chain of events to follow. What we did not
consider at that time was that the washed vehicle exiting the drive thru lane is now positioned
parallel to in-coming vehicles from Masi Drive without the benefit of clear right-of-way for either
driver. The condition as designed may create potential side impact accidents between these cars.
As currently designed, the driver of any vehicle entering and exiting the car wash will be on the
outside radius (making a right hand turn). Mark IIV has informed us that this direction of approach
is more difficult to negotiate for some drivers and results in an increase of damage to the equipment,
curbs and walls of the facility, not to mention the damage to the patrons car.
I propose that a revision be approved by planning staff as follows:
The car wash ,nit should be entered from the east and exit to the west. This would remove
the vehicle side impact traffic condition that currently may occur replacing it with head to
head visibility of on-coming vehicles, it would also put the driver on the inside radius
(making left hand tums) approaching and exiting the wash unit. This reversal of' access will
establish that all vehicles (facing west) at the pump islands will be turning left after gassing
up, then only the cars desiring a wash will rerum northward on the east side of the pump
island to stage their approach to the car wash unit. The stacking distance for the car wash
unit provides for certainly four vehicles, possibly five. The previous west access only
provided three cars plus one interfering with the disabled access path..
The new issue this creates is one of potential off-site conflict; will the qued vehicles block drivers
entering the facility from Mast Drive'?.
The first entry point was created for gas truck access to the tanks and improved access to the pump
islands orienting vehicles westward, setting the approach to the car wash unit on the west. If in fact
on-site t~aff~e does block the north entry from Mast Drive, the drive is striped with two southbound
lanes and two northbound lanes, providing ample space for southbound vehicles to proceed along
Mast Drive and enter the gas,I station at the south curb cut or proceed unincumbered to other
destinations. If temporary high volume conditions axe experienced, orange traffic cones directing
vehicles to enter the gas station through the south entry drive would effectively re-route the traffic
away from the first entry drive. This solution is very effective and is a device readily understood
by drivers.
Please advise me of your receipt of this letter and the departmental procedure required to resolve
these design conflicts. I have instructed the owner and contractor to proceed with installation of the
car wash equipment for access from the east, exiting to the west. I have also instructed the owner
to modify the sidewalk along the west lane to match the drive lane finish grade, allowing a longer
vehicle to negotiate the lane easier (in either direction). The owner understands that if the planning
department determines this reversal of orientation is not permissible he will Mve to return the car
wash unit to access from the west and exit to the east.
I enclose some plans for your reference and request an expedient response.
/ Architect of recor/°°n'n '/"' t.,e_vrenz~
Oscar Etemadian
Jack Masi
Mike Martorano
-RECEIVED.
CITY Ole t=IANCHO OUCAM, ONC~
~ Lt:'ix" ?'~ J N ~' DtVI$IQN
WASH_CTY.WPD
BOULEVARD
AUIO
C,~ $fA ?ON
AUTO
ROLLER RINK
SEBASTIAN WAY
--
IllIll I
ICE SKA TING RINKS
CiTY O= P, ANO.qO CUCA~,?ONGA
FEB ? ,3 '.co
~'/18191101111121112181A1~i6
~¢~5~T ,, ~ ,'
//
-RBOEIVED-
CITY OF R.~N','.HO OUt.,'..:' "O,'", ~A
t
RESOLUTION NO. 88-96
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
RANCHO CUCAMONGA ESTABLISHING INTERIM DESIGN GOALS AND
POLICIES FOR BUSINESSES WITH DRIVE-THRU FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has expressed numerous concerns with
businesses that have drive-thru facilities including, but not limited to, fast
food restaurants. The concerns are compatibility of use, circulation, and
visual and aesthetic appearance. Previous projects have not adequately
addressed these concerns, especially in the screening of the drive-thru lane;
and
WHEREAS, there is a need to establish a design goal for businesses
with drive-thru facilities to guide future development; and
WHEREAS, development standards and design guidelines are necessary to
implement the design goal for businesses with drive-thru facilities; and
WHEREAS, such development standards and design guidelines are needed
to provide clear direction and guidance to developers and staff alike.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Rancho Cucamonga Planning
Commission does hereby establish interim policies for businesses with drive-
thru facilities as follows:
Section 1: Goal Statement
The intent of the guidelines is to assist the designer in
understanding and complying with the City standards for
building and site design. The goal is to provide high
quality design, compatibility of use, and mitigate
environmental and aesthetic concerns that are created by
this type of land use. The following design standards and
guidelines shall apply to uses with drive-thru facilities
typically including, but not limited to, fast food
restaurants, banks, mini-markets, dairy, photo kiosks, or
auto service.
Section 2: Development Standards
Ao
Location Uses with drive-thru facilities shall be
300 feet away from any intersection and from another
drive-thru facility on the same side of the street,
except within a shopping center or Master Plan.
Restaurants with drive-thru facilities shall be a
minimum of 200 feet away from any residential use or
district boundary.
EXHIBIT "F"
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES
May ll, 1988
Page 2
Bo
Site Area - Uses with drive-thru facilities shall have
a minimum 1 acre net land area. This minimum land
area may be modified when the drive-thru facility is
within a Master Plan or an integrated shopping center
through the Design Review process.
The minimum floor area for drive-thru facilities shall
be 2,500 square feet. The minimum floor area for a
drive-thru facility other than a fast food restaurant
may be modified through the Design Review process.
Do
The maximum site coverage shall be 40 percent of the
net lot area. The minimum on-site landscaping, which
includes articulated plazas, courtyards, and patios,
shall be 15 percent of the net lot area exclusive of
public right-of-way.
Eo
Parking and the drive-thru lane shall be setback 45
feet from the ultimate curb face. Greater setbacks
may be required as mentioned in the Specific Plan and
as deemed necessary during the Design Review process.
Section 3: Design Guidelines
Site Planning/Building Orientation - Future drive-thru
facilities in a Master Plan or shopping center shall
be identified early in the review process to avoid
retrofitting the uses at a later date. The site
design shall minimize pedestrian/vehicle conflicts and
avoid locating driveways and service areas which
interfere with the flow of the on-site circulation.
Building placement shall be done in a manner to create
new pedestrian spaces and plaza area. Buildings shall
orient the public entrances toward the street.
Building layout should be oriented to screen the
drive-thru lane. Drive-thru lanes shall be screened
through building orientation, the use of a combination
of low screen walls, heavy landscaping, and trellis
work. Separate pay windows and pick-up windows should
be provided.
Stacking Distance/Parking - The drive-thru lane shall
be a sufficient length to accommodate the necessary
stacking of cars. The stacking distance shall be
determined through a parking study as stated in
Section 17.12.040C, Special Requirements of the
Parking Ordinance. Each drive-thru lane shall be
separate from the circulation route necessary for
ingress and egress from the property or access to any
parking spaces within the site.
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES
May 11, 1988
Page 3
Parking - The parking requirements for drive-thru
facilities shall be according to Section 17.12 of the
Parking Ordinance. The gross floor area for outdoor
seating shall be subject to the same parking
requirement.
Do
Pedestrian Orientation - The Site Plan shall create
opportunities for courtyards and plazas and other
landscape open space to promote safe and convenient
pedestrian movement with continuous landscape pathway
between buildings. The design should discourage a
need for pedestrians to have to cross a drive-thru
wherever possible.
Eo
Architecture - Standardized "corporate" architectural
styles associated wit a chain is prohibited. Drive-
thru facilities within an integrated shopping center
or Master Plan must have architectural style
consistent with the theme established in the center.
Architecture must provide compatibility to surrounding
uses in form, materials, colors, scale, etc. Building
planes shall have variation in depth and angle to
create variety and interest in its basic form and
silhouette of the building. Articulation of building
surface shall be encouraged through the use of
openings and recesses which create texture and shadow
patterns. Building entrances shall be well
articulated and project a formal entrance through
variation of architectural plane, pavement surface,
treatment, and landscape plaza.
Signing - All signs shall conform with the provisions
of the Sign Ordinance. Drive-thru facilities within
an integrated shopping center or Master Plan must
comply with the Uniform Sign Program as established in
the center.
Section 4: Performance Standards
Special performance standards for restaurants with
drive-thru facilities: The use shall be operated in a
manner which does not interfere with the normal use of
adjoining properties. If, in the opinion of the City
Planner, the provisions of this paragraph are being
violated, the violations shall be grounds for
reopening Conditional Use Permit hearings and adding
conditions to control the violation. Performance
standards include, but are not limited to the
following considerations, which, where appropriate,
shall be incorporated as conditions of approval in all
use permits as determined by the Planning Commission
or City Council:
2LANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.
DRIVE-THRU INTERIM DESIGN GOALS/POLICIES
May 11, 1988
Page 4
/1) Noise levels measured at the property line shall
not exceed the level of background noise normally
found in the area.
(2) 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. For drive-
thru restaurants or other uses which typically
generate trash or litter, 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 property.
(3) All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours.
14) No undesirable odors shall be generated on the
site.
(5) The on-site manager of the use shall take
whatever steps are deemed necessary to assure the
orderly conduct of employees, patrons, and
visitors on the premises.
A copy of these performance standards and all
Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval
shall be posted along side the necessary business
licenses and be visible at all times to
employees.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 11TH DAY OF MAY, 1988.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
ATTEST: /f~~~~ ~/~d u~.~/-Oep~.~ecretary
I, Brad~B~ el r, Deputy 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 11th day of May, 1988, by the following vote-to-wit:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS: CHITIEA, BLAKESLEY, EMERICK, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: NONE
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF RF PORT
March 11, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Larry Henderson, AICP, Principal Planner
REQUEST TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE WITHIN
THE RANCHO CUCAMONGA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AUTO CENTERS AS A
CLASS OF SIGNS WITHIN SECTIONS 14.20.100 SIGNS - COMMERCIAL AND
OFFICE ZONES AND SECTION 14.20.110 SIGNS - INDUSTRIAL ZONES.
BACKGROUND: There has been recent interest in developing auto centers in both commercially
and industrially zoned areas of the City. In all cases, the interested parties have expressed a desire
for a change in the Sign Ordinance to allow for sign programs that are more in keeping with regional
marketing concepts, similar to those provisions currently allowed for regional shopping centers. A
recent survey of communities having auto centers shows that these regional marketing and sign
provisions are an established consideration.
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff, through minute action, to initate a Sign Ordinance Amendment
in accordance with the subject of this report.
City Planner
BB:LJH/jfs
ITEM I
AWARDS for DESIGN EXCELLENCE
RESIDENTIAL · ·
1987
1987
1987
1988
1988
1989
1990
1990
The Deer Creek Community
(Grigsby Development)
Sycamore Springs Apartments
(Elite Development)
Sycamore Terrace Apartments
(Lewis Homes)
Lomita Court Apartments
(P.B.S. Really Corporation)
Villa Del Rey Retirement Home
(American Retirement Villas)
Calais
(Lewis Homes)
Hunters Chase Condominiums
(Devcal Industries, Inc.)
Victoria Ranch Estates
(The William Lyon Company)
COMMERCIAL · ·
1987
1987
1988
1988
1989
1989
1989
1989
1990
1990
1990
1991
1991
1991
1992
1992
1993
INDUSTRIAL · ·
1987
1988
1989
1989
1990
1991
1992
1994
Haven Car Wash
(Larry Beck)
Haven Village 1987
(DiversifiedShopping Centers)
Deer Creek Car Wash 1987
(Ted and Dwight Bert, Jim Kelber &
Jim Kolbold) 1987
Vineyard National Bank
(Vineyard National Bank) 1987
Burger King Restaurant
(Bob DelpiO 1988
Terra Vista Village
(Dicker / Warmington) 1988
Victoria Self Storage
(The William Lyon Company) 1989
Vir 'nia Dare Food Court
(Tower Partners) 1989
Chaffey Plaza
(Chaffey Plaza Partnership) 1990
FoothilI Village
(Nu West Commercial Development Corp.) 1990
Mobil Mart
(The Barmakian Co. and Mobil Oil Corp.) 1991
Victoria Village
(Hughes Investments) 1991
Target
(Western Land Properties) 1993
Ross
(Westem Land Properties) 1993
Terra Vista Town Center Cinema / Food Court
(Western Land Properties)
Sculpture @ Terra Vista Town Center Cinema /
FoodCourt
(Arthur Silverman)
Service Merchandise
(Western Land Properties)
Rancho Cucamonga Research and Development
Center (The Kenslay Corporation)
Rancho Pacific Business Center
(Pacific Scene, Inc.)
Sixth Street Distribution Center
(The Nalbandian Group and The Barmakian
Company)
VineyardWest Mini-Storage
(The Nalbandian Group arid The Barmakian
Company)
Rochester Center
(Bermant Development Co.)
Rancho Cucamonga Distribution Center II
(O'Donnell Armstrong & Partners)
Burke Trademark Business Center
(Burke Development)
Ryder Truck Rental
(Ryder Truck Rental, Inc.)
OFFICE · ·
Haven Commerce Center
(A.H. Reiter Development Co.)
Haven Court
(Haven Court Ltd.)
Havengate Center
(F'WE Corporation)
Virginia Dare Phase I
(The Christeson Company)
Banks & Ritchie LegalOffices
(James and Marsha Banks)
Forecast Office Building
(Forecast Corporation)-
Haven Professional Plaza
(Haven Investors)
Virginia Dare Winery Business Center
(Tower Partners)
Havengate Business Center
(Delm,~r Enterprises)
Independence Corporate Center Phase II
(Arical Properties)
Slotkin Protessional Building
(Pilgrims Enterprises)
Laurel Aspen
(Reilley Development / Laurel Aspen Partners)
8316 Red Oak Office Building
(Migh~ Development)
Arrow Haven Corporate Park
(Utica Haven Associates)
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING COMMISSION
AWARDS
for DESIGN EXCELLENCE
INSTITUTIONAL · ·
1988
1991
1992
1993
1994
Etiwanda Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day
Saints (Rancho Cucamonga Stake)
Rancho Cucamong;a Civic Center
(Rancho Cucamoffga Redevelopment Agency)
Fire Station No. 5
(Rancho Cucamonga Redevelol~ment Agency)
Coyote Canyon Elementary Scl~ool
(Central School District)
Rancho Cucamonga Stadium and Adult Sports
Complex
(Rancho Cucamonga Redevelopment Agency)
MASTER PLAN · ·
1987
1987
1987
1988
1989
The Gateway
(A.H. Reiter Development Co.)
Rancho Cucamonga Business Park Phase I
(The Daon Corp. and Barton Development)
Victoria Community Plan
(The William Lyon Company)
Victoria Groves Village
(The William Lyon Company)
Victoria Lakes South Village
(The William Lyon Company)
LANDSCAPING · ·
1987
1987
1988
1990
1990
Rancho Cucamonga Business
Park Phase I
(Barton Development Company)
Cucamonga Business Park Phase I
(A.H. Reiter Development)
Victoria Groves Village
(The William Lyon Company)
Havengate Business Center
(Delmar Enterprises)
Hunters Chase Condominiums
(Devcal Industries, Inc.)
REHABILITATION · ·
1987
1987
1988
1991
1992
1993
The Willows School
(The Willows School Professional Center)
Christmas House
(Jay and Janice Ilsley)
Albert House
(Carrie Johnson-Hall and Ronald Hall)
Hippard Ranch
(Rick Dirksen)
Thomas Winery & Still Building
(OAS Investors)
Demens-Tolstoy House
(Peter Tolstoy)
COMMUNITY DESIGN AWARD · ·
1987 Barton Plaza I & II
(Barton Development Company)
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA · PLANNING COMMISSION
CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA
STAFF REPORT
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
March 11, 1997
Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission
Brad Buller, City Planner
Dan Coleman, Principal Planner
DESIGN AWARDS NOMINATIONS
BACKGROUND: Presented annually, the Awards for Design Excellence program honors projects
which exemplify supedor design and resourceful use of land. Awards may be given in the following
categories: residential, commercial, office, institutional, and industrial. The program is intended
to recognize a variety of projects such as new construction, histodc rehabilitation, master planning,
remodeling, and landscaping. The Commission has established a policy that projects, such as a
shopping center or subdivision, should be at least 75 percent complete to be eligible. The
Commission also determined that only those projects which were subject to the City's review
process were eligible; therefore, public schools are not eligible.
ANALYSIS: Attached is a list of projects that were completed during the 1996 calendar year that
may be considered for this year's program. The list is quite extensive and we encourage each
Commissioner to visit these projects prior to tonight's meeting and bring your list of projects that
you feel are worthy of further consideration.
If the Commission decides to proceed with the program, staff will tally your lists and bring back a
"short list" of those projects which received a majority vote. In previous years, the Commission has
toured together these nominees to decide on award winners.
RECOMMENDATION: The Commission should consider the nominations and direct staff whether
to proceed with the program.
City Planner
BB:DC/mlg
Attachments:
Exhibit "A"
- List of Projects Completed in 1996
ITEM J
1996 COMPLETED PROJECTS
(Potential Nominations for Design A~vards)
PLANNER
Nancy
PROJECT NAME
Office Max
Barnes & Noble
Home Town Buffet
Boston Market
Macaroni Grill
Pad P TVTC
Skyline Estates
Jack in the Box
Steve ..
Home Depot
Villa Del Norte
Stadium Self-Storage
McDonalds
Taco Bell
FILE NO.
CUP 93-41 Mod2
DR 94-19
DR 96-05
DR 94-22
DR 95-31
DR 95-31
TR 10210
CUP 91-24
CUP 95-11
DR 94-04
CUP 95-15
CUP 94-30
CUP 94-40
I:\DAN\PROJECTS.97
DEVELOPER
Lewis
Lewis
Lewis
Woodbridge Dev.
Masi
Lewis/Home Depot
N.H.D.C.
E&R Rancho Pacific
McDonalds
Taco Bell/Wattson
LOCATION
Town Center Square
Town Center Square
Town Center Square
T.V. Town Center
T.V. Town Center
T.V. Town Center
NWC Almond & Sapphire
SEC Foothill & Masi Dr.
NWC Foothill & Rochester
S/s Feron, W/o Hermosa
N/s Arrow, E/o Rochester
SEC Baseline & Carnelian
Foothill Marketplace
Brent
Tom
California Box
DR 94-21
TR 14139
California Box
Centex
Toronto Ave., N/o 7th
Etiwanda Ave, N/o Wilson
Alan
Miki
Scott
Beverly
Dan
TR 12462
Lauren Development Ashton PI., S/o Summit Ave.
Shell Gas Station CUP 93-46 Flores
Frito Lay DR 95-09 and 25 Frito Lay
St. Claire of Assisi CUP 94-07 St. Claire's
Applebees CUP 95-06 Applebees
Empire Lakes DR 95-01 General Dynamics
Northtown Infill DR 95-03 N.H.D.C.
SEC Foothill & Vineyard
NEC 4th & Archibald
:i:!:!:~:!:!:!:~:~: !:!:i: i:~:i:i :~:~:i:i:i :~: :i:i:i: i:~:i. i:!:~ ::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::
SEC Highland & East
SEC Foothill & Aspen
6th and Milliken
Northtown