Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1996/01/10 - Minutes - PC-HPC CITY OF RANCHO CUCAMONGA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Regular Meeting January 10, 1996 Chairman Barker called the Regular Meeting of the City of Rancho Cucamonga Planning Commission to order at 7:22 p.m. The meeting was held in the Council Chamber at Rancho Cucamonga Civic Center, 10500 Civic Center Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, California. ROLL CALL COMMISSIONERS: PRESENT: David Barker, Heinz Lumpp, Larry McNiel, Peter Tolstoy ABSENT: John Melcher STAFF PRESENT: Brad Buffer, City Planner; Dan Coleman, Principal Planner; Donald Granger, Planning Intern; Rick Gomez, Community Development Director; Ralph Hanson, Deputy City Attomey; Larry Henderson, Principal Planner; Dan James, Senior Civil Engineer; Mary Kuhn, Personnel Analyst I; Brent Le Count, Associate Planner; Cathy Morris, Planning Technician; Scott Murphy, Associate Planner; Gall Sanchez, Planning Commission Secretary; Alan Warren, Associate Planner ANNOUNCEMENTS Brad Buller, City Planner, announced that the January 1996 employee of the month was Associate Planner Miki Bratt. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Tolstoy, carried 4-0-1 with Melcher absent, to approve the minutes of the Adjourned Meeting of October 25, 1995. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, carried 4-0-1 with Melcher absent, to approve the minutes of November 8, 1995. Motion: Moved by Lumpp, seconded by McNiel, carried 4-0-1 with Melcher absent, to approve the minutes of the Adjoumed Meeting of November 29, 1995, regarding Conditional Use Permit 95- 16. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 95-33 - FOOTHILL MARKETPLACE PARTNERS: A request to establish a lube facility within an existing commercial retail center in the Regional Related Commercial designation (Subarea 4) of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located on the south side of Foothill Boulevard, east of ~ Interstate 15 - APN: 229-031-37. Scott Murphy, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. Chairman Barker asked Mr. Murphy to review the Design Review Committee's comments on the circulation safety issue. Mr. Murphy replied the main consideration was the additional traffic and the impacts it would have on the circulation. He noted the Commission is aware, because of previous Commission discussion on two recent projects submitted by Price Club, of the serious internal circulation problem because of the ddve aisle being blocked off in front of Pdce Club and confusion that occurs at the intersection south east of the project. He said the Committee's concern was that additional traffic would impact an already bad situation. Chairman Barker asked what would happen to Oil Max if the new alignment does not take place in a timely manner. Dan Coleman, Principal Planner, replied it would not affect the configuration of the Oil Max development. Chairman Barker asked if it would exacerbate the problem. Mr. Murphy responded that the Development Review Committee felt any new development, regardless of size, will make the traffic circulation worse. Commissioner McNiel asked if the site has adequate parking. Mr. Murphy replied adequate parking is available based upon Code requirements. Chairman Barker opened the public hearing. Greg Wattson, Foothill Marketplace Partners, 3600 Birch Street, #250, Newport Beach, stated that a 2,600 square foot standard retail use is currently zoned and approved for the site, which would call for 11 parking stalls. He noted that the primary parking for a lube facility would be within the bays and stacked outside. He thought such a use would cause less of a traffic impact than having a typical retail use such as a florist. He stated that the peak hours for In-N-Out would be from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. and said that Oil Max would handle three to four cars per hour. He noted there would mean three hours of conflict and it would only be a conflict three to four times per hour. He said he timed the cars which are stacked on this property from In-N-Out and the cars move every 14 to 20 seconds. He indicated that Oil Max has agreed to have a porter during the peak hours to stop the In-N-0ut traffic in order for the vehicles to exit from Oil Max. He thought a typical retail use would have up to 11 cars per hour and felt Oil Max would be less of an impact. He observed that screening of the bays had been discussed at the Design Review Committee Meeting and observed the applicant had provided a projected view from the existing freeway. He stated they did not know the parameters of the proposed freeway. He noted that a comment had been made about the ability to see into the open bays while sitting on the freeway. He felt that the bays will be clean and proposed that the roll up doors be recessed about 25 to 30 feet inside the trellis. He said In-N-Out will screen the bays to the north and felt the bays should not have to be screened from the drive approach because it is private property. He said the tenant was available to answer questions. Hearing no further comments, Chairman Barker closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lumpp stated that the Design Review Committee has two challenges: 1) site design and location, and 2) aesthetic considerations. He noted he had voiced his opinion in the past regarding circulation problems in this center. He said the Design Review Committee had serious concerns regarding the interaction of the proposed use with the adjacent intense use which has peaks but also has a lot of traffic during off-peak times. He felt there is a potential for traffic conflict Planning Commission Minutes -2- January 1 O, 1996 at any given time dudng the day and noted that the applicant has acknowledged that he would have to provide a porter to stop traffic as it enters or exits the In-N-Out facility so that traffic could exit the lube facility. He did not feel any commercial facility should be approved when it will result in the need for a traffic monitor. He observed that the Design Review Committee also discussed aesthetics and expressed concerns about visibility into the bays. He noted the City does not know the ultimate alignment of the freeway or when it will be built but it is known that vehicles sit and wait when exiting from the existing freeway. He stated that screening is possible but observed that landscaping is not a physical barrier and may die out leaving the view exposed. He said his biggest concerns relate to the site design and the need for better circulation throughout the area. He observed that the Design Review Committee felt it would be more appropriate for the entire Commission to review the issue. He stated that the applicant had asserted that the City does not like lube and oil facilities. He said the Design Review Committee made it very clear to the applicant that it was not concerned about lube and oil facilities in general, but only with this facility in this location. Commissioner McNiel stated it will be difficult to put in any business at this location because it is a tiny location. He questioned the logic that only three to four cars per hour would be using the lube facility, noting that the sign on the rendering indicates a "10-minute lube" and there will be three bays. He questioned if three bays are needed if it will only service three to four cars per hour or if the numbers will indeed be greater than the three to four indicated. He felt the success of In-N-Out will make it difficult to locate any business on the parcel and he thought the Commission should be extremely cautious about what it approves because of that. He recalled that the In-N-Out facility had been one of the driving forces for processing the site and the Commission and City had been pressed to process the In-N-Out application in a very rapid manner. He said he had serious concerns about this project. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that he uses the Jiffy Lube in Upland and he would like to see that type of a facility locate in Rancho Cucamonga. He said Jiffy Lube also has three bays and they seem to have cars constantly moving in and out. He thought it would be extremely poor planning to allow a business to locate in an area when it would require a porter to direct traffic so that vehicles can use the facility. He said he visits In-N-Out and tries not to go during the noon hour and the parking lot is very busy even during other times. He felt it would not be wise to add more vehicles to that drive lane. He thought there are many circulation problems within the entire shopping center. He hoped there will be some alleviation of those conflicts if Price Club builds their addition and changes the eastern drive aisle, but he was not sure how much that will help. He did not see how the building could be designed so that the bays will not be very obvious to people sitting on the freeway off ramp or how they could be screened from the circulation element within the center. He noted that all of the service type installations within the City have been designed carefully so that the bays do not show to the street and he did not feel that policy should be abandoned. Chairman Barker stated he had such a major concern regarding the circulation that he felt it would be premature to address the screening. He said In-N-Out generates a lot of traffic from not only its drive-thru lane but also it~ circulation aisles. He felt it is not logical to add more traffic because it would be designing an accident. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that the last time he visited In-N-Out, people were parking on the adjacent lot because there was no parking in the In-N-Out lot. He felt the In-N-Out parking lot is inadequate. Chairman Barker stated he is not opposed to any lube facility. He said he did not want to discuss screening because perhaps something creative could be done to adequately screen, but he felt that circulation is the main issue. Commissioner Lumpp observed that there have been complaints raised in the past regarding the overall shopping center landscaping, illegal signs, and inadequate roof screening. He acknowledged Planning Commission Minutes -3 - January 1 O, 1996 that those problems have nothing to do with this application, but noted it concerns him that the applicant has not addressed these issues, some of which have been around for quite awhile. Chairman Barker stated that circulation has been a major concern on the total project. He reopened the public headng. Mr. Wattson asked that the City require Price Club to remove the barrier cones from the drive aisle in front of their door. He said the overall traffic plan approved by the City was to have two accesses for east-west traffic, but the cones now force all of the traffic to the northern drive aisle which compounds the problems. He thought the City or Fire Department could force removal of the cones. Chairman Barker stated that Pdce Club had recently received approval for a building expansion, and one of the conditions of that approval calls for removal of the cones. He noted that currently patrons step right into the drive aisle when exiting Price Club. He asked that staff again look at the traffic cone issue. He again closed the public hearing. Commissioner McNiel noted the center is successful and that success will make it difficult to develop this parcel. Motion: Moved by McNiel, seconded by Lumpp, to adopt the resolution denying Conditional Use Permit 95-33. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: BARKER, LUMPP, MCNIEL, TOLSTOY NOES: NONE ABSENT: MELCHER - carried B. 15NTERTAINMENT PERMIT 93-03 - FINAL SCORE - A request to conduct entedainment consisting of live bands, disc jockey, and dancing in conjunction with a restaurant and bar, in the Community Commercial District within Subarea 1 of the Foothill Boulevard Specific Plan, located at 8411 Foothill Boulevard - APN: 207-571-75. Chairman Barker observed that the applicant had requested a continuance until January 24, 1996. He opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wanted to address the Commission regarding the matter who could not attend on January 24. Commissioner Lumpp observed that the matter had come before the Commission in the past and a concern had been raised about the entertainment as it relates to the residential area behind the railroad tracks. He recalled that a suggestion had been made that a buffer be installed. He asked if that will be pad of the discussion. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the applicant had paid the City to hire a consultant to perform an acoustic analysis and that study would be referenced in the staff report which will be presented on January 24. Phil Mitchell, 8309-D Gabriel Drive, Rancho Cucamonga, stated he lives south of the Final Score. He said the residential area just south of the bar has a large concentration of condominiums and townhouses with many youngsters and senior citizens. He said he opposes the project because he feared it will cause additional noise and distraction in a quiet neighborhood. He felt the welfare of the citizens should supersede profit. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if Mr. Mitchell hears noise from the building as it is currently being operated. Planning Commission Minutes -4- January 10, 1996 Mr. Mitchell replied negatively. Commissioner Tolstoy asked if he has been disturbed by noise in the mornings because he understood there have been some outdoor activities. Mr. Mitchell said he has not been disturbed but he felt that would change if they expand and add noisy activities. He wanted his residential area to remain quiet and he felt that businesses adjacent to residential areas run the risk of limited expansion possibilities. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments at this time. COMMISSION BUSINESS C. SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that the item was placed on the agenda at the request of the Commission. He said the Commission had a workshop regarding small lot subdivisions followed by a field trip to small lot developments in the local area and in Orange County. He thought Commissioner Lumpp had suggested that the matter be placed on this agenda to wrap up some of the Commissioners' thoughts following the workshop and the field trip. He observed that two developers, Lewis Homes and Griffin Industries, had participated in the workshop and field tdp and have pending applications, but noted that the discussion tonight was to be merely regarding the product type. Chairman Barker noted that representatives of both developers were present in the audience. Commissioner McNiel stated that he had met with both Griffin Industries and Lewis Homes earlier in the week regarding their respective projects and gave them some insight into his feelings on their proposals. Chairman Barker commented that he had also met with Griffin and had discussed this and other items in a meeting with Lewis. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he had met with Lewis Homes and small lot subdivisions had not been the only point of discussion. Commissioner Lumpp stated he also met with both developers. He said that from his perspective in both the workshop and the field trip, he had not been impressed with the idea of small lot subdivisions of the nature that was presented. He said he viewed things from the perspective as to whether he would want to live there. He felt that, in most instances, the houses were too close to each other. He noted that the garages were mainly in the front with the house in the back and he said he was not significantly impressed with the architecture presented either. He said he was however not dealing at the level of architecture, but merely the concept of small lot subdivisions. He stated he does not like the idea of the small lot concept given the product type which was . proposed. He expressed a willingness to work with the developers from the perspective of the Commission to see if something could be done that would actually work. He thought perhaps a different concept or design may work. He disclosed that he had explained to the developers that he is not in support of small lot subdivisions. Planning Commission Minutes -5 - January 1 O, 1996 Commissioner McNiel said he is not opposed to small lot subdivisions but he does not care for narrow, deep lots and prefers wide, shallow lots because they give a better street frontage appearance. He acknowledged that wide, shallow lots do not yield as great a number of lots as narrow, deep. He said he had indicated to the developers that he was not enthusiastic given what they had seen. He agreed that what had been shown was not acceptable because it gave a street appearance of garage doors with very little house frontage and frequently no appearance of an entrance. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he does not like small lot subdivisions because he feels that congestion breeds personal problems and he does not like to see a lot of people living so closely together. He observed that the City Council had tried to reduce the number of apartments and condominiums in the City and asked the proposed ratio. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated that the original City build-out ratio was approximately 55 percent single family and 45 percent multi-family although the actual build out was closer to a 60/40 percent ratio. He said the City Council had given direction to try to move in the direction of a 75/25 ratio and the redesignation of properties resulted in an approximate 65/35 percent ratio. He stated the City Council had thus given direction to not increase density, but to decrease the number of multiple family units. Commissioner Tolstoy thought it may be acceptable to have small lot subdivisions permitted in areas currently zoned for multi-family density because it would reduce the number of multi-family units and provide an opportunity for some families to initially enter the housing market. He opposed a large area designation for small lot subdivisions. Chairman Barker said the Commission had been addressed by an excellent precentor, Barry Berkus. He stated that Mr. Berkus is articulate, bright, and creative and presented a dream. He said there had been discussion about neighborhoods and impact but he felt the product which was presented on the field trip did not reflect the expectations of the presentation. He believed the developments visited gave a feeling of being crowded and being in a tunnel. He indicated he did not wish to have anything he had seen built in Rancho Cucamonga. He feared that placing that type of housing in any large area would create too much crowding and lead to social problems of anger, frustration, and subsequent crime. He said the neighborhood characteristic that he had been anticipating did not appear in any of the developments they visited. He observed that the product will last for a quarter of a century and he did not feel Rancho Cucamonga's role is to provide a location for an artist's experiment. He felt the Planning Commission's role is to protect and provide for the community. Commissioner Tolstoy stated he objected to the auto courts. He observed that apartment houses have a manager who can manage an auto court but there would not be a manager to referee differences in a single family detached housing environment. He stated he most liked the product with side-on garages because the garage did not dominate the lot. H~ agreed with Commissioner McNiel that a wider lot is visually preferable to a deeper lot. He stated that the Commission has always fought the streetfront appearance of endless rows of garage doors in larger projects. Commissioner Lumpp stated that Mr. Berkus had indicated that an auto court creates a sense of place. He felt that bringing people up front creates a sense of place and he thought that having garage doors in the front will not bdng people out any more than it does in a normal subdivision. He believed that something different would need to happen in order to create a sense of place. Commissioner Tolstoy expressed concerns about having narrow streets. He said some of the auto couds they viewed were off long, narrow private streets. He did not feel that was a good idea from a public safety standpoint. Planning Commission Minutes -6- January 1 O, 1996 Chairman Barker felt the Commission should discuss the effect of small lots and the increased density. He observed that Commissioner Tolstoy had suggested it may be appropriate in areas already zoned for common wall housing. He questioned the minimum size of lots in the City. Mr. Buller said that community plans of Victoria and Terra Vista allow for 3,500 to 4,000 square foot lots. He noted that the City passed an amendment in 1988 following an evaluation by the Commission that concluded lots should not be smaller than 5,000. He remarked the proponents have suggested there are new innovations in product type which they believe opens the door to reconsider small lots. He agreed with Chairman Barker's question to the Commission that it should determine if there is now an appropriate place for smaller lots. Commissioner Lumpp asked if there are provisions in the code for less than 5,000 square foot lots. Mr. Buller stated the codes have a density range with basic and optional standards with the optional standards allowing for a higher density. He noted that the optional standards call for more open space, which generally results in an attached product. Commissioner Lumpp felt that there are severe limitations in terms of center plotting houses with very small lots. Chairman Barker noted that he had heard a comment recently that Rancho Cucamonga should have more affordable housing like Rialto. He said Rancho Cucamonga is not Rialto and he did not feel the City should compete with Rialto for affordable housing. He reiterated that the Commission had been presented with a concept to introduce new neighborhood and urban ideas and said he did not see those ideals during the field trip. He said he could not suppod such a move without seeing something better. He invited public comments. Gary Luque, Lewis Development Corporation, 1156 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, stated they strongly believe that small lot detached projects will play an important role in the future development of Terra Vista. He expressed confidence they could work with the Commission and staff in developing a program and establishing standards to address the concerns raised by the Commission. He said that small lot detached products provide an alternative for home buyers who want to live in detached versus attached products. He thought the Commission was looking at the developments from the standpoint of conventional, center-plot single family products as a way to increase density. He said his perspective was in looking at it as an option in not only Low Medium areas, but also Medium, Medium-High, and High areas. He felt that using this type of product, as an alternative to attached, higher density products, would potentially decrease the density in Terra Vista, which is currently approved for over 9,200 units. He said there are examples of small lot detached developments down to 3,500 square foot lots in Terra Vista and Victoria. He thought some of those proiects are nicely done with pleasant curb appeal and are good neighborhoods to live in. He observed they have submitted an amendment to the Tetra Vista Community Plan to change standards to allow small lot detached development to preserve the existing density in the community plan by establishing an overlay district. He understood the Commission's concerns regarding parking, amenities for public interaction, and maintenance programs to preserve the quality of the communities over an extended period of time. He believed density is a key issue along with the associated social problems. He said Lewis feels they are offering something that will be a benefit to the City. Chairman Barker felt it is important to focus on communities, neighborhoods, and territorial protectivehess. He said he is opposed to merely stacks of small houses. Bruce Strickland, Griffin Industries, 24005 Ventura Boulevard, Calabasas, stated the small lot subdivisions are really an alternative to attached housing. He felt the amount of living space would be comparable to attached products but the small lot subdivisions would allow superior open space exterior to the units. He remarked that he had not gone on the tour but said he had seen the booklet Planning Commission Minutes -7- January l O, 1996 on the tour and had talked with the Commissioners. He agreed with some of the comments that the developments may have appeared as large homes on very small lots with insufficient driveways. He felt the Griffin Industries proposal is not quite the same as what was visited. He thought the street scene will not be one where only garages are seen. He stated that if the courtyards are handled correctly, single story elements can be seen along the street. He acknowledged they will have to provide proper architectural treatment in the proper scale. He thought it is a viable alternative to attached housing and he expressed disappointment that he was not headng more support for the concept. He stated the houses they propose will not be super affordable but they would provide an option for those who cannot afford a $250,000 house. He thought such developments would satisfy some of the City's needs if they are properly planned and put in appropriate locations. He said they have a General Plan Amendment in process. Commissioner Lumpp stated he felt the Commission did not want to mislead the developers in terms of the money they will ultimately spend in terms of their applications. He offered his assistance in trying to work with staff and the developers given the parameters which the Commission had provided. Mr. Strickland stated they own the property and he felt that working together would allow them to address some of the concerns that had been expressed with what had been seen on the field trip while coming up with a project that would work for Griffin. Commissioner Tolstoy said he would like to see some of the housing that Mr. Berkus has designed. Mr. Stdckland said they will probably use some of Mr. Berkus' newer ideas as they move through the process. Rick Niec, Vice President, Griffin Industries, 24005 Ventura Boulevard, Calabasas, thanked the Commission for participating in the workshop and field trip. He acknowledged it is a difficult concept in every community. He said he lives in a Barn/Berkus small lot home in a gate-guarded community in Thousand Oaks. He observed that Thousand Oaks is similar to Rancho Cucamonga, in that it has design criteda and design guidelines. He said his community was designed with extreme attention to detail and scale and three of their plans were finalists in the Best of the West Golden Nugget Awards with one receiving the top award. He said this product sells for $200,000 to $260,000 while homes in the surrounding neighborhood sell for $400,000 to $500,000. He believed it fills a need in that community while still providing the quality the community wants. He expressed a desire to work with the City to provide a special community and felt they could address the concerns raised by the Commission and exceed its expectations. Chairman Barker indicated the Commission's willingness to continue discussion on this matter as the applications move forward. Commissioner Lumpp stated he was concerned about McDonald's. Brad Buller, City Planner, commented that McDonald's had submitted a letter that all matters would be resolved by January 12. He stated staff subsequently received a call from the author of the letter indicating he would be out of the office for two weeks. He reported staff had sent a follow-up letter. He said in order to allow McDonald's to open, staff requested a letter of commitment. He noted that McDonald's has two more sites they are considering in the City and they have indicated they will not walk away from their responsibilities on this site. Chairman Barker noted that some major things still need to be done. He requested that if there is no action within the next two weeks, the matter be placed on the agenda for some sort of an action for the meeting after that. Planning Commission Minutes -8- January 1 O, 1996 Commissioner Tolstoy asked about the sign. Chairman Barker said the sign would be moved and needs to be smaller. Mr. Buller confirmed that the sign will be lowered and will be moved back from the street. Commissioner Tolstoy said the site needs a lot of mounding. Mr. Buller said there would be more mounding on the Cameltan side and shrubbery and landscaping not only at the base of the sign, but also along the entire frontage of Base Line Road. Brad Buller, City Planner, stated Peter Desforges of Wohl had submitted a letter requesting that the Commission consider a workshop to discuss his project. Chairman Barker observed that the Commission could not discuss the matter because it was not on the Commission's agenda. He thought a meeting with the Commission on the original proposal would have saved Wohl a lot of pain a long time ago, but now it would mean going over things which had already been expressed. He said the proposal needs to be considered in light of actions to be taken by the Commission in regards to the just-completed Commercial Land Study. He felt that it would only be fair to receive input from others because discussing rezoning for the Wohl properly would be jumping into the middle of the study. Mr. Buller suggested that the Commission begin discussions of actions to be taken as a result of the Commercial Land Study by placing it on an upcoming agenda. He noted that several projects are active but noted that there is an overall policy question as well. He suggested that the policy questions be addressed separately. It was the consensus of the Commission that the Commercial Land Study be placed on the January 24 agenda so the Commission could begin discussions. The Commissioners indicated that the matter would need to be discussed at more than one meeting. Commissioner McNiel stated the Route 30 Ad Hoc Committee has had a number of meetings and a number of residents are under the impression that there is a direct relationship between freeway on ramps and crime in the community. He stated there is no evidence to suppod that feeling simply because there is no evidence one way or another. He observed there is some evidence that crime related to freeway on ramps is related to land use and those businesses developed adjacent to freeway access. He suggested that the Commission may wish to look at what uses should be allowed under a conditional use permit and those that should be allowed by right in areas adjacent to on ramps. He thought the matter should be addressed in the near future. Commissioner Tolstoy stated that most of the land uses that will be by freeway on ramps have already been established. Commissioner McNiel agreed that much of the zoning is established. He asked if that meant that certain things would be allowed in those zones under those conditions. Chairman Barker felt that the Commission should also address potential design modifications to make businesses less attractive to the criminal element. Commissioner Lumpp felt there is a correlation between this matter and the Commercial Land Study. Planning Commission Minutes -9- January 1 O, 1996 Mr. Buller agreed there is a relationship but he suggested that the matters be addressed separately. He noted that staff and Commissioners had received training regarding crime prevention through environmental design. He observed that certain businesses prefer to locate near freeway access, such as service stations and mini-markets, and those are businesses that are more likely to have higher crime connected with their general business use. He said there may be some things that the City may wish to mandate with those uses. Chairman Barker observed that not all of the Commissioners had an opportunity to attend the crime prevention training and he asked that those materials be made available to all Commissioners. Mr. Buller recommended that both items be brought back, but the safety issue be considered at a different time. ADJOURNMENT Motion: Moved by Tolstoy, seconded by Lumpp, to adjourn. 8:53 p.m. - The Planning Commission adjourned. Respectfully submitted, Secretary Planning Commission Minutes - 1 O- January 1 O, 1996